User talk:Dominic/Archive 22

Lack of transparency in blocks
I'm not happy with the lack of info given when a block is applied, in general. At the very least, this info should include:


 * The person or people imposing the block.


 * A link to the block log entry.


 * The length of the block.


 * The reason for the block.


 * The evidence supporting this reason (this may be on another page, with a link provided).


 * A link to any discussion of the block, including where the decision was made to apply the block.

And, since the talk page of the blocked user is the most logical place for such info to be requested and then added, that page should not be locked.

In the specific case of User:A.Z., most of these principles seem to have been violated. It's not clear to me whether the Arbitration Committee instructed you to block this user or you decided to do so on your own. You didn't provide a link to the block or list it's term. You didn't provide any link to the discussion of the block. You did list a reason, but the two links you provided as "evidence" seemed rather insufficient. The user's talk page has been locked. I was able to find the entry in the block log:, which lists the term as "indefinite", but I don't know if this is meant to be a permanent ban or just of an indeterminate length. I would also still like a link to the discussion and where the decision was made. StuRat 16:58, 2 November 2007 (UTC)


 * StuRat, an indefinite block means exactly that - a block of indeterminate length that may be lifted at any time if the reasons for the block change. The reason, I expect, no discussion were linked to was because no on-wiki discussion was entered into regarding the block. That does not mean, of course, the no discussion was had. There are certain discussions that must remain private for reasons of security. No matter how much umbrage is expressed or how many demands are made that the reasoning for this block is made public, ArbCom will not reveal such information if there are privacy or security concerns. Therefore, for the moment, the comments on A.Z.'s page generate only heat, no illumination. I agree that the circumstances around A.Z.'s block is unusual and puzzling. He has certainly flirted around what might be considered disruptive editing in the past, though recently he has contributed to the encyclopaedia (albeit regarding perhaps the most controversial area imaginable) with greater frequency. I too have concerns that there appear to be a disproportionate number of blocks on people who hold non-conventional viewpoints on this issue, but I think we should let ArbCom and A.Z. work this one out in private. If his appeal is unsuccessful, we may then be in a position where ArbCom can reveal in greater detail the reasoning behind the block and that can be discussed. However, the possibility remains that the evidence behind this will not be revealed and we simply have to take ArbCom's word that this decision is in the best interests of the project. That would be unfortunate, but this isn't a court of law and no-one has the right to do anything but fork or disappear. Sometimes we just have to accept that.  Rockpock  e  t  18:20, 2 November 2007 (UTC)


 * That's quite a violation of transparency, for people to be blocked or banned by a secret committee with the reasoning and evidence never made public (reminds me of Bush's policies). However, at very minimum, I want to see proof THAT the Arbitration Committee did, in fact, decide to block A.Z., if they refuse to provide any discussion as to WHY. StuRat 18:54, 2 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Also, is A.Z. the only blocked user, or is there an ongoing purge of people with unconventional views regarding sex ? StuRat 18:59, 2 November 2007 (UTC)


 * You clearly have seen A.Z.'s talk page, so I don't understand what further "proof" you need that the block was an ArbCom matter. As you can see there, if you would like to dispute the block, please talk to arbcom, not here. Dmcdevit·t 19:08, 2 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't see any proof there, just your claim that they authorized the block (but you also said "I have decided to block you", which confuses the issue). How did you find out about this Arb Comm decision, if it's secret ?  Did they e-mail you ? StuRat 19:42, 2 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, if you are going to just assume I am lying, then I guess I can never convince you of anything. Why don't you just ask them, then? A bit strange though, that an arbcom member would go there to note that an email has been received and not say anything, if I made it all up, isn't it? I am a former arbcom member myself, and have been privy to some of their private discussions on the matter. Dmcdevit·t 19:49, 2 November 2007 (UTC)


 * At this point I'm not disputing the block, but simply want some basic info about it, which should be provided for every block. (It would be impossible to say if the block should be disputed, as I really have almost no info about it.)  Are you saying you are against transparency, and that blocks should be applied in secret, with nobody outside the Arb Comm and possibly Admins able to see the evidence, or even know the reasoning for the block ?  Again, how did you find out about it ?  Saying you "have been privy to some of their private discussions" is still vague, did they request for you to apply the block, or is this your own decision ? StuRat 19:58, 2 November 2007 (UTC)


 * The answers are yes, yes and yes. At the risk of making a false guess, I assume there were discussion on the Arbitrator's closed email list, to which Dmcdevit, as a former Arbitrator, is subscribed.  There will indeed be some occasions where reasons for blocks and bans are kept private.  Not every detail of Wikipedia's existence must be open to your personal inspection. Transparency is one means of achieving the ultimate goal of the greatest free encyclopedia in the world, but it is not the only means, and sometimes in fact transparency harms this goal.  If you accept that the members of ArbCom were elected by the community because they were widely regarded as sensible, level-headed people, then you should have no problem with this.  If you believe that ArbCom would act dishonestly or against the best interests of writing an encyclopedia, then I suggest you will be happier contributing to another web site. Thatcher131 20:19, 2 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Hmm, if you accept those principles then we should all elect absolute monarchs, instead of Presidents and Prime Ministers subject to oversight by the electorate. Even if such people do have the interests of Wikipedia at heart when elected, giving them absolute power to ban people for undisclosed reasons is likely to corrupt them ("Absolute power corrupts...").  Freedom of Information  is an important principle in preventing this. StuRat 13:04, 3 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Now you're getting silly. Senators on the Senate Intelligence Committee have access to classified information that is not shared with other Senators, and they make recommendation to their colleagues without sharing details that could compromise national security if leaked to the press.  That doesn't make them immune from oversight, or absolute monarchs, it makes them privileged to see and review information that could be harmful if broadly released.  If none of 15 elected current Arbitrators plus assorted former Arbitrators feel like discussing the matter publicly, it doesn't mean we have 20-some absolute monarchs, it means that none of those 20 or so people thinks the project's needs would be served by making the details public. Thatcher131 13:38, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

New info, User:A.Z. has e-mailed me and said that he was never notified of any action to be taken against him by the Arbitration Committee (he has, however, since appealed to the AC, by e-mail), and now a member of the Committee, User:Charles Matthews seems to confirm that no decision was ever made by the Committee (if I read his response correctly):. This appears to directly contradict User:Dmcdevit's claim to be acting on behalf of the Committee. StuRat 21:36, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Discussion topics
Hi, Dmcdevit. We've discussed matters of edit warring and 3RR in the past, and I know you have strong opinions on the matter. That's why I wanted to let you know I've made some comments at a couple of talk pages that may interest you:,. If it interests you at all, I'd be really glad to hear what you have to say on this. Cheers, Heimstern Läufer (talk) 07:13, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Requests for checkuser/Case/NotSarenne
Hi there, I added some extra background to Requests for checkuser/Case/NotSarenne regarding the use of Tor which might be helpful. Fnagaton 21:55, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

IPA chart for English
Why on earth are you trying to get rid of IPA chart for English? And what makes you think Wiktionary even wants it when Wiktionary already has wikt:Wiktionary:English pronunciation key? What would they do with it? It's an encyclopedia article, not a dicdef. —Angr 23:28, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Hi. I am a Wiktionary editor, actually. As for trying to get rid of anything, I have no idea what your assumptions of bad faith and inexplicable undiscussed reverting are based on, at all. Dmcdevit·t 23:45, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
 * When you put a tag saying "The information in this article appears to be better suited to a dictionary than an encyclopedia", "Please verify that this article meets the Wiktionary criteria for inclusion", and "If this article can be modified to be more than a dictionary entry, please do so and remove this message" onto an encyclopedia article that is clearly not a dictionary definition, that clearly does not meet Wiktionary's criteria for inclusion, and that clearly is already more than a dictionary entry, and then revert two different editors who remove that tag, it is extremely difficult for me to continue to assume good faith. I don't know why you don't want this article at Wikipedia, but transwikiing it to someplace utterly inappropriate (which already has its own pronunciation guide, so it doesn't need this one) is not the way to go about it. If you think the IPA chart for English is inappropriate for Wikipedia, nominate it for deletion at WP:AFD. —Angr 23:57, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh please. You are an admin here and know as well as I do how this works. I'm a Wiktionary sysop. I want a certain article from Wikipedia on Wiktionary. So I place the tag that makes the bot transwiki it. That means that it will import the history to Wiktionary, nothing more. Nobody is deleting anything, and nobody has proposed anything be deleted. Please stop being a pain and tossing around your wild accusations; it's very unbecoming. I also find it slightly comical how irate you are about how clearly inappropriate this is at Wiktionary (as if you decide the inclusion criteria) and then you also note that Wiktionary already has something similar. That's a strange argument, to say the least. Dmcdevit·t 00:08, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Have you read Transwiki log to see what happens to articles after they get transwikied? They (1) get deleted by AFD or PROD, or (2) they get redirected (i.e. effectively deleted as their entire content is removed), or (3) they are expanded to become encyclopedia articles. Since IPA chart for English doesn't need to be expanded any further, you must have had one of the first two fates in mind for it. And Wiktionary's pronunciation guide is in its Wiktionary: namespace, not in its article space, which is where this will wind up when the bot transwikis it. As for the CFI, I never claimed to decide them; wikt:WT:CFI itself says "A term should be included if it's likely that someone would run across it and want to know what it means. This in turn leads to the somewhat more formal guideline of including a term if it is attested and idiomatic." The phrase "IPA chart for English" fails that page's definition of "idiomatic" since it is just a sum of its parts: IPA, chart, for, and English. I still cannot fathom why you think this is a dicdef. —Angr 00:29, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I wrote Transwiki log. I have no idea what you are complaining about at this point. Use your head. The template is what makes the bot transwiki the article for us. If it's encyclopedic, no one will consider it for deletion. It isn't a dictionary definition, and you know it and you know I know it. This is clearly not intended for the article namespace at Wiktionary . I am completely mystified by your behavior; please just stop. Dmcdevit·t 00:36, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
 * What I am complaining about is that you have put a slow-deletion tag onto an article I have worked hard on. You seem to think transwikiing is like copy-and-paste with CTRL-C and CTRL-V. It isn't. Transwikiing is like cut-and-paste with CTRL-X and CTRL-V. The whole point of transwikiing is to remove content from someplace where it is inappropriate and take it someplace where it is appropriate. When you put that tag on IPA chart for English, you were saying "This does not belong on Wikipedia". The tag itself says so. And I strongly disagree with that opinion. —Angr 00:48, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Your characterization of transwiki has no connection with reality, sadly. Dmcdevit·t 00:56, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm only characterizing it the way it characterizes itself, both at Transwiki log and at m:Help:Transwiki. If it's customary for encyclopedic articles to be transwikied to the non-article space of other projects and then kept in their full integrity at Wikipedia, you need to rewrite those pages to indicate that. And you still haven't explained why this isn't redundant to Wiktionary's existing pronunciation guide. —Angr 01:14, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Please stop wasting my time. You know that the little transwiki bot that changes article tags after they are copied doesn't have a delete button. Nothing at any of the pages you cited implies that the article is in any danger, unless someone actually proposes it be deleted. This has been explained to you. And no, I don't need to rewrite anything because you say so, and I don't need to have your permission before doing what I want with an article at Wiktionary. Dmcdevit·t 01:51, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
 * No, the bot doesn't have a delete button. But you do. And that's why I fear for the future of this article. —Angr 09:47, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Your random attacks on my character, for having the gall to make a harmless edit with no changes to Wikipedia, are quite appalling. I have no idea why you think that I am some evil maniac out to destroy content. I'm embarrassed that I would be treated this way by an admin here, frankly. Just back off and do something productive. Dmcdevit·t 11:30, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Yo!
Just wanted to say yo. :) Been awhile since we chatted. I'm doing my template stuff. Yes still. :) Been at it for almost 4 months now. It's about 90% of what I'm doing on here at this point. But hey. No one else is doing it. :) Let me know how things are. --WoohookittyWoohoo! 03:23, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Urgent checkuser request
I have just posted a new checkuser request at the top of Requests for checkuser/Case/Vandal with a grudge and I'm bringing it to your attention here, since you previously checked on this user and the new accounts to be checked struck between October 4-7 and there isn't much time left before data expires for these accounts. TML 03:35, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

User:QuinellaAlethea
Hello. You seem to have accused me of using a sock puppet called User:QuinellaAlethea but I can assure you this is not the case. Please can you email me the evidence you used to reach that conclusion? Thank you. Fnagaton 12:33, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Template
After reading some talk page messages I noticed the Wiktionary move tag had a different text than you intended to do in this case. I created a template "Move to Wiktionary2" which is more simple. If this is the only time you believe this kind of move happens you can delete it after this article has been copied, if there are more of these moves feel free to improve it. :) Best regards Rhanyeia  ♥  ♫  13:24, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I didn't know the bot wouldn't recognize a new tag. What's in the tag what the bot looks for? I thought there would be something and changing the text wouldn't matter. Best regards Rhanyeia  ♥  ♫  17:29, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah, it's not a big deal, but the bot jut uses text substitution to replace the tags. If it's never heard of this template, it can't do that. I don't personally see the need for a second template. It doesn't seem to have any meaning different than the original tag, just the text has been trimmed. Dmcdevit·t 08:22, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what "text substitution" means here, :) but I noticed that a shorter message is needed also for sections, if there's only one section why it's tagged. In the article we talked about, the current tag implies that the page is going to be deleted, and that's why I tried to change it. :) Best regards Rhanyeia  ♥  ♫  14:40, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Er, the current tag doesn't imply that it will be deleted. In fact, having a separate one only reinforces that myth, rather than fixing anything. Dmcdevit·t 07:33, 10 November 2007 (UTC)


 * FWIW, if you add other templates that add items to Category:Copy to Wiktionary, just send me an e-mail or a talk page message on wikt (I don't check here) and after the requisite amount of grumbling, I'll add it to the list. OTOH, if you just want to change the wording a bit, just change Move to Wiktionary, instead of creating a new template.  --Connel MacKenzie -  wikt 07:28, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I think changing the text of "Move to Wiktionary" so that there would be two different messages to choose from is a great idea. Several others thought the current text implies deletion, and I also read it that way. The current template also tells you to remove the tag if you can make the article suitable for Wikipedia. Best regards Rhanyeia  ♥  ♫  14:29, 10 November 2007 (UTC)


 * It would be even more logical to edit the shorter message to "Copy to Wiktionary" and the long message to "Move to Wiktionary" because copy sounds less like deleting. What is your opinion Dmcdevit about this? Could there be two templates even if you don't personally see it so very necessary, it may still help in cases when that long message says too much. Best regards Rhanyeia  ♥  ♫  15:30, 12 November 2007 (UTC)


 * If you say nothing I'll take it as yes and leave a message of the talk page of the template before editing them. :) Best regards Rhanyeia  ♥  ♫  09:45, 14 November 2007 (UTC)


 * As I said before, the current template in no way implies deletion. The Wikipedia deletion process isn't magically suspended because someone decided to copy an article to Wiktionary. It will still require someone to decide that it is worthy of deletion and nominate it. Making another template will only serve to propagate the misconception that it is related to deletion at all. Dmcdevit·t 10:21, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I won't edit the templates if you disagree. But I didn't talk about the actual deletion process but how the text of the template sounds to someone who hasn't read it before. It indicates that the article isn't good here and that's why it's taken to Wiktionary where it suits better. I believe some Wikipedians really mean to use it to tell they wish the article deleted, and I think two separate templates could make that possible too. Best regards Rhanyeia  ♥  ♫  11:02, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
 * My opinion is that if Wikipedians are abusing the template that way, then we shouldn't be helping them by making another template. Dmcdevit·t 00:31, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Restore deleted article to user space
Can you please restore the deleted article Wikindx to an appropriate in my user space? I'd like to see what the article looked like as I believe it is a notable topic and the article probably just needs some TLC to get it up to snuff. Thanks! --ElKevbo 16:55, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
 * ...? --ElKevbo 01:09, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I've been distracted. It's now at User:ElKevbo/Wikindx. Dmcdevit·t 07:11, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks so much! --ElKevbo 03:44, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

What / on earth / is going on here?
We seem to be on the same edit summary wave length, even, /, which is good, because I'm thinking I'm speaking feline or something! El_C 23:13, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I know, and I'm still a bit offended at the complete lack of an attempt at showing any real need or warrant for the block at all. What a mess. Dmcdevit·t 04:18, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
 * May as well start formal proceedings about his conduct in this case, as he appears almost certain to repeat it, having learned nothing. El_C 07:08, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I was able to advance our points informally, which is good, as it would have been draining. El_C 08:23, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Reconsideration of RfCU
Hi. While my inexperience with filing checkusers and protocol regarding ArbCom enforcements seem to have damaged interpretation of the ArbCom Enforcement complaint, I would like to ask you to reconsider your declining to address the checkuser request. the instances are in fact old, simply because the time from when the edits were made and the time when I discovered that RfCU was going to be needed was spent repeatedly asking DreamGuy if he was in fact the anon user, and awaiting his response. It seemed a failure to assume good faith and not give the user a chance to respond. When it became clear he wasn't going to admit to it (and still won't, as Dicklyon has since discoverd on DreamGuy's own user Talk page), myself and others took the next step by lsiting a complaint on ArbCom enforcement. Here is a link to the 3RR DiffTimes. The 3RR wasn't discovered until a comparison of the edits was performed (and also, I am not always looking for people breaking the rules). As well, the edit summaries and the tone of the anonymous user in article discussion was uncivil. Please do not allow my inexperience with the protocol - which i attempted to follow in good faith, allow someone who seems to not consider the rules applicable to him to walk on what seems to me a technicality. I don't hate the guy, but he has been the subject of intense scrutiny by over a dozen editors and admins and numerous admin actions (including RfCs, SSP's and ArbCom itself). Sometimes smoke does indicate fire. - Arcayne   (cast a spell)  09:01, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
 * As well, I found your mis-characterization of my involvement in these matters as "stale diffs dredged up by an edit warring adversary" disappointing. You are welcome to provide any sort of Diff that shows I was edit-warring. Otherwise, I think an apology is in order. - Arcayne   (cast a spell)  19:28, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks ever so much for the non-response. its insightful to observe that at least one the person running for ArbCom lacks the diligence to follow up on requests and inquiries. Duly noted. - Arcayne   (cast a spell)  20:22, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not interested in the drama and politics, sorry. Dmcdevit·t 00:29, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

WIKINDX Deletion
Hi,

Trying to find out the reason for the WIKINDX article deletion. It can't be because it describes bibliographic software because there are many other entries that are similar such as Citeulike, aigaion, refbase, endnote, bibtex that still exist. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sirfragalot (talk • contribs) 05:40, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
 * The article was deleted for making no assertion of notability. It also had no sources whatsoever and mainly consisted of a list of features. Dmcdevit·t 07:12, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Ahoy.
Not sure how to handle this. I figured I'd let you deal with it as CU evidence and range abuse is involved (and its your block). Have fun. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - &lt;*&gt; 11:28, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

user: Tajik
Hi. This is from my talk page and I want to forward it to you because I think you are familiar with this case and should read this:


 * Thatcher had banned User:Tajik with no reason. Now, he is accusing me of being Tajik, while I am not. User:Tajik lives in Hamburg. He has even used various IPs from the University of Hamburg; the same IP was also used by the Wikipedia admin known as User:Future Perfect at Sunrise who is also German and works at the University of Hamburg. In fact, he and Tajik know each other in person (ask him if you do not believe me). I am writing to you from Kassel in Hessia (if you check my IP, you'll see that I am right) - I know Tajik from various forums (I am also from Afghanistan, just like him). Thatcher's claim that Tajik is the same person as User:Tajik-Professor is more than rediculous. Thatcher simply needed a reason to ban Tajik in order to support his favourite Wikipedian: User:Atabek. And because Thatcher did not have ANY proofs, he simply took the similar name to accuse Tajik. Everyone who had followed Tajik's edits knows that User:Tajik-Professor was a sockpuppet of User:NisarKand. His edits are totally contradictory to those of Tajik, and various socks of NisarKand had already vandalized Tajik's page. Tajik has requested twice an unblock in order to explain his situation, but Thatcher has refused to give him a chance. Instead, he is continuing to further expand his pointless accusations. Interestingly, last week, User:DerDoc was also banned as a suspected sockpuppet of Tajik. The funny part is that DerDoc is a medical doctor from Vienna in Austria, using 193.xxx IPs. Any checkuser file would prove this simple fact. But like in the case of Tajik, DerDoc, too, was banned without any checkuser file. Not even NisarKand (this time in the shape of User:Rabeenaz) claims that DerDoc is Tajik, although he has (with the active support of Atabek, as one can see in his contributions' history) tagged various accounts without any permission, claiming that all of them are socks of Tajik - just like Atabek. Prior to DerDoc's case, another user, namely User:German-Orientalist, a German Iranologist from Dortmund, was also banned because of the same reason. The only proof against him was a weak checkuser result, saying that a link to Tajik would be possible. Interestingly, Thatcher - the one who has banned Tajik because of false accusations and whose wrongs have been exposed - was enganged in almost all of the cases mentioned above. I've talked to User:E104421 who was part of the ArbCom which endorsed Tajik's ban, and he was shcked as well, because it was very clear from the beginning on that he and the ArbCom were used by certain admins to get Tajik banned. In order to muzzle Tajik, admin Thatcher131 used a wrong accusation against him and got him banned. In the following process, Tajik was prevented (by Thatcher) from defending himself in the ArbCom, and was banned indef. The same Thatcher131 did not mind to ban known vandals of the Azerbaijan-Armenia ArbCom for only 1 year, even though many of them used sockpuppets. However, in case of Tajik, only one wrong accusation of Thatcher was enough to get him banned forever. This is very very very very very suspicious and does very much look like a conspiracy against User:Tajik. And everything points to admin Thatcher:
 * Thatcher131 initiated an ArbCom along with a few others
 * Thatcher131 made up wrong accusations against Tajik (i.e. that Tajik is Tajik-Professor, a claim that has been proven wrong twice since then!)
 * With this accusation, Thatcher got Tajik banned and prevented him from defending himself in the ArbCom
 * Thatcher's accusations also forced the judges to endorse Tajik's ban (the same ban that was initiated by Thatcher)
 * 7 checkuser files were requested against Tajik, and 90% either proved that the accusations were wrong, or did not have clear results (... possible ..., ... likely ...', ...unlikely ...), the other 10% were rejected anyway
 * Thatcher refuses to request a checkuser file in case of DerDoc, German-Orientalist, and Tajik-Professor. The reason is very simple: since these 3 people are NOT the same person, they CANNOT be Tajik's socks at the same time. That means that Thatcher's accusations are wrong, and that he abused his admin rights to get a user banned whom he did not like (or maybe what he had to say).
 * Thatcher's edits seem to be coordinated with those of Atabek. And Atabek's edits are certainly coordinated with those of User:Rabeenaz. Anyway, this case needs to be investigated. Other admins need to take a look at this, and many other Wikipedians need to urge neutral admins to have a look at Tajik's case, and Thatcher's admin rights. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.58.177.136 (talk) 01:27, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

-- Behnam 08:47, 15 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm forwarding it to admins now, because months ago I didn't think I would need to do this. I thought the admins would investigate themselves. All the admins now agree that he was not Tajik-Professor. So what reason was he banned for? And how is the case supposed to go through ArbCom if Tajik wasn't even given a chance to go and defend himself there? He was blocked by Thatcher. -- Behnam 22:31, 15 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Beh-nam, you should probably read Requests for arbitration/E104421-Tajik, especially Requests for arbitration/E104421-Tajik/Proposed decision. Eight Arbitrators endorsed the finding of fact that Tajik had engaged in sockpuppetry to continue editing while claiming to be "too busy" to engage in mediation (which he had agreed to do to avoid arbitration).  Even if some of the alleged sockpuppets are not him (which I am not in a position to evaluate) the broad finding remains, and has been endorsed by Arbitrators who do have access to the checkuser information.  As I have explained to Tajik many times (and the idea that the anonymous person posting repeatedly to my talk page, as well as emailing me, and posting other places, is not Tajik himself is just silly) he may appeal to the Arbitration committee. Thatcher131 00:01, 16 November 2007 (UTC)


 * How can he appeal to the Arbitration commitee if he is banned? And I don't blame him for not taking part in the initial arbitration because it was very SILLY to suggest that he was Tajik-Professer and he must have been frustrated with it. Has anyone even looked at Tajik-Professors contributions? They are not anything like Tajik's... for example: Tajik-Professor asked me for help... why would Tajik (a veteran editor) ask me for help!? Take a look here. He asks me to add a map for him. Why would Tajik ask me that? He knows how to do that. Clearly Tajik-Professor was a brand new user and I am the one that actually invited him to join Wikipedia (though I regret it now). So why have the Admins not looked at the contributions? They clearly show they are not the same person. Yes, they have a similar IP, because they both live in Germany... but they live in DIFFERENT parts of Germany and their IPs have a significant difference. The Admins were just rushing and were influenced by the manipulations user: Atabek who spreads around his Pan-Turkist POVs and wanted a way to ban Tajik. I would be really frustrated if I was Tajik and I wouldn't bother asking for an appeal because it's so ridiculous! He is banned now so he cannot appeal, can you please start an appeal for him? -- Behnam (talk) 11:42, 23 November 2007 (UTC)


 * It's sufficient to check editing history of Safavid dynasty and Talk:Safavid dynasty, and read all talk page comments to understand very well that User:German-Orientalist, User:Tajik, User:Tajik-Professor, and numerous other socks listed in from the same IP range in Germany are the same. Atabek (talk) 08:22, 19 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Atabek, you have already been exposed as an editor who is just hear to spread his Pan-Turkist POV's and get users who might be against your POVs BANNED! I've spoken to several admins, and they AGREE that user: Tajik is NOT user: Tajik-Professor, and ofcoarse they would agree since I know both of them personally and I invited Tajik-Professor to Wikipedia! Stop spreading your lies and manipulations around! -- Behnam (talk) 11:19, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Dmcdevit, why are you ignoring all this? All the evidence shows that Tajik was NOT Tajik-Professor! The evidence is all there, read the above. Please don't ignore this, Tajik was one of the most valuable editors and it is a REAL SHAME that he is banned for being accused of being Tajik-Professor WIHTOUT even a PROPER investigation! -- Behnam (talk) 11:28, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not ignoring it. However, you have been told several times now that this is not an issue for administrators to decide. Tajik was banned by the Arbitration Committee and you must make your request to them if you would like to appeal the decision. It rather seems like you are ignoring us, from my perspective. Dmcdevit·t 12:01, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

User:Beh-nam is needlessly attacking me on my user talk page for a second time, first is here. The indefinite ban of User:Tajik is within the competency of the ArbCom not myself. All I can say that there is no doubt that User:Tajik, User:German-Orientalist as well as numerous other socks who edited Safavid dynasty page in the same disruptive and edit warring manner are the same. I don't see how the argument that user Tajik was Tajik-Professor or not is at all relevant. I would recommend User:Beh-nam to pursue his advocacy within administrative boards instead of harassing me.Atabek (talk) 15:07, 23 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Checkuser has already proven that user: Tajik-Professor was not him. They checked his IP. See here, the Admin User:Penwhale confirms it and see here also for the case. Please stop insisting that he was Tajik-Professor. As for German-Orientalist, I don't know. The Checkuser has not proven either way see here. They just said "likely". So for sure, please stop claiming he's user: Tajik-Professor. -- Behnam (talk) 11:27, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Dear Dmcdevit, so as you can see from above. It's been checked and proven that user: Tajik was not user: Tajik-Professor and it is not proven (they just a "Likely") that he was user: German-Orientalist. So can you please tell me just for what he was banned? -- Behnam (talk) 11:31, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
 * That, Beh-nam, is a deliberate lie if you've actually read the page you link to (where the CheckUser says "I am not saying Tajik and Tajik-Professor are unrelated"). I cannot make this more plain. Stop complaining about this to me: I will not overturn the block, and as an administrator I cannot overturn an arbitration ban. You must appeal to ArbCom. If you continue this campaign, especially if you continue it in this disruptive and dishonest way, after being told this simple fact so many times, you will find your self blocked. Dmcdevit·t 17:01, 26 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm not being dishonest, I have no reason to be dishonest. I'm trying to get this straight before I go to ArbCom. There is no justification for blocking me for this. Taik-Professor's IP is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/88.68.213.103 ( 88.68.---.---) and it is not the same as Tajik's and it has been proven they are not the same user by CheckUser and several Admins are saying he was most likely not him also. Before I go to ArbCom, I want to get everything straight. Ok, so they say they are not saying they are not related... how's that justification for a ban? You still haven't answered directly what the reason for his ban was. Please tell me so I know what I'm talking about when I go to ArbCom. -- Behnam (talk) 01:18, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Where Deskana says "I am not saying Tajik and Tajik-Professor are unrelated" is not intended as justification for your block; it's proof of your dishonesty when you said the opposite. I am not going to say this again. Tajik was banned by ArbCom. If you want to know why, read the case. If you wan to appeal the decision, appeal to them. If you want to continue this campaign across the wiki to try to badger people into unblocking him, you're wasting all of our time. Dmcdevit·t 01:27, 29 November 2007 (UTC)


 * No it's not a campaign, it's just questions for you and Thatcher as to why you blocked him. As Admins it's responsibility to answer these questions. So ArbCom blocked him because Deskana said "I am not saying Tajik and Tajik-Professor are unrelated"? That's hard to believe ArbCom would ban for that. Where can I find the exact reason that ArbCom or whoever blocked him? -- Behnam (talk) 01:32, 29 November 2007 (UTC)


 * No, they didn't ban him for that, which is why I just said that. It has nothing to do with his ban. Please read what I am telling you, not what you want me to have said. Why don't you actually go read the arbcom case for the reasoning. I have already answered your questions repeatedly, but it's not my fault that you don't like them. Dmcdevit·t 01:36, 29 November 2007 (UTC)


 * You are the Admin that blocked him so you have to tell me why you blocked him before I go to ArbCom. -- Behnam (talk) 01:23, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Hello again. I can't believe this, but user: Thatcher131 has actually banned me for asking you about this so that I can understand the situation for an ArbCom for Tajik. Can you please talk to him and tell him that this isn't a reason ban someone, indefinitely. He also disabled unblock on my talk page and I can't ask for ArbCom so if you look into this please. Also, concidentaly he bans me right after I asked for a checkuser here. -- user: Beh-nam

Featured List of the Day Experiment
There have been a series of proposals to initiate a Featured List of the Day on the main page. Numerous proposals have been put forth. After the third one failed, I audited all WP:FL's in order to begin an experiment in my own user space that will hopefully get it going. Today, it commences at WP:LOTD. Afterwards I created my experimental page, a new proposal was set forth to do a featured list that is strikingly similar to my own which is to do a user page experimental featured list, but no format has been confirmed and mechanism set in place. I continue to be willing to do the experiment myself and with this posting it commences. Please submit any list that you would like to have considered for list of the day in the month of January 2008 by the end of this month to WP:LOTD and its subpages. You may submit multiple lists for consideration.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:LOTD) 17:17, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

StealBoy returns
Hello again. Our favorite vandal is back. Can you check and hardblock the underlying IP of ? The vandalism pattern is unmistakable. See also and  which I also found. -- Pascal.Tesson (talk) 22:32, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Ah, I blocked the IP the day I saw this but forgot to reply. Let me know if it is continuing. :-) Dmcdevit·t 00:15, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Raguseo
Per User_talk:Thatcher131, can you check to see if is also ? Thanks. Thatcher131 13:09, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
 * This one is unrelated to all of the others. Dmcdevit·t 00:25, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Melt the clouds of sin and sadness, drive the dark of doubt away!


hopes that you are joyful! Joy promotes WikiLove and hopefully this little bit has helped make your day better. Spread the Wikilove by melting the clouds of sin and sadness that weigh down someone else. Try to brighten the day of as many people as you can! Keep up the great editing! Send Joy to others by adding {{subst:Joy message}} to their talk page with a friendly message.  Marlith  T / C  01:39, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Clarification re. opening statement in Durova RFAR
I hope you don't mind my asking you here - I didn't want to clutter the ArbCom page with this. You mention in once sentence that Jehochman "is described by many methods as her" (i.e. Durova). Are you accusing Durova of sockpuppeting as Jehochman, ordoes this mean something else? You might want to clarify. Sorry if it's just poor reading comprehension on my part. Thx, Wikidemo (talk) 12:34, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Um, not at all what I meant. It should be fixed now. Dmcdevit·t 11:34, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Bravo
Well done, my friend, well done! El_C 16:33, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Requests for checkuser/Case/Peter zhou
Just a Clerk note, the above case has been deferred to you for handling, if you have the time. Anthøny 17:02, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Requests for arbitration/Durova and Jehochman
An Arbitration case involving you has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Requests for arbitration/Durova and Jehochman/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Requests for arbitration/Durova and Jehochman/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee,  Cbrown1023   talk   18:29, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

A bit of confusion
I blanked all potentially user-identifiable info on it, so I'm unclear why the post is taboo. Also, what's with the brusque edit summary? Being "aware of" something is not the same as having "seen" it, and I'm unclear why you felt the need to blank it from Paul's page with such a curt edit summary. What have I done to you to earn such brusqueness? Mr Which??? 11:55, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I think you are misunderstanding my words; please don't interpret brusqueness from a single edit summary. ArbCom has already ruled, and is going to rule again in the very case you are posting information related to, that posting private correspondence without the author's consent is subject to immediate reversion and blocks if it continues. If you have evidence, send it to ArbCom (but it is clear from the case that they have this piece already), otherwise it begins to look like the people posting it on-wiki (and there is no need for you to have done it when others have done it before you) are just trying to cause controversy or humiliate the author. Dmcdevit·t 01:04, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
 * The only thing that could potentially "humiliate the author" is the speciousness of her own reasoning in the document. And from the way some of the ArbCom folks were discussing it, it seemed that all of them perhaps had not seen the document. Thus my posting of it to an ArbCom member's talkpage. Mr Which??? 01:24, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

OTRS issue
Hello. I outlined an issue in need of attention from an OTRS volunteer here; unfortunately, the user I contacted has since gone on wikibreak. If you have time, can you look into this issue or forward the matter to someone who can attend to it? Thanks and regards. --Muchness (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 05:33, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

LOTD experiment
My userpage List of the Day experiment is getting under way at WP:LOTD. One of your lists has been nominated. I invite you to come by and represent it. If you would like to represent your list article please reformat your username in the table so it is normal sized. Among the things you may want to do to represent your list are:
 * 1) Change the image selection
 * 2) Add talk page projects to the list and then add them on the summary table
 * 3) Write a summary of the article in less than 500 characters. I will begin doing this later today for those who don't do it themselves.
 * 4) Participate in the feed back process when it starts on December 1.
 * 5) Participate in the voting when it starts on December 11.

You are free to remain uninvolved. Your list was chosen for being among the first TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:LOTD) 19:01, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

RFCU case
Deskana defered this case to you. Can you take a look at it? Thanks. — Rlevse  •  Talk  • 21:54, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
 * ✅ ;) - A l is o n  ❤ 07:06, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Superman
That is NOT all I said in the comments. I said it's to illustrate factual points in the article. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 00:14, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Your continual claim that no fair use rationale is presente IS A LIE. STOP IT. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 00:17, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, it's our policy. Dmcdevit is not lying. --Deskana (talk) 00:21, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
 * He's lying about my not providing a rationale. IT'S THERE IN BOLD FACE CAPITALS. If the complaint is about the format, then the label is still a lie. Failure to put it in the proper little box is not failure to provide a rationale. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 00:25, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
 * No, you clearly haven't read the policy I linked you. Your rationale is not sufficient, and the article is subject to deletion if a proper one is not added. Putting the insufficient one in capitals doesn't help, and neither does calling me a liar. Dmcdevit·t 00:31, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

And it now looks like you've specifically targeted me. Half the fun for you deletionists is hassling the uploaders. I've got news for you. I'm not playing your game. Don't waste your time and mine issuing notices. Just delete the bloody images. Would that you deletionists would actually contribute something instead of subtracting. Begone. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 10:04, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, serial copyright violators will be subject to scrutiny; that should be obvious. Perhaps you should actually try to fix this monumental work you have caused for everyone rather than calling people names and reverting the tags. Dmcdevit·t 10:13, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
 * When I've had discussions with other deletionists, they've argued that copyright is not the issue, but only "free content". I wish you deletionists would get your stories straight. And any "work" that I've "caused" you is something you've taken on yourself. If you want to be a deletionist, you've got to work at it. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 10:16, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
 * An individual frame or photo is no different from a quotation. The core of the fair use argument is "do no harm". No harm has been done, nor can you prove otherwise. You just like deleting stuff. Well, have at it. And when you're done, maybe you'll actually get around to do something positive for this so-called encyclopedia. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 10:23, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Also, in most cases there is an explanation for uploading the photo. The fact that it doesn't fit neatly into your box is your real complaint. And now, despite my better judgment, you've sucked me into this maelstrom again. I've had it with you deletionists. You're the scum of the earth. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 10:26, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
 * The fair use policy has nothing to do with "do no harm." It's about limiting the non-free material on Wikimedia so that we can live up to our goal of being as free as possible for the public good. Your ad hominems aren't helping. Dmcdevit·t 10:28, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Whatever I say, be it the truth or be it kissing up to you, does not matter. You are going to have your way regardless. I have read that spaghetti bowl called "fair use" and it IS about "do no harm". The rest is rationalization for you deletionist ravenous wolves to consume anything you don't like. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 10:32, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I can see that you're frustrated; is there some reason you think frothing at the mouth is the appropriate outlet? – Luna Santin  (talk) 10:35, 30 November 2007 (UTC)


 * He's going to have his way regardless of what I say, so I may as well get in a few licks at this hopeless cause. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 10:39, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Image:Chandavarkar1900.jpg
Does this note from Mr. Kamat explicitly allowing use on Wikipedia (with credits) fall under "Fair Use". Dear Blogger and/or Wikipedia Author,

While I encourage use of our contents and pictures in your own work and content development, please provide credits to the original creator as a courtesy, and as a practice of law.

There is no need to pay, as the link you provide to www.kamat.com acts as a sufficient reward for me, thanks to the PageRank technology.

Thank you, -Vikas Kamat. I dont understand what you mean by "full rationale", can you elaborate?. Baka man  00:33, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Hm, well, sort of. :-) The essential issue to understand is that "fair use" means that it is not free, as opposed to free works like Wikipedia that can be modified and redistributed without asking. The use is "fair" then because in the context of the way that we use it in Wikipedia, certain circumstances, as in articles where there is critical commentary of the subject of an image, which is historically significant or the article is about something copyrighted restrictively (a logo, currency, coat of arms, etc.), and where the image has no possible free alternative, it is allowed. But since other people can't take and change and reuse the image the way the rest of Wikipedia can be, we prefer not to use fair use images when possible. As you can see, in the case of fair use, the permission of the creator is nice, but it's irrelevant; if it fits the criteria, we don't need permission anyway, and if it doesn't, it is is still incompatible with Wikipedia's freedom, even if the creator gives permission. The best possible solution when someone is freely giving permission and agrees with Wikipedia's goals is to talk to them and see if they will decide to, rather than give Wikipedia permission to use images, license the images under a free license (preferably ). If not, you'll have to give a detailed fair use rationale, even with permission of the author, by following Non-free use rationale guideline. Dmcdevit·t 01:34, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Requests for arbitration/Durova
This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. The Arbitration Committee admonishes Durova to exercise greater care when issuing blocks and admonishes participants in the various discussions regarding this matter to act with proper decorum and to avoid excessive drama. gave up her sysop access under controversial circumstances and must get it back through normal channels. Also, Giano is reminded that Wikipedia is a collaborative project which necessarily rests on good will between editors and the Committee asks that Giano consider the effect of his words on other editors, and to work towards the resolution of a dispute rather than its escalation within the boundaries of the community's policies, practices, and conventions. Finally, is strongly encouraged to look past this extremely regrettable incident and to continue contributing high-quality content to Wikipedia under the account name of his choice. Again, further information regarding this case can be found at the link above. On behalf of the Arbitration Committee,  Cbrown1023   talk   17:35, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Kherli
You were a member of the arb committee for the case Requests for arbitration/Kehrli. Recent anon edits appear to be likely edits by the user formerly known as Kherli (Likely a sock thereof). The general ban (finding #1) has expired. Some of these edits if they are in fact Kherli are violating finding #2 "Kehrli is prohibited for two years from changing the notation m/z, wherever found, to any other notation." E.g.,. In addition these edits are generally disruptive (as we determined with very challenging arb com case) and should therefore be prevented based solely on the broad basis of preventing disruption. I also believe that it was not the intention of the arb com to allow unmitigated disruption after the ban had passed but to give Kherli the opportunity to cool down and choose to become a productive editor. A new ban should be put in place if Kherli has not decided to change his/her ways as we have established an intention to disrupt wikipedia, however subtle the disruption may be. Subtle disruptions are in fact the hardest to catch and pose the greatest threat to the project through propagation of false or misleading but seemingly reasonable information. I request that you warn the anon user about disruptive behavior, investigate their identity and if disruption continues after a warning of the user is found to be Kherli then enforce an immediate ban either based on violating arb com findings or based on disruptive behavior after being warned.--Nick Y. 21:32, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

ગુજરાતી
હું તો અવે ગુજરાતી મા પણ લખી શકુ છુ. જૈ શ્રી ક્રિષ્ણા. — Nearly Headless Nick   {C}  05:24, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

O. O. McIntyre
This image was created by the artist Jim McDermott for one purpose only: to illustrate this article in Wikipedia. What is necessary to retain this picture? Pepso2 (talk) 12:11, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Maria Reidelbach
Memory fails. I just don't remember. I think she sent it to me. The photo is perfect because it specifically shows her in action relevant to the copy in the article. Pepso2 (talk) 12:11, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Did either of these two people actually license the images under a free license, or did they simply give permission to be used on Wikipedia? Note that these two are not the same. If it is used with permission only, we still need to give a fair use rationale, since it is non-free. Dmcdevit·t 12:52, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Sadly, sadly
sigh--Docg 14:53, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Your oppose on my RfA
I understand your reasons for opposing and respect them. However, I would like to point out that I had no idea that Melsaran was using sockpuppets to stalk other editors, since we were not given any information at the time on who his sockpuppets were or what they were doing. So it's misleading to suggest that I view stalking as "standing up to the Wikipedia establishment", and I find such an insinuation offensive. When I said "standing up to the Wikipedia establishment", I was referring to the behaviour I had seen from Melsaran using his main account - somewhat argumentative and controversial in discussions, but not in violation of policy. I had no idea that he was engaging in stalking. I admit that, in retrospect, my comments were ill-judged, and you're perfectly entitled to oppose for that. But please don't suggest that I was trying to glorify stalking. WaltonOne 12:08, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I've responded on the RfA, since you left the identical comment there. Dmcdevit·t 13:55, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
 * You have a good point. After looking again at my participation in that debate, I'd like to apologise to the community for jumping to the wrong conclusion and for being excessively combative. I think my argumentative nature can be a good thing in certain circumstances, but I acknowledge that I made a mistake in this instance, and I'll try to react in a more measured, calm way in future to similar situations. I know that there is a line between being forthright and being uncivil, and occasionally I cross it; I genuinely regret my reaction in the Melsaran case. I won't expect you to change your vote, but I would ask you to weigh up the amount of work I've put into Wikipedia over the last year, and the good I believe I can still do as an administrator, against those concerns. I would also like to reiterate that I did not use my admin tools in relation to the Melsaran affair, nor did I do anything which was regarded as improper. WaltonOne 19:59, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Doran
Suggestion: Given that Carolyn Doran is likely to be a contentious subject, it should probably be taken to WP:AN. Let's try and pre-empt a wheel war here. Ral315 (talk) 06:31, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I have no intention of wheel warring, and I am quite astounded to see a BLP deletion summarily reversed. I thought we had been making progress in combating this sort of behavior, like summarily undeletion of sensitive material without so much as a comment. Dmcdevit·t 06:48, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
 * My note was just sent to everyone who had deleted and undeleted the article -- I wanted to make sure it didn't get any worse. It wasn't meant to suggest I thought you would wheel-war over it.  Ral315 (talk) 21:30, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
 * You may be interested in this discussion. NoSeptember  21:48, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Was just coming here to leave a note about that, since your name came up. Thanks for beating me to it, NS. – Luna Santin  (talk) 22:37, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Email
Please check your email. -JodyBtalk 21:41, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

DRV notice
Deletion review/Log/2007 December 18. -- Ned Scott 12:24, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Evidence on Adil's sockpuppetry
Hi Dmc, you have had experience with Adil Baguirov socks in the past and unfortunately, his evasion of the ban has continued relentlessly. I have collected some evidence that Adil = user:Ehud Lesar, and would like you to check it out please. Here it is. I started adding the evidence, I will be adding more depending on how much you request if this is not enough. I am really amazed that no one sees anything in Adil's game. The reason I don't want to add all the evidences at once is that, from experience, I know it won’t even be read. Thanks - Fedayee (talk) 03:11, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't believe the CheckUser evidence confirms this conclusion (though clearly there is no reason he couldn't have changed location, as you say). As such, this will need an admin to make a judgment call based on behavior, and is better brought up at WP:ANI or WP:AE. Dmcdevit·t 07:25, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Searching for a good image
Hi, I notice you recently posted to WikiProject Arizona about an upcoming meetup. Is it possible someone from the project could upload a good color photograph of a Navajo rug? I'm expanding the article and the images currently on Wikipedia and Commons don't do justice to the craft. A little help there would be just the thing; just ping me and I'll crop/categorize/whatever. Thanks, Durova Charge! 03:52, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I've uploaded Image:Navajo rug.jpg for now, based on a quick crop (feel free to re-edit it) from a free flickr image. I'll see what I can do about getting a better image; though, as for the WikiProject, I'm not really involved and that was my first post there, so I don't really have any better idea of who would be a good person to contact than you, unfortunately. Dmcdevit·t 07:36, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Meetup
Well, looks like once again this will fail to get off the ground. Too bad. --Spike Wilbury ♫ talk  14:45, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I had hoped to use the Geonotice since we don't have any list of local active editors, but Gmaxwell is inactive and no amount of prodding on IRC will get him to help. I suppose we could still sent messages to people's talk pages based on the user categories and WikiProject participation, but we're running out of time, for me at least, before I fly back to school. Unfortunately, I'm out of town until the 30th, but I'll see what I can do. We might end up just making long term plans if we can't pull off something on short-notice. Dmcdevit·t 16:55, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Not to intrude, but a notification for this Meetup/NYC has been appearing in my watchlist mediawiki header for some weeks now. I'm thinking User:ScienceApologist or User:Pharos is probably responsible for making it happen.  I'm not on any list I know of, so it might be that Geonotice thing you mentioned. Mbisanz (talk) 06:27, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Another harasser has popped up
Hello again. You may recall the checkuser case Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Jetwave_Dave. Another sock has popped up,, making the same harassing edits, such as this and this. The user apparently created a fake wanted poster and uploaded it to an image sharing website, and then linked it to the above pages, as well as a host of user pages. I would appreciate it if you would block him and delete the harassing edits. Thanks for your assistance. Regards, Parsecboy (talk) 05:50, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't think Dmcdevit is around right now so I took the liberty of running a check on that guy. That was some pretty nasty stuff her was doing. ✅ and - it looks like someone else already rolled back the edits. The underlying IP had been blocked for two months and had just run out today, so I've added another 3. Let us know if he comes back again -  A l is o n  ❤ 06:36, 27 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks a lot for your help. Yeah, being harassed is never fun; it started by creating a similar email account and sending harassing emails to me, and then signing me up for dozens and dozens of online forums, creating impostor accounts here on Wikipedia, and now the false wanted poster. I had reported his IP to his service provider, but that apparently didn't do any good. I guess I'll just have to wait until he gets bored and goes away :/. Anyways, thanks again for your help. Regards, Parsecboy (talk) 13:30, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm a little slow at this... but here is you notice
Hello,. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at regarding. --CyclePat (talk) 07:57, 28 December 2007 (UTC)


 * What a downright patronising note to leave on a talk page of a regular user! --Docg 10:32, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I think it's a template. Thatcher 13:01, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Still, no excuse for using it. "Hi Dominic, you might want to know there's an ANI post concerning you" would have sufficed.--Docg 13:04, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I never template regular editors. Thatcher 13:34, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
 * The wording has changed because I've edited the template to remove the following:
 * You are free to comment at the discussion, but please remember to keep your comments within the bounds of the civility and "no personal attack" policies. Thank you.
 * --Tony Sidaway 13:17, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you Tony Sidaway, when I read the notice I felt a little bafled at the tone. I think it's a better template with the changes you have made. (FYI: This edit summary, shortly after the first one, even shows my appology regarding this entire notice). Sorry. --CyclePat (talk) 18:38, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
 * FYI: It appears the conversation has been censored and removed. I guess this notice is pretty much useless now. What's that word, "mute"--CyclePat (talk) 18:46, 28 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Moot, I believe, but yes ... - A l is o n  ❤ 18:55, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Q: How is it "procedure" to add an template with an insulting tone to a regular users? It makes it worse that you apologised for this unnecessary act even as you did it.--Docg 19:08, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Do you really want me to answer that (ie.: see WP:ANI) or are you just trying to prove your point that templates are inherently evil? Again, I agree with the comments and changes by Thatcher (here) to rectify this little issue. Best regards in all future WP:AGF. Adieu. --CyclePat (talk) 19:57, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I fail to understand that. I've nothing against templates if they say what you want to say. I just wondered why you chose to use one when you evidently felt the need to be apologetic for its tone.--Docg 20:06, 28 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm on vacation in California at the moment, just logging in for a short time. It looks like this discussion has already been concluded. In any case, I'll just note again that this has been discussed to death, and, as has been said repeatedly and by ArbCom itself, this was an action sanctioned by ArbCom and any appeals ought to be directed to them, using the mailing list, and not continually brought up here. Dmcdevit·t 19:16, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Ping
I've sent you an email. Picaroon (t) 00:46, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Er...
Eh? How's that? EVula // talk // &#9775;  // 02:11, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Eek. You caught me red-handed. It looks like I hit the wrong button and didn't notice it. (I have a modified Monobook that gives me "commons ok" and "subst:nrd"). Luckily the bot won't actually transwiki those, so I gave it the "no rationale" tag it was supposed to get. Thanks. :-) Dmcdevit·t 06:49, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Hehe, no worries. Figured it had to be some sort of slip o' the script. :) EVula // talk // &#9775;  // 06:54, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Tajik
Please check. Thanks. Atabek (talk) 08:04, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Reason
Hello, what was the reason for blocking User:68.187.145.14?  Majorly  (talk) 17:57, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I've responded to the user's email; thanks for reminding me. I can't really explain at the moment without connecting the IP to a user, but I think I can resolve the problem that was found well enough in email with the guy. Dmcdevit·t 23:50, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Courtesy note
FYI, a diff involving your name was mentioned in passing at an extension request that I filed at Requests for arbitration, specifically, my extended report at User:Elonka/DreamGuy report. No action is required on your part, I just wanted to let you know. --Elonka 03:20, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I asked repeatedly for evidence of any recent wrongdoings by DG from Elonka and her supporters, but thus far got nothing. Elonka, herself, claimed there were "bad faith and uncivil comments," yet declined to provide permanent links to that effect. Something strange is afoot. El_C 07:17, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I would have thought the same thing when you called the november arbcom complaint stale (after all, it did take a while to uncover the socking by DG), and when you couple it with Dmcdevit canceling the RFCU before proof is forthcoming initially supported by SSP. Kinda odd how you seem to keep defending him. Of course, it might be an AGF issue. On both our parts. - Arcayne   (cast a spell)  07:26, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I have a talk page, this ain't it. Again, no evidence of recent wrongdoing, no consideration.El_C 07:30, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Um, what is "Dmcdevit canceling the RFCU before proof is forthcoming" even supposed to mean? You filed the request for CheckUser yourself. Did you honestly think that with no evidence provided of a violation of the ArbCom remedy nor of any 3RR evasion within weeks of the request that I would go digging in someone's personally identifiable information for you? All RFCU requests made in good faith are only ever rejected without prejudice. If you actually had the necessary evidence, then you should have simply come forth with it after the first rejection. Dmcdevit·t 08:24, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
 * This is what I've been dealing with all throughout yesterday; I ask for evidence of any recent violation and I simply get stonewalled. El_C 08:44, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I provided the necessary evidence, after El_C apparently thought the entire matter was all Jhochman's fault and decided the matter in a matter of minutes. I provided simple, clear and accurate prof of the 3RR using two different accounts. The RFCU (filed after the SSP) would have definitively confirmed that the 3RR violation - though by that time more than three weeks stale - was in fact valid. You cancelled the RFCU, Dmd, and prevented that from coming to light. Was I expecting you to do leg-work? Hell, no. Was I expecting you to take into account that I was new to the filing process and sought to bring to light a problem with edit-warring and 3RR violation? Did I expect any sort of response? To both questions, yes. Yes I did. I don't understood why you canceled the RFCU, esp. when it clarified the point of the complaint. Your lack of response to my request for insight pretty much devalued my regard for you. Not that that matters to you. - Arcayne   (cast a spell)  08:56, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Is that directed to me? Because the indentation is such that it appears to be a response to my above comment. Thanks. El_C 08:59, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Nope. You asked me to comment on your Talk page, which I've done. My commentary is clearly in response to Dmcdevit's reply regardign the earlier ArbCom enforcement complaint. That said, poorly characterizing the efforts of people acting genuinely to remove a deleterious influence to Wikipedia seems a bit out of line. - Arcayne   (cast a spell)  09:12, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Look, you aren't the first person to have had their checkuser request declined, and it's not the end of the world. I don't think you appreciate the situation here, or that you have tried. Use of checkuser is "a last resort for difficult cases" (emphasis in the original). That's the second sentence at WP:RFCU, even accessible to newbies. CheckUser decisions are not the same as a simple admin ones. I am well within my rights as CheckUser, indeed, I'd say it would be hard to make the case that a CheckUser should have done anything else, to decline to violate the privacy of a user on the basis of old evidence that would likely not have ended up in a block anyway. Now you'll disagree with that, and we'll just have to disagree. It doesn't mean that I am trying to prevent abuse from coming to light, nor do I really want to dwell on this yet again months later. Dmcdevit·t 09:17, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Respectfully, checkuser was used as a last resort, after the SSP had found a connection between DG and the anon likely. A checkuser was requested after EL_C requested it. I do consider it a last resort as well. At every instance, when i was asked for info, i provided it. My mistake in my response to the enforcement complaint (which I did not file btw) was that I over-wrote it. When asked, I specifically pointed to the 3RR. That no one sought to actually look at the diffs for precisely the sort of behavior which was supposedly being monitored seemed puzzling to me. That the very same admin who blocked the prior checkuser for DG blocked this one, added to your lack of response before, led me to wonder what sort of stake you had in the matter. lack of AGF? I guess; I had precious little else in the way of comment to go on from you. - Arcayne   (cast a spell)  09:37, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
 * RE: "A checkuser was requested after EL_C requested it". I never filed a checkuser request, ever. El_C 09:43, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
 * My apologies for my lack of clarity there, El_C. I requested the RFCU after you asked for the results of that (though whether it was in the related AN/I or the actual enforcement complaint discussion, I cannot recall), I had thought the SSP report showing the relation between DG and the anon (thus confirming the pattern of incivility and 3RR) to be sufficient. Now, perhaps someone can explain how a checkuser request - supposedly the means of last resort - is denied when there is an ArbCom complaint and AN/I specifically about it, and there is an SSP that recognizes the relation between the anon and the account? -  Arcayne   (cast a spell)  09:57, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, I don't know what you are talking about. You probably should provide evidence. El_C 10:16, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Provide evidence of what? That you asked for the results of the RFCU? That the RFCU was denied both times by the same person? that the SSP pointed to DreamGuy as the anon user? i am sorry, but you are going to have to be more specific, El_C. - Arcayne   (cast a spell)  10:26, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Look, I can't handle this mode of communication any longer. If you speak about the past, please cite pertinent diffs. Thx. El_C 10:32, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, neither can I. Its pointless to ask for explanations form people who don't feel the need to tender them. I am disappointed in getting games and not answers. Thanks anyway. - Arcayne   (cast a spell)  20:51, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

NowCommons
Hello, it seems you had deleted this image in 2006 as "NowCommons". Obviously only one version – actually the much smaller one – has been transferred to Commons, see. Please could you see if you can get the first version from the deleted archives here and re-upload it on Commons under the same file name? --Ü 00:22, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

What did you do
... to those userboxes I made? æt 'ə' rnal ðrAعon  12:25, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Checkuser
Hi, you kindly offered to help me set up a checkuser properly. I suspect Dreamguy has another sockpuppet, which I'd like checked. See here and here  How do I set one up properly? If I'm correct it is at least a violation of code B. This account had been dormant until Dreamguy's block, and then becomes active, editing the same class of articles. Jack1956 (talk) 19:57, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

IRC
If you're around can you add me to #wikimedia-checkuser? My cloak is Thatcher131 I think, my usual nick is Thatcher-wiki. Thatcher 00:47, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Requests for checkuser/Case/Artaxiad
Can you have a look, the user is asking you to reconsider your. Cheers! -- lucasbfr  talk 14:05, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Foxes in the henhouse
Hi, old friend. Hope things are going well for you on Wikipedia -- although I don't often see your name on any of the old articles! During the last few months I have been increasingly disturbed by a number of Wikipedia trends, sometimes to the point of ranting at folks. I hate the "inline cite" psychology, for example. But my most recent concern is the behavior of administrators, acting against one another and long term productive users! Blocking, personal attacks, arbitration cases, banning........ it is simply amazing. As I see only thru a small window in this Wiki world, what is really going on in the "henhouse"? Best wishes. WBardwin (talk) 08:10, 26 January 2008 (UTC)


 * No comment? WBardwin (talk) 07:14, 29 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your response. I ranted a little more on my talk page.  And no, you are not a fox in the Wiki henhouse!  Best wishes.  WBardwin (talk) 04:30, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

TOR block of 207.210.117.188
Hey, I noticed that you've blocked 207.210.117.188, as a TOR node, which, it is no longer. I was wondering, if you'd consider either allowing me to unblock it, or, unblocking it yourself please. SQL Query me! 20:37, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Looks like it may have been blocked as an open proxy, not necessarily Tor. Have you checked if it's an open proxy, or just whether it's on the Tor list or not? If so, feel free to unblock it. Dmcdevit·t 06:58, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

User talk:DaHansen and his IP, 85.178.25.99
Hi, can you please have a look at the reason why you blocked this IP? This user is claiming that the IP is on a dynamic pool, but the fact that there are some open ports raises an eyebrow. Thanks a lot! -- lucasbfr  talk 20:33, 30 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Just a note, when I scanned this IP just now, I came up with no open TCP ports (all filtered, syntax "nmap -P0 85.178.25.99 -sV") SQL Query me!  04:24, 31 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Seems reasonable that it's no longer open after so many months. I'll unblock it. Dmcdevit·t 04:24, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Martin Zilic
Martin Zilic should be Martín Nicolás Zilic Hrepic, minister of education, am I right? Kubura (talk) 10:06, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, Martín Zilic (full name, Martín Nicolás Zilic Hrepic) is the former Chilean Minister of Education. "Zilic" is indeed the proper paternal surname though, even though "Hrepic" (the maternal) comes after. Looks like we don't have an article yet, but see Martín Zilic. Does this relate to an article you are working on? I'd be curious to see. Dmcdevit·t 10:22, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

DreamGuy motion
If you feel it has come to that, I will back you up. El_C 22:19, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I informed DG about the proposed motion, btw. El_C 22:25, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Ah, thanks, that slipped my mind. In my imagination, at least, asking him to edit logged in does no harm; it's not like blocking him. And if he doesn't violate the parole, then he won't get blocked anyway, and he can appeal it in a few months. It doesn't mean I think he'll like it, but it's probably for the best. Dmcdevit·t 22:30, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
 * No problem. Yes, I tried to press that on him a few weeks ago, actually. Somehow, I get the impression that he feels he needs it to protect himself from harassment, edit stalking, and so on. But there are various safefguards that he can turn to in that event. El_C 22:34, 4 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi, as the originator of the Dreamguy RfCU, and you being the Checkuser, can you tell me what progress has been made on my request please? The process seems to have stalled. Jack1956 (talk) 08:13, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I replied on the RFCU page just now. That IP hasn't been checked. If, however, the proposed motion restricting DG to his account is passed, then any edit from an IP would violate the remedy and that IP might be worthy of check if it keeps editing. In any case, the IP is currently blocked, so the point is moot. Dmcdevit·t 19:56, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Might I trouble you as to the link to that particular motion? - Arcayne   (cast a spell)  20:35, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
 * See RFAr. Dmcdevit·t 20:38, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I was able to find it. - Arcayne   (cast a spell)  22:14, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Protection
Dear etc. Dmcdevit, I 'll hope you 're being able to revert your 'protection' from editing my own page through revoking, I am yours faithfully D.A. Borgdorff MASc and retired lector fundamental power electronics, railway traction equipment, and theoretical quantumelectrodynamics, who was awfully blocked by this hardly adult youngster just born when I was granted a pension. So, with esteeming regards, I remain awaiting your reaction: 86.83.155.44 (talk) 15:29, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
 * You were blocked for personal attacks and your talk page was protected for posting personal information of another editor. Please do not do it again. Dmcdevit·t 20:41, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I did promise so on Meta-Wiki at your accountpage, and herewith like to thank you for the answer to be unprotected, which I 'm trying to achieve. Regards: Borgdorff 86.83.155.44 (talk) 22:13, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Best Dmcdevit, I - 86.83.155.44 (talk) 12:11, 13 February 2008 (UTC) - did copy here, with permission hopefully, the following text - op.cit.: I 'll hope my request to become the talk-page unprotected is herewith 'well done'. Awaiting your decission, I remain yours truly:.. D.A. Borgdorff by n° 86.83.155.44 (talk) 23:42, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Pictogram voting oppose.svg Declined Talk with Dmcdevit first. -Jéské ( Blah v^_^v ) 04:20, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Dear, I did: 22:13, 12 Febr on Dmcdevit's talk page, but before mostly on her/his account at Meta-Wiki. With regards and truly yours from — D.A. Borgdorff by: 86.83.155.44 (talk) 11:56, 13 February 2008 (UTC) PS: What will I have to do more about than waiting?
 * In conclusion: thank you for unlocking my talking page by mrs. Jéské. - I am yours truly ... D.A. Borgdorff: 86.83.155.44 21:49, 13 February 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.83.155.44 (talk)

Image removal
I got the "you have new messages" bar just now, went to talk page to see what the good news was, and then discovered the hard way that you had yanked all the images off the page State Military characters of the Fullmetal Alchemist anime. Is it so much to ask that when you pull stunts like this you notify the involved parties of your edits? If I had known those images were going to be pulled I would have asked an admin to delete them, rather than suffer through 3200 bot notices about "orphaned fair use" images. I know police is on your side here, so I won;t bellyache about there removal, just in the future try and keep others in the loop, will you? TomStar81 (Talk) 02:55, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Forgive me for being confused, but the whole point of the bot is to keep you informed. But that's what you were complaining about! :-) Also, I'm afraid the bot hasn't yet finished making all the notifications. I think it would be nicer if the bot just did all the notifications in one message, but I don't have any control over that; you can just use the method at User:BetacommandBot to prevent it from leavin you more messages. Dmcdevit·t 03:01, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I don;t mind getting the bot notification, but for large scale stuff like when I knwo that I can't simply reinsert an image (or two, or three...) then I would rather take down image names and find an admin who would delete the images in question so I don't have to endure repeated messages to the same effect. I have the names of the images I uploaded for a fact, so I will ask either or  to delete them all and we can be done with this in a few hours. And sorry if this came across as an attack, school saps a lot of the patients out of me, and as an inclusionist deletions like this tend to get to me even though they shouldn't. Sorry if I offended you. TomStar81 (Talk) 03:15, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Solumeiras
Sarah, Thanks for all your help at the Solumeiras thread. I have a question for follow-up with this: do you want a formal RFCU filed for records' sake and to allow any other findings you might have? Another user approached me through email that he believes that and  are sockpuppets in this. Note that Solumeiras said he registered the Ashford1982 account for his friend, but some of Ashford's recent contributions look like Solumeiras' contributions (lots of helpme requests, creation of templates, focusing on banned users like MascotGuy, etc.). Anything you'd like for me to do from here in terms of that? Thanks, Metros (talk) Metros (talk) 23:11, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Hey, that's the first time I've ever been called Sarah. ;-) While the bureaucracy is not usually necessary (which is why I commented in the ANI thread itself with CU information) it would be nice to have an RFCU filed for these two suspects, since this looks like a long-term problem, so in the future it'll be nice to have a page where all the past socks and checks have been archived. Just add it to an existing RFCU page for Sunholm/Sunfazer/TheM62Manchester/SunStar/whatever. :-) Dmcdevit·t 10:45, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
 * D'oh! I originally posted this to User:Sarah then remembered she's not a checkuser.  And I just never updated the post name when I C&Ped it here.  What a day.  Metros (talk) 13:22, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Re: Fair use gallery
''I think you may have misunderstood my edit at Transmutation circle. Please see WP:FU#Images and WP:FU#Unacceptable_use. Those images I removed are copyrighted, non-free images. Galleries of non-free images are generally prohibited because non-free images are only allowed for critical commentary on the image itself, not just for identification, and generally fair use images need to be minimal within an article; 7 in a small article is overkill: the lead image is enough. The same applies to the screenshot, which is used for decoration of an article where only one sentence refers to it, and in the context of something visible in the screenshot, rather than the show itself. Hopefully it makes more sense now and you can see that I was not trying to be "unconstructive." Dmcdevit·t 10:16, 13 February 2008 (UTC)''
 * Greetings
 * While I both understand and am aware of the policies you have quoted, I don't believe they apply in this case. Here is why:
 * According to US CODE TITLE 17 > CHAPTER 1 > § 107:
 * ..the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include 
 * the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
 * the nature of the copyrighted work;
 * the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and 
 * the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.
 * To sum it up, the images I have produced are for educational purposes, are a small part of the original copyrighted work (the Full Metal Alchemist Series) and the creation, use, and distribution of these images under fair use has no effect upon the potential sales of Full Metal Alchemist video or printed material. Fosnez (talk) 00:38, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I can see that you didn't exactly read Wikipedia policies I linked you to. The United States government also has laws that don't forbid incivility or even, heaven forbid, edit warring on a wiki, and yet we still prohibit it. Our rules regarding non-free images are the same way. We're not just trying to get away with what's within the law, but we are trying to produce a free content (as in unrestrictive copyright) work that can be reused and modified by others in any way. Including non-free images means that that part of the encyclopedia is not free, even if law would allow it for us (and not all of our reusers will nonprofits or educational). This is why "The use of non-free media in galleries, discographies, and navigational and user-interface elements is usually unacceptable" and they require "critical commentary" for each image. The amount of non-free images at that article was excessive, and I see someone else has reverted it back to my version. I hope that you can see why we're removing them. Thanks. Dmcdevit·t 10:55, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Dragon Ball images
Thanks for taking care of the ones here. Could you look at the earthlings and aliens pages? I'm not sure whether they're violating WP:NFCC or WP:FAIR as well. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 05:36, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I skipped over those because they had only 3 images each, and so wouldn't have been major violations relative to some of the lists that have dozens. In general though, I would consider that if there is an article for a character/episode/whatever, fair use images should be restricted to the article where it is much more justifiable and removed from the list, where it is just a duplicate and less so. As well, for the sections in these lists that don't sorrespond to another article, I would say that an image is justified if the text refers to something specific that is illustrated by the image (beyond the character; like "Jerry the Cartoon is famous for his unusual pink hair.") and certainly isn't justified where the total text of the section only amounts to a few sentences. The text it illustrates should be long enough to actually be a critical summary of the topic that is extensive enough that an image demonstrates something explained there. I would say that some of those images in these two articles could be removed on this basis. Dmcdevit·t 22:37, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Checkuser question
Thanks for operating the checkuser on Requests for checkuser/Case/Downtrip however I still have some questions. Does the possible analysis aplly to all of the accounts in general? What about  several  editors and myself are almost certan that he is a sock of downtrip; he was created shortly after Downtrip was blocked for 3RR and editwarring. Notably Banofreep has only made a few edits, all to the same topic that Down has been battling over for several months now. Sorry to have bothered you with these questions, reply to my talkpage if you wish. Freepsbane (talk) 02:45, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, possible applies to all the accounts, meaning that it's possible they are Downtrip. Dmcdevit·t 07:42, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Reverting the PUI tag
There's nothing to discuss. It is fair use because it was created by myself. If the majority wants to remove them for other valid reasons, then they are welsome to; it's not going to hurt myfeelings any. Neovu79 (talk) 03:17, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Please define...
Just how much is "excessive fair use images"? -- Stormwatch (talk) 04:48, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
 * That is hard to answer because fair use is dependent on context. Certainly if a single article has more than a handful, it's probably a problem. Remember, the licensing policy says, regarding fair use, that "Their use, with limited exception, should be to illustrate historically significant events, to include identifying protected works such as logos, or to complement (within narrow limits) articles about copyrighted contemporary works." Dmcdevit·t 07:46, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

My Comments
I should have kept my comments to the accusation (which is indeed scabrous and disgusting), not the editor, so referring to the low standards of White Cat, while entirely accurate, was not civil, I admit. However, making accusations of sockpuppetry is about as nasty and vicious a slander as you can lob here, since it attacks the core integrity of the editor in question in a way that speaks to the very principles we espouse in order to collaborate effectively. Since, as you know, WC has a long history of such slanderous attacks against editors with whom he disagrees I feel that the severity of my response is warranted, although I own there will be those who disagree with this. However, temper that disagreement with the consideration that we are too forgiving too often to too many editors who, like White Cat, repeatedly game the system and abuse our basic principles of good faith. He should, in fact, be banned completely for these kind of antics and what does not help is the consistent failure of other editors to call him out when he pulls shit like this. My comments may be harsh but frankly I expect better from other editors such as yourself in making it crystal clear that this kind of vicious attack is simply unacceptable and will in no wise be tolerated at any level. That, I have to admit, is assuming you have not made a similar (if more mildly worded) reproach. At any event, I understand you will disagree with me, so fair enough. Take me over to Witiquette if you wish. I'm a reglar thar yonder. Eusebeus (talk) 23:33, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Usertalk Block
Could you lift the block on my usertalk page? --Ryan Utt (talk) 22:20, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I forgot to set an expiry. Done. Dmcdevit·t 23:26, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Indef block of User:Karla Lindstrom
Glancing at the edit history, I'm not sure how you concluded that this editor is an obvious sockpuppet. Isn't a checkuser in order? Bikasuishin (talk) 17:07, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Just to let you know that she's appealing the block. Regards, Rudget . 19:11, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
 * In response to Bikasuishin, Dmcdevit is a checkuser. Dmcdevit -- is this block based on checkuser evidence?  Mango juice talk 19:59, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, I would like to know this as well. ~ Homologeo (talk) 20:03, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, this block is indeed based on CheckUser. Besides which, the account's behavior, including knowing a template on their second edit and canvassing other pedophilia editors, is the behavior of a sockpuppet. Dmcdevit·t 21:29, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
 * So, according to you, everyone Karla Lindstrom contacted regarding the recent block of another user is a "pedophile editor?" Please be careful throwing labels such as that around, cause some editors may take offense at being referenced in this manner. ~ Homologeo (talk) 22:06, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
 * You're misquoting me directly below the comment that you're quoting. (!) My intention by saying "pedophilia editors" was simply "editors of pedophilia-related articles." Dmcdevit·t 22:21, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry if I misinterpreted your comment. Thanks for the clarification. ~ Homologeo (talk) 10:12, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
 * (ec)He said "pedophilia editors", presumably meaning "editors of pedophilia-related articles". No need to be offended, I believe.
 * I hope that having a reference to policy on a Talk page as my fourth edit doesn't make me look like a sock, though. Bikasuishin (talk) 22:27, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Can you confirm that the reason for the block was: CHECKUSER EVIDENCE: IDENTICAL IP, not just similar, or the same network, or a proxy, etc. Thanks in advance. No, Gwen! (talk) 11:00, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Having the same IP is not the only instance of where a checkuser would confirm a relation. Similarly, there are plenty of users who share IPs that are clearly not related. Checkuser is much more complicated, and sometimes if we were to fully disclose the reasoning behind the blocks, we'd give away personal and identifying information. I'm sure Dmcdevit has said all he can. --Deskana (talk) 12:18, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

User:Velebit
On 10 October 2006 you have confirmed that this user is using multiple accounts for edit warring because of which he has been banned from Wikipedia. In summer of 2007 his puppets has been blocked and now in 2008 suspected puppets of this user has been blocked again. Because old accounts are stale there has not been clear confirmation that Smerdyakoff and Standshown are new puppets of this banned editor. I have been informed that only editor which has before worked on this case can check if this user is really puppet of Velebit. Editor which has blocked this user in 2007 is not having needed data so you are only hope for this confirmation ?? --Rjecina (talk) 03:34, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
 * The old IP I have of Velebit's is not a match with Smerdyakoff/Standshown. It's possible that that IP was an open proxy, but CheckUser doesn't help confirm a connection between Velebit and these accounts. Dmcdevit·t 19:55, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you
For acting in the case of this user and protecting the privacy of a colleague moderator of mine on Wiki-nl, this one, by blocking the address for a week. This Dutch anonymous person is a difficult one to have to deal with for our community and unfortunately misuses the Wiki-en talk page for his problems with us as well and frequently changes/deletes matters there as well. He hs been blocked from editing nine times sofar, lastly on feb 19 for varying periods up to two weeks. A contributor to watch since he seeks attention everywhere on various talk pages mostly and his edits are sometimes right, sometimes debatable (which he wishes to do anyway). MoiraMoira (talk) 08:50, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Template messages/Image namespace is in many, many categories
Hello Dmcdevit. Who can I ask about Template messages/Image namespace, a file you've edited. This page is turning up in the category Category:Contested candidates for speedy deletion where it risks being accidentally deleted by noob admins such as myself. In fact, this template is included in about a million categories.(Just click on the template name above and scroll to the bottom of the page). Is this normal? The same problem doesn't happen for Template messages/User talk namespace, which is only in. Forgive me if the answer should be obvious. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 23:46, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, I don't know much about it. I guess you could subst the templates and remove the categories, or you could make the category a parameter like with some templates, so it can be omitted here (ie. "" ). Maybe it would be betterto ask on the village pump, or to someone who knows more about this stuff. :-) Dmcdevit·t 19:20, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for response. I posted the question at WP:VPT. EdJohnston (talk) 19:28, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Regarding the case
For a couple of days now I've been thinking about how to clarify the misunderstanding we had regarding the workshop proposal I wrote. With regard to your response, I could see how someone might read my proposal commment as for this reason alone I write this proposal, and intend it in strong terms. Actually it was more in a sense of ''writing this in broad terms that could be interpreted conservatively or otherwise; I've asked in enough times and in enough ways for a nail on which to hang the good faith hat. For want of a nail...'' Maybe this says it better.  Regards,  Durova Charge! 22:08, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
 * You'll notice that my comments regarding the inherent fallacy in logic that I saw on a proposal at the workshop were not actually an argument for or against the sockpuppetry issue. I would say this: if we were to assume that the allegations are true, I've seen plenty worse sockpuppeteers in my time, and certainly such COIs are common. Which is not to excuse the behavior, but to call attention to the sheer amount of attention that you and a vocal group of others have given it, pursuing the matter all over ANI, RFC, and RFAr. It's a sensational story, and that small, vocal group has done a large part in sensationalizing it. I think that any ArbCom decision in this matter won't be complete without addressing that aspect, which may even be more important than the sockpuppetry, true or not. this level of drama is not just annoying, or a distraction, it has harmful side-effects. It is, in fact, community-sanctioned harassment; the target will feel so alienated by having been put under a microscope and every edit of his brutally scrutinized and attacked in a forum, as ANI, RFC, and RFAr often become, where accusations can be made and stand even if they are outrageous and insulting. You will see on those arbitration pages, mixed in with the sockpuppetry charges, accusations, often paranoid or completely off-base, against a dozen administrators, some of whom have no connection at all to the case. Several of the people involved are transparently acting as proxies for a banned user known to engage in stalking. I would strongly recommend that you read this insightful essay and reconsider your participation in the case. I can see that it will only continue (indeed, Cla68 is building a case against Jzg in his userspace as we speak) unless ArbCom steps in and takes a stand not just against the original subject of the case, but against the initiators that used their pages for harmful drama and divisiveness. It is impossible that they failed to notice it by now. I realize that's not exactly what you asked, :-), and probably not likely to make you happy either, but that's what has been brewing in my head for days now, and I think that is the much more important issue we face in this case. Dmcdevit·t 09:46, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Ping
There should be an email waiting for you when you have a sec - can't get on IRC right now or I'd have tried to catch you there. Cheers,  Ry an P os tl et hw ai te  19:13, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I've sent you another one basically telling you to gorfet about the first email! :-)  Ry an P os tl et hw ai te  19:26, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Duly gorfotten. :-) Dmcdevit·t 20:38, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Coolie Stereotype
I responded on my talk page. Best wishes,--House of Scandal (talk) 06:48, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Engvar, etc.
Not arbitrary British English I am fixing misspellings of a name, not changing the usage of an English dialect within an article. These misspellings are incorrect ways of writing a proper name, not simply dialectical choices, which are matters of taste and local convention. If there are any instances where I have changed anything other than the actual name of the OIC within the text of the article and generically changed the word "organization" to "organisation," please let me know. Looking back on my edits, I don't see how that is possible, nor that such has happened. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 03:34, 9 March 2008 (UTC)


 * True You're right; the OIC itself arbitrarily Anglicizes their own name. I was ignorant, and I appreciate the note. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 03:49, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Reverts I'm not sure what the rationale was for naming it "Organisation;" do you know why this was preferred? -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 04:23, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

An article which you started, or significantly expanded, Jorge Valero, was selected for DYK!
Thanks for your contributions! Nishkid (talk) 23:15, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

OTRS review request
I have conversed with User:Daniel about an OTRS request, 2007110910016335, and would like you to review it. Thank you for your time.

My argument is thus: dimensions (pixels) on screens have zero correspondence to the dimensions (inches, etc.) of real life objects. Sure, there are standards for output dimensions (72 pixels per inch for Macintoshes and websites, 96 ppi on many Windows machines, 300 ppi for many printing processes) but these do not correspond to dimensions of physical objects. The "less than three-fourths or more than one and one-half" rule does not apply here. It has been misinterpreted by this government contractor and misapplied by User:Daniel. I mean this as respectfully as possible and apologize for this nitpick. —Parhamr (talk) 07:54, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure that argument makes complete sense. If it were a tiny thumbnail, you couldn't print it out to actual size without it being a blurry mess. A high-resolution scan, however, could be printed at the real dimensions. So it seems to me that there is a greater-than-zero correspondence between pixels on a screen and real-life dimensions, right? Dmcdevit·t 08:03, 13 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Hmm, that is true. —Parhamr (talk) 07:43, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

block of user 62.212.208.65
You have blocked the user 62.212.208.65. Please note my comment at where I explain that sockpuppetry is unlikely to have happened in this case. I have also reviewed March 12 edits of this user and they appear to be quite reasonable: Other edit restores harmless link to a postage stamp of this shortlived statelet (Republic_of_Central_Lithuania), another removes disputed statement where there are different interpretations by Polish and Lithuanian historians. I would like to ask you to reconsider the block of this user. Feel free to ask if you need more information about these edits. --Doopdoop (talk) 22:55, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
 * This edit is a rephrasing without changing the meaning (forced to become a Soviet Republic = annexed), and this annexation is unlikely to be contested (also see [[Lithuania] article for bacground information about 1940 annexation)
 * This edit mostly reinstates more commonly used name of Vilnius (the capital of Lithuania) where this user probably lives. I have also noticed that editors living in Zadar (Croatia) also revert the name of the city they live in quite often (when Italians change it from Zadar to Zara).
 * It doesn't matter whether the IP is a sockpuppet or not, or what the content of the edits is. They are clearly not a new user, and the maority of their edit has simply been unexplained reverts of Piotrus and Halibutt, and accusing them of distortion and vandalism. Even if we were to assume that their content edits are correct, that behavior is unacceptable. Dmcdevit·t 23:11, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Imagine an editor who would add Antofagasta to the List_of_cities_in_Bolivia. It is very sad that such excellent editors like Piotrus and Halibutt have performed edits similar to this example, and distortion charge sadly has some merit. --Doopdoop (talk) 00:53, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Such "distortion" calls for dispute resolution, not edit warring and name-calling&mdash;even if it is wrong, as I've said. We are a collaborative project, not a battlefield. Dmcdevit·t 01:40, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Chumas people and IP 68.6.108.39
Hi guy -- a small Native American article has a small relatively controversial section that has been repeatedly deleted a number of times in the last couple of years. It is well sourced, but..... On the most recent IP number used, the editor refuses to respond to the article editors requests on his talk page and keeps deleting. He may be an established user who occasionally uses an IP number (I do sometimes, anyway). If you are around, would you review/consider a semi-protection on Chumash people from User talk:68.6.108.39? A block of the IP may also be an option. Thanks. WBardwin (talk) 02:46, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I have blocked the user pending any sign of discussion from them. I have left a note on their talk page encouraging discussion, and if they do reply reasonably on their talk page (which they can still edit) and indicate a willingness to talk about the issue I'll gladly unblock. Hopefully that will help. Dmcdevit·t 23:30, 15 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks -- the article has had this deletion problem, without explanation or discussion from anon IP's, since Spring 2006. A long frustrating situation.  I asked (on the protection talk page as I am boycotting templates at the moment - thrusting at windmills again!) for semi-protection but was summarily denied.  Thanks for your interest and your response.  Hope things are well with you.  WBardwin (talk) 06:37, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

An old friend of mine has returned
Hello, Dmcdevit. You may remember this checkuser case from October. I wanted to let you know that he's come back with this account: example of harassment: 1. I've already blocked him, but if you have the time, could you check to see what IP he's using, and potentially block it? I know he's used 87.194.247.144 recently, last month, so that may be what he's still using. Thanks for your help. Regards, Parsecboy (talk) 14:15, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I've blocked his current IP and a couple accounts on it. The IP range is dynamic, but he keeps each IP for at least a few days at a time, so it should slow him down. If not, let me know and I'll consider a range-block. Dmcdevit·t 15:40, 19 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks, I noticed you caught Sarpecboy. If he returns, I'll let you know. Parsecboy (talk) 22:21, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

SttealBoy again
Hello Dmcdevit. Remember that StealBoy troll creating hoax articles. His socks keep on reappearing every now and then. Actually, I probably do roughly half of the blocking for his accounts (many recent blocks have been made by others simply on the grounds of absurd usernames) and as you can see from my log of blocks, he's not showing any signs of fatigue. I'd appreciate it if you can again consider a range block of 220.233.239.xxx or 220.233.238.xxx or some of the other underlying IPs. Note that I've hardblocked a few IPs and you might want to tweak those if checkuser indicates collateral damage. And it would be nice if you can let me know what comes out of your investigations so that, hopefully, I can do a better job of dealing with future incidents. Thanks, Pascal.Tesson (talk) 12:50, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, hardblocking IPs isn't going to do much god because he's on a dynamic IP range and will just get assigned to another IP soon enough. However, I have blocked the IP range from account creations and anon edits; please let me know if any accounts return, and I'll see if the range block needs to be widened. I have also blocked a boatload of sockpuppets I found by using CheckUser on his IP range. Could you take a look at them and see if there is any more trolling in their contributions that didn't get reverted/deleted at the time? Dmcdevit·t 16:17, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Ok thanks. I'll check out the latest accounts for unreverted nonsense. Pascal.Tesson (talk) 16:36, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

By the looks of it, we've hit the wrong IP range... My last three blocks are almost certainly that same guy: same hoax pattern, same sort of usernames, same sort of editing times.

Perhaps you can broaden the range block. Thanks, Pascal.Tesson (talk) 15:46, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually, this one's on a different ISP entirely, on just one IP. It may be a public terminal. Take a look at Special:Contributions/59.101.49.219 and, which I just blocked. Dmcdevit·t 19:51, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Done, cleaned up some of the leftover mess from these two. I guess the positive spin on things is that maybe, just maybe, we're making his life a bit harder. Pascal.Tesson (talk) 21:12, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

RFCU
Although you probably are tired of this case as much as I am, you may want to revoice your analysis here: Requests for checkuser/Case/Jack Merridew. Thanks. -- Cat chi? 17:37, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
 * It is vital you take a look as soon as possible. -- Cat chi? 15:24, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the relatively quick review of the case. I was wondering if you could take a look at my response there. -- Cat chi? 13:06, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Blocked ... 64.22.64.0/18
Did all 16384+/- addresses in this range offend you, that you felt it needful to block them?

Please note that the block summary >>blocked "64.22.64.0/18 (Talk)" (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 6 months ‎ (Global Net Access hosting company)<< is perhaps misleading, as editing is blocked (at least for me, personally, lucky thing that I am) rather than merely acc't creation.

Lastly, the block message is baffling in and of itself: >>... disabled by Dmcdevit for the following reason(s): Global Net Access hosting company<<

While the act and quality of existence may be blockable - I haven't boned up on the regs in a while - this was not helpful to me, as an end-user, in my efforts to improve Wikipedia.

All that snark aside, I really like your userpage, and am sorry we had to meet like this. There might be very good history warranting this block, but my point is, it's opaque. Obfuscated. Arcane. Confused.

Thanks for your time, and for working to make Wikipedia a better place. No snark.

—Adrian~enwiki (talk) 2008-03-22 20:28Z
 * I don't mean to be cryptic. Hosting companies allow editors to cheaply change their IP and edit remotely and anonymously from the company's IP range, much like an open proxy. Indeed, such ranges typically are infested with open proxies, as well. The IP range is blocked from editing because it was involved in some sort of abuse that brought it to my attention. Typically, as is hopefully the case here, the range is not the primary internet connection for the editors who might use it, since it is used only for work. If this is major problem, let me know what your situation is and I'll rethink the block. Dmcdevit·t 19:19, 23 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Cryptic. I should have included that in the list.


 * I respectfully submit that, even given the vast number of addresses available in the ipv4 schema, blocking 64K addresses requires more transparency than is manifest here. An individual block would be well-served by more transparency.


 * Still, thanks for reading, and for your well-elucidated explanation of your general reasoning. I don't think it's specific enough ("Why is this giraffe sick?" "Giraffes are a long-necked bipedal mammal indigenous ...") but I can't fault you for lack of responsiveness.


 * Hoping to converse further,


 * —Adrian~enwiki (talk) 2008-03-24 07:28Z


 * Well, 64,000 IP addresses does not mean 64,000 Wikipedia editors, especially as this is a hosting company, not a regular ISP. In fact, it could mean less than 100 edits every few months. In this case, I checked the amount of traffic coming in before the block, and found it to be minimal enough. The block was done as a result of a CheckUser investigation, not simply on a whim, and the potential collateral was checked using CheckUser too. I could look up what the abuse was (likely some banned user or troll) but it wouldn't really matter since that part isn't in dispute, I don't think. If you really want to I can, of course. :-) Dmcdevit·t 08:22, 24 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Hey, the block is pretty wide, could you at least split it into smaller ones. You blocked me as well, I don't generally edit, but ocasionaly fix stuff. So it's pretty upsetting. The .edu thing is simply a free subdomain obtained from http://afraid.org . Thanks Mineralè (talk) 00:41, 2 July 2008 (UTC)