Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license.
Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat.
We can research this topic together.
:::I know that technically, "restarting a block" is the standard penalty for evading a block with a sockpuppet, so I'm not arguing that this punishment exceeds the letter of the law. I'm arguing that the circumstances are usual, and this punishment exceeds the spirit and intention of the law. ] 00:50, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
:::I know that technically, "restarting a block" is the standard penalty for evading a block with a sockpuppet, so I'm not arguing that this punishment exceeds the letter of the law. I'm arguing that the circumstances are usual, and this punishment exceeds the spirit and intention of the law. ] 00:50, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
::::If, as best as I can tell, he abided by the one-year ban for 11 months and 3 weeks, and got active in mainspace one week early, I would think an extension for (say) a month rather than a year might be more proportionate. If he resumes editing in the fashion that originally got him into this situation, he's not going to last again anyhow, and might as well get it over with. ] 15:32, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
::::If, as best as I can tell, he abided by the one-year ban for 11 months and 3 weeks, and got active in mainspace one week early, I would think an extension for (say) a month rather than a year might be more proportionate. If he resumes editing in the fashion that originally got him into this situation, he's not going to last again anyhow, and might as well get it over with. ] 15:32, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
:::::He had no chance, ]. Dmcdevit made his decision based on only a few edits but Nobs was on the road to destruction anyway, focusing on a bunch of petty quarrels from the past. ] 12:39, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
== ] ==
== ] ==
Revision as of 12:39, 27 December 2006
Note: I'm back in Arizona for the holidays. I'll still be checking my watchlist and email regularly, but expect only sporadic activity until mid-January.Dmcdevit·t09:45, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
REQUEST to Omura article Arbitrators: THAT THE VERSION CURRENTLY PROTECTED NOT REMAIN DURING THIS PROCESS
I have spoken with Dr Omura today. He is deeply upset and troubled because of how he is being misrepresented on WP (by GenghizRat and Crum375). Dr Omura told me that many of the statements made by GenghizRat about him are gross misrepresentations that have no basis in reality. He wonders how someone who can remain without identity can be allowed to make such comments about him without him being able to address them via a lawyer as necessary.Richardmalter07:09, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
Hello D. I am here because Amoruso has requested an unblock. I see you blocked for 3RR (which he didn't trip, making his 4th revert after 24 hours and four minutes) and incivility (which you don't specify). Would you specify what incivility you spoke of? Thx. - crzcrztalk23:10, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
See my response on the noticeboard: . Four minutes is immaterial for someone who has been blocked for 3RR before. Dmcdevit·t23:45, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
I did see eventually find your explanation of the alleged incivility, as I took pains to record here. If you don't like his warring or his blatant POV - then start an RFC or discuss a block for ANI - but I don't think you should be co-opting 3RR, a very specific thing, to suit those purposes. Further discussion on AN3, I think. Thanks. - crzcrztalk13:13, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
I appreciate your opinion, but I am already fully aware of how little you like me. I did nothing wrong, reponding to a bona fide unblock request and properly soliciting your input. I do not edit Israel-related articles, do not have a history with Amoruso, and there's nothing improper in my actions. Yes, he is an edit warrior, but AN3 is not the forum to punish him for it unless he breaks 3RR. Please solicit consensus for such a block in the regular fashion. This is all I stand for. - čřžčřžtalk20:38, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
I wouldn't characterize that as "fair criticism", however. You have essentially accused me of enabling edit warriors. And you do a history of disliking me. That was but one diff. - crzcrztalk21:48, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
DRVNote
User:Xiner/Userboxes/Pro-Life Pro-Abortion on deletion review
Please see Misplaced Pages:Requests for checkuser/Case/200.119.236.93. This request, which I submitted earlier today, has been declined by Essjay with the suggestion that I might present it to "the Arbitration Committee, which has more leeway in their investigating." Since the situation doesn't involve a dispute that could be arbitrated, I don't know precisely how I would go about doing that, or even whether you would consider the suggestion well-taken. Among the arbitrators I see you most often on the RfCU page, so I'd welcome your attention to or thoughts on the matter. Regards, Newyorkbrad02:46, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
Regarding your T1 deletion of User:Xiner/Userboxes/Pro-Life Pro-Abortion
I know you are not a fan of userboxes, but may I request you reconsider the speedy deletion? What makes this userbox so obnoxious that it warrants speedy deletion rather than taking it to a MfD? CharonX/talk16:11, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps you want to take a look at it? The autoblock was caused by {{checkuserblock}} on WearCleanDrawers and I am forwarding this to you following what you have stated in the block message. --WinHunter05:25, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
It's common sense. Banned users' membership in the community is officially revoked. We shouldn't count their votes just for the sake of process. Dmcdevit·t09:03, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
I'm not saying we go erase a record of their coments before being baned, but this vote hasn't been counted yet, so it should be removed before that happens. Dmcdevit·t09:10, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
Any input on this user's unblock request? I have no familiarity with the events leading to the block, so was hoping you'd be able to shed some light on matters. Thanks in advance. Luna Santin08:13, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
Before moving to close, I think it would be good for the project if you reviewed Misplaced Pages talk:Requests for arbitration/Seabhcan/Proposed decision. There is considerable dissent that the decision to desysop MONGO and Seabhcan is the right direction to go. I'm not asking you to change your votes on that RfAr, but rather to consider that this matter is under ongoing, rapid fire discussion. There's been nearly a hundred edits to that talk page in the last 48 hours alone, and that is just one fora where this is being debated among many. Respectfully submitted, --Durin20:52, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
Just a quick note to say I fully support Durin. As a totally impartial outsider in all of this, I also think that the reputation and support ArbCom enjoys within the community is in danger of being damaged by the decision to desysop the MONGO and Seabhcan. Kind Regards - Heligoland | Talk | Contribs01:20, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete old user page?
Hi, I was wondering if you could delete my old user page, User:Gbambino. I've opened up a new account for various reasons and would like to have the old one completely shut down. I'm only assuming you have the ability to do such a thing, but if you don't, I'd be appreciative if you could tell me who can. Cheers. --Gmbambino22:12, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
Please, feel free to block my 'sock' accounts as they are detected -- but only if you find my edits in some way objectionable. Today, I have made no offensive or spurious edits, and yet you continue to block me. Please, use your best judgement, instead of following dogma relentlessly!
McD: Blocked, as well as the other sock, IP hit with an anon-only/no-creation block.
Cjwright: Using socks to evade a block is a reason to block in itself; the merit of edits is irrelevant. If you disagree with this policy, you are welcome and encouraged to exercise your RightToLeave. Essjay(Talk)05:39, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
IP address block
Hello. A couple days ago, I noticed that the IP address 67.153.70.18 was blocked for the following reason: "open proxy - XO Communications web hosting service". This is a static IP address pointing to a business, over a dedicated T1 line. The network border is protected by a Juniper NetScreen firewall, and I would be very surprised if such a proxy was open.
Can you please tell me how it was decided that this IP address was running an open proxy, and unblock it if there was a mistake? Thanks! --J Morgan12:47, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Dmcdevit-- seeing that anonymous evidence is allowed, I took the liberty of presenting some and created an account for the purpose. Since the main evidence page is semiprotected, I went ahead and added it to the talk page: . Unless it is inappropriate, could you or one of the other Arbiters move it to the main evidence page for me?
p.s. I was blocked by you a moment ago, but the block seems to have been lifted. I sincerely apologize if I breached protocol in presenting the evidence in this form, that was not my intention. Rest assured, I will make no further edits in this manner. --AvoidingRetaliation18:15, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
The new workshop proposals are half-measures and worse-measures. I've already commented on the idea of administrative probation more than once, and find the idea of punitive blocks of good contributors for administrative missteps to be more harmful to the community than desysopping. Furthermore, administrative sonduct is about judgment, which is less easily mandated by coercive blocks than specific behaviors like incivility and edit warring. I can come to no other conclusion, and leaving the case open is just causing more needless strife. Dmcdevit·t21:15, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Abortion userbox deletion
Hi. Another admin has told me that I should've talked to you before bringing that RfC thing. Feeling aggrieved, I have refused to apologize for the hasty action, but I've learned a lot in the last few days from something else and I think it's time I apologize for it. Sorry. Xiner02:19, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
Request for something to be done
I'd like something to be done about the user Mj121799, who is apparently just vandalizing certain media personality pages. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jutm543 (talk • contribs) 22:08, 16 December 2006 (UTC).
Very Well Done
</sarcasm> - Well, the scum over at ED (Encyclopedia Dramatica) are certainly lapping up the ArbCom decision to desysop MONGO. Hope your very happy with the situation you've helped create over there, and which I do hope you and the other members of ArbCom will be happy to clean up on your own when it spills over to Misplaced Pages. If it wasn't impossible, I'd take the ArbCom to Arbitration since you may have made one of the most damaging decisions on Misplaced Pages and are in danger of causing more damage to the site than MONGO ever could. Kind Regards - Heligoland | Talk | Contribs02:29, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
Of course I'm not happy. I'm satisfied a good, but very tough, decision has been made, but the neither necessity nor the hardship make me happy. I apreciate honest criticism, but neither does your venom make me happy, either. Dmcdevit·t06:47, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
I'm Gus Buster, and you blocked me from editing. I wrote the HUD USER and Regulatory Barriers Clearinghouse entries, and would like to know why I am blocked. I understand that I was (and am) new to Misplaced Pages, and I know I made a number of changes in succession with the intention of improving upon my work. After all, the pages and my learning are works in progress. So, could you please provide further insight into the matter and possibly unblock me?
Can I get a response please? Am I truly on parole for all articles, or just the Midnight Syndicate article? And if I'm on parole for all articles, why so? Dionyseus23:15, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
Yes, you are on parole for edit warring. The parole shouldn't affect you, or the others, at all. Your editing is nt restricted in any way. That is, unless you are edit warring, which is already prohibited. So I don't see the problem. Dmcdevit·t01:03, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
Xuejuns looks unrelated. The rest (and some others) are all Snle, as it appears someone unblocked his IP after an unblock request, so I've reblocked it. Dmcdevit·t22:19, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
I attempted to post anonymously through a proxy. The IP was blocked with a reference to your user ID and a brief explanation about it being due to an open proxy. But the system in question is one that I administer, and the proxy is not open. Access is restricted very tightly. How can I get this problem resolved?
I need more information. Clearly this IP isn't blocked, so I need you to provide the full message you get when blocked: meaning the reason and your IP as well. Without that, I can't determins what block you are talking about. Dmcdevit·t09:15, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
Youtube
I'm going to ask you, again, to back off on your project to remove links to Youtube. You do not have community support on this, you are treading on people's toes, and generating resentment and anger. The consensus on External Links was against you on the way you wanted to handle this, and you really should respect that. --Barberio01:00, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
I haven't done anything recently. I haven't removed any links for probably a few weeks. I've made (just a little) calm discussion, and noticed a few people in particular responding with edit warring and unremitting incivility. Frankly, I'm a bit astounded you've decided to ask me to back off of anything. Sorry, linking to possible copyright infringements is still prohibited, but, even more perplexing, I'm not even involved in any project doing anything about it recently. Dmcdevit·t09:12, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
There is now a personal conduct RFC being drafted on the subject. For some reason you are getting equal ownership of the blame. --Spartaz21:19, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
Thanks
Thanks for blanking my monobook. I really appreciate it. If there is ever anything that I can do for you in the future, just let me know. Cheers, -- THL09:24, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
Edipedia
Not sure if you'll get this message, but I just blocked NBIAS (talk·contribs) as an Edisnlepedia sock. Perhaps if you do a check this will lead you to more socks... Happy holidays, Khoikhoi04:53, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
Sorry
Sorry, I just noticed that I removed a link to AndriyK's case that was restored by yourself with the summary: "This is normally included, it doesn't have to have involved Piotrus". I can't understand what exactly is "normally included" and how there could be evidence on the Piotrus-Ghirla dispute which does not involve one of the parties. I find my opponent's efforts to hijack the dispute from our personal grievances to the traditional lamentations of what a rude guy Ghirlandajo is quite objectionable and I don't understand why you should encourage them. Do you think that WP:CIV is an appropriate base for resolving content disputes which have been dragging for years? --Ghirla17:12, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
Well, Piotrus has chosen to present that evidence, but that means that the arbitrators may or may not accept it. In reality, scope is defined by the arbitrators, not the parties, so that section should simply represent the statements of the parties, and the arbitrators can choose whether they agree or not. That's why I readded it. In addition, you probably shouldn't be removing something added by another party, since that's similar to editing their statement; it would have been more seemly to ask an arbitrator or clerk. In any case, this one link isn't going to hijack the case all by itself; it's just meant to be handy. Dmcdevit·t17:21, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
It appears to me that JzG started the case as the natural continuation of Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Piotrus. Now I see that Piotrus wants to hijack the case towards Ghirlandajo's fabled incivility, something which no other commentators seem to have in mind. As a result, the RfC that gave birth to the request is lost in heaps of other superadded "evidence". The first arbitrator seems to have voted to accept one dispute; the second arbitrator is confronted with a totally different request and has to vote accordingly.
This is too bad that the nominator cannot define the scope of the dispute once and for all. I'm afraid it is a factor that discourages people from submitting their cases to arbitration. For instance, I sumbit a case about one particular article, but then appear my opponents who demand to examine my behaviour with a totally different set of editors two years ago, and ArbCom follows them, turning the case upside down. This is very strange and actually impossible in a real-life court. But then, ArbCom is not a genuine court, as you know. --Ghirla17:33, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
The point is that ArbCom isn't following any of the parties, but assessing the statements. Imagine a case where the worse troll is the one that initiates the case because he's convinced that he's right, even though outsiders can clearly see that a case is needed for his conduct, not others; it would be folly for ArbCom to decide it is restricted by the scope set out by any one party. This doesn't mean that it doesn't usually end up that way, I'm just saying that it might not. It's better for the prior dispute resolution section to reflect the parties' evidence (which the arbitrators may or may not accept), not one party's contention. Dmcdevit·t17:42, 23 December 2006 (UTC)File:DSC04820.JPGThe house of Jimbo Wales in which he will discuss with other Arbitrators the names of their new colleagues tonight :) --Ghirla19:32, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
I agree with you that, when the conflict involves two parties, both should be able to submit evidence. In my case, the request was posted by a third party, by a de-facto mediator. That's why I fail to see why either opponent should be able to modify the basis of his request, trying to veer the case left or right, as they please. This is particularly disturbing, as my time online is limited. I think I can foresee what it will lead to. --Ghirla17:48, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
I think it is your dismissal of others as "Ghirlaphobes" that makes them think you are assuming bad faith and not actually looking at what the person has to say. In any case, no use wasting your breath on me. I recused for my past history witht he parties. :) Dmcdevit·t18:23, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
I have no problem discussing their problems elsewhere, rather then on the arbitration page, where I can't even answer to their accusations, some of which I hear for the first time. Can't they discuss their problems on my talk page first? Anyway, I wish you merry Christmas and Happy New Year. I can't say the same about myself, for it is the second Christmas in a row when I have wikistress as my only present. :( --Ghirla18:28, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
Thanks
Thanks for the check. Can you please add a note here too. I am going on a break for a few days. Wish you and your family a merry christmas! - Aksi_great (talk) 19:43, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
Hi; Im curious about your recent 1-year extension of a block on this user. I may be missing some information on the case, but it appears that he was using the sockpuppet account User:nobs02 with permission, as noted by , and
I'm no great friend of nobs and far from being a fan of his political POV, but I'm concerned that there may have been an accidental miscarriage of justice here. KarlBunker01:16, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
I can't speak for Dmcdevit, but it looks like the condition Fred set on using the account was that it was limited to pages related to the dispute resolution in progress. Special:Contributions/Nobs02 shows edits to articles and other pages that were not part of the dispute resolution, which I would guess is what triggered the extension of the ban; it wasn't ban evasion as long as he was using Nobs02 as agreed, but when he went outside the agreement, it became ban evasion and reset the ban timer. That is, of course, only my speculation, and Dmcdevit may have another reason. Essjay(Talk)03:01, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
Yes, this is true. The account was only for his appeal and the AMA page regarding it. Instead, Nobs used it to edit articles and other unrelated pages. I have already conversed with him by email before this and he knows why he was reblocked. Dmcdevit·t06:11, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
I think this is excessive. His infractions were pretty trivial and I don't see any indication of malicious intent. A year-long block without any warning is a heck of a lot of punishment for mere carelessness. KarlBunker13:33, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
I know that technically, "restarting a block" is the standard penalty for evading a block with a sockpuppet, so I'm not arguing that this punishment exceeds the letter of the law. I'm arguing that the circumstances are usual, and this punishment exceeds the spirit and intention of the law. KarlBunker00:50, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
If, as best as I can tell, he abided by the one-year ban for 11 months and 3 weeks, and got active in mainspace one week early, I would think an extension for (say) a month rather than a year might be more proportionate. If he resumes editing in the fashion that originally got him into this situation, he's not going to last again anyhow, and might as well get it over with. Newyorkbrad15:32, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
He had no chance, WP:SNOW. Dmcdevit made his decision based on only a few edits but Nobs was on the road to destruction anyway, focusing on a bunch of petty quarrels from the past. Fred Bauder12:39, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
Hey, there. Seems this user's been hit by a checkuser block you put in place on 71.252.218.0/24. I've suggested they get in touch with you, via email, but if you'd like to have a look for yourself, feel free. Luna Santin03:10, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
This sounds rather serious. Would you be able to take a look at it and decide what needs doing? I've posted to the talk pages of some of the arbitrators and one of the clerks as well, but not any further. Thanks. Carcharoth23:20, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
What Sarvabhaum? What sock? U ppl got mad because I am telling the truth. Mr.Kannambadi is abusive. When did I abuse? All my edits are supported by citations. 59.95.16.14010:45, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
User talk:Dominic: Difference between revisions
Add topic
Unlikely. Also, very long talk page, slow loading = Dmcdevit should sign up for EssjayBot III. ;) Essjay (Talk) 05:49, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
