Old talk at /Archive1, /Archive2, /Archive3, /Archive4, /Archive5, /Archive6, /Archive7, /Archive8, /Archive9, /Archive10, /Archive11, /Archive12, /Archive13, /Archive14, /Archive15, /Archive16, /Archive17, /Archive18, /Archive19, /Archive20

Dmcdevit, I appreciate your concerns regarding my close of this DRV. Let me first address your comments regarding my potential conflict of interest in the matter. While I have certainly had user categories on my page that have been deleted, these were not the categories which I closed the DRV to undelete. Frankly, it would be just as easy to say that administrators who are opposed to user categorization and have no user categories on their page (like you) are equally unqualified to close discussions on the topic. Yes, if I'd have closed a "users who support the ACLU" discussion, that might have been improper--but I didn't. I must also contradict your assertion that I closed either DRV against consensus. I read and re-read the comments multiple times. In both cases, I felt the weight of the arguments (and the !vote count) was for undeltetion. Yes, there are some times when policy is strong enough to contravene firm consensus, but these cases are usually given criteria for speedy deletion (i.e. recent changes to BLP policy and policy on non-free content). Closes against 2:1 and 3:1 majorities were not warranted here (these are radical usurpations, not just a few votes one way or the other), and the DRV discussions agreed with this point. Although I agree with your general argument about discussing and weighing the quality of the arguments, voting is not always bad. Going against consensus because you don't like the outcome is bad. Best, IronGargoyle 18:18, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You say "it would be just as easy to say that administrators who are opposed to user categorization and have no user categories on their page (like you) are equally unqualified to close discussions on the topic," and yes I agree with you; that was my point. I didn't participate in either the DRV or the UCFD, but would not have dreamed of closing it. What we should have had was someone who neither recently deleted such categories, nor recently had such categories deleted from his userpage, close it. In any case, you don't seem to understand that votes aren't consensus; you can point to some nonsense essay that says otherwise, but if you are the administrator closing a discussion, that seems rather inappropriate. And I'm a bit taken aback that you cite WP:IDONTLIKEIT, when you (should) know that that essay is for people who make simple votes based on personal likes and dislikes of the subject, and not the merit of the article within an encyclopedia: the original closer gave a detailed rationale, and I don't understand why you are so dismissive. And your view of CSD is wrong, WT:CSD says "it should be the case that almost all articles that can be deleted using the rule, should be deleted, according to general consensus." I think it is quite normal for administrators to have discretion in these matters, when it is clearly for the benefit of the encyclopedia. Let me ask you a question though. You say you felt the weight of the arguments was in favor of the undeletion; I'd like to know what specific arguments, other than the vote count, that you are talking about, because I'm not seeing it. Dmcdevit·t 22:31, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You did participate in the DRV even if you didn't !vote in it, but that's beside the point. I think you misunderstand some of the points that I make. I don't care if some random category on my userpage gets deleted (heck, I didn't even know they were gone). You seriously think this biases me in some way? You think that an admin who has had an unrelated category be deleted (or an admin who has never had a user category) can't be trusted to close a discussion following consensus? Who is left then to close discussions? The tooth fairy? If you want my justification for the close, I pointed to tariqabjotu's arguments in both related DRVs (why I linked back to the earlier DRV in the close of the second). I don't feel like I could say it any better than he did. Was that the only comment I decided upon? Of course not, but it was where I felt the strength and weight of the argument lay. Were there !votes with little substance on the keep/overturn side? Obviously. But there were also plenty of remarks like "Poisonous Trash" on the delete side of the UCFD and DRV as well. Yes, there is policy cited in the discussion (the ubiquitous WP:MYSPACE), but this policy leaves quite a bit of interpretational room. I admit I made a mistake in linking my last comment to the essay WP:IDONTLIKEIT. My point there was simply that the closing admin didn't like the consensus outcome, so the closing admin decided to toss it out the window. My point about CSD was that there is clear, unambiguous policy (i.e. WP:NFCC), and then there is policy that is much more open to interpretation (i.e. WP:MYSPACE). Admins shouldn't go against strong consensus in these grey areas. You seem to think that it's better for admin to do what he/she thinks is best for the encyclopedia--consensus be damned. I guess that's just where we will have to agree to disagree. Best, IronGargoyle 16:43, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

i think "strong consensus" is a bit of an exaggeration; it was closer to no clear consensus at all. Now, yes, I realize you cited Tariqabjotu remark about the vote count, but is what were the specific arguments about the categories' merit besides the vote count? You stated that the "strength and weight of the argument lay" with that side, haven't given me any of those arguments. Dmcdevit·t 19:23, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The arguments in the DRV or the UCFD? I am assuming you are asking about the UCFD, correct? Because I just gave you one from the DRV. IronGargoyle 19:47, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Either one, if you like. What did you find compelling other than the vote count? Because the vote count, and a comment arguing for it, is all you have actually cited. What was it that they said that was compelling? Dmcdevit·t 19:50, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, as far as the UCFD is concerned, I thought both arguments had merit. Yes, the categories have the (slight) potential for divisivity. They do let bias be acknowledged. Black Falcon pointed out that this bias can be dealt with via userboxes (another user pointed out that not all editors have or want userboxes, but that these users may still want to declare bias). They also allow for networking and collaboration on an encyclopedic topic (hence why I thought WP:MYSPACE was a weak argument, although there is a valid counter-argument for using "interested in XXXX"). Because I was closing the DRV, I focused on the DRV discussion as well as the UCFD discussion, which served as a background frame of reference. I asked myself several questions: Did strong policy apply (i.e. a rule that should trump consensus)? My answer: No. Was there SPA involvement? I checked and I didn't notice any. What was the closing statement like? The closing admin was well-spoken, but the closing statement seemed to reflect personal opinion rather than some element of strong policy. Given that XfDs with no consensus generally default to keep without a strong basis in policy, my own personal judgment of 2:1 and 3:1 majorities (which I personally view to be consensus) and the analysis of the arguments in the DRV (closing against consensus without strong policy backing) led me to overturn. I hope this answers your questions and addresses your concerns. I'm not sure what else I can tell you though. Best, IronGargoyle 20:38, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus is about arguments, not numbers. That's why I want to know why you keep repeating that claim when it is not clear to me that there were strong arguments for reversing two administrators' independent decisions. I read and reread your response, and the only argument I can find for the categories is "They do let bias be acknowledged." Which makes no sense because bias can be acknowledged on userpages; categories do not help that at all, and deleting them does not hinder that at all. Categories are for grouping users based on point of view. Your concept of "strong policy" seems backwards; consensus is based on arguments like WP:NOT#MYSPACE, and if there were no good arguments brought to refute the claim, whether it "trumps consensus" doesn't make sense. In fact, I'm very surprised that WP:NOT, which essentially defines the project as an encyclopedia, is not a "strong" policy to you.

To be honest, it looks to me like "the closing statement seemed to reflect personal opinion" applies equally to you. Even on the basis of your votecounting, if no consensus is to default to the status quo, and the DRV most certainly did not have a 3:1 or 2:1 margin, but closer to 1:1, it seems to me that this is clearly a lack of consensus that defaults to the original administrator's decision. But instead, you overturned teh decision, despite the seeming lack of consensus. Are you taking advantage of a lack of consensus to implement your personal opinion, criticizing the original administrators for both taking advantage of a lack of consensus to implement their personal opinions? It doesn't seem reasonable. Dmcdevit·t 22:15, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Replace my use of the word strong strong with unambiguous. I think WP:NOT is one of the most important policies that we have, but it is also easy to abuse because of its potential ambiguities. As for the 1:1 margin, this puts the closure in the "grey area" left to administrator discression. I feel that I considered the DRV and UCFD and made my decision in as unbiased a manner as I could (again, I fail to see any COIs that I have with these user categories). Please take a step back and consider your own bias in this manner. I respect your opinion, but I do not agree. If you feel that this is an important issue that you must pursue further, or you feel that I am abusing my administrative tools in some manner, you are of course free to pursue some avenue in the dispute resolution chain. Best, IronGargoyle 23:04, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What isn't making sense to me is that your logic is not internally consistent. You apply a different standard to the administrators that you overturned than you do to yourself. Please take a minute to consider this: you just told me that " As for the 1:1 margin, this puts the closure in the "grey area" left to administrator discression" whereas before you told me that such no consensus results default to the status quo. Apparently that only applies to the administrators you overturned. What appears to have happened to me is that two administrators each (independently) had to close difficult discussions with no clear numerical winner, so they weighed the arguments and decided in favor of deletion. Then at the DRV, you similarly find it within the discretionary range, and close it as overturn, with the reason that they should not have used their discretion. This is what strikes me as illogical. If the only reason in the end, still, is "They do let bias be acknowledged," that seems to have been adequately addressed. Dmcdevit·t 23:21, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If the arguments for overturning are strong in the 1:1 "grey area" of the DRV (as I thought they were), then an overturn is warranted. If the arguments were not strong in the DRV, I would not have overturned it (defaulting as you say to keep deleted). If the margin was closer in the UFCD, then I think Jossi would have been justified in closing the UCFD as delete, but the margin was not close. Best, IronGargoyle 00:00, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I understand. That is why I have (several times now) asked what those strong arguments were that convinced you. So far, other than the vote count, the only one I have gotten from you is "They do let bias be acknowledged," which does not strike me as a strong argument, since I addressed it already. That's all I am asking, what are these for keeping that outweigh deletion and warrant reversing two administrators' decisions? 00:25, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Hello. Thanks for looking at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/StealBoy. Call me clueless but I'm not sure I understand what your concluding sentence means but

1. were you able to identify other socks we did not know about? If so are you saying you can't list them?
2. are any IPs blocked for long periods of time or should we expect to continue monitoring IPs in that range for possible disruption?
3. another sock has been listed just a few minutes ago. Should we relist it as a separate checkuser case? Or can you do the follow-up?

I'm not so sure I understand the finer points of how checkuser works in practice so sorry if any of the above questions have super-obvious answers. Cheers, Pascal.Tesson 10:52, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's a dynamic range, so there are going to be a lot of false positives. It is much easier to confirm sockpuppets that are suspected based on behavior than to discover existing sockpuppets based on the IP. It is easier to block the IP range and deal with any accounts that get through with further checks. Which is what I just did with the latest sock; I widened the IP range block a little, and I think that should cover it. The block is fairly long, for a month. Dmcdevit·t 20:15, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Yet again we have another (likely) sock puppet (again its probably AdilBaguirov): [1]Hajji Piruz 15:16, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello there,

You ended up assisting some members last month with regards to user Panairjadde who is banned from making edits on WP. We have some outstanding socks that need to be blocked (updated list can be found here, User_talk:Dppowell/PPP) and we were wondering if you would be able to enforce a similar block on the user's ip range to limit new sock creation? He seemed to have faded away from day you enforced the block thru July 7ish... Thanks, --Palffy 16:05, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've taken a look and extended the IP block which had expired. Dmcdevit·t 20:41, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Much appreciated =) Do you mind blocking the rest of his unblocked socks as well? (updated list on User_talk:Dppowell/PPP) --Palffy 22:15, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Another sock came through somehow, User:Trapboy. Did he edit from that range you blocked, or something else? Kwsn^(Ni!) 15:35, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See my response above. This one was in a nearby range he hadn't used before, but it just required an additional /24 block. Hopefully that should do it. Dmcdevit·t 20:19, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hah, didn't see that there, thanks. Kwsn^(Ni!) 20:42, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. What's the deal with User:Tiger white, is he blocked or not? It's suspected that he's a sockpuppet of User:98E and looking back at my history, I actually remember interacting with 98E. They both edit images relating to hip hop artists, South Park, Crash Bandicoot, and stop signs. You can even compare their contributions (specifically the image namespace): Special:Contributions/98E & Special:Contributions/Tiger_white. And not to mention them both starting similar galleries [2] & [3]. Spellcast 10:48, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that is indeed him. I've renewed the IP block that had expired already. Dmcdevit·t 12:57, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You can come here to discuss. Kingjeff 17:09, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Dmcdevit, for participating in my RfB, which ended unsuccessfully with a final tally of (80/22/3). I shall continue to work on behalf of the community's interests and improve according to your suggestions. Most sincere regards, Húsönd 00:09, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply] Obrigado, Dmcdevit, por participares no meu RfB, que terminou sem sucesso com um resultado final de (80/22/3). Continuarei a trabalhar em prol dos interesses da comunidade e a melhorar segundo vossas sugestões. Calorosos cumprimentos, Húsönd 00:09, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply] Thanks • Obrigado • Gracias • Merci • Danke • Спасибо • Tack • Kiitos Esker • Köszönöm • Takk • Grazie • Hvala • ありがとう • 謝謝 • 谢谢

Thanks in part to your support, I am Wikipedia's newest bureaucrat. I will do my best to live up to your confidence and kind words. Andre (talk) 09:04, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This category is again nominated for discussion at user categories for discussion. Since you contributed to the last discussion, you may wish to say something in the current one, which was started on 8 July 2007. This is a courtesy notice I'll be leaving for everyone who contributed in the last UCFD nomination and not in the current one. BigNate37_(T) 13:05, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On 12 July, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Biblioteca Nacional de Chile, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Andrew c ^[talk] 17:00, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that someone was requesting an autoblock be lifted at User talk:151.75.190.98, and that the reason for blocking listed was {{checkuserblock}}. Since this involves a CheckUser you apparently handled, could you please take care of this request? The CheckUser block template states that administrators who wish to unblock this address must consult with the blocking administrator, and I do not want to undo your work as a CheckUser. Thank you very much. Jesse Viviano 06:35, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

71.233.232.243 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) has requested on his talk page that you review his block. You blocked him for six months based on checkuser evidence, but he claims that there is collateral damage. I have no opinion; I'm just trying to help. Cheers. Shalom ^Hello 18:48, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dmc, I just found this posting on a talk page at Talk:Saugeen-Maitland Hall. The diff is here[4]. Since it seems to identify a particular individual, it might be prudent to remove it from the history altogether. I'll go and delete the posting from the talk page now. Thanks in advance, old bean! Best regards, Hamster Sandwich 23:24, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, oversighted now. Dmcdevit·t 05:15, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pleasure doing business with you! Peace! Hamster Sandwich 21:05, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and we ran into a Nadirali sock just then...Blnguyen (bananabucket) 05:18, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I am posting this message on your talk page, as you are identified as an individual with oversight permission on the English Wikipedia. On July 7, I sent a request for oversight to the appropriate email address. On July 8, that request was partially completed. Unfortunately, since that time, my (several) requests for follow-up have gone without reply. On July 18, I posted a message to the talk page for Oversight, which has not yet received a response. If you could please take a look at that message, and if you could please assist me with the remainder of the original request, I would greatly appreciate it. Thank you!   j    talk   20:52, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

...and he's creating new socks again. Please block existing ones here and may I suggest an extension of the block? Things are nice and quiet when its in effect.. --Palffy 16:13, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have e-mailed you and left a message on Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents. I am not a sockpuppet of User:Runcorn nor have I even heard of the user. I use my real name to edit on wikipedia and have done for three years. Please remove my user block ASAP. A quick google search of my name would reveal that I am a real person editing under my real name, as indeed would a review of my edits, at least circumstantially. In my opinion, using bots to block long-standing user accounts with no other evidence of malfeasance is tantamount to lynch law. Sorry for the emotive language. 91.125.114.14 01:41, 24 July 2007 (UTC) = User:Gerry Lynch[reply]

User(s) blocked. - without prejudice for self-confessed block evasion - Alison ☺ 07:45, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Excuse the intrusion. My internet acquaintance User:Gerry Lynch complains that he's been blocked as a sockpuppet of User:Runcorn, and protests his innocence. In particular, he questions the evidence against him and the methodology used to acquire this evidence. Can you enlighten me? --Jonathan Drain 16:41, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It seems this block was illegitamite. Please restore asap--Martin Wisse 18:29, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. It does look like this block is in error, there doesn't seem to be any significant overlap between User:Gerry Lynch and User:Runcorn's edit histories, and I would strongly urge an unblocking. Looking at your edit history, it seems as though you haven't been online for 4 days, so maybe you've not seen the comments here and on WP:AN/I? I thought I'd give you 24 hours to persuade me otherwise, else I'll unblock him myself this time tomorrow. Best regards, - Arwel (talk) 20:40, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note - I've gone ahead and unblocked the guy. WP:AGF all that, esp. given the evidence individuals are providing in email. I originally did the unblock review and declined - Alison ☺ 21:30, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd particularly like to see the usercheck results, as it doesn't seem to exist on RfUC. Gerry Lynch 21:43, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Cause you were so helpfull last time. Can i please have your assistance again on this [5] Thanks ExtraDry 05:05, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Dmcdevit, I'm wondering what you think of this.Proabivouac 08:18, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Please undelete Image:Picsingles.jpg. It was moved to Commons in error, as Commons does not allow fair use, and I am attempting to get it removed from Commons. Thanks!   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 17:36, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Check out my recent contributions. I've been able to confirm based on behavior that Ursul pacalit de vulpe (talk · contribs) (formerly Tones benefit) is a sockpuppet of Bonny. Indexxs (talk · contribs) has also been blocked. Are there any more? Khoikhoi 07:47, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dmcdevit, I hope this posting finds you well. I have a request for a checkuser and I was wondering if you can help me out. If it's not appropriate to ask you in person, please direct me further. There has been an on going issue at the article SEIU Local 1.on. The editor(s) are posting derogatory information and although they have been reverted/warned, the same information is being replaced, now from a variety of user names. It seems to be the same editor using different accounts. If you could have a look at the history there from the past couple weeks and offer your own opinion, I would appreciate it. Thanks in advance for any help you can offer. Best regards, as always Hamster Sandwich 17:18, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You unblocked User:Gnanapiti under the condition that the account will not edit the same pages as it's suspected sock account but in number of artcles these two accounts have been used to clearly over come 3rr. Thanks Taprobanus 14:04, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Allegations of state terrorism in Sri Lanka
• Thiruvalluvar Statue
• Sarathambal

just a few:)) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Taprobanus (talk • contribs)

Dunno if Mackensen informed you, but there's a case that's been defered to you. Kwsn^(Ni!) 19:56, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, you hard blocked this IP as being an open proxy earlier, I've run a few (newbies) checks (googling the IP, RBL and port scanning) and I find no evidence it is one. Since this user is asking his block to be reviewed, could you double check for me? You probably have much more knowledge of OP than I do ;). -- lucasbfr ^talk 10:15, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see from the block record that you have been concerned about this user's behaviour in the recent past. May I ask if you think his constant use of the m to tag edits that are patently not minor (such as reverting good faith edits) are problematic for our project?

I have just left the following message on his talk page: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ACorticopia&diff=149629790&oldid=149231444 but I would appreciate guidance on the matter if I am wrong in the stance I expressed there. Respectfully...Gaimhreadhan ^{(kiwiexile at DMOZ)} talk • 22:13, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Dmcdevit. User:Kaz redirected the White Huns article to the Xionites and Red Huns to the Kidarites article. These redirects are misleading (see my comment on his/her talk page [6]). Could you please restore the redirects (White Huns = Ephthalites, Red Huns = Chionites)? You can consult the references i've already provided in his/her talk page. Please trust me on this. Kind regards. E104421 22:23, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I'm not sure if you remember Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/StealBoy. In any case, it seems StealBoy & friends are back.

• 220.233.106.31 (talk ·  · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Allyboy333 (talk ·  · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Lizardboy333 (talk ·  · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Snakeboy333 (talk ·  · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Rattyboy333 (talk ·  · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

... and these are just the ones I know about. The IP is again from Exetel and I'm wondering when it starts to make sense to report this to them (or is that completely useless?). In any case, if you could again look at a possible range block, it would be very much appreciated. Thanks, Pascal.Tesson 07:52, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, you seem to be back from vacation (I suppose). I hate to insist but I'd really appreciate your advice on the best course of action here. I have yet again blocked three new socks

• Diedboy333 (talk ·  · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Badboy1111 (talk ·  · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Deathboy333 (talk ·  · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Diveboy555 (talk ·  · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

And of course, these are only the ones I managed to catch. Cheers, Pascal.Tesson 16:48, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about the delay, I've been away. Having looked at the IP, it looks like a semi-static one, and not shared. The vandal has been on it for a few weeks now, and that's the only IP all the accounts listed above used, and there is no collateral, so I gave it a hardblock for 3 months. If he comes back, let me know, and I'll take a look at his new IP. Dmcdevit·t 17:46, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's great, thanks a lot. I'll let you know if he ever crawls out from under that rock! Pascal.Tesson 20:22, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dmcdevit, it appears you've gone on a wikibreak. Should you return, I invite you to take a look at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement#User:NuclearUmpf, User:MONGO/Ban evasion.Proabivouac 23:34, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There's a thread about your block of the runcorn sock farm: [7]. You'd think I'd cease to be surprised at that the way people make these threads and never bother talking to the person who made the original decision or even telling them about the thread... --W.marsh 18:33, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Oh, he claims he did try to talk to you. But I still thought you might like to see the thread at some point. --W.marsh 18:34, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Having looked, I do have one email from him more than a month ago, when, as you can see, I was not active. In any case, this is an Arbitration Committee ban, I just happened to have helped with it. Thanks for letting me know. Dmcdevit·t 23:14, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I guess not…I just found it very strange that he smiled at me, then marked User:X-Force as a sock after I'd reported it at WP:AIV, when last I heard from Connell66 as User:LOZ: OOT, he smiled at me and congratulated me for tracking down the likely (though not certain) puppeteer. Sorry to have bothered you with this.Proabivouac 01:53, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]