Old talk at /Archive1, /Archive2, /Archive3, /Archive4, /Archive5, /Archive6, /Archive7, /Archive8, /Archive9, /Archive10, /Archive11, /Archive12, /Archive 13

I took the liberty of recording your enactment of the 6-month ban on T-man at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Dyslexic Agnostic. Hope that's OK. It probably should be noted at AN/I as well, I suppose, but I'll leave that to you — I don't want to put words in your mouth. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 06:00, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I actually think it was routine, I had spoken to Tito and Shanel about the possibility before, and in any case, arbcom is not about to overturn its own ruling, so the discussion at AN/I would be rather pointless. Thanks for cleaning up after me and making the necessary log though. :) Dmcdevit·t 07:29, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. I only mentioned AN/I because of the clause in the decision about T-man's probation, which says "a note must also be placed on AN/I", but I suppose that's about the probation rather than his six-month ban, which was put aside while the mentorship was tried. I didn't mean to be telling you how to do your job! :) —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 07:39, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I feel kinda iffy about putting up all those redirects for deletion (see Special:Contributions/10171990snow for the redirects) from Ericsaindon2's attempted renaming of that arbcom case. Moving the case pages would probably result in rapid reverts, so he just keeps editing the template to change the parameter to "Ericsaindon2/Coolcaesar" so it points to redirects. If the redirects go, its harder. Could you consider just deleting those redirects (they're sort of implausable typos for anyone but eric himself), else would you mind if I threw them up on RfD? Kevin_b_er 01:13, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

While I (obviously) agree with you that there's enough troublesome behavior to warrant ArbCom action, a quick look at the ArbCom page tells me that you folks are already up to your eyeballs in work, so practically it may not be a good idea -- especially if, as seems likely to me, MSTCrow is on his way down the slippery slope to a community ban. Under the theory of "give 'em enough rope and they'll hang themselves", it won't take much more edit-warring, insults, pointless wikilawyering -- note his defense of Lingeron (talk · contribs) -- and occasional outright lies for him to alienate a critical mass of editors/admins, which would render ArbCom action moot.

Besides, if he's true to form, any ArbCom case involving him would be wikilawyered up the wazoo, all intended to prove that it's everyone else's fault. His blocks certainly haven't taught him a damned thing (I've been blocked twice, not five times, and both times the blocks were vindictive and not based on fact..., as he claimed on his talk page) and I kind of doubt ArbCom sanctions would do more than provide him a martyrdom issue, either.

We'll see, I guess. So far, no other ArbCom members have weighed in, and depending on how they feel, this may be moot. Note: Copied to Bishonen. --Calton | Talk 07:46, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

		The Editor's Barnstar
		I award Dmcdevit this barnstar for his efforts in clearing the Common duplicates from Wikipedia.Blnguyen | rant-line 02:01, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Dmc, Thanks for participating in my RFA! Ultimately, no consensus was reached, but I still appreciate the fact that you showed up to add in your two cents. I thought about what you wrote. I've reached the conclusion that it is best to support a user in a time of crisis, but to not defend it if there is nothing to defend. You can feel free to talk to me about it or add some advice on my improvement page. Sincerely, The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me)

Hello : - ) Sorry about questioning your wording. I'm annoyed at other users comments about English literacy. I was trying to make the point that our most experienced and trusted users do not always make the meaning of their comments perfectly clear. Take care, FloNight ^talk 17:04, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have been waiting patiently for some response by the committee regarding this arbitration case Kehrli. I do not mean to solicit but it seems necessary or even helpful to bring this to the attention of the committee members directly.

Thank you--Nick Y. 18:08, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Arb request extensively updated, including input by another editor and recent threats and administrator impersonation.--Nick Y. 18:58, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

so what irritates me more are the garbled and grammarless netspeakers like, for example, Deon555, above

Retreived from WP:RfA#Ambuj.Saxena
Excuse me? --Deon555|talk|e 08:34, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. In view of your recent remarks in a RfA, I thought that this WikiProject could interest you. Cheers, Redux 17:31, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Crossposted from Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Iloveminun/Proposed decision

Not to users: I don't know if this is the right place to state this, but I justthink its important you know this : I've stopped doing thesr things (about 1-2 weeks ago) and am making good edits, please ask a couple of other editors, particulary the ones who commented on my talk pahge (including the archives) and the Pokémon Collaborative Project. I am about to apologize to HighwayCello, im being truthful about this, so please read my contributions, cheers —Minun ^{Spiderman • Review Me} 18:43, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I apologized [1] —Minun ^{Spiderman • Review Me} 19:01, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I think the best thing you can do is come back after your ban is over and try to work cooperatively with others next time. Dmcdevit·t 06:58, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But a year is too long, i'd easily go on parole and probation, but a year is too long for someone who has stopped doing these things, perhaps we should discuss the matter. I also got a barnstar for growing into a posirtive way, so please see my talk page, chers —Minun ^{Spiderman • Review Me} 10:19, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

I'm pretty sure that 85.100.72.198 (talk · contribs) and 85.97.104.189 (talk · contribs) is TuzsuzDeliBekir. First off, the IPs are located in Adana, his hometown and where he currently goes to university. Secondly, you'll notice that 85.100.72.198 only has 3 edits but somehow doesn't think too highly of me (and before I reverted him on the Malatya and Trabzon articles, too). Should those two articles be semi-protected? I recall that TuzsuzDeliBekir used to log out after he was blocked as he had a dynamic IP, which makes me even more sure that it's him. —Khoikhoi 07:19, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dmcdevit, there is some uncertainly in the H.E. ArbCom case as to which diffs you'd referred in recommending I'd be sanctioned, as you'd only cited "evidence". I disagree with your proposed finding, but have little hope of speaking to all the diffs put forth in "evidence" in the requisite time. On talk, it's centered on Muhammad, but for my part I'm not certain from your statement that this is the subject to which you'd referred. It'd help me address your concerns if you could be more specific.Timothy Usher 08:33, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I'm not ignoring you, I just got caught up today. I'll make sure to put specific diffs into the finding tomorrow. Dmcdevit·t 07:26, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Also, I've been apprised that Tony Sidaway is on break. Can I ask if you'd received the e-mail I'd sent him?Timothy Usher 07:31, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your post. I'll take a look.Timothy Usher 07:03, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, yes, your first email has gone through to all the arbitrators via the mailing list. Dmcdevit·t 07:08, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads up. I've created this subpage of my user talk page for your, and other editors', review. Comments are appreciated.Timothy Usher 09:01, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder sometimes why I bother. --Woohookitty^(meow) 12:15, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I know. It's just frustrating. I must say though, I am grateful that Penny slipped up. :) I had no inkling it was her until that last post on the Halle Berry talk page. The part where she mentioned that there is no source because Berry never said it was the dead giveaway. But yeah. Me leave? Nah. I think the most I've gone without an edit in my 20 months here is about 2 days. Just gets frustrating after awhile. And they never just take their block nicely. Ever. --Woohookitty^(meow) 04:11, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Joshua Z just reverted a post she made to this very page. God I love trolls. --Woohookitty^(meow) 04:04, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the help. Looks like she has stopped for now. --Woohookitty^(meow) 05:53, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Your response here will be appreciated. Thanks. - CrazyRussian talk/email 16:30, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Be still my heart. lol --Woohookitty^(meow) 20:34, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gibraltarian's been getting worse lately, yes. Take a look at Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration, too. The only solution I can think of right now is dealing with the ISP or waiting it out... Dmcdevit·t 20:50, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Dmcdevit, I wonder what made you vote against me on this issue? I still think that I am defending the official notation and that Nick is defending a minority POV. Could you give me some hint where, you think, I am wrong in this issue? --Kehrli 11:45, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, I only looked in Category:Fair use images this time. I'll talk to you later if I catch you online about the bot. Cheers, Tangotango 04:53, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dmcdevit, Just thought you may haven't seen Timothy's defence here[2]. --Aminz 07:35, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I brought this up with Fred as well. Just making sure I get the ear of a couple of arbcom members. :) I am wondering if you and the arbcom can clarify something on the proposed decisions page. Do these sanctions cover just the His excellency account or do they cover the His excellency account and the previous account that the user edited under? Otherwise, I'm afraid of H.E. simply switching accounts. What's on the page now is not clear. --Woohookitty^(meow) 19:52, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I have been thinking about your (second) offer to nominate me for admin status. I accept. I suppose it is time, and I do want to be of more help to Wikipedia. However, this is probably my busiest time of year. In addition to work, and teaching, I will be away from home on family business/activities for almost all of September. So, can we target the nomination for the 2nd week in October, or so? And I would appreciate any advice you might have? Thanks for your interest. WBardwin 00:57, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine by me. I won't have reliable internet access for a few more days until I'm all moved in, so I'll talk to you more then. :-) Dmcdevit·t 19:01, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I come here not to tell you that your statement in response is a load of hogwash (although it is) but that you ought to have recused. David | Talk 13:16, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well that's a new tactic. And why is that? Dmcdevit·t 18:59, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I take exception to your mischaracterization as to my purported involvement and conduct, and am seeking for you to provide actual evidence to that effect so that others be able to verify your claims; that is, beyond the realm of speculation & superficial appearences. I fear you might be inadvertantly absuing your role as arbitrator, so perhaps a more substantive explanation on your part is due. El_C 13:02, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Um. Huh? How does "I am not sure you are [uninvolved]" purport anything? You demand I provide evidence of my uncertainty? Sorry, but that was a good suggestion: enforcement should only be done by uninvolved admins, and I'm not sure if you are (and your attitude doesn't particularly motivate me to look more closely). How about you tone down the misplaced hostility. Dmcdevit·t 19:12, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It would be useful for you to actually review the material you are commenting on; if you question my involvement, please offer something substantive, or it comes accross as misplaced hostility and disrespect for my tired efforts in dealing with this abusive user. El_C 20:12, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure whether you are involved or not. That is a basic declarative sentence which does not question anything. I was just giving you a straightforward answer to the question posed. Your accusations and assumptions of my meaning, frankly, don't make any sense. Dmcdevit·t 02:47, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tis unfortunate you did not find it fit to find out; I suppose declerative speculations are easier as they do not involve any effort. El_C 05:01, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am speaking plainly. There is no speculation involved, as I made clear; you are just playing with words because for some reason you have animosity towards either me or the Arbitration Committee as a whole or both. It isn't welcome. The courtesy of answering your question as posed, even if I didn't perform any further research, was clearly wasted. Dmcdevit·t 21:50, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Plainly or otherwise, you are continuing to speculate and it is not welcomed. While I appreciate you answering the question, I take exception to the speculations and the innuendo. I think I deserve more support than that from you. El_C 06:46, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't matter how much you want it to be, I haven't. I'm done with this useless discussion. (In case you didn't notice, I gave you good advice on how to deal with Zeq, namely, to put the issue to ANI if a ban doesn't fit into arbcom's ruling.) Dmcdevit·t 07:05, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've asked another arbitrator to discuss the matter with you, and I'll refractor the comment you removed (discourtesy, I find) on his talk page. Feel free to remove this one. I will not attempt to speak to you again. El_C 08:29, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there,

I'm sending this message out to the 6 active admin with CheckUser priveleges. Just wanted to let you all know that there is a lengthy backlog on the CheckUser page and it has not been checked since August 21, 2006. According to the CheckUser site, it says that user records expire within a week or so, so it would be great if one of you could go through it sometime soon. Thanks, --Palffy 20:16, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. You deleted Image:Wikiprojectbeautypageants.JPG with the reason "listed at :Category:Images with the same name on Wikimedia Commons". However, no image with that exact name is on commons. So, there is now a redlink on {{User WikiProject Beauty Pageants}}. --Rob 22:21, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. You deleted Image:Raisinbread.gif with the reason "listed at :Category:Images with the same name on Wikimedia Commons". However, no image with that exact name is on commons. So, there is now a redlink on Metric expansion of space. -- ScienceApologist 01:03, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The tag was mistakenly copied from another NASA image that did have a copy on commons. --ScienceApologist 01:11, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Based upon your claim of the results of checkuser at ANI, I created this archive page as we've done for several usages of checkuser not through RFCU at the RFCU case archives. The record is at Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Syphonbyte with a diff on the timestamp. The 'discussion' is tagged as closed, but please feel free to fix it if anything is wrong. --Kevin_b_er 02:09, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Looks fine to me, though I'm not sure why it's necessary. I would venture to say that many, if not most, productive CheckUsers don't originate at RFCU. Dmcdevit·t 02:56, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's right, but then, people always go immediately afterward, "where was the result?" when action is taken as a result. See the AN discussion where someone immediately asks such a question. For this, truely useful results are good to keep note of. Kevin_b_er 03:44, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can you explain how and why is this deleted? It screwed up a lot of pages. --Howard the Duck 04:02, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It was marked as having been moved to Wikipedia Commons, except that it wasn't. I restored the local copy. Dragons flight 04:07, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I thought my computer was screwed up. Now I'm confused. Thanks, anyway. --Howard the Duck 04:09, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the catch. It appears to have been wrongly tagged leading to my deletion. Sorry for the confusion. Dmcdevit·t 04:32, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Dmcdevit, could you please check your email? Thanks. —Khoikhoi 17:57, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• You've got mail from me too. - Mgm|^(talk) 19:14, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wow, thanks! :) You sort of read my mind, I was thinking of bringing that up with Tony. I sure hope I don't ever have to go through an arbitration again. As for email, take your time. Thanks again for all your help. —Khoikhoi 00:20, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that you added the CSD category into the NowCommonsThis template. This is not a good idea. CSD is busy enough as it is, and having hundreds of non-urgent images added to it is simply counter-productive. Please don't do that. JesseW, the juggling janitor 19:37, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

It is odd that putting something that is a CSD into the CSD category would be a problem, but, heck, images are generally odd. ;-) As for suggestions: use an {{adminbacklog}} tag, mention it at the CP list of mantainence tasks, and make sure it's linked from the CSD cat page, even if not included there. Hope this helps... JesseW, the juggling janitor 23:45, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Pleasegoforawalk (talk · contribs · count) is requesting to be unblocked. You blocked him as a vandalism only accouny, but he doesn't appear to have any contributions. Is the account connected with another vandalism account, or is there some other reason for the block? Thanks, -- Natalya 01:41, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What's up with the block on this account? He's asking for an unblock. Your summary was "vandalism-only account" but he doesn't have any contribs, is he a puppet? Herostratus 04:00, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I came across the account blocking a bunch of socks uncovered with CheckUser. This one, however, having acted sufficiently different from the rest in requesting unblocking, that I have unblocked on an assumption of good faith. Thanks for asking me. Dmcdevit·t 05:52, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

His Excellency... has continued his racist attacks, now he has forced Pecher a longtime editor to leave completely, are you going to do something or should i start using the same tactics to force His Excellency... and like off wikipedia. He's posting his hate via the Amibidhrohi sock puppet at the moment, again do something.Hypnosadist 11:16, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Congrats another user has left because of H.E. keep up the good work! Its User:Timothy Usher if you are interested!Hypnosadist 12:26, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe a temporary injunction would be nice indeed. -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 12:44, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, the case should close soon, with His excelency's banning. It will only take one more arbitrator to reach quorum. Dmcdevit·t 02:54, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Dmcdevit, I noticed you clearing out CSD I4s last night when I was doing the same, and wanted to greet you and express some gratitude for doing this. I also wanted to ask how you get the link in the deletion summary, if you could provide script to help me that would be great. Also if you can point out any tasks like this that I could participate in, I would appreciate that too. Thanks, DVD+ R/W 22:46, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again Dmcdevit. CAT:NCT is a little difficult for me to clear upon thoroughly reading CSD I9, and cross-referencing it with the files. I wanted to ask you for a second opinion. I9 requires that "the complete upload history with links to the uploader's local user pages" is present on the commons file, before deleting and in most cases it isn't. Does that mean they need to be re-uploaded to the commons? In other terms, according to [3] item 4, a history of revisions is necessary per GFDL, basically the same thing required by I9. I am not really sure how to procede, I'd like to clear the category out, but am not really sure. Hopefully you have some advice that can simplify this. Maybe I should focus on PUI or IFD for tonight. DVD+ R/W 03:28, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I get it now, I wasn't finding the history information on the commons pages (I haven't spent much time there), but I found them now. I was just trying to be sure that the image creators were being credited and linked, and they are. Thanks, I'll clear it out now. DVD+ R/W 02:10, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How are the things you mailed me about going; any progress? - Mgm|^(talk) 07:53, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

STILL there has been not one attempt to justify my initial ban, nor any ewxplanation as to why a person can be banned for calling a racist a racist, but the racist himself goes unpunished. My initial ban cannot be justified by any stretch of the imagination, and no-one has been able to even attempt doing so. I expect, and demand that it be reverted IMMEDIATELY!

I do wonder what universe he exists in. --Woohookitty^(meow) 01:29, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, I compiled a new RfC on the use of administrator privileges entitled Discretion blocks by Admins. As the issue involves one of your blocks, I am informing you about it and, if you feel like responding, invite you to do that.

I'd like to reiterate that, as I wrote in the RfC, I have no personal grudge to you for blocking me and I have no doubt that your act did not involve any foul play on your part. Nevertheless, I respectfully disagree with a particular action of yours, and, most importantly, I think the issue of admin's discretion block needs to be urgently addressed as we need to find a middle ground between admin's being too indecisive that may lead to Wikipedia becoming a trollfest (something that was happening as recently as several months ago) on one side and avoiding to hurt the legitimate development of the articles, and, especially, insult editors unnecessarily through unneeded blocks imposed in haste.

My intention is solely to draw the community attention to this important issue and in no way is directed against you in person. Nor do I challenge your fitness to continue to exercise your admin discretion to help make a better Wikipedia.

Respectfully, --Irpen 22:58, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Now go wake up the arbitrators that haven't voted on some of those old cases so I actually have something I can work on. Most cases either don't have enough votes to pass the facts or motions, and one doesn't even have a motion to close while all proposed findings and remedies passed a while back. - Mgm|^(talk) 07:42, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks, I will get going as soon as I can. - Mgm|^(talk) 18:41, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking the time to move the Dragon Quest articles to their proper namespaces. If you're not busy, could I ask you to move Dragon Quest Heroes to Slime Morimori Dragon Quest as well? The article currently discusses the series as a whole, though not to any length and it would seem more suitable to discuss the first game in this sub-series in its place. Combination 19:59, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, done. Dmcdevit·t 23:18, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The lead section says 7 is a majority, the motion to close says it's 6. Where did the discreprency come from? - Mgm|^(talk) 20:04, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there are currently only 11 active arbitrators (WP:AC#Active), but probably when the case was opened there were more that have since become inactive, and so the 7 is out of date. Ideally all the cases are updated when an arbitrator becomes active or inactive, but usually that's a hassle and we just have to check again to see what the current figure is before motioning. Dmcdevit·t 20:44, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I closed "Israeli apartheid". (Quite a hassle too with informing so many involved parties). Can you please review my edits and let me know if I did it all right? - Mgm|^(talk) 21:03, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • It looks right to me. Dmcdevit·t 21:22, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oh and another stupid question. Why do you have to open a day to open a case after the 4th arbitrator accepts? Please leave a short note reminding me to come here on my talk page if you answer. - Mgm|^(talk) 21:07, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hm, I didn't even realize the procedures page said that. In general, when votes are involved (at the opening and closing of cases), it is a good idea to wait a day to allow for either someone to change a vote, or for another voter to affect the net vote. It's not terribly important when opening a case, because only 4 acceptances are needed and we are unlikely to have changes of oinion, but it makes more sense when closing, because that needs four net votes, and we wouldn't want to close too early when someone else had an objection. Dmcdevit·t 21:22, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Runcorn has asked me to review the edit history, of Grigori Perelman where you blocked him, and I think you've misread it. He was not a previously involved editor, but on RCP, when he noticed the deletion of properly referenced material because of an unsourced POV that it didn't count. I agree with him that this deletion is vandalism, which of course does not count for 3RR. He did make a mistake of not making the basis of his actions clear, and hence presumably you thinking he was abusing admin powers to gain advantage in an edit war. He was just upholding policy. I have changed back the article to the referenced version and left a note on the talk page that deletion of the same is vandalism. I don't know if you realise that Runcorn has only just been sysopped, so we can tolerate some teething troubles (and BITE also applies to newbie admins). In the light of this, I hope you can see your way to unblocking him and maybe giving some good advice on what went wrong. Thanks. Tyrenius 21:02, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agreeing partially with Tyrenius here. While the edits could not be reasonably called vandalism, Runcorn's behavior was somewhat understandable due to 1) the editor Runcorn was dealing with was using offensive edit summaries in clear violation of policy and was engaging in repeated personal attacks. This makes Runcorn's assumption of bad faith much more understandable 2) Runcorn was uninvolved with the page until the editor in question's edit summaries brought his attention to the page (as far as I can tell). 3) Runcorn is a new admin and it is therefore understandable that he may make some mistakes in regard to protections and such. Therefore your call for desysoping seems unnecessarily extreme. JoshuaZ

I think what he did was inappropriate. I realize it could have been, and probably was, a mistake and made in good faith. To clarify, though: I only gave the strong warning that the action of protecting to a preferred version in an edit war is "desysop-worthy", I did not in fact call for any desysopping, and I don't really intend to do anything more. However, especially for a new admin, I want to make it clear how unacceptable this is. (By the way, I think your assessment misses the fact that many of his reverts were against Pjacobi, a good-faith editor who, as far as I can tell, wasn't involved in any attacks.) Dmcdevit·t 22:14, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Runcorn's only interest was in upholding policy, as is clear from this conversation. He is not concerned with the content, only that the editing conforms to policy, which it did not, since properly referenced material was deleted because it did not meet the editor's point of view as to what the proper definition was. We do not go by editors' POV of what is so; we go by secondary sources' statements of what is so. For an editor to continue, despite being warned of breaking policy, then becomes bad faith editing. Runcorn was acting in an administrative capacity, not in an editorial one. The fact that one of the editors is an admin does not give him a special exemption. He should know better, and is the one whose actions need to be scrutinised. The fact that Runcorn tried reason and discussion is to his credit, not a cause for censure. Tyrenius 22:09, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that. Runcorn was acting in good faith, but edit warring nonetheless. Editors get blocked for edit warring for the sake of their version of NPOV or verifiability all the time. It's not because they shouldn't be upholding our policies, or that the others are allowed to, but that edit warring is an inappropriate way of doing so. Saying he was "upholding policy" is not making a useful distinction, and does not necessarily make it a non-content decision; it was edit warring nonetheless. We should use dispute resolution when editors disagree as to the interpretation of NPOV and verifiability. Dmcdevit·t 22:24, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You have not addressed the point that properly referenced material was repeatedly deleted, because of a POV (which was not backed by any reliable secondary source), despite warning. Runcorn was not making an edit decision. He was enforcing a point of policy. Had the content been exactly the opposite, he would have done the same action, because for him the content was not an issue. The violation of policy was.Tyrenius 22:32, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I disagree with your interpretation. In the case where a reference's properness is the dispute at hand, calling something "properly referenced material" is a content decision. Frankly, your definition of enforcing policy would immune most edit warriors from blocking. Dmcdevit·t 22:36, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, please, Tyrenius. It doesn't make a difference if one person is "right" in an edit war, it's still an edit war, and they still should have gone to the talk page and tried to discuss their disagreement over the content (you might even call it a... "content dispute" ! Look at that!). Yes, there are other issues here, with the sockpuppets and whatnot, who have been blocked (and rightly so), but the point is that there were other, good faith editors who felt that the issue of the subject's religion was irrelevant and/or not important enough to be mentioned in the intro, which is a perfectly reasonable position. This is not nearly as clear-cut and obvious as you make it sound.--SB | T 22:45, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please Sean too, it is not a question of whether it should be mentioned in the intro or not. That was not the debate. Nor was it a debate whether the individual's religion was irrelevant or not. It was a matter of an editor stating that their POV on something should prevail over a reputable secondary source's statement on the mattter. An edit war is between editors who dispute content, not between an admin who is pointing to violation of policy, and an editor who is not referring to any policy, but solely to their own POV.

Dmcdevit, a national newspaper of repute is considered a proper reference. If an editor doesn't like what that source says, but has nothing else to back that apart from their opinion, then they are in the wrong.

Tyrenius 22:57, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good, that's what you should tell the mediator in describing your case. You are making things seem too black-and-white, when it isn't. This edit clearly demonstrates that yours is an opinion, not a fact. He says the issue is that "the reference given neither asserts religious belief nor self-identification," meaning he isn't asserting that his opinion trumps that of a reputable source, but that he disagrees with your reading of it. That is a content decision. It requires discussion, not warring. Dmcdevit·t 23:04, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The reference was not being used to assert religious belief or self-identification. The reference was being used to describe ethnic background. It is the editor's belief that it is not valid to state ethnic background: this is a POV which has not reached consensus, but the editor insisted on it to delete the material, despite it being pointed out that it was POV and therefore in breach of policy. If a reputable secondary source sees fit to state this as the subject's background, then the non-negotiable policy of WP:VERIFY sees it as a proper statement to be included. Tyrenius 23:11, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to think admins can enforce content decisions (by edit warring, no less) because content is governed by policies like WP:NPOV and WP:V. That's not how it works. If, apparently, someone asserts that Judaism is a religion and not an ethnicity, and there is not consensus, that is not even close to making it acceptable to exceed 3RR. Non-negotiable does not mean self-evident or obvious. It is a content dispute. Dmcdevit·t 23:16, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If someone asserts something without verification, it is WP:POV and in breach of policy, especially when they delete verified material on the basis of it. The content itself is not the issue. The following of policy is. Admins are here to point out and uphold policy. Tyrenius 23:21, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Everyone is here to point out and uphold policy. Admins have no more jurisdiction in content-wise policy like NPOV than anyone else. To assert otherwise is very big misunderstanding of what adminship means and how admins are expected to act. Dmcdevit·t 23:35, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That was not the intention of what I said and is a red herring. Perhaps I should make it clearer by saying that the difference is that admins can enforce policy. You have not addressed my point:

If someone asserts something without verification, it is WP:POV and in breach of policy, especially when they delete verified material on the basis of it. The content itself is not the issue. The following of policy is.

Tyrenius 23:46, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That is exactly what I was responding to. Where is the red herring? I'm saying that you are wrong, admins cannot enforce content-related policy like NPOV, except as any other member of the community, by soliciting consensus. NPOV is not up to the admin's interpretation and enforcement. Admins are not charged with enforcement of the WP:NPOV policy, the community at large is. We do not block for or treat as vandalism POV. Dmcdevit·t 23:51, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On the basis of your argument, anybody could come up with their own unverified interpretation of anything and delete any referenced material they chose to. That is clearly not acceptable. Tyrenius 00:15, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't make any sense. I'm saying that an administrator has to use dispute resolution (and not the revert button) in these cases just like anyone else. This is what I have been saying all along. Dmcdevit·t 00:23, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Had both parties provided substantiation for their viewpoints, I would agree that this is a content dispute. When one party insists on deleting material from a verified source because of their point of view without any substantiation, and continues do so, then I consider admin action is appropriate for disruption. It's simply not acceptable behaviour. Policy was pointed out even before Runcorn intervened.[4][5] Tyrenius 00:56, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It was a content dispute. This is a discussion about it, where the other side provides substantiation, however much you may disagree with it (eg "The source doesn't say, that he is Jewish. It only says that his family is Jewish."). However, the others' conduct, namely edit warring, was not appropriate, as you say. Which is why all parties were blocked. You seem to be under the misconception that edit warring is allowed if you are "right". In fact, Runcorn should not have edit warred either. Others' misconduct does not excuse one's own. Dmcdevit·t 01:13, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Runcorn is a very considerate (too considerate maybe) individual, who got drawn into reasoning in an attempt to reach an amicable outcome. Unfortunately, this now lays him open to the charge of taking part in a content dispute. He got sidetracked here. The argument presented to him was false, as the article did not say the subject was Jewish either. The article said the subject was "of Jewish origin" which is exactly what the source says.

The context of Runcorn's intervention has to be considered. He was not previously involved in the article and only intervened with a responsible view as an admin to stop policy violations that were provoking an edit war. The bottom line here is that we are on the same side, and we want the good of the encyclopedia. We have a different emphasis of how to interpret something, but we should be able to sort it out. I agree with Runcorn's intervention, but consider he was a bit clumsy in effectin it. You disagree with him, and think his actions amounted to a content dispute. You haven't disputed that he was acting with the right motivation. As he is a new admin, I think in the circumstances that the best approach would have been discussion in the first instance. JoshuaZ has pointed out that his actions are understandable. As Runcorn has informed me he doesn't have any intention of returning to this article in the circumstances, the block is currently serving no useful purpose, and is keeping him from the area of *fD which he does know his way around. In the circumstances, I think it would be unjustified and serve no useful purpose to maintain the block for any longer. Tyrenius 01:37, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rucorn seems to be a newly minted admin, and we should consider cutting him somje slack. It takes a bit of guts to get make your first intervention as an administrator, and he may have been sidetracked. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 01:48, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is a block for 3RR, edit warring. Why is his admin status relevant? A 24 hour block is not much; it's mostly symbolic. I don't understand the rush to overturn it. Of course, I don't feel that strongly about it, and you are welcome to see if you can find another uninvolved admin willing to unblock and I won't mind, but I'm not inclined to do so. Dmcdevit·t 04:19, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Because the only reason he did these actions was in his capacity as an admin to enforce policy. He was not a previously involved editor, and made no edits apart from restoring referenced material which had been deleted on POV grounds, on one occasion at least by a sockpuppet whom you indef blocked. Tyrenius 04:31, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've spent the last little while reviewing the page and actions in question. I'm in favour of leniency, and, if there are no objections from you, Dmcdevit, I will unblock Runcorn (as I'm pretty positive his intentions were only to help), under the understanding that he will take a little bit of time off himself -- Samir धर्म 06:29, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just a small postscriptum from me: First I have to apologize for breaking 3RR and for failing to communicate my point effectively. The current version in the Perelman article ("Jewish family" instead of "Jew" and moved from intro) is fine with me, at least as lesser evil.
What makes me uneasy is the perception by some, that removal of "properly referenced material" from articles is always vandalism. I strongly disagree. An encyclopedia article is not conglomerate of press clippings, and even if the reference is correct, and even if we can assume honest reporting by the source, the sentence in question may be entirely inappropriate. A better example than the Perelman article may be Caste, where there is a tendency of newspaper reports of anti-Dalit and anti-Brahmin violence being included by the respective POV-pusher. Single incidence reports have no place in an overview article, so removing them is no vandalism for sure.
--Pjacobi 07:32, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad to hear that and I hope it doesn't happen again. I do, in fact, agree with your second point, and the accusations of vandalism in this case were deeply troubling. Dmcdevit·t 07:41, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad this situation is behind us, and have no wish to resurrect it, but I must point out that I do not consider such removal is "always" vandalism, and any remarks I made were to the best of my judgement in a very localised situation. I hope we can move on in peace. Tyrenius 20:04, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Bellbird seems to be the same problematic user under yet another user name. Could you please run a checkuser and tell the user to stick to one user name? JoshuaZ 15:55, 4 September 2006 (UTC) Note that he is claiming to not be the earlier disruptive user. JoshuaZ 16:11, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

CheckUser doesn't confirm it, so I'm leaving it alone. Unless a consensus of administrators decide to block based on behavior alone. Dmcdevit·t 15:32, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not convinced it is the same editor so I'll drop the matter then. Thanks. JoshuaZ 18:02, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A user (User:Halbared) is claiming i am a sock puppet! This is wrong! I am not a sock puppet. Halbared and i are not friends, though he refuses to admit that. I am no sockpuppet and i believe he is just trying to get me banned, though i do not know why! Is there anything you can do to make him stop accusing me of this? He is going to get me wrongfully blocked, i know it! You can check my contributions. I am not a vandal, so i can NOT be a sock puppet! I dont vandalize! Can you help me stop this? You are the only user with the ability to block users that i know! Thank you for any help, --Cookie 22:21, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your block for 3RR of user Pjacobi (talk · contribs)]. I understand from an email that Pjacobi sent me, that he made a mistake of judgement (and of basic math...) and got himself dinged for 3RR. Peter is a judicious editor, and even if often times I find myself holding an opposing POV in disputes, I would want to vouch for his previous behavior that has been nothing but impeccable. Hence, I would want to unblock him, but would like to know if that is something you would not oppose. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 00:01, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again, I was trying to make a dent in the backlog at CAT:NC and was requested to stop by another user here. My inclination is that I should continue to clear the backlog but want to do it correctly and could use your advice. Thanks, DVD+ R/W 00:42, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Then why dont u delete Sarvagnya's warnings on my page which he issued for using the word 'Kannadi' when in Central and Western Indian the Kannada speakers are known as Kannadis.(see Kannada and watch for Marathi wikitag there).

I would urge to DELETE his warning on my page too. mahawiki 19:21, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have already replied to it. Everyking 23:50, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I believe your best bet is Amtrak. A round-trip fare between Seattle and Portland costs only 60 something dollars, and I'm sure you'll enjoy the ride to some extent. For schedules, fares, and reservations, you may go to www.amtrak.com. Scobell302 03:13, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hope you can make it. DVD+ R/W 02:51, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is a general discussion now in the village pump. Care to join it? Bellbird 10:26, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

		The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
		For being the best Wikipedian there is. For always looking out for the project above everything else. For always being available for help. Just for being terrific and for being terrific for a long long time. Woohookitty(meow) 06:00, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for reverting my userpage. I can't seem to leave the computer for long- I had it protected yesterday because it was so bad, I'm a magnet for this kind of abuse. Thanks again. DVD+ R/W 02:22, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Use your oversight powers to delete my user page history? Everthing up to the most recent edit? Magic Window 14:35, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Since, despite your previous block having just expired, you continue to engage in edit warring in the same article, Hagarism: The Making of the Islamic World, and elswhere, The Jews of Islam, I have reblocked you for another 48 hours. When you return from the block, please work constructively towards consensus, and use dispute resolution when necessary, noe edit warring. Dmcdevit·t 02:50, 6 September 2006 (UTC)"

The block has now expired but as I look at the history of the articles you cite at the time you blocked me ,I do see no valid evidence of your edit warring claim so I would be interested to know exactly how you came to decide to block me? --CltFn 11:25, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Allegations of sock puppetry have been made against some of the accounts that have edited the Center for Science in the Public Interest page. I have instigated the wiki process for handling such allegations. See Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/David Justin. As someone who has contributed to the CSPI page, please add your views to the Comments section. You have up to 10 days to make comments on the allegation. Nunquam Dormio 19:16, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The proposal from which you've dissented reads that "[a] single administrator, whether involved in editing of the article or not, may ban a user under a Probation remedy imposed by the Arbitration Committee, unless more than one is required by the terms of the remedy. The sole recourse for overturning such a ban is a successful request for arbitration alleging abuse of discretion by the administrator. Objections may be made to the banning administrator, but no other administrator may overturn the ban." In additions to the reasons you expressed, this suggests that the user would need to start a whole new arbitration case, which is contrary to the recent dialog on RfAr - requests for clarification. Newyorkbrad 21:08, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]