Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 13:31, 20 June 2007

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

RJASE1 -- RFCU

Thanks for doing this CU. I'm actually rather glad that they aren't related to RJASE1. For future reference, was it worth filing the request, seeing that you had just completed the checkuser that showed that TortureIsWrong != TortureIsBad = RJASE1? I filed the request to see if there were other socks. Would you have already found that out when you did the first CU? If it was a waste of time, then I want to make sure I don't file that type of RFCU in the future. Cheers, Flyguy649_contribs 14:50, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Checkuser/RPJ case

I am not sure what you mean when you say "unless you have something for me to to compare against". What would you need? Ramsquire 16:22, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

It means I need a recent confirmed account, or any previously confirmed IP. Dmcdevit·t 19:59, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

My turn to add on

Please take some action before it once again escalates . I btw did not actually revert Hillock, but removed clear trolling by User:Ukrained. --Kuban Cossack 17:45, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Who are you kidding? This all within hours from gettin out of a block on multiple articles:. And the Admin Notice Board yet again: . Can he stay a single day without reverts?--Hillock65 18:42, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Also this . --Kuban Cossack 22:15, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Kuban, I just asked you to contain your incivility when you were blocked for edit warring a few days ago, and here you come to show me a link of you calling someone a troll as you revert them? Comment on content, not on the contributor. As for Russians in Ukraine, dispute resolution is that way. If either of you continue the reverting without before you've started mediation, don't be surprised if you are blocked immediately. Dmcdevit·t 00:19, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Calbrina36

Noticed this puppy was trolling on RFA's--is this a sock of someone I should know about? I wanna be able to keep an eye out ... the person had the distinctive odor of being from somebody's sock drawer. --Blueboy96 20:45, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

It was no persona I recognized, it was just part of a bunch of run-of-the-mill userpage vandals and troll accounts on an IP. Dmcdevit·t 21:54, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

User:Corticopia

Hi, I noticed you recently blocked Corticopia. I appreciate your input on the thread at The Noticeboard. I was wondering why you said he should be blocked if his actions continue, but didn't mention what you feel should be done now. I appreciate it if you clarified this point at the the Thread

Thanks,

BH (T|C) 03:48, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I think it's a misunderstanding. Maybe "It is time for a longer block if it has continued." would have been better: I didn't mean if there is more after now, I mean if there has been more misbehavior after the previous block there should be something done. If I hadn't already blocked him before I might have done so when I saw the thread, but I think it's a good idea to make sure the same administrators doesn't block someone many times, if possible, so it doesn't become appear as a personal issue to the person being blocked, which would make it even less likely that they'd get the message. Dmcdevit·t 03:53, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Okay thanks for clarifying that. BH (T|C) (Go Red Sox!) 04:18, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Noticed that you blocked him, thanks. BH (T|C) (Go Red Sox!) 13:33, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Revert wars

Hello, and thanks for your concern over the article. You are indeed correct; when I stepped back and took a look at it, I realize that I have fallen into a "revert war". I never really imagined i'd be one to get caught in it, but I guess the joke is on me. Thank you for your suggestions as well and I will make sure to try those out next, as editing back and forth won't solve anything. Feel welcome to keep watch as a possible mediator too, your input is more than welcome! MezzoMezzo 06:20, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Hat tip the second

Dmcdevit, I tip my hat to you once again for uncovering this ongoing abuse., .Proabivouac 06:56, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I have a feeling he's not planning on leaving it at that though... Dmcdevit·t 07:53, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Heh.Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration#Appeal of His excellency. Proabivouac 17:25, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Category:Libertarian socialist Wikipedians

In response to your deletion rationale:

'Divisive POV-advocacy user categorizations: please refer to WP:SOAP, WP:NOT#WEBSPACE, and especially WP:ENC; this promotes no encyclopedic purpose.'

I would submit to you that:

1. It is not divisive; it a statement of placement in the political spectrum, and while there may be those who would seek out categories like this to catch targets for flaming (I myself have not seen such, but I imagine it happens on occasion), I find it impossible that it would deliberately offend anyone.
2. It is not a statement from a soapbox; in no way, shape or form does the category 'preach' to anyone; again, it is a statement, and simply that.
3. It is not an expression simply for its own sake, which your citation of WP:NOT#WEBSPACE seems to suggest. It, like Category:Furry Wikipedians, also allows a venue of collaboration on topics of concern to libertarian socialists.
4. It is of service to the encyclopædia, as much as WikiProjects are; there is not enough demand to make a WikiProject for this particular group quite yet, as the number of the category's inhabitants shows.

With these four points in mind, I would then submit to you a request that you undelete the category. Blast 13.06.07 1020 (UTC)

Saying "It is not divisive; it a statement of placement in the political spectrum" and "It is not a statement from a soapbox... it is a statement, and simply that" is setting up a couple of false dichotomies. A "statement" can still be a divisive and advocacy. These categories exist for the sole purpose of grouping users according to their personal points of view, and that does nothing for the encyclopedia. You say that it is a venue for collaboration, but I would seriously question that claim unless you have any examples of such use. I have a political ideology, and other points of view as well, but that does not mean I edit in those articles. Indeed, in your last 1000 edits (an astounding amount of which are userbox-related) I don't see any edits to articles related to this topic. In fact, it looks like you are simply broadcasting your point of view, which is soapboxing. Dmcdevit·t 20:14, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I think all the political categories should be reinstated. Apparently, they were removed out of process, and process should be paramount in the Misplaced Pages. Further, I agree with the arguments that Blast advances. I also will declare that removal of these categories is far more divisive than the categories themselves could ever dream of being (and divisiveness was never their purpose anyway). Stevie is the man! 16:59, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to jump in here in support of Blast and Stevie. I notice that Category:Masculist Wikipedians has just been deleted with the comment: "Divisive POV-advocacy user categorizations". Dmcdevit, if you really believe that, then please have the courage of your convictions. This category should be deleted only if you also dare to delete Category:Feminist Wikipedians. If that isn't done, I will look at re-creating the Masculist category. Gnostrat 00:01, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Of course, you're absolutely correct that Category:Feminist Wikipedians should go, but see WP:POINT.Proabivouac 00:20, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I really believe that. I would have loved to have deleted that category that you so wisely pointed out, Gnostrat, but it looks like someone got there before me. Anyway, thanks for your support. Dmcdevit·t 01:42, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Again, as I stated above in a previous discussion, I do not edit much in the mainspace these days; yet that is not the point, since I am not the only 'member' of that category. If you do not edit in the articles which you are affiliated—very well. However, if someone were to come to me and ask 'can you find references for the rise of libertarian socialism in country such-and-such?', then I should be glad to gather references, or refer the person to someone else who can. Further, what I meant was that the statement did not go beyond what it said; if the category was named 'Wikipedians who support libertarian socialism' or 'Wikipedians who think libertarian socialism is the best form of government ever conceived, period', then you would have a point. As it stands (or rather stood), however, it was nothing of the sort. Blast 14.06.07 2111 (UTC)

Actually, Dmcdevit, reading that gloat over yet another category deletion, I'm finding that assumption of good faith is a position you are making rather difficult for me to sustain. At a glance through the political Wikipedians category you can see that it's abnormally bare compared to philosophy or religion, which can be no less "divisive". By definition, dividing is what categories do, so how far does a point of principle stretch? As for WP:POINT, the phrase I used was "look at"; I don't recall talking about anything disruptive. The current deletions are what I would call disruptive, since if the point of having categories is to promote coordination between people of similar interests, then impeding that communication could prove harmful to the encyclopedia.

But let me try to be constructive. If the problem is perceived advocacy, we could exclude any possibility for misinterpretation by simply creating new categories for "Wikipedians interested in libertarian socialism/feminism/masculism/whatever", which would not require the people in those categories to actually be libertarian socialists and so forth (i.e. the present 'identity' templates would place editors into 'interest' categories). I don't know if anybody has talked about this but it looks doable to me and I would think it might be a compromise that both sides could find acceptable. As for your current deletions policy, the success of that will be determined by how well the relevant articles fare, as measured by editor feedback no doubt. Gnostrat 02:06, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi Dmcdevit,. I have no axe to grind either way about these categories: probably, on balance, I'd prefer their deletion, but it's not a big deal for me either way. I am posting here only because my attention was drawn to these deletions by another editor who posted to my talk page.

However, I can see no speedy deletion criteria to justify the deletion on sight of the long list of categories at your deletion log, on the grounds that they are "Divisive POV-advocacy user categorizations". You may well be right in that assessment, but why not just put these categories up for discussion at WP:UFCD? I am minded to restore them, but would first like to hear your reasons for speedy-deleting them rather than nominating them at WP:UCFD. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:04, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

• What BHG said, though I have a preference for some of the categories staying. This kind of behavior completely ignores the consensus model of the Categories for Discussion. As I see it, you have a couple of choices: Go to ARBCOM, and see if you can get the entire system of CfD overturned; or participate in the system by actually nominating categories you want to see deleted. But taking the mantle on yourself can't possibly have good results, as at minimum people like me will work to revert your edits, and at maximum people like me will work to make sure you don't have the ability to do it. I'd like to avoid that.--Mike Selinker 14:28, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

DRV of Brandt

I understand your dismay. I did attempt to talk to AMIB as did a few other people on the talk page of the AfD. He remained adamant and it seemed clear that no productive discussion was forthcoming. I do agree that it might have been a better idea to wait longer. JoshuaZ 02:52, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Hello

Regarding your comment on the Arbcom enforcement noticeboard. The only way to solve this issue is if Atabek and I, just the two of us with no outside interference, go into an arbcom, where we post our evidence and let the neutral third party admins decide. I will remind you that Atabek was initially going to be blocked for 1 year for this kind of behavior, but wasnt due to a split vote. I'm not here to say anything more than just that I am planning to make a request for arbcom between Atabek. We've tried RFC, I've tried making a peace proposal with him, we've tried mediation, nothing worked, the last step is arbcom. Thanks.Hajji Piruz 14:41, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Please do not delete a category without depopulation

Dmcdevit, when you attempt to delete a category, please inform the residents in the category to remove them from the pages first and depopulate the category. Deleting category speedily without depopulation leaves a whole bunch of unnecessary red links. Thank you! Wooyi 21:34, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

As I noted above, a bot is on the job and will get to it eventually. Special:Contributions/AMbot is taking care of it. Dmcdevit·t 06:02, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Some userboxes

Dmcdevit, User:Itaqallah brought these userboxes to my attention:User:Willy_turner/Userboxes/christian_homophobia,User:Willy_turner/Userboxes/Islamic_misogeny What is your opinion of them?Proabivouac 04:44, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

If they were in the template namespace, they'd be speedied. Instead, if someone puts it in the user namespace and transcludes it to pages in a way that is functionally identical to templates, we treat it as if it is somehow different and exempt from deletion. It's completely illogical to me, but, frankly, I have enough on my plate as it is. :-) Dmcdevit·t 08:20, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Classical Liberal Wikipedians

Hi - Did you delete this category? If so, why? "Classical Liberal" is a widely accepted phrase describing a school of thought. KConWiki 12:54, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't dispute that at all. The problem is that Misplaced Pages is not the place to promote your personal opinion, and, indeed, categorizing users based on point of view is a bad idea for an encyclopedia seeking cooperation and the neutral point of view. Please feel free to describe yourself as a "Classical Liberal" on your user page (though as a matter of taste I wouldn't) but the category is unnecessary. Thanks. Dmcdevit·t 01:53, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. I think it is a good check against biases (intended or unintended) because the more I identify my opinions in a context clearly distinct from any Wiki articles, the more readily my edits and contributions to those aricles can be checked and balanced by those with different opinions. KConWiki 19:05, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

I concur with KConWiki's above comment. SteinAlive 09:01, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Category:Liberal Wikipedians

Rather disturbed at the deletion of this page, not least as it was nominated for deletion in March, the result being a VERY strong KEEP. Could you say now why it has been deleted without further discussion. Thanks Galloglass 13:10, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Open proxy block for 161.200.255.162

Hi. I see that you blocked 161.200.255.162 (talk, contribs, block log) on 15 May for being an open proxy. Apparently, the proxy is used by Chulalongkorn University and all traffic from the University's networks seem to go through it. I already put an unblock request at WP:OP, but thought you might be able to tell me what if the network configurations need to be fixed, so that I may notify those responsible. - Paul_012 15:55, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Request

Hello. I have not posted on this page since last Christmas, but I do remember and appreciate how effectively you contributed to reducing revert-warring on a number of Eastern European topics. Now it seems we have a new hot spot, Estonia. There is a number of editors, apparently all based at the Tartu University, making disturbing edits in contradiction to a bunch of guidelines. Stray picks mostly taken from the first day when I took a look there (note edit summaries): ... Mind-boggling revert warring is accompanied by baiting, accusations of "bad faith" and "patent lies", and a healthy dose of good old trolling in the vein of Bonaparte. User:Petri Krohn, a Finn who can't be accused of being pro-Russian, seems to be the only non-Estonian editor interested in monitoring these subjects on a regular basis and he has to face an avalanche of complaints from the Tartu guys on ANI and elsewhere (see Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion/User:Digwuren/Petri Krohn's Story of Estonians for some context). He asked me for advice, but I really can't figure out what may be done to counter tendentious editing by a team of determined users from the same establishment. When you have some spare time, please take a look at what's going on with Estonian articles. Thanks in advance, Ghirla 17:21, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

The situation is getting more exacerbated each day, as the newest thread on my talk page testifies. I am told that the page has already been the subject of an arbitration, but I'm not sure what it was all about. What a pity that I can't contribute to the project as much as I used to. Furthermore, I'm trying to keep myself away from nationalist disputes and revert-warring. I believe the interested parties should apply to requests for law enforcement or whatever they call it. --Ghirla 17:30, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I simply don't have time for this any more. It looks like that article has a probation on it, and anyone being disruptive can be banned from editing it or related articles. Perhaps you should try reporting it at WP:AE. Sorry. Dmcdevit·t 07:07, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Listen up, you might learn something...

I've dealed before with the likes of you, who go around believing that they have the authority to delete everything based on their high-and-mighty principles of "NPOV" and other assorted crap. Know that the Wikipedian categories you deleted had already survived the deletion attempts of others before you, and they will not end with you. Don't give me your "divisive" garbage, we're not one big, happy, family of hippies. If you can't handle the fact that Wikipedians have varying political opinions, do us all a favour and stay put. I will soon be recreating the Wikipedian categories you deleted, and if you return to your shameful deletionsit ways, I have higher authorities that I can report to. And a good day to you as well. --Voievod 03:21, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid intentionally recreating previously deleted material might lead to a block. I suggest you use WP:DRV instead. Which one is it you dispute in particular? Dmcdevit·t 07:33, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

You have unabashedly deleted "Wikipedians who support Romanian-Moldovan reunification" and "Euroskeptic Wikipedians"; I have read that you have also deleted "Classical Liberals". Nice, shows the kind of person you are. --Voievod 22:16, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry

Please, take a look and here . The extent of IP sockpuppeting by User:Tajik in the second case, is just incredible. Thanks. Atabek 16:38, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

User Sosomk

Dmcdevit, you might remember this user from Georgia (country). After returning from the block Sosomk maintains the same attitude, revert warring and incivility. My was declined. I asked for it to be reconsidered. Tamokk 01:33, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, that was several days ago now. If he continues, well deal with it then. Dmcdevit·t 07:18, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Now he seems to be careful about 3RR. But this does not makes his edits without merit less disruptive. e.g. Recently he changed the etymology section of the article, promoting something what a medieval theologian has stated to a fact status, and downgrading scientifically referenced material to an alternative. I can not havoc over the article 24/7 like him. Tamokk 08:49, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Azeri socks

Hi, Dmcdevit.

I have blocked a bunch of obvious socks: Otvetniyudar (talk · contribs), HachikTumanyan (talk · contribs), Zhirtibay (talk · contribs), Aramgutan (talk · contribs), AlexParKinson (talk · contribs). They are obvious socks of an experienced Azeri user, but I do not know who. Some of the articles' histories shows similar sock blocked "as sockpuppets ot User:Atabek, but I am not sure that it is him). In the event the master is identifiable he should probably be blocked. Can you do checkuser to identify the master? Alex Bakharev 03:27, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Alex Bakharev, can you please, provide diffs for your claim about "Some of the articles' histories shows similar sock blocked "as sockpuppets ot User:Atabek". Also, I would like to draw attentions to this diff as well as accusation made earlier , with an apology provided afterwards . Thanks. Atabek 07:21, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I meant Zipirtich (talk · contribs) blocked by Golbez as very likely a sockpuppet of atabek; firing first, caring later: it did the same edits. Please note that unlike Golbez I have not attributed the sock yet Alex Bakharev 13:26, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, have not looked into your diffs. Then I am sorry, for mentioning your name; still I think this a sock of one of the experienced Azeri users, most probably named in the Armenia-Azerbaijan Arbcom Alex Bakharev 13:31, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Also, while making title "Azeri socks", you should check the same report , which has an obvious sock User:TheTruth4578, which as its history shows, was created solely to make rv's on that page. I understand that this does not fall to "Azeri socks" category, but nevertheless, it's still a sock. Atabek 07:35, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I have blocked him. Thanks for the report Alex Bakharev 13:26, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Incivility

Could you please take a look at 71.235.81.32. I warned him against making offensive remarks such as this one 1. He just responded with this on his talk page 2, and left this comment on the talk page for New England 3. Is there a way you could block a range of IP addresses since he mentioned on his talk page (diff 2) that he can create IP addresses as he pleases? I'd take this too WP:ANI, but there kind of slow when it comes to responding to my threads. Thanks, Black Harry (T|C) (Go Red Sox!) 04:19, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

He just left this on my talk page 4 Black Harry (T|C) (Go Red Sox!) 04:24, 20 June 2007 (UTC)