Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license.
Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat.
We can research this topic together.
Given that this user got up to speed very quickly with the moves on ] and is editing from the non-Hindu side of the POV spectrum, I think that it might be the banned BhaiSaab or TerryJ-Ho, who used to be very active there. Thanks, ''']''' (]) 07:14, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
Given that this user got up to speed very quickly with the moves on ] and is editing from the non-Hindu side of the POV spectrum, I think that it might be the banned BhaiSaab or TerryJ-Ho, who used to be very active there. Thanks, ''']''' (]) 07:14, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
:{{likely}}, same geographic location and same ISP as BhaiSaab. ]·] 07:23, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
Revision as of 07:23, 11 January 2007
Note: I'm back in Arizona for the holidays. I'll still be checking my watchlist and email regularly, but expect only sporadic activity until mid-January.Dmcdevit·t09:45, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
REQUEST to Omura article Arbitrators: THAT THE VERSION CURRENTLY PROTECTED NOT REMAIN DURING THIS PROCESS
I have spoken with Dr Omura today. He is deeply upset and troubled because of how he is being misrepresented on WP (by GenghizRat and Crum375). Dr Omura told me that many of the statements made by GenghizRat about him are gross misrepresentations that have no basis in reality. He wonders how someone who can remain without identity can be allowed to make such comments about him without him being able to address them via a lawyer as necessary.Richardmalter07:09, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
Hello D. I am here because Amoruso has requested an unblock. I see you blocked for 3RR (which he didn't trip, making his 4th revert after 24 hours and four minutes) and incivility (which you don't specify). Would you specify what incivility you spoke of? Thx. - crzcrztalk23:10, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
See my response on the noticeboard: . Four minutes is immaterial for someone who has been blocked for 3RR before. Dmcdevit·t23:45, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
I did see eventually find your explanation of the alleged incivility, as I took pains to record here. If you don't like his warring or his blatant POV - then start an RFC or discuss a block for ANI - but I don't think you should be co-opting 3RR, a very specific thing, to suit those purposes. Further discussion on AN3, I think. Thanks. - crzcrztalk13:13, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
I appreciate your opinion, but I am already fully aware of how little you like me. I did nothing wrong, reponding to a bona fide unblock request and properly soliciting your input. I do not edit Israel-related articles, do not have a history with Amoruso, and there's nothing improper in my actions. Yes, he is an edit warrior, but AN3 is not the forum to punish him for it unless he breaks 3RR. Please solicit consensus for such a block in the regular fashion. This is all I stand for. - čřžčřžtalk20:38, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
I wouldn't characterize that as "fair criticism", however. You have essentially accused me of enabling edit warriors. And you do a history of disliking me. That was but one diff. - crzcrztalk21:48, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
DRVNote
User:Xiner/Userboxes/Pro-Life Pro-Abortion on deletion review
Please see Misplaced Pages:Requests for checkuser/Case/200.119.236.93. This request, which I submitted earlier today, has been declined by Essjay with the suggestion that I might present it to "the Arbitration Committee, which has more leeway in their investigating." Since the situation doesn't involve a dispute that could be arbitrated, I don't know precisely how I would go about doing that, or even whether you would consider the suggestion well-taken. Among the arbitrators I see you most often on the RfCU page, so I'd welcome your attention to or thoughts on the matter. Regards, Newyorkbrad02:46, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
Regarding your T1 deletion of User:Xiner/Userboxes/Pro-Life Pro-Abortion
I know you are not a fan of userboxes, but may I request you reconsider the speedy deletion? What makes this userbox so obnoxious that it warrants speedy deletion rather than taking it to a MfD? CharonX/talk16:11, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps you want to take a look at it? The autoblock was caused by {{checkuserblock}} on WearCleanDrawers and I am forwarding this to you following what you have stated in the block message. --WinHunter05:25, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
It's common sense. Banned users' membership in the community is officially revoked. We shouldn't count their votes just for the sake of process. Dmcdevit·t09:03, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
I'm not saying we go erase a record of their coments before being baned, but this vote hasn't been counted yet, so it should be removed before that happens. Dmcdevit·t09:10, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
Any input on this user's unblock request? I have no familiarity with the events leading to the block, so was hoping you'd be able to shed some light on matters. Thanks in advance. Luna Santin08:13, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
Before moving to close, I think it would be good for the project if you reviewed Misplaced Pages talk:Requests for arbitration/Seabhcan/Proposed decision. There is considerable dissent that the decision to desysop MONGO and Seabhcan is the right direction to go. I'm not asking you to change your votes on that RfAr, but rather to consider that this matter is under ongoing, rapid fire discussion. There's been nearly a hundred edits to that talk page in the last 48 hours alone, and that is just one fora where this is being debated among many. Respectfully submitted, --Durin20:52, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
Just a quick note to say I fully support Durin. As a totally impartial outsider in all of this, I also think that the reputation and support ArbCom enjoys within the community is in danger of being damaged by the decision to desysop the MONGO and Seabhcan. Kind Regards - Heligoland | Talk | Contribs01:20, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete old user page?
Hi, I was wondering if you could delete my old user page, User:Gbambino. I've opened up a new account for various reasons and would like to have the old one completely shut down. I'm only assuming you have the ability to do such a thing, but if you don't, I'd be appreciative if you could tell me who can. Cheers. --Gmbambino22:12, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
Please, feel free to block my 'sock' accounts as they are detected -- but only if you find my edits in some way objectionable. Today, I have made no offensive or spurious edits, and yet you continue to block me. Please, use your best judgement, instead of following dogma relentlessly!
McD: Blocked, as well as the other sock, IP hit with an anon-only/no-creation block.
Cjwright: Using socks to evade a block is a reason to block in itself; the merit of edits is irrelevant. If you disagree with this policy, you are welcome and encouraged to exercise your RightToLeave. Essjay(Talk)05:39, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
IP address block
Hello. A couple days ago, I noticed that the IP address 67.153.70.18 was blocked for the following reason: "open proxy - XO Communications web hosting service". This is a static IP address pointing to a business, over a dedicated T1 line. The network border is protected by a Juniper NetScreen firewall, and I would be very surprised if such a proxy was open.
Can you please tell me how it was decided that this IP address was running an open proxy, and unblock it if there was a mistake? Thanks! --J Morgan12:47, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Dmcdevit-- seeing that anonymous evidence is allowed, I took the liberty of presenting some and created an account for the purpose. Since the main evidence page is semiprotected, I went ahead and added it to the talk page: . Unless it is inappropriate, could you or one of the other Arbiters move it to the main evidence page for me?
p.s. I was blocked by you a moment ago, but the block seems to have been lifted. I sincerely apologize if I breached protocol in presenting the evidence in this form, that was not my intention. Rest assured, I will make no further edits in this manner. --AvoidingRetaliation18:15, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
The new workshop proposals are half-measures and worse-measures. I've already commented on the idea of administrative probation more than once, and find the idea of punitive blocks of good contributors for administrative missteps to be more harmful to the community than desysopping. Furthermore, administrative sonduct is about judgment, which is less easily mandated by coercive blocks than specific behaviors like incivility and edit warring. I can come to no other conclusion, and leaving the case open is just causing more needless strife. Dmcdevit·t21:15, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Abortion userbox deletion
Hi. Another admin has told me that I should've talked to you before bringing that RfC thing. Feeling aggrieved, I have refused to apologize for the hasty action, but I've learned a lot in the last few days from something else and I think it's time I apologize for it. Sorry. Xiner02:19, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
Request for something to be done
I'd like something to be done about the user Mj121799, who is apparently just vandalizing certain media personality pages. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jutm543 (talk • contribs) 22:08, 16 December 2006 (UTC).
Very Well Done
</sarcasm> - Well, the scum over at ED (Encyclopedia Dramatica) are certainly lapping up the ArbCom decision to desysop MONGO. Hope your very happy with the situation you've helped create over there, and which I do hope you and the other members of ArbCom will be happy to clean up on your own when it spills over to Misplaced Pages. If it wasn't impossible, I'd take the ArbCom to Arbitration since you may have made one of the most damaging decisions on Misplaced Pages and are in danger of causing more damage to the site than MONGO ever could. Kind Regards - Heligoland | Talk | Contribs02:29, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
Of course I'm not happy. I'm satisfied a good, but very tough, decision has been made, but the neither necessity nor the hardship make me happy. I apreciate honest criticism, but neither does your venom make me happy, either. Dmcdevit·t06:47, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
I'm Gus Buster, and you blocked me from editing. I wrote the HUD USER and Regulatory Barriers Clearinghouse entries, and would like to know why I am blocked. I understand that I was (and am) new to Misplaced Pages, and I know I made a number of changes in succession with the intention of improving upon my work. After all, the pages and my learning are works in progress. So, could you please provide further insight into the matter and possibly unblock me?
Can I get a response please? Am I truly on parole for all articles, or just the Midnight Syndicate article? And if I'm on parole for all articles, why so? Dionyseus23:15, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
Yes, you are on parole for edit warring. The parole shouldn't affect you, or the others, at all. Your editing is nt restricted in any way. That is, unless you are edit warring, which is already prohibited. So I don't see the problem. Dmcdevit·t01:03, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
Xuejuns looks unrelated. The rest (and some others) are all Snle, as it appears someone unblocked his IP after an unblock request, so I've reblocked it. Dmcdevit·t22:19, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
I attempted to post anonymously through a proxy. The IP was blocked with a reference to your user ID and a brief explanation about it being due to an open proxy. But the system in question is one that I administer, and the proxy is not open. Access is restricted very tightly. How can I get this problem resolved?
I need more information. Clearly this IP isn't blocked, so I need you to provide the full message you get when blocked: meaning the reason and your IP as well. Without that, I can't determins what block you are talking about. Dmcdevit·t09:15, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
Youtube
I'm going to ask you, again, to back off on your project to remove links to Youtube. You do not have community support on this, you are treading on people's toes, and generating resentment and anger. The consensus on External Links was against you on the way you wanted to handle this, and you really should respect that. --Barberio01:00, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
I haven't done anything recently. I haven't removed any links for probably a few weeks. I've made (just a little) calm discussion, and noticed a few people in particular responding with edit warring and unremitting incivility. Frankly, I'm a bit astounded you've decided to ask me to back off of anything. Sorry, linking to possible copyright infringements is still prohibited, but, even more perplexing, I'm not even involved in any project doing anything about it recently. Dmcdevit·t09:12, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
It's been brought to my attention that you had in fact been involved in Youtube link removal in a controversial and disputed case, essentially participating in a edit war. This is not the kind of behaviour I would expect from a ArbCom member, and can you please refrain from this kind of activity. --Barberio23:59, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
Am I to believe that you are deliberately telling falsehoods, or that after all your assumptions of bad faith, I should continue to believe this is some (very far-fetched) mistake. I have done no such thing, and the edit you point to isn't even my edit, it is someone else warring to reinsert the disputed link. Dmcdevit·t01:24, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
I accidentally linked to the following diff, not yours. However, my point stands. By entering that revert, you joined in on an edit war, this was unwise. You made comments on the talk page that were uncivil and did not help resolve the issue calmly. This also contradicts your statement that you have not been actively involved in the YouTube link issue. I am simply asking you to engage with the community in consensus decision making on this issue, not immediately implement your own solutions. --Barberio02:03, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
The preceding edit was not a revert or a link removal, as you well know. As far as I know, my only revert in that article was in November, long ago. Now, if that error was the reason for your continual posting here, please leave this talk page. I'm not active in this dispute at all. Dmcdevit·t02:27, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
I think your edit summary: The problem is that it *doesn't* have any licensing information at all, so it would be deleted from Misplaced Pages.) is not unfairly construed as contributing to/taking part in edit warring (over a valid/verified link), and that it contradicts your assertion to Barberio. And your comments to User:NE2 on his talkpage appear questionable to me: http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:NE2#WP:3RR.
Cindery01:57, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
There is now a personal conduct RFC being drafted on the subject. For some reason you are getting equal ownership of the blame. --Spartaz21:19, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
Cindery and Barberio: One revert is not equal to "edit-warring". Edit-warriors get blocked. Dmcdevit, certainly did not edit-war over the page. Your frequent assumptions of bad faith are way out of line. --Nearly Headless Nick15:34, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
If you wish I will instead call it 'a conflict between editors resulting in the article being protected'. And it's quite clear from the edit history that both of you participated in 'a conflict between editors resulting in the article being protected'. --Barberio12:42, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Thanks
Thanks for blanking my monobook. I really appreciate it. If there is ever anything that I can do for you in the future, just let me know. Cheers, -- THL09:24, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
Edipedia
Not sure if you'll get this message, but I just blocked NBIAS (talk·contribs) as an Edisnlepedia sock. Perhaps if you do a check this will lead you to more socks... Happy holidays, Khoikhoi04:53, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
Sorry
Sorry, I just noticed that I removed a link to AndriyK's case that was restored by yourself with the summary: "This is normally included, it doesn't have to have involved Piotrus". I can't understand what exactly is "normally included" and how there could be evidence on the Piotrus-Ghirla dispute which does not involve one of the parties. I find my opponent's efforts to hijack the dispute from our personal grievances to the traditional lamentations of what a rude guy Ghirlandajo is quite objectionable and I don't understand why you should encourage them. Do you think that WP:CIV is an appropriate base for resolving content disputes which have been dragging for years? --Ghirla17:12, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
Well, Piotrus has chosen to present that evidence, but that means that the arbitrators may or may not accept it. In reality, scope is defined by the arbitrators, not the parties, so that section should simply represent the statements of the parties, and the arbitrators can choose whether they agree or not. That's why I readded it. In addition, you probably shouldn't be removing something added by another party, since that's similar to editing their statement; it would have been more seemly to ask an arbitrator or clerk. In any case, this one link isn't going to hijack the case all by itself; it's just meant to be handy. Dmcdevit·t17:21, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
It appears to me that JzG started the case as the natural continuation of Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Piotrus. Now I see that Piotrus wants to hijack the case towards Ghirlandajo's fabled incivility, something which no other commentators seem to have in mind. As a result, the RfC that gave birth to the request is lost in heaps of other superadded "evidence". The first arbitrator seems to have voted to accept one dispute; the second arbitrator is confronted with a totally different request and has to vote accordingly.
This is too bad that the nominator cannot define the scope of the dispute once and for all. I'm afraid it is a factor that discourages people from submitting their cases to arbitration. For instance, I sumbit a case about one particular article, but then appear my opponents who demand to examine my behaviour with a totally different set of editors two years ago, and ArbCom follows them, turning the case upside down. This is very strange and actually impossible in a real-life court. But then, ArbCom is not a genuine court, as you know. --Ghirla17:33, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
The point is that ArbCom isn't following any of the parties, but assessing the statements. Imagine a case where the worse troll is the one that initiates the case because he's convinced that he's right, even though outsiders can clearly see that a case is needed for his conduct, not others; it would be folly for ArbCom to decide it is restricted by the scope set out by any one party. This doesn't mean that it doesn't usually end up that way, I'm just saying that it might not. It's better for the prior dispute resolution section to reflect the parties' evidence (which the arbitrators may or may not accept), not one party's contention. Dmcdevit·t17:42, 23 December 2006 (UTC)File:DSC04820.JPGThe house of Jimbo Wales in which he will discuss with other Arbitrators the names of their new colleagues tonight :) --Ghirla19:32, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
I agree with you that, when the conflict involves two parties, both should be able to submit evidence. In my case, the request was posted by a third party, by a de-facto mediator. That's why I fail to see why either opponent should be able to modify the basis of his request, trying to veer the case left or right, as they please. This is particularly disturbing, as my time online is limited. I think I can foresee what it will lead to. --Ghirla17:48, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
I think it is your dismissal of others as "Ghirlaphobes" that makes them think you are assuming bad faith and not actually looking at what the person has to say. In any case, no use wasting your breath on me. I recused for my past history witht he parties. :) Dmcdevit·t18:23, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
I have no problem discussing their problems elsewhere, rather then on the arbitration page, where I can't even answer to their accusations, some of which I hear for the first time. Can't they discuss their problems on my talk page first? Anyway, I wish you merry Christmas and Happy New Year. I can't say the same about myself, for it is the second Christmas in a row when I have wikistress as my only present. :( --Ghirla18:28, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
Thanks
Thanks for the check. Can you please add a note here too. I am going on a break for a few days. Wish you and your family a merry christmas! - Aksi_great (talk) 19:43, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
Hi; Im curious about your recent 1-year extension of a block on this user. I may be missing some information on the case, but it appears that he was using the sockpuppet account User:nobs02 with permission, as noted by , and
I'm no great friend of nobs and far from being a fan of his political POV, but I'm concerned that there may have been an accidental miscarriage of justice here. KarlBunker01:16, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
I can't speak for Dmcdevit, but it looks like the condition Fred set on using the account was that it was limited to pages related to the dispute resolution in progress. Special:Contributions/Nobs02 shows edits to articles and other pages that were not part of the dispute resolution, which I would guess is what triggered the extension of the ban; it wasn't ban evasion as long as he was using Nobs02 as agreed, but when he went outside the agreement, it became ban evasion and reset the ban timer. That is, of course, only my speculation, and Dmcdevit may have another reason. Essjay(Talk)03:01, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
Yes, this is true. The account was only for his appeal and the AMA page regarding it. Instead, Nobs used it to edit articles and other unrelated pages. I have already conversed with him by email before this and he knows why he was reblocked. Dmcdevit·t06:11, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
I think this is excessive. His infractions were pretty trivial and I don't see any indication of malicious intent. A year-long block without any warning is a heck of a lot of punishment for mere carelessness. KarlBunker13:33, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
I know that technically, "restarting a block" is the standard penalty for evading a block with a sockpuppet, so I'm not arguing that this punishment exceeds the letter of the law. I'm arguing that the circumstances are usual, and this punishment exceeds the spirit and intention of the law. KarlBunker00:50, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
If, as best as I can tell, he abided by the one-year ban for 11 months and 3 weeks, and got active in mainspace one week early, I would think an extension for (say) a month rather than a year might be more proportionate. If he resumes editing in the fashion that originally got him into this situation, he's not going to last again anyhow, and might as well get it over with. Newyorkbrad15:32, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
He had no chance, WP:SNOW. Dmcdevit made his decision based on only a few edits but Nobs was on the road to destruction anyway, focusing on a bunch of petty quarrels from the past. Fred Bauder12:39, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
I'm sorry to keep nagging over this issue, but I still think it's grossly unfair. Dmcdevit says nobs deserves a 1-year block because of some trivial edits he made that overstepped the range of what he was allowed to make using the nobs02 account, and Fred Bauder says this punishment was okay because he was "on the road to destruction anyway." Do you blame me for considering both of these to be poor justifications for a 1-year block? KarlBunker23:07, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
The fact is that Nobs knew what he was doing. He couldn't have made those edits mistakenly, after nearly a year of being banned and especially after receiving explicit permission for a limited account, and he chose to edit anyway. Not only does it not make sense that he could have made those edits mistakenly, having had email correspondence with him, I know that he did it on purpose. The edits may have been trivial, but the behavior was not, and someone who blatantly violates policy even when given the allowance of a special account to appeal early, is not someone who will reform his unproductive ways from before, and is not someone we should waste our time worrying about when his ban is extended. Dmcdevit·t08:17, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
Hey, there. Seems this user's been hit by a checkuser block you put in place on 71.252.218.0/24. I've suggested they get in touch with you, via email, but if you'd like to have a look for yourself, feel free. Luna Santin03:10, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
This sounds rather serious. Would you be able to take a look at it and decide what needs doing? I've posted to the talk pages of some of the arbitrators and one of the clerks as well, but not any further. Thanks. Carcharoth23:20, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
What Sarvabhaum? What sock? U ppl got mad because I am telling the truth. Mr.Kannambadi is abusive. When did I abuse? All my edits are supported by citations. 59.95.16.14010:45, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
Sockpuppet ruling
Erroneous sockpuppet finding
There has been a finding that DP1976 is a sockpuppet of mine. This is an erroneous finding. It is a shared IP address belonging to not just DP1976 and I, but several thousand other employees of a corporation scattered at five sites throughout the Great Lakes region.
1. Farmington Hills, Michigan;
2. South Bend, Indiana (where the server is located);
3. Hoffman Estates, Illinois;
4. Mt. Prospect, Illinois; and
5. Broadview, Illinois.
You blocked 70.85.0.0/16 as "open proxy - web hosting company ThePlanet.com". You subsequently unblocked 70.85.4.0 which seems to have been an error (shouldn't this have been 70.85.4.0/24?). Anyway, Srainwater (talk·contribs) is requesting that the block on 70.85.4.12 be lifted. I have not yet done so, thought I'd pass it on to you as the blocking admin. --Yamla19:36, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
Motion in "Giano" case
I was slightly surprised to see the motion in the "Giano" case as I'm not sure whether that would be considered an outgrowth of the prior case, as opposed to a new matter, and because procedurally Giano was given no opportunity to respond to the motion before it has already picked up three votes. (Not that his response would necessarily have been likely to change the result, but some discussion usually takes place before a motion is placed up for voting, although in this case I concede there has been plenty of related discussion elsewhere.) I also recall that you were recused in that case. I don't recall if you provided any reason for the recusal but I trust that you considered the matter and determined that those grounds were not applicable here and that you should participate in the case and offer the motion. Of course, it's probably something of a moot point if he has gone. Newyorkbrad01:42, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
I was recused for my prior heated disagreements with Tony Sidaway, especially on IRC. I've had no involvement with Giano other than the odd comment. Incivility by Giano and blocks/unblocks related to it were an immediate cause of the arbitration case, and much of the evidence presented, so I wouldn't see this as a non sequitur. As with all arbitration matters, there will be appropriate leeway given for a response, and it'll still be a few days before there are the votes, anyhow. Being made up of a small group of intelligent people, ArbCom doesn't usually get caught in tangles of red tape; if someone makes a useful comment, it will be considered. This is how all motions are done. Dmcdevit·t01:54, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Giano - Civility parole
Yes, probably warrented. Yes, perhaps futile. Yes, G has a smart mouth that he has shown little urge to curb. But ugh, really bad timing. I'm an eternal optimist, and I have mostly managed to get my mouth in line, and I had some hope that we were working towards an identical-but-in-name solution to civility parole on ANI. Alas one minute too late as it were.
Is there not something that we can learn from this? Some way to get something positive out of all this noise and haste?
It was bad timing, but I think it would have been bad timing at any time. I think your proposal may have been a good one, but I think one of the problems in this case is that all related blocks are destined to be controversial because of the ambiguity. This is designed to cut down that drama as well. It's not something I enjoy doing, either. :-( Dmcdevit·t02:03, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
Per your note that RfC must show two users/same dispute, I hope you have seen my note re both Kuntan and Daakshayni should be unblocked for the purposes of participating in dispute resolution in Nick RfC. I think the case is slightly confusing, because it pertains to two/three different blocks, hence there are different parties for each block (and now AfD has been added as well.) But there is clear evidence (including his own admission) that he has misused the blocking policy, which is the issue. I would also like to start user conduct RfC re Nick and You Tube deletions, but I do not think that is an abuse of admin powers RfC, hence necessity of two separate RfCs--there is no problem with two at once, with one a) just user conduct and the second b) admin powers, right?
All best,
Cindery19:19, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
What are you talking about? Kuntan is very banned, and I've wasted enough of my life chasing around his disgusting sockpuppets for the purpose harassment, stalking, and personal attacks. He is nothing more than a troll ans, at this point, a vandal. I have absolutely no idea why you would want him unblocked, or why you are interested in the issue at all, other than to continue your campaign of harassment of Sir Nick. Dmcdevit·t20:41, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
All I know of User:Kuntan and User:Kuntan after Sundownis the edit histories/talkpages of both, in which I do not see 1) any evidence of what you claim 2) any warnings of anything. It looks like he was blocked for username, when he did not have an inappropriate username, and then reblocked without a hearing of any kind. There is precedent for allowing blocked users to participate in dispute resolution, and Kuntan/Kundan after Sundown should have that opportunity (especially as he was never allowed a hearing of any kind/his block was not processed through any channels). I'm sorry that you are upset, and think I am "harassing Nick"--I am concerned with filing the RfC not so much for a single user--Kuntan--as for the people who have been alienated from editing Misplaced Pages by witnessing the unjust block: the net loss of thing like this is not the single editor who is ganged up on, but also the loss of other editors, who see what happens and just decide Misplaced Pages is unworthwhile due to "politics." (On my talkpage, I openly invited "Simbirskin" to email me; he did not. What I received was a number of emails from editors telling me the whole thing turned them off from Misplaced Pages.) Perhaps if you are upset enough to use put-down words like "digusting" with reference to any editor--let alone a blocked editor who cannot speak for himself--you should recuse yourself from making this decision, or any other admin decisions regarding this RfC?
I'm not talking about an editor, I'm talking about a banned troll who is here, and keeps coming back, solely to harass and disrupt. Perhaps you should go and look through the contributions of his sockpuppets as well? He doesn't deserve the time of day, and it's not about me being "upset". Dmcdevit·t22:05, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
I don't see any evidence that he was blocked through a process/transparent channel. In general, I agree with WP:NPA that "troll" is a PA. And...Kuntan was not banned--he was blocked. Do you have diffs to support that he was "disruptive" or "harassed" anybody?--I have not seen any. And in any case, even users who were banned, have been allowed to participate in dispute resolution. Kuntan was not banned; he was indef blocked. Again, I would ask that you recuse yourself (and also look at the RfC--SA Jordan has now certified it).
Thanks,
Cindery22:18, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
Also: you didn't answer my question re filing two separate RfCs (since one is admin powers, the other just user conduct). The RfC issues are complicated re the RfC two users/same dispute rules, but the sum total can presumably can comprise one Arbcom case. But, I don't want to file two RfCs at once if that is prohibited, and cannot find answer about that anywhere--should I ask someone else?
Thanks,
Cindery22:43, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
Hi Dmcdevit, an unregistered user has contacted Unblock-en-l because this block your block on 71.194.0.0/16 affecting him/her. Is there any chance of this block being lifted? The user's e-mail name is alpay.ulku and it is a gmail account (gmail.com) Obviously I wrote the email like that to prevent spam ;-) Thanks, Prodego17:52, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
Hi. I noticed that User:Morning star has posted an unblock request on his talk page for an IP that you checkuser blocked, 208.54.95.1. Looks like collateral damage, since he's a longstanding good user, but I thought I'd check before unblocking. --Delirium09:44, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Morning star's unblock request is based on a block which you put directly on his IP address - see here. Looking at the block log for this IP address, I discovered that it was blocked due to Cplot's use of this IP address. Due to the record of Cplot, it would seem to me that IP blocking does very little good, and that each time he uses a completely new username - so that there seems to be no point in blocking his IP's to already existing users. Eli Falk13:16, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Collateral damage of checkuser range block
Hi, re. this range block of yours:
08:56, 23 December 2006 Dmcdevit (Talk | contribs | block) blocked "68.30.0.0/16 (contribs)" with an expiry time of 1 month ({checkuserblock})
This is currently creating collateral damage on Sadler@d50.org (talk·contribs) (who is getting rather impatient because admins were unable to diagnose his problem for a couple of days). From the context of your blocking log, I take it this was in the context of the "Cplot" case. Is there anything that can be done about it? Thanks, Fut.Perf.☼19:16, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Update: Seeing you are on vacations, I took it to Mackensen, who told me I could lift the block. I've turned it into a soft block again for the time being. Fut.Perf.☼23:55, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Hi Dmc -- was hit by an IP block of yours (see above.) The IP was for a very popular café in Wicker Park full of potential wikipedia contributors, and I could not see anything in the user contributions for the IP that called for a six month block? Do please get back to me -- unless I'm missing something I think it might have been a mistake to impose such a harsh block. Sdedeo (tips) 23:53, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
Does the IP look like a fairly dynamic or fairly static IP? Is this collateral damage or is it the banned person? —Centrx→talk • 10:46, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
Hi Dmcdevit - in accordance with your findings (which are not yet 100%, I realize) and the pattern of his behavior, I've blocked Siddiqui for disruption for a duration of 1 week. Do you approve of this decision? Rama's arrow19:22, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
That's probably fine, though if you're unsure you might want to ask on ANI. I did the technical investigation, but I'm sure I don't know as much about the circumstances behind the sockpuppetry as you. Dmcdevit·t01:46, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
Given that this user got up to speed very quickly with the moves on 2002 Gujarat violence and is editing from the non-Hindu side of the POV spectrum, I think that it might be the banned BhaiSaab or TerryJ-Ho, who used to be very active there. Thanks, Blnguyen (bananabucket) 07:14, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
Unlikely. Also, very long talk page, slow loading = Dmcdevit should sign up for EssjayBot III. ;) Essjay (Talk) 05:49, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
—Wknight94 (talk) 21:58, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
Likely, same geographic location and same ISP as BhaiSaab. Dmcdevit·t 07:23, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
