Misplaced Pages

User talk:Dominic: Difference between revisions

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.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 11:31, 26 November 2007 editBeh-nam (talk | contribs)8,290 edits →user: Tajik← Previous edit Latest revision as of 00:07, 19 November 2024 edit undoMediaWiki message delivery (talk | contribs)Bots3,134,948 edits →ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message: new sectionTag: MassMessage delivery 
Line 1: Line 1:
{{User:MiszaBot/config
{| style="border:.5px solid #000000" align=center
|archive= User talk:Dominic/Archive%(counter)d
| Note: '''Welcome to the greatest encyclopedia ever attempted. Please make it better.'''
|algo= old(21d)
|}
|maxarchivesize= 40K
Old talk at ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ]
|counter= 42
}}
{{archive box|
], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ]
}}


== Lack of transparency in blocks == == A barnstar for you! ==


{| style="background-color: #fdffe7; border: 1px solid #fceb92;"
I'm not happy with the lack of info given when a block is applied, in general. At the very least, this info should include:
|rowspan="2" style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 5px;" | ]
|style="font-size: x-large; padding: 3px 3px 0 3px; height: 1.5em;" | '''The Real Life Barnstar'''
|-
|style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 3px;" | Thanks for your hard work organizing WikiConference North America! --] <sub>(])</sub> 16:45, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
|}


== Oct 26: Wikidata Day NYC ==
*The person or people imposing the block.


{|style="background: white; color: black; border:1px solid #6881b9; margin:0.5em; padding:0.5em;border-radius: 8px;"
*A link to the block log entry.
|-
!colspan=2 style="font-size:150%; padding: .4em;"|October 26: ]
|-
| style="padding-left: .6em;" |
]


You are invited to ''']''' at ] in Manhattan, in celebration of ]'s 12th birthday. This event, held by our chapter in collaboration with Pratt and ], will be our third annual celebration of Wikidata Day. It will feature spotlight sessions, lightning talks, and the customary Wiki-cake, while those unable to attend in person will be able to watch a livestream.
*The length of the block.


All attendees are subject to Wikimedia NYC's ].
*The reason for the block.


* Saturday, October 26, 2024 ''']''' ('''''' and also optionally ]).
*The evidence supporting this reason (this may be on another page, with a link provided).
*:''11:00 am – 5:00 pm''
*:Pratt Manhattan (rooms 201 and 214), 144 W 14th Street
*:RSVP off-wiki is '''required''' for building entry!


|}
*A link to any discussion of the block, including where the decision was made to apply the block.


<small>(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from ].)</small>
And, since the talk page of the blocked user is the most logical place for such info to be requested and then added, that page should not be locked.


--] via ] (]) 00:06, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
In the specific case of ], most of these principles seem to have been violated. It's not clear to me whether the Arbitration Committee instructed you to block this user or you decided to do so on your own. You didn't provide a link to the block or list it's term. You didn't provide any link to the discussion of the block. You did list a reason, but the two links you provided as "evidence" seemed rather insufficient. The user's talk page has been locked. I was able to find the entry in the block log: , which lists the term as "indefinite", but I don't know if this is meant to be a permanent ban or just of an indeterminate length. I would also still like a link to the discussion and where the decision was made. ] 16:58, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
<!-- Message sent by User:Pharos@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Meetup/NYC/Invite_list&oldid=1249936319 -->


== Invitation to participate in a research ==
: StuRat, an indefinite block means exactly that - a block of indeterminate length that may be lifted at any time if the reasons for the block change. The reason, I expect, no discussion were linked to was because no on-wiki discussion was entered into regarding the block. That does not mean, of course, the no discussion was had. There are certain discussions that must remain private for reasons of security. No matter how much umbrage is expressed or how many demands are made that the reasoning for this block is made public, ArbCom will not reveal such information if there are privacy or security concerns. Therefore, for the moment, the comments on A.Z.'s page generate only heat, no illumination. I agree that the circumstances around A.Z.'s block is unusual and puzzling. He has certainly flirted around what might be considered disruptive editing in the past, though recently he has contributed to the encyclopaedia (albeit regarding perhaps the most controversial area imaginable) with greater frequency. I too have concerns that there appear to be a disproportionate number of blocks on people who hold non-conventional viewpoints on this issue, but I think we should let ArbCom and A.Z. work this one out in private. If his appeal is unsuccessful, we may then be in a position where ArbCom can reveal in greater detail the reasoning behind the block and that can be discussed. However, the possibility remains that the evidence behind this will not be revealed and we simply have to take ArbCom's word that this decision is in the best interests of the project. That would be unfortunate, but this isn't a court of law and no-one has the right to do anything but fork or disappear. Sometimes we just have to accept that. ]<font color="black">e</font>] 18:20, 2 November 2007 (UTC)


Hello,
::That's quite a violation of transparency, for people to be blocked or banned by a secret committee with the reasoning and evidence never made public (reminds me of Bush's policies). However, at very minimum, I want to see proof THAT the Arbitration Committee did, in fact, decide to block A.Z., if they refuse to provide any discussion as to WHY. ] 18:54, 2 November 2007 (UTC)


The Wikimedia Foundation is conducting a survey of Wikipedians to better understand what draws administrators to contribute to Misplaced Pages, and what affects administrator retention. We will use this research to improve experiences for Wikipedians, and address common problems and needs. We have identified you as a good candidate for this research, and would greatly appreciate your participation in this ''''''.
::Also, is A.Z. the only blocked user, or is there an ongoing purge of people with unconventional views regarding sex ? ] 18:59, 2 November 2007 (UTC)


You do not have to be an Administrator to participate.
:::You clearly have seen A.Z.'s talk page, so I don't understand what further "proof" you need that the block was an ArbCom matter. As you can see there, if you would like to dispute the block, please talk to arbcom, not here. ]·] 19:08, 2 November 2007 (UTC)


The survey should take around 10-15 minutes to complete. You may read more about the study on its ] and view its ] .
::::I don't see any proof there, just your claim that they authorized the block (but you also said "I have decided to block you", which confuses the issue). How did you find out about this Arb Comm decision, if it's secret ? Did they e-mail you ? ] 19:42, 2 November 2007 (UTC)


Please find our contact on the project Meta page if you have any questions or concerns.
:::::Well, if you are going to just ''assume'' I am lying, then I guess I can never convince you of anything. Why don't you just ask them, then? A bit strange though, that an arbcom member would go there to note that an email has been received and not say anything, if I made it all up, isn't it? I am a former arbcom member myself, and have been privy to some of their private discussions on the matter. ]·] 19:49, 2 November 2007 (UTC)


Kind Regards,
::::::At this point I'm not disputing the block, but simply want some basic info about it, which should be provided for every block. (It would be impossible to say if the block should be disputed, as I really have almost no info about it.) Are you saying you are against transparency, and that blocks should be applied in secret, with nobody outside the Arb Comm and possibly Admins able to see the evidence, or even know the reasoning for the block ? Again, how did you find out about it ? Saying you "have been privy to some of their private discussions" is still vague, did they request for you to apply the block, or is this your own decision ? ] 19:58, 2 November 2007 (UTC)


]
:::::::The answers are yes, yes and yes. At the risk of making a false guess, I assume there were discussion on the Arbitrator's closed email list, to which Dmcdevit, as a former Arbitrator, is subscribed. There will indeed be some occasions where reasons for blocks and bans are kept private. Not every detail of Misplaced Pages's existence must be open to your personal inspection. Transparency is one means of achieving the ultimate goal of the greatest 💕 in the world, but it is not the only means, and sometimes in fact transparency harms this goal. If you accept that the members of ArbCom were elected by the community because they were widely regarded as sensible, level-headed people, then you should have no problem with this. If you believe that ArbCom would act dishonestly or against the best interests of writing an encyclopedia, then I suggest you will be happier contributing to another web site. ] 20:19, 2 November 2007 (UTC)


<bdi lang="en" dir="ltr">] (]) 19:22, 23 October 2024 (UTC) </bdi>
::::::::Hmm, if you accept those principles then we should all elect absolute monarchs, instead of Presidents and Prime Ministers subject to oversight by the electorate. Even if such people do have the interests of Misplaced Pages at heart when elected, giving them absolute power to ban people for undisclosed reasons is likely to corrupt them ("Absolute power corrupts..."). Freedom of Information is an important principle in preventing this. ] 13:04, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
<!-- Message sent by User:UOzurumba (WMF)@metawiki using the list at https://meta.wikimedia.org/search/?title=UOzurumba_(WMF)/sandbox_Research_announcement_list_for_enwiki_Current_Admins&oldid=27650221 -->


== November 22 + 26: Free Culture Friday and Wikicurious photo event! ==
:::::::::Now you're getting silly. Senators on the Senate Intelligence Committee have access to classified information that is not shared with other Senators, and they make recommendation to their colleagues without sharing details that could compromise national security if leaked to the press. That doesn't make them immune from oversight, or absolute monarchs, it makes them privileged to see and review information that could be harmful if broadly released. If none of 15 elected current Arbitrators plus assorted former Arbitrators feel like discussing the matter publicly, it doesn't mean we have 20-some absolute monarchs, it means that none of those 20 or so people thinks the project's needs would be served by making the details public. ] 13:38, 3 November 2007 (UTC)


{|style="background: white; color: black; border:1px solid #6881b9; margin:0.5em; padding:0.5em;border-radius: 8px;"
New info, ] has e-mailed me and said that he was never notified of any action to be taken against him by the Arbitration Committee (he has, however, since appealed to the AC, by e-mail), and now a member of the Committee, ] seems to confirm that no decision was ever made by the Committee (if I read his response correctly): . This appears to directly contradict ]'s claim to be acting on behalf of the Committee. ] 21:36, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
|-
!colspan=2 style="font-size:150%; padding: .4em;"|November 22: ]
|-
| style="padding-left: .6em;" |
]


You are invited to ''']''' at ] on Friday, November 22. This event will feature a reception with ] staff in the afternoon, followed by a more informal salon and game night, utilizing Prime Produce's vast collection of ]s. No experience of anything at all is required. All are welcome!
== Discussion topics ==


* Friday, November 22, 2024
Hi, Dmcdevit. We've discussed matters of edit warring and 3RR in the past, and I know you have strong opinions on the matter. That's why I wanted to let you know I've made some comments at a couple of talk pages that may interest you: , . If it interests you at all, I'd be really glad to hear what you have to say on this. Cheers, ] ] 07:13, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
*:''1:30 pm – 7:00 pm''
*:Prime Produce, 424 W 54th St


|-
== ] ==
!colspan=2 style="font-size:150%; padding: .4em;"|November 26: ]
|-
| style="padding-left: .6em;" |
]


You are also invited to ''']''', the third event of the beginner-focused Wikicurious series, at ] on Tuesday, November 26, in collaboration with and ]. All are welcome to attend, especially those interested in ] or contributing to ]. We will explore the art of capturing the moment through photography and learn the basics of Wikimedia Commons, and (weather-permitting) we are also planning a photo walk, so bring your camera (or use your smartphone)!
Hi there, I added some extra background to ] regarding the use of Tor which might be helpful. ''']]''' 21:55, 3 November 2007 (UTC)


* Tuesday, November 26, 2024
== IPA chart for English ==
*:''3:00 pm – 8:00 pm''
*:Jefferson Market Library, 425 6th Ave
*: is '''required''' for event entry!


|-
Why on earth are you trying to get rid of ]? And what makes you think Wiktionary even wants it when Wiktionary already has ]? What would they do with it? It's an encyclopedia article, not a dicdef. —]] 23:28, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
|''All attendees at Wikimedia NYC events are subject to the ].''
:Hi. I am a Wiktionary editor, actually. As for trying to get rid of anything, I have no idea what your assumptions of bad faith and inexplicable undiscussed reverting are based on, at all. ]·] 23:45, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
::When you put a tag saying "The information in this article appears to be better suited to a dictionary than an encyclopedia", "Please verify that this article meets the Wiktionary criteria for inclusion", and "If this article can be modified to be more than a dictionary entry, please do so and remove this message" onto an encyclopedia article that is ''clearly'' not a dictionary definition, that ''clearly'' does not meet Wiktionary's criteria for inclusion, and that ''clearly'' is already more than a dictionary entry, and then revert two different editors who remove that tag, it is extremely difficult for me to continue to assume good faith. I don't know why you don't want this article at Misplaced Pages, but transwikiing it to someplace utterly inappropriate (which already has its own pronunciation guide, so it doesn't need this one) is not the way to go about it. If you think the ] is inappropriate for Misplaced Pages, nominate it for deletion at ]. —]] 23:57, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
:::Oh please. You are an admin here and know as well as I do how this works. I'm a Wiktionary sysop. I want a certain article from Misplaced Pages on Wiktionary. So I place the tag that makes the bot transwiki it. That means that it will import the history to Wiktionary, nothing more. Nobody is deleting anything, and nobody has proposed anything be deleted. Please stop being a pain and tossing around your wild accusations; it's very unbecoming. I also find it slightly comical how irate you are about how ''clearly'' inappropriate this is at Wiktionary (as if you decide the inclusion criteria) and then you also note that Wiktionary already has something similar. That's a strange argument, to say the least. ]·] 00:08, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
::::Have you read ] to see what happens to articles after they get transwikied? They (1) get deleted by AFD or PROD, or (2) they get redirected (i.e. effectively deleted as their entire content is removed), or (3) they are expanded to become encyclopedia articles. Since ] doesn't need to be expanded any further, you must have had one of the first two fates in mind for it. And Wiktionary's pronunciation guide is in its Wiktionary: namespace, not in its article space, which is where this will wind up when the bot transwikis it. As for the CFI, I never claimed to decide them; ] itself says "A term should be included if it's likely that someone would run across it and want to know what it means. This in turn leads to the somewhat more formal guideline of including a term if it is attested and idiomatic." The phrase "IPA chart for English" fails that page's definition of "idiomatic" since it is just a sum of its parts: ], ], ], and ]. I still cannot fathom why you think this is a dicdef. —]] 00:29, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
:::::I ''wrote'' ]. I have no idea what you are complaining about at this point. Use your head. The template is what makes the bot transwiki the article for us. If it's encyclopedic, no one will consider it for deletion. It isn't a dictionary definition, and you know it and you know I know it. This is clearly not intended for the article namespace at Wiktionary . I am completely mystified by your behavior; please just stop. ]·] 00:36, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
::::::What I am complaining about is that you have put a slow-deletion tag onto an article I have worked hard on. You seem to think transwikiing is like copy-and-paste with CTRL-C and CTRL-V. It isn't. Transwikiing is like ''cut''-and-paste with CTRL-X and CTRL-V. The whole point of transwikiing is to remove content from someplace where it is inappropriate and take it someplace where it is appropriate. When you put that tag on ], you were saying "This does not belong on Misplaced Pages". The tag itself says so. And I strongly disagree with that opinion. —]] 00:48, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
:::::::Your characterization of transwiki has no connection with reality, sadly. ]·] 00:56, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
::::::::I'm only characterizing it the way it characterizes itself, both at ] and at ]. If it's customary for encyclopedic articles to be transwikied to the non-article space of other projects and then kept in their full integrity at Misplaced Pages, you need to rewrite those pages to indicate that. And you still haven't explained why this isn't redundant to Wiktionary's existing pronunciation guide. —]] 01:14, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
:::::::::Please stop wasting my time. You ''know'' that the little transwiki bot that changes article tags after they are copied doesn't have a delete button. Nothing at any of the pages you cited implies that the article is in any danger, unless someone actually proposes it be deleted. This has been explained to you. And no, I don't need to rewrite anything because you say so, and I don't need to have your permission before doing what I want with an article at Wiktionary. ]·] 01:51, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
::::::::::No, the bot doesn't have a delete button. But you do. And that's why I fear for the future of this article. —]] 09:47, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
:::::::::::Your random attacks on my character, for having the gall to make a harmless edit with no changes to Misplaced Pages, are quite appalling. I have no idea why you think that I am some evil maniac out to destroy content. I'm embarrassed that I would be treated this way by an admin here, frankly. Just back off and do something productive. ]·] 11:30, 4 November 2007 (UTC)


|}
== Yo! ==
Just wanted to say yo. :) Been awhile since we chatted. I'm doing my template stuff. Yes still. :) Been at it for almost 4 months now. It's about 90% of what I'm doing on here at this point. But hey. No one else is doing it. :) Let me know how things are. --]<sup>]</sup> 03:23, 4 November 2007 (UTC)


<small>(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from ].)</small>
== Urgent checkuser request ==


--] via ] (]) 15:32, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
I have just posted a new checkuser request at the top of ] and I'm bringing it to your attention here, since you previously checked on this user and the new accounts to be checked struck between October 4-7 and there isn't much time left before data expires for these accounts. ] 03:35, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
<!-- Message sent by User:Pharos@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Meetup/NYC/Invite_list&oldid=1256254640 -->


== Reminder to participate in Misplaced Pages research ==
== ] ==


Hello,
Hello. You seem to have accused me of using a sock puppet called ] but I can assure you this is not the case. Please can you email me the evidence you used to reach that conclusion? Thank you. ''']]''' 12:33, 4 November 2007 (UTC)


I recently invited you to take a survey about administration on Misplaced Pages. If you haven’t yet had a chance, there is still time to participate– we’d truly appreciate your feedback. The survey is anonymous and should take about 10-15 minutes to complete. You may read more about the study on its ] and view its ].
==Template==


Take the survey ''''''.
After reading some talk page messages I noticed the Wiktionary move tag had a different text than you intended to do in this case. I created a template "Move to Wiktionary2" which is more simple. If this is the only time you believe this kind of move happens you can delete it after this article has been copied, if there are more of these moves feel free to improve it. :) Best regards ]]] 13:24, 7 November 2007 (UTC)


Kind Regards,
I'm sorry, I didn't know the bot wouldn't recognize a new tag. What's in the tag what the bot looks for? I thought there would be something and changing the text wouldn't matter. Best regards ]]] 17:29, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
:Yeah, it's not a big deal, but the bot jut uses text substitution to replace the tags. If it's never heard of this template, it can't do that. I don't personally see the need for a second template. It doesn't seem to have any meaning different than the original tag, just the text has been trimmed. ]·] 08:22, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
::I'm not sure what "text substitution" means here, :) but I noticed that a shorter message is needed also for sections, if there's only one section why it's tagged. In the article we talked about, the current tag implies that the page is going to be deleted, and that's why I tried to change it. :) Best regards ]]] 14:40, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
:::Er, the current tag doesn't imply that it will be deleted. In fact, having a separate one only reinforces that myth, rather than fixing anything. ]·] 07:33, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

* FWIW, if you add other templates that add items to ], just send me an e-mail or a talk page message on wikt (I don't check here) and after the requisite amount of grumbling, I'll add it to the list. OTOH, if you just want to change the wording a bit, just change {{tl|Move to Wiktionary}}, instead of creating a new template. --] - ] 07:28, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
::I think changing the text of "Move to Wiktionary" so that there would be two different messages to choose from is a great idea. Several others thought the current text implies deletion, and I also read it that way. The current template also tells you to remove the tag if you can make the article suitable for Misplaced Pages. Best regards ]]] 14:29, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

::It would be even more logical to edit the shorter message to "Copy to Wiktionary" and the long message to "Move to Wiktionary" because copy sounds less like deleting. What is your opinion Dmcdevit about this? Could there be two templates even if you don't personally see it so very necessary, it may still help in cases when that long message says too much. Best regards ]]] 15:30, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

::If you say nothing I'll take it as yes and leave a message of the talk page of the template before editing them. :) Best regards ]]] 09:45, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

:::As I said before, the ''current'' template in no way implies deletion. The Misplaced Pages deletion process isn't magically suspended because someone decided to copy an article to Wiktionary. It will still require someone to decide that it is worthy of deletion and nominate it. Making another template will only serve to propagate the misconception that it is related to deletion at all. ]·] 10:21, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
::::I won't edit the templates if you disagree. But I didn't talk about the actual deletion process but how the text of the template sounds to someone who hasn't read it before. It indicates that the article isn't good here and that's why it's taken to Wiktionary where it suits better. I believe some Wikipedians really mean to use it to tell they wish the article deleted, and I think two separate templates could make that possible too. Best regards ]]] 11:02, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
:::::My opinion is that if Wikipedians are abusing the template that way, then we shouldn't be helping them by making another template. ]·] 00:31, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

==Restore deleted article to user space==
Can you please restore the deleted article ] to an appropriate in my user space? I'd like to see what the article looked like as I believe it is a notable topic and the article probably just needs some TLC to get it up to snuff. Thanks! --] 16:55, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
:...? --] 01:09, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
::Sorry, I've been distracted. It's now at ]. ]·] 07:11, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
:::Thanks so much! --] 03:44, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

==What / on earth / is going on here?==
We seem to be on the same edit summary wave length, even, <sup>/</sup>, which is good, because I'm thinking I'm speaking feline or something! ] 23:13, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
:I know, and I'm still a bit offended at the complete lack of an attempt at showing any real need or warrant for the block at all. What a mess. ]·] 04:18, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
::<s>May as well start formal proceedings about his conduct in this case, as he appears almost certain to repeat it, having learned nothing.</s> ] 07:08, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
:::I was able to advance our points informally, which is good, as it would have been draining. ] 08:23, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

==Barnstar==
{{award2|image=Barnstar-repair.gif|topic=The Barnstar of Repair|text=For helping to repair so much damage done by sockpuppets or something. You know why you're getting this! <font face="Broadway">]'']</font>'' 00:48, 11 November 2007 (UTC)}}

==Reconsideration of RfCU==
Hi. While my inexperience with filing checkusers and protocol regarding ArbCom enforcements seem to have damaged interpretation of the ArbCom Enforcement complaint, I would like to ask you to reconsider your declining to address the checkuser request. the instances are in fact old, simply because the time from when the edits were made and the time when I discovered that RfCU was going to be needed was spent repeatedly asking DreamGuy if he was in fact the anon user, and awaiting his response. It seemed a failure to assume good faith and not give the user a chance to respond. When it became clear he wasn't going to admit to it (and ''still'' won't, as Dicklyon has since discoverd on DreamGuy's own user Talk page), myself and others took the next step by lsiting a complaint on ArbCom enforcement. <br>
is a link to the 3RR DiffTimes. The 3RR wasn't discovered until a comparison of the edits was performed (and also, I am not always looking for people breaking the rules). As well, the edit summaries and the tone of the anonymous user in article discussion ''was'' uncivil. <br>
Please do not allow my inexperience with the protocol - which i attempted to follow in good faith, allow someone who seems to not consider the rules applicable to him to walk on what seems to me a technicality. I don't hate the guy, but he has been the subject of intense scrutiny by over a dozen editors and admins and numerous admin actions (including RfCs, SSP's and ArbCom itself). Sometimes smoke does indicate fire. - ] ] 09:01, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
:As well, I found your mis-characterization of my involvement in these matters as "'''stale diffs dredged up by an edit warring adversary'''" disappointing. You are welcome to provide any sort of Diff that shows I was edit-warring. Otherwise, I think an apology is in order. - ] ] 19:28, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
::Thanks ever so much for the non-response. its insightful to observe that at least one the person running for ArbCom lacks the diligence to follow up on requests and inquiries. Duly noted. - ] ] 20:22, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
:::I'm not interested in the drama and politics, sorry. ]·] 00:29, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

== WIKINDX Deletion ==

Hi,

Trying to find out the reason for the WIKINDX article deletion. It can't be because it describes bibliographic software because there are many other entries that are similar such as Citeulike, aigaion, refbase, endnote, bibtex that still exist. <small>—Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 05:40, 12 November 2007 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:The article was deleted for making no assertion of notability. It also had no sources whatsoever and mainly consisted of a list of features. ]·] 07:12, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

== Ahoy. ==

Not sure how to handle ]. I figured I'd let you deal with it as CU evidence and range abuse is involved (and its your block). Have fun. --] - '']'' - ] 11:28, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

== ] ==

Hi. This is from my talk page and I want to forward it to you because I think you are familiar with this case and should read this:

:::: Thatcher had banned ] with no reason. Now, he is accusing me of being Tajik, while I am not. ] lives in ]. He has even used various IPs from the University of Hamburg; the same IP was also used by the Misplaced Pages admin known as ] who is also German and works at the University of Hamburg. In fact, he and Tajik know each other in person (ask him if you do not believe me). I am writing to you from ] in ] (if you check my IP, you'll see that I am right) - I know Tajik from various forums (I am also from Afghanistan, just like him). Thatcher's claim that Tajik is the same person as ] is more than rediculous. Thatcher simply needed a reason to ban Tajik in order to support his favourite Wikipedian: ]. And because Thatcher did not have ANY proofs, he simply took the similar name to accuse Tajik. Everyone who had followed Tajik's edits knows that ] was a sockpuppet of ]. His edits are totally contradictory to those of Tajik, and various socks of NisarKand had already vandalized Tajik's page. Tajik has requested twice an unblock in order to explain his situation, but Thatcher has refused to give him a chance. Instead, he is continuing to further expand his pointless accusations. Interestingly, last week, ] was also banned as a suspected sockpuppet of Tajik. The funny part is that DerDoc is a medical doctor from ] in Austria, using 193.xxx IPs. Any checkuser file would prove this simple fact. But like in the case of Tajik, DerDoc, too, was banned '''without''' any checkuser file. Not even NisarKand (this time in the shape of User:) claims that DerDoc is Tajik, although he has (with the active support of Atabek, as one can see in his contributions' history) tagged various accounts without any permission, claiming that all of them are socks of Tajik - just like Atabek. Prior to DerDoc's case, another user, namely ], a German Iranologist from ], was also banned because of the same reason. The only ''proof'' against him was a weak checkuser result, saying that a link to Tajik would be ''possible''. Interestingly, Thatcher - the one who has banned Tajik because of false accusations and whose wrongs have been exposed - was enganged in almost all of the cases mentioned above. I've talked to ] who was part of the ArbCom which endorsed Tajik's ban, and he was shcked as well, because it was very clear from the beginning on that he and the ArbCom were used by ''certain admins'' to get Tajik banned. In order to '''muzzle''' Tajik, admin Thatcher131 used a wrong accusation against him and got him banned. In the following process, Tajik was prevented (by Thatcher) from defending himself in the ArbCom, and was banned indef. The same Thatcher131 did not mind to ban known vandals of the Azerbaijan-Armenia ArbCom for only 1 year, even though many of them used sockpuppets. However, in case of Tajik, only one '''wrong''' accusation of Thatcher was enough to get him banned forever. This is very very very very very suspicious and does very much look like a conspiracy against ]. And everything points to admin Thatcher:
::::* Thatcher131 initiated an ArbCom along with a few others
::::* Thatcher131 made up wrong accusations against Tajik (i.e. that Tajik is Tajik-Professor, a claim that has been proven wrong twice since then!)
::::* With this accusation, Thatcher got Tajik banned and prevented him from defending himself in the ArbCom
::::* Thatcher's accusations also forced the judges to endorse Tajik's ban (the same ban that was initiated by Thatcher)
::::* 7 checkuser files were requested against Tajik, and 90% either proved that the accusations were wrong, or did not have clear results (''... possible ...'', ''... likely ...''', ''...unlikely ...''), the other 10% were rejected anyway
::::* Thatcher refuses to request a checkuser file in case of DerDoc, German-Orientalist, and Tajik-Professor. The reason is very simple: since these 3 people are '''NOT''' the same person, they '''CANNOT''' be Tajik's socks at the same time. That means that Thatcher's accusations are wrong, and that he abused his admin rights to get a user banned whom he did not like (or maybe what he had to say).
:::: Thatcher's edits seem to be coordinated with those of Atabek. And Atabek's edits are certainly coordinated with those of ]. Anyway, this case needs to be investigated. Other admins need to take a look at this, and many other Wikipedians need to urge ''neutral'' admins to have a look at Tajik's case, and Thatcher's admin rights. <small>—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 01:27, 31 August 2007 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

-- ] 08:47, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

::I'm forwarding it to admins now, because months ago I didn't think I would need to do this. I thought the admins would investigate themselves. All the admins now agree that he was '''not''' Tajik-Professor. So what reason was he banned for? And how is the case supposed to go through ArbCom if Tajik wasn't even given a chance to go and defend himself there? He was blocked by Thatcher. -- ] 22:31, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

:::Beh-nam, you should probably read ], especially ]. Eight Arbitrators endorsed the finding of fact that Tajik had engaged in sockpuppetry to continue editing while claiming to be "too busy" to engage in mediation (which he had agreed to do to avoid arbitration). Even if some of the alleged sockpuppets are not him (which I am not in a position to evaluate) the broad finding remains, and has been endorsed by Arbitrators who ''do'' have access to the checkuser information. As I have explained to Tajik many times (and the idea that the anonymous person posting repeatedly to my talk page, as well as emailing me, and posting other places, is not Tajik himself is just silly) he may appeal to the Arbitration committee. ] 00:01, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

:::: How can he appeal to the Arbitration commitee if he is banned? And I don't blame him for not taking part in the initial arbitration because it was very SILLY to suggest that he was Tajik-Professer and he must have been frustrated with it. Has anyone even looked at Tajik-Professors contributions? They are not anything like Tajik's... for example: Tajik-Professor asked me for help... why would Tajik (a veteran editor) ask me for help!? Take a look . He asks me to add a map for him. Why would Tajik ask me that? He knows how to do that. Clearly Tajik-Professor was a brand new user and I am the one that actually invited him to join Misplaced Pages (though I regret it now). So why have the Admins not looked at the contributions? They clearly show they are not the same person. Yes, they have a similar IP, because they both live in Germany... but they live in DIFFERENT parts of Germany and their IPs have a significant difference. The Admins were just rushing and were influenced by the manipulations ] who spreads around his Pan-Turkist POVs and wanted a way to ban Tajik. I would be really frustrated if I was Tajik and I wouldn't bother asking for an appeal because it's so ridiculous! He is banned now so he cannot appeal, can you please start an appeal for him? -- ] (]) 11:42, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

:It's sufficient to check editing history of ] and ], and read all talk page comments to understand very well that ], ], ], and numerous other socks listed in from the same IP range in Germany are the same. ] (]) 08:22, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

:: Atabek, you have already been exposed as an editor who is just hear to spread his Pan-Turkist POV's and get users who might be against your POVs BANNED! I've spoken to several admins, and they AGREE that ] is '''NOT''' ], and ofcoarse they would agree since I know both of them personally and I invited Tajik-Professor to Misplaced Pages! Stop spreading your lies and manipulations around! -- ] (]) 11:19, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Dmcdevit, why are you ignoring all this? All the evidence shows that Tajik was NOT Tajik-Professor! The evidence is all there, read the above. Please don't ignore this, Tajik was one of the most valuable editors and it is a REAL SHAME that he is banned for being accused of being Tajik-Professor WIHTOUT even a PROPER investigation! -- ] (]) 11:28, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
:I'm not ignoring it. However, you have been told several times now that this is not an issue for administrators to decide. Tajik was banned by the ''Arbitration Committee'' and you must make your request to them if you would like to appeal the decision. It rather seems like you are ignoring us, from my perspective. ]·] 12:01, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

] is needlessly attacking me on my user talk page for a second time , first is here . The indefinite ban of ] is within the competency of the ArbCom not myself. All I can say that there is no doubt that ], ] as well as numerous other socks who edited ] page in the same disruptive and edit warring manner are the same. I don't see how the argument that user Tajik was Tajik-Professor or not is at all relevant. I would recommend ] to pursue his advocacy within administrative boards instead of harassing me.] (]) 15:07, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

:Checkuser has '''already proven''' that ] was not him. They checked his IP. See ] confirms it] and see . Please stop insisting that he was ]. As for German-Orientalist, I don't know. The Checkuser has not proven either way . They just said "likely". So for sure, please stop claiming he's ]. -- ] (]) 11:27, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Dear Dmcdevit, so as you can see from above. It's been '''checked''' and '''proven''' that ] was '''not''' ] and it is '''not proven''' (they just a "Likely") that he was ]. So can you please tell me just for what he was banned? -- ] (]) 11:31, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

== Featured List of the Day Experiment ==

There have been a series of proposals to initiate a Featured List of the Day on the main page. Numerous proposals have been put forth. After the third one failed, I audited all ]'s in order to begin an experiment in my own user space that will hopefully get it going. Today, it commences at ]. Afterwards I created my experimental page, a new proposal was set forth to do a featured list that is strikingly similar to my own which is to do a user page experimental featured list, but no format has been confirmed and mechanism set in place. I continue to be willing to do the experiment myself and with this posting it commences. Please submit any list that you would like to have considered for list of the day in the month of January 2008 by the end of this month to ] and its subpages. You may submit multiple lists for consideration.--] <small>(]/]/]/]) </small> 17:17, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

== StealBoy returns ==

Hello again. Our favorite vandal is back. Can you check and hardblock the underlying IP of {{user|Chubbboy222}}? The vandalism pattern is unmistakable. See also {{user|Chubbboy1111}} and {{user|Roverboy77777}} which I also found. -- ] (]) 22:32, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
:Ah, I blocked the IP the day I saw this but forgot to reply. Let me know if it is continuing. :-) ]·] 00:15, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

== Raguseo ==

Per ], can you check to see if {{checkuser|Ragusino}} is also {{checkuser|Raguseo}}? Thanks. ] 13:09, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
:This one is unrelated to all of the others. ]·] 00:25, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

== ] ==

With regards to you intervention in ]: Thanks. Let me know if ever you need help with a similar type of problem. --] (]) 10:22, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

== Melt the clouds of sin and sadness, drive the dark of doubt away! ==

<div style="float:center; border-style:solid; border-color:green; background-color:AliceBlue; border-width:1px; text-align:left; padding:8px; vertical-align: middle;" class="plainlinks">]
<!--Begin message-->
{{{1|] ]/]}}} hopes that you are joyful! Joy promotes ] and hopefully this little bit has helped make your day better. Spread the Wikilove by melting the clouds of sin and sadness that weigh down someone else. Try to brighten the day of as many people as you can! Keep up the great editing! {{{2|}}} <br /> Send '''Joy''' to others by adding {{tls|Joy message}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
</div> ] ]/] 01:39, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

== Thanks for your vote ==

{| class="messagebox {{#ifeq:{{{small|}}}|yes|small|standard}}-talk"
|-
|]
|<p align="center">Thank you for participating in my ], which '''passed''' with a vote of '''(53/0/1)'''. <p />
<p>As a token of my appreciation, please accept this bowl of ].<p />
<p>I feel honored to be trusted by so many of you. Misplaced Pages is such a large community, that my acceptance in the face of such large numbers truly is humbling. I will use my new tools to continue the tasks for which you entrusted them to me.<p />
<p>Gratefully, ] (]) 18:34, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
|}


]
== Clarification re. opening statement in Durova RFAR ==


<bdi lang="en" dir="ltr">] (]) 00:17, 13 November 2024 (UTC) </bdi>
I hope you don't mind my asking you here - I didn't want to clutter the ArbCom page with this. You mention in once sentence that Jehochman "is described by many methods as her" (i.e. Durova). Are you accusing Durova of sockpuppeting as Jehochman, ordoes this mean something else? You might want to clarify. Sorry if it's just poor reading comprehension on my part. Thx, ] (]) 12:34, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
<!-- Message sent by User:UOzurumba (WMF)@metawiki using the list at https://meta.wikimedia.org/search/?title=UOzurumba_(WMF)/sandbox_Research_announcement_list_for_enwiki_Current_Admins_(reminders)&oldid=27744339 -->
:Um, not at all what I meant. It hould be fixed now. ]·] 11:34, 25 November 2007 (UTC)


== ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message ==
==Bravo==
Well done, my friend, well done! ] 16:33, 24 November 2007 (UTC)


<div class="ivmbox " style="margin-bottom: 1em; border: 1px solid #a2a9b1; background-color: #fdf2d5; padding: 0.5em; display: flex; align-items: center; ">
== ] ==
<div class="ivmbox-image noresize" style="padding-left:1px; padding-right:0.5em;">]</div>
<div class="ivmbox-text">
Hello! Voting in the ''']''' is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on {{#time:l, j F Y|{{Arbitration Committee candidate/data|2024|end}}-1 day}}. All ''']''' are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.


The ] is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the ]. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose ], ], editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The ] describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
Just a ] '''Clerk note''', the above case has been deferred to you for handling, if you have the time. ] 17:02, 24 November 2007 (UTC)


If you wish to participate in the 2024 election, please review ] and submit your choices on the ''']'''. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{tlx|NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. <small>] (]) 00:07, 19 November 2024 (UTC)</small>
==]==
An Arbitration case involving you has been opened, and is located ]. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, ]. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, ].


</div>
On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, ''']''' '''<small>]</small>''' 18:29, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
</div>
<!-- Message sent by User:Cyberpower678@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2024/Coordination/MM/01&oldid=1258243333 -->

Latest revision as of 00:07, 19 November 2024


Archives

/Archive1, /Archive2, /Archive3, /Archive4, /Archive5, /Archive6, /Archive7, /Archive8, /Archive9, /Archive10, /Archive11, /Archive12, /Archive13, /Archive14, /Archive15, /Archive16, /Archive17, /Archive18, /Archive19, /Archive20, /Archive21, /Archive 22, /Archive 23, /Archive 24, /Archive 25, /Archive26, /Archive27, /Archive28, /Archive29, /Archive30, /Archive31, /Archive32, /Archive33, /Archive34, /Archive35, /Archive36, /Archive37, /Archive38, /Archive39


This page has archives. Sections older than 21 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

A barnstar for you!

The Real Life Barnstar
Thanks for your hard work organizing WikiConference North America! --Another Believer (Talk) 16:45, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

Oct 26: Wikidata Day NYC

October 26: Wikidata Day in New York City
2024 Wikidata Day NYC flyer

You are invited to Wikidata Day in New York City at Pratt Institute School of Information in Manhattan, in celebration of Wikidata's 12th birthday. This event, held by our chapter in collaboration with Pratt and Girls Who Code, will be our third annual celebration of Wikidata Day. It will feature spotlight sessions, lightning talks, and the customary Wiki-cake, while those unable to attend in person will be able to watch a livestream.

All attendees are subject to Wikimedia NYC's Code of Conduct.

(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

--Wikimedia New York City Team via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:06, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

Invitation to participate in a research

Hello,

The Wikimedia Foundation is conducting a survey of Wikipedians to better understand what draws administrators to contribute to Misplaced Pages, and what affects administrator retention. We will use this research to improve experiences for Wikipedians, and address common problems and needs. We have identified you as a good candidate for this research, and would greatly appreciate your participation in this anonymous survey.

You do not have to be an Administrator to participate.

The survey should take around 10-15 minutes to complete. You may read more about the study on its Meta page and view its privacy statement .

Please find our contact on the project Meta page if you have any questions or concerns.

Kind Regards,

WMF Research Team

BGerdemann (WMF) (talk) 19:22, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

November 22 + 26: Free Culture Friday and Wikicurious photo event!

November 22: Free Culture Friday

You are invited to Foundation and Friends' Free Culture Friday at Prime Produce on Friday, November 22. This event will feature a reception with Wikimedia Foundation staff in the afternoon, followed by a more informal salon and game night, utilizing Prime Produce's vast collection of board games. No experience of anything at all is required. All are welcome!

  • Friday, November 22, 2024
    1:30 pm – 7:00 pm
    Prime Produce, 424 W 54th St
November 26: Wikicurious: Capturing the Moment
Jefferson Market Library

You are also invited to Wikicurious: Capturing the Moment, the third event of the beginner-focused Wikicurious series, at Jefferson Market Library on Tuesday, November 26, in collaboration with WikiPortraits and AfroCROWD. All are welcome to attend, especially those interested in photography or contributing to Wikimedia Commons. We will explore the art of capturing the moment through photography and learn the basics of Wikimedia Commons, and (weather-permitting) we are also planning a photo walk, so bring your camera (or use your smartphone)!

  • Tuesday, November 26, 2024
    3:00 pm – 8:00 pm
    Jefferson Market Library, 425 6th Ave
    RSVP on Eventbrite is required for event entry!
All attendees at Wikimedia NYC events are subject to the Wikimedia NYC Code of Conduct.

(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

--Wikimedia New York City Team via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:32, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

Reminder to participate in Misplaced Pages research

Hello,

I recently invited you to take a survey about administration on Misplaced Pages. If you haven’t yet had a chance, there is still time to participate– we’d truly appreciate your feedback. The survey is anonymous and should take about 10-15 minutes to complete. You may read more about the study on its Meta page and view its privacy statement.

Take the survey here.

Kind Regards,

WMF Research Team

BGerdemann (WMF) (talk) 00:17, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Misplaced Pages arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2024 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:07, 19 November 2024 (UTC)