hi, just wanted to inform you that i have edited
this page so your spoken version of it must have become outdated (tho i did not listen to it). please delete this bit after reading. thanks. peet —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Duke.peet (
talk •
contribs)
12:05, 19 November 2009 (UTC)reply
Pssssst
Are you back? :-D I hope so. You've been missed around these parts. I passed 120,000 edits in your absence. I know I know. :) I'm actually considering going for CheckUser under the new policy. I know I'm qualified. It's really just a matter of deciding whether I want the responsibility. Anyway. Drop me a line and let me know how you are doing. If you are back, it's nice to have you around again. :) --
User:WoohookittyDiamming fool!11:33, 6 February 2009 (UTC)reply
I'm not exactly back, but neither am I not back. ;-) I'm just always hanging around, sometimes doing a little here or at Wiktionary or even Wikisource, when I'm in the mood. But I'm still much more busy in my studies than I used to be, though. I think you'd be great at CheckUser. Are you experienced in the technical aspects of it? Just be aware that it's a job that can often be stressful and frustrating, as well as tedious (which I know you're expert at), so you have to make sure you're ready before you commit yourself. Take it from me, it was a big relief when I resigned from that particular tool. :-)
Dmcdevit·
t04:54, 7 February 2009 (UTC)reply
Well that's my thought process right now. The thing is, I obviously devote alot of time to Wikipedia, so that's not really an issue. I mean I'm averaging about 300-400 edits every day, so obviously, I have time. :) I'm somewhat familiar with the technical aspects of the position. It's really a matter of the stress. As you probably know, I've been avoiding stress on here for about 2 years now. :) But on the other hand, I know it's a very needed position and I think I'd do a good job. So we'll see. --
User:WoohookittyDiamming fool!20:45, 8 February 2009 (UTC)reply
Normally, a transwikied article goes to the transwiki namespace, so it will be at
Transwiki:It is what it is. A Wiktionary editor will eventually reformat it to Wiktionary standards and move it to the main namespace, or you can go ahead and read the style guidelines and do it yourself.
Dmcdevit·
t05:17, 7 February 2009 (UTC)reply
Dictionaries discuss words themselves, while encyclopedias discuss the concepts the words represent. So the rule of thumb is whether the article actually goes being merely describing the word. To me, the six sentences establish a definition and explanation of meaning, an alternative definition, two classifications for the phrase (a cliche and a tautology), and an early dating (etymology), but nothing beyond description of the words as words. Do you disagree?
Dmcdevit·
t01:48, 8 February 2009 (UTC)reply
Yeah, that's weird. I've reverted it, though I think you would have been completely acceptable for you to revert something that obviously wrong yourself. The bot doesn't even have feelings to hurt. ;-)
Dmcdevit·
t23:09, 8 February 2009 (UTC)reply
Wow, that was silly. I was copying and pasting the same summary to several articles, but I can't imagine what possessed me to write that. :-) Thanks.
Dmcdevit·
t22:02, 11 February 2009 (UTC)reply
An anon messaged us saying that the audio for the article
Julie Kirkbride contains an error. I'm not sure where the version you uploaded came from, but it was already in the original recording and the uploader edited the article to match his error in the text.
[1] What is the origin of your file? -
Mgm|
(talk)08:46, 13 February 2009 (UTC)reply
I reply to your message on
RasterFaAye's discussion page regarding his removal of PRODs without giving a good summary. If you have a look at
Bint, click the History' tab, and you will see that he removed my PROD from the article. There is alreay an entry on
Wiktionary (see
wikt:bint) so that's why I prodded it. He removed it with "Prodding no good, see edit history", I mean, WTF?! It's been transwikified and therefore it's no longer needed on Wikipedia.
In other words, I totaly agree with you about RasterFaAye.
Hi Dmcdevit, you were the person who blocked my IP 84.45.219.185 - thank you for doing that. I apologise for the puerile behaviour from this IP. Since the offending computers had the OS re-installed and spyware cleaned, hopefully there should not be any more vandalism. I apologise for the compromised computers , but now that's been sorted, it shouldn't recur. --
Litherlandsand (
talk)
09:34, 16 February 2009 (UTC)reply
Actually, I'd rather not. I think it makes more sense if the CheckUser doesn't become involved in discussions over blocks, and restricts themselves to the technical evidence only. That way the evidence will be more credible, and they won't get stuck in the case where a CheckUser is advocating a block based on their own findings, and the impartiality of their findings become questioned. In any case, admins don't need a CheckUser's permission for anything; it's just an extra button to help fight abuse, not extra authority.
Dominic·
t02:02, 17 February 2009 (UTC)reply
Kopimi
"Designed to be the opposite of copyright, a kopimi notice specifically requests that people copy the work for any purpose, commercial or non-commercial." says the article on the Pirate Party.
ViperSnake15120:04, 19 February 2009 (UTC)reply
Yes, that's what I read. It doesn't matter what the copyright holder's opinion of copyright is. If they want their work to be in the public domain, they have to release it. If that's the only text, then it is clear that they have not done so, or even released it freely. Being allowed to copy something is far different from being allowed to modify it and distribute derivatives, which is what Wikimedia requires.
Dominic·
t20:11, 19 February 2009 (UTC)reply
When blocking Grawp...
...please don't forget to lock out his user talk page and email access as well. He's been known to abuse both of these unblock methods, and if we know it's him it's safer to knock them out ahead of time. Thanks!
Hersfold(
t/
a/
c)03:01, 20 February 2009 (UTC)reply
I noticed that two weeks ago (8-Feb-09) you deleted the Lessno page. May I ask what was the logic behind the deletion of the Lessno article? Thanks... Ned Terziev
Yes, the article was deleted as a result of the discussion in which you participated:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lessno. However, you recreated the article afterwards, and so it was deleted again. If you would like to create the article again, you should follow the instructions at
Wikipedia:Deletion review for requesting reassessment of the article, but you should not make it again without a discussion and approval, since it has previously failed such a discussion. Let me know if you need help with this, and sorry for the confusion.
Dominic·
t00:57, 23 February 2009 (UTC)reply
On
February 25, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article John Biehl, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the
Did you know? talk page.
I don't see any valid reason why you would remove all of those images before discussing it first on the articles. While it is a poor habit, I often do revert then discuss it. In Canadian television, there is little to no history known of why they choose that logo, except for certain occasions like
CHEK-TV's checker board logo or their checkmark logo, which has to do with the station's name sounding those words. Most of the time only the date used is known. That's why there only the date is used. єmarsee •
Speak up!02:12, 27 February 2009 (UTC)reply
I'm not about to start a discussion before every time I make an edit to make an article conform to our non-free media policies. Your reason here is mistaken, in my opinion. It doesn't matter why there is no critical commentary on the fair use images, but the fact that there isn't—and apparently can't be since the sources don't exist—is even more reason why the images are superfluous and decorative, failing to meet our policy. If there is nothing that can be said about them, then they do not contribute significantly to the article.
Dominic·
t
You are just demonstrating how unnecessary most of that is. Wikipedia is a
free content project, and restrictively-licensed media should be used sparingly. I would suggest you pick the logos that are truly important to the article and display those, but remove most of the existing ones.
Dominic·
t07:14, 28 February 2009 (UTC)reply
I can remove some of the logos that are of poor quality and the logos that are similar, if that makes it better. I have now removed 33% of the logos from the page. єmarsee •
Speak up!07:21, 28 February 2009 (UTC)reply
I was thinking more like that you should choose the one or two that have real historical significance, and, along with the infobox image, keep those. But honestly, a gallery like that one is still only there for decorative purposes. Does the use of 10 logos really convey more information than 3 illustrative ones? Would the omission of several of the ones currently there be detrimental to the readers' understanding of the subject? I think the answer to these questions is "no," based on the lack of reference to the logos in the body of the text.
Dominic·
t07:40, 28 February 2009 (UTC)reply
I remember once I tried combining all of the previous logos before the checkmark logo that got deleted into a single file along with the descriptions. I still have it on my computer and I can show it to you if you want. This would eliminate many problems and would provide only ~4 non-free logos in the article (excluding the infobox). єmarsee •
Speak up!05:15, 1 March 2009 (UTC)reply
Autoblock review
An autoblock has caught
User talk:Ren Newman and he is asking for the block to be withdrawn. As the account is very fresh and he's never edited outside his user talk page, I'm a bit suspicious. Hoping for input, so I've put the unblock request on hold. What do you think?
Dekimasuよ!04:27, 26 February 2009 (UTC)reply
I assumed you no longer needed it, as the UK blocking issues were resolved long ago. In any case, there is no real reason to have the flag on an account that is not in use, so I saw it as a maintenance issue. If there is some reason you need it, don't let me stop you.
Dominic·
t01:20, 3 March 2009 (UTC)reply
You blocked an editor on my watchlist (
User:Richard Hock) with an edit summary of "(account creation blocked) with an expiry time of indefinite (CheckedSockpuppet|Pickbothmanlol)". The sockpuppetry case seems unrelated and doesn't name that editor, although I wouldn't be surprised if it was related to some sockpuppetry case. Did you refer to the wrong case? Am I missing something?
Delicious carbuncle (
talk)
14:11, 4 March 2009 (UTC)reply
(Sorry for not replying sooner.) I may have used the wrong block template here. However, what I meant wasn't that he was one of the accounts named in the last sockpuppetry case, but that he was a sockpuppet account discovered when the latest Pickbothmanlol sockpuppet (Tollund man) was checked by me, and was confirmed by CheckUser. See
[2]. I have also received an email from this user, and I will see if there could be an innocent explanation for his sharing the same IP.
Dominic·
t20:11, 6 March 2009 (UTC)reply
Thanks for the heads up. By "face the consequences" I didn't mean some kind of threat, but rather that PMK1, who began adding such POV material to the article, is practically asking for counter-material: the two ways to balance an article to NPOV are to have the POV content in balance or to remove it outright. Since administrators have reverted my removing of the Macedonian POV content, I tried to add a map that represents the other view, but I've been reverted several times now.
Thinking back, I should have been more careful in my wording, but I'm multitasking at the moment and I'm not a native speaker, so I realize now that it may have had an unintended threatening twist: I apologize for that :) My intention was to say that the user got what he should have expected to get.
I don't think those warnings were necessary though, I'm not a disruptive editor and I've been here long enough to know about WP:DR, edit warring, ABMAC and the like. You should have just assumed that, I believe. The article has been thoroughly POV-ized and I was merely trying to help balance it out or clean it up, that's why I've been insistent with the reverts. The removal of such useful, relevant content is basically bordering vandalism. Todor→Bozhinov13:54, 6 March 2009 (UTC)reply
Since apparently the AE discussion has already been archived, I'll reply here. I understand you are not a new editors, but I do feel that your behavior merited at least some kind of comment, if only to get you to think about what you were doing, since you clearly let the disagreement get heated. I think you need to be careful, because the attitudes of both you and PMK1, regardless of who is right, would really make editing those articles unpleasant for anyone else who wants to get involved. Your comment here about it being bordering on vandalism is part of that. I can easily tell that the reason you had the disagreement was because you both thought you were right. Vandalism is when you do something you know is wrong, to harm the project, not when you are acting in good faith. You can probably imagine how insulting it would sound if you are acting in good faith, then, and how it would hurt attempts to come to resolve a conflict.
Dominic·
t06:05, 7 March 2009 (UTC)reply
I am sure that the conflict will be resolved. Your intervention could possibly be extended to the pag itself, no?
PMK1 (
talk)
11:51, 7 March 2009 (UTC)reply
I admit I have a tendency to insist on certain revisions and thus engage in edit warring, but I'm almost always discussing the changes on the talk page. I've attempted several times to solve this issue to no avail: when people don't offer any sensible explanation as to why they're reverting me, I assume the dispute is either over or futile, and so I reintroduce these changes. I'm aware that these reverts are not "classic" vandalism, but as ungrounded, strongly POV-flavoured removal of relevant information, they are not far from it. Of course, you are right that PMK1 wasn't doing it to harm the project, but other than that, some features of vandalism are apparent.
He doesn't want images that represent the Bulgarian point of view included and he counters any attempt to reduce the number of Macedonian POV images, or at least images that are captioned in a POV manner. What I'm trying to do is, basically, have a more or less equal or balanced number of POV images or no POV images at all, in order to have some kind of NPOV.
I accept your advice that I should be more careful in my wording (didn't mean to offend PMK1 or anybody, he's actually a pretty reasonable (though a bit stubborn) guy compared to other people who share his views on the matters involved), but I still don't think there was anything that much wrong with my actions. I discussed, had no reasonable arguments presented against my point, and I made changes to the article. My edit summaries were more of a disagreement with the way the article has been going than some kind of anger.
This is the IP used by
Hamish Ross. As I noted when I made the block, I could see that some editors would be affected and would need IPBE (many on the IP already do). Just use your own best judgment as to whether it's an innocent user or a Hamish Ross sleeper account caught in the block.
Dominic·
t10:56, 10 March 2009 (UTC)reply
Makes sense. I would suggest that this be done in the open. I'm in
Bali, as is well known, and as logs will show. Indeed,
John has done a check and stated that
Someguy1221 and I are on different parts of the globe. In all likelihood, Someguy1221 is not just not in my area but more like most of the way to the other side of the globe. aside; the
antipode to Bali is in ColumbiaColombia.
Jack Merridew04:11, 25 March 2009 (UTC)reply
Not sure what it is that you want in the open. I have double-checked John's findings and can confirm that Someguy1221 and Jack (who, apparently, can't spell
Colombia ;-) ) are unrelated.
Dominic·
t04:46, 25 March 2009 (UTC)reply
re
Columbia vs.
Colombia — I don't recall ever noticing the distinct spellings. To me, the primary usage of the term refers to
Columbia University, so that's the spelling that my fingers emitted. This sort of thing is one of the reasons I frequent this site; I learn things everyday. Thanks for pointing it out. Cheers,
Jack Merridew04:57, 27 March 2009 (UTC)reply
Maaf (
bahasa Indonesia for sorry re my spelling), and terima kasih (thank you) re the confirmation.
Elsewhere, Pixelface has asserted that he had 'evidence' and I feel that this mere assertion should be backed up, in an open manner, <joke>or an apology made</joke>. But that's just my take ;) Cheers,
Jack Merridew10:01, 25 March 2009 (UTC) Happy
Nyepi.reply
I emailed the evidence to Dominic, and he can confim that he received it. And it should not be made public, otherwise a sockpuppet like you could use it to improve your socking methods. I've apologized to the people who are deserving of one. Cheers, --
Pixelface (
talk)
20:12, 25 March 2009 (UTC)reply
Jack, I understand your position, but I'm not about to release private correspondence when Pixelface would clearly not want it to be. Now, whether I run a check based on a private request or not is a separate matter, but since the request was merely to double-check a check already done by John, I didn't think it was worth a fuss.
Dominic·
t01:11, 26 March 2009 (UTC)reply
Dominic, I was not intending to imply that you should reveal whatever was emailed to you; rather I feel that the allegation, which includes an assertion of 'evidence', should be made publicly and that the one so asserting should put up or shut up. Cheers,
Jack Merridew02:36, 27 March 2009 (UTC)reply
Hello. As far as I can tell, all iPhones in at least the Twin Cities have been not only blocked, but also prevented from writing on their own talk pages by one of your blocks. It came up at a party I was at last night, when it came up I was an Admin on Wikipedia someone complained that they couldn't make a change on their iPhone; I tried my iPhone (I don't edit from it) and it was blocked too. I think blocking the entire spectrum of 32.148.0.0/16 for 2 months, without permitting unblock requests, is too much collateral damage and bad PR. Please consider loosing it. --
Bobak (
talk)
19:25, 26 March 2009 (UTC)reply
I am very aware of the consequences of this block. It was only done as a result of a lot of very nasty and persistent vandalism. However, note that it is an "anon. only" block, so that anyone should be able to log in to edit. As well, users should be able to edit their talk pages, for unblock requests. I did not intend to block talk page edits, and as far as I can tell from the log, they aren't blocked:
[3]. Could you try checking that again?
Dominic·
t22:53, 26 March 2009 (UTC)reply
Thanks for the reply: you appear to be right --since I've never been blocked I got confused by the instructions on the page (especially since IPs don't have the "my talk" tab at the top). It's a bit messy because the IP for the iPhone keeps changing in that range --as you undoubtedly took into account. --
Bobak (
talk)
20:50, 27 March 2009 (UTC)reply
I wanted to chime in on this. I'm trying to figure out what happened with this block, but I can't find any history of what the problems were with the range, or any trail of less-severe blocks. Starting with a two-month block -- if that's actually the case -- seems a bit much, especially when you consider that you are blocking literally tens of thousands of computers across the country. Like I said, I don't know what the history is on this, but if you could offer some, the transparency would probably go a long way.
Could you comment on this user's unblock request? He's being hit by an open proxy rangeblock for XO communications, and says there's no proxy running at his IP address.
Mangojuicetalk20:44, 26 March 2009 (UTC)reply
Okay, I see what you were doing now; I didn't before, as there was no indication of the actual reason for deletion in your deletion summary. I replied to your message at
User talk:Infrogmation. Sorry for conflict. Do what you wish, though I suggest being sure that the ip's history of vandalism remains clear to vandalism fighters and the reason for deletion is clear to other admins. Thanks for your work. Cheers, --
Infrogmation (
talk)
12:48, 29 March 2009 (UTC)reply
User:194.176.105.39
Hi. On 9 March you blocked
User:194.176.105.39 for extended abuse of editing privileges. On 30 March they spent a short time abusing the unblock and helpme templates, so I reblocked without talk page rights. I'll undo this shortly when they've got bored and gone away - this is just to let you know as it varies your previous block. Hope that's OK, if not feel free to reverse it at any time.
Euryalus (
talk)
11:52, 30 March 2009 (UTC)reply
This is school IP that is shared by lots of users, which is why I put that custom block message. Please feel free to assume good faith liberally in the absence of evidence that this user is a vandal and give out IP block exemptions. If you do give IPBE, try to note the block at fault, so we can keep track of it (since user rights don't have expiries like blocks).
Dominic·
t01:37, 7 April 2009 (UTC)reply
The proliferation of lists of words which have no encyclopedic significance besides their etymological relation is not an argument for keeping the one that I did delete. The idea seems to be that while we would of course reject an article on a single word that consisted of just its etymology, if we make a list of them, then it's encyclopedic. And one for derivations from Latin verbs is even more esoteric. These lists are of course at home at Wiktionary, where such lists (as appendices) already exist. I'm afraid I don't see the problem. The ideal solution is this: a well sourced article on the general linguistic phenomenon (assuming it is significant) of English words derived from Latin verbs, and a link to the Wiktionary appendix listing them all. The list doesn't make much sense here; you can't click on the words to get information about them, since we only have encyclopedia articles.
Dominic·
t09:47, 2 April 2009 (UTC)reply
I mean, that's a reasonable position. But what I object to is that you did the move and deletion unilaterally, with no warning or announcement and no allowance for discussion. The fact that so many other etymological word lists exist in Wikipedia is at least evidence that there isn't broad
consensus that such lists are unencyclopedic; and I think it's the editor's responsibility to establish consensus before making a drastic move like transwikiing and speedy deletion.
AJD (
talk)
16:45, 2 April 2009 (UTC)reply
In my opinion, it was a simple case of fitting the cited criterion for speedy deletion. Do you actually have an objection to the deletion, or just the process. I am open to discussing the merits of the article.
Dominic·
t03:08, 5 April 2009 (UTC)reply
So, I do object to the deletion, but, as described in
WP:OWN, it's hard for me to be objective about it because I mostly wrote it. So I'm not sure if the arguments I'd make against the deletion are valid or not—if I'm the only one defending it, you're probably right. (Perhaps we should seek a
third opinion, to get around my
WP:OWN issues in this particular case?) My argument, though, is basically the following: the existence of lots of other etymological word lists in Wikipedia is evidence that the broad Wikipedia consensus is in favor of the inclusion of such articles. And the one in question,
List of English words from Latin verb forms, is arguably even more appropriate than most, in that it at least includes references to a scholarly source on the subject of English words from Latin verb forms, rather than just being assembled out of collected dictionary entries. On the other hand, if you're right that
List of English words from Latin verb forms is unencyclopedic and ought to be deleted, the same is true for all of the other ones I listed above and more besides.
AJD (
talk)
15:13, 5 April 2009 (UTC)reply
MAYOTTE
Your notion of neutral is very strange; I think most people who consult wikipedia would like to know what the real situation is, as to the size of a country for example, not what some other people would like it to be. The truth is that Mayotte is part of France, not Comoros, and the people who actually live there have just voted overwhelmingly to become even more so. You refer to UN resolutions: the only ones I know of are PROPOSED resolutions which were vetoed by France and are thus null and void. Arab and African organizationa you mention have also expressed vain desires about about how they would like things to be in Palestine, for example; this doesn't change the real situation in the world people actually live in.
Wran (
talk)
09:29, 2 April 2009 (UTC)reply
You are confusing the issue. There was no vote to become "more French;" that is your interpretation. The vote changed the administration of a French-administered overseas collectivity to a French-administered overseas department. We don't say that any other overseas collectivity which is not in dispute, like
Saint Barthélemy, is less French (in the political sense) than other parts of France. Similarly, this vote has no bearing on whether or not the island is considered French. It is just administered differently.
However, if you would like to discuss the issue of the island's political status absent the red herring of the recent vote, that's fine. Unfortunately, the "truth" is not that Mayotte is part of France, but rather that France claims and administers Mayotte as a part of France. Nor is "the truth" what we are after,
neutrality is a different concept. Now, your evidence here is not very persuasive. Your first point, about the UN resolutions, is simply wrong: there have been around four separate UN resolutions passed in the last 35 years each affirming the original resolution on the matter which stated that the "occupation by France of the Comorian island of Mayotte constitutes a flagrant encroachment on the national unity of the Comorian State." This is all discussed in the article itself, and referenced in
footnotes 4 and 5. The "real situation" that people live in is that the French administer an island that is internationally recognized to be the sovereign territory of another country. Your invocation of Palestine is especially pertinent, since, as you'll see at
Israel, Wikipedia does not take Israel's law as our guide for defining political status, but follows international convention by not including them in the map, population, area statistics, and referring to them as "adjacent" and "occupied" territories. Similarly, see
Morocco, where the internationally unrecognized occupation of Western Sahara is not part of our definition of the country despite Morocco's de facto administration, and
Cyprus, where the internationally recognized borders of the country include Northern Cyprus, despite the fact that it has no de facto control. Of course, this doesn't mean that we shouldn't explain the status of Mayotte in the article, but it already does that painstakingly.
Dominic·
t10:59, 2 April 2009 (UTC)reply
There is nothing "confusing" about calling a vote to become an integral part of the French nation, as opposed to being a mere territory or "overseas collectivity", "more French". When Alaska became a state it become more American;if Puerto Rico voted to become a state it would too. We, and the people who live there, do consider territories like
Saint Barthélemy less French than actual departments of the nation: the people do not have the same status, rights, and obligations as citizens of the nation proper.
My point about UN resolutions is NOT "simply wrong"; if you read what I actually said you'll see that I only referred to my personal knowledge (at the moment of writing). What you say about UN resolutions is indeed true, as far as it goes; what you fail to mention is that these are only General Assembly resolutions, whereas what I had in mind was Security Council Resolutions, which are the only ones that have any effect. The General Assembly, like the Arab and African associations you mention, is a highly politicized body; all of these groups have made all sorts of partisan resolutions over the years, but their effect is merely propogandistic.
In the neutrality section you refer to there is section titled "Let the facts speak for themselves". The simple fact is that Mayotte is French. ANOTHER fact is that some international organizations don't like this fact and have voted resolutions opposing it, opposing a FACT. Of course they are free to resolve on anything they want, but it won't change the fact. You might want to reflect on the meaning of the word "resolution": to resolve to do something is to have a determination to do it, BUT it is not necessarily to accomplish it; thus the UN General Assembly would like for Mayotte to be part of Comoros but it's not going to happen. And furthermore, nations that voted for these resolutions knew it wouldn't have any effect when they voted; in fact many nations vote cynically in such circumstances, thus allowing them to have things both ways: they can say to the Comorans "hey look, we supported you" but they won't really offend the French because the vote is essentially meaningless. You seem to be a pretty smart guy, so wake up and join the world of realpolitik!
Wran (
talk)
20:40, 2 April 2009 (UTC)reply
It is painfully clear that this is your personal opinion, and not, as you say, "the simple fact." What sources do you have for your strange claims that an overseas collectivity is less a part of France than an overseas department? It's interesting, but not exactly relevant, that you feel that UN General Assembly resolutions can be ignored, however this is not how any reliable sources on the matter view them. I don't understand your partisanship here; what we are describing is not what we ourselves think is true, but how the situation is understood by reliable sources. Regarding Mayotte rejoining Comoros, I of course I agree that "it's not going to happen," and, indeed, you will see
in the article: "As a practical matter, however, these resolutions have little effect and there is no foreseeable likelihood that Mayotte will become de facto part of Comoros without its people's consent." What is at issue here is not the de facto situation in Mayotte (which you describe well and which is not in dispute), but how to describe the de jure status of the island. No respected international bodies nor any major national governments besides France recognize Mayotte as part of France's de jure borders.
Dominic·
t23:32, 2 April 2009 (UTC)reply
HideUser is a function given to oversighters with the new RevisionDelete system, which allows them to remove the username in a single click while blocking an account. The username will be replaced by "(username removed)" in all logs and contributions, and will disappear from
Special:Listusers. It is governed by the oversight policy.
Dominic·
t03:06, 5 April 2009 (UTC)reply
If the account has any user pages (such as a talk page due to messages or
user warnings being sent to the user), what happens to the user pages? Are the user pages deleted or is the page title replaced with "(Username removed)"?
No, user pages are not deleted automatically. If they exist, they should be deleted first (and then the deletion logs will be one of the things that the name gets removed from).
Dominic·
t23:48, 5 April 2009 (UTC)reply
Your comment on my talk page
I'll keep what you said about UAA reporting in mind, but could you specify how I'm supposed to distinguish between those usernames that are supposed to be reported at WP:UAA and those that are supposed to be reported at WP:RFO?
Antivenin09:48, 7 April 2009 (UTC)reply
Just try to remember that there are actual people behind the Wikipedians being referenced here, so anything that seems like it could cause problems for people in the real world should be treated sensitively. This means libel and personal information. "X is a rapist," "X is a pedophile," these are common types of vandal usernames that are preoblematic enough to need to be treated with oversight, and should not be spread with UAA reports. Similarly outing like "X's name is Y," "X lives in Canton, Michigan," "X goes to school at Y," and so on should be directed to oversight. And of course, err on the side of caution. Thanks.
Dominic·
t12:10, 7 April 2009 (UTC)reply
Hi. I apologize for drawing your attention to
this edit (since reverted and editor blocked), but you might want to know about it in case you want to alert the police, as I probably would in such a situation. Sandstein 08:30, 13 April 2009 (UTC)reply
It was a sockpuppet. If you check my block log around that time, you'll see a bunch of accounts blocked for the same (overly-cryptic, sorry about that) reason. Some have a bit more obvious trolling edits. Let me know if you still have any questions.
Dominic·
t03:55, 16 April 2009 (UTC)reply
I did not realize he was a sockpuppet. In the future, I would recommend that you use "sockpuppet of X" in the block summary for the socks, instead of the original reason for blocking the original puppeteer. Anyway, thanks for clarifying. No harm, no foul.--
Aervanath (
talk)
04:10, 16 April 2009 (UTC)reply
I would ask you to be careful and judicious about deleting transwikied titles.
In my experience, nine out of ten stay around as disambiguation pages or redirects, and the edit history is useful for the purposes of building such. Since "deletion" on Wikipedia simply means "hiding edit history from non-admins", I see little merit in deleting transwikied articles, just try to turn them into an appropriate redirect or disambig page.
In the specific case of
Jutsu, I must also ask you, where is the transwikied article? I know that the transwiki template claimed that "its dictionary counterpart can be found at either
Wiktionary:Transwiki:Jutsu or
Wiktionary:Jutsu." But simply clicking on these two links is enough to establish that this is not, in fact, the case. It would appear that you deleted an article that had not in fact been transwikied. I would ask you to either undo your deletion (to preserve the edit history), or alternatively make sure that you do transwiki the material you deleted. Thank you. --
dab(��)13:48, 18 April 2009 (UTC)reply
Oh dear. I see that you are deleting many many articles for "transwikification". Have you not made sure for each one that they really were transwikied? If you haven't, you could be doing rather a lot of damage here. Please make sure that each article you delete on the basis of "has been transwikied" has really been transwikied. Otherwise undelete them, or transwiki them yourself! --
dab(��)13:50, 18 April 2009 (UTC)reply
There wasn't any suggestion in the article that the word had been borrowed by the English language. In which case, it wouldn't make sense to look for the article at "jutsu," but at the correct script,
wikt:術. It's true that the suggestions generated by the template didn't make sense in this case. My feeling on redirects and disambiguations is that if there is an actual need for something to point somewhere else, it will get created before long.
Dominic·
t20:41, 18 April 2009 (UTC)reply
indeed it will. By editors forced to do the same work you had deleted earlier on. I will ask you again to undelete the edit histories you have erroneously deleted, claiming they had been transwikied. You have deleted 55 revisions at
jutsu alone. This is work people have invested in documenting the term. It may be arguable that this work would be more at home at wiktionary, which is why we have the transwiki process. The A5 criterion will allow you to delete the edit history at en-wiki only after the content has been moved to wiktionary, nb correctly preserving the history to satisfy GFDL. If you want to delete content for other reasons than A5, do not invoke A5.
You are an admin, and I should not need to explain this to you. You invoked a CSD (A5), which did not apply. I assume it was an honest mistake. Now I have drawn your attention to the mistake you made, you would be expected to clean up after yourself, and not trust that "it will be cleaned up before long" (viz., by others). --
dab(��)15:39, 19 April 2009 (UTC)reply
Thanks, but your patronizing language is not a great way to start a conversation. It's true that
wikt:術 is not a transwikied article, but existed before. For all your talk about having to explain things to me, you could have just said that from the beginning, if that's what you meant. Having said that, you clearly already turned
jutsu into a disambiguation page, so I don't know what you expect me to do.
Dominic·
t20:41, 21 April 2009 (UTC)reply
I don't have much to add besides what is apparent. The service is indeed an anonymizing proxy, and shouldn't really be unblocked. There is no reason to think this account is connected to any abuse on the IP. If they need to use it to edit (perhaps due to editing from China) IPBE should be considered.
Dominic·
t17:39, 30 April 2009 (UTC)reply
The editors earlier discussed and essentially unanminously agreed that this link should be in place. The presence of (appropriate) jokes in physics articles and text books is an entirely appropriate and traditional thing, and this particular comic is written by a physics expert. If it wasn't for the fact that we couldn't get a license for it (it's licensed non commercial, but the wikipedia is commercial), this would be in the article. It is entirely appropriate to link to material that we cannot include in the wikipedia for licensing reasons.- (
User) Wolfkeeper (
Talk)
01:03, 6 May 2009 (UTC)reply
Hi. I am not a vandal, and don't really appreciate being reverted as one. As well, please not that Wikipedia is not a commercial project. Can you honestly say that a link misleadingly-named "XKCD demonstrates the life and death importance of centrifugal force" to a comic adds anything of value to an article on physics? I doesn't demonstrate any such thing; it's a joke, and a good one in fact, but not relevant to the topic at hand. Is this comic in any way historically significant enough for inclusion on a general physics article, or is it just something we put there because we like? The idea that we would include the image in the article if we could sounds ridiculous to me. The inclusion, and especially the link's title, is embarrassingly unprofessional for an encyclopedia article.
Dominic·
t12:20, 6 May 2009 (UTC)reply
If it was PD or had a compatible license, I'd certainly have put it in the article myself. It's a great example of how the confusion between points of view on centrifugal force has made its way even into popular culture, and it will get people thinking about the problem at hand. I agree that the tongue-in-cheek EL label should be made more straightforward though.
Dicklyon (
talk)
14:41, 6 May 2009 (UTC)reply
To be clear, Mrpotatohead 2 is definitely LeHappy, but my interpretation would be that Advanceforward and all the other dozen or so socks I blocked were a different entity, and a much more long-term problem. At the time, I was just blocking socks of one or more users that were already indefinitely blocked, and didn't see the need to differentiate. Regarding the merit of the unblock request, I am always mystified by the amount of unblock requests I am asked to comment on just because I did CheckUser. What happened is that there was an ongoing sockpuppetry problem, and someone asked me to use the tool to find outstanding accounts. I don't have any greater authority or judgment here than you. In fact, I prefer to segregate the roles of commenting admin and CheckUser, so that my opinions an decisions as the former never appear to influence my judgments as the latter. (Which was all a polite way of trying to evade your request for comment. ;-) )
Dominic·
t16:20, 6 May 2009 (UTC)reply
Well I wanted to make sure I had the socks sorted correctly. This helps a lot, and makes me more comfortable in giving Mr. P another shot. Thanks, –
xenotalk16:51, 6 May 2009 (UTC)reply
Thanks
Thank you for processing this report
[4]. Next time I will ask an advice from a clerk. This report was indeed approved by a clerk. Please note that I did not mention Russavia anywhere in this report, and I only replied about IPs coming from the same area. Perhaps I should not. Sorry for that.
Biophys (
talk)
15:41, 6 May 2009 (UTC)reply
From my perspective, it looks like the three of you were simply carrying on an outside conflict within the pages of SPI. There is not typically a need for any discussion at all, except for the original inquiry and any pertinent comments from the parties mentioned. It's not just that it takes longer to look at a page with a lot of debate, but also, everyone will tend to avoid wading into messes like that, so it's in your own best interest not to let it happen.
Dominic·
t16:33, 6 May 2009 (UTC)reply
Yes, I agree. I filed several SPI reports
[5],
[6],
[7], but I have never been reported to ANI for doing this, as
had happened right now. I thought the report was justified and provided some evidence, but everyone can be wrong. BTW, in the first link I gave you (Vlad fedorov), that was an evasion of ArbCom ban. I did not press the issue, so only secondary account was blocked...
Biophys (
talk)
17:33, 6 May 2009 (UTC)reply
Mcmlxxxvi1986 has had just one IP in his month of editing, and it was an exact mach with the IP of
Bambam1986 (another Shuppiluliuma sock), with identical (rare) user agent strings. As well, Mcmlxxxvi1986 edited the same set of articles, like
Economy of Turkey, as Shuppiluliuma.
Dominic·
t06:26, 17 May 2009 (UTC)reply
Will you please delete the entire revision history of user:yofiued, except for 1 June 2009?
Reasons: removal of non-public personal information, the subject has specifically asked for the information to be expunged from the history, the case is clear, and there is no editorial reason to keep the revision.
You recently found a couple of
User:Brexx sockpuppets in the above SPI case. I didn't want to add anything to the above case because it's now closed but still hasn't been archived so I prefer not to mess with it for now. I wanted to ask you if you'd be willing to check Forgivenesss (
talk+·tag·contribs·deleted contribs·logs·filter log·block user·block log·CA·CheckUser(
log) ·investigate·cuwiki) as a possible sock of Brexx. Forgivenesss started editing shortly after the two confirmed socks were confirmed and blocked and is editing all of the same articles.
Let me know if you'd prefer that I list it over at SPI.
Per your checkuser investigations at
Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Nrcprm2026, I see that you also mentioned likely socks of
User:TDC. I have transcluded some of your results to
Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/TDC in an attempt to consolidate information about that editor. Could I impose upon you to verify the status of the sockpuppets listed there? I figure either you may have run across some of them in your investigations, or perhaps you'll find new information there that you could use. Regards,
Xenophrenic (
talk)
22:58, 23 June 2009 (UTC)reply
Just wondering if I could get you opinion on something
Talk:Manchester mayoral election, 2009 (New Hampshire) is where the discussion is. So there is an disagreement between me and another editor on what the page should be I believe it should be the one posted above and he thinks it should be Manchester, New Hampshire mayoral election, 2009 just wondering if you could contribute thanks
Gang14 (
talk)
05:03, 6 July 2009 (UTC)reply
I've been contacted by
User:Ace Baker with respect to the above-captioned article; the link will take you to an AfD discussion that you closed in 2005. Please see my talk page (
here) for the details; I deleted a recent re-posting of this article after it had been tagged as having failed a previous AfD. Essentially, this editor has offered me some evidence that the article should be re-mounted; because of a comment in the earlier AfD that "Some unhappy ETS patients have an axe to grind about the side-effects of their surgery, so they are appropriating Wikipedia in order to advance their cause, both in this and in the ETS entry" I wanted to proceed very carefully. My understanding of the relevant policies is that you should be consulted before anything else happens, and that if you were to agree that the article should be re-examined, the next step is
deletion review. My experience in this area is extremely limited -- for instance, I've never closed an AfD -- and so I am hoping that your greater experience will guide this process from here. May I hear from you on this topic, please? Thanks in advance for your trouble.
Accounting4Taste:
talk17:00, 9 July 2009 (UTC)reply
Two very pertinent facts exist today that were not present during the 2005 deletion of Corposcindosis:
1. There now exists an online treatise on the subject, a treatise which contains approximately 200 references to mainstream published medical literature.
[9]
2. A citation of the word Coproscindosis, along with its definition, has been published in a mainstream medical journal.
[10]
Thank you in advance for restoring this important article. The fact that there are depressed/angry people suffering this condition is no reason at all to delete a wikipedia article. There are many people angry about
Bernard Madoff for example.
The two things that you have presented are a self-published essay on someone's personal website (presumably you are the author) and a single passing, trivial mention in a journal article. That's nothing to write an article about, so the original grounds for deletion, that this is
original research still seem to apply. Of course, anyone is welcome make a request at the deletion review, but I wouldn't recommend it. You aren't likely to get far.
Dominic·
t02:11, 10 July 2009 (UTC)reply
Well, it was a pity to see
this today. However, I noticed that in addition to removing your oversighter and checkuser flags, the steward also
desysopped you. Just wanted to send you a heads up in case you want to make use of the tools in the future.
NW(
Talk)23:46, 2 September 2009 (UTC)reply
Aw.... I'm going to miss you and using you (:)). It's such a crime you know? ;) Good luck with your endeavours, and thanks for all the help you've done. --Kanonkas :
Talk 21:37, 3 September 2009 (UTC)reply
I've removed in error your sysop bit flag when fulfilling RfP meta request. I apologize for this. I've checked and a local en.wiki bureaucrat has already fixed my error and your sysop flag has been set. Thank you for your understanding.
I viewed your contributions page when I stumbled across two or three other crime-related articles that you nominated for Afd. Given our differences of opinion, I was indeed looking for other articles that I thought should be kept but I did not make any recommendations simply to be contrary to you. I think I recommended weak keep on three or four of them (acknowledging that there was not a strong argument to keep them around), and I avoided commenting "delete" in three or four others that I thought would go away via snowball. You can also check
Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Crime to see that I've commented in quite a few crime-related articles that you did not nominate. I apologize if you feel I've been wikistalking. Best wishes,
Location (
talk)
06:33, 12 September 2009 (UTC)reply
I didn't mean to suggest that you were just being disagreeing with me to be contrarian, but it did seem like you were just participating because you disagreed with me. I don't want to sound like I am trying to discourage participation from people who disagree with me, and I am glad you are understanding about why it made me feel uncomfortable even though I believe you that you didn't mean it that way.
Dominic·
t10:17, 12 September 2009 (UTC)reply
Actually, I got a chuckle out of the placeholder logo and caption, so maybe it's a good fit. If you want the logo at the beginning, we could put both, or make an image that splices them half-and-half, but they are already pictured in my response to the logo question. It's your call, but I don't mind how it looks currently.
Dominic·
t02:18, 14 September 2009 (UTC)reply
I've been missed? I should say the same to you. ;-) Nice to hear from you, though. I hope you are doing well, in both wiki and real-world endeavors. :-)
Dominic·
t06:39, 14 September 2009 (UTC)reply
ScienceGolfFanatic
You offered on the very bottom of
this page to help if more ScienceGolfFanatic socks ever returned. I've been emailing him off and on since July and I had come to suspect that he'd be back as soon as school started since he'd be able to evade his rangeblock. I am pretty sure that he is back now, but I don't really think I should add to the SPI case because the two accounts I suspect to be his so far are already blocked. What I'm after is trying to get my suspicions confirmed so that some sort of rangeblock can be placed; otherwise he could just keep coming back (some schools have a different IP address for each computer in the school). The two accounts which I've found are
Joejoejoejoejoejoejoejoejoe and
Tmffqfs Tpdl. If necessary I can explain what makes me suspicious of these two particular accounts, since I realize it would not be obvious to most other editors, and because "Soap thinks you're ScienceGolfFan" isn't really going to convince a checkuser. (I am 100 percent sure, though; not just 99% sure.) -- SoapTalk/Contributions02:00, 16 September 2009 (UTC)reply
J.delanoy was able to help and he confirmed that those two accounts are in fact SGF, and that SGF has been editing from school. Hopefully all the IP's should be softblocked now. -- SoapTalk/Contributions01:33, 17 September 2009 (UTC)reply
I had also asked Hersfold to look into it, and 64.231.200.0/22 has been blocked. I just forgot to say something here. Unfortunately, I am not a CheckUser any longer, so you'll have to try to follow up with one of those two in the future.
Dominic·
t01:59, 17 September 2009 (UTC)reply
Murderers
Nice job getting rid of a bunch of articles on non-notable murderers. It's surprising how articles on non-notable murderers can stay around for so long.
Joe Chill (
talk)
15:23, 20 September 2009 (UTC)reply
Yeah, I was pretty disturbed how much it seems that people who have received little actually significant media and academic coverage get articles written about them if they happen to be murderers or similar criminals. Unfortunately, it seems there is no end to these type of articles. :-)
Dominic·
t07:46, 21 September 2009 (UTC)reply
Hi! I noticed that you have recently deleted an article about
Steen Christensen. I don't know what kind of article it was, but anyways, what Christensen did in the year 1997, killing two cops, happens to be one of the most well-known murder cases of the last couple of decades in Finland. Some web links (in Finnish or Swedish):
[13],
[14],
[15],
[16],
[17] and
[18]. So, if also the article about him was deleted because of an assumption that he is non-notable, that assumption is clearly wrong.
,,n (
talk)
21:13, 14 October 2009 (UTC)reply
Hello Dominic, this is an automated message from
SDPatrolBot to inform you the PROD template you added to
David Brame has been removed. It was removed by
DGG with the following edit summary '(BLP is irrelevant as a reason. He's dead, and so is his wife.)'. Please consider
discussing your concerns with DGG before pursuing deletion further yourself. If you still think the article should be deleted after communicating with the 'dePRODer,' you may want to send the article to
AfD for community discussion. Thank you,
SDPatrolBot (
talk)
21:43, 3 October 2009 (UTC) (
Learn how to opt out of these messages) 21:43, 3 October 2009 (UTC)reply
Checkuser 220.237.74.225
Hi, i noticed you a perfomed checkuser on IP
210.49.251.226 in the past, showing him to be a sockpuppet of indef blocked user:AKR619. He has returned to
List of science fiction themes to revert to a non-consensus version, and also to
WWE Hall of Fame, but with a new IP:
220.237.74.225. He is pretending to not be user:AKR619 (the sockmaster), but the editing pattern is obvious. His edits to these article already earned him more than one indefinate block in the past, and since the indef, his IP was warned and blocked a few times, so seems incorrigible.
I think it is so obivous that a checkuser is not needed, but i have never requested one before, so don't know the procedure. Do you think a new checkuser is needed? Could you do one if needed, or do i have to fill out a form somewhere? I left a msg with the blocking admins too (
User:Mark and
User:Wizardman). Thanks!
YobMod11:09, 25 October 2009 (UTC)reply
I just noticed comments above about checkuser status. Sorry to hear that. I go searching for the checkuser request page then.
YobMod11:46, 25 October 2009 (UTC)reply
That's quite an old block, and the indefinite expiry may have been a misclick or overzealousness on my part. Reducing the expiration date and converting it to a soft-block sound like a good idea to me. We can deal with any future abuse as it crops up.
Dominic·
t17:18, 26 October 2009 (UTC)reply
I am not sure about that result. I am currently traveling and don't have much time to check it out. But I will note that that is a Dutch ISP that looks like a hosting company. It's is most likely that the blocked user was only blocked while trying to log in from a hotspot or some similar location, and asking them to try from their regular internet connection will solve the problem on their end.
Dominic·
t03:20, 8 November 2009 (UTC)reply
I was trying to say that it has the most individual projects by language (en. wikt, fr.wikt, ja.wikt, etc.). I know that is a confusing wording. If you can think of a better way of saying it, please do.
Dominic·
t18:12, 17 November 2009 (UTC)reply
Cake!
A sandwich didn't seem appropriate. We needed something a little more celebratory! Congratulations on your appointment to the AUSC. I'm happy to say, in public, that you had my support. Good luck, and keep up the good work DMC! As always, you have my very best regards.
Hamster Sandwich (
talk)
21:47, 10 November 2009 (UTC)reply
Obviously, I opposed you, because I believe you are Wikileaker on Wikipedia Review, and the same individual who leaked several emails from the Arbcom mailing list and left several anonymous hurtful comments on my blog. I make this accusation based on various factors that were determined by me and some other editors, including at least two arbitrators. Additionally, you are barely here at all, hardly interested in the encyclopedia, and you have already proven yourself to be abusive in other roles (such as IRC op). I couldn't think of anyone less suitable for the role, if I am honest. Majorlytalk17:25, 11 November 2009 (UTC)reply
Majorly, you have repeatedly made insinuations with no particular substance to be refuted; though I can say that I have never visited or heard of your blog. I am tired of your accusations, honestly. It is clear to me that people do not seem to agree with you or we wouldn't be having this discussion. As to your substantive complaints about activity and interest, you should have raised them during the election period. I would have told you that while it is true that I have been doing a lot of traveling and moving recently and I fully admit my low level of recent activity, I am here to stay and soonto be back to normal schedules, so I expect to be able to give AuSc all the time it needs.
Dominic·
t18:06, 11 November 2009 (UTC)reply
Majorly, for your information, I followed up with the two arbs that you named yesterday. My email correspondence with them makes it clear that there is not evidence from an investigation that shows that Dominic is Wikileaker. As I told you in IRC, you needed to let the matter drop, or file a formal complaint with AUSC or the Foundation instead of making these allegations without any supportive evidence.
FloNight♥♥♥♥21:45, 11 November 2009 (UTC)reply
Oh, there is evidence alright. I tried to work out who Wikileaker was for a long time, and it involved several editors in different ways. I spent a lot of time looking over posts, times and edits trying to establish who to rule out, who to rule in. I looked at background, activity and conflicts of different editors just to see if they held any grudge against me, or Lar or JoshuaZ. And why should I bother emailing the foundation, just to get no response because they disagree? And I am certainly not filing any complaint with something as silly as AUSC. I am certain of what I say, and don't say this sort of thing lightly. I could have raised it some time back of course, but I thought Dominic had stopped playing games so did let the matter drop. Clearly I was incorrect in that assumption. Majorlytalk22:44, 11 November 2009 (UTC)reply
I am not nor have I ever leaked or played "games." I don't hold grudges against any of the people you mention, including you. In fact, despite any disagreements we may have had, I quite like Lar, who I have known and worked with for a while. Again, I think it is unreasonable to make an accusation and insist that you are sure of it and that you have evidence, but refuse to actually file a complaint to settle the matter. As a fellow CheckUser, I know you understand the gravity of the accusation. If you are actually serious about it, you should act in the way that a serious complainant would; and that does not involve vague accusations on talk pages which seem to have no purpose other than to damage someone's reputation.
Dominic·
t01:51, 12 November 2009 (UTC)reply
Invitation to participate in SecurePoll feedback and workshop
After the rewrite, it does look better, but that's still a big difference between Wikipedia and Wiktionary. If Wiktionary people are aware of such pitfalls, there needs to be a better venue than just talk pages.
OhanaUnitedTalk page14:57, 20 November 2009 (UTC)reply
Hi Dominic, I emailed you earlier today about
User:Mr. Hicks The III, which seems likely to be a return of
User:I am Dr. Drakken whom you previously blocked. Same interests, tone, pattern of jumping into contentious AfD's, reporting editors for enforcement, jumping into edit wars. As I said, this concerns me especially because sanctioned editors who have made these AE reports under their main accounts have been sharply criticized for doing so. The reason for concern seems clear enough, so please let me know if you need something additional. Thanks,
Mackan79 (
talk)
23:54, 28 November 2009 (UTC)reply
I admit a response has been slower in coming than I would like. I am still new to the committee, and, to be frank, so far it has been frustrating. We need to come up with a better system than posting unfocused smatterings of comments to a mailing list. I am hoping to work on making it more efficient, but, for the moment, I will stop making promises on when something will be ready. (Which isn't to say I'm not still working on it.)
Dominic·
t05:09, 2 December 2009 (UTC)reply
Supplement to a recent CU you carried out
Hi,
I notice that you recently identified
User:NoCal100 and
User:Canadian Monkey as likely part of the same sock farm. If you look at
this thread you will see that before these two were equated some of us thought that another account was run by one or the other of them. If your checkuser on them showed up the same ISP/geopraphical area as indicated by the two IP addresses that Nableezy mentions in that thread, then could you please prompt an admin to take appropriate action. Also, if you look at
this archived comment to me, you'll see that an editor on the other side of the I/P dispute agree with Nableezy and my supicions about Breein1007 being a sock account related to CM/NoCalton. An SPI was raised about Bree possibly being run by Canadian Monkey alittle while ago but it was closed because of the lack of a recent trail for CM shortly before he reactivated and you did your own Checkuser on him. I asked the clerk who closed that SPI to consider reopening it (see
[19]) but they have given me no indication of an opinion on this. GIven that we now now that CM was part of an active puppet farm, I think that a check on Bree is definitely appropriate. Thanks.--
Peter cohen (
talk)
16:19, 5 December 2009 (UTC)reply
The weekend now being unambiguously, globaly, certainly over, I'm going to have to insist that the Audit Subcommittee release a statement in a specified timeframe. If the comittee cannot release a statement within the next 24 hours, I'm going to mark the comittee as historical and sugest a return to the "loud shouting and backchannel influence peddling" method of audit.
Hipocrite (
talk)
14:05, 14 December 2009 (UTC)reply
Thank you for releasing the report. It is difficult for any comittee to write a document. I apologize for being such a bother through the process, and merely hope that no one holds it against anyone.
Hipocrite (
talk)
14:04, 17 December 2009 (UTC)reply
I don't fault you for your impatience. I am happy it is finished, and will try to make sure things run more smoothly in the future.
Dominic·
t00:46, 18 December 2009 (UTC)reply
It looks like that was the only account. He was able to use a public school network to evade the disabling of account creation on his main IPs. I have blocked the school IP, which will hopefully prevent him from doing it again.
Dominic·
t06:42, 18 December 2009 (UTC)reply
Hi
I'm editing away and all of a sudden I was knocked off line and got logged off and discovered that my whatever number had been blocked, just now, by, I think, you. If there is vandalism happening from here I'd like to know. Einar aka
Carptrash (
talk)
00:29, 19 December 2009 (UTC)reply
Your were never blocked directly, and nor was your specific IP address. What happened was that the range of IP addresses that you use was blocked to stop a prolific sockpuppeteer. This block should not affect you in any way, since it only targets logged-out editing and new account creation. If you ever find yourself blocked again, you simply need to log in. The reason that the block message is so vague is to avoid unnecessarily outing the sockpuppeteer's IP address and location.
Dominic·
t02:04, 19 December 2009 (UTC)reply
I am not particularly knowledgeable about how IP addresses work, but my concern, since i was editing in a library at the time I was blocked was that the sockpuppeteer that you were intending to block was operating from the library, and that did not seem possible. I am all in favor of keeping disruptive elements out of wikipedia, I was just surprised and a bit disturbed to get caught up in that net. I'll just assume that you understand what you are doing (including that it blocks "innocent" editors from posting) and thank you for your efforts.
Carptrash (
talk)
15:20, 19 December 2009 (UTC)reply
Okay. I am at the library (which is blocked) with a patron who is trying to set up an account and I find that the library is still blocked. This is not (
opinion) a good thing. Can you please unblock me? Einar aka
Carptrash (
talk)
18:01, 6 January 2010 (UTC)reply
I've reviewed the situation here independently and have to say that we cannot lift this (somewhat narrow) rangeblock at this time. What you can do is direct the person to
Wikipedia:Request an account - which will enable them to request an account be created for them. They should then be able to log in just fine and bypass the block :) -
Alison❤20:24, 9 January 2010 (UTC)reply
Thanks, Alison. I was about to look into this, and saw you beat me to it. :-) I somehow missed your message on the 6th, Carptrash, so I apologize for that. I wasn't ignoring you, or even trying to be demonic. ;-)
Dominic·
t20:27, 9 January 2010 (UTC)reply
Is this really as secretive as it needs to be? Okay I was embarrassed again, trying to help a patron at the library I work in to register and again not being able to do it. For what? if someone is doing anti wikipedia stuff from the library I work in I'd like to know. I'm not great at understanding how IP numbers work, but this is not (
opinion) a good thing. I will try the link above (thanks for it) but I doubt that I will get the chance with that particular patron.
Carptrash (
talk)
23:59, 11 January 2010 (UTC)reply
Hi Carptrash. From one library worker to another ;-), I assure you that the problems you have been having are the last thing we want to happen. If you are helping library patrons register accounts and become editors of Wikipedia, than that is great and should be encouraged. The issue here is likely not your library at all. Rather, your library and a prolific banned user are fellow customers of the same
internet service provider and belong to the same range of IP addresses. There is not supposed to be anything secretive about that fact. Note that usually in cases like these, simply using a different internet connection (like home or school instead of the library) will be sufficient to be able to register an account. However, if you plan on ever helping someone to register an account in the future, let me know and I think I can give your account an exemption to the IP block that will allow you to register accounts for others (while you are logged into your account).
Dominic·
t11:11, 12 January 2010 (UTC)reply
Season's greetings
Thank you for being one of the people who has made 2009 such an interesting and enlightening year for me. It has certainly had its challenges, but also many highlights. I wish you peace and contentment in 2010, and a joyous holiday season to you and yours.
In honour of the season, I hope you will enjoy a little musical token. Your choice:
traditional or
cheeky.
There was a
suicide threat made and it was deleted. It was brought to
ANI for comment. Myself and another user are requesting a checkuser solely to get the IP for geolocation to call the police per
WP:SUICIDE. Could you do a checkuser and get me the location and I will take it from there and make the call. -
NeutralHomer •
Talk •
03:01, 28 December 2009 (UTC)reply
CU followup
I'm wondering if the checkuser work was finished on
Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Wikid77 before it was marked as complete. There is no indication of the checkip result for the suspected IPsocks. The actions of those IPs were what seem to have induced PilgrimRose to create a sock, so it seems only fair to get an answer whether or not the IPs=Wikid77. Thanks,
LeadSongDogcome howl20:44, 31 December 2009 (UTC)reply
Findings regarding IP addresses are much more sensitive than normal findings of sockpuppetry, because an IP is personal information. Additionally, normally, we can only talk about accounts being related in terms of probabilities, but that is problematic for IP addresses, because it means we could be giving out someone's IP address on only a likelihood, and not a certainty, that they were doing anything wrong. My policy is usually to avoid giving any positive or negative statement on IP addresses at all, except where it becomes essential to the case. Note that I try to remain silent about IPs in cases like these even when it is a negative finding, so that my silence isn't an implicit connection. This is mostly a subjective determination, but usually that means that when there are multiple accounts and a finding of sockpuppetry, making any comment on the IPs is unnecessary because knowing the IP's status will not affect the finding of sockpuppetry against the main account. In this case, it doesn't seem like the repercussions against the alleged main account would be affected much by saying whether or not the IPs are related. The block against the main account applies to all accounts any IPs by that person, so making the IP known will only be necessary if in the future IP editing is used to evade the block.
Dominic·
t01:53, 1 January 2010 (UTC)reply
Hello Dominic! Thank you for your contributions. I am a
bot alerting you that 1 of the articles that you created is tagged as an
Unreferenced Biography of a Living Person. The
biographies of living persons policy requires that all personal or potentially controversial information be sourced. In addition, to insure
verifiability, all biographies should be based on
reliable sources. if you were to bring this article up to standards, it would greatly help us with the current 867 article backlog. Once the article is adequately referenced, please remove the {{unreferencedBLP}} tag. Here is the article:
Hey why do i get a message in a red rectangle about "bad edits" while i'm tagging some users you blocked as sockpuppets of a notorious bad boy?
Tempaccount5 (
talk)
21:05, 9 January 2010 (UTC)reply
In the AfD that brought forth the most recent SPI, I noticed
this from a relative new redlinked userpage account. Within three days or starting its account and within its first half dozen edits, it starting nominating article for deletion. See
[22]. I.e. this account does not feel like a new user and given the kinds of AfDs and the confirmed SPI in the one mentioned above, I think it may be the same guy? Best, --
A NobodyMy talk17:42, 11 January 2010 (UTC)reply
Irvine, I have seen the discussions, both there and on ANI. You should know that I sympathize with your situation. I have been in this job long enough to know the stress that a sockpuppetry investigation can cause. It is always a hazard of the decision to perform a check, and an even more unfortunate one when suspicions turn out to be unfounded. I think if we talk about it calmly we can reach an understanding, and I can clearly articulate why I thought the check was warranted. But after all that all those screenfulls of words, could you perhaps post a succinct summary of what you would still like me to answer?
Dominic·
t06:41, 15 January 2010 (UTC)reply
Actually, I find the explanation offered by yourself and Nathan - that the check was necessary because of an apparent confession by one of the users involved to being my sockpuppet - to be reasonable. I would expect such additional grounds would be necessary, given the flawed initial report by Snowded. Elonka has now offered a brief explanation on her talkpage for her own actions in bundling four additional users into the check. I'm content to let the matter rest at this point. Thanks for your time.
Irvine22 (
talk)
16:04, 15 January 2010 (UTC)reply
I'm not sure if you noticed, but that deletion is four years old. :-) Your point is well taken, but the amount of time since I have been active in image deletion could be measured in years at this point, so you don't have much to worry from me.
Dominic·
t22:34, 27 January 2010 (UTC)reply
Fair use rationale for File:1980 plebiscite ballot.jpg
Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:1980 plebiscite ballot.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under
fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to
the file description page and edit it to include a
fair use rationale.
If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "
my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on
criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the
Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
Killiondude (
talk)
07:51, 27 January 2010 (UTC)reply
This is not the way to treat people
One week ago, you wrote: Please post your thoughts succinctly and without the rhetoric and I will be happy to keep talking about it.[24] I immediately took the time to respond.
[25] You then ignored the response. Why? Meanwhile, the language I find so offensive remains in the official AUSC report. Please respond. --
JohnWBarber (
talk)
19:20, 29 January 2010 (UTC)reply
I haven't, in fact, intentionally ignored you. I have been mostly too busy in the real world to edit here the last couple of weeks. I do find it a bit tiresome to receive the bulk of your ire just because I am the only one responding, though. I think you can guess what the tone of my response will be—not much different from our previous exchange. However, I will ask for other auditors to weigh in, as hearing from more than one should be more satisfying, in any case.
Dominic·
t10:38, 10 February 2010 (UTC)reply
Sock's Puppet
This is an interesting allegation (sockpuppetry). Is there a way one can change or delete an existing user name? For identification purposes, I would rather use a different user name (MuJami). As Racepacket pointed out, I made this request previously.
As there does not appear to be a method to edit one's user name I thought it best to create a "new" profile. Unfortunately (yet understandably)someone misconstrued this act as sockpuppetry.
Thanks for running a CU on Peter Damian. One of the socks you uncovered,
User:I love SUV's, is the selfdeclared (by both named accounts) same as account
User:HistorianofScience, who is not blocked and hasn't come up in the CU. Do I need to start a new SPI or cna you run the additional check based on this info?
Fram (
talk)
09:43, 12 February 2010 (UTC)reply
Sorry, that was my error. HistorianofScience is a confirmed sockpuppet, and came up in my recent check. I recognized it as soon as I saw you mention it and was surprised I hadn't included it. Just an oversight on my part with all the copying and pasting of usernames going on. It's on the same range as the others, so I already followed that account down its rabbit hole, too. :-)
Dominic·
t09:52, 12 February 2010 (UTC)reply
Yes, I confirmed that the account you reported was a sockpuppet. Therefore, I blocked the IP that he used to create the sockpuppet, in hopes of preventing further occurrences. :-)
Dominic·
t13:37, 15 February 2010 (UTC)reply
You are involved in a recently-filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at
Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Transcendental Meditation movement and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—