User talk:AlexandrDmitri

Please click here to leave me a new message.

If I have left a message on your talkpage, I will have it watchlisted.

Leaving me a 'You've got mail' message is unneccesary; that merely generates a second email to the same account.

Length of rebuttals to evidence

Thanks for the note just now. You may be aware that one of the monster AE cases filed was about me. I don't wish to engage in lengthy argumentation, but would like to respond to a number of the specific diffs or representations of my behavior where I believe they are misleading. Given that the AE was 5,000 words, and I didn't have the opportunity to respond before it was closed, this might take a bit of space. I'm wondering if my rebuttal counts against my 1,000 word limit? Any suggestions you might have would be appreciated. Regards, Homunculus (duihua) 21:48, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Your entire section should be 1,000 words (give or take a few). Believe it or not, succinct prose has far more success that wordy submissions when it comes to arbitration cases. Your rebuttal need not be a word-for-word 'he said I said', but should be a presentation of your case. If you have any more questions, please do not hesitate to ask. Regards --Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 21:58, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi Alexandr. I understand that the workshop phase on this case closed on the 23rd, right? I'm just curious about how this is supposed to work. Homunculus (duihua) 12:25, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 18 June 2012

• Investigative report: Is the requests for adminship process 'broken'?

• News and notes: Ground shifts while chapters dither over new Association

• Discussion report: Discussion Reports And Miscellaneous Articulations

• WikiProject report: The Punks of Wikipedia

• Featured content: Taken with a pinch of "salt"

• Arbitration report: Three open cases, GoodDay case closed

• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 01:44, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 25 June 2012

• Op-ed: A call for editorial input in developing new Creative Commons licensing

• News and notes: "Mystical" Picture of the Year; run-up to Wikimania DC; RfA reform 2012

• In the news: Wales enters extradition battle; Wikipedia's political bias

• Recent research: Edit war patterns, deleters vs. the 1%, never used cleanup tags, authorship inequality, higher quality from central users, and mapping the wikimediasphere

• WikiProject report: Summer Sports Series: WikiProject Athletics

• Featured content: A good week for the Williams

• Arbitration report: Three open cases

• Technology report: Second Visual Editor prototype launches

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 05:44, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Mistaken diff on evidence page

Hi AlexandrDmitri; I realized I accidentally put the wrong diff on the Evidence page. The relevant sentence is about Ohconfucius (here [1]) The sentence says: "[42] [43] Belittling comments in edit summaries" That [43] is pointing to the wrong diff. The diff was supposed to be this one [2]. Can you replace that? If so, thank you. A mistake I hadn't noticed until recently. TheSoundAndTheFury (talk) 18:55, 27 June 2012 (UTC)  Done Changed. Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 19:13, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. TheSoundAndTheFury (talk) 20:00, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 02 July 2012

• Analysis: Uncovering scientific plagiarism

• Op-ed: Representing knowledge – metadata, data and linked data

• News and notes: RfC on joining lobby group; JSTOR accounts for Wikipedians and the article feedback tool

• In the news: Public relations on Wikipedia: friend or foe?

• Discussion report: Discussion reports and miscellaneous articulations

• WikiProject report: Summer sports series: Burning rubber with WikiProject Motorsport

• Featured content: Heads up

• Arbitration report: Three open cases, motion for the removal of Carnildo's administrative tools

• Technology report: Initialisms abound: QA and HTML5

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 10:38, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Hatting discussion

Hi Alexandr

Can you clarify your hatting of the Arbom content at the ANI discussion please.

Cheers, Leaky Caldron 15:24, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Edit conflicting prevented a more timely response. --Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 15:46, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Leaky Caldron 15:48, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

So you said you wished to be notified of further developments; what's your take on this ? Tarc (talk) 16:52, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Wow. I'm disgusted to find out well after the fact that you removed that post at the suggestion of Tarc of all people. His behaviour toward me in that ANI, which if it had been directed at Malleus would have triggered World War III by now thanks to the issues surrounding civility enforcement, is the precise reason why I made that addendum, and here you are suppressing it at his suggestion?!?!?! Cracker92 (talk) 19:11, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

The Clarification is "Request addition of While contributing to any page whose prefix begins with Wikipedia talk:Requests for Adminship, Malleus Fatorum will limit his comments to the current candidate under discussion." It is not an opportunity to relitigate the original case, and it is not the occasion, as I have pointed out, for topics regarding the discussion surrouding you at ANI. That it was Tarc who drew my attention to your post is entirely irrelvant. --Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 19:28, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Fair enough. Now you've explained it further, it makes sense. I apologise if you were offended by my complaint. Tarc undoubtedly takes pleasure in being the one to have alerted you though, so his involvement is not completely irrelevant. Cracker92 (talk) 19:47, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Can you clerk this please? It's incorrect, and is an attempt to restart the discussion you already hatted. Cracker92 (talk) 05:05, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Statements vs. evidence

Hey, Alexandr, I made a comment about statements in arbitration discussions at the Cracker92 ANI topic that may not be right. Could you shed some light on it for us? In looking at the Guide to Arbitration, I thought that the 500-page word limit applied to statements by non-parties in the discussion. Someone else thinks that only applies to the submission of evidence. Rereading the guide, I can see why she thinks that, but it does get a bit muddled because the guide seems to blend evidence and "argumentation" together with many calls for "brevity". Can you clarify, either here or at ANI? If you do it here, I'll report it to ANI for you. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:27, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

yes, please refrain from 500-page statements ;) Br'er Rabbit (talk) 19:30, 6 July 2012 (UTC)