User talk:Dominic

Old talk at /Archive1, /Archive2, /Archive3, /Archive4, /Archive5, /Archive6, /Archive7, /Archive8, /Archive9, /Archive10, /Archive11, /Archive12, /Archive 13, /Archive 14, /Archive15

Steele359 case

You can't just blank a request for ArbCom w/o letting the other Arbitrators look and decide on it. That's a violation of WikiPolicy.

Re: YouTube

You misunderstand me... I didn't find ANY that were acceptable in my random sample. What I found was 60% were links to copyrighted material. Most of the reset were either potential copyrights or for-sure fair use or non-copyrighted material but still not a good source in the article.

However, I'd recommend leaving the template in place for now. I'm going to use it to "spam" a recommendation on article talk pages to review the YouTube links for inclusion. (we have 11,000 links to YT and likely only 2% are actually acceptable) ---J.S (t|c) 10:03, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Great list. Is there any way to sort it alphabetically and/or break it up into smaller pages? ---J.S (t|c) 04:48, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

I reformatted your list so it's alphabetical and a bit smaller in KB. I also changed the links to point directly to the talk pages. User:J.smith/YouTube Linklist I'm going to set up AWB and start adding the notes on the talk pages. Want to give me a hand? ---J.S (t|c) 21:03, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Are large IP blocks AO?

I can't tell from looking at them as a not-yet-admin, but are the large /16 blocks you blocked AO blocks or complete blocks?

We got a complaint / request to unblock-en-l from someone at 70.231.245.165. If it's an AO block I'll let them know to just create an account and log in.

Thanks. Georgewilliamherbert 00:51, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your prompt response on the mailing list and your note on my talk page. Georgewilliamherbert 02:02, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

India page

Hi Dcmdevit, I noticed that you are an admin, and I wanted to get some advice from you. There is a user, Hkelkar, who seemed to have suddenly appeared on the India page last week and, since then, has been very unhelpful in his edits. First he uploaded a number of pictures and cluttered up the page and got into conflict with an admin Ganeshk. Now he seems to be pushing a nationalistic POV on the abolition of sati (widow burning). Lately, he seems to have been joined by a user Bakaman (or Bakasuprman). Please see the last two sections of the talk page. He seems to come up with very obscure references, and then aggressively pushes them. The whole thing seems a little bizarre and I don't know what to do. For now, I'm not doing any thing. Please advise. Fowler&fowler 01:56, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi.Thanks for your attention to this matter. I would like your opinion of my edits regarding Sati in the India article (not the pictures part, that I have backed down on so moot point). I believe that F&F above is whitewashing Raja Ram Mohan Roy's role in the abolition of Sati and, in the process, is citing equally obscure historical references from old and backdated textbooks to advance the POV that RRR's role was subservient to the British ban. My contention is more balanced, that while the British had a significant role to play in mandating the ban, the key lobbying and grassroots activities were carried out by the Brahmo Samaj under RRR both prior to and after the nominal enforcement by the British. May I have your opinion on this matter? I take great offense at the charge of "Nationalist POV" above as I spent 3 hours in a non-nationalist section of a non-nationalist library looking up all the references that I have cited in support of my viewpoint. The refs are definitely not obscure since they are available in scholarly repositories.I find his accusations of being "unhelpful" as misleading, in poor taste and a violation of WP:AGF since present consensus is in favor of my present edits (see the talk page Talk:India). Thank you.Hkelkar 03:01, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Sorry to fill up your talk page like this, but let me present my take on this matter in a non-emotive way. There are two aspects to the issue of banning Sati, political and cultural. Culturally, there is no doubt that RRR was strongly influenced by Western thought and Western ideals into regarding the immolation of widows as inherently amoral.Thus, from a cultural standpoint, western ideals got the upper hand. The Brahmo Samaj was a unilateralist Hindu movement that had the same role in Indian history that similar reform movements in Christianity did in the west (who advanced that the immolation of "heretics" was inherently amoral, for instance).However, the implementation of this ban was largely Indian, with westerners playing a nominal role in the process. The latter is a political matter, not a cultural one.Politically, the unilateralists of the Brahmo Samaj have the upper hand here.I believe that the sentence, as it stands, reflect both aspects of the situation. I am not some rabid hesperophobiac and won't deny the cultural contribution of the Europeans in this matter. I have advanced sufficient evidence to support the contention that the political aspect was different from the cultural one.Hkelkar 03:32, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Finally, I find Fowler&fowler's accusation of "Nationalist POV" rather ironic since Nationalism is also a western concept that was embraced by Indians around the time of the Sati business. Indians had no concept of a "Nation" prior to the Europeans' dropping by.

The practice of Sati continues till this day..mostly due to religious sanction TerryJ-Ho 11:16, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Regarding the above nationalist speak - there is an event called the first war of independence in 1857 - that involved whole of India TerryJ-Ho 11:17, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

The practice of Sati continues till this day..mostly due to religious sanction TerryJ-Ho 11:16, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Mr.TerryJ-Ho,

If, your above statement is intentional, you are doing the worst thing of tarnishing the image of our country. I do not know your back-ground. Hope you will appreciate that sentiments of any person get hurt when his/her nation/religion/societies come under false attack. How would you feel, if so done to you. India has a population of 120,00,00000. I have completed 56 years in this country and sufficiently informed about things going in this country. I have moved in villages regularly and live in Mumbai from birth. I have hardly heard of one or two instance of Sati during my life of 56 yrs. You can't help the people who wants to self immolate. We have rich & poor, educated and un-educated, modern and orthodox, good and bad all kind of people like any other country would have. Sati Pratha came in social practice because of Muslims invaded small kingdoms, killed or captured males, raped and made women folk their wives. Indians mostly were strict vegetarians. Muslims are non-veg. The women preferred death over being raped or marrying for the second time against Hindu culture and customs. The pride of woman-hood and un-civilised behaviour of Muslims are the route cause of this deprecative social system. Though people like me who borned later are also full of wounds of the root cause of Muslims behaviour. Pl. don't make fun of our pitiable social system which do not exist anymore from more than 5 decades. You shall make yourself and your society a shame for such remarks. Can you show me a single evidence that the system of Sati exist and the roots are our religion? Where did you get this information from? You are a shame Mr.TerryJ-Ho. God will not forgive you for such in-human behaviour. Swadhyayee 14:16, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Mr. Swadhyayee I am moved by the way you have taken this issue but while I understand your sentiments - I think here on Wikipedia our purpose is not to get into projecting the image of a country or religion as we see it or correcting the deeds or (supposed) misdeeds of others but being objective and moved from the subjects themselves TerryJ-Ho 15:07, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Agreed about WP:NOT. But you will need to provide sufficient evidence before making controversial edits/statements.

I would like to repeat User:Swadhyayee's question: Can you show me a single evidence that the system of Sati exist and the roots are Hindu religion? Where did you get this information from?

As per WP:RS: Exceptional claims should be supported by multiple credible and verifiable sources, especially with regard to historical events or politically-charged issues.

Thanks - KNM ^Talk 16:16, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Mr.terryJ-HO, with due apology, I request you to have some shame. I could not find your nationality. I could find that you were using name of Mr.L.K.Adwani a prominent politician of India. Are you ashamed of using your name or some not misleading name? Are you ashamed of showing your nationality? Nothing gives you a right to wrongfully allege a nation or a religion not only on this platform but anywhere else too. Wikipedia Foundation has no right to give you such liberty. Pl. introduce yourself so we know that you are not basically anti-Indian or anti-Hindu. Tell me, what is your study of India or Hindu religion? What is the basis of your claim that Sati Pratha still exists in India and it's due to religious sanction. The worst is there is no regret in your reply. Your talk page is full with involving your controversial behaviour in the matter of our nation and our religion.

My sincere apologies to Mr.Dmcdevit to answer a rubbish charge and using your domain. Swadhyayee 16:35, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you KNM, exactly my words. By that logic, the Quran and Bible sanction slavery. We know that no religion has a monopoly on obscure socioeconomic phenomena. Sati has no real religious sanction, it was a social stain on the Rajput ladies to be done by Muslim men. That was where it emanated from, because RAjputs considered Muslim invaders unclean, and didnt want their women being done by a group of crazy genocidal maniacs. There has been one incident of sati that has actually been famous in the last 10-15 years. Sensationalist Madrassa nonsesne doesnt belong on wiki.Bakaman _Bakatalk 23:26, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

About Immigration in Bhutan

• The article deals with issues relating to the ethnic communities of Nepal. The factual presentation of the article are inaccurate at places UNHCR states that Lhotsampas have been staying in Bhutan from 19th century whereas the article states it to be of 20th century. After the recent revolution of Nepal, the ethnic communities have suddenly waken up from their peaceful dormant state to an aggressive form which can be attributed to some extent to the armed conflict of Maoists. The ethnic communities share feeling of kinship with the people who are "refugees" now. The tolerant nature of these ethnic groups had to a large extent prevented any ethnic clashed between the ethnic groups of Nepal and Druks. The article is biased and statements like

While the intent of the policy was benign and inclusive, the government not totally unreasonably, implied that the 'culture' to be preserved would be that of the northern Bhutanese. This policy therefore required citizens to wear the attire of the northern Bhutanese in public places and reinforced the status of Dzongkha as the national language. Nepali was discontinued as a subject in the schools thus bringing it at par with the status of the other languages of Bhutan, none of which are taught. Such policies were criticized at first by human rights groups as well as Bhutan's Nepalese economic migrant community, who perceived the policy to be directed against them. The Nepali immigrants claim that the Bhutanese are clinging to power at the expense of human rights, pluralism, and democratic principles. However many in Bhutan see the ethnic Nepali immigrants’ cry for pluralism and democracy as just an excuse to overwhelm and take over a lightly populated Bhutan through unrestricted immigration.

or

This act led to the increased activity of numerous groups to protest against what was seen as an injustice against resident Nepalis.

or

Thus a group of several thousand left and settled in refugee camps. The UNHCR aid provided to these people also attracted the poor from border areas of Nepal, who claimed to be refugees as well to receive aid

or

Matters reached a head in September 1990 after well organized groups comprised of 10,000 or more ethnic Nepalis from the Indian side of the border, organized protest marches in different districts, burned down schools, stripped local government officials of their national attire which they burned publicly, carried out kidnappings and murders of other ethnic Nepalis who did not join their protests. Some of the organizers of the marches were arrested and detained. However the Bhutanese government later released most of them. Those with ties to the groups responsible for the murders and kidnappings were forced to leave, but unfortunately many other innocent ethnic-Nepali citizens were coerced to leave by the angry ethnic-Nepali dissidents.

inflame and provoke the situation further. Considering the ethnic clashes, which are omnipresent in South Asia resulting poorly written and nonneutral articles like this, I propose that this article is either rewritten with a neutral point of view with references/source from United Nations and other such respeced global entities rather than some pro-Druk or pro-Lhotsampa or be deleted and kept in a deleted state till neutral point of view is established. I also would like to request the use of Lhotsampa rather than Nepali if this article is rewritten because the Bhutanese refugees are not Nepalese citizens. Its like calling John F Kennedy as Irish president.--Eukesh 21:15, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Hkelkar

Hello,

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Hkelkar. Please add any evidence you may wish the arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Hkelkar/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Hkelkar/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Thatcher131 12:35, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Block changes

Hi; User:Marskell requested unblocking of User:213.42.2.22 [1] so I adjusted it. Sorry, I should have asked you about it first. Please let me know if I broke anything, and I'll try to fix it. Or, feel free to make any changes to the block. Tom Harrison ^Talk 15:54, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

mail

Hi - you've got mail. Rama's arrow 16:08, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Wik check

Will do, though it's been a while. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:11, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Your Decision of "Unrelated" is surprising

Hi,

This is about your decision to my request about checking the sock puppetry of User:A M. Khan. Quite honestly, I am surprised at your decision. What other clear evidence should I provide if this is not sufficient. All of those accounts have been created by the same person because they are interested in the same articles. I even outlined those articles for the clerks. All of those users support each other in a very funny way. Any way, I would like to appeal against this decision. I did all the home work and still I am unable to satisfy your requirements, I am just speechless. What else should I do then?? --Marwatt 02:46, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

User:Dmcdevit, I am very glad and really sharing a jovial moment at the time, after knowing that I was found free of chare "Using Sock-Puppets". This is not my victory, infact this is the victory of Truth. It is my faith that truth wins atlast.

Anyhow, as my fellow and Wiki-Mate User:Marwatt wrote above that ""All of those accounts have been created by the same person because they are interested in the same articles."", so does this means that I am responsible for this all? Isn't this possible that user:Marwatt creates some ID.s and start helping me and later blames that I am doing this all? Well the above provided material about me aren't proofs but they are doubtful claims.

Anyhow, I affirm that I was using a second ID before, later, when I knew that it is against WP:Polcicy, I never logged in from that ID again. But that has nothing to do with the above claim.

Thankyou for making Justice [[User:Dmcdevit], eventhough it is your duty, but I still thank to you.

Regards, A M. Khan 08:27, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Arbitration Evidence

I would like a response to my request that I made here please. If I don't get a response from you or aksi great, I will assume it's okay to use the evidence. Thanks. BhaiSaab ^talk 03:34, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

There's no reason that can't be conveyed privately to arbcom. I can forward the information to the mailing list. Dmcdevit·t 08:24, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

That's no fun, but okay. BhaiSaab ^talk 20:56, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Cerastes cerastes

It would seem that you decided to remove the YouTube external link in Cerastes cerastes based on the general assumption that YouTube contains pages that violate the copyrights of others per contributors' rights and obligations. While that may be true in some cases at YouTube, it certainly isn't when it comes to the video clips made by user "viperkeeper" at YouTube -- a Mr. Al Coritz, with whom I correspond regularly. He creates all of his own video footage and is therefore not violating anybody else's copyright by posting them on YouTube. So, what's the problem? As far as I'm concerned, his videos are generally speaking, unique, and are excellent additional material to the series of articles I'm writing here at Wikipedia. --Jwinius 11:48, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

The problem is not at all with the quality of the videos, solely their copyright status. Unfortunately, we can't take quality into account. The page linked to gives no licensing information at all. We have no reason be able to believe this is self-made and owned. If you are in correspondence with the creator, please ask him to add a source and copyright status to the videos, and then the links can be readded. Dmcdevit·t 05:53, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Who said anything about quality? Have you even seen the video? It's obviously home made! It sounds to me like you're against linking to YouTube video material on principle, simply because few (if any) of these kind of videos include copywrite information. My guess is that will be the vast majority of home-made material posted there. And how would you expect him to add source and copyright status info to all of the 53 videos he's shared with us so far? Somethings tells me he's not going to edit and upload them all a second time. Or would some blanket statement somewhere from him be enough? --Jwinius 08:54, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

"It sounds to me like you're against linking to YouTube video material on principle, simply because few (if any) of these kind of videos include copywrite information." Yes, that's exactly right. We can't link to clips like this that don't give copyright information. Saying it's "obviously homemade" is no reason at all to believe that it's not a copyright infringement. Without a lisence, it can't be linked. Dmcdevit·t 17:35, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I was afraid you'd say something like that. At a minimum, what kind of licensing information would he need to include in his videos? Or, as an alternative, do you think it would be acceptable, with the owner's consent, to transfer the existing footage from YouTube to Wikimedia and add the necessary licenses to them there? (PS -- Your talk page is on my watchlist for the time being.) --Jwinius 18:23, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Transfering them to Wikimedia is certainly preferable. In order to be linked to YouTube, they need to have a source and copyright status. This could mean saying he made it and he owns the copyright to it, and then he can release it however he likes. Dmcdevit·t 18:42, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration

Just thought I'd point out I'm right here and have been contributing regularly since arbitration probation was put in force a few months ago. Cheers. JohnnyBGood t c VIVA! 01:28, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Hii

I Am Taher, and currently logged in from Dubai. I am getting an error that my IP address has been blocked from editing etc. Could you pleaes help Thanks Taher

check user

Thanks for your help wrapping that up. Elizmr 16:37, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

SPUI arbitration

I wasn't totally in favor of banning for a year, but wanting a limit for SPUI's blocks, even the ones not related to his previous arbitration hearings (see User talk:Fred Bauder). I wasn't sure whether or not to start a new arbitration request or if it would be an extension of the previosu ones he's been in, and thats what Fred put on WP:RFAr. I do feel SPUI needs a limit on how many legitimate blocks he can recieve before it becomes a year long or indef without it getting overturned by his friends with adminship. semper fi — Moe 16:41, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Edit war

The entry is being vandalized once again by a suspected Chad Bryant sockpuppet. The sockpuppet is attempting to remove inforamtion that was reached by consensus that Chad Bryant did not agree with and has long sought to remove. It is NOT an edit war, IMHO, when the information being re-inserted (by me) is information that was approved not only by consensus but also by numerous other admins who oversaw the recent problems on rec.sport.pro-wrestling's entry. Please direct your attention to the sockpuppet account removing the information. Thanks. TruthCrusader 21:57, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Hello before you prolong my block please look into this, where is the confirmation that user Daborhe is a confirmed sock puppet of user superdeng

User:Constanz has added to User:Daborhe that he is a confirmed sock puppet of me. He first added it to the talkpage and then Daniel.Bryant added it to the user page but where is the confirmation? My question is where is the confirmation and who did it. As I can see there are 3 Admins involved User:Dmcdevit, User:Thatcher131 and User:Daniel.Bryant and not one of them has said "yes user Daborhe is a confirmed sock puppet" of me superdeng. And since I will get extra blocked for every post I make on wikipedia and not to have one of you refering to the other I am going to try to post at the same time to all 3 of you. Because As I see it user:Dabhore is a sock puppet of someone just not me.

So where is the confirmation that user dabhore is a confirmed sock puppet of user superdeng

And who did the confirmation

Where is the confrimation that User:Dabhore is a confirmed Sockpuppet of superdeng.

I am violating the ban so that you wont forget the case as you will if I post in one month

Where is the confirmation that user Dabhore is a confirmed sock puppet of user Super deng.

If there is no confirmation then please remove it from user:Dabhore page.

I have tried maling you all but none of you will give me a direct answer on my questions and you all give me the run around.

And right now I am ONLY interested in geting this resloves then AFTER this has been resloved I will appeal my block but FIRST this must be resloved before you all forget about it which you will in one month.

Well, since you're posting here as well I'll leave some notes for Dmcdevit. This is SuperDeng; per your comments at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive145#User talk:Intangible removeing things I added the confirmation to Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/SuperDeng. It may be that I made an error because Daborhe (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) was listed on the checkuser request but not the noticeboard thread to which you replied. If I misread your comment you should definitely let me know.

But, even if Daborhe is not confirmed I'm not sure what the significance is. I didn't block SuperDeng because he evaded his previous 2 month ban via Daborhe, but because he was concurrently using the accounts Lokqs (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki), Weedro (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki), and The Green Fish (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki). Ordinarily we might block the socks and warn the main account but SuperDeng has been blocked enough for sockpuppetry already that he should know better. I would consider reducing the block as long as he agreed to stick to one and only one account, but that might not be prudent given his history. Thatcher131 00:35, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

My question is simple where is the confirmation that User:Daborhe is a confimred sock puppet of me? IF THERE IS NO CONFIRMATION THEN THE TAG SHOULD BE REMOVED.

Where is the confirmation?

No one has said it! Constanz just added the tag because he FEELS like it no one has said "yes there is a confirmation" NO ONE

And user Lokqs cant in any world be an evasion of ban since he was created after my ban was lifted AFTER and how in any world can he also be a confirmed sock puppet of me when it was not possible to check his ip. There are many wrongs here and lets adress them one at the time

1 Where is the confirmation that User:Daborhe is a confimred sock puppet of me

Israel PoV

You have commented in the RfA that the presentation of the case is poor. Could you elaborate on my talk page? I would be grateful for any suggestions on how to file a good RfA as this is the first I have made. Carbonate 00:39, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Will you consider changing your vote for the RfA to accept? I provided a link to the failed mediation in my intitial statement and have added links to diffs that show a pattern of biased editing. I have also followed the guidelines for dispute resolution by backing off for almost a month. This has not been reciprocated and in fact, the people I have brought this RfA have not followed any of the guidelines. I'm at a loss here as it seem that by playing by the rules only makes me the fool while those that refuse mediation, refuse compromise and have more people to edit war (including admins) win out... Carbonate 09:22, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Where did my request for arbitration go? Carbonate 04:42, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

It was removed because it did not meet the acceptance criteria (4 more votes to accept than decline after being listed for 10 days). In fact, the vote when it was removed was 0-3 against hearing the case. Here is the diff of the removal [2]. Thatcher131 04:50, 15 November 2006 (UTC) (arbitration clerk)

RFAR/Columbine

I added a standard enforcement clause to the case since you left one out. Please remove it or change the wording if I used the wrong time periods. Thatcher131 08:19, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Not a problem, thanks. Now I realize why I never voted in it: I never finished it. I just got distracted somewhere along the way. :-) Dmcdevit·t 10:21, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Mistake?

Hi. You removed a link that looked ok to me in this edit: [3]. If it was intentional, please accept my apologies. Thought you'd want to know anyway. --Guinnog 11:20, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Cleanup Taskforce

I added the European history article Rise of Sweden as a Great Power to your desk. Please take a look at it and accept, reject or let me know and I'll reassign it. The article may need to be renamed. Thank you. RJFJR 14:08, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Why am I blocked?

User1:

I received this message: Your account or IP address has been blocked from editing. You were blocked by Dmcdevit for the following reason (see our blocking policy): edit warring despite warning Your IP address is 152.163.100.198.

Which is nonsense since I have never edited anything in Wikipedia with or without any warnings!! Someone is "spoofing" you perhaps even using my IP address to do so. You must be aware that the "hacker-phreak' community is far more nefarious and random than anything else on the web.

    You may reach the real me at: metajohn@aol.com where I have held that email address since 1992.

You aren't blocked, since you have an account and it was an anon-only block. In any case, please see Wikipedia:Advice to AOL users for why the block inadvertently affected you; it has been removed. Dmcdevit·t 20:47, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

User2:

My proxy IP (used by thousands) is being blocked for vandalism, what vandalism? Could you be honest and specific to point out, thank you. --User2 01:10, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for contacting me. Your current open proxy has been blocked now, too. Have a nice day, Dmcdevit·t 01:19, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

No charges, no trial, no rights. This is way too vague. All this is bad for Wikipedia, IMHO. --User2 17:33, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Hello Kven user! Thank you for providing us with another open proxy we hadn't blocked yet. If it's charges and a trial you'd like, your banning at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Kven is pretty close. Unfortunately, however, sockpuppetry and user page vandalism don't require a trial. Dmcdevit·t 18:08, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

"Kven", one word, all that I needed. I personally didn't have any relation to that; well, until now. With respect, you administrators really need to change your attitudes. Anyway, case closed on my part. Recommendations for future:

• 01:43, 11 November 2006 Dmcdevit (Talk | contribs) blocked "213.216.199.6 (contribs)" with an expiry time of 1 week (vandalism) <= specify vandalism
• 21:13, 3 November 2006 Khoikhoi (Talk | contribs) blocked "213.216.199.6 (contribs)" with an expiry time of 31 hours (IP recently used by banned user) <= specify user

--User2 19:12, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

No you havent informed me

I understand you are over worked and under payed but please dont say you have informed me

The link you sent says Regarding those accounts, I can confirm by CheckUser that all three are sockpuppets of SuperDeng (talk · contribs), and I think they have been used abusively for reverting in tandem and supporting each other on talk pages. Dmcdevit·t 18:23, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

But that is not possible since no ip check was possible to make.

And please remove from User:Daborhe that he is a CONFIRMED SOCK PUPPET BECAUSE HE ISNT http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/SuperDeng

And answer me how User:Lokqs can be a confirmed sock puppet of me when He was created AFTER my ban was lifted and NO IP CHECK WAS POSSIBLE.

I understand you are over worked but please answer my questions please.

Please don't scream at me that "NO IP CHECK WAS POSSIBLE". I'm the one that did the check and I asssure that it was. Dmcdevit·t 22:39, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Bowling for Columbine/Proposed_decision

I think you forgot to vote for your proposals in this case. Newyorkbrad 22:36, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

ArbCom procedure question

I don't think I'll bother all the arbs with this, but I was wondering if you had a view one way or the other on this issue. Regards, Newyorkbrad 23:21, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the half Answer BUT THOSE ARE YOUR WORDS

Thanks for the Answer

BUT THOSE ARE YOUR WORDS

You said them here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/SuperDeng

Declined since no check is possible. Dmcdevit·t 22:26, 2 November 2006 (UTC) Declined since no check is possible. Dmcdevit·t 22:26, 2 November 2006 (UTC) Declined since no check is possible. Dmcdevit·t 22:26, 2 November 2006 (UTC) Declined since no check is possible. Dmcdevit·t 22:26, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/SuperDeng

And please answer my questions how can User:Lokqs be a sock puppet when he was created AFTER my ban was lifted and no ip check was possible.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/SuperDeng

Observe that I didnt make one single edit with super deng except on the wp:rcu board.

And PLEASE remove the tag from User:Daborhe page since you havent said ANYWHERE that he is a confimed sock puppet of me

I understand that you have a great workload but please look into this PLEASE

This is all like kafka.

This is nothing like Kafka; it makes sense. Again, I checked your IP against the other accounts myself, so telling me it was impossible is useless. I made that earlier statement when the account was too old to check, and I wasn't aware of The Green Fish or Weedro. Then you began editing with the SuperDeng acount, I made the check, and they matched. Now, just stop with the ranting. If you keep this block evasion up, you may never be unlocked. Dmcdevit·t 00:14, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

YouTube

Yeah... I noticed about 30 edits in. I thought you were going to move down the alphabet, but I guess not. Oh well. I took the opertunity to switch gears. I spent the last 10 min trying to get the Search/Replace function working properly... I was giving up on the note. Your message interrupted my first test-edit. :) ---J.S (t|c) 01:24, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Speaking of YouTube, there was an objection to your removal of the link at Nangpa La killings. I haven't really followed the whole issue at WP:EL—what should I say to him on the talk page? Khoikhoi 01:42, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

The removal has nothing at all to do with the quality or content of the video. But that clip is a clear copyright violation, with the TV station's logo still visible, and we cannot legally link to it. Dmcdevit·t 01:47, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Ok, thanks! Khoikhoi 02:19, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

ERROR!

The find/replace does something weird with ref-tags. [4] I've already reverted it, but I figured you should be aware of it. (yeah, I did notice before it was going to happen, I let it happen so I could show you)---J.S (t|c) 02:37, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I haven't come across that kind of error in hundreds of edits. I think I have a better expression that is more precise, but I'm trying to test it right now. Dmcdevit·t 03:23, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Content Dispute BKWSU article

re: Brahma Kumaris World Spiritual University Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration [5]

May I just clarify, this is not a "yes or no" answer nor about content dispute.

I just asking for all editors to have specifically clarified what is considered "easily verifiable" and listed a number of options.

• My request is clarification regarding the listed options.

For me the policy is clear. The elements I have stated are entirely acceptable. I am faced with interested parties that want to supress their use not because the are unacceptable according to policy but because they do not want them made widely public.

Thanks. 195.82.106.244 05:42, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the other contributor refused to engage in mediation as noted in the request.

It is not a content dispute. It is regarding the acceptability of easily referenced citations.

195.82.106.244 06:59, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

CSD addition

Nice work on that. I really think we are moving in the right direction with this kind of thing; indeed it's one of the reasons I'm still here after almost three years. Cheers, Antandrus (talk) 06:30, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

submission standards

Regarding the BKWU arbitration, I was looking at the page for abitration policy and it clearly states "submission standards" which is what I am querying. Do the examples I have give meet submission standards? My opinion is yes, the other contributor is no.

Your attention please.

Thanks. 195.82.106.244 10:03, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Rules

The Arbitrators will decide cases according to the following guidelines, which they will apply with common sense and discretion, and an eye to the expectations of the community ... Wikipedia's "laws": terms of use, submission standards,

Graham Wiggins

Hi, thanks for your interest in the Graham Wiggins page In the case of the "Sub Aqua" live recording, it comes from the collection of Graham Wiggins, who asked me to link to it at YouTube. Thus, the repeated removal without first considering or discussing this also represents great disrespect to another editor. Would you please re-add that video link, please. Badagnani 20:32, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Guy Goma

I hate to say this, but your removal of a valid link (in fact, a primary source) and replacing it with a "fact" tag represents vandalism. Please undo this edit. There was really no reason for you to have done that other than spite or mean-spiritedness, which we try to avoid here. Many editors work very hard to track down such sources and we don't appreciate their being deleted in this manner. Thank you. Badagnani 21:10, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Please stop directing users to YouTube, as that source is a copyright infringement. This policy is not negotiable. Dmcdevit·t 21:33, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

It is the height of arrogance to respond to a "discussion" posting on your own "discussion" page. Beyond that, you are uninformed in your interpretation of policy and no amount of justification will negate the fact that you have committed vandalism in replacing a primary source with a "fact" tag. This must be made right! Badagnani 21:41, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

YouTube

Dmcdevit, I'm glad that there is now a policy on external links about this. --SunStar Net 16:30, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Request for information RE:Konstable case.

Could you please inform me (and hopefully the ArbCom case in general) whether User:Konstable's sock AltUser performed any talkpage vandalism as User:Moe Epsilon has claimed here, in the arbcom case[6], and repeatedly elsewhere? If this is an untrue claim then Moe has been making false and gravely uncivil personal attacks, while if it is a true claim then Konstable is guilty of running a vandalistic sock.

I apologize for any inconvenience this causes, but it's probably best to confirm or deny Moe's claim now, since it's part of the basis for the dispute. Thank you. --tjstrf talk 23:44, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Konstable Arbitration case

As it may or may not affect this arbitration case, Konstable has given up his admiship rights by asking Angela for it's removal and it has been carried out. Just thought I would let you know this. semper fi — Moe 01:57, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Primetime checkuser

Thanks for your prompt and thorough response. -Will Beback 02:09, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I've posted a request for a follow check. There may be two separate sets of sock puppets. -Will Beback 05:43, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

The more I review the case the more I think that I've conflated two different sets of puppets. Now that "Balthazardu" has identified which socks are his, and since you identifed the other two socks which are very clearly Primetime, the distinction is clearer. Balthazardu has at very least abused the consensus by using multiple identities to give opinions on talk page topics but I am inclined to unblock that account with a request to cut back or stop the use of sockpuppets. Does that sound right? -Will Beback · † · 08:43, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm satisfied with that conclusion. CheckUser can't really help distinguish them, as they're on the same range, but the subsequent evidence is as good as any. Of course, that means we have another sockpuppeter on our hands (*ugh*), but your course of actions seems best at this point. Dmcdevit·t 09:15, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. Cheers, -Will Beback · † · 18:38, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Rachel Marsden arbcomm

Hi Dmcdevit. In retrospect, some of my actions as an admin may show poor judgement. I've tried to explain some of them here: Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration/Rachel_Marsden/Proposed_decision#in_my_defence. Best wishes, Bucketsofg 03:04, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

RfARB Acceptance Mechanism

I brought this here because I'd rather have an informed opinion on the current state of acceptance than open a can of worms prematurely. Note this is not sour grapes for a case i felt should have been accepted... I'm more concerned about a well-intentioned policy that may have consequences far beyond the scope the change originally envisioned. As you (and others) have pointed out, when fewer than the full ArbCom becomes participates in RfARB acceptance procedure, the possiblity of appropriate cases being delisted with significant support (as occured in my proposed case), all compounded with ArbCopm members posting deny votes before involved parties can comment... it seems like the ArbCom process has been castrated, and with it those who would game the wikipedia system have more opportunities to do so with less fear of repurcussion. If the intent of the policy was to lessen the burden on the ArbCom, it definitely does that -- but at what cost? If not, what mechanisms would be appropriate for addressing this unintended consequence? I haven't done the research to see if the semi- or non-participating members are at the end of their appointment term... if so, perhaps it is simply burnout. I think either way this is a problem that needs attention of those who are better informed and poised to address the issue. Am I off base? If not, how would you recommend I proceed? /Blaxthos 07:26, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

As you know, my thoughts on this particular issue are on the RfAr talk page. More generally, after a couple of years of experience under the Wikipedia:Arbitration policy, which in general is pretty well-written, there may be a couple of other procedural points that could use revision or updating. Given that there's an ArbCom election in process, my suggestion would be that in January, the newly constituted ArbCom and the Clerks and any other interested editors have a quick discussion (not an endless Wikilawyish morass which I know it could denigrate into with folks like me around :) ) and address any appropriate changes. I have this item on my list of points I would bring up. Regards, Newyorkbrad 22:09, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

What about you, dmcdevit? Any advice/thoughts I can pry from ya? ;-) /Blaxthos 00:14, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

My thoughts are already at the discussion in question. I largely agree with you, and plan on carrying on this discussion with the arbcom on the mailing list. Dmcdevit·t 00:23, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

I certainly think both of you understand my point perfectly. I just want to ensure the problem is in the right hands (I wasn't sure whom all has the "right hands"). That being said, if there is anything I can do as a concerned editor please let me know. Thanks for your help and assurances. Good luck! /Blaxthos 02:52, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Rec.sport.pro-wrestling

why didn't you warn the anonymous IP guy reverting our work? his claim that there was no consensus on the info in question or that the info provided by the RSPW link is not there is bogus. WillC 11:13, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I am going to continue to re-insert the information that the 'anon' user is attempting to blank out. I understand your 'view' that this is an edit war, but you are wrong. You may NOT be aware but the entry for rec.sport.pro-wrestling went through a VERY lengthy process to determine what was relevant as far as content goes, with no less than 3 admins co-ordinating the whole thing. The entry, before our 'anon' friend starting changing it, was agreed to by the admins and the participating editors (not JUST me as you seem to think) with only ONE (1, uno, une, jeden) person dissenting: Chad Bryant. The information our 'anon' friend is removing is the exact same info Chad Bryant sought to have deleted, going so far as to be banned for using sockpuppets in an attempt to trick the admins when consensus was sought. Dispute resolution has been used already, i will NOT go through it again just because ONE (1, une, uno, jeden) ANONYMOUS user (who is 90% a Chad bryant sockpuppet). If you actually researched the history of the entry instead of just blindly jumping in as i suspect you did, you would see EXACTLY what is going on. Now, I am giving you 24 hours notice that I will revert the entry back to its agreed on state. I ask that you either do some homework on the situation OR you enact a non-registered block on the entry. If you wish to discuss the process we went through, contact DeathPhoenix or Tyrenius, but in 24 hours I WILL revert the entry back. I am telling you this honestly and upfront. Should you desire to discuss the situation, email me. TruthCrusader 10:24, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

What part of 'we already did DR" are you NOT understanding? Do NOT come riding in on your white horse trying to save the day when you obviously have given no one the common courtesy to even study the situation or talk to the other admins involved. I will be bringing up your behaviour to the proper people shortly.TruthCrusader 13:19, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Can you hear me now?

Generally I think e-mailing someone to say "did you get my e-mail" is pretty lame, but in this case I have to ask, did you get my e-mail? I sent a note to arbcom-L last night about the Konstable case and since I don't have read access, I get no feedback on whether it got through or not. Thatcher131 21:40, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Actually, no. Did you get an email back saying that it was being held by the moderator? I can't think of why it shouldn't have gone through by now... Dmcdevit·t 22:10, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

No. (I did before when I wasn't approved, though.) It's arbcom-L at wikipedia.org? (Because clerks-L is at mail.wikimedia.org—maybe I tried the wrong addy) Thatcher131 22:17, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

No, that's right. Hm. Well, forward it to me for now if it's still not working, and I'll forward it to the list, I suppose. Dmcdevit·t 22:25, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

E-mail glitches aside, the substance of the note was to ask if you stilll want to hear the Konstable case since he has apparently voluntarily resigned his sysop flag. Thatcher131 22:21, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Ah. I think it should be opened anyway, since current practice is to allow readminship wihtout approval for voluntary deadminships. I think the issue still needs to be given a final burial. Dmcdevit·t 22:25, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

OK. Next time I mail the list I'll cc your address separately so you can keep an eye out for it. BTW, is there any movement on my sandboxes? Thatcher131 22:30, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I take that back. The mailing list appears to be down at the moment, and has been for a few days. No messages are getting through. :-( Dmcdevit·t 10:08, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Eeek. Thatcher131 12:01, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Esperanza

Thank you for your insightful comments on the Esperanza MfD. I think you've zeroed in on the problem — the response from some members of Esperanza is a distressing commentary on the state of the project. Hopefully your comments will help defuse the situation. Feezo (Talk) 00:48, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Youtube text

Following colaberative editing on a workshop page, and a call for any objections, a suitable text has been found to address "The Youtube Problem".

Please revert your edit to WP:EL and replace it with "Links to sites containing publicly contributed content, such as video upload sites or photo collections, should be removed if the copyright status is in doubt."

Thank you. --Barberio 13:18, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Please update these pages

Hi Dmc,

Can you please update this page and this page with the latest findings. These links are being used by certain 'holier-than-thou' users to smear me wherever they go. I request you to do it at the earliest. Thanks. Sarvagnya 23:56, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

My evidence is strong, and Mahawiki (talk · contribs) and Arya Rajya Maharashtra (talk · contribs) seemed to agree with it. I merely initiated the checkuser, and the checkuser was hijacked by ethnic groups with scores to settle. I really don't care about ethnic conflicts (have a nice history on religious ones, dont need to diversify). "Holier-than-thou", WP:AGF permits me not to assume anything he says is true. You know perfectly well how good I am, I've caught Sarvagnya (At the least of meatpuppetry) and Saavak123/Green23 (of blatant POV pushing and sockpuppetry).Bakaman _Bakatalk 04:35, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

'Holier than thou' - you can pay yourself whatever tributes you want, but the fact of the matter is that you didnt catch me with anything. not sockpuppetry, not meatpuppetry. very evidently, I and Gnanapiti are very different users who have similar views on certain things. neither did he act on my advice nor did i act on his for our actions to constitute meatpuppetry. and i guess you have your hands full defending your sockpuppet/puppeteer/meatpuppet/puppeteer(??) friend. so now run along and update your 'evidence'(with the latest findings from my case) on that page if you havent already done so. Sarvagnya 08:26, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

I find dmcdevit to be very correct in the technical evidence he doled out. You may want to note that I actually have a horrible relationship with Dmcdevit which means he would be even more objective and less likely to please me.Keep in mind that you and Gnanpiti edited the same article (Saare Jahan Se Achcha) and evidence is provided on RFCU to your reverts. Checkuser analyzes all IP's from the same range. I had suspicions about you and Gnanpiti so I initiated one. I did not however add the other two, knowing perfectly well they were not sockpuppets (they were found to be unrelated). Questioning the checkuser, is not questioning me, its questioning the undeniable technical evidence proving that during a period of time, you and Gnanpiti edites the same articles and violated 3RR during that period of time. ITs actually questioning Dmcdevit because I have no (nor do I want) access to checkuser software.Bakaman _Bakatalk 04:28, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Dmc merely matched ips. The interpretation was not his. The interpretation that we were socks was by the admins which both I and Gnanapiti later demonstrated was erroneous. As for you, it was just a hunch - one that was way off target, one that was motivated merely by your habitual non-assumption of good faith than anything else. And ya, I know how good you are. You just gave me a fantastic demonstration recently when you filed a laughable 3RR vio against me. I dont know if I can speak better Hindi than you, but I certainly can count better. LOL :D. Confine your antics to the Saavaks and the Greens - whoever they are. Sarvagnya 08:02, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

This is ridiculous. If you two continue this intentional provocation, baiting and teasing each other like children, you will be blocked. Any more edits like these to my talk page will be reverted. Dmcdevit·t 08:49, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Help!

There is some user hiding behind IP addresses that keeps on vandalizing my user page. It seems to have stemmed over a recent edit war over the spelling of "color". The user prefers the british spelling. Not only does he vandalize my page, but he insists on all articles to use the "colour" spelling and goes so far as to even spam me on MSN! While you can't handle the latter, I report it to you to show how far he's going. Please help! This has gone on far enough! You can check my userpage history to see the IPs he's been using. Seems like a range block should do.GrandMasterGalvatron 13:11, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Could you help me out with this?

Hi Dmcdevit,

You were one of the admins who took part in my Arbcom case with User:Ulritz. Now I've been having some troubles lately with an "Anonymous IP" that claims not to know he is User:Ulritz even though he clearly is.

The IP adress has the same style of writing, and same grudge[7] against me as User:Ulritz. He also started posting when Ulritz stopped and now he's got me edit warring again ...

After adding a nonsense and inappropriate remark (not to mention offensive edit summaries) he now apparantly contest a small piece of writing on the Dutch people article, I referenced it propperly but he still removed it. I, and wikipedia, really can't work like this. Could you please take some action or adress him in order for him to stop this irritating behaviour?

Thanks, Rex 15:34, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Responded at RFCU. Dmcdevit·t 08:54, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

???

Does it ever seem like your talking...er typing to a brick wall? Whispering 23:39, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Bowling For Columbine

I have since pointed counter evidence in my defense. I request that you reconsider your decision with the new evidence in light, or at the very least, explain how the conclusions you came to can be reached from the cited examples. -Schrodinger82 01:33, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

thanks

Hey - thank you again, a billion times for nominating me. You are my role model and I request you to lemme know anytime u may feel I'm making a bad decision. More importantly, if/when you need anything, lemme know. Rama's arrow 02:36, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Congratulations to you. That RfA was a nice show. I'm confident you'll do a fine job. And I'm always here if you have any questions at all. :-) Dmcdevit·t 08:54, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Majorities and abstaining votes

Does a vote of abstain remove the arbitrator from the majority calculation? In the case of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Jean-Thierry Boisseau/Proposed decision#Rudeness by Jean-Thierry_Boisseau, 2 abstentions changes the number of active arbs from 9 to 7, meaning it passes with 4. It's not a critical FoF, but I would like to know the general rule anyway. Thanks. Thatcher131 18:26, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, that's generally how it works. Thanks. Dmcdevit·t 19:42, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Rachel Marsden and Bucketsofg

Assuming that the proposal to de-sysop Bucketsofg gains enough support to pass, do you want to codify a reinstatement mechanism or waiting time for a new RFA? Thatcher131 20:49, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Re: Emulation Galaxy

You have removed links to video files used as reference because of this documents: Links normally to be avoided, but after reading the entire document twice I can not find any mention of "Sites which fail to provide licensing information" being forbiden in WP:EL. Only thing I notice is that those links should be marked as foreign language links. Here is point by point review of disallowed links: 1. Yes its a unique resource 2. Its factually accurate as its recording of regular TV 3. Its not a promotional link, its a reference 4. AFAIK Youtube is accessible to most users. 5. No external applications are needed (youtube provides its own player) 6. Not a link to search engine result, its a direct link 7. Not a social networking site or forum, as target website is only used for hosting the actual reference 8. Not a blog 9. Not a wiki 10. Reference itself is directly related as its actually footage of TV show.

So, could you please kindly explain why should those links be removed? Shinhan 07:07, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Hong Kong sockfarm

Thanks for checking things out, and no, I don't have information on the IPs. I recognize this editor's "voice" from the old gang, but I understand that's not actionable. Oh well! Thanks anyway. -- Shunpiker 07:13, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

GG Allin

I don't understand what was wrong with adding in those links to the videos of Allin on Springer. I have noticed numerous other articles with links to youtube.com on them... If you could explain to me what was wrong, that would be a great help. Vint 18:28, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

• Thanks, sorry for the mix up. Vint 08:22, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi Dmcdevit

Can you please check your e-mail, and read my comment at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Sockpuppetry_by_E104421. --ManiF 01:46, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Eric Lerner Ban

Since there seem to be enough votes to ban me from editing any article that I am expert in, I just want to make a few points to each of the arbitrators personally so there is no excuse that they don’t know what they are doing.

Not one of you have said what the difference is between my case and that of a climate researcher editing an article on climate research, which is specifically allowed by the Wiki conflict of interest policy. Any professional scientist by definition has a financial interest in the funding of his or her research. Climate researchers "make money off of" climate research. Especially in any controversial field, they must appeal to the general public to generate political support for the governmental funding decisions that they depend on, if they are at universities.

Like myself, anyone working for a corporation has a financial interest in that corporation raising money from the public, both through the sale of products and the sale of shares.

Arbitrator Bauder has said that Bill Gates should be allowed to edit the article on Windows as an expert, yet in no way says how the same rule would not allow me to edit “aneutronic fusion” as an expert.

Aneutronic fusion using the plasma focus is NOT just my work. I am one researcher among quite a few in all these fields, just as a climate researcher is one among many. Nor is that the only approach to aneutronic fusion. Someone who thinks aneutronic fusion is a good idea could, for example, invest in TriAlpha’s Energy, which has a competing approach, or a Congressional aide might be inspired to allocate some money to University of Illinois' effort on the plasma focus.

The case is even clearer with "plasma cosmology" because I never have, unfortunately, gotten funding for this work (except my brief stint at European Southern Observatory.) Quite clearly no general rule seems to be operating here, at least none that any of you have chosen to defend, that distinguishes my case from that of any other professional expert who makes a living from their research.

My only conclusion is that the intent is simply censorship—to eliminate all those promoting certain viewpoints, specifically on cosmology, from Wikipedia. I assume that if I am banned for conflict on interest, anyone who in any way supports a similar viewpoint will be banned as my “meat puppet”.

If I am mistaken and you actually do have some way of showing how a general rule would lead to my banning, but not the a banning of every other professional scientist, I hope you will post it on the proposed decision talk page.

Eric LernerElerner 00:21, 20 November 2006 (UTC)