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.
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)
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 184.108.40.206. 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)
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)
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 popflock.com resource 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)
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. popflock.com resource 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)
Swadhyayee - You must be a very ignorant Hindu. Sati is a very religious Hindu tradition. Muslim liberators showed the Indians how to dress, take bath and act like men. They improved your civilization. Muslims have never raped or killed like you mentioned, I believe you are confusing them with the European invaders who were colonial occupiers. Shame on you for spreading wrong information. The saddest part of people like you is how the British pigs misled you. Muslims became Indians, lived there for hundreds of years. Promoted the Hindu Indians to high ranks, allowed Hinduism to flourish. Let me quote some lines from Wheeler's book, these lines are written by Ghosh. " Flowering of Hinduism,including the Vaishnavite development of the theology and sacred geography of Krishna-worship, which took place in northern India under Baur and his successors would have been impossible in a climate of persecution. Hinduism would scarcely be recognizable. Its is a simple fact that contemporary Hinduism as a living practice would not be what it is if it were not for the devotional practices initiated under Mughal rule." Instead of being friends of Muslims who are as Indian as you are or any other Hindu, you thought they were occupiers. People like you let the British pigs destroy India and make it a poor country which it is now. Sati Pratha was and is a Hindu religious practice that teaches - Husbands are GODs to their wives. When they die, the wife has no life and she must also die, even if it takes to burn her alive.
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.
This act led to the increased activity of numerous groups to protest against what was seen as an injustice against resident Nepalis.
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
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)
An Arbitration case involving you has been opened: popflock.com Resource: Requests for arbitration/Hkelkar. Please add any evidence you may wish the arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, popflock.com Resource: Requests for arbitration/Hkelkar/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, popflock.com Resource: Requests for arbitration/Hkelkar/Workshop.
On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Thatcher131 12:35, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
Hi; User:Marskell requested unblocking of User:220.127.116.11  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)
Hi - you've got mail. Rama's arrow 16:08, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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
Thanks for your help wrapping that up. Elizmr 16:37, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
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)
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)
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 popflock.com resource 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.
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
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)
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)
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)
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 18.104.22.168.
Which is nonsense since I have never edited anything in popflock.com resource 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: firstname.lastname@example.org where I have held that email address since 1992.
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)
I have been blocked with the reason being 'Primetime'. This isn't terribly helpful, but I suspect I have somehow been associated with a banned user? What can I do to convince you that this isn't me? Thanks. --Speed8ump from 22.214.171.124 21:38, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
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://www.popflock.com/learn?s=popflock.com Resource: 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.
I think you forgot to vote for your proposals in this case. Newyorkbrad 22:36, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the Answer
BUT THOSE ARE YOUR WORDS
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)
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.
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.
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)
The find/replace does something weird with ref-tags.  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)
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.
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. 126.96.36.199 05:42, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
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)
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. 188.8.131.52 10:03, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
Dmcdevit, I'm glad that there is now a policy on external links about this. --SunStar Net 16:30, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
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, 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)
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)
Thanks for your prompt and thorough response. -Will Beback 02:09, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
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)
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 popflock.com resource 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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 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)
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)
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)
Does a vote of abstain remove the arbitrator from the majority calculation? In the case of popflock.com Resource: 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Can you please check your e-mail, and read my comment at popflock.com Resource: Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Sockpuppetry_by_E104421. --ManiF 01:46, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
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)
I am a little puzzled why you say that I was with conflict with Ryulong at the time Ryushort was created  As I said here I was not in conflict with Ryulong at the time, nor ever before that, I only come in conflict with him for a brief moment with AltUser (which was created after Ryushort), though even that is long resolved. Thank you.--Konstable II 07:35, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
Hi, DMC. I had an E-mail exchange with User:E104421 and he is taking this sockpuppeting block quite badly, threatening to leave wikipedia. He is one of the best Turkish editors and it would be a shame if we lose or strongly upset him. Obviously, you are the only one around here with the checkuser facilities but the indirect evidence presented by Future Perfect on WP:AN/I#Sockpuppetry_by_E104421 seems to be at least partially convincing. E also proposed to contact METU's sysadmin to check the internal allocation of the IPs on their campus. I do not know what to say but if there is a real possibility of an error in the identification of the puppets I would rather err on the AGF site. It would be a shame to lose or alienate a good editor. Alex Bakharev 08:48, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
Hi Dmcdevit! You have just performed a CheckUser on RunedChozo. I have added a new account, Al'Ilah to the request. Do I need to move the request back up from Completed requests to Outstanding requests, or can it stay where it is? Aecis Dancing to electro-pop like a robot from 1984. 11:39, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
You are mistaken, sir. I do not use sockpuppets. The user Wheelygood is a friend of mine also in the math department, and of course we will wind up with similar addresses. Checkuser is flawed and this is one of the reasons why. RunedChozo 20:25, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
Hi! Been very busy and haven't been around much. Would you take a look at Mountain Meadows Massacre? According to popflock.com Resource: Suspected sock puppets, I really don't have enough evidence to make an accusation. Note two active editors, highly critical of this article and related topics, but one has edited only this article since becoming a user. Thank you. Oh, and didn't we have an appointment for some admin activity in October? Well maybe in December. WBardwin 20:05, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
I do think deletion of unsourced and unsourceable cruft is a good thing. But the "we must change the culture" engineers of the Wikipedian soul are absurdly over-optimistic; and there are semiliterate editors and untrustworthy admins. Let's be cautious. Septentrionalis 21:10, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
Hi. Could you by any chance clarify whether the result of popflock.com Resource: Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Shortcut.road was for A) *all* login user accounts and IP addresses listed. B) *all* login user accounts and one or more IPs listed but not all listed C) *all* login user accounts to the same IP(s) but not to any of the IPs listed in the case. If you are unable to do this for privacy or other policy reasons, please just indicate that (and maybe a reference to the policy if you have the time). Many thanks.--184.108.40.206 01:32, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
Hello Dmcdevit, recently you blocked the static IP address belonging to User:JINXTENGU and his sockpuppets. Well unfortunately he is still creating many malicious sockpuppets, as you can see in this sockpuppeteer report, which lists his newest accounts. I appreciate any help regarding the issue, thank you.¤~Persian Poet Gal (talk) 02:03, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
(personal attack removed) Kla'quot 06:52, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
Bearcat and I have both left questions at Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Rachel Marsden/Proposed decision. I don't know if arbitrators routinely read the Talk pages, so I'm asking if you would please take a look at these questions. My main concern is that the community won't be able to learn from this case because the rulings are vague. Some of the items in the proposed decision look to me like content findings or clarifications of policy, but they are nonspecific about what content is problematic and how policy should be interpreted/clarified. Best, Kla'quot 07:01, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
Hey Dmcdevit, about the checkuser case for User:Snsudharsan , the procedure has judged that a number of users Psivapalan, Sri119, Mama007, Mystìc and Ajgoonewardene to be socks of User:Lahiru_k. I'm pretty sure that's not the case. Looking at the contributions of User: Mystìc  and User:Lahiru_k , they seem quite different and their contributins are on varied topics. Even User:Ajgoonewardene and User:Mama007's edits don't seem to be related, apart from the TFD vote.
What I think has happened is this. There is currently only one broadband ISP in Sri Lanka called SLT, and they do not issue static IPs to subscribers. Everytime a subscriber connects, a different IP is issued (like AOL I believe). The WHOIS result for the IP Mystìc used to request unblocking says the status of the IP is "ALLOCATED PORTABLE" and the SLT website says they issue Dynamic IPs . And from what I know, SLT has only a small pool of IPs they assign to their customers.
I'm not entirely sure how checkuser works, but if it checks the IPs from which the users have edited and compares them to see if they are similar, it could well be that it has judged everyone who was assigned a similar IP at one time or other to be sockpuppets of Lahiru_k. And therefore everyone who uses SLT may be may have been banned as sockpuppets.
Evidence for sock puppetry from Lahiru_k (aka Mystic) (aka Arsath)
User user:Sri119 has done very few edits and some of latest edits appear very suspicious. I pointed this out on the TfD before they were all caught. For example setting of userbox  just before voting here. Furthermore the mannerism, particularly the use of "Happy editing!!!"  of this user shows strong similarity with User:Lahiru k . In addition both of these editors seem interested in military related subjects related to Sri Lanka. This also speaks for user Mama007  who has done some military edits and to user Psivapalan, which I detail below.
The sock puppet with more extensive edits have one subtle writing feature in common: use of "!!" or "!!!". Here is one from Mystic: . In many of these cases, the users with light editing history changed or created their userbox before voting on the template. Also both Lahiru_k and Mystic indeed have some overlap in writing about Muslim affairs (particularly Sri Lankan muslim affairs). Here Lahiru_k who claims to be Sinhala Budhist with his userboxes did these edits , when someone else blanked it. He appeared keenly sensitive to this tragic yet historic event (affected Jaffna muslims) and occurred in Sri Lanka and made these edits in a couple of pages and issued this warning . With user Psivapalan , the edits have been on the Indian Army (a key feature linking user Lahiru's military edits) and few India related articles for good measure, but the userboxes were setup the same day and some appear to have been copied from user:Sudharsansn page - that target of vandalism attack by one of these sock puppets,  and then the voting was done. Its also important to note, the sock puppets all have completely different userboxes, one claims to be Tamil from Canada , another Muslim , another Indian Tamil Hindu , another Sinhala Budhist . One even claims to live in England (Mama007) , all from an IP address from Sri Lanka.
Take another interesting thing in common between Lahiru_k and Mystic. Both have very similar signatures , consisting of blue gradients. Could all of this be mere coincidence ? It should also be noted that User:Mystic was caught before for vote stacking  and was the person who initiated the tfD which surprisingly got the attention of all these users, without any sort of communication, particularly brand new users that just 'started on wikipedia'. With all of this damning evidence and being caught, I would expect, Arsath (Mystic) to come clean and apologize particularly for the deeply hurtful comments directed at user:Sudharsansn through User:Snsudharsan (which initiated the checkuser) than playing innocent. Elalan 15:14, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
Evidence for sock puppetry from Lahiru_k (aka Mystic) (aka Arsath)
User user:Sri119 has done very few edits and some of latest edits appear very suspicious. I pointed this out on the TfD before they were all caught. For example setting of userbox  just before voting here. Furthermore the mannerism, particularly the use of "Happy editing!!!"  of this user shows strong similarity with User:Lahiru k . In addition both of these editors seem interested in military related subjects related to Sri Lanka. This also speaks for user Mama007  who has done some military edits and to user Psivapalan, which I detail below.
Comment So Elalan are u saying that no two people can have the same interest, this is a ridiculous point. (This is user Mystic) 220.127.116.11 16:14, 22 November 2006 (UTC) Arsath 16:41, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
The sock puppet with more extensive edits have one subtle writing feature in common: use of "!!" or "!!!". Here is one from Mystic: .
Comment The use of the exclamation mark is no proof that I am user:Lahiru_k. An this only one instance you have provided. And this is not against popflock.com resource rules. Are u suggesting that all users who have used exclamations are user Lahiru_k 18.104.22.168 16:14, 22 November 2006 (UTC)Arsath 16:41, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
In many of these cases, the users with light editing history changed or created their userbox before voting on the template.
comment Can you provide a diff for the instance that I created a userbox before voting on the template (i.e. Mystìc) 22.214.171.124 16:14, 22 November 2006 (UTC)Arsath 16:41, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
Also both Lahiru_k and Mystic indeed have some overlap in writing about Muslim affairs (particularly Sri Lankan muslim affairs).
Comment So you agree that we have some overlaps, and could you provide a diff where I have edited regarding Sri Lankan Muslim affairs. 126.96.36.199 16:14, 22 November 2006 (UTC)Arsath 16:41, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
Here Lahiru_k who claims to be Sinhala Budhist with his userboxes did these edits , when someone else blanked it. He appeared keenly sensitive to this tragic yet historic event (affected Jaffna muslims) and occurred in Sri Lanka and made these edits in a couple of pages and issued this warning . With user Psivapalan , the edits have been on the Indian Army (a key feature linking user Lahiru's military edits) and few India related articles for good measure, but the userboxes were setup the same day and some appear to have been copied from user:Sudharsansn page - that target of vandalism attack by one of these sock puppets,  and then the voting was done.
Comment I have nothing to hide I am a Muslim, and I come from Sri Lanka and I am a member of the popflock.com resource muslim guild 188.8.131.52 16:14, 22 November 2006 (UTC)Arsath 16:41, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
Comment Could anyone be so stupid to create a puppet account and have the same signature copied for both. I agree that both the signatures look alike, well anyone can get a signature done by visiting User:NikoSilver's Signature shop here and see his comments about my signature here and see how he arrived at my signature here. 184.108.40.206 16:14, 22 November 2006 (UTC)Arsath 16:41, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
Could all of this be mere coincidence ? It should also be noted that User:Mystic was caught before for vote stacking 
Comment Any one who looks at my discussion page I have appologized for my mistake.. 220.127.116.11 16:16, 22 November 2006 (UTC)Arsath 16:41, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
and was the person who initiated the tfD which surprisingly got the attention of all these users, without any sort of communication, particularly brand new users that just 'started on wikipedia'. With all of this damning evidence and being caught, I would expect, Arsath (Mystic) to come clean and apologize than playing innocent. Elalan 15:14, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
One Last Comment And why should I plead if I am user:Lahiru_k this particular account is not blocked. If you guys are still not convinced.. Why not block the User:Lahiru_K and see what happens.. then.. 18.104.22.168 16:16, 22 November 2006 (UTC)Arsath 16:41, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
User:22.214.171.124, its deeply impolite to scramble up other people's comments like what you have done. I have reinserted my comments (unaltered) above. Elalan 16:34, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
Comment Sorry for altering your comments.. but I had to.. I had no choice but to do that to prove my point.. Arsath 16:43, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
You told Brahmakumaris.info to request a name change at WP:RCU, but that is the link to checkuser. I think you meant WP:CHU. Could be a nice thing to remember in the future... :) - Mgm|(talk) 13:05, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
Since you have recused yourself from the HKelkar finding, I have a question which I hope you will answer. Is it likely that the ArbComm will limit its focus merely to HKelkar and his main accuser, and not consider the other editors who stand accused of disruption? Becuase if so, I will follow advice I have received elsewhere and request another RfArb.... Hornplease 13:52, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Could you please comment on this? It's one of the strangest RFCU findings I encountered. I'm not questioning your competence at all, nor I'm keen to find out personal details of anyone, but I'm highly curious. If there are some not-for-public details that you're willing to share, feel free to e-mail me. Thanks. Duja? 09:25, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
Hello it seems my "friend" Woohookitty has perma blocked can you make this into a time block?
I need to have one account where I can have a coherent form of dialogue and not have someone saying this is probably superdeng
There is some very detailed information that only like 2 people in all of wiki have in certain areas and I am one of them, perma blocking me will just remove my abillity to form any discussion and only lead to pointless reverts
I am taking the position that all accounts of a blocked user are subject to the block. You are the blocking administrator of Fred Bauder 23:30, 24 November 2006 (UTC). Do you wish to continue the indefinite block?
Hi Dmcdevit :-) Sriket is interested in becoming an Official ArbCom Clerk. Both myself and Thatcher131 support this promotion. He has been very active in Nov., opening and closing most of the cases. He also looked after some of the business on the main RFArb page and answered user questions on site and on IRC. As far as I am concerned, it has been a delight to work with him. Could you check with the rest of the Committee to see if there is an interest in making him official. Thanks and Take care, FloNight 20:18, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
Hi! Are you back yet! Please note the following: I've nominated your user subpage User:WBardwin/Chapter for deletion at popflock.com Resource: Miscellany for deletion/popflock.com Resource: Once upon a time.... --Doug Bell talk 02:10, 29 November 2006 (UTC I assert that user pages, under popflock.com resource guidelines, are private property and, if they violate no rules or standards, should not be deleted or disturbed by others. I would appreciate your opinion in my disagreement with this administrator. (And you wonder why I hesitate to become an admin!). Thanks. WBardwin 06:16, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
This case is now closed and the results have been published at the link above.
Fresheneesz may be placed on probation if he continues to disrupt policy pages. Such action shall be by a successful motion at popflock.com Resource: Requests_for_arbitration#Motions_in_prior_cases by any member of the Arbitration Committee after complaints received from one or more users.
For the Arbitration Committee --Srikeit 03:46, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
I've posted at ANI requesting CheckUser on one more account that took part in the revert wars at Stalin. Thank you also for the clarification of the policy as regards transwikiing. Moreschi 09:57, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
Can you check one more account Alex Bakharev 13:05, 3 December 2006 (UTC)? He makes threats against Tajik. If he is indeed NisarKand, I would support a long or even permanent ban to all of them
Meanwhile, 4 more have been added  to the list, two of them insulting me in different articles, as well as on my user-page and talk-page . The following histories prove that it's the same user: .
T?jik 15:12, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
FYI, GreenNinja and many others have done the prior steps, but Ryulong is so stubborn, he has refused to listen, and insists everything on his pages must be his way or the highway. What he posted was a joint effort by people who are fed up by the way Ryulong is running things. Just look at the edit histories and discussions on the Power Ranger and Super Sentai pages Ryulong frequents. He goes ahead and changes long time articles to his liking, even though no one complained about how they looked for years. He changes facts that have been the general consensus of the fandom for years to things he pulls out of nowhere. If you look at the edit histories, you can see him reverse basically anything anyone contributes, and in the discussion he acts like he has total say of what goes in. The fandoms of these shows have basically blacklisted popflock.com resource because of his actions. His name is mentioned at several message boards where people say popflock.com resource is crap and no one should go to these articles for reference anymore. He is unqualified to edit these shows because his knowledge on them is very limited. For example, someone put something about a guy named "Tony Oliver" on a page for Power Rangers, he instantly removed it with the comment "Who's Tony Oliver?". If he doesn't know the guy responsible for creating the early seasons of Power Rangers, he has no business touching the PR pages. 126.96.36.199 15:37, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
Hi - I think your away message on the top of the page is obsolete, no? Newyorkbrad 15:50, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
Only ArbCom members can make motions for prior cases. There is a discussion about site banning Instantnood (oh no! not that again) for a long period () that I don't think would be helpful. At the end of that, I've made a proposal for a 0RR rule instead but I don't think administrators believe they can enforce that without ArbCom saying they can. If you think it'd work, would you propose it at RfAr? SchmuckyTheCat 04:43, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Hi Dmcdevit, could you please justify your block of Dulcorne (talk o contribs)? I suspect that Dulcorne is possibly a sockpuppet or a single purpose account since his first edit was to vote for the undeletion of popflock.com Resource: Long term abuse/Willy on Wheels, but that alone is somewhat weak justification for an indefinite "vandalism" block in my honest opinion. Was there a checkuser involved and something else behind this block? Thanks. -- 17:26, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
I would like to do something useful, but on Meta nobody cares about my petitions and here I am stalked by -jkb-. If he stops to reveal my real name, I will have more time to do something useful.
I apologize from bringing my username change request from cs: to en:, but since on cs: I cannot edit even my talk page, I've seen no other way. I ackowledge it was a misjudgement. -- Zacheus 08:20, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
I've got a problem. Thatcher131 17:31, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Tennislover (talk · contribs) has requested an unblock. I've been following the Cute 1 4 u (talk · contribs) mess since before the first block. I must admit, it has crossed my mind that Tennislover was another sock but in all of my investigations, this has not been born out. That is to say, it is my belief that Tennislover is not a Cute 1 4 u sock. I'm not saying it is impossible but I will say that I think it unlikely. I'd welcome any evidence you have that this is a sock. Alternatively, I ask that you consider lifting the block. It is of course not my intention to engage in a wheel war with you so I will not take any direct actions here. (If you respond, please either copy your response to my talk page or leave a note there indicating that you have responded here... thanks) --Yamla 23:29, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Ryulong said: "Tennislover's IP was tested against known IPs utilized by Cute 1 4 u. They matched. Larger explanation at my talk."
You said above:
|"||Linking to copyrighted works
Since most recently-created works are copyrighted, almost any popflock.com resource article which cites its sources will link to copyrighted material. It is not necessary to obtain the permission of a copyright holder before linking to copyrighted material -- just as an author of a book does not need permission to cite someone else's work in their bibliography. Likewise, popflock.com resource is not restricted to linking only to GFDL-free or open-source content.
If you know that an external Web site is carrying a work in violation of the creator's copyright, please don't link to that copy of the work. Knowingly and intentionally directing others to a site that violates copyright has been considered a form of contributory infringement in the United States (Intellectual Reserve v. Utah Lighthouse Ministry).
You are confusing use of copyright material with linking to copyright material. The difference is important, because the standard for determining infringement changes. The case linked orders:
Based on the policy statement and the case law, if you know, or have good reason to believe, that content on YouTube is on YouTube without permission of the copyright holder, then the link should be removed. But absent such information - absent any copyright notice - the link is legal. Embedding such content within popflock.com resource would be a fairly obvious violation of WP:COPY and U.S. copyright law, but linking to it, in the absence of clear evidence that the material linked to is in fact infringing, is not a violation of either WP:COPY nor U.S. copyright law.
There are some cases which ought to be fairly obvious. Anything which is obviously a product of most major commercial content producers on YouTube is probably infringing. That would include videos with station-id or network markings, clips from major-studio movies or trailers, music videos of bands signed to major record labels, and most commercials. An exception would exist if there was good reason to believe the uploader was the copyright holder. But many minor content producers, including many student and independent filmmakers will post their material to YouTube, in the belief that exposure of their work to a wider audience is worth giving up potential royalties. So it is not reasonable to assume that all content on YouTube which lacks a copyright notice is actually infringing. Argyriou (talk) 04:39, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Yes -- I reviewed the user's contributions, the sock-puppeteer's contributions, the reasons for the sock-puppeteer's block, the user's discussions with others responding to the unblock (including Ryulong, who decided to close the request -- an action which, coming from a non-admin, I disagree with -- and then reopened the request upon response from Tennis expert), and then I considered the fact that there seemed to be multiple requests for communication from you, with no response. I am sorry if it seemed disrespectful, but I hoped to show that I meant no disrespect with my comments in the reason for the unblock (in which I said that I didn't wish to step on anyone's toes, but considering the evidence I felt greater harm would come from leaving the seemingly innocent user blocked than waiting for further communication). Again, sorry, and feel free to overturn my action if my unblock of the user was in error. -- Renesis (talk) 05:01, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
My permanent ban case was resolved in my favor: I am not a sock puppet for cute 1 4 u or Tennislover. I sincerely appreciate Dmcdevit's decision to take a fresh look at the Checkuser data. Tennis expert 23:36, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Have my posts been invisible to you? I have done nothing but apologize and explain over, and over, that I did not initially mean any disrespect, and tried to show you my original unblock message to demonstrate that I meant that from the start. I have since explained where I was coming from, that I am happy to have you undo any actions of mine if you see fit, and why I initially did not contact you (because I thought you had already been contacted). I have been here for the last 7 hours communicating with you, and responded to your initial message on my talk page within 11 minutes. Why are you still insisting to me and others that you are upset with my rudeness and lack of communication and common sense? I do not see what more I can do to convince you that I meant no ill-will, did my best to be discern the situation and be communicative initially, and am more than willing to work toward a remedy. What is going on? -- Renesis (talk) 10:18, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
I was wondering after reviewing the proposed decision page why there is no header regarding "Mongo is uncivil", have you personally found after reviewing the evidence for there to be no case of Mongo being uncivil? I wonder because its been said that Fred was lenient with Mongo in his last RfA and now once again there seems to be a call for Seabhcan to lose his admin rights but not Mongo, the only difference I am seeing is that Mongo does not have a section questioning his civility, which is particularly odd considering the numerous edits people have given as evidence on the main evidence page regarding Mongo's civility and Fred only tackling 4 of such eits and only from one user, Travb. Any information or better understanding you can off would be greatly appreciated. Your opinion on this matter is appreciated. Thank you. --Nuclear
Zer0 14:20, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
I and others have made some comments regarding the proposed decisions on the popflock.com Resource: Requests for arbitration/Seabhcan under the section "Railroad" that I hope you consider.--MONGO 20:43, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Hello, can you please undelete my image? Whoever took it and uploaded it to Commons didn't list me as the source, and it was deleted there. Now it has been removed from my User page and key articles. Uris 00:17, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
Pmanderson is up for another RfA, and I had similar experiences to the ones you were talking about on his last RfA. I don't think he's ready, or may not even have the temperament period (as witnessed also by his recent 3RR). Skyemoor 05:16, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
Hi! You deleted that image some time ago, because it was in Commons. But it has been deleted from there also, and Geography of the United States now shows a broken link. I wonder if you could undelete the image. If there is any source info, I can upload the file again to commons, and if there isn't any, we can leave it here under the fair use rights. Thanks. --Angus 12:36, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
Hi, can you please check your email...Jidan 23:48, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
With this much support, it seems difficult to make the case he is egregiously uncivil or unfair enough to warrant desysopping. Why not propose a "Blocking Parole" and limit MONGO's blocks to 48 hours in lieu of desysopping? --Tbeatty 08:09, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
I disagree with your assessment of desyssoping. Regardless of the intent, it sends the same message to the community that banning someone does. A desysopping that is perceived as unjust damages the community in exactly the same way as an unjust block does. A permanent editing ban solves the problem too, but it is disproportionate to the problem. Desysopping is disproportionate too. This is not about the sheer number of editors or admins as you could argue that no single block or desysopping has a substantial impact to the project. But alienating large groups of editors by liberal interpretation of the desysopping policy (or a liberal interpreation of the blocking policy for that matter) is the damage that is done. There is no entitlement to either editing or admin tools but the good faith of the community depends on sanctions being applied in a proportionate manner. popflock.com Resource: Requests for arbitration/Everyking 3 In the case cited by Thatcher, Everyking problems are essentially his interactions with other Admins at AN/I. The Everyking problem could clearly be solved by desysopping too since sniping at admins is tolerated by editors (or at least I would hope so if adminship is no big deal). If you want admins that ban trolls, block disruptive editors, etc, then you can't make the admin "death penalty" the solution when a mistake is made especially when those mistakes are easily corrected and not wheel warred. The overwhelming majority of MONGO's admin actions are appropriate and measured. Active admins are bound to make mistakes and they need a proportionate remedy to those mistakes. --Tbeatty 18:04, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
He is avoiding his block by using a sock puppet account User:Indianbuddhist. See the most recent edits  and . Determined chap, that, but it's fairly obvious that he is a sock given the name ("buddhist" at the end, same as User:Ambedkaritebuddhist or User:Shrilankabuddhist and tendentious editing on Dalit Buddhist movement ). Hkelkar 12:52, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
Hi. I have probably invested more effort in the Konstable arbitration than the situation might have merited (and probably more than any of the parties have). However, following yesterday's (one-word) post to the Proposed Decision talk page by User:Ryulong, I went back and checked a couple of things in the logs. Konstable appears to be right that the "Ryushort" imposter account was created before his "AltUser" account. There is no evidence that Konstable and Ryulong were ever in conflict about anything other than Ryulong's response to AltUser, which obviously occured afterwards, and both of them deny it. This leaves the finding about to be adopted, that Ryushort was created when Konstable and Ryulong were quarrelling, unsupported by any evidence.
The proposed remedy about to be adopted in the case is reasonable if perhaps unnecessary (though the section header should be retitled), but the rationale for it is not dependent on the finding I am raising. (Note that this is also a separate question from the argument Ryulong made and the follow-up question I asked about Ryushort = Konstable checkuser result, which was never responded to, but I'm not the technician on that.) It seems wholly undesirable that an ArbCom decision issue with a demonstrably unsupported and seemingly incorrect finding of fact. It is submitted that that paragraph, or at least the sentence claiming that Konstable was in a dispute with Ryulong when "Ryushort" was created, should be stricken. Thanks for your consideration. Newyorkbrad 15:13, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
Apparently the closure of Konstable with the present wording is in doubt (?), and Hkelkar has asked for a 6 day extension to prepare mitigating evidence in an appeal for a less severe outcome. Since we don't have access to the mailing list, can you give the clerks some guidance at popflock.com Resource: Arbitration Committee/Clerks/Administration on whether to postpone the closes or not? And if so, let us know when they are released? Thanks. Thatcher131 21:46, 9 December 2006 (UTC)