User talk:DoRD/Archive 3

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Long Overdue Apology

I used to be the user User talk:Ciaran306, whom you probably don't remember. I apologise for the way I acted in response to the block, and I don't hold any hard feelings. Sincerely, He's Gone Mental 15:58, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

No apology necessary, really, but I appreciate your efforts to make amends. I see that the childish shenanigans are gone and that you've become a valuable contributor and vandal fighter, so keep up the good work. Cheers! —DoRD (talk) 16:31, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Amigo Energy

Responding to RFCs

Remember that RFCs are part of Dispute Resolution and at times may take place in a heated environment. Please take a look at the relevant RFC page before responding and be sure that you are willing and able to enter that environment and contribute to making the discussion a calm and productive one focussed on the content issue at hand. See also Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding.

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Amigo Energy. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.

You have received this notice because your name is on Wikipedia:Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page. RFC bot (talk) 10:16, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Capitalism

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Capitalism. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 10:16, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

A cup of tea for you!

Re Srobak stuffs. Don't get discouraged, you are genuinely a help for the project :) Sadads (talk) 18:05, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks :) —DoRD (talk) 18:12, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:University of Pristina

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:University of Pristina. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 11:17, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Indian rupee

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Indian rupee. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 12:15, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Fæ

A request for comments has been opened on administrator User:Fæ. You are being notified due to your prior participation in ANI, RfA, or RfC discussions regarding this user. Thank you, MadmanBot (talk) 19:56, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

UTRS Account Request

Yep, I'll take it out for a spin. —DoRD (talk) 16:00, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Account approved. :) The Helpful One 17:58, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Hindhead Tunnel

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Hindhead Tunnel. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 12:16, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

MSU Interview

Dear Department of Redundancy Department (love the name, Python-esque),

My name is Jonathan Obar user:Jaobar, I'm a professor in the College of Communication Arts and Sciences at Michigan State University and a Teaching Fellow with the Wikimedia Foundation's Education Program. This semester I've been running a little experiment at MSU, a class where we teach students about becoming Wikipedia administrators. Not a lot is known about your community, and our students (who are fascinated by wiki-culture by the way!) want to learn how you do what you do, and why you do it. A while back I proposed this idea (the class) to the community HERE, were it was met mainly with positive feedback. Anyhow, I'd like my students to speak with a few administrators to get a sense of admin experiences, training, motivations, likes, dislikes, etc. We were wondering if you'd be interested in speaking with one of our students.

So a few things about the interviews:

Interviews will last between 15 and 30 minutes.
Interviews can be conducted over skype (preferred), IRC or email. (You choose the form of communication based upon your comfort level, time, etc.)
All interviews will be completely anonymous, meaning that you (real name and/or pseudonym) will never be identified in any of our materials, unless you give the interviewer permission to do so.
All interviews will be completely voluntary. You are under no obligation to say yes to an interview, and can say no and stop or leave the interview at any time.
The entire interview process is being overseen by MSU's institutional review board (ethics review). This means that all questions have been approved by the university and all students have been trained how to conduct interviews ethically and properly.

Bottom line is that we really need your help, and would really appreciate the opportunity to speak with you. If interested, please send me an email at obar@msu.edu (to maintain anonymity) and I will add your name to my offline contact list. If you feel comfortable doing so, you can post your name HERE instead.

If you have questions or concerns at any time, feel free to email me at obar@msu.edu. I will be more than happy to speak with you.

Thanks in advance for your help. We have a lot to learn from you.

Sincerely,

Jonathan Obar --Jaobar (talk) 05:41, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Butting in

Regarding this comment you left with Sebandreas (talk · contribs), the page in question did have attack content in it and in my opinion served no purpose but to disparage a real person. The user has also created this page in his userspace, which he blanked right after the page he created in mainspace was tagged as an attack page. The original version of that page, while more subtle, was also an attempt to disparage the same person in the same manner. I realize I'm speaking very vaguely, but I know you're an admin and can look at deleted pages if you want to, plus I know quoting attack content is not productive. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 21:09, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I was distracted and failed to look at the earlier revisions of the page before I commented. Thanks for bringing this to my attention. Cheers —DoRD (talk) 21:33, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

RevDelete request: The Little Prince

Hi DoRD, I noted that you're able to do edit summary wipes and would appreciate if you could do one for this edit summary which was the result of a creative editing technique (an expletive from the same IP added on his/her previous edit). The intent of the vandal was to add a purely disruptive edit summary to the article, which meets RevDel criteria #3. The IP has already been cautioned on vandalism. The cleanup in aisle 3! assistance would be greatly appreciated to keep the page civil for our younger editors. Best: HarryZilber (talk) 16:57, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

I have to agree with Ponyo that this case of simple vandalism doesn't meet any of the revdel criteria, including rd3. Sorry I can't help you. —DoRD (talk) 18:06, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Ushuaia

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Ushuaia. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 13:15, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for deleting my subpage as requested. Your username made my day. --Chriswaterguy talk 06:19, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Happy Adminship Anniversary

Wishing Department of Redundancy Department a very happy adminship anniversary on behalf of the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 00:41, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Well, wow...thank you very much! Four years!? (Shocked and stunned, he is.) —DoRD (talk) 04:16, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Seattle FilmWorks

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Seattle FilmWorks. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 13:16, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Spirulina (dietary supplement)

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Spirulina (dietary supplement). Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 14:16, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Bless

Welcome to the merry band who have had an encounter with WBJB03's sock farm. He seems on the level enough until someone who's run across him before spots him. I have no idea why he's here. He seems to have zero interest in anything but creating an elaborate talk page and the odd occasional edit to article space, and he'll run you ragged asking questions. --Drmargi (talk) 22:16, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Fortunately (unfortunately?), this isn't the first time I've stumbled into something like this while trying to help out a "new" user - I became suspicious after I saw the request about not being able to edit from school and realized that it wasn't an anon-only block. Hopefully MuZemike or another CU will come along shortly. Cheers —DoRD (talk) 22:25, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

MuZemike and Floquenbeam both dealt with the last one, Floquenbeam declining the unblock. I suppose someone should throw a message on their talk pages if they don't spot this on their own. What did impress me through it all was the endless patience of the admins. BTW, great user name. Very Pythonesque, indeed. --Drmargi (talk) 22:28, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! I sent email to Mu yesterday, but he seems to be offline today. Someone will take care of it if he doesn't. —DoRD (talk) 22:32, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm glad you did that; I was a bit reluctant to bother either of the two after the last go-round. MuZu's been on, and he's blocked CoolWill. It's a shame; the kid doesn't learn, and sadly, isn't even clever enough to come up with a user ID that doesn't give him away. Yet he probably has a level of enthusiasm and industry that would make him a good editor IF we could get him matured a bit and past his talk page fetish. --Drmargi (talk) 01:54, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

One can hope that, when he matures a bit, he will return to use the enthusiasm as a positive contributor. —DoRD (talk) 02:17, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Here's to hoping that he listens to advice. —DoRD (talk) 02:47, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

That was generous. I'm not sure he is old enough to make the kind of decision he needs to just yet. He needs a couple years of maturing at the very least. If his pattern runs true, he should try to come back around April 1. --Drmargi (talk) 07:05, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps I'm being overly optimistic, but no harm in trying, I think. I'll be keeping an eye out for further mischief, of course. —DoRD (talk) 12:03, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

One more question, but related. CoolWill just requested an unblock (quickly denied.) Is it appropriate for a garden-variety user like me to add a note below the blue box expressing an opinion on the unblock? One of the things I've noticed about this kid, and I've read the edit histories of all four talk pages, is that he seems to think all he has to do is say "sorry" (hear in a childish voice) and all is forgiven, but he seems to have no understanding of what he's actually done wrong. I was tempted to add a note below the most recent request to that effect, noting the lack of growth in his understanding of the rules across four accounts, but didn't know if that would have been acceptable. --Drmargi (talk) 15:52, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, that's perfectly acceptable. By all means, if you're successful in explaining things to him, I think it'll be doing us all a favor. —DoRD (talk) 15:58, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Maybe it's just the teacher in me, but I think it's worth a try. But I also think an admin needs to hear other users' opinions about an unblock, which is why I wasn't sure the comment was appropriate. --Drmargi (talk) 16:06, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Deletion

Ok, thanks ill remember that.Edinburgh Wanderer 12:17, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

and I was almost done <g>

Glad to see a simple revert on the Bradley Manning fiasco -- though if he were established as "female" in any legal manner, I would suggest that pronoun use for (her) at that point would be somewhat more supportable. Collect (talk) 04:00, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Well, I do what I can. I just happened to see your ANI edit summary and decided to look into the matter. Considering that he's practically been in solitary confinement since his arrest, and that the army isn't likely to grant any elaborate elective medical procedures, I doubt that his gender has been altered. Though, if some reliable sources report otherwise... —DoRD (talk) 04:14, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Gender is not determined by legal or surgical means. It's sad that people fail to understand and respect this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.255.245.137 (talk) 04:34, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Without a reliable source stating otherwise, Manning is, and shall be considered here, male. The definition of "gender" really doesn't enter into it. —DoRD (talk) 04:45, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

The definition of gender dictates how she should be referred to. Your "reliable source" is Bradley Manning stating that she feels female and indicating that she wants not to be referred to as male. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.255.245.137 (talk) 17:01, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

If you have a reliable source showing that Manning has indicated that they feel female and wish to be be referred to as female, then by all means let us see it. —DoRD (talk) 19:25, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Automobiles/Conventions

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Automobiles/Conventions. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 15:16, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

IP return

Hey, been awhile. Probably don't even remember me. [1] That IP, obviously we have no proof at the moment, but Acps and I are suggesting that, 24...173 might have returned. Even if he isn't that IP, I think his attitude that is currently his wiki persona is going to get him in trouble at some point. --iGeM iN ix 21:11, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Oh yeah, that's the same person alright and I've blocked the IP for a while. —DoRD (talk) 21:38, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Also, the block should prevent any account creation from that IP for the next week, but since you watch the articles they edit, please let me know if any new users or IPs show up there. I'm hoping to get them to confine their activities to one account, but given past behavior, I'm not optimistic. —DoRD (talk) 23:56, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Lol, I saw your post on Acps page, thanks. Yeah, I will keep a lookout, even though I am retired, I still roam these pages and check on them from time to time.--iGeM iN ix 00:42, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Threatening an Admin...

See User talk:Antandrus#You have no sense of fun, a newbie [ERIC CARTMAN IS THE BOSS (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)] is causing a racket for god-knows-what-southpark-reasons. --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 10:06, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps I'll send them to the counselor's office. But seriously, I don't see it as anything that Antandrus can't handle, but I'll keep an eye on the user anyway. Cheers —DoRD (talk) 12:15, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Alrighty~! --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 12:27, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Reopened ANI discussion

Back on 28 March I closed a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents, which I thought was finished with. You were one of the contributors to the discussion. Another editor later posted a further comment below the closed section, and, having read that comment, I decided that the issue was perhaps not as unambiguously finished as I had thought, so I reverted my closure. Nobody posted any more comments to the section, and it is now archived at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive744#Wiki user:Fasttimes68 is vandalizing pages referencing celebrity model Stephanie_Adams. However, an editor has now suggested that I should have informed those who contributed to the discussion that it had been reopened, so I am doing so. It is very likely that nobody had any more to add, but if you would have done so then I apologise for not informing you at the time. If you do wish to say any more about it then it will be necessary to open a new section at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents, since the old one is archived. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:48, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Although my involvement in that thread was nothing more than a note that I'd reverted/deleted the OP's forum shopping, I glanced at the links provided by DC and do think that he had a valid point. I see no problems with either your original closure or the reopening of the thread, and if I had been in your shoes, I probably wouldn't have considered issuing a new ANI notice, either. —DoRD (talk) 12:40, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Let's settle this without blocking and revoking my abilities to edit my own talk page...

I really do not think banning me is going to conclude my appearances and run here at Wikipedia. I already know how stalkish this site can be with all the secret roaming and watchlists as I already viewed all your edits from you, Acps, IG, The Legendary Ranger and many other editors that I was combative towards with in the past etc etc. But newsflash, to get back to what I was going to say, please let me continue to edit here instead of trying to drag me out of here as "usual". ._. To also conclude the last messages you sent me, this one here at [2] shows that you didn't clearly read my previous message. I furiously asked of why you care so much about Acps and IG. In your next passage which sates in around like near the last paragraph "Also, I don't care any more or less about you than I do about the other two editors. Yes, one of them brought your editing to my attention, but I've spent far more time communicating with you than I have with both of them put together" CLEARLY shows that you did not bother to read my message clearly TWICE. I stated that since when did I ever asked if you cared about me? I never said that, just sayin'. You(?) as usually said "Fine, I get it....You don't want my help at all.". What help?? You never said any of that in my talk page! What are you trying to pull off on me? Hmmm, DORD! If I am wrong, please point out your edits at my talk page correctly then I'll apologies for mistaken. I already know how stalkish this site is, especially your comrades keep watching my every move. Is stalking part of Wikipedia? And DON'T even try to refute that it's not because it is. Your two heroes will always be on the looking for me at the New York City Subway articles as your pleas to do so, WHEN IN FACT, this IP address is where I made many constructive edits as well as my previous IP addresses at [3] and [4]. Sure I did made some mistakes at those contributes but other edits elsewhere were fine. I am hoping for you to answer to my message here.

P.S. Oh, and don't even try to ignore me or ban me again because I myself as 24...173 will also put distance between you and everybody else in the shadows you have watching me as well as your personalities TOO. 68.194.58.106 (talk) 22:33, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

P.S.S I will also follow your first previous edits at my talk page as I am looking forward into unblocking my User:NYCSlover account and getting back to editing. 68.194.58.106 (talk) 22:36, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Coming here and leaving threats and accusations isn't really a good way to further your Wikipedia career. Look, I've told you this before, but I'll try once more: ~~If you want for your account to be unblocked, you need to 1) Log into that account and 2) Go to WP:UTRS and request unblocking.~~

On second thought, I'll make it even easier. I'll change the block settings on your account so that you may make a request at User talk:NYCSlover. 1) Sign into your account and 2) Go make a request on your talk page. I'll leave it up to another admin to review your unblock request and won't comment unless necessary. I'll even ignore the fact that you're still evading a block with your IP address as long as you don't edit anywhere other than here or the IP talk page and as long as your edits are civil. Deal? —DoRD (talk) 23:37, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Of course, as long as I continue editing at the NYCS articles. 68.194.58.106 (talk) 10:43, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Two points: 1) As your block notice says, you'll need to use {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}} on the NYCSlover talk page, replacing "Your reason here" with your request, and 2) Read and follow the guide. Talking about other editors as you did in your statement will cause most admins to automatically reject your request. —DoRD (talk) 11:28, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

As much as I really want to get back to editing, I promise not to edit in this IP. I need more time. 68.194.58.106 (talk) 19:38, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar

	The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
	For what you've done for an IP editor, I think you truly deserve this barnstar. Cheers~! Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 10:18, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, Dave. —DoRD (talk) 11:29, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Another account

Robil1x1 Although he is making constructive edits. But it seems like another sock...--iGeM iN ix 18:38, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

IG, you'll be making a big mistake of accusing me of making another account. As I told DORD that I will not evade blocks nor hide under new IPs and accounts ever again. So no matter how much you continue to speculate, it isn't going to work. Right now, I am busying trying to request for my account as NYCSlover (the first account I created last summer...) to be unblocked. I don't want any more trouble so please! 68.194.58.106 (talk) 19:46, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

If it is not you, then don't worry, nothing will happen. It is just making sure you aren't making more accounts, DoRD can check user so just ignore it if isn't you.--iGeM iN ix 20:00, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Actually, I don't have the checkuser bit, so I can only find socks by comparing edits and by observing behavior. Since this user has only made a handful of seemingly constructive edits, I won't jump to any conclusions one way or the other. —DoRD (talk) 20:12, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Block appeal

You did not notify me when I was blocked and you did not leave a block template in my talk page. I am User:Kj plma and I created this new account because I cannot edit my talk page. I will put this account in misuse when my block is lifted. Anyway, I didn't really know how i had been a sock puppet of Clarence Baladjay since this kid is our neighbor and he always use our internet. It is not my fault that he abused his account. I even got angry with him when he ruined the page Neopolitan Business Park, which i had created. As I remember, I never had been involve in vandalism and it breaks my heart being accussed to be controlled by this Wikipedia vandal and sockpuppeteer and be blocked about this accussion. Please give me an unblock appeal template on my old user talk User talk:Kj plma so that I can prove to everyone that I had never been a sockpuppet of Clarence Baladjay myself. Kj plma temporary account (talk) 07:04, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Done, but making another account was not the most wise action to have taken. —DoRD (talk) 13:01, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Jeffrey Fitzpatrick's indef-ban

I don't think it was fair or helpful for you to just indef-ban Jeffrey Fitzpatrick summarily [5] without letting either the accused sockpuppet or Jeffrey say anything in their defence. Jeffrey's case was a legacy case of Instantnood's case, and it is well-known that there have been multiple IP users engaging in related disputes in the same areas and therefore mis-identified as the previously banned user Instantnood; among those was Jeffrey, who later created an account to separate himself from the others, but was later blocked in his own right for disruption.

Given the history of the case, there is a high chance that Jeffrey may not be the same person as the two recent IPs accused of being him. I am astonished by your approach to the case, and would urge you to re-open the case and invite CheckUser intervention. Der yck C. 21:48, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Looking over the case again, it is abundantly clear that the two IP editors are the same. The first IP was blocked, and Jeffrey Fitzpatrick's block was extended to one month by a checkuser, but I do not know if he ran a check or not. ~~I will ask him or another checkuser as soon as I see one.~~ Edit: Checkusers usually won't comment on whether a particular account or IP has been checked. After comparing the edits of all three and finding enough similarities, I blocked the second IP and, since there was a previous block for evasion, extended Jeffrey Fitzpatrick's block. As for the other case, I was unaware of it until your message here, and I have had no time at all to review it, but I will do so.

In the mean time, Jeffrey Fitzpatrick is welcome to appeal the block by the usual means. Best —DoRD (talk) 22:36, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your understanding. Jeffrey has previously shown desire to appeal his block, but has not been entertained by the reviewing admins - see User talk:Jeffrey Fitzpatrick#Blocks. Der yck C. 10:51, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

My last case

I think its classic Cui bono but here is something interesting [[6]] its like he anticipated this.You don't feel that all this evidence is enough for duck test?--Shrike (talk) 19:57, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Hello. Acting in a clerk capacity only, I haven't done my own analysis of the evidence and have relied on the comments left at the case and at the earlier case by the checkusers Tnxman307 and Elen of the Roads. If you feel that there is something they've overlooked, I'd suggest that you contact them directly. Cheers —DoRD (talk) 20:06, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Ok thanks--Shrike (talk) 20:08, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Courtesy notification

Hi. Could you please examine this discussion and give me your preliminary thoughts on the possibility of unblocking the main account if the user in question undertakes to make a clean break from socking? Thanks a lot, --John (talk) 18:20, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. —DoRD (talk) 18:41, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Not at all. Thanks for your trouble. --John (talk) 19:11, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

You have an impersonator

See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Earth Exploding Live, which revealed a sock whose username was created to parallel yours. Nyttend (talk) 02:23, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Oops — I just realised that you've already commented there. Sorry to have taken your time. Nyttend (talk) 02:25, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Yep, thanks for the warning, but I've already blocked him. He's certainly not the first, and probably won't be the last. Cheers! —DoRD (talk) 02:51, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

notification

Hello, can you please take a look at this user Banimustafa, he had many accounts such as: soufray, jerashray, wakwakwiki. All these was for one purpose which is to vandalize pages and force a single point of view in a single page. and now he's making trouples in Jerash article and trying to play around in the talk page and want to force his point of view which is adding his own town (Souf) everywhere Also he's accusing users always. and now he's moving to another articles to force the same view and delete any other info. could you please take an action about that. Thank you very much--HF ► 13:02, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Sorry for the delayed response. Looking back over the original SPI case, I see that the user was admonished to stick to one account, so if you have evidence that they are using multiple accounts, please file a new case by following this link. Thanks —DoRD (talk) 17:49, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry case - Basp1

I'm a bit surprised by the rationale you gave for closing the Basp1 sockpuppetry case - "Named user and IPs have ceased editing and the AfD has been closed as delete". How is this relevant? It is only 9 days since Basp1's last edit - this doesn't mean that he won't return to edit again. And yes, the (alleged) sockpuppetry happened on a now-closed AfD discussion, but it's still sockpuppetry and (if upheld) should not go unpunished. If I robbed a shop, would I be exonerated from my crimes if that shop subsequently goes out of business? Of course not. Why should this be any different? Bazonka (talk) 17:15, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments, but very few admins are going to block a bunch of IP addresses that haven't edited in well over a week. Also, blocking policy specifically prevents punitive blocks, and since they and the named account have stopped editing, blocks now would not be preventing anything. I suppose I should have said in my closing comment that a new report may be filed if they resume, so I've added that. I hope that this clarifies the matter and thanks again. —DoRD (talk) 17:27, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	You are the best. Deathlaser : Chat 18:47, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

DisneyCSIfan block

Thanks for handling the latest member of the DisneyCSIfan sockfarm. He/she will be back before long, since the underlying IP is still active. And so it goes. Just for clarification, CSIdisney2000, another sock I noted in the report was indef'd by Swarm back in November, but there was never an SPI on that sock. I noted on the report that he/she was already blocked, but it was probably easily overlooked. I'm not sure it really matters, but I thought I'd give you a heads up just in case. --Drmargi (talk) 00:02, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Hmm, I wasn't aware that 2000 had been tagged, but not blocked, so I've gone ahead and carried out Swarm's intentions. Thanks for bringing it to my attention. —DoRD (talk) 00:08, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Gosh, maybe I misunderstood. Either way, it is another sock, and of course we know the master moved on to several others since. Thanks for the update. I don't think Swarm has been active for a month or so. --Drmargi (talk) 00:18, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, they had an empty block log until a few minutes ago. I also noticed that Swarm has been inactive, but I left a note for them as well. Cheers —DoRD (talk) 00:21, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your diligence and the follow-up. Hopefully all is well with Swarm; he's a good egg. --Drmargi (talk) 00:23, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, DoRD. You have new messages at Danjel's talk page.
Message added 07:01, 6 June 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Just acknowledging and saying thanks for the followup. No further action required (I hope). =] ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 07:01, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Congrads

You have successfully passed your ~~RfA~~ SPI Clerk training, so I present you ~~the mop~~ the SPI stickers (10,000 sticker pack). :) I have left a note on the clerk talkpage explaining how well you have done as a trainee. I would link it, but then again, if you don't know where it is by this point, why did we make you a clerk? :P Happy stickering, -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 22:09, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the kind words, DeltaQuad, and for the stickers. I'll try to use them well. :) —DoRD (talk) 23:10, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Overambitious archiving...

Check the Grundle case you recently archived. You archived an open case along with the two closed one. Could you return the open case so a checkuser can see it and take care of it? Thanks! --Jayron32 00:57, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I just had that brought to my attention elsewhere and have now restored it here. I had four or five cases open in different tabs and didn't notice the new material before pressing save. Sorry for any inconvenience. —DoRD (talk) 01:01, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Plip!

Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 01:11, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Any by the way, I couldn't resist the minnow. I appreciate all the help with training at SPI, by the way. Interesting place to clerk at, that is for sure. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 12:40, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

SPI Clerk Trainee

Hi, I would like to become your apprentice/trainee and assist you in your duties as an SPI clerk. The Determinator p t c 17:24, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your interest in helping out at SPI. However, as I am already assisting with the training of two clerks, I can't take you on as a trainee at this time. Please consider making your interest known at WT:SPICLERK, and once we have fewer trainees, your request will be considered. Thanks again —DoRD (talk) 18:09, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Second that, the best spot to put your name down is on the clerk talkpage linked above. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 18:30, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I appreciate the guidance. The Determinator p t c 23:41, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

IP 2.222.145.236

Hello DoRD. On the 11th you blocked 2.222.145.236 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Unfortunately, they have returned to the exact same editing patter that got them blocked in the first place. If you aren't online I will also let AIV know after a quarter hour or so but I thought I would let you know first since you are familiar with the situation. Thanks for you time. MarnetteD | Talk 20:13, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

I've blocked them for three days this time, and if that doesn't do the trick, we can always make the next one even longer. Thanks for bringing this to my attention. —DoRD (talk) 20:21, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

And many thanks to you. I now have a chance to fix their edits in peace. It always feels like I am paddling upstream with only a twig when this kind of vandal is editing at the same time as I am trying to catch up with them. Cheers. MarnetteD | Talk 20:27, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi again. Sad to inform you that block has expired and same disruptive editing has resumed. Enjoy the rest of your Sunday and the week ahead in spite of this. MarnetteD | Talk 14:29, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

UPDATE: Ponyo already blocked this IP so we have a couple more weeks off. Cheers. MarnetteD | Talk 17:28, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

thanks

	Thank you
	I have been aware of that particular movie-topics editor in his many IP & named-incarnations since Fall 2010. Glad to see many of the loose socks gathered together. Shearonink (talk) 16:45, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

You're welcome. :) I hope we've collected them all. —DoRD (talk) 16:53, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Sockpuppet Investigation

Sorry to disturb you, but I was just curious to know that how did you find out that other possible sockpuppets were Facebook friends of User:Tiparrish?See the link here [7]Max Viwe | Viwe The Max 09:53, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

No disturbance at all - I'm always open to questions. The account linked from my comment in the case had a link to their Facebook profile on their userpage, so I followed it and found that one of their Facebook friends had a name remarkably similar to the user you reported. Cheers —DoRD (talk) 12:51, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Head scratch

Can I ask you a question, largely just so I know what's correct? There is a user hereabouts registered as User:CAWylie. At times, he signs talk pages that way. Other times, he'll sign as WylieCoyote inked to his talk page and at other times, WylieCoyote with no link to his talk page. I know the last is no-go, but is it acceptable to use the Wylie Coyote name rather than his user name in his signature? I don't want to make a big deal out of it, but I would like to know if it's appropriate or not. It seems a bit deceptive to me. --Drmargi (talk) 02:36, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

The relevant guideline is WP:SIG, which states, "Signatures which include no reference to the user's username (for example by signing with a nickname, as in [[User:Example|User:Nickname]]) are strongly discouraged." In this case, there is some reference to the real username, but the real problem is that WylieCoyote (talk · contribs) happens to exist, so signing as WylieCoyote shouldn't be done. In my opinion, this user should be encouraged to change their signature or, since the WylieCoyote account is many years old and has no contributions, to request to be renamed at WP:CHUU. Cheers —DoRD (talk) 11:39, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Grazie! I was up to my eyes busy, and didn't have time to go policy-hunting. I appreciate the clarification. --Drmargi (talk) 05:23, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Rollback mistakes

Recently, I've made a few mistaken rollbacks, which were caused by my fat-fingering my watchlist while using an iPad. Hopefully, this will prevent any future rollback mishaps. —DoRD (talk) 04:39, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Missed one

More copyvio from another sock, got to be the same stable [8] identical to that of a confirmed sock [9]. Dougweller (talk) 19:55, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks...blocked and tagged. —DoRD (talk) 20:04, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

block of Bouket

Interesting. I'm surprised that you didn't block him/her indefinitely for compounding the hounding of BMK with the sockery. I think the socks alone are worth a month, but that they were used to continue hounding BMK is aggravated disruption. Just my €0.02 worth. Toddst1 (talk) 20:28, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I thought about that...after I blocked. Oh well, it can always be extended (hence the note I left afterwards). Cheers —DoRD (talk) 20:33, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Cool. Thanks for the reply. Toddst1 (talk) 22:50, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Sprutt

Hi. I saw you closing an SPI on Sprutt, and I'm commenting here, as that page was closed. It is not surprising that so many different editors (including an admin) were filing CU requests on the same group of accounts, because the behavior of that group is highly suspicious. There were at least 5 accounts all registered around the same time in October - November 2011. These are their user creation logs:

October 1, 2011: Dehr (talk · contribs) created a user account
November 11, 2011: Sprutt (talk · contribs) created a user account
November 16, 2011: Zimmarod (talk · contribs) created a user account
November 19, 2011: Winterbliss (talk · contribs) created a user account
November 22, 2011: Hablabar (talk · contribs) created a user account

Those accounts were registered soon after the accounts of Xebulon (talk · contribs), Vandorenfm (talk · contribs) and Gorzaim (talk · contribs) were banned as socks. The new accounts resumed the edit war waged by those 3 accounts on the article of Nagorno-Karabakh, which was eventually placed on a new account restriction. This is when two of the above accounts (Winterbliss and Dehr) tried to game the system, and were blocked indefinitely. I agree with Golbez and Parishan here, how could those two accounts have done exactly the same trick to game the system, if they had been unrelated to each other?

Parishan was probably unaware of the history of SPI requests on these accounts, but an interesting observation here is that Xebulon is a very sophisticated sock master, and he managed to evade the CU a number of times. Looking over at the history of socking by Xebulon, one can see that the CU at least twice showed no connection between Xebulon (talk · contribs), Vandorenfm (talk · contribs) and Gorzaim (talk · contribs): [10], [11]. However a later check gave a different result: [12] I don't know how it is possible that the CU can show no connection the first couple of times, but return the positive result at a later check. It looks like the sockmaster gave himself away by logging in into two different accounts from the same IP after one of those accounts was blocked. So it is either one person changing his location to edit from different IPs, or a group of editors sharing passwords, or something like that. The similarity in the editing style of those accounts is too obvious. I think one final and thorough check might be useful to put this issue to rest once and for all. Otherwise I think people will keep on filing the SPI requests on these accounts, because their behavior is extremely suspicious. Sprutt and Zimmarod both registered almost simultaneously, on 11 and 16 November 2011, and edit mostly the same Armenia - Azerbaijan related articles. Considering extremely high amount of sock puppetry in this arbitration covered area, it is natural that unusual behavior causes suspicions. Regards, Grandmaster 15:26, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

As this is the first time I've come across these cases, I'm not familiar with the subjects and editors involved. My first thought is that this may be more complicated than we normally handle at SPI and that it may need the attention of more editors at a venue such as at AN/I. I will look deeper into this, but I'm very busy in real life at the moment, so it may take a few days. —DoRD (talk) 12:57, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. This is indeed a very complicated case. Grandmaster 05:20, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Y26Z3 Sockpuppet investigation

Since you had involvement in the blocking of user Y26Z3 because of his edits at Lusitanic, I thought you'd be interested to know that I believe he has created a new sockpuppet through which he is beginning to make similar edits and is again lobbying for the deletion of Lusitanic. The sockpuppet investigation I started against him is here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Y26Z3 Goodsdrew (talk) 17:20, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

I just saw this, but the case has apparently been completed. —DoRD (talk) 19:33, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

SPI

Hi. Did you get the chance to look into this: [13]? Regards, Grandmaster 18:56, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Not yet. Unfortunately, I have had very little time available over the past few weeks, but that should change after this coming weekend. —DoRD (talk) 12:45, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Thank you!

See: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Manowiki123/Archive. Thanks for tidying that up.--Shirt58 (talk) 10:59, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

You're welcome, but all I did was extending the master's block - most of the heavy lifting was done by the clerk, Berean Hunter. Cheers —DoRD (talk) 12:53, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

RM bot inactive

This bot, which maintains the list of requested moves, suddenly stopped working after 17:30, 18 July 2012‎. I'm asking you if you can help start the bot. I recall the bot has been stopped before: Wikipedia:Bot owners' noticeboard/Archive 7#RM bot inactive – and you helped that time. I suspect the problem may be with Talk:2012 Damascus bombing - seems somone has been redirecting pages after the move request was made. Thanks Wbm1058 (talk) 00:45, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

When I intervened, the bot had been blocked by another admin, and I unblocked it. Now, the bot isn't blocked, so without digging deeper, I don't have any idea at all why it isn't running. I suggest that you contact the owner or post a message at WP:BOWN. Cheers —DoRD (talk) 02:28, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for confirming that the bot isn't blocked this time. The owner has not posted an edit to Wikipedia since February. I already posted a message at WP:BOWN, but this time it's not getting any prompt responses – still waiting for any bot operator to respond. Thanks Wbm1058 (talk) 11:12, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Undelete

You kindly deleted (on my request) a page in my userspace. Due to a massive attack of vagueness on my part (I blame a recent B12 deficiency), and a case of data loss, I'd like to either have it undeleted or get a copy of the old, deleted version.

Sorry for the hassle. Will manage it more carefully next time. Thanks! --Chriswaterguy talk 13:17, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Done - page history restored. Cheers —DoRD (talk)

Fantastic - thank you.

A possible chuckle for you

Hello. I have always enjoyed the term "Department of Redundancy Department" and how many times in life it winds up needing to be applied. So I thought you might enjoy the fact that - due to the whims of the creators of a Showtime series and the vagaries of WikiP's naming conventions we have an article with this title List of Episodes episodes. It makes me chuckle every time I think of it and I thought it might do the same for you. Cheers and have a good weekend. MarnetteD | Talk 18:14, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Like —DoRD (talk) 19:13, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

User:Maxviwe

Hey, pal.Just one last thing to confess.This is my IP address.I'm in Surat.not in Pune.Check if you want.Anyways, Wish you happy editing and goodbye forever. 219.91.143.167 (talk) 17:23, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Investigating and reporting

Hello Dord, save for one page I have found which instructs not to edit manually as it is maintained by BOT, I can find nowhere in which to report a case where I feel multiple accounts are being abused for disruptive editing. If you could link me to the correct page, I'd be grateful. In the meantime, since you are an admin and are associated with CHECKUSER, can I bring the following to your attention (pasted as would have been sent):

Multiple accounts issue

2A02:928:10:10:211:24FF:FE3B:6582 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This new "account" has been activated in the wake of a semi-protection period for Sislej Xhafa. Its only contribution[14] is not only the same as many others from IPs in its content nature (blanking/introducing foreign language text) - which was the cause of the protection for the article - but also in its poor attempt at humour summary: see the following, [15], [16], [17], [18], [19], [20], [21], [22]; then combine that to the complete works of this account. Not only will the article soon require longer protection but some action is needed to cast out what is clearly one individual being disruptive: the edits all seem to focus on one theme but they also change slightly with each facecious summary. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 09:23, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Hello Evlekis. The account you listed above, 2A02:928:10:10:211:24FF:FE3B:6582 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), is actually an IPv6 address from The Netherlands. Looking at the history of that page, it appears that the anonymous users are making the same or similar edits to Estherboy (talk · contribs), so if you wish to file a sockpuppetry report, please visit WP:SPI and follow the instructions there. Unfortunately, since there are so many IP addresses involved, it may be more effective to have the article protected again instead. —DoRD (talk) 12:44, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice Dord, to be honest I just needed the correct page; I found one which was pronounced "inactive". As you say, countless IPs and evidently one person! Protection is always best but no admin will do this before the number of abuses increases. Let's hope it stays quiet. Best regards. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 21:58, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Eastenders Characters Article

Hiya DoRD Have have found some evidence on a User putting fake Characters on the List of Eastenders characters article Named Extras; Glen James; Glen Cooper; Unknown, Harry Black; Harry Holland Unknown, Michael; Michael Leader. His name is User:Bleaney and he keep on putting fake characters onto Eastenders Article. I am a great fan of Eastenders and watched every single episode of it and those characters havent been on Eastenders before. If that User does it again I suggest you should block him from editing wikipedia.

From User:Quinser's —Preceding undated comment added 18:15, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Hello Quinser's. I am completely unfamiliar with Eastenders and the List of EastEnders characters, but from the recent history of the article, it appears to me that Bleany is making constructive edits along with a few other editors. I suggest that you discuss your concerns directly with the user or on the article's discussion page.

Also, please be sure to sign your talk and user talk posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. —DoRD (talk) 18:32, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

(talk page stalker), actually it has been me who added them per a discussion at the talk page of List of EastEnders characters. You probably havent seen many of the characters as they are extras, who appear in the background, and are not major characters. However, we have reliable sources which confirm that these actors play thee characters. — M.Mario (T/C) 20:22, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Kimiczv02

Doh, I didn't notice that all those were locked. Sorry for bothering you guys with this report. De728631 (talk) 16:00, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

No bother. SPI is not the most intuitive area of the project, and I expect that you'll learn what to look for as the newness of your mop wears off. ;) By the way, did you see my note on the related case page? Cheers —DoRD (talk) 16:43, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

I've seen it now and it seems like I'm still mixing it up with the incident boards. Thanks for pointing that out. De728631 (talk) 17:47, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

If you have any SPI-related questions, feel free to ask me, or stop by #wikipedia-en-spi ^connect, where you're likely to find a few Checkusers and SPI clerks. —DoRD (talk) 01:09, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Offices

Hi. I just thought I'd let you know that User:Obtund has been persistently requesting all manner of user rights at WP:PERM. That being unsuccessful, I see he's applying for other offices. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:13, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I noticed the several discussions on their talkpage, so while I personally don't think that they're ready for this sort of responsibility, I didn't want to be too discouraging. Thanks for the heads-up, though! —DoRD (talk) 00:23, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Sorry to undo your edit

[23] I've undone your edit on this page because this is not a generic discussion, but a discussion about one specific sockmaster. It makes no sense to have that discussion on a page other than that devoted to that sockmaster; there is very little in that discussion that would apply under other circumstances. Risker (talk) 21:37, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

I thought that WilliamH's suggestion sounded reasonable, so I went ahead and carried it out, but since I wasn't involved at either location, I'll defer to your judgement. Perhaps, to reduce the clutter, it could be moved to the specific case's talk page instead. Cheers —DoRD (talk) 21:46, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Also...

Thanks for deleting my mistakenly created page. Could you also delete the three other pages I mistakenly created as a result? (Please see my contribs). Would be greatly appreciated. Cheers, Stalwart111 (talk) 03:07, 29 August 2012 (UTC).

Done —DoRD (talk) 03:11, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Many thanks for cleaning up the mess I made! Stalwart111 (talk) 03:15, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

He's back already

18:05, 28 August 2012 DoRD (talk | contribs) blocked DaNPOVinator (talk | contribs) (account creation blocked, e-mail disabled, cannot edit own talk page) with an expiry time of indefinite (Abusing multiple accounts)

18:44, 28 August 2012 JimWHall (talk | contribs) created a user account

Belchfire-TALK 03:09, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Sorted. For now, anyway. —DoRD (talk) 03:27, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Gumbo War

The uncivil, edit warring IP is baaacck, and reverting with decidedly uncivil edit summaries. Would you take another look at the Gumbo article, and see what action might be needed? --Drmargi (talk) 03:17, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Even though I'm editing from a rather poor mobile connection, I've given them a short block for the abusive edit summaries. Hopefully, they'll get the message, but if not, I'll be back on a proper connection in a couple of days to be able to address the situation further. —DoRD (talk) 03:51, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

That should do it. I started a discussion, which should have been done quite a while ago (partially my fault.) Hopefully that will establish consensus one way or the other. --Drmargi (talk) 03:53, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

ONly butting in 'cause I'm now watching your talk. If this is an example of what you are talking about, might need a range block. Dloh cierekim 01:12, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

He's just hopped to a new number and started again. Only one revert so far, but that won't be the last. --Drmargi (talk) 01:28, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, this will continue as he jumps through all 256² available IP addresses he has access to. Mayhaps you could possibly lock the article down from IP edits as blocking 65,536 IP addresses would be unfair to all of the Spaniards who use this ISP and may actually want to edit WP properly. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 03:28, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

The Olive Branch: A Dispute Resolution Newsletter (Issue #1)

Welcome to the first edition of The Olive Branch. This will be a place to semi-regularly update editors active in dispute resolution (DR) about some of the most important issues, advances, and challenges in the area. You were delivered this update because you are active in DR, but if you would prefer not to receive any future mailing, just add your name to this page.

In this issue:

Background: A brief overview of the DR ecosystem.
Research: The most recent DR data
Survey results: Highlights from Steven Zhang's April 2012 survey
Activity analysis: Where DR happened, broken down by the top DR forums
DR Noticeboard comparison: How the newest DR forum has progressed between May and August
Discussion update: Checking up on the Wikiquette Assistance close debate
Proposal: It's time to close the Geopolitical, ethnic, and religious conflicts noticeboard. Agree or disagree?

Read the entire first edition of The Olive Branch -->

--The Olive Branch 18:59, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Padmalakshmisx

Any chance you could have a look at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Padmalakshmisx‎. —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 16:43, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

SPI\Tibtum74

Thank you for your help with this case! Camw (talk) 02:56, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

You're welcome! Hopefully, by the time the range block expires, they'll get bored and find something else to do. Cheers —DoRD (talk) 03:26, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

AIV

Sorry, I've came through with blocks on the two AIV reports you've recently declined - both of the accounts recent edits show that they were both solely here to disrupt Wikipedia and IMO we don't need to exhaust the community's patience. – Connormah (talk) 02:58, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

As you wish. I disagree with the conclusion, but perhaps the community has become less patient since when I was more active at AIV. Cheers —DoRD (talk) 03:28, 13 September 2012 (UTC)