I have been labeled as a sockpuppet in a recent checkuser having to do with the Dokdo poll as to whether to move the page back to another name. My understanding is you are one of the people who could possibly look into this. I am clearly NOT a sockpuppet and this person as well as four others have macliously attacked me accusing me of sockpuppetry. I've been on Wikipedia for over two years and NEVER used a sockpuppet. Honestly not that I think anyone is going to believe me. I guess it's trial, conviction and hanging all in one day. I'd appreciate it if you'd look into this. Davidpdx 00:03, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A malicous attack including the administrator who performed the checkuser who had never previously interacted with you (as you assume with bad faith here)? I don't have much of an opinion on this issue, but you might get a bit more mileage if you don't just start accusing everyone under the sun of attacking you with ill intent. --Cheers, Komdori 00:28, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't quite a strange concidence you happened to find this. It stinks of high heaven. You can stand there and claim you know nothing, but it's clear you and Parceboy are full of crap.

As to the suggestion that I should be civil, why don't you step back a minute. You weren't the one that was labled a sockpuppet. Tried, convicted and hung in the same day. You guys go what you wanted I guess. Davidpdx 00:46, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I noted your caveat in your votes on the TingMing case that you had not evaluated the conduct of Certified.Gangsta and Ideogram. However, I am sure you recall that you voted to impose remedies against those two users in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Certified.Gangsta-Ideogram, for conduct relating among other things to the same disputes TingMing was involved in, so I am not sure your meaning there is entirely clear. Regards, Newyorkbrad 20:11, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 20:21, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I noted your caveat in your votes on the TingMing case that you had not evaluated the conduct of Certified.Gangsta and Ideogram. However, I am sure you recall that you voted to impose remedies against those two users in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Certified.Gangsta-Ideogram, for conduct relating among other things to the same disputes TingMing was involved in, so I am not sure your meaning there is entirely clear. Regards, Newyorkbrad 20:11, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 20:21, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to express my surprise concerning the probable outcome of the Transnistrian arbitration.

On one side you have an astroturfing network, proved media manipulation, and sockpuppet farms. On the other, you have guys that uncovered this large-scale manipulation and are now calm and reasonable (once the main manipulators are gone, that is). And what this ArbCom does is to inflict similar bans on both sides.

How is this ethical? Do you mean that fighting manipulation attempts is punishable? The only way of bringing down a manipulator being to accept the same punishment? And how about balancing punishment with evidence? Dpotop 12:08, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I commented on the Hkelkar case here, hoping for some arbitrator response, but Thatcher tells me I need to draw attention to it on an arbitrator's talkpage or something like that.[1] So that's what I'm doing. It would be very kind if you would respond, or post my comment to the mailing list. uninvited bishonen 21:16, 6 June 2007 (UTC). [reply]

Hi. I noted your caveat in your votes on the TingMing case that you had not evaluated the conduct of Certified.Gangsta and Ideogram. However, I am sure you recall that you voted to impose remedies against those two users in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Certified.Gangsta-Ideogram, for conduct relating among other things to the same disputes TingMing was involved in, so I am not sure your meaning there is entirely clear. Regards, Newyorkbrad 20:11, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 20:21, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to express my surprise concerning the probable outcome of the Transnistrian arbitration.

On one side you have an astroturfing network, proved media manipulation, and sockpuppet farms. On the other, you have guys that uncovered this large-scale manipulation and are now calm and reasonable (once the main manipulators are gone, that is). And what this ArbCom does is to inflict similar bans on both sides.

How is this ethical? Do you mean that fighting manipulation attempts is punishable? The only way of bringing down a manipulator being to accept the same punishment? And how about balancing punishment with evidence? Dpotop 12:08, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I commented on the Hkelkar case here, hoping for some arbitrator response, but Thatcher tells me I need to draw attention to it on an arbitrator's talkpage or something like that.[2] So that's what I'm doing. It would be very kind if you would respond, or post my comment to the mailing list. uninvited bishonen 21:16, 6 June 2007 (UTC). [reply]

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Wikipedia talk:Non-free content, by Mecu, another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Wikipedia talk:Non-free content is unquestionably copyright infringement, and no assertion of permission has been made.

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Wikipedia talk:Non-free content, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Please note, this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion, it did not nominate Wikipedia talk:Non-free content itself. Feel free to leave a message on the bot operator's talk page if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot. --Android Mouse Bot 2 20:17, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I saw your vote against ArbCom considering WP:OWN of the MEMRI page and wanted you to know that I have added a couple of paragraphs here responding to the editor who argued (incorrectly, I believe) that this is really a simple Content Dispute. I hope you will reconsider your vote. As I stated there: "I realize that it is not the purpose of the Arbitration Committee to sort through claims and counter-claims of POV. The important issue here is not that there is a content dispute on this page. Clearly many (if not most) WP pages have had content disputes on them. The important issue is instead how editors behave when a content dispute occurs." I then detail what I consider to be clear evidence of abusive editing displayed by some of the editors of this page.

Because my initial statement was to be limited in size to 500 words, I have presented only a small amount of the evidence of abuse that is available to me. If you think that I need better or more detailed evidence, please let me know what you think would make my argument more compelling. Thank you for your time in considering this matter. Jgui 03:57, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to bother you with this, but there are several people at Badlydrawnjeff's RFAr that consider the remedy too harsh. In particular, BDJ's editing of articles has never been problematic. Would you consider limiting said remedy to, e.g., deletion discussions on BLP articles, rather than the articles themselves? The remedy as written boils down to banning one of our most prolific editors from a very substantial set of articles, and that seems hardly worthwhile. Yours, >Radiant< 08:33, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I reviewed the remedies and have supported an alternative version. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 00:35, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your time. >Radiant< 09:44, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't forget to add [[3]] and [[4]] to the "Proposed decision" area for arbitrators to vote on. This area [[5]]. Martinphi and Davkal are the main focus of this arbitration and the person who initiated it. I would hate to see their frequent violations of policy be overlooked because it was never nominated to be voted for by the arbitrators. Also please add [[6]] and [[7]]. to the "Proposed decisions" area. Thanks.Wikidudeman ^(talk) 00:39, 21 June 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Hi UC, I was interested in your statement that "the role of the WMF Checkuser Ombudsman Commission is limited to reporting to the WMF Board of Trustees regarding alleged violations of the WMF privacy policy." I wasn't aware of that. Do you have a link to that policy or decision? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:45, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

[8] The Uninvited Co., Inc. 00:43, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. It doesn't say that the role of the ombudsman is limited to reporting alleged privacy violations. It says "The ombudsman will take charge of investigating cases of privacy policy breach or checkuser abuse for the board in an official manner." That seems to suggest that it's breaches of both the privacy policy and the check user policy that the Ombudsman is asked to look at. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 03:42, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see it as our role to deal with complaints that are potentially serious enough to warrant the board's involvement, and to deal with complaints that originate from projects that do not have a local arbcom. The other people on the commission may feel differently. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 00:35, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Requesting clarification regarding whether Ombudsman commission will take any action, as at least one other arbitrator has voted decline pending O.C. action. - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 17:33, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Zanyar (Possible sockpuppets)
• Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Diyako (Diyako is stale)
• Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/71.222.81.30 (Diyako is still stale so no check was made to compare him)

You are receiving this because your username either appears on the checkuser list or you were one of the arbitrators that participated in the relevant Arbcom case (User:Dmcdevit, User:Jdforrester, User:The Epopt, User:Charles Matthews, User:Sam Korn, User:Fred Bauder, User:Jayjg, User:Morven, User:Neutrality).

Currently User:Diyako/User:Xebat is at a stale state for not editing over a month. User hasn't edited for slightly over a year due to an arbcom sanctioned ban. I have a reason to believe ([9], [10], [11]) there may be a connection as the edit pattern seems similar in many ways. Diyako's wikipedia ban has recently expired but if he is continuing a similar behavior as User:D.Kurdistani, there needs to be a further consideration either by ARBCOM or Community Sanction board (latter seems more appropriate IMHO). A successful checkuser would be very helpful in the decision making process on this issue.

This inquiry is to request if you have "personal logs" of Diyako/Xebat's IP's to compare with User:D.Kurdistani and possible other socks. This is NOT a request for the logs themselves but on weather or not you have them. Please reply on my talk page to confirm if you have the logs or not. User:Mackensen appears to be the only person to have preformed a successful checkuser but others may also have this info.

-- Cat ^chi? 10:45, 22 June 2007 (UTC)