Jump to content

User talk:Daniel/Archive/79

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on User talk:Daniel. No further edits should be made to this page. For a list of archives for this user, see User talk:Daniel/Archive.
Archive This page is an archive. Do not edit the contents of this page. Please direct any comments to the current talk page.
← Archive 78 · Archive 79 · Archive 80 →

Moving other's comments

[edit]

User:HistoricWarrior007 posted some replies in the middle of my comment at [1]. I would like to keep my comment in one piece, but I am not sure how strictly moving comments of other users us handled on these pages. If it is not allowed for non-clerks, could you please move his comments to a separate section? Thx. --Xeeron (talk) 11:44, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Posting in the middle of people's comments, as User:HistoricWarrior007 did, is certainly undesirable and something to be avoided wherever possible. Daniel (talk) 11:58, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Quoting emails

[edit]

Increasingly, some parties are quoting emails from the leaked archive (ex. [2]. I thought that this was not to be done ("No quoting of any email is to be done by persons other than the author or intended recipient(s)")? Am I mistaken? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 15:15, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the intention of the provision you have quoted, is to prevent wide-scale quoting of entire emails and entire email exchanges; that is the assumption I will work off when taking affirmative action (as opposed to reactive action, such as this), although I invite you to have the Committee comment on my interpretation of it. Regardless, I'll ask Offliner to paraphrase what you wrote on the mailing list, although having him do this could be to your disadvantage as it provides him the opportunity to represent what you said on the mailing list in whatever way and with whatever language he chooses. Daniel (talk) 15:24, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Daniel, I don’t mind you removing my entire section (at your discretion) for as long as you read it, by going back to my post, and relating to the particulars listed in it. However, there’s nothing in the initial provisions of this case indicating that you’re supposed to prevent only wide-scale quoting of entire emails and email exchanges. – That is your own interpretation of the warning which needs to be confirmed by the Committee. Meanwhile, quoting of illegally accessed emails includes also explaining in ones own words what’s in those emails, which in a way is even worse, because paraphrasing other people is obviously tainted by personal agendas. Cheers, --Poeticbent talk 17:16, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Quoting, out-of-context and possibly doctored emails is creating, IMHO, more problems than paraphrasing, as it gives an air of legitimacy to this harassment campaign. PS. Offliner is not the ony party quoting @s, Russavia is doing that as well. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 17:20, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) I'm charged, as the Clerk of the case, to interpret the directives I receive. Until such a time as I am explicitly overruled by the Committee, how I interpret those directives is how the case will be run. I have interpreted the directives and disallowing the quoting of the contents of emails, allowing the subjects of emails, and allowing the paraphrasing of content of emails where said paraphrasing. If you're concerned about mis-paraphrasing, the other alternative is to give permission to be quoted; otherwise, your emails can and will be paraphrased within reason. If you believe a paraphrase is misleading, you are free to address it in your own evidence section.
These are the rules for the case. Daniel (talk) 17:23, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And in response to Piotrus, either allow yourself to be quoted explicitly, or refute the paraphrasing in your evidence section, or else appeal my decision to the Committee by email to arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org. I will be happy to have my interpretation, which is binding on the case absent a contrary directive from the Committee (see above), overruled by them should they agree with your contentions. Daniel (talk) 17:23, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict, again) Russavia is fixing the quotes (see my comment at the bottom of his talk page). Daniel (talk) 17:24, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am now confused if we agree or not: I am against quoting (of private communications, publicly and without permission) and for paraphrasing. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 17:29, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I know. I'm saying that paraphrasing is allowed, regardless of whether you're against it or not. If you disagree with my interpretation of the directive that paraphrasing and summarising is allowed, then I provided alternatives, including allowing your emails to be quoted, refuting 'bad' summaries in your own evidence section, or appealing my interpretation to the Committee by emailing their mailing list. Daniel (talk) 17:30, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Then we agree :) Yes, paraphrasing is allowed, per freedom of speech and such. Thank you for offering the other options, I think none will be needed. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 17:48, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I see. Crap, my apologies. I misread the first word of your 17:20 comment as "paraphrasing", not "quoting". Yes, so we do agree. :) I blame the hour, which is somewhere around 0320, and my friends, who still haven't called to get picked up, hence why I'm still here :) Daniel (talk) 17:50, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please remember that an offer to paraphrase these emails one by one in a continuous string was already made (out of the blue) by user Novickas. However, all users have also been advised to limit themselves to the on-wiki evidence of possible misconduct, with the assumption that such restrictions, given the private nature of most of the likely evidence, would cut down on the size of the evidence page.[3] The size of that page nonetheless is growing quickly, and so, there's no need for none-arbitrators to boust about being in possession of an unethically obtained archive and dwell on its content, which is not publicly accessible for the third-party confirmation. --Poeticbent talk 18:07, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The people whose conduct is being discussed in relation to the emails have access to them, and so they have the ability to respond. In my opinion, paraphrasing is acceptable, and until I receive explicit instruction from the Committee otherwise, that's the way the case will be run. Daniel (talk) 18:13, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. As I understand, some of the list participants deleted these emails, and in spite of their repeated requests, they have not been given access to the illegal copy. However, trying to correct the ill-advised interpretations of their own words would be useless – one way or another – given the aggressive language of all stacked up accusations. You do what you think is best. --Poeticbent talk 18:33, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank You!

[edit]

For helping me out with the formatting responses in "Eastern European Wiki-Cabal" Arbitration. Formatting is a pain in the ass for me, so that's for showing me how to do it right. :D HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 07:25, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hiberniantears' post

[edit]

He posted his evidence in the wrong section. Offliner (talk) 16:10, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm assuming this has been fixed, as I can't see it. Daniel (talk) 06:17, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Request

[edit]

Dear Daniel,

I completed my Evidence section and fed up with emailing case. Could you please do the following. Block my account indefinitely, noting that it was done by my request. However, please keep all associated IPs addresses unblocked to allow creating of a new account. If and when Arbcom decides that I can continue editing, I would open a new account and report about this to Arbcom. Thank you. Biophys (talk) 16:39, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wasn't coming back here as socks something discussed extensively by the mailing list? I am just very worried. Anti-Nationalist (talk) 16:51, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I wonder if Biophys would be found guilty by Arbcomm and blocked indef by Arbcom decision, what is the reason to have a statement on his page that it was blocked by his wish? This is indirect forum shopping. Pay attention what this user has been writing recently on his page [4] contains open incivilties directed at other contributors. Vlad fedorov (talk) 16:57, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Four hours passed, and still there is no action. Well, Daniel, ... if you think my further involvement in the case would be helpful, then please do not block this account yet, and I might comment on a few things later. What I can see right now reminds me an episode from Ghost Busters when they let all ghosts go.Biophys (talk) 20:52, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Four hours passed" — yes, from 0200 to 0600 my time. I hardly think that's unreasonable on my part; at least, I hope not, as I'm not going to be around for another 12 or so from now. Daniel (talk) 00:44, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am sorry. This is stressful, but I would rather take part as "Biophys" in further developments, especially since Vlad has serious concerns.Biophys (talk) 03:10, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Anything to do with account-switching should be done via arbcom-l, and with their approval. I can't authorise any switching of accounts. Daniel (talk) 06:09, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Remedy for user Piotrus

[edit]

Could you please have a look at that [5]? Thanks. Vlad fedorov (talk) 17:19, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Handled at the thread by others. Daniel (talk) 06:08, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ping!

[edit]

Just sent you an email. Tim Song (talk) 18:24, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Watching Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Eastern_European_mailing_list/Evidence

[edit]

Do we have any size limitations in the Evidence section? I am not sure arbitrators will read it. Someone should also remind participates that only evidence starting from this January (the beginning of the list) should be submitted. Biophys (talk) 19:42, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strictly speaking the word limit is 1000 words/100 diffs, but well-structured yet concise presentations that exceed this are normally acceptable, especially in complex cases like this; obviously walls of text are to be avoided. The job of the clerks isn't to make suggestions to the parties about what evidence should be added to the page, and parties who add evidence which the Committee has stated it will give less weight to (ie. pre-January) are only hurting their own evidence presentations. Daniel (talk) 06:05, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Eastern European mailing list

[edit]

Hi Daniel,

Would you mind adding me as an involved party to Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Eastern European mailing list? After finding 38 emails in the zip file relating to me, and then taking a day to mull it over, I would like to be added to the case. I already added my evidence over the weekend. I travel for work, so I'm not generally available for instant feedback, but I'm willing to be of help to the committee in any way I can. Thanks. Hiberniantears (talk) 01:12, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Daniel,
Just a follow up from yesterday's note. Can I be added to the case? Thanks. Hiberniantears (talk) 21:06, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Based off your evidence and what I've heard from the Committee privately in this case, I tend to agree with adding you as a party; I have done so. Daniel (talk) 00:40, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you sir. Sorry for posting here and on the case. I thought you might have been taking advantage of a few last days of summer. Hiberniantears (talk) 01:18, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hah it's definitely not summer here, plus the weather has been terrible in my part of the world over the last four days! :) Rather, on weekends I don't tend to edit very much if at all, due to work + real life. Daniel (talk) 01:27, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
LOL... My bad! I always forget you're not in my hemisphere... :-) Hiberniantears (talk) 01:42, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Giano on Eastern European mailing list case pages

[edit]

Ten days ago Giano was asked by an arbitrator to tone down his rhetoric or stop commenting on this case. Yet he continues with posts such as [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11] and more. His remarks do not add anything to the discussion, their only purpose seems to inflame the situation further - and quite a lot of messages are simply insulting and downright nasty. --Sander Säde 08:36, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong rhetoric, maybe. Downright insulting and nasty, not in my opinion, given the context of what the evidence has alleged has occurred. Unless things deteriorate further with regards to what Giano has been saying, I don't think I will be taking any action. I encourage you to petition an arbitrator if you disagree with my assessment. Daniel (talk) 08:39, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is, of course, only my opinion - but so far the evidence is just laughable. Claims that Martintg's placing an userbox on his user page is a proof of harassment, that Piotrus mentioning an article in an e-mail is an "invite to participate in meatpuppetry and edit warring", attempts to show their own BLP violations as article improvements etc etc etc. I do not have the e-mail archive - as I was not a member of the list for a first seven months, I don't want to read e-mails not directed to me - but unless arbitrators themselves will find something more, there doesn't seem to be much incriminating.
As for Giano, I do disagree with you - his direct purpose seems to be inflame the situation, not participate in discussion in any way that could be considered constructive. However, I will not seek advice from anyone else, as I would undoubtedly become a target of a similar campaign as Sandstein currently is.
--Sander Säde 09:38, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 28 September 2009

[edit]

RE

[edit]

not really. Something quiet would have been much better than a serious dispute which detracts from the main reason I'd hope we're all here. Ironholds (talk) 16:02, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To second that - the edit ( here ) calling it an "epic win" is in poor taste, offensive, and violates WP:CIVIL. I would like you to consider this message a formal warning for violating our civility policy.
Causing massive drama is never an epic win. If you feel otherwise - perhaps it is you that is unsuited for Wikipedia. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 23:30, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nonsense. There's no such thing as a "formal warning" anyways. Please don't bother with such dramatics (irony, huh?) on my talk page again, George. Daniel (talk) 23:51, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You'd do well to stop taking your prompting from Wikipedia Review as well. It's ironic how no-one gives a toss about anything until someone raises a diff there; the moment they do, it seems as if people want to win points with the Anti-Cabal by jumping all over it. It's an interesting social construct, that website. Daniel (talk) 23:56, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not about wins and losses even if some people act that way. Thatcher 00:16, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is grossly inappropriate, and I'm sickened that you're wikilawyering about it. Consider this a warning. GWH is not known to be a WR booster, BTW. Cool Hand Luke 00:37, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A warning for what, exactly? And, wow, where have I seen this crowd before...memo to everyone: I really don't care about anything. I don't edit for Wikipedia anymore, I edit for the subjects of articles near-exclusively. If this makes me disconnected from Wikipedia policies and standards, then I guess it's only a matter of time until it catches me out big time and I lose adminship. But until then, I'll be continuing along the same path I have for the last few months. If I get "blocked" over something like this, it'll simply be a weekend in the middle of the week, which is something I've been screaming at my university and place of employment to implement anyways; Wikipedia is progressive, I guess, so it's always a possibility. Daniel (talk) 00:45, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Does OTRS include off-site personality fights that result in "epic wins" for the participants? If so, it's much less collegial than I realized. For future reference, civility is still a policy here on the ol' wiki. Cool Hand Luke 01:00, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You obviously missed the "near-exclusively" bit. I will still play 'the game' when I feel it will benefit or amuse me. Daniel (talk) 01:02, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As you are threatening to continue the incivility you were warned about, you have your requested 48 hr vacation.
Again - This is not about wins or losses, and calling anything that happened here in this incident an epic win is simply grossly unacceptable behavior. Doing a victory dance over a fallen opponent gets you a personal foul and 15 yard penalty in the NFL. Doing it here, and refusing to accept the validity of the warnings, is a 48 hr block. Treat other wikipedians, even those blocked or banned, with respect and dignity. Failure to do so is an insult to the entire community, degrades all our participation and communications. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:11, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(this is to Daniel, of course) The sad thing is that I held of on commenting here because of what you said.. I didn't want to see it dismissed as "Aww.. WR is butthurt" as you seem to be doing. If you don't think you're going to change, however I suggest you turn in your permissions here and at meta, and find something more useful to do with your time. SirFozzie (talk) 01:26, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel, you have accomplished what no one else could. I'm going to write to the WR honchos today and see if they'll accept a gmail address for registration. Durova320 01:31, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel made a stupid reaction to something which he should have taken more seriously. I don't defend incivility ever, but I find that calling the remark uncivil (as opposed to generically stupid) and then blocking for 48 hours on first offense just isn't productive. On the other hand, Daniel's reaction has been less than graceful; rather than trying to explain himself, he goes in this direction and that about Wikipedia Review. So all in all, this is a waste of everyone's time. @harej 01:34, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Grave dancing is the epitome of uncivil conduct, made all the worse by Daniel being an administrator, an arbitration clerk, and an OTRS admin. I'm frankly embarrassed to have be associated with two of those positions. Daniel needs to make it right.--Tznkai (talk) 01:57, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't approve of this block at all. Firstly, I think it's ridiculous that Daniel is being punished for explicitly stating an implicit element of the wiki-culture. Furthermore, it's actually actions like this block that have caused that element of the culture to develop—blocking is now central to the political games that permeate the project's culture. Everyking (talk) 04:22, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The block is excessive and unwarranted. Thatcher 06:34, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 06:39, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree it is unwarranted. However if it goes uncontested I don't think there is much to be gained in reversing it. Protonk (talk) 07:03, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm vert bemused by this block but not the first time GWH has blocked someone like this. I would support an unblock as and when Daniel makes a request. Spartaz Humbug! 09:14, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree strongly with GWH's block. AGK 10:28, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Welcome back. I'm Wiki Witch of the West over at WR now. Haven't taken much prompting from them yet but practice makes perfect. Cheers! ;) Durova320 15:43, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

An absurd block. If it gets to the stage where people are being blocked for saying things other disagree with (or don't like to hear), the Wiki has fallen a long way... WJBscribe (talk) 12:50, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unblocked

[edit]

With all due respect to Georgewilliamherbert, I believe that blocking was not the right response. The "punishment" for saying something stupid and not retracting it is that one loses the esteem of friends and colleagues. Without either an extended pattern of incivility, or a single massive drama explosion, a block is not appropriate, I think.

Daniel has indeed fallen some in my opinion of him; I also think that cooking up the move in IRC and then taking revenge by exposing Law after he reverted the move was gamesmanship of the worst kind, but that is a matter for an RFC, perhaps, not a block. Thatcher 11:20, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My motives, at least, were not to "get revenge" for a block - that's a silly reason. I appreciate from what I've heard that the theory making the rounds (which Law/The Undertow has of course, not attempted to counter, despite having the relevant logs) is that I, butthurt from the refusal to move a page, decided to "turn him in" out of malice, thus earning the ire of ninety percent of the community either for doing it, getting Important People in trouble or not doing it as soon as I found out. This is not the case, and I would be quite appalled if it was Daniel's motive either. I would hope that he was simply doing his "duty" as an associate of arbcom, admin and general tool-user in upholding the policies that he was elected to support. I appreciate that this may not be the case, particularly with his talkpage post to me, but I hope that there is an element of truth there. Ironholds (talk) 16:48, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Revenge" may not be the appropriate term, but the "epic win" comment is concerning. While moving an article without prior discussion may occasionally (or even often) be appropriate, the events surrounding the move were not handled according to best practices. Thatcher 17:10, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
For the record - Thatcher and I communicated off-wiki prior to this, and I have full confidence in his judgement. I believe that the block was good - that the provocation justified it - but I do not think an unblock by another trusted administrator was wrong. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 17:34, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(still catching up on tons of fun wiki bun fights) - did you just get blocked for saying 'epic win'? Heh! Silly george! Epic fail. ;-) Privatemusings (talk) 19:09, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The comment was inappropriate considering the circumstances. Asking if anyone brought marshmallows is an innocent and slightly jokey statement, but hardly appropriate at your grandfather's cremation. Ironholds (talk) 20:02, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

< did someone's grandfather die? but more importantly - did anyone bring marshmallows? ;-) Privatemusings (talk) 21:18, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, my grandfather died on Saturday. Among my tasks for this evening are preparing his eulogy. Ironholds (talk) 21:53, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
well don't forget the marshmallows - and on a human level, I hope you and yours are doing ok. Privatemusings (talk) 22:04, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"did anyone bring a toasting fork" is exactly the kind of thing he would've said :p. I'm doing fine, except I had to miss an equity lecture to attend. Ironholds (talk) 22:14, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Australian Women's Weekly

[edit]

And now for something different - I managed to track down a scan of the first edition of the Australian Women's Weekly, as I think you requested. (My memory ain't quite as good as I might like). If so, were you able to work out the copyright status? I'm inclined to upload it for the article as fair use, with appropriate explanations, but as I recall we were discussing whether it would count as public domain due to the publication date (193?), with some concerns about it being primarily text. - Bilby (talk) 12:40, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you remember correctly :) The file is File:AWW 1933 FIRST EDITION.jpg. It is - from the opinion of the Foundation, from what I can infer - public domain in the United States, but its status is unclear under Australian law. I was given the instructions by the Foundation to find a replacement scan which is obviously different, and upload it as public domain as an alternative to the current file, and the original will probably be deleted upon a new scan being uploaded. The idea is to hopefully not have the owner of the new scan be the type to pursue extensive litigation against the Foundation in a foreign country which could lead to adverse effects on both Australian Wikimedians and also people involved with the Foundation who later travel to Australia.
If you want, I'm happy to upload the file myself (dbwiki@gmail.com). Thanks again for remembering about this! :) Cheers, Daniel (talk) 14:29, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've sent it your way. I'm happy to upload, but it isn't the same as the one there, as mine is black and white. I'll also follow up the other leads in case a better scan is viable. - Bilby (talk) 15:55, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that. I'll hopefully upload later tonight (our time) when I can co-ordinate with a Commons admin. Daniel (talk) 02:25, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 5 October 2009

[edit]

Regarding Semi-Protection of Dawn News

[edit]

This is Osman and I am a representative of Dawn News [12]. The history log of the entry suggests that it has been semi-protected by you. I want to update the entry with information and details regarding our news channel. Please remove the semi-protection as I need to fill in unbiased and informative articles related to our news network.

Thanking you in anticipation of a quick response. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Osman.saeed (talk • contribs) 06:26, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Advice

[edit]

Chill out! I had no idea that you were an administrator. The account's newness and lack of contributions just seemed very suspicious to me. Since he voted for delete (the same as you) while everyone else voted for it to be kept, i assumed that the account was your sockpuppet. But Don Calo disagreed and said that you would never do such a thing, so i retracted the statement. I apologize if you were offended. Joyson Noel Holla at me 07:41, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Two people agreeing doesn't make them sockpuppets, even if they're both new users. It's always best to assume that they're not until you have incontrovertible evidence to the contrary. I am not offended at all, I'm more hoping you don't bite any more new users by accusing them of being sockpuppets with no grounds in the future. Daniel (talk) 07:47, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, but an account that suddenly crops up out of nowhere, with no history of contributions, whose first course of edits is to vote for delete on an "AFD", that too when almost all of the users with the exception of yourself, voted otherwise, looks highly suspicious. It gives one reason to doubt the genuineness of the account. I'm sure you'll agree. The accusations, although unwarranted in your case, were not made due to any lack of reasons. I do not have a history of biting other users and nearly all the sockpuppetry accusations i have made against others turned out to be true. Anyway, thanks for the advice. Joyson Noel Holla at me 09:18, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Joyson, take more care in the future. Accusing administrators of sockpuppetry based on circumstantial or frivolous evidence is not a good course of action. —Dark 09:57, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I was not aware that he was an administrator, otherwise i would have never accused him of such a thing. So, the mistake is here on my part. Also, i did not directly accuse him, but voiced doubts that it could be his sockpuppet. I will, however, take more care in the future. Regards, Joyson Noel Holla at me 10:34, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just to explain Joyson's ill-advised accusation you should know that we both have been plagued by a persistent sockpuppet, which caused a lot of stress. Oddly his accusation brought about a confession of a participant in an AfD dispute, which helped to resolve the issue. I think he has apologized sufficiently and I suggest we close the case and shake hands. - DonCalo (talk) 20:00, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fielding Yost

[edit]
  • 16:08, 8 July 2008 Daniel protected Fielding Yost ‎ (lots and lots of vandalism recently [edit=autoconfirmed:move=autoconfirmed])

That was 15 months ago. I'd like to review this to see if semiprotection is still necessary. Please see the discussion I've started at talk:Fielding Yost. --TS 09:55, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unprotected. Daniel (talk) 13:27, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 12 October 2009

[edit]

Voicemails

[edit]

Dear Daniel, I am interested in helping out with the voice mails. How might I be able to assist? Basket of Puppies 01:19, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

[edit]

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

Stubs
Bosonic string theory
Deejay
Biography
Shoku Nihongi
Sneeze
Lunation
Cassidy
Chinese people
Internal rhyme
Santo Domingo
Daniel Powter (album)
Redman
Skyways (TV series)
Type I string theory
Sunday Mail (Scotland)
Yo
Coba
Chameleon
Constantine I
Cleanup
Keyshia Cole
Doug Stanhope
Jermaine Dupri
Merge
Kimmy Gibbler
Aliens (film)
Freestyle rap
Add Sources
Ashley Parker Angel
Pretty Ricky
Joey Gladstone
Wikify
Dungeons & Dragons Miniatures Game
Daniela Luján
Palmette
Expand
Hagakure
Hot Country Songs
Race war

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot (talk) 02:23, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

One year on

[edit]

Hi. You probably don't quite remember me but I'm sure you may recall that in 2008 there was a very big issue between me and you. I'm the guy who buggered off to Bulgaria. If I'm still not coming to mind, these should help:

No. Sorry but no.
WTH!? ZOMG!
Geez...
Hello again

Your mind should be well and truly jogged by now. Please don't regard me as a stalker, I just wished to say, look, I'm sorry. I have never been a particularly good editor, not saying I'm bad, but not 'admin material', know what I'm saying? Anyway, I felt depressed reading back on the 'Geez...' comment and felt I needed to make amends for what I have done in the past. Wikipedia is just not a place for someone of my personality. Please, do reply to this message. Even if it's a simple 'I forgive you' or anything like that, I just want to know how it is between us both. Have a great WikiLife, Dan. You'll go far.--Editor510 drop us a line, mate 17:03, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 19 October 2009

[edit]

Gray's Anatomy (the textbook, not the stupid pop-culture reference) Article Deletion

[edit]

What possible rationale was behind the deletion of the page List of images in Gray's Anatomy: I. Embryology? All the other image lists remain, and have for over two years after this article was deleted. Wilford Nusser (talk) 03:06, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of images in Gray's Anatomy: I. Embryology; I apologise for not including a link in the deletion reason to that discussion. Daniel (talk) 04:10, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

New

[edit]

Hi Daniel, Can you please help me post a "neutrality of this article is disputed" notice on this article: http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Rashtriya_Swayamsevak_Sangh

The article is clearly written by sympathizers of an organization which Amnesty international has blamed for thousands of deaths. Really appreciate the help. Thanks, evox777

PS: Sorry, if i have posted this in a wrong place :) Evox777 (talk) 21:52, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! R u online? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stripparuhlla (talk • contribs) 18:49, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 26 October 2009

[edit]

The photo screw-up

[edit]

My bad about the Agraceful photo. I wasn't attempting to mark it as that. I was trying to get an image from a website, but i guess i clicked the wrong link. Sorry, I'm still relatively new to the uploading thing. I've had several pics deleted already due to mess ups. Sorry about that.--Krazycev 13 other crap 22:38, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jon CJ Graham DrV

[edit]

Daniel, Could you clarify that close? Are you saying that you overturned to delete on the basis that BLPs that are no consensus should be deleted? Your closing statement reads that way to me, but I wanted to be sure. Hobit (talk) 02:45, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I closed it as delete because there was a consensus at the deletion review that there was no consensus at the articles for deletion, and as a result the consensus at deletion review was to delete the article based on the lack of consensus at the articles for deletion debate. If that makes sense. Daniel (talk) 04:57, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, that took some work to parse, but I got there :-). My turn. As there isn't consensus at WP:DEL to delete BLPs that don't have consensus, I think your review, which found no consensus, shouldn't have resulted in deletion, rather it should have continued to be kept. Drat, I think that's actually readable on the first pass. Hobit (talk) 11:53, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
At the DRV there was a consensus that the delete-in-absence-of-consensus should be applied in this situation, and that's what I based my decision off. Unless there's conflicting policy, consensus at localised discussions (such as DRV) are what decisions are made off; at the moment the BLP policy doesn't contradict the consensus at the DRV, so I went with it. Daniel (talk) 12:24, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm fairly sure the current policy remains "default to keep" and that the consensus at WP:DEL's talk is that is how it should be. Only two people suggested overturn to default to delete (one of which I responded to pointing out that that's not policy), so I don't think there was consensus for that reading. Hobit (talk) 13:58, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure if this humour is strictly British in scope, but I'll say it anyway: that second comment really did warrant a reply of Yes, Daniel. Sir Humphrey would be proud. AGK 19:54, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am frankly astonished at the way this DRV was closed. It has become overwhelmingly clear at WT:DEL that Lar's proposal is not going to gain consensus. As best I can tell, Daniel you closed the DRV the way you did on the basis that it is acceptable to default to delete on no consensus. There wasn't even consensus for that view in the DRV itself, let alone at the talk page at DEL. I also note that you haven't addressed Hobit's latest post on this matter. Could you please clarify further? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 15:54, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have more important things to do than edit Wikipedia on weekends; a cursory check of my contributions would have shown that. I'm only stopping by for one minute now, so your impatient request for a reply will have to remain outstanding for another 48 hours still. Daniel (talk) 21:27, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm in no rush. Thanks, Hobit (talk) 04:52, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And I apologize for impatience -- my sentence on Hobit's post was out of line. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 07:07, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, finally back at my computer and catching up with things. I think this boils down to simply a difference of opinion about the strength and frequency of arguments put forward that no consensus should default to delete in the deletion review discussion. If you have any ideas how to resolve this moving forwards, I'd be interested to hear them, because at the moment I still believe I was correct to close the deletion review as I did. Regards, Daniel (talk) 23:46, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rationalising the 42 General Questions

[edit]

Hi Daniel, I'm listed as an assistant to the electoral process. We're trying to get the General Questions down to a manageable size. I wonder whether you might consider reducing the number of principles you ask candidates to support or oppose. I see that candidates are required to respond to all of the GQs, and we are also thinking of the task of reading the responses (times the number of candidates). They are here, or if you'd prefer to see the themed presentation, here. Thank you. Tony (talk) 08:43, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Replied at User talk:Tony1. 11:18, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Daniel, thanks for your reply, including your kind words. My personal view is that your questions are among the most specific and relevant. Of course, there might be a phenomenon in which most of them hold off responding to yours, waiting to see what the others write. That would be a pity, and there's nothing one can do about it. I would keep all seven short questions while severely pruning others, but regrettably the pruning looks like it will have to be severe all over. 42 times the number of candidates is a lot for voters to read, and doesn't even include individual questions. If you had to remove, say, two or three, which ones are the less penetrating?
But I wanted to ask for clarification on whether candidates should read any of the evidence, the context of each case? Even though the principles you've raised are generally applicable, they arise from a specific set of circumstances that the arbs would have taken into consideration. Reading through each case would be a big job for the candidates. On the other hand, dry voting on a principle that arises from it might be reframed as simply asking whether they agree with the principle in general, without reference to the case. On a related matter, I guess finely balanced voting (e.g., 8–6) is a sign that the principle was hotly debated by the arbs and might have involved difficult decisions.
The harder thing to do, of course, is to draft a principle out of mock evidence—particularly when parties are/were allowed to bloat, but that might be a little harsh and would suffer even more from the cross-examination of other candidates' responses. Tony (talk) 06:57, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies for the delay in response, busy time of year at the moment.
My actual hope is that the candidates wouldn't read any of the cases at all - I simply wanted their opinions on the principles, in a vacuum. Do you think it'd be better if I copy-and-pasted the principles and asked them as questions, rather than linking to the actual decisions on the case pages, to ensure that this happens? Daniel (talk) 23:48, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The pipe-links you've got there now is neat, but you're right, linking to each case will encourage some candidates to show that they've researched the whole case. Yes, you might consider replacing each link with the text of the principle and explicitly stating in the lead that the questions should not be considered in relation to specific cases, even though they arose from ArbCom cases. Can you reduce the seven to, say, three or four? I think voters will get a good sense of the candidate's powers of reasoning far earlier than even the fifth response. I suspect most will take more than two lines to respond to each, anyway. There are likely to be well over a thousand responses for voters to sift through and there is a one-question rule, although several questioners have not agreed to reduce their contributions. It's now at the template stage. Thanks. Tony (talk) 01:57, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
PS Deadline could be extended if you can't get to it tomorrow until after 11am AEST. Please let Manning know if that's the case. Tony (talk) 12:15, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This was about all I could bring myself to do. I hope it's enough. Daniel (talk) 22:36, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 2 November 2009

[edit]
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Daniel/Archive/79&oldid=1089953647"