User talk:Daniel/Archive/42

Requests for mediation/Mahmoud Ahmadinejad
^demon suggested I drop you a note regarding the above case. He stated he is not focused on the case at the moment and it should likely be "reassigned and/or closed". My interest in the case is related to an outstanding request on WP:RPP to have the full protection reduced or removed. The page has been fully protected for two months, and if nothing is progressing with mediation, I'd like to remove the protection. My only hesitation is that the original protection was added with the summary "until med case is solved". Thanks, - auburn pilot  talk  00:08, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I am currently discussing it with other members of the Committee. Please hold and I'll get back to you as soon as possible. Cheers,  Daniel  08:25, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Deletion of Request for Mediation
I noticed that you deleted the page Requests for mediation/First Vision.

As I'm new to the Wikipedia dispute resolution process (I tend to write on topics that are non-controversial or have wide agreement among generally civil users), I'm not really understanding why it is necessary to delete this page. I do understand that you want to avoid "clutter" of a bunch of spurious dispute pages that have been rejected, but here is my problem:

You sent me a message on my user talk page regarding a request for mediation, specifically mentioning this page listed above as a source of further information about why the mediation was rejected.... only to find that you also deleted the page before I even got to read the rationale for its rejection, if you even offered one on a public forum. Simply deleting the page like it was yesterday's Willy on Wheels vandalism without even considering that it may remotely have merit or not is IMHO insufficient to even see if the request was rejected in good faith.

I will note that this issue has been formally turned into a request for arbitration, coming under the purview of the ArbCom, which would have been better to explain in this regard from the Mediation Committee bot rather than a link to the deleted page.

I do think that some mediation could have resolved this issue rather than making a formal arbitration matter, but I don't know the particulars in this situation either for its rejection. But having no information at all about this matter is also confusing to me.

I hope this makes sense, and I do want to let you know that I am very appreciative that somebody is taking on this onerous task of trying to help out in the development of Wikipedia as a mediator. It may be difficult to respond at length on all of the requests that may come up like this, but it would be something appropriate on at least a FAQ of some kind... for why rejected pages are deleted as a matter of mediation committee policy and practice. --Robert Horning 04:58, 26 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Daniel, I've taken the liberty of undeleting this page. You deleted it less than 24 hours after I rejected the case. There were multiple parties and not everyone edits everyday. I think it might be worth giving these a little longer so everyone knows why the case was rejected. For some reason it doesn't seem to have been added to Requests for mediation/Rejected/20 either, but the parties wouldn't know to look there anyway and the page is so big it practically crashes my browser :-). Maybe a discussion about how long we keep those rejected cases hanging around before they're deleted? WjBscribe 05:12, 26 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I deleted it earlier than the normal three-or-so days because this exact case is before the Arbitration Committee at RfAr. There's no need for any discussion - this was deleted earlier than normal, as I noted in the deletion summary (IIRC), because of the RfAr. I plan on re-deleting it in a couple of hours, anyways.  Daniel  06:03, 26 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I didnt note it in my deletion summary, so it's entirely my fault :| The page contains nothing which is too problematic anyways, I guess, so there's no rush to delete it - I was in a rush this morning, saw the case at RfAr, and deleted it with the thought to come home and investigate whether it justified the speedier-than-normal deletion (this is one case where shooting first and asking questions later is a better thing, per WP:M and the protections offered to parties). The RfM was rejected because not all parties agreed to the mediation, and deleted because of the RfAr. I'll redelete it on early Saturday per our general three day rule, I guess, given the contents aren't too problematic. Cheers,  Daniel  06:12, 26 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I fail to understand what is gained by Wikipedia when deleting pages like this, as even deleted pages still are maintained on the Mediawiki database. It also helps in terms of arbitration so far as it identifies explicitly who rejected the mediation and may be a more "troublesome" user that is forcing the issue into arbitration.  As an administrator myself on Wikimedia projects (but not Wikipedia), I do understand the issues involved here in terms of cleaning up general clutter, but on the other hand deleting administrative content sometimes causes holes in historical records... where this becomes an original source of material.  I anticipate that this particular arbitration issue may drag out a little bit longer than normal as well due the issues being raised and the parties involved.  --Robert Horning 14:37, 26 July 2007 (UTC)


 * It's deleted per convention, which was initially set up to maintain our subpage space, to protect the integrity of RfM's, and to make any potential refilings easier. Most rejected cases can be viewed in our archives.  Daniel  06:44, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Mediation accepted
I'll give Giovanni one last chance to make it work. If he can't be bothered to attend like he did last time and it fails, I will reject any further offers because it would just be a waste of time. John Smith&#39;s 16:33, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Noted, and case has been accepted.  Daniel  06:24, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Requests for mediation/Lyndon LaRouche
I received a notice about this, but when I followed the link, the page was gone. Is there any way I can find out what was going on? --Gelsomina 06:09, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
 * The case was rejected as five of the eight participants didn't acknowledge their agreement to mediation within seven days, as required for mediation. Your request can be viewed in our rejected archives at Requests for mediation/Rejected/27. It was deleted per our periodic deletion of rejected cases convention, to protect the integrity of RfM and to make any potential future refiling easier and less confusing. Cheers,  Daniel  06:41, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad
FYI, I've unprotected this article. Two months is more than enough time, and the world shouldn't be locked out because a few people have a disagreement. If the edit war continues, the users should be blocked. - auburn pilot  talk  02:29, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
 * OK, thanks for the note. Discussion is taking place, albeit slowly, on our mailing list. Cheers,  Daniel  10:38, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Hello
Hey Daniel,

I like your userpage design, and I noticed a few other people have as well; do you mind if I try and copy it (I'll credit you, of course)? And also, could you take a look at the requests for approval at Vandalproof? Thanks.

Have a nice day,

The Rhymesmith 10:34, 28 July 2007 (UTC)


 * No problems at all, and a small credit notice is much appreciated :) If you need any help with designing it, feel free to ask. I'll run over and whiz through the VP applications in a second. Cheers,  Daniel  10:36, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

i got your message but...
I am having problems using Vandal Proof, when ever I load a page, and error message from IE7 pops up asking if I want to cancel scripts running on this page. can you help me out?--JWJW Talk Long Live E speranza! :)/Stronger Faster Better. 11:17, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
 * The script errors are mentioned in the various threads of User talk:AmiDaniel/VP/Bugs, so you may find the answers there helpful (there's a couple of solutions, which are best coming from the mouth of those who know how they work rather than me rephrasing them here). Cheers,  Daniel  11:21, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks a lot :-)  ^ demon [omg plz] 11:37, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Shouldn't you be having your clerk send messages out like this? :)  Daniel  11:37, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you
Thank you for taking the time to add your thoughts to the discussion at my recent Requests for adminship/Angus Lepper RfA, which failed, with no consensus to promote me. However, I appreciate the concerns raised during the course of the discussion (most notably, a lack of experience, particularly in admin-heavy areas such as XfDs and policy discussions) and will attempt to address these before possibly standing again in several months time. Angus Lepper(T, C, D) 16:07, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

The Special Barnstar

 * Thanks :)  Daniel  03:13, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

My RfA
I've answered your question there, thanks for bringing it up! Giggy UCP 23:26, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
 * No problems. I'm still considering your nomination. Cheers,  Daniel  03:12, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your comments. I acknowledge your concerns, and respect your opinion in staying neutral.  Happy editing,  Giggy  UCP 22:15, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Problem with VandalProof
Hello. You recently approved me for VandalProof. For whatever reason, whenever I load up VP and check privileges, it says "No privileges found." I had actually already been an approved VP user but hadn't been on it for several months -- the only reason I re-applied for approval was because I thought I'd been removed from the list for my inactivity or something. It would appear it's a software issue. Any thoughts? I'm using Vista...is that a known problem? Ginsengbomb 01:42, 29 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Disregard -- I figured out the problem. Apparently VP has to be run in Admin mode in Vista.  Ginsengbomb 01:48, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Interesting - having never used Vista, I didn't realise :) Cheers,  Daniel  03:13, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Random Reverters
An editor named Ownage2214 applied for Vandal Proof and you turned him down because he was too new. He said he will apply again. Before accepting him, i'd advise you to check out his talk page. He is a random reverter. He reverted an article that was being edited (by me) in the middle of my editing and then left me a note smugly bragging about having done so. I unreverted and kept on writing, but it was so annoying that it seemed only right to check out his talk page -- where it turned out that others had also posted complaints about his reversion-mania as well. I have no idea what he thinks he is doing, but he sure is not ready to play with powerful tools at this point. Maybe he'll settle down, but for now, he seems too immature to be running any kind of reversion software. Thanks for listening. Just sign me, "Frustrated in Wikiland." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.142.90.34 (talk • contribs) 10:32, July 29, 2007 (UTC)
 * He will be evaluated thoroughly if he applies, as with all candidates who apply, and be given access at the discretion of the VandalProof moderators.  Daniel →♦  07:42, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Man Vs. Wild
Can you reduce your protection to registered users or remove it altogether? I understand why you did it, but Aug 6 and FULL protection seems to have been a bit aggressive to prevent an edit war of non-registered anonymous wikipedians. At this point the controversy is all but settled with admissions from Discovery and Channel 4 and mentions in every major press outlet including the BBC. I'd like to add a short mention of it referencing the BBC article and possibly the Reuters as well. I'll add a current event tag. Reboot 13:00, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
 * When protecting due to a content dispute and edit warring, it is always full-protected regardless of whether the disputants are all IP's, all registered users, all administrators, or any combination therein (the exception being when it is vandalism or disruption by a banned/blocked user evading said ban/block). If you wish to have the article unprotected, please request so in the appropriate section of WP:RFPP. Thank you,  Daniel →♦  07:45, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Requests for mediation/Prem Rawat 3
The previous two mediations never got started. This request is exactly the same as the previous two. Andries 21:53, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Any decision that is made will take into account all factors related to this request, including (more imminently) whether all parties agree to mediation.  Daniel →♦  07:47, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Battle of Washita River -- possible mediation
Greetings, Daniel,

Several days ago suggested I get in contact with you regarding the process of formal mediation for an ongoing dispute on the Battle of Washita River article. Unfortunately, I came down badly sick, & I'm only today reentering the world of the living enough to follow up on her suggestion. I confess to not being completely sure if making the request might not be a waste of process too, given -- in Phaedriel's words -- the " the absolute disregard and contempt for the proposed solution" garnered from her proposed informal mediation already (see her comments on my talk page). You may wish to see the response yourself to her offer for informal mediation at Talk:Battle of Washita River. Currently most discussion on the talk page there has devolved into a series of personal attacks between two, & now three, involved editors.

All the same, Phaedriel felt it advisable to attempt a formal mediation, & I am willing to try. I believe that will be as well. Phaedriel thought I should contact you first, in her words, "for further instructions and guidance through the formal aspects of the process itself, before submitting a request" for formal mediation. I look forward to any suggestions or advice you may offer. Thank you. --Yksin 22:42, 29 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Addendum. In reading again through WP:DR, I'm also wondering if/when it might be advisable to attempt an article RfC as well as user conduct RfCs on both &  particularly for persistent ongoing personal attacks on one another, which is making it difficult for content issues to be discussed in any kind of civil manner. Repeated requests for them to cease from personal attacks have been made to no avail; each also seems to feel it fair to attack the other whenever the other has attacked him. Where do RfC's fit into the dispute resolution process? It seemed to me that Phaedriel's offer for informal mediation failed in no small part because neither HH nor CW can bring themselves to treat one another with civility. --Yksin 23:00, 29 July 2007 (UTC)


 * If you have doubts about how the mediation process will work in the dispute per certain factors, and believe that RfC's may be beneficial instead, I would suggest trying requests for comment before mediation. RfM is the final step in the dispute resolution process for article content disputes (and ArbCom being the final for conduct), so (as noted at WP:RFM) it is often beneficial to try preliminary dispute resolution tactics prior (one of which mentioned is RfC). Cheers,  Daniel →♦  07:50, 30 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks very much. That's what it looked like to me too; it's good to get that verification. Maybe will see you later down the line. Best wishes. --Yksin 08:06, 30 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Hopefully it can be solved by RfC :)  Daniel →♦  08:09, 30 July 2007 (UTC)


 * That would be good. Miracles occasionally happen. ;) --Yksin 08:21, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Sydney
Thanks for the help with the Sydney list. I thought it looked like a pretty easy task, but its actually frustrating get the references! But this site could prove a useful resource. Take care, Mattythewhite 12:39, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Ooh, that could be helpful :) Cheers, and good luck,  Daniel →♦  00:13, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you! :)

 * I'll be eagerly awaiting :) Cheers,  Daniel →♦  00:15, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

My RfA
Hi, Daniel, and thanks for your participation in my RfA. I've withdrawn it, and will be writing up an "analysis" of it, which will soon be available at User:Giggy/RfA/Giggy when it's done. Please come around when you get the chance, and give me feedback on how I can improve. Thanks again, Giggy  UCP 04:48, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

In your inbox
I'm not sure how often you check your e-mail, but since I see you're currently online I'll just note here that I sent you an e-mail. --  tariq abjotu  06:07, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Hasn't come through yet. Will stand by. Cheers,  Daniel →♦  06:07, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Just got it. Replied. Cheers,  Daniel →♦  06:10, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Mediation
Despite the RfC filed, the discussion on Zadar is going nowhere, with the article full-protected as a result of the edit warring. Unfortunately, the situation was even worse than before, with more editors arguing on the NPOV of the issue between Italy and Croatia. The range has been expanded to other articles such as Giovanni Lucio, Giacomo Micaglia, Giovanni Luppis and to a lesser degree, Republic of Ragusa. I would think mediation might be a good idea now, unless you have other suggestions? Cheers. --Dark Falls  talk 10:24, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Provided the dispute is about content and extensive discussion has taken place, I would agree with you :)  Daniel →♦  04:24, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Although there has been some issue with users and such, the main dispute is about the contents of the articles. I'll just create the page and suggest mediation between the parties. Thanks. --Dark Falls  talk 06:22, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I see you have done so. Cheers,  Daniel →♦  07:08, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Science Collaboration of the month
NCurse work 12:14, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for July 30th, 2007.
Apologies for the late delivery this week; my plans to handle this while on vacation went awry. Ral315

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 23:47, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations
Although you may not have realized it, you have apparently, at least by Tidalenergy, been promoted from Chairman of the Mediation Committee to, quite simply, the Chairman Mr. Daniel Bryant, as noted in this AN/I thread. You may, to be more serious, might want to comment on Tidalenergy, who is having some difficulty contesting a block, on AN/I or at his talk page; I gather that you spoke with him via e-mail (perhaps simply to advise him generally regarding civility and consensus&mdash;he references you only in passing&mdash;in which case you should, of course, feel free to ignore this), and so you may be especially well equipped, should you have time, to offer him assistance. Cheers, Joe 07:11, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I replied on ANI when you first left this message, but forgot to note so. Thanks for the courtesy note, and I see the block has been lifted. Cheers,  Daniel →♦  07:08, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Requests for adminship/Shoessss
Good morning or evening (depending on your location)  Daniel  →♦ . I just wanted to take a moment and thank you for your comments on my Rfa application. I believe I now hold the record for the quickest closure! However, that does not negate the input and insight gained. Once again, thank you and have great day. Shoessss |  Chat 12:34, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Evil laugh....
Oh Riana's going to do some kicking so you better get out of her way... --Dark Falls  talk 21:56, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I think it can be handled... :)  Daniel →♦  07:09, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Requests for adminship/Elonka 2
Thank you for your support in my Request for Adminship. Unfortunately the nomination did not succeed, but please rest assured that I am still in full support of the Wikipedia project, and I'll try again in a few months! If you ever have any questions or suggestions for me, please don't hesitate to contact me. Best wishes, --Elonka 02:39, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Muhammad Mediation
Daniel, the trouble here, as you may have discerned, is that BYT has not clearly stated what is disputed; thus it is impossible to determine whether mediation would be productive or desirable. It seems to me that mediation is being sought as a substitute for the talk page. Is it possible to relist this if and when it is better defined? Do you have any comments?Proabivouac 08:30, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
 * It most certainly is fine to relist it. However, as per what you described as the problems associated above, I'd suggest you instigate a discussion on the article talk page to clarify any problems with the "Issues" etc., so that everyone will accept. If/when this happens, drop me a message and I'll delete Requests for mediation/Muhammad so you can recreate it. Cheers,  Daniel →♦  08:37, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Per "Reject, all parties did not agree to mediation within seven days," I believe "The request fails to state an issue to mediate" would have been more appropriate: "If the request indicates that there is a conflict, but does not indicate what issues require resolving, then the parties will be asked to clarify. If they fail to do so, the request will be rejected. ""Edit war on Example" is not a sufficient description of the dispute for the Committee to be able to make a decision on acceptance." The initiating party was asked to clarify and very conspicuously declined to do so. We know what it's about ("example"), but we don't know what is disputed.Proabivouac 08:46, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
 * If you don't feel that the issue stated was applicable to the situation, that's fine, however for the purposes of accepting the mediation the issues listed were sufficient for the purposes of initiating an RfM (ie. described the disputed content, didn't present the issue in a blatantly-biased way, etc.). As I said above, I would suggest discussing exactly what issues should be raised by any RfM on the articles' talk page, and then someone (yourself, or any other party) can refile the RfM once it is agreed on. Doing this will hopefully avoid another situation where people don't sign within seven days because they don't like how the issues are presented. Cheers,  Daniel →♦  08:49, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Okay, thanks.Proabivouac 08:50, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

:)


– sebi has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing! 08:36, 7 August 2007 (UTC) Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
 * Thanks :)  Daniel →♦  10:11, 7 August 2007 (UTC)