User talk:Daniel/Archive/49

Thank you
Hello. Thank you for the suggestion. I doubt it will work, but why not to try. I just discovered, Dc76 organizes discussions and tries to persuade other users on their talk pages and not openly on the Balti talk page. (see User:Illythr's talk page) Thanks for your time, G.Night —Preceding unsigned comment added by Moldopodo (talk • contribs) 02:07, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Inversion (music) mediation
Nope, first it was "all" have withdrawn, and now it's "one party". In fact, it's two parties who have withdrawn.

I see no reason that the mediator's attempts to move on from these two walkouts, when resolution appeared to be in sight, should stop. It appears to me to be a case of successful sabotage by parties who realise they'll need to compromise. Is this really the way mediation functions?

I don't understand why there's talk now of removing all of the evidence during the mediation. Seems very nasty, when all I'm asking for is resolution to an issue that has seen deliberate stalling by both parties who walked out. So WP is anything but fair and open, then? Tony  (talk)  12:59, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Only one party has expressly withdrawn their assention, from what I've been informed. On your second point, the consensus model of mediating requires all to be involved, or else any resolution will be ignored (as they aren't enforcable). In addition, the Mediation Committee refuses under nearly all circumstances to continue an RfM where a user conduct requests for comment is present/filed by one of the parties on the same issue, as it poisons the atmosphere. Such a decision by the Committee is their prerogative. Your third page is due to the privileged nature of mediation, as I noted on Ryan's talk page. "It is very important for all parties to recognize and respect that all communications during mediation are privileged. In the interests of facilitating open communication between parties, the Mediation Committee pledges to protect any and all communications made during mediation, and in particular will attempt to prevent such communications being used as evidence in other dispute resolution or similar discussions, including (but not limited to) arbitration and user conduct requests for comment."
 * That being said, the last paragraph does qualify the situation: "The Mediation Committee reserves the right to decline to become involved in a situation where a party's bad faith conduct in mediation is utilized in disciplinary proceedings. Protecting the integrity of mediation does not extend to protecting users who deliberately disrupt and subvert official dispute resolution, and the Mediation Committee will not allow its policies to be abused to protect bad-faith actions." I cannot and will not rule as to whether this is envoked in this situation, as it is a decision which would be made by consensus of the Committee. If you wish to present a case to have this clause envoked, please email me outlining your arguments for such, and I will forward it to our private mailing list for extended discussion. In addition to not providing an adjudication on such a matter, it would be improper for me to suggest a likely outcome, and furthermore I will recuse myself from debate on the mailing list should you elect to present a case to envoke this.  Daniel  13:09, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Mystified...
But I'm sure the net result was positive :p Have a good one. ~ Riana ⁂ 10:15, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
 * My test didn't work...enjoy your time 'away' :)  Daniel  10:16, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Talk page header
Hey Daniel, I hope you don't mind but I may of well, kinda...stole the header format which you used to use on your talk page, *Don't kill me*. Just thought it would be best to tell you, stealing is wrong :). Best wishes, Qst 18:02, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
 * No problems.  Daniel  01:14, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

DYK
Thanks for your contributions! Nishkid64 (talk) 01:44, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks Nishkid!  Daniel  01:14, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

My RfA
Thank you for participating in my RfA. As you may be aware, it was closed as "no consensus". Since your vote was one of the reasons why it did not succeed, I would like to personally address your concerns so that I can reapply successfully. Your concern was "Oppose per my neutral comment, and the plethora of other reasons raised above (mainly involving images) which cast significant doubts."

It seems that I was not clear enough in my RfA that as an administrator, I would have to obey the community's wishes, no matter now much I disagree with them. It would be wrong of me to force my personal opinion on others.

Also, I am confused as to the areas of policy that you think I would get involved in without proper experience. I thought that the list of my contributions at the beginning of my RfA demonstrated sufficient experience in the policy areas that I want to help with. Could you please elaborate on your concerns? —Remember the dot (talk) 03:58, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Your responses to the ban/block and the IAR questions concerned me, and as with WJBscribe, I remembered the concerns over userpage images from not long ago which didn't really leave a favourable impression. I look forward to a nomination down the track.  Daniel  01:16, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Porcupine
When I click on the "prickle me" button for user:Porcupine on my talk page (which should take me to his talk page) it now takes me to a page you deleted. Sorry if this isn't your fault but I have no idea how to fix this and thought you might?

Thanks. Kelpin 08:52, 29 October 2007 (UTC)


 * The discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive310 resulted in the redirects being deleted (a decision which I didn't object to, although I don't consider it preferable) - see the deletion log here.


 * I had to delete it again because a bot recreated it, and I then added it to a protected titles list to avoid further recreations. It won't be fixed by recreating the redirect, as consensus has (apparently) spoken. You could always adjust the link on your local talk page, though.  Daniel  01:20, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for October 22nd, 2007.
Sorry for the tardiness in sending the Signpost this week. --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 14:00, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Requests for arbitration/Sadi Carnot
Hello,

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened: Requests for arbitration/Sadi Carnot. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Requests for arbitration/Sadi Carnot/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Requests for arbitration/Sadi Carnot/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, David Mestel(Talk) 19:20, 29 October 2007 (UTC) David Mestel(Talk) 19:20, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I do not know how to file a request
I have tried and tried and nothing I do works. Nothing I do even comes close to working. I do not understand the instructions. --Mattisse 18:30, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Daniel, hope you don't mind me giving some help here until you're available. Mattisse - there's no need to worry. The RfM page can be complicated, and we'd be glad to assist you. The first step you have to take is to create the actual case page. To do this, go to this link and scroll down a little, until you reach the box titled "To file a request". In this box, add to the end of the text already there, the name of the case (e.g., if it was on the article "Foo", then add "Foo" to the end of the box, so it reads Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Foo. Then, fill in the relevant links and save the page. If you have trouble with that, save the page and come back here, and I'll assist you in filling out the request. Anthøny 20:50, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
 * The request was filed by someone else, and now awaits Mattisse's agreement or disagreement before proceeding. Thanks, AGK.  Daniel  01:22, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

You Comment on my Rfa
That comment about someone saying that I have not listened to others advice was not directed towards you. I did not even know you commented. I did not keep watch on my Rfa since last night because I did not want to get any more annoyed.

Where do you think I need to improve? I am going to try to become a all around good editor and not just a vandal fighter. That is what would be most helpful. Have a nice day.--SJP 02:03, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Edit articles, comment on policy discussions, provide insightful comments in AfD discussions, etc. Being a vandal-fighter does not show me you can make decisions.  Daniel  01:22, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Moldova page
Hello again Daniel, I am afraid there is violation of the three recert rule on Moldova page from my side and from Anittas side. The last edited version of the page is done so regardless of present Moldavian legislation in force (I have cited the necessary laws and Constitution of the Republic of Moldova), whereas no justification for edits by Anittas was given, only a threat to be reported (for what)?

Also could you plese check these users: Dc76, Anittas, and 196.46.109.216 (the last user vandalised (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/196.46.109.216) Lyle and Erik Menedez page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lyle_and_Erik_Menendez) using at times the same words as on Balti page (mountanious slopes). On Balti page the 196.46.109.216 user changed twice all words "Moldavian" into "Romanian", after all the litigation started. Thank you. Have a nice day. Moldopodo 10:53, 1 November 2007 (UTC)


 * There is no Moldavian as only Romanian language exists.--Moldorubo 17:53, 1 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Daniel, I need your help as administrator here, please. This is getting completely ridiculous when I show the explicit law stating that the following languages are official in Moldova: Moldavian, Russian, Ukrainian and Gagauz (no mention of Romanian at all) and all I get is an undone editing, or creation of mysterious new user Moldorubo (probably in response to my name Moldopodo). My edits are systematically undone with no explication or justification with verifiable sources on the following pages: Balti, Moldova, Moldovan language.


 * To explain you why I suspect Dc76 creating the ghost users or "Tanzanian" unregistered IP users is because the above unregistered user 196.46.109.216 edited Balti page twice and exactly on the same matter on which I have a dispute with Dc76. the user Annitas uses the same practice. Moldopodo 18:00, 1 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Read WP:CIVIL, WP:POV and WP:OR. Stop adding your Russian nationalism everywhere. --Moldorubo 18:05, 1 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Daniel, please check, who stands behind: user User:212.182.118.70, user User:196.46.109.216, user User:Moldorubo (created today probably in response to my name Moldopodo and to avoid 3-revert rule, as other anonymous users), User:Anittas, and user User:Dc76. Moldopodo 18:17, 1 November 2007 (UTC)


 * If you want accounts checked, you'll have to go to requests for checkuser, because I do not have access to the checkuser feature.  Daniel  01:29, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Look at this user how he wants to cover up things.. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AAdministrators%27_noticeboard%2F3RR&diff=168551129&oldid=168550642 --Moldorubo 18:18, 1 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I did not hide anything, after my report I put a report on Anittas, who has done the same thing. To do this I used editing ad replaced the necessary figures. Evrything is still there and I do not need to hide as I have publicly spoke about my violation here Moldopodo 18:24, 1 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, you deleted the report against you. You wanted to hide things. You hide it and you will be blocked for that soon.--Moldorubo 18:27, 1 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Moldorubo blocked as a sockpuppet of a banned user by someone else.  Daniel  01:29, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for October 29th, 2007.
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 05:26, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Dispute over WP:CON
Hi, Daniel. As you're often involved in mediation cases I was wondering if you could help with the application of WP:CON. The recent arbitration case I was involved with hasn't resolved the dispute and now some users are trying to claim consensus was reached on disputed material even when that was clearly not the case - otherwise why would there have been dispute resolution at all?

I'm not asking you to make a decision on the content dispute, just whether consensus can be reached through a majority of users expressing an opinion one way or another. For reference this was done through a RfC - a number of users left a comment each and then that was it. The dispute is on Talk:Mao: The Unknown Story. I've also asked Picaroon for his views, but I thought it might be good to open the point to someone who wasn't in arbitration. John Smith&#39;s 19:16, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I have had a look at the discussion, and was glad to see there was no edit-warring and the discussion got off on the right foot.
 * With regards to that discussion, I do not believe that consensus exists yet. Although 2-1 forms a majority, in my opinion you'd be better to open up an article requests for comment on the issue, which should generate a better 'consensus' with more people involved. That way, if people all come in and agree with you, you have a true consensus of both involved and outside people, and there can be little argument against that. Cheers,  Daniel  01:33, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

My Rfa
Thanks for voting in my Rfa, which I withdrew from yesterday. Though I did not get promoted, I see this Rfa as being a success nonetheless. What I got out of this Rfa will help me to be a better, all around editor. Because of this Rfa I have decided to become better in other areas of editing. I'm not going to just be a vandalfighter. Though vandalfighting is good, being active in all areas of editing is even better. Have a nice day.--SJP 22:43, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
 * You already asked me, above.  Daniel  01:23, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Mediation - Foundation for Defense of Democracies
Hi, I wanted to let you know that a mistake probably has been made with my mediation request. Having just checked Larryfooter's contributions, and the mediation request page, Larryfooter did not (as of right now) agree to mediation. Since the dispute is between Larryfooter and myself (together with User:Marvin_Diode on probably my side), proceeding without Larryfooter would be futile IMHO.Ngchen 00:57, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Ah, whoops - I counted usernames and compared it to the party list. I have relisted the case and reverted the messages. Cheers,  Daniel  01:04, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

What is meant to be and what is not...
Thank you for your recent comments and vote at my Request for Adminship. It was not successful. I don't believe this is unfortunate as it leaves me with much to ponder and a fresh slate from which I can better myself as an editor in order to be more compliant with the policies that are expected by Wikipedia.

If you feel that there is anything that was not covered by the RfA that I need improvement in, I would implore your input and feedback as I hope and intend to improve as best I'm guided.

All the best in your own endeavours in the real world, and also when you're not on Wikipedia. linca linca  14:35, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Science Collaboration of the Month
NCurse work 15:08, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

arcane phrase
You used the term "Circular-shaped trolling" before. However, there are exactly no Google hits for that phrase. May you please define "Circular-shaped trolling?" Thanks. --129.130.233.26 18:07, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Thankyou
Thankyou Kenservative 10:26, 3 November 2007 (UTC)


 * That was probably not a good unblock. The user has no useful edits so far. ++Lar: t/c 14:31, 3 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I honestly thought he might contribute in good faith, and he agreed to some behavioural standards that were his downfall last time. I was about to ask him what that mainspace edit was all about (assuming good faith that it wasn't vandalism), but he threw up the "retired" template before I could (I got edit-conflicted). Now, it seems pretty clear that his intention was as you state on his talk, and so I have readded the sockpuppet template and had the account reblocked. Quite simply, there was no harm in trying, because he shows some 'clue', even if he applied it in the wrong way.  Daniel  03:00, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Unblock of Kenservative
Hi Daniel,

Could you please explain in a little more detail your reason for unblocking? From the checkuser, it's clear it is the same person behind User:Barnecaration, who was impersonating me, intentionally. At least three people, at least temporarily, thought it actually was me. It goes way beyond simply responding inappropriately to unblock requests. Also, he's obviously lying to you about "not remembering" whether he is GoodsWiped or not; the account was made a couple of days ago. I just don't get how this isn't worth more than a few hours of being blocked. Thanks for any light you can shed on what I'm missing. --barneca (talk) 14:43, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
 * See just above. The checkuser is here: Requests for checkuser/Case/Barnecaration‎. I'd like to understand your reasoning before I just unilaterally overturn the unblock, that's not my style. If you like, we could discuss this on AN/I if you wish, but I do think this unblock needs overturning, and the ID retagged as a sock, there is no useful reason for this ID to not be blocked that I can see. ++Lar: t/c 16:33, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
 * See above.  Daniel  03:02, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Sue.Denim
Hi Daniel,

You warned me for using an unsourced summary. Unfortunately many of the sources were deleted for violating the terms of the board, and not directly linkable to. I do have the sources including the following link (http://abcnews.go.com/2020/Stossel/comments?type=story&id=3580676) and can get MANY more, and can get 3rd party witnesses -- is that acceptable? I'm looking for the policies, but I will build a footnoted table of various instances supporting it. (She started multiple smear campaigns. So my comments were VERY moderate in reflection of the actions. But if you let me know what is needed for verifiability, I will do what I can to meet it). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sue.denim (talk • contribs) 02:25, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
 * It shouldn't be readded, period, even with a source - it is a biographies of living person where your addition is not neutral and is not encyclopedic. I am absolutely appalled that you have readded it without providing sources, contrary to my warning. I have blocked you.  Daniel  02:43, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

My response
see here  Kwsn  (Ni!)  17:57, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
 * See a couple of threads above and that page. Cheers,  Daniel  03:06, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Mediation
Hi Daniel,

The mediator of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_mediation/John_Buscema hasn't given any feedback in close to a month and states that he is busy - could you advise on what the next step would be to resolve this matter?

Cheers,

--Skyelarke 02:38, 4 November 2007 (UTC)


 * According to Andre's message yesterday, he is very busy with his education at the present. Do you wish for me to ask another member to be reassigned the case in his absence? (I have already emailed our private mailing list asking for a potential reassignment, if this is what you want.)  Daniel  06:02, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Kenservative
(sorry for the new thread, but you archive fast!)
 * You have more faith in your fellow man than I do! Thanks for the explanation, and all's well that ends well. --barneca (talk) 21:24, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks
 Thank you for voicing your opinions in my recent RFA which unfortunately did not pass at (47/23/5). I will be sure to take the advice the community has given me and wait till someone nominates me next time as well as improve my editing skills. Have a great day(or night)! -- Hdt 83     Chat 05:51, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Question about a permanently blocked user who is still active as an IP
I am sure you are very familiar with the SEGA saga. SEGA was permanently banned (See Community_sanction_noticeboard/Archive6 ). But I've noticed 2 of his usual IPs (that were only blocked for 6 months) are now active again. (See and  ). Take note of this edit. Immediately after being tagged... the user blanked their page and then vandalised the talk page of the user who tagged them. My question is... since SEGA is perma-banned.... shouldn't all his usual IP haunts be banned as well? Just wondering. Thanks for your help. Have a nice day! 156.34.142.110 18:31, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
 * They should be, but I don't have access to my cluehammer at the moment. Can I suggest you post at ANI and ask someone to reinstate the checkuser block placed by Essjay? Cheers,  Daniel  06:05, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

In Remembrance...
--nat Alo! Salut! Sunt eu, un haiduc?!?! 02:01, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

DYK

 * Danke.  Daniel  06:06, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Golf
Hi Daniel I thought that a way to further improve the golf articles on Wikipedia is for the whole project to work together towards a goal. An example of this could be a certain number of good articles in so many months, or to create the project's first ever featured article. If you are interested, come to the talk page and discuss it. And hopefully through this the project can continue to work towards several goals in the near future. Grover 10:04, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Will do - thanks for the note.  Daniel  06:31, 8 November 2007 (UTC)