User talk:Daniel Gadsby/Archives/2013/June

In re: Thomas Smith (actor) et al
Your posts at User talk:WilliamTaylorSimpson are likely much better than anything I would have posted - well done, that. But as you continue your dialog, be mindful of the AFD and of this edit at the article's talk page. Not exactly a hopeful sign. FYI. UltraExactZZ Said~ Did 22:12, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you, that's very kind. And, oh for fuck's sake. I'm going to leave an extremely unambiguous warning. — The Potato Hose 22:34, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

I wanted to thank you for your message on my talk page concerning your deletion.WilliamTaylorSimpson (talk) 05:56, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
 * My deletion? I haven't deleted anything. I do not have the technical ability to delete anything. Please respond to the comments made at your talkpage and please indicate that you understand what you are being told.


 * I understand that Wikipedia is an inordinately complex place, encumbered with a seemingly Orwellian bureaucracy. But by the same token, when everyone is telling you the same thing, it's time to at least consider the idea that you may be wrong. — The Potato Hose 06:37, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

WP:BLPN
Please do not remove other people's comments, even if it is good faith. I have raised the issue at User talk:May122013. Regards, GiantSnowman 16:17, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I redacted personal attacks, which is absolutely allowed. I won't be reverting you, but we both know you are wrong here. — The Potato Hose 16:20, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes I'm aware of WP:TPO, but I don't see saying someone is a "possible sockpuppet" as a "personal attack" per se; hence why I have asked the other editor to shit or get off the pot. GiantSnowman 16:25, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
 * It was an accusation. I also told the editor, twice, to shit or get off the pot. The editor refused to do so. Hey, maybe you're a sockpuppet! (See? I only said 'maybe.' But it's still an accusation, and you would also tell me to provide proof or retract it.)
 * Obviously that is not a real accusation and I do not think you are a sock, just to be clear. — The Potato Hose 16:37, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Retract that at once or I'll block you ;) - I'll weigh in at ANI in a little bit. GiantSnowman 16:38, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Agitation
Your photo of a duck on the ANI is an agitation and I am going to remove it. --Ivilbderoneday (talk) 16:27, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
 * But it was such a pretty duck. And it could only be an agitation if you know what it means. Aaaaaand you would only know what it means if you are a sockpuppet, so um oops on your part I guess? — The Potato Hose 16:46, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

WMF Legal counsel
It got archived, but I just noticed your question WMF's legal counsel is User:Geoffbrigham. No idea how much he checks on his Wikipedia userpage, but that is his on-wiki account. Maybe you can email him with your question. -- Jayron  32  04:33, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I emailed him today. His autoreply says he's traveling until 14 June.--Jasper Deng (talk) 04:35, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I had left him a message on his talkpage. I don't have email enabled on general principles. — The Potato Hose 16:34, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Your warnings at User talk:Aliciasunday
Simply stating "I'd like this article moved for legal reasons" is not a legal threat to anyone in any sense of the term. I removed your warning from the user's page. Remember to avoid being hostile to newcomers, even if they have COI issues. § FreeRangeFrog croak 19:01, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Did you bother to read her initial post, or the text I included with the warning? Stating that she would have her general counsel speak with us if we didn't speak to her is pretty unambiguous. — The Potato Hose 19:10, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
 * "I can have my general counsel speak with you too and explain." is not a legal threat. § FreeRangeFrog croak 19:14, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I disagree. The context is very clear. Are we done? — The Potato Hose 19:17, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
 * We sure are! I see from the conversations below that your delightful attitude is going to take you places soon. Namely AN/I and beyond. Good luck! § FreeRangeFrog croak 23:05, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
 * You have mistaken a 'delightful attitude' (clever, clever way to avoid a personal attack. Thing is, the meaning is what matters. And you know it) for a dislike for the taste of horseshit. — The Potato Hose 04:09, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Previous Accounts
Hello, I'd like to ask if you would be willing to disclose any previous accounts/ip's that you may have used. Thanks. Arkon (talk) 05:50, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I can't really imagine any circumstances under which that information, if there is any, would be any of your business. Asking for IPs would require me to reveal personal information, as would asking for any previous accounts I may or may not have used. If you think I am a sockpuppet, by all means go here and follow the directions. You'd need evidence though, and there's none--probably because I'm not a sockpuppet. If my behaviour is disruptive, then go to the appropriate noticeboard and follow the directions. Again, you'd need evidence, and there isn't any--probably because I'm not being disruptive. — The Potato Hose 16:41, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
 * And actually I'm pretty curious as to why you'd ask such a rude question, when your involvement with Wikipedia is so sporadic. — The Potato Hose 19:08, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
 * @Potato, it's fairly common for people to be a little suspicious when someone creates an account and immediately dives into meta-wiki material with what seems to be an abundance of experience and knowledge of policy. (I considered asking myself when I saw you at RfA and ANI a couple weeks ago.)
 * @Arkon, it's probably ok to assume that Potato has had previous experience, but is using their account in accordance with policy (perhaps they did edit as an IP, or perhaps this is a fresh start account...either way it doesn't matter).
 * @Potato, Re: disruptive behavior, I'm not saying you've done anything wrong, but I do think you could benefit from "chilling" a bit: toning it down instead of escalating things. (I refer partly to the conversation below and on Dennis Brown's talk page.) That's just my opinion. ~Adjwilley (talk) 21:00, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Final warning
I've asked you to stop the disruption at Sockpuppet investigations/Technoquat. The report is closed. If you wish to discuss some new program with the CU, do it on their talk page. I've tried to be nice about this, but you are warring on an SPI report. The report IS closed, they will not likely revisit it. I don't say this because I'm an admin, I'm saying this as an SPI clerk, whose job it is to clerk SPI reports. If you continue to disrupt, you will be blocked. Dennis Brown / 2¢ / © / @ 20:04, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
 * That's one way to look at it. I prefer facts. Fact: I asked TCanens a specific question. Fact: you responded by making a bunch of assumptions. Fact: you moved my comment, making it harder to understand who is saying what to whom and when. Fact: I told you why I put my comment there. Fact: it is your responsibility to explain why a conversation is better when it is divided. Fact: you are more concerned with a petty bureaucratic rule than basic readability. — The Potato Hose 20:08, 9 June 2013 (UTC)


 * It isn't my job to explain why the CU tell the SPI clerks tell us to keep non-admin comments above. They have setup the system, they tell us they do not want non-admin comments in the bottom section, they select a few admin to clerk the page, I'm one.  The report is for information on that report only, not for theoretical discussions.  Once a clerk has closed a discussion, like that one, the CU will not revisit it, so they would not have seen your comments.  Regardless, SPI is an administrative board, not a chat forum.  The threshold for edit warring is pretty low on any admin board. Dennis Brown / 2¢ / © / @ 20:11, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
 * So it is a bureaucratic rule. Which is exactly what IAR is for. So... still not getting an explanation, I see. Typical from admins. If you paid a little more attention, you would have seen I wasn't asking for a theoretical discussion. I was asking a specific question. Which you did not answer. You made a bunch of assumptions, but that's not the same as answering a question. — The Potato Hose 20:16, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
 * WP:IAR is not for dismissing a rule simply because it is convenient. As I said on my talk page, you are welcome to discuss it with the CUs, and you can tell them how mistaken they are.  As a clerk, however, I will clerk the page exactly as they state they want it clerked, and that is exactly as they said they want it clerked.  Your beef is with them, not me.  Dennis Brown / 2¢ / © / @ 20:19, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
 * IAR is, however, for dismissing a rule because it makes things inconvenient. Like, say, splitting up a conversation. I was going to split up this entire conversation to make the point, but you already know I'm right; you're just following rules because the rules are there, and not bothering to question in this specific case the usefulness of that rule. Ho hum. — The Potato Hose 20:22, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Heh, if you think SPI's are bad (splitting up conversations) try reading an ArbCom case :-) ~Adjwilley (talk) 21:04, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I have. The format is completely stupid. Won't ever change of course. Nor was I trying, despite what Dennis Brown was saying, to change everything on every page forever and ever amen. I was looking at the specifics of this one instance, which is exactly what IAR was built for. — The Potato Hose 04:22, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

BLP Noticeboard
This nonsense has gone on long enough. Take a walk, calm down, and then return to the noticeboard when you are ready to discuss policy in a manner that adheres to policy. If you want to insult me, please feel free to do so on my personal talk page but refrain from making the noticeboard more of a circus than we've already made it. Gamaliel (talk) 20:45, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Do me a favour, show me a diff where I insulted you before you called me childish and hysterical? — The Potato Hose 20:49, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Throughout the entire discussion you have been belittling, accusative, and insulting. I'm willing to let the first instance of namecalling on your part go because we're all worked up, but to use the excuse of continuing the discussion to get more licks in is over the line. Take a walk, we'll both settle this like adults when tempers have cooled. Gamaliel (talk) 20:52, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I asked you for a diff. Where did I insult you? Show me. I was not 'trying to get more licks in'. I was asking you questions that you refused to answer. — <span style="font:small-caps 1.2em Hoeflr Text,sans-serif;color:#000;letter-spacing:0.15em;">The Potato Hose 20:55, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

User:ClueBot III/ArchiveNow
 * I am archiving this, uninterested in further discussion. — <span style="font:small-caps 1.2em Hoeflr Text,sans-serif;color:#000;letter-spacing:0.15em;">The Potato Hose 21:20, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Because you've hatted the discussion
Hatting the discussion to get in the last word was sooo mature. You are being hysterical, and you are refusing to see reason. The entire reason for deletion is that 1) Yee contacted Wikipedia, and 2) said that the article enabled people to threaten her. Gamaliel never attacked you, but you did attack him when you called him a dick.

Why 1 is unreasonable: OTRS does have steps to verify identity, but it is rarely followed through, and would not have been finished by this point. As such, either you or other advocates of deletion need to provide evidence that it is Yee, or abandon that argument. Why 2 is unreasonable: The article contains nothing enabling others to threaten Yee. Nothing. Either you or other advocates of deletion need to provide evidence for that claim, or abandon that argument.

Ergo, you have no reason behind your claim, which means you are acting irrationally, or hysterically.

As for "what does anyone gain from having the article?" Well, that woman's great service to humanity is better known to the world, ready to inspire others.

There is nothing gained from deleting the article, but there is something gained for keeping it. There is nothing lost from keeping it, but people's work is lost and recognition of that woman's accomplishments is reduced.

Ian.thomson (talk) 20:55, 12 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Thank you this comment. I think you are better suited (and certainly more eloquent on this matter) to tackle the questions that PH wants answered from me. Gamaliel (talk) 20:58, 12 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Uh, you might want to look at the edit history. User:Gamaliel hatted the discussion to get the last word. I was in the middle of responding when s/he did that. I hatted it after I replied because it is entirely unfair to expect someone to do what you tell them to do before you have even had a chance to read it. Had Gamaliel wished to respond, s/he could have unhatted or commented on my talkpage, as s/he directed me to do while I was in the middle of commenting.


 * The evidence that it is Yee comes from OTRS. They're not just going to blindly believe every email that comes through.


 * Yee does not need to provide evidence to you or I. See above re: OTRS.


 * I don't dispute that she is a good person. I dispute that she is so valuable to the history of the planet that it must be kept when she is saying that it is causing her real world problems. — <span style="font:small-caps 1.2em Hoeflr Text,sans-serif;color:#000;letter-spacing:0.15em;">The Potato Hose 21:02, 12 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Oh, and I told Gamaliel to stop acting like a WP:DICK after s/he called me childish and hysterical. Cause, effect. — <span style="font:small-caps 1.2em Hoeflr Text,sans-serif;color:#000;letter-spacing:0.15em;">The Potato Hose 21:11, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

User:ClueBot III/ArchiveNow
 * I am archiving this, uninterested in further discussion. — <span style="font:small-caps 1.2em Hoeflr Text,sans-serif;color:#000;letter-spacing:0.15em;">The Potato Hose 21:20, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Talkback
Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 17:51, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

User:AfadsBad
So I came across this user via new editors contributions page, and I was wondering what your reasoning was for reporting this user at SPI. All you said at the report was "quack, beans." The user doesn't have any obviously problematic edits, and seems confused about the whole thing. I could very well be wrong: I've seen friendly-looking new editors turn out to be socks before. Just wondering what raised your suspicions in this case. Howicus (talk) 17:27, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
 * The whole purpose of WP:BEANS is to not tell what made it obvious, what made the link, as that helps socks avoid detection next time. IE: Don't accidentally give them new ideas.  Saying so here would be defeating the purpose.  Dennis Brown &#124; 2¢ &#124; © &#124;  WER  20:11, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Oh, alright. I'm just worried that a potential useful contributor might have been blocked.  I'll trust your judgement on the matter, however.  You probably know the sockmaster's MO better than me.  Howicus (talk) 21:58, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Yeah, what DB said. Suffice to say there is a pattern, and the sock fit that pattern. I wish I could be more clear, but I can't without WP:BEANS, and I will not engage via email or IRC on basic principles. Kind of a catch-22. Sorry. — <span style="font:small-caps 1.2em Hoeflr Text,sans-serif;color:#000;letter-spacing:0.15em;">The Potato Hose
 * Ok, just so long as the pattern was clear, I'll let it go. Howicus (talk) 16:03, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 19 June 2013
<div class="hlist" style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;">
 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 00:08, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Please stop removing ANI threads
I have just undone what I think might have been your second inappropriate removal of a thread from ANI. They STILL typically need to be archived properly, in case the editor raises their head again later. If it's truly a troll, 'an admin will hat/hab them ... but please do not take it upon yourself to do so (✉→ BWilkins ←✎) 17:37, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Uh, I guess WP:DENY is no longer a principle in use? I'll go mark it as historical then. Technoquat obviously enjoys seeing his or her stuff sitting around. The editor won't be raising their head again because as soon as a CU is run they will be blocked. And you know as well as I do that non-admins are perfectly allowed to hat/archive things on AN&ANI. Plus, any contributions from a sock may be reverted on sight, per WP:RBI. I'd be very interested if you could show a policy justification for your revert. I won't revert it back because it's utterly pointless to get into any dustup with any admin; such is the imbalance of poorly used power. — <span style="font:small-caps 1.2em Hoeflr Text,sans-serif;color:#000;letter-spacing:0.15em;">The Potato Hose 17:49, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
 * And, looking further at my watchlist, the sock is ✅, so not really sure why you of all people are valuing some WP:BURO over the basic principles I linked to above. — <span style="font:small-caps 1.2em Hoeflr Text,sans-serif;color:#000;letter-spacing:0.15em;">The Potato Hose 17:51, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
 * in case you aren't watching. — <span style="font:small-caps 1.2em Hoeflr Text,sans-serif;color:#000;letter-spacing:0.15em;">The Potato Hose 18:30, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
 * We typically hat them, not delete them, unless there are special instructions by the CU or Arb. Dennis Brown &#124; 2¢ &#124; © &#124; WER  18:33, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
 * None of which is a substantive response to what I wrote above. — <span style="font:small-caps 1.2em Hoeflr Text,sans-serif;color:#000;letter-spacing:0.15em;">The Potato Hose 18:36, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Two administrators are telling you the preferred way to deal with issues on an administrator board. This is the second time I've seen you argue with admin on how admin boards are clerked.  You seem to be rather combative about it each time, and here, you link an essay as if it is gospel.  The essay is handy, but it doesn't trump SOP for admin boards.  Dennis Brown &#124; 2¢ &#124; © &#124;  WER  19:22, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm not being combative, I would like you to simply address the points I have raised. If this is a(nother) case of "Do what I say because I am admin, never mind what common sense says" then just say so. — <span style="font:small-caps 1.2em Hoeflr Text,sans-serif;color:#000;letter-spacing:0.15em;">The Potato Hose 19:25, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
 * This is a case of two admin saying "This is the how admin do it", unless there is an overriding reason why it needs to be deleted. Same as with your issue with SPI.  You want every single procedure that has existed for years justified to you, explained to you, and you can't take anyone's word that "this is how it is done".   For someone with barely 1000 edits and 6 months here, you are pretty confident that you are always right about procedure here.  Dennis Brown &#124; 2¢ &#124; © &#124;  WER  19:36, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
 * If you're not going to actually address the points I've raised, please feel free to reconsider the next time you think about pressing the edit button on this page. And I have never claimed to be new, so that's irrelevant. — <span style="font:small-caps 1.2em Hoeflr Text,sans-serif;color:#000;letter-spacing:0.15em;">The Potato Hose 19:41, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I believe I addressed the key reason in my original post: they need to be archived in the archives. This makes them searchable if needed.  Simply removing makes for a major pain in the ass you need to go digging for socks.  You're actually enabling them to run amok by not archiving.  Hatting is how we WP:DENY them their little jollies (✉→ BWilkins ←✎) 21:08, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Oh yes, I should have realized that leaving something a stupid sock wrote available for public view is actually denying them recognition. Quite. How very Orwellian. — <span style="font:small-caps 1.2em Hoeflr Text,sans-serif;color:#000;letter-spacing:0.15em;">The Potato Hose 04:07, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

So I suppose this is different somehow. I don't see a revert of that removal, nor do I see any commentary on GiantSnowman's talkpage. Do explain the difference to me, won't you? or, I await your explanation with some interest. — <span style="font:small-caps 1.2em Hoeflr Text,sans-serif;color:#000;letter-spacing:0.15em;">The Potato Hose 04:16, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
 * You seem to have an arrogance and air of superiority that demands that admin explain every action to you that isn't in line with your to your preconceived notions of procedure, here and everywhere.  Frankly, I'm tired of your little game and I don't have time for it.  You aren't a new user, so there is no need to explain minutia to you.  To put it bluntly, stop clerking admin pages.  Dennis Brown &#124; 2¢ &#124; © &#124;  WER  10:48, 25 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Processes evolve by action. There is a right time and a wrong time to remove and/or hat something.  It takes knowledge and understanding.  You have been advised that on AN/ANI an admin will make the determination to hat or in extremely rare cases remove the post outright.  You have been advised to not perform removals yourself as it's disruptive.  Now, as per your favourite essay, WP:DENY, no further will be discussed on this matter.  Seriously, when the most patient admin lays into you above, you know you've pushed the envelope waaaayyy too far. (✉→ BWilkins ←✎) 12:37, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

So, to summarize: it's perfectly okay to remove postings by Technoquat, as long as it's not me doing the removal. Charming. — <span style="font:small-caps 1.2em Hoeflr Text,sans-serif;color:#000;letter-spacing:0.15em;">The Potato Hose 17:08, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 26 June 2013
<div class="hlist" style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;">
 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 23:08, 27 June 2013 (UTC)