User talk:David.Mestel/Archive 04

Archive 4 of my user talk page:

Question
David, I just noticed that Hillman is back. Can you please keep an eye on the situation in case he starts harassing me again? I will do my best to avoid him. Thx - DrL 20:16, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Pull out
I apologize. I take full responsibility for my lack of civility. I won't re-enter unless you ask. Good luck with all the aspects of the case. --Wslack (talk) 20:33, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Urgent request re User talk:Hillman
Hi, David,

I have returned from my short wikibreak. As you know doubt already know, the MfD resulted in keep. Also, it seems that the Iloveminum RfA is about to be concluded. I propose to wait until that happens before starting our discussion.

However, I need to immediately raise a serious concern about edits of my user talk page, made in my absence by DrL, which place me in a very difficult position:


 * 1) 08:11, 2 August 2006 DrL alters various messages left by various users in my user talk page; User:KSmrq then reverted the changes
 * 2) 08:45, 2 August 2006 DrL reverts KSmrq's revert of the alterations, which KSmrq again reverted
 * 3) 10:33, 2 August 2006 DrL reverts KSmrq

I think this is extremely rude and may constitute a serious violation of existing policies. Please recall that DrL has opened various proceedings against me alleging misbehavior and on about a half dozen occasions (as I recall), she has called for me to be summarily permabanned in various places, including: At this point, it is not clear whether DrL intends to pursue her threats to try to have me blocked/banned, but if so I would have a legitimate need to defend myself by exhibiting evidence my motivation for the disclosures to which she is objecting! Indeed, if she plans to pursue those avenues, her edits might consitute alteration of critical evidence, which would be a very serious matter.
 * 1) 10:43, 1 August 2006 message left on my user talk page
 * 2) 08:20, 1 August 2006 message left at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

Existing policies suggest that users involved in some content dispute should seek to resolve their differences by less drastic measures first, and only seek RfA etc. if these alternatives fail. It seems to me that DrL should have stuck to the agreement which I thought we had made, in which I temporarily blanked User:Hillman/Dig/Langan and took a one-week wikibreak before returning to discuss the permanent fate of that page with you. I thought DrL had agreed to avoid further actions in this matter while I was away, and particularly, not to edit my user pages. Her actions raise the issue of whether she intends to abide by any agreement you might reach with me on her behalf. If not, it is not clear that there is any point to pursuing our planned discussion!

I also have to ask you to decide with her what she plans to do about the MediationCabal proceeding, and whether she intends to continue to call for my being blocked or permabanned in this affair, even if we should reach some agreement (which of course I would abide by myself, provided of course that DrL didn't thereupon turn around and do something which requires me to defend myself against charges that I am myself misbehaving at WP with regard to the Langan affair). My own preference is to give a chance for much less drastic measures to work before rushing to initiate RfAs or calling for blocks.

FYI, I have requested page protection of my user talk page archives, at least while we attempt to resolve this matter.

TIA ---CH 21:35, 10 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Here was my exchange with DrL about assaults in absentia. (I use the legalese with tongue in cheek, since DrL repeatedly uses pseudo-legal bluster, contrary to Wikipedia facts, policy, and culture.) Privacy is a legitimate concern; so are civility and keeping agreements. --KSmrqT 00:31, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Chaguanas
Dave, I see you stopped basically working on my case. Thanks anwyay. Ryorye 03:01, 11 August 2006 (UTC) Thanks David for your message. I no longer know if it is worth "fighting" for. KMC is not orignally from Chaguanas. The case is soley Marlon Asher. I'm not sure how much trouble one should go through just to insert Marlon Asher. It's just a matter of one person being so dictative that he may go all the way out to exclude Asher it no longer feels fighting for. This is the case if you wish to continue on it. Marlon Asher should be included in the list of prominent people in the Chaguanas article. I am happy you chose my case. Thank You. Ryorye 19:35, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Favour
I'm going on vacation until 19th August 2006; would it be possible for you to take my advocacy case? User talk:Bongo1234 on Cake Media. Looks pretty inactive, but... If you are able to do so please contact me and drop Bongo1234 a line. Computerjoe 's talk 12:29, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Clarification Needed
I thought that per WP:STALK and WP:LIVING, information speculating about the real life identities of editors could be removed from any page on Wikipedia. Why hasn't this been done? There are still numerous accusations and conjecture about my identity on Wikipedia. Is this allowed? If you could, please clarify the policies. DrL 13:40, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks
David, thank you so much for your help in my case. I am amazed that the situation could have gotten this far without more people commenting that this behavior is just not in the spirit of Wikipedia and moving to handle it a different way. I'm glad to see that's happening now. People like you, stepping in and adding your voice really makes a difference.

I've been leaving the bulk of Hillman's page intact because I feel that it would be best if Hillman redact the page himself. I did put up a disputed tag and made a couple of comments to point out some of the WP violations. I would ask that someone redact, blank or speedily delete (preferred) the page if he doesn't do so within a reasonable period of time. Again, thank you. DrL 12:02, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

My wikibreak
David, I replied to your reply on my user talk page. See you around the middle of next week. ---CH 17:53, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Advocacy request
Heyo, Steve Caruso here. There is a Request for assistance by Margana  (talk) on  Psephos. Would you be willing to take their case? If you will, please leave a note and sign under the entry on WP:AMARQ and change "(pending)" in the heading to "(open)." When you're finished with the case, set it to "(closed)". If you're not able to take the case, please leave me a message on my talk page so I can continue searching for a willing Advocate. Many thanks! אמר Steve Caruso  ( desk / AMA )  15:01, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Hey, Dave, I noticed the following on the WP:AMARQ page:


 * This advocate was not helpful and has abandoned the case. Someone else please come forward. Margana 15:48, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

What's up with the Margana case?

A bit worried,

אמר Steve Caruso ( desk / AMA / vote for me ) 01:40, 14 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm a dingbat. :-P You emailed me about this :-) Let me see what I can do. אמר Steve Caruso ( desk / AMA / vote for me ) 01:45, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi
--PEAR 16:19, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

RoLL
You've done a good job the last few weeks; as far as I'm concerned, you can do RoLL indefinitely as long as you have the time to do so. Just try to let me know in advance if you need me to write it. Ral315 (talk) 16:21, 13 August 2006 (UTC)


 * The 21st is fine with me. Ral315 (talk) 16:26, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

You do now
(^_^)

--PEAR 16:22, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Two (largely inconsequential) notices
First, I posted a brief blurb of clarification in reply to one of your replies on User talk:Hillman. As I indicated there, Asmodeus mentioned Byrgenwulf's IRL identity on 24 July 2006 (diff); Byrgenwulf did not add said personal details to his user page until the following day (diff). I don't have the inclination or the time to get deeply involved in Wiki-debates these days (heck, I should be putting together a paper for a conference proceedings volume right now), but I figured I should make a brief notation for completeness of the record.

Second, "Lengthy" was spelled "Lenghty" on your user page. I hope you don't mind my indulgence of my inner copy editor in changing that. Best wishes to you and yours, Anville 22:07, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Comment A brief early mention of Byrgenwulf's RL identity was necessitated by a misleading self-portrayal that he posted in order to gain support for his attack on the CTMU and its associated Wikipedia article. In short, it was the only way to set the record straight. Please see a more detailed explanation here. Asmodeus 16:23, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Fair 'nuff - if he chose to raise his identity, he has to accept the consequences of so doing. --David Mestel(Talk) 17:32, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Arbitration report
Please do not add your arbitration report for this week to here. I have reverted your edit. No one is going to know where it is unless they look at your contributions. Please post to the newsroom next time as that's the proper place to put it. Thank you. ForestH2 t/c 14:10, 14 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Your doing a great job; it's just that no one will see you there; Ral had to look at your contributions to see the Arb report this week. ForestH2  t/c 14:40, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Asmodeus behavior
Since you now are working with Asmodeus, I would like to draw your attention to this comment. Perhaps as an advocate you can have more leverage in explaining the importance the Wikipedia community places on civility and refraining from personal attacks. If Asmodeus is blocked, negotiation will be impeded.

For reference, here is what I posted on Hillman's talk page.

Best wishes for an outcome that benefits the continued improvement of the encyclopedia. --KSmrqT 02:28, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Signpost updated for August 14th


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 06:03, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Maximus nightclub
Image is at MaximusNightclub.jpg —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Nije bitno... (talk • contribs). 20:05, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Fair use
What's the template to warn users that images they have uploaded have been tagged as orphaned fair use? TIA, David Mestel(Talk) 20:20, 15 August 2006 (UTC)


 * There's, which can be applied to a fair-use image that is not used in any articles. If the image has been replaced by another image, you can use Image:ReplacementImage.ext. —Bkell (talk) 20:24, 15 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I know - I meant to notify the uploader that the image has been tagged. However, I've now discovered that it's Image:imagename.ext .  Thanks anyway, David Mestel(Talk) 20:27, 15 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Oh, sorry, I misread your question. Most templates that you should warn users about have the appropriate code in the warning box itself, so after you apply the template to the image you can just copy the line into the uploader's talk page. —Bkell (talk) 20:31, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Image licenses
Thanks! I'll keep that in mind. -Srsrsr 21:19, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Margana
David, I'm not satisfied with your email proposal, for reasons that I have outlined in an emailed response. Instead I'm publishing here a copy of the guts of an email I sent to you previously. Its up to you and Margana to decide whether the undertaking therein resolves this.
 * ''Regarding my protection and blocks, I didn't see myself as involved because I had no stake or interest in the article: it was simply on my watchlist because I had made a few spelling corrections. And contrary to Margana's conspiracy theories I am no great friend of Adam Carr's: if I recall correctly our last interaction was him telling me "don't be so bloody ridiculous".
 * ''When I saw what appeared to be blatant reversions to a POV version against consensus, I stepped in as an uninvolved admin to attempt a resolution. This started as reversions of blatantly POV edits together with attempts to generate talk page discussion where it was sadly lacking. Eventually I tried a compromise edit without success, then moved on to page protection and finally blocks.
 * ''During all this I did not see myself as involved, but on review I can see that I had certainly become involved over time, and therefore I should not have protected or blocked. I concede that these were not in line with policy. I have undertaken not to protect Psephos or block Margana again. If (I mean when) he resumes his edit warring, someone else will have to deal with it.

Snottygobble 00:18, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

The Hillman Situation
Hi, David. I'm not seeing any good faith actions on Hillman's part. Do you think that you could nominate his Langan page for speedy deletion? (He would then be able to create a more neutral version if he so decides.) Also, isn't Hillman's (virtually entire) talk page a personal attack? Can you please ask him to archive that and lay off discussing me on his talk page? Thanks, again for your help in hopefully negotiating an end to this harassment by Hillman. --DrL 14:03, 17 August 2006 (UTC)


 * The pivotal question CH put to David Mestel is whether you and Asmodeus would abide by any agreement reached, and would stop asking for action during — and especially after — the course of the negotiation. No such assurance was offered. Now you urge speedy deletion. In the interests of seeing everyone get back to productive contributions to the encyclopedia, I respectfully suggest that you make it clear that you will be bound by the outcome of the agreement, and let the negotiations proceed without any further calls for action.
 * If you carefully read my perspective on the Dig issue, you will see that I am hardly unsympathetic to privacy concerns. I can understand that you feel agitated and want instant results. Has your behavior so far produced those results? No.
 * Speedy deletion is not an option; it will be shot down immediately. One would think the MfD would have demonstrated that.
 * The fastest way to a resolution you will find satisfactory is to fully support the negotiations. You need not agree to anything you find unacceptable, but you must give CH assurance that you will be bound by the outcome. Without that assurance, the negotiation is meaningless; there is nothing in it for CH.
 * And to answer the obvious question, here's what's in it for me. I'd like to see Wikipedia succeed as an encyclopedia. That means articles must be written, validated, copy-edited, and provided with solid references. Four capable people who could be focused on that are instead engaged in this mess, and diverting others as well.
 * Think of a bright young lass in Nigeria, or an inquisitive sheepherder in New Zealand, for whom Wikipedia is their best source of information about many topics. If you want to have a positive impact on the world, here's an opportunity. Use it wisely. --KSmrqT 01:18, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Signpost updated for August 21st


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 04:05, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

David
David i refer you to here as to why i have little time now for far left users - hard bitter experience of their POV pushing and games over many years here. PMA 06:11, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi David, hope you enjoyed your holiday. I gather that PMA is organizing a RfC in regard to Margana. Are you going to be her advocate? Addhoc 16:34, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

thanks for reminding me
I almost forgot to vote. I hope I never need to become a politician, thanks for your 'vote of no confidence'. I think we are lucky to have a candidate who is obviously qualified. And willing. User:Pedant 05:50, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

WB
Hi, David. I hope that you had a nice holiday :) If you have a moment, maybe you can find out where Hillman is at in his negotiations and what, exactly, he needs in order to comply with wikipolicy. Thanks. --DrL 13:46, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

MONGO
That's fine; I'll take care of writing that one up. Ral315 (talk) 15:41, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Signpost updated for August 28th


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 06:48, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Gabriel TUllis
Is that a user's name? He just posted on my talk page about my limited scope... Michael 07:28, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
 * And it is. You should look at my talk page... Michael 07:36, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Cyberstalking
'''Courtesy blanked. See archive.'''

Hillman
Hi, David. I am wondering if you had come to any decisions with Hillman. --DrL 18:03, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

The History of Doctor Octagon
'''Courtesy blanked. See archive'''

Signpost updated for September 5th.


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 06:20, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

T.R.O.L.L.
Nice job on the ArbCom summary in this week's Signpost. However, I think you made an inadvertent error in describing the remedies proposed in the St Christopher's case. The remedy proposed by DMcDevit would not quite provide that single-purpose accounts are banned from editing the article, but that single-purpose accounts can be banned if they edit the article "disruptively." Not a big deal but you might want to change it for next week. Regards, Newyorkbrad 15:02, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Hillman Negotiation
David, I am extremely upset at the (lack of) progress in the Hillman negotiations. Can you please talk to Hillman about removing his references to possible identities from his (protected) talk page archives (which show up on Google). I really cannot think of a clearer violation of Wikipedia policy - and that violation being protected by Wikipedia administrator is really unbelieveable. I am still hoping that you can help me with this. --DrL 16:09, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Responding to my first AMA request...
Hi David, I'm responding to my first AMA request and would very much appreciate some advice concerning the response from an administrator. The discussion is at User talk:Nlu and is fairly straightforward, however I'm somewhat thrown by Nlu's response, which appears to assert certainty of a very uncertain subject. Could you advise or better yet intervene? Addhoc 17:02, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Poke
No trouble on TROLL; thanks for letting me know. Ral315 (talk) 02:52, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Signpost updated for September 11th.


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 05:20, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Mailing list
I've lifted your moderation flag. Phil Sandifer 20:31, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Copyright
No, William Kingsbury is not a copyright violation. I got it at. This is a gov. website -Rhelmerichs 19:27, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Signpost updated for September 18th.


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 05:46, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

more trouble
please see my talk page for the latest threats from Rebecca. Thanks Hmains 02:13, 20 September 2006 (UTC)