User talk:David.Mestel/Archive 08

Eighth archive of my talk page

Showboating, committees and normal closures
Hi there. I noticed on the Brandt DRV that you linked to this comment, and I can see your point. What do you think is the best way to prevent people potentially closing high-profile AfDs to cover themselves in glory? I don't think it happened in this case, but I can see the point that it is hard to distinguish between a genuinely neutral attempt to resolve the issue and closing a high-profile AfD to gain kudos. Would committees of admins closing such AfDs help, or something else? Of course, what is really needed is a way to prevent articles and their existence becoming a cause celebre. That just increases the drama every step of the way. Carcharoth 12:19, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Hard to say...I think that the model should be a committee-type structure (not necessarily all-admin) for DRVs, since they are, so to speak, the final court of appeal, so it's unfair to allow them to be determined by the closing admin's POV, especially since more and more discretion seems to be being used. David Mestel(Talk) 14:31, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Clerkship
I'd like to submit your name to ArbCom for appointment as an official clerk. Are you interested? Thatcher131 04:02, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
 * By the way, there is a clerks mailing list, and clerks have write-access to the closed committee mailing list (bypassing the moderation queue) so make sure I have your current e-mail address. Thatcher131 15:43, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for June 18th, 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 08:29, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Requests for arbitration/Certified.Gangsta-Ideogram/Review
Hey. Since you're the clerk, i figured I'd ask you a quick question on how reviews work. For the proposed priniples/findings of fact on that page, am I allowed to post ones myself via treating that as a workshop, or are only the arbitrators allowed to handle those sections in a review? Wizardman 13:16, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for June 25th, 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 07:29, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Requests for arbitration/Badlydrawnjeff/Proposed decision

 * From clerks' noticeboard:

Normally I'd chat to David Mestel (who has clerked this arbitration) about this, but he's apparently away now. I did what I thought was a cosmetic edit on the above page in the Badlydrawnjeff arbitration, but it's been reverted by Violetriga. Oops! Sorry, I should have left it to the professionals.

Since David is away and it certainly looks as if we have at least 5-1 and probably 6-1 to close, would someone check with the arbitrators to see if they're finished? --Tony Sidaway 16:08, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I believe David is back now. Why don't you post to his talk just in case he doesn't see this. Newyorkbrad 16:12, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Arbitration clerk
The last I heard from the Arbitration Committee, there were 6 in favor of promoting you and no objections; after allowing a further week for comment and hearing nothing, I have officially listed you as a clerk for the Arbitration committee. Congratulations. Thatcher131 03:28, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Congratulations from me as well. Newyorkbrad 14:04, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Huge thanks to both of you for all your help, guidance, etc. David Mestel(Talk) 14:22, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for July 2nd, 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 07:35, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Case
Hi David, congratulations on the appointment. I'm back from my break, and I was going to retake all three cases which you guys had volunteered to cover for me, but since I had had Zacheus-jkb for so little time, and you only have one other case at the moment, I decided to leave you with it. I will of course retake it if you would like me too! Happy editing, Picaroon (Talk) 22:40, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for July 9th, 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 07:33, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (Image:Melanie_Brown.JPG)
Thanks for uploading Image:Melanie_Brown.JPG. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you.  howcheng  {chat} 17:44, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Image:Cicely_Tyson.jpg
I have tagged Image:Cicely_Tyson.jpg as orphaned fairuse. In order for the image to be kept at Wikipedia, it must be included in at least one article. If this image is being used as a link target instead of displayed inline, please add article name to the image description page to prevent it being accidentally marked as orphaned again.  howcheng  {chat} 17:44, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for July 16th, 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 20:04, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Welcome home; RfAr
Hope you had a good trip. I covered the arbitration report for you this week, hope you approve.

I'm not sure if you saw this on WP:AC/CN, but can you open the "List of Republics" RfAr tonight or tomorrow morning? Thanks, Newyorkbrad 20:57, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for July 23rd, 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 06:07, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Re: Image source problem with Image:WTCRAM.jpg
Sorry, David, but there's nothing else I can do with it. The Punk 08:56, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you, I will use it from now on. The Punk 21:22, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Diffs and links on the evidence page
Hi. I've asked the arbitrators on the RFAR talk page if I could edit the evidence template to be more helpful to newbies about diffs and links. The arbs that have replied have been all for it, but UC commented that the template "belongs to the clerks". So perhaps you might like to take a look at my suggestion and post a comment? Bishonen | talk 10:17, 28 July 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 23:48, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for August 6th, 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 08:38, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for August 13th, 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 20:05, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

R.O.L.L.
Will you be in a position to update the R.O.L.L. this week, or should I take it on for another week? Please advise either way. Thanks, Newyorkbrad 14:44, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Re: Spells in Harry Potter
I know; I really misread that one, LOL. I must have been doing something else at the same time; for some reason I remembered the AfD having closed as delete. At any rate, thanks! Heather 16:09, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Np ;) David Mestel(Talk) 17:32, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Re: Pigsonthewing ArbCom
Andy Mabbett (i.e. User:Pigsonthewing) is ranting about the "contemptible charade" of his ArbCom ban on his talk page. Time to shut the page down for the duration of the ban? Cheers. --Folantin 18:54, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
 * OK. On the other hand, it's worth noting that the user page dispute that led to this ArbCom was all about removing inflammatory material about User:Leonig Mig from Mabbett's pages. --Folantin 19:06, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for August 20th, 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 04:54, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for August 27th, 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 05:50, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

DreamGuy arbitration case
Since DreamGuy previously had an arbitration case against him (Requests for arbitration/DreamGuy), I suggest that you rename his most recent case to DreamGuy 2. 128.237.154.66 19:07, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Done. Thanks for the heads up. David Mestel(Talk) 19:13, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

David, I think that should be Requests for arbitration/DreamGuy 2 not Requests for arbitration/Dreamguy 2 to match DreamGuy's username. Seems worth getting that straight before the Bot creates the subpages. Best wishes, WjBscribe 22:06, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Gaaaah! Thanks. David Mestel(Talk) 07:41, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Wreck of Arbcombot good eating
['Bishzilla pokes curiously at smoking wreck of Arbcombot. ] Hmm! Barbeque-type smell. Not bad! [''Eats the remnants of the bot. Is grateful for her excellent digestive juices.'' ] Not as good as Elinor icecream machine, but makes a snack! [Wanders off, still hungry. ]    bishzilla     ROA R R! !    08:11, 29 August 2007 (UTC).
 * I'm hoping it may just be switched off, in which case I can whack eagle-101 repeatedly until he turns it on... David Mestel(Talk) 08:42, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Burp?    bishzilla     ROA R R! !    08:50, 29 August 2007 (UTC).
 * /me now realises that large and brutal monster may be useful tool to intimidate the botmeister into making the sodding thing work. David Mestel(Talk) 08:54, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

ArbCom
I'm afraid I really don't have time (moving Saturday) to write a full evidentiary comment, but looking back on it, my statement is pretty much the evidence I want to provide (I've never done this before, so I wrote more than I should have). Can I just move the statement and annotate it as needed? --Thespian 20:21, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for September 3rd, 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. R Delivery Bot 03:12, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for September 10th, 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. R Delivery Bot 20:12, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for September 17th, 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 02:54, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Arbitration report
Hi, David. Thanks for your note on my Talk page. And thanks for your work on Signpost. I read it every week (though unfortunately didn't take the time to participate in your survey). TimidGuy 14:48, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for September 24th, 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. R Delivery Bot 01:55, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for October 03, 2007


Automatically delivered by COBot 02:03, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

help in request for arbitration.
Hello it is my first time using wikipedia. I want to use a request for arbitration in the page "Torre Bicentenario" because a user Felipeslp87 constantly deletes the information of the users. Also I posted my first information in wikipedia yesterday there and the user deleted like 10 times. He says that it is an independent project of the government, but I pasted there the information from one of the most important newspapers in ouw countries with the involved person proving that what Felipeslp87 argues is wrong. But he deletes the information of other user also that in the discussion area there were another users telling that wikipedia is not a commercial space, that left of making publicity to those project and that Felipeslp87 should nod delete the polemic information. The information that we are inserting is based on facts, historical recordings, publications on newspaper and tendencies, calling to a thinking of the project. So I dont know why we are being censored by these user. We inserted the text in differentes area and he deleted the information in all times.

How can we proceed?

thanks a lot

Alberto Curiel

ps. as i didnt recorded the password and email yesterday, i had to register today with this username

the link is: http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torre_Bicentenario the text is: Promovido por Marcelo Ebrard "Sentimos este proyecto como de la ciudad y así lo hemos promovido, estamos en contacto con el grupo promotor y muy contentos porque es la inversión más grande en todo México". (1)Historico de El Universal.com.mx, 24 jul, 2007 Proyecto para celebrar los 200 años de la Independencia de México. México ya tiene un Angel de la Independencia, que es público, pero ahora el gobierno del DDF busca impulsar que sea un edificio conmemorativo y empresa privada el simbolo del país y del bicentenario de la independencia. Los arquitectos son extranjeros y no Mexicanos habiendo tantos buenos arquitectos en México. La "Torre Bicentenario" es el símbolo del lujo y ostentosidad, lo que contrasta con que más de la mitad de la población de todo México es pobre o vive en extrema pobreza y con problemas no resueltos en un siglo, por lo que podía influenciar fuertemente el edificio "Torre Bicentenario" a que detone un estallido social en México justamente en su inauguración en el año 2010, por lo que debe de evitarse y pensarse bien este proyecto y si se lleva a cabo o no. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Davos1 (talk • contribs) 16:31, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Your dispute appears to be on the Spanish Wikipedia. The Arbitration Committee only deals with disputes on the English Wikipedia.  There is a Spanish equivalent, but your dispute appears on the face of it to be in too early a stage to warrant arbitration. David Mestel(Talk) 16:20, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for October 15th, 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 09:24, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Shorter evidence?
You left me a note saying I should shorten my evidence. The problem is that my defense doesn't need much evidence- I could probably present all the diffs in 200 words. There are some things I could cut (and I'll try), but the major part of my defense is explanation. I don't know of anything I can really cut and still present a thorough defense. Your advice here would be welcome. If my choice is between getting ignored, and possibly getting hung because I didn't talk about the necessary points, I'll choose the former. Hung either way. —— Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 21:44, 22 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks (-: —— Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 20:32, 24 October 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 14:01, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Self-request re: WP:NPA
In the Martinphi-ScienceApologist Arbitration, I have submitted an evidence section stating that various editors work with Martinphi on paranormal-related projects off-wiki. I sourced this to statements made by two of the editors whom I named in those lists.

At this point, one of those editors is calling this a personal attack. Specifically, he invokes a line from WP:NPA: Using someone's affiliations as a means of dismissing or discrediting their views -- regardless of whether said affiliations are mainstream or extreme.

I don't feel that my evidence section dismisses or discredits, or really attacks in any way, which is why I don't believe my evidence is an attack. In your opinion, does my evidence run afoul of that guideline? I'm guessing you probably have more experience in this, and you are a neutral party, which is why I'm asking for your input. Thanks, Ante  lan  talk  07:25, 31 October 2007 (UTC)


 * The contention of Antelan on the talk page was that I'm supporting Martinphi and thus my evidence is less credible. I showed clear evidence that I never worked off-wiki with Martinphi as he claimed and he still persisted along those lines. It seemed applicable. -- Nealparr  (talk to me) 09:04, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, if you think he's wrong in his assertion, then you should present evidence in rebuttal, and it will be a question for the Committee to decide. David Mestel(Talk) 18:16, 31 October 2007 (UTC)


 * That's completely fair, thank you. -- Nealparr  (talk to me) 18:27, 31 October 2007 (UTC)


 * David.Mestel, thank you for your reply. Ante  lan  talk  13:53, 31 October 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 05:27, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Q&A Page
Editors recognize that the Arbitrators do not have time to follow, in real time, all of the diffs on all of the pages of all of the arbitration cases. Editors recognize that questions that they would like to ask the Arbitrators would usually get no response, or a much delayed response, if asked in one of the several talk pages of the arbitration. In response to this, many editors will message Arbitrators directly on their talk pages, which garners a much faster response.

The problem with doing so is that, consequently, discussion relevant to the Arbitration is split from the remainder of the discussion. Those who haven't watchlisted Arbitrators' talk pages might not even be aware of the communication. I think that this is problematic, but I would like to suggest a solution.

I believe that a Question and Answer Page (by whatever title is appropriate) would be a useful addition to Arbitration. There, users could ask questions, and arbitrators could reply as needed. This resolves the current problems: it provides a clean space that arbitrators can readily keep track without getting lost in tens or hundreds of daily diffs, it allows users a place to ask a question and reasonably expect that an Arbitrator will see it, and it keeps all of the discussion within the Arbitration, instead of allowing it to get scattered across Userspace where some participants might not see it.

If you think this is reasonable, would it be possible to add it to the current Science Apologist and Martinphi Arbitration that is currently ongoing? Thank you for your consideration. Note: I am canvassing all active arbitrators on this issue because I feel that this is a neutral suggestion. Ante  lan  talk  06:17, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Sadi Carnot arbitration case
Hi there. There seems to be a dispute developing at Requests for arbitration/Sadi Carnot/Workshop. As the clerk in that case, I thought you might want to be notified. I've asked the two involved to cool it (on their talk pages), but maybe a note from you at the workshop would help as well? Carcharoth 19:28, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for November 5th and 12th, 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 07:33, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for November 19th, 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 (talk) 10:00, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Adam 82
I need to file a complaint on Adam 82. I was unjustly blocked for editing apage I had a right to edit. We simply disagree. Please help. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.198.113.8 (talk) 04:39, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Um...your block log appears to be empty. David Mestel(Talk) 15:49, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for November 26th, 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 (talk) 07:56, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Re: 11/27 Signpost
ie: Durova and Jehochman - Not sure if you want to (or can since it has been sent already) add this into this week's Signpost, but as of yesterday Durova has (sadly) resigned as an admin due to the ongoing ArbCom thing. Take Care... NeutralHomer T:C 15:13, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

ArbCom - Ferrylodge implementation notes
I note at Requests_for_arbitration/Ferrylodge/Proposed_decision that there is a vote to close (assuming that nobody else chimes in with an "oppose") but that the implementation notes are not up to date. You seem to be the only one who has been updating it so that's why I'm contacting you. If I should have contacted someone else or just left a note on its talk page, feel free to tell me to butt out. ;) Sbowers3 (talk) 01:49, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Never mind. I see that Newyorkbrad just updated it. Sbowers3 (talk) 02:07, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
 * The Arbitration Committee Clerk assigned for that particular case (which here is David) usually drafts and updates the notes (unless an arbitrator does it), but when they are out-of-date and one of the other Clerks catches it we will pitch in for each other (especially since it was about 2:00 in the morning where David is located at the time). Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:15, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for December 3rd, 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 09:10, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Report on Lengthy Litigation
Thanks for doing these weekly reports - I'm a regular reader, and I appreciate the work that goes into them. Would it be possible for you to add one more bit of information - the number of open cases? So the opening might read like this:

''The Arbitration Committee opened one new case this week, and closed six cases. As of December 2nd, there were 24 open cases.''

The reason I ask (besides curiosity) is because there seems to be a common opinion that the Committee is backlogged (or, if you will, that the process takes a long time). It's fairly easy to tell if this is true or not (I don't know) by comparing the throughput rate to the number of cases in the pipeline - so, for example, if the number of open cases tends to be around 24, and the number of cases closed per week tends to be around 6, then on average a case stays open for four weeks. Similarly, readers can compare the number of open cases to the net number closed - so, if the italicized sentences above were true (no idea, on the second), then that would be decrease of more than 15% in the open cases.

Again, thanks for your work, and, in advance, for considering this. -- John Broughton (♫♫)  —Preceding comment was added at 16:52, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, I'll include this next week; thanks for the suggestion :-). For a while, in the paragraph on each closed case, I used to put "closed on Thursday after 2 months", or similar, but it got a bit cumbersome. David Mestel(Talk) 18:10, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Great, thanks. As for recording the elapsed time for each closed case, I can see that as being overkill. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 13:32, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks...
... for the Arb Com notice. I think. ;) deeceevoice (talk) 15:58, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Tell me. How does one go about adding a party to the ArbCom proceeding? deeceevoice (talk) 12:03, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
 * If the case is already in progress, make a motion on the Workshop page, in the "Motions and requests by the parties" section. David Mestel(Talk) 15:31, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Signpost
Hi. Just want to say that there will be a case opening just as the S/P goes to press. -- Whiteandnerdy111 (talk) 07:07, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for December 10th, 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 (talk) 07:17, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for December 17th, 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 (talk) 18:45, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Note about WT:POST
In case you missed it: Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost. Carcharoth (talk) 00:25, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for December 26th, 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 (talk) 13:05, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Davic Wilcock review
I was gladdened to read your well reasoned opinion for the overturn of this article's speedy deletion. I too find it unfortunate how such administrator actions seem to undermine the important principles of transparency and communal decision-making. And I also thought it was sad that the fact that the deleting admin did not adhere to the strict rules for such deletions produced no consequences. That sets a bad presedent. __meco (talk) 07:32, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I also think it's a bad idea for the CSD to be expanded "by stealth", as it were, rather than by direct discussion.  David Mestel(Talk) 09:49, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks
I nearly did that this morning and then got the page speedied in case I got hung drawn and quartered for it. --Zeraeph (talk) 17:54, 30 December 2007 (UTC)