User talk:Dan100/Archive/5

My large Medcab changes - an explanation

Dear Dan100: I am so sorry, I should have really explained an awful lot of things to you about the medcab page immediately when you became a regular, and also I made something of an unfair assumption of control. You see, the thing is for a long time I pretty much was the Mediation Cabal - although others listed themselves on the page, I was pretty much the only mediator, and thus consequently have behaved as the dictator of the Mediation Cabal, the oligarch, perhaps. The old version (the one you reverted to) was my rewrite of Kim Bruning's original version of the page, after Kim asked me to take over the medcab and make it work again; at the time, there was nobody else active doing mediation on that page (well, almost nobody) and thus there was nobody to discuss the changes to the page with :) I should have recognised that you had now become a regular mediator, and that you would take objection to the changes. However, now I've completed them all and you can see them finished, perhaps you might see the advantages of the improved version. The older version, whereby a "cookie cutter" template was substituted onto the page for each mediation request, was in fact a stopgap version I knocked together rather rapidly until I had the time to implement a transcluded version. In the end, Kim and I decided that transclusion probably wouldn't work very well (as can be seen from the Arbcom page) and we decided a list of links to each request, having one mediation request per page, would solve the problems encountered with the old style. Let me enumerate a few issues:

• The page became awfully, awfully long using a single page for all mediation requests. The thing is that although you raised an objection that I had made it more complex, in fact the old version was certainly more confusing; it was a real chore scrolling through the page for one solely due to its length. Some people, of course, still have slower connections to the Internet, or are using a small screen (such as a mobile telephone or palmtop) and the length that the page had got to would not really be suitable. As a consequence, it was a real headache wading through the requests.
• Irate mediation parties tended to fill the main page with tripe. In particular, this happened on the old Bogdanov Affair case - the parties wrote huge essays about their feelings on the page, running into thousands of words (seriously!) and got even more upset when they were removed, merely posting even more garbage. Now, if each case has a separate page, people can rant away without it making the page non-navigable or becoming offended when the garbage was removed.
• Chronology was impossible to maintain using the old system. As I'm sure you observed, the cases were totally out of chronology due to people posting at incorrect places on the page, and it was a real challenge working out which cases came first (especially since a few were left undated). It is much better that cases are handled "first come, first served" and that the oldest cases are dealt with, rather than left to rot. There was too much likelihood of old cases being overlooked (as they were) in the old system.
• There was no at-a-glance indicator of case status with the old system. It was not possible to see a contiguous list of the cases and their positions in the mediation cycles; the new system of sections with links to each subpage solves that problem, since one can now simply move the link to the next section. (This wouldn't have worked with the old system, since it would again have made it impossible to sort the cases by date order).
• Forest fires can now be put out simply by removing the offending subpage page from the list; vitriol and warfare from other cases won't now spill over onto the whole initiative as a whole.

Indeed, I don't feel that the new version has lead to more complexity for the user - it only involves an extra step of pasting one more subst: on the main page, which I hardly think is difficult, and indeed it may be clearer how the process works now since it can be viewed at-a-glance. There should, in theory, be no more cases of people writing over each other's mediation requests, and also it should require less work maintaining the page. I most appreciate your comments on the above. If it really is intolerable, then I will change it back. However, I invite you to go over the page now I have changed it, and decide whether or not it really is worse or better. (It may have looked much worse before it was finished; I have migrated all of the cases over onto their own subpages). All the best, --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 00:23, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Please justify your GWS and DU edits

Dear Dan100: Do you have any sources at all to justify your rather drastic edits on Gulf War syndrome and Depleted Uranium? I've been trying to be as careful as possible. If you look closely you will see that all of my work has been justified with direct reference to the peer-reviewed medical and scientific literature. May I ask the same of you, please? Nrcprm2026 04:27, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Already stated on talk pages prior to changes. Dan100 (Talk) 10:03, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Where, exactly? Nrcprm2026 11:04, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Pardon me, but you have apparently reverted Gulf War syndrome again "as per talk" when you have in fact not touched the Talk:Gulf War syndrome page or this section of your talk page in three days. Do you intend to answer any questions about whether you are able to find any sources, let alone peer-reviewed sources from the medical and scientific literature such as I have been providing to justify all of my sustantial edits, or do you intend to contine claiming that you are acting "as per talk" while avoiding the questions posed to you in talk? Is this the behavior of an ethical editor, or is it more similar to the acts of someone who has some ulterior motive? Do you mind explaining your interest(s) in the topic? Nrcprm2026 19:01, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

I withdraw my questions. I can see from your Depleted uranium edits that you are apparently just objecting to the loss of information. However, you too need to be careful about that when reverting. I hope you like my merge there, and I hope in the future you will consider similar merges instead of reversion. James P. S. 22:25, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Ianbrown's RfA

Thanks for voting in my recent RfA. I was overwhelmed at the turnout and comments received.

Ian ≡ talk 07:45, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

RFM

Hello Dan100! People don't seem to be voting on your MC nomination too much as we'd like more to judge you on. The MC is also flooded with cases, and this should also confirm if you really want to do mediation: so go to WP:RFM and pick a case and notify the parties and put it under the appropriate heading. Also update Template:MedComOpenTasks with your case, adding that you're a deputy mediator. Feel free to ask me or one of the others listed at Template:Medcom for help. Cheers, Redwolf24 (talk) 10:01, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Pending means I've assigned the specific case to a mediator, but the mediator hasn't responded. Now I'm off to sleep, cheers! Redwolf24 (talk) 10:38, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

System of a Down

Dan100, you keep adding the Tentative info under Music Videos, and people keep deleting it. Instead of getting into revert wars with these people, why don't you cite a reference or address it on the Discussion page. I personally haven't heard anything about a 'Tentative' video, and obviously neither have others. I'm sure you have something to base your information off of, so please make a reference in order to save us countless reversions. Avengerx 16:12, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

I thought it was vandalism... is it not? Dan100 (Talk) 19:14, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

The problem is editors not using the edit summary - without explanation, removing material from articles looks like simple vandalism! Dan100 (Talk) 19:20, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree, no one uses the edit summary and it leads to confusion. I've removed the questionable music video additions, and we'll see if anyone can provide any legit information. Thanks for working with me. Avengerx 20:24, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Fabian Basabe

Please don't revert the slander in the Fabian Basabe back again. Fabian Basabe contacted the Help Desk mailing list and asked for the POV content to be removed, which User:Jareth did, and the offending editor posted it back again. I have deleted it twice now, and you came along and reverted. Zoe (216.234.130.130 21:06, 19 December 2005 (UTC))

Please STOP! and revert your reversion. Zoe (216.234.130.130 21:07, 19 December 2005 (UTC))

Dan? Hello? Zoe (216.234.130.130 21:09, 19 December 2005 (UTC))

Hold on, replying to other people first!

You're using edit summaries, which is good, but make them meaningfull! Anyone could blank anything with the words "removing slander" or the like. You need to point to where the slander has been explained, even if it's just something like "see talk"! Dan100 (Talk) 21:11, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

So you just revert without reading what you're reverting? The accusations of lies and covering up his homosexuality are more acceptable edits than my reversions of them? If I were logged in, you wouldn't be doing this, but because I'm editing as an anon my edits get no consideration from you, huh? Notice that I was not the first person to revert these accusations, they are being reverted every day by two or three different editors. Read what you are reverting before you revert them. Zoe (216.234.130.130 21:14, 19 December 2005 (UTC))

but because I'm editing as an anon my edits get no consideration from you, huh? - spot on. IPs make edits like this all the time trying to cover up all manner of ills, but editors (especially ones I know, like you) tend to be a bit more trustworthy. Dan100 (Talk) 21:17, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

that's a terrible attitude -- just revert without reading. Are you going to revert your reversion, or not? Zoe (216.234.130.130 21:19, 19 December 2005 (UTC))

Hi Zoe and Dan100, may I suggest that we move the disputed section into its own section and/or tag the article as dispute? In addition, why don't you two (plus other parties) discuss it in the talk's page? --Hurricane111 21:25, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Everyone slow down!!

OK, Zoe you need to explain yourself when blanking articles, and a two-word edit summary is not enough. Use the talk page. Hurricane, I don't dispute the article's content, I was only reverting apparent vandalism. Dan100 (Talk) 21:27, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

I was on my way. :-D

Hi, about the article, Access Virus, I couldn't find anything so I was just on my way to revert the deletion I made. Sorry if what I did was wrong, If I just suspect a copy vio, I delete, then do a lengthy search If I can not find anything I revert back. So again sorry if that is the wrong way to handle copy vio's or suspected ones. And thanks for reverting, in this case I was wrong. KnowledgeOfSelf | talk 21:07, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Personally I just leave stuff in while I check it out... it being there for a few minutes does no harm.

I reckon it's a copyvio from a book, but without evidence, not much we can do. And who knows, maybe the anon did write it himself! Dan100 (Talk) 21:10, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Fabian Basabe

I was wondering why you were reverting the article to a version with some rather POV statements? I know that the article lists several sources like the Tribune and the Post, but it doesn't link to any article verifying that to be true (the links are to the Wiki articles on the Tribune and Post) -- the only external links provided look like glorified tabloids. Could be wrong, but I don't know if we should allow the text to remain there unless its properly sourced. Thanks. .:.Jareth.:. ^babelfish 21:18, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Because no-one was explaining why they were removing material, which on the face of it is simple vandalism!

Edit summaries, people, use edit summaries! (And make them meaningful) Dan100 (Talk) 21:20, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Odd, I see "rv slander" as an edit summary, which while short is pretty much to the point of the current problem. .:.Jareth.:. ^babelfish 21:23, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

IPs write that sort of edit summary all the time with no evidence for their claims - it's impossible to view that as anything other than simple vandalism. A proper explanation on the talk page and an edit summary of "see talk" was all that was needed. Dan100 (Talk) 21:25, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree, it was a bit too short for that sort of wholesale deletion of content -- I mentioned this to the anon (who has an account, but can't access it from work). Thanks for reverting :) .:.Jareth.:. ^babelfish 21:28, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for reverting your change, Dan. Zoe (216.234.130.130 23:06, 19 December 2005 (UTC))

Template:Afd

Please don't mangle the AfD template so much. The "cluttered formatting" includes the code for the [show]/[hide] box; this is comonly use by editors to see some shortcuts they can use to aid in their AfD work. Jamie ^{(talk/contribs)} 12:09, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Mangle?? Perhaps you should add a note to the template explaining that. Dan100 (Talk) 12:14, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Another editor already reverted your changes to the javascript code. I don't think anyone has problems with your other changes. There's discussion of the javascript on the template talk page; perhaps it should be made more clear. Jamie ^{(talk/contribs)} 12:17, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, that CSS/JavaScript code is really fragile. Even the "*" you added made it not work... :( I made a note on the talk page. I hope I've not come across as rude; I've thought about tweaking that template too, but (as well as {{AfD doc}} which it transcludes) but it's far too easy to break ("mangle" :) ) it inadvertently. Jamie ^{(talk/contribs)} 13:28, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Template:Afd

Greetings:

I noticed that, in your recent changes to Template:Afd, you removed the javascript functionality that provided a reasonably quick and painless AFD nomination process. I don't know if this was what you intended; I certainly haven't the foggiest clue which bits of the template add the javascript functionality, except in a broad sense, so I can certainly understand how one could make make what appears to be an innocent change only to discover later that the change was more profound than had been anticipated. I also know that it is quite common for editors and admins to surf Wikipedia without javascript enabled; when the template was recently changed to shift the maintenance text into the javascript block, several editors and admins complained about it on the talk page because they had javascript turned off and didn't see the link to the maintenance text.

All of which is to say that I suspect your removal of the javascript functionality was inadvertent. As the discussion on the Template's talk page indicates that the maintenance text (whether included inline or via javascript) is considered extremely useful by those who do a lot of RC Patrol, I have restored the bits that seem to provide the javascript functionality while keeping your other changes (the link to the deletion templates and the linkification of "Articles for Deletion") intact.

All the best.
→ Ξxtreme Unction|_{yakkity yak} 12:17, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Mediation stuff

Thanks for taking it on. Where to start...where to start...

• First off, edit warring. I've had to report him to 3RR twice due to the edits within ([1] [2]), and his response (second point) was to make false 3RR reports against me ([3] [4]), both of which I challenged, one of which was overturned and the other in a separate mediation as we speak on the mailing list. The edits constitute the same thing each time: massive adding of POV material, some sourced, some not. The diffs are as follows for an example on 4 different articles in the last week, and this doesn't constitute everything. It's important to note, as well, that his changes have only been kept via consensus in a few of the articles if you look at his contributions:
  • At Republican Party_(United States): [5], [6] reverted completely later on (many editors work on this article)
  • Debbie Schlussel, came in and expanded the controversy to the point where it was twice as long as the rest of the article ([7]). After being trimmed down by myself ([8]), got into an edit war where he was later blocked for 3RR for continuing to buck the inline link trend in the rest of the article that had been worked on prior ([9]). The addition of the names of the links are POV in themselves with questionable notability, and an attempt to keep the articles as notes within the section was constantly bucked with misleading edit summaries ([10], [11]. Current version is not consensus version, but I'm trying to wait until this gets resolved to work on this area further. Discussion at the talk page [12] has been fruitless, with hostility ("It is really sad that you have to file a false 3RR claim") and flat-out incorrect statements ("Debbie Schlussel herself is a non-notable name with a clear POV.").
  • The crown jewel, Morgan Spurlock. It all started with his somewhat bizarre edit about a site being a "Self-proclaimed anti-Spurlock site." [13] I reverted, as a search on the article said nothing of the sort, and addressed it at talk hwen he protested [14]. This was his second incorrect statement in talk, his first backing up the false charge of vandalism earlier. [15]. Then the warring began, as a massive POV section was created [16], with incorrect information still intact. He did this twice, reverted as such. In an attempt to see if he might want to try to reach middle ground, I attempted a new approach [17], which caused him to make more POV edits against otherwise established consensus [18]. Still trying to make this work, I attempt to work with what he offered [19] and he would have none of that [20]. After moving back to a NPOV version, I reported him to 3RR, he was blocked, and he reported me in response, which is something I'm challenging. An attempt at talk was made, [21], but I was told that most of my edits were vandalism. The page was protected at this point, which prompted him to want to create a POV fork [22], and going into a violation of a number of WP rules and guidelines (WP:POINT, WP:AGF, WP:NPOV, WP:NPA) against me and a third user who decided to jump in.

I won't pretend that I'm totally innocent in this field. I certianly got a bit cavalier in the face of what I feel are obvious, often unecyclopedic/irrelevant POV edits, but it's apparent that working toward reason and trying to form a consensus through talk and/or editing is not working. In the two articles with few editors, the articles become worse with his additions. In many of the other articles he's contributed to, most notably the Republican Party, his edits were quickly snuffed out due to a large contributing userbase that wasn't willing to see consensus bucked.

Not sure where to go from that point on. I'm glad you're willing to help with this, I look forward to seeing this out. --badlydrawnjeff 15:03, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

I could also make a long list of this user being abusive and petty but I'll be brief.

• This user forces his own POV while claiming to enforce NPOV.
• He has been Wiki Stalking and following me around an making changes on my articles to provoke me like his changes on the Dave Reichert article.
• He has behaved immaturely, petulant, obsessive and abusive.
• Enforces his own views by editing others contributions down to nothing.
• Makes hasty mean spirited 3RR claims as a way to get his way.
• Can't take his own medicine.
• Exactly what the Wikipedia does not need.

--8bitJake 17:29, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

I fully admit to checking his recent contributions to make sure he wasn't messing with any other articles. Dave Reichert is one I actively edited, Michael Moore is another, although it has been on my watchlist. A look at his recent contributions would note a number of articles he has edited that I have not touched, however. As for the rest of his accusations, well, that's why we're doing it this way. --badlydrawnjeff 17:59, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

I would like to note that this user has just admitted to Wiki Stalking me. The last time I checked he was not an admin and he crossed a line when he did that. I wish he would leave me alone. Honestly if I never run into this user again I would be quite happy. --8bitJake 18:06, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

I will also note how clear the section is on the matter: "editing the same articles as the target, with the intent of causing annoyance or distress to another contributor." I'd much rather not run into you again at this stage, either, but, in my opinion, a positive encyclopedia is more important. My intent had nothing to do with disrupting you - trust me, you've made other edits elsewhere that I feel are extremely poor and let go for various reasons - but in fixing what I feel are disruptive edits on your part given your record in the Spurlock, and to a point the Shlussel, article. I suggest reading the actual information regarding wiki-stalking, as you should have on a number of other accusations you've laid upon me, before making such statements. Contribution logs are public for a reason, after all.--badlydrawnjeff 18:16, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

I think it is clear that this user has been obsessing over me. That is why his attacks on my defense in this mediation is much longer than my actual defense and he seems to be hitting the refresh list constantly to see if I made any contributions. It is not appropriate for him to act as a constant censor biased against me. That can't be healthy. --8bitJake 18:22, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

I have nothing extra to note concerning my tendency to be long-winded. Other than that, I await further information from Dan. --badlydrawnjeff 18:31, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the help

Thanks for the help. Hopefully it'll work itself out, we'll see. --badlydrawnjeff 19:10, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

MedCab

Sure, thanks for letting me know. I am very disgusted and disapppointed with most policies/guidelines lately, they just seem to be making more disputes rather than less. karmafist 16:11, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Natasha Demkina

Hi Dan, Let me think about this and give you an answer later today. I'm not optimistic about the effectiveness of the Wiki way of settling disputes between those who say 2+2=4 and those that insist that the sum must equal 5 because they say so. Splitting the difference and calling it 4.5 is not my idea of good scholarship. (I'm still shaking my head in disbelief over the persistence of one Wiki "statistician" who is still insisting that scientists cannot use a lower P value than 0.05 for the level of statistical significance -- despite my pointing out to him that the Wiki entry for statistical significance -- which he cited in support of his opinion -- says that researchers can. My experience here has certainly been enlightening. Not pleasant, but enlightening. Let me consider. Andrew ~~

Hi Dan, before I can decide whether to participate in mediation, I need to know what it would involve. If it is mediation to determine the most truthful and accurate article, then yes. If it is mediation to reach a compromise between truth and falsehood, than no. Best, Andrew Askolnick 17:16, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

When you ask if I'm interested in mediation, what involvement are you asking of me? I don't think making a rewrite as a neutral party compels me to be a party needing mediation. Any issues regarding that I've resolved that by agreeing not to edit the article anymore, so there's no DR need there. If you're asking me to take some other role, I think I would have to recuse due to involvement. - Keith D. Tyler ¶ 23:49, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

WP:TINMC

Thanks for working on the medcab. I have removed my name from the list of active mediators. Demi ^T/_C 19:27, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

BR1AN vandal

Dan, please refer to the email I sent you regarding this account. Is is a returning vandal through and through. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 08:27, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Please stop blanking talk pages

I've noticed that you have a tendency to blank discussion pages of anonymous IPs when you leave warning messages. Would you mind not doing that any more? Talk pages can be very helpful in evaluating a vandals history and past warnings or discussions. If you are concerned that a specific page is too long, please move and archive the discussions rather than clearing it. Besides that, it always seems a little strange to have an anonymous talk page pop up on my watchlist when it looks as if you're the only editor involved in the conversation.  ;-) Thank you and happy holidays, Hall Monitor 21:42, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

The past history of IPs is useless - we have no way to tell who has been behind the address, and therefore nothing int he history can be relevant. Archiving is a waste of time - you're welcome to do it, but I won't.

Further, leaving a great long list of warnings show how ineffective we are with dealing with vandalism, and it feeds their troll-like behaviour (it's evidence of getting a reaction from us, which is what they crave).

Finally, it often makes finding the latest warnings hard.

So to sum, no, I won't stop blanking talk pages! Dan100 (Talk) 10:01, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

That is not necessarily true Dan, it depends on the ISP. I would like to second Hall Monitor in his request that you not blank discussion pages. The least you could do is archive it, that doesn't seem like an unreasonable thing to ask. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 12:18, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

You are incorrect, the past history is NOT useless, and I would greatly appreciate it if in the future you not overwrite comments made by other administrators. If you feel it is difficult to locate the latest warnings, you can help by placing them in order, with the most recent at the bottom of the page, as most others do. Thank you, Hall Monitor 19:05, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Well we're going to have to disagree, and I will continue to blank IP talk pages (you can always look in the history). Feel free to rv me if you feel it is necessary. Dan100 (Talk) 19:08, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

One-revert rule

Hi Dan. I think you might have misunderstood the redirection of the one-revert rule to WP:ROWN. The intent was not to get rid of the rule or prevent people from referring to it. The intent is centralize the various "rules" regarding reversion in one place. WP:ROWN is essentially a superset of the various rules that seek to limit or avoid reverts. With redirects, any reference to the one-revert rule (such as 1RR) will lead them to WP:ROWN, which has information on the one-revert rules as well as other guidelines for avoiding reverts. If possible could you take a look at the one-revert rule section at WP:ROWN and add whatever information you believe should be included here? Right now it has the essentials, but I'm sure it could be bulked up. Thanks! Carbonite | Talk 12:58, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Semi protection template

I reverted the changes you made, because what we had there was what was agreed to by a 103-4 vote. If you want changes made, let's discuss it at Template:Sprotected, ok? "This is going to be on alot of pages". Maybe, maybe not. I don't think we know yet. I just don't like making changes before it's fully bugfree and implemented. Anyway, let's discuss it. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 15:54, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

a) That vote was on the policy, not the template (of course)

b) I did not change the wording, only the design

I therefore don't see your edit as valid. Dan100 (Talk) 16:10, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Clarifying before I revert the article on Bobov

Hi Dan, You were right to revert the article on Bobov because 205.188.116.6 vandalized the page. But user Bobover1 changed the article from a NPOV to a one sided opinion.

Therefore I'm reverting it back to the last NPOV. I'm on top of it; on all articles regarding Bobov; to stop this nonesense.

See my other comments & explanations that I left on the edit summaries & talk pages on all articles regarding Bobov. Issac 22:14, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Where I've been...

Dan,

Thanks for the concern. :) I don't have a job that really allows me to do much stuff on the internet when I'm working -- in fact, it really occupies almost all of my free time. So I'm only able to come on Wikipedia very much when I'm on hiatus from work. :)

kmccoy (talk) 23:20, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

RFA

Sorry, it must have been some bug in the wiki software. I took a look at the user's contributions 12 hours ago and they appeared be less than 500. Withdrawing oppose. -- Natalinasmpf 17:46, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Your note on User talk:RachelBrown#Come back!

Hi. I noticed that you wrote to Rachel Brown's page asking for her to come back. I thought that I should point out to you that she left permanently, and will likely never return, especially given that 4 other accounts were banned indefinitely after a (ridiculous) claim that they were sock puppets of Rachel Brown's. If you want to see details of what happened, I have compiled a page here: User:Zordrac/Poetlister. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 20:18, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

I noticed your unban. Thanks. I have let Poetlister know. I have never communicated with any of the others, but I am sure that they will figure it out soon enough. I hope that this can work towards resolving this, and the whopping great "Lists of Jews" dispute that started the whole mess. In my opinion, all of the articles should be nominated for deletion and perhaps just put in to categories instead, so as to get around this dispute. Why have lists over such controversial topics? And people setting up their own versions of who is a jew doesn't help either. Anyway, thanks. I am sure it'll make a great christmas present for everyone. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 20:51, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Please?

Could you please take a look at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR#User:Themindset and see what you think? No one has replied so far and I am worried that this may be turned a blind eye too despite the lying and fudging of facts (specifically, "I only made two reverts", when in fact the user made doubt that) Wikipedia Admins.

It's saddening that things like this seem go un-noticed until brought up on Wikipedia. I know you have been getting some bad news in the press lately but the system itself on the surface looks like it works well. I'm surprised no one noticed this one though (Or decided to make a special exception to the rules?) --85.12.17.26 21:00, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Please note that User:Mistress Selina Kyle just got banned for breaking 3RR. This seems to be him/her operating from their IP in a retaliatory attempt to block me. I only made 3 reverts, the other one was an unrelated image edit. This "user" is pretending to be an outsider, but one would have to ask why would an outsider take such a particular interest, and immediately after User:Mistress Selina Kyle was given a 24 hour block? Themindset 21:14, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

• • I wish to remain anonymous. There is no reason why I should tell you who I am for you to hold a grudge against, and your only motivation so far is obviously just trying to unjustly avoid a block. 85.12.17.26 21:21, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

That's enough, kids. I've a tonne of info to plough through here, and I'll get to you shortly, but for now please have your argument elsewhere! Dan100 (Talk) 21:26, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

BTW it's unlikely that the IP is Miss Selina - if it were, they'd have been caught by the autoblocker which exists to prevent just that. Dan100 (Talk) 21:34, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

• • • Hi. Just came back to see if you'd written back. Anyway, noting the fact that the IP address above 85.12.17.26 (talk · contribs) has no prior edits, and the first edit was the Administrator's noticeboard, its safe to assume that they have a logged in account somewhere. Secondly, given that Mistress Selina Kyle was just banned for 3RR, it seems logical that she is probably the person who would most want to do this - for revenge if you like. However, given that the autoblocker should have blocked her if she used another IP, that seems to suggest that its not her. However, the editing is similar in style to that which Selina used. But on the other hand, regardless of whether it really is her, the 3RR violation should be investigated independently. There is nothing wrong with a banned user reporting another user for a 3RR violation. But if that is a sock puppet of Mistress Selina Kyle, then she's very silly, because her ban will just be extended. So I'll just say to the user - if you're Selina, please don't make any more edits. I sent you an e-mail so can you write me back? And if it is Selina, her ban of course should be extended. But that doesn't mean that the 3RR request against Themindset shouldn't be investigated. Also note that, just moments after Selina Kyle was banned, I wrote on her talk page stating your name. Thus I think its pretty likely that they are the same user. Just my 2 cents here. P.S. Sorry Selina. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 22:35, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Definitely WP:3RR

Hi sorry to bother you what with the message above, but I just replied to your message at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/3RR#User:Themindset, I would be very grateful if you could go read

As well as the other three reverts, his first edit listed there was in fact a revert, one of a long line or reverts by him and an anonymous editor over whether to keep the picture. 85.12.17.26 22:06, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Why, thank you for the Barnstar!

I really appreciate the barnstar you gave me, for my changes to the {{copyvio}} template. When I came up with them, I also felt they were remarkably elegant, and it's really nice to get apprecation for them. Thanks! JesseW, the juggling janitor 07:21, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Reverts

Okay Dan, I'll explain my reverts immediately, but could you also please explain your additions/deletions, then we'll both save a lot of time? Joe Mabel may yet want to make changes, because he feels the current wording is a bit harsh (the bit about any unsourced edit being removable), and although I don't agree with him, I see his point and won't revert him, though if you do, I also won't revert you. Despite our disagreements, I hope you accept that I'm editing in good faith, and being fussy only because I've been up against a thousand POV pushers and their various attempts to squeeze through loopholes. It's WP:FUSSY, not WP:OWN. ;-) I sent you two emails by the way. I hope you got them.

All the best to you, Dan, for Christmas/Hanukkah. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 10:15, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Of course I know you're acting in good faith! I still have high regard for you, in particular for standing up to PoV pushers (I just can't do that), and that won't change. I honestly thought I had explained my text move, but on checking all I'd said was a short edit summary at WP:CITE. That was a mistake, which I readily admit to making. Have a lovely Christmas, Dan100 (Talk) 17:12, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Bot running again

Hi, I've got the bot up and running again, I've put it in a loop so if it shuts down it will wait 10 minutes and then start again. I've also reduced its line rate to waiting 0.4 seconds between each line (was 0.3 seconds) so hopefully it won't get booted for flooding so easily. After Christmas I'll find out more about getting the flood protection turned off by freenode (needs Wikipedia to tell them it's a legit bot apparently). When it does restart it will be quiet, so you'll need to tell it to speak again. Currently this can only be done from #wikipedia-en-vandalism... Have a happy Christmas --pgk^(talk) 14:33, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

The evidence on RachelBrown et al.

There is, in my opinion, solid evidence to support the allegations of sockpuppetry, based on CheckUser evidence. However, that evidence is private and cannot be published without breaching the policy we have on CheckUser data. The fact remains that for you to state that there is no evidence fails to assume good faith on your part. I think you are treading on treacherous ground here. Kelly Martin (talk) 15:44, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

From what I can tell, one of the accounts is a sock (Newport) but the rest are genuine editors who happen to know each other in real life. From I've learned of the Checkuser results, several of these accounts once edited from the same computer. For people who live near each other and are friends, I don't think it's unexpected for them share a computer at some stage.

Further, all the accounts (apart from Newport) have very different edit histories and areas of expertise, and have been making good edits. Quite apart from anything else, Wikipedia the encyclopedia will suffer without those editors.

Finally, the blocking policy only allows for the blocking of socks when they are being used to violate policy. As far as I can see, that's not happened. None of the other accounts have been used for anything else that could justify a ban.

Have a happy and peaceful Christmas, Dan100 (Talk) 16:53, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

It's not "once edited from the same computer"; there is an ongoing pattern of edits by multiple accounts from the same group of computers (both work and home). I think it is unreasonable to say that there is "no evidence" as there clearly is evidence. Your argument should not be that there is no evidence, but that you think that there is countervailing evidence based on edit content (which I did not review, since I was merely asked to review the CheckUser evidence). Kelly Martin (talk) 17:25, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree that there is some evidence of sock puppetry, that IPs have been shared, and that one of the accounts can certainly be viewed as a sock puppet (Newport). Dan100 (Talk) 17:31, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

sighs

It sounds like someone's been accusing me of something. I just wish that people would stop being hostile and work to try to get along. It is frustrating sometimes that no matter how much I work to try to prove to someone that I am not against them and am not trying to fight with them, some people still insist that I am against them, and therefore think that harassing me or stalking me or going to great lengths to attack me is reasonable. Apparently I am being threatened with being banned because I tried to help a newbie in trouble and tried to right a wrong. And also being threatened with being banned because I have 2 people stalking me. So if the powers that be deem that I am required to allow people to harass me and stalk me and that I am forbidden from helping anyone out, then fine, they can ban me. I don't come here to deal with nonsense. Nobody should ever have to put up with treatment like that. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 17:38, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

I know what you mean. Months ago (long before I was an admin) a then-member of the arbcom made some very uncalled-for comments about me, and I proceeded to tell everyone I could find and demand "punishment". I was soon told that that's not how things really work. Admins aren't police officers, and it's amazing what kind of nastiness people can get away with. But know this - when they do that, they lose the respect of everyone else, and people are much less likely to listen to them or ever support them. Further, severe misbehaviour and harrasment can lead to an RfC against a user, and then an arbcom case if necessary.

The key though is to take the moral high ground. Never threaten (vieled or otherwise), always be extremely civil, overlook personal attacks, never use aggresive or confrontational language etc. Do that and you'll gain respect, and if RfCs or more are ever needed, people will be on your "side". Dan100 (Talk) 17:51, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!!

MERRY CHRISTMAS, Dan100/Archive/5! A well deserved pressy!--Santa on Sleigh 22:33, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Steward votes

Your votes were done anonymously according to [23]. Could you fix them by logging in to meta, then confirming your votes ? Thanks in advance Anthere 09:15, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks Ant! Dan100 (Talk) 16:56, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Adminship nomination

OK, then... :-) Nixdorf 15:50, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

I fixed your Nixdorf RFA

Somehow, you managed to list it within InShaneee's RFA page. I'm not sure how you managed that, but I fixed it. —Matthew Brown (T:C) 10:54, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, I'm not sure either :-) Dan100 (Talk) 11:36, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Adminship

Hi, thanks for supporting my request for adminship. If there's ever something I can help you out with please drop me a note. Happy holidays! Jacoplane 16:31, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Semi Protection ?

I'm a newish admin and I wanted to ask you about the {{sprotect}} tag I've been seeing on a number of articles in recent days (Such as the article Nigger). I always thought protecting a page was supposed to be done only occasionally but this type of protecting now seems to be almost trendy. Has the threshhold for doing this limited protection been lowered? Is the consensus that we can semiprotect a page if it merely is a target for frequent vandalism? Thanks for passing on any info on this. Best,--Alabamaboy 00:55, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Opinion is very split over this, just see here and here! Some articles - GWB is a well known one, Nigger less so - just get constant IP vandalism all the time, so I'd prefer to see Semi-protection being near permanent for those pages. Personally, I put it on articles when I think they need it, and then leave it. There are admins who regularly check protected pages so I leave it to them to judge when to unprotect. Dan100 (Talk) 09:42, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the info. I'm considering doing a semi protect to the William Shakespeare article, which gets hit by a regular stream of vandalism.--Alabamaboy 14:28, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

thanks to you, my phone number is a stalker's username revising the Biff Rose page

Dear Dan100,

I'm sure you unprotected the Biff Rose page in good faith, but I wish you had communicated with the admin who protected it, first. (I'm only assuming you didn't.) We have had a spate of extremely antisocial behavior from unregistered users on that page. A user on that page has been calling my home phone number as well, in the middle of the night.

After you unprotected it, on 00:48, 27 December 2005, someone posted a revision on the Biff Rose page...using a new username consisting of MY home phone number. This is serious. This is blatant stalker behavior and an invasion of my privacy. It is probably illegal as well.

Please reconsider your unprotection. Thank you. --Sojambi Pinola 07:55, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Sorry about that. I've deleted the number. Dan100 (Talk) 09:35, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

I wish I'd picked a friendlier title for this section. I was a bit panicked. Anyway, thank you for your swift deletion of the number and reversal of action. I appreciate it. --Sojambi Pinola 01:03, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Why, thanks...

Ahhh, so you're the IP who mediated on the anal sex drawing case! Nice work Dan100 (Talk) 15:30, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Ta. Rob Church ^Talk 16:23, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for the barnstar, and I'm now back from leave

Dear Dan100: Thank you so much for the barnstar; it is greatly appreciated, and I am honoured that my actions on the medcab page did indeed assist you. :) By the way, I went AWOL since I was away at my grandparents 23-26 Dec for Christmas (real life, 'ya know, isn't it such an inconvenience... :-D ) and I have returned once more to do battle down at the Medcab. I do hope you don't consider it impudent of me to re-add myself under Coordinators. Thank you for all of your hard work down at the Medcab; undoubtedly, had you not joined our merry throng, we would still have a one-man Cabal (i.e. myself!) rather than the emerging star we have today. All the best, --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 16:50, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Mediation on Abdullah II of Jordan external links

Dan, please continue to mediate. I have reason to believe that the anon user has since registered as User:3833. I and others have reverted the page numerous times only to have the link re-added amid accusations of censorship. Thanks for your help. - Cybjorg 18:48, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Hello Dan, I would like to know how we are progressing here. I read where Dominic will continue to remove all links to www.truthroom.com on all articles irregardless of what happens here. Since this is his position I wonder if I should go directly to arbitration so as to settle this dispute once and for all. Thank you for your time. Whatif

Biff Rose

Thanks for your help with the Biff Rose situation. There are so many socks in play that it's confusing. -Willmcw 18:57, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Mediation for JT LeRoy

Hi Dan100. Thanks for coming around. :) I think that, through the power of positive collaboration, the community here has reached a consensus on the controversy at hand. Thanks for checking in with us! --Animated Cascade ^talk 20:38, 27 December 2005 (UTC) (CC'ed to Talk:JT LeRoy)

Hello Dan and Animaed Cascade, I, too, am very happy that our negotiations and collaboration produced such a posiitive result. However, we now have a new editor to the page who is making changes with no regard to comments and discussion on the talk page. The new edits are not neutral. The editor admits to not even having read the author. This is of concern to me. I do not want this to devolve into a tit-for-tat revert fest and am unsure of how to address it. I also fear that this will be the case in the future--there is a past precedence for malicious edits on this page. If folks do not respect neutrality in the article, what is the recommended procedure? Grilledcheese 13:08, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Aloha Dan! I wanted to thank you belatedly for intervening in and offering to keep an eye on the dispute re the JT LeRoy article -- The Cabal is on the job :-) . After noting back in October that I know Mr LeRoy personally, I became subject to various attacks, the most harmless accusation being that I was a sock puppet of Ms Albert. (In another arena, despite my best joint efforts to achieve compromise with JereKrischel whose views on Hawaiian sovereignty and history are mostly the opposite of mine, I was attacked by Zora as trying to push an agenda re that topic.) Accordingly I thought it best simply to recuse myself from Wikipedia entirely for awhile. Despite all WP's good-conduct policies, some editors approach their chosen subjects with unusual personal venom -- your mediation helps restore my faith that such things can be contained, and I hope to be returning soon. IslandGyrl 01:58, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

WP:AN/I

Whoops! Sorry about that, when you're doing as many things at once as I am, it's easy to lose track there. Speaking of which, i'm heading over to AN/I right now. karmafist 08:55, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Poetlister

G'day Dan!

Another case (was thomas jefferson....) was solved on Cabal Mediation. All the best! -- Bonaparte talk 12:35, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

By the way, is Poetlister unblocked or not? I would like that she would be unblocked. -- Bonaparte talk 13:26, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Poetlister isn't unblocked, and probably won't be - it was indeed a "sock puppet", and was used to vote several times on the same AfD, which is bannable offence under the Wikipedia:Blocking policy :-(. Dan100 (Talk) 19:01, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Hello Dan, thanks for everything. You know I do like very much to mediate. By the way I wish you succes here [[24]] :). -- Bonaparte talk 19:05, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Reading fans

Unfortunately, the ones that spend lots of their time on Brighton & Hove Albion F.C. message boards (for no good reason, may I add), are. Then again, I'd say the same can probably be reciprocated about Brighton fans who hang around the Crystal Palace BBS. --Kiand 21:21, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Mediation for Stuyvesant High School

I have updated the mediation request with the new information. Thanks. --BenjaminTsai ^Talk 01:12, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Hi Dan, if you could take a look at the Stuyvesant mediation case it would be rather helpful. The anonymous user is not being reasonable. --BenjaminTsai ^Talk 20:03, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Assistance with the Stuyvesant High School editorial "dispute" would be greatly appreciated. --BenjaminTsai ^Talk 16:36, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

User:Ed Poor

Just thought you might like to know I couldn't stand by and watch Ed be railroaded. I've nominated him for adminship again.Gateman1997 04:24, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

My RfA

Hi Dan100, now that I'm an administrator, I just wanted to thank you for your support on my RfA. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 02:35, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Market Reforms of the Modern Communist

Contrary to communist theory proposed by Marx and Engles and later adapted by Lenin, Stalin, Mao the People's Republic of China; the largest country whose ruling party refers to itself as communist, runs Special Economic Zones dedicated to capitalist enterprise, free from central government control. After opening up trade to the world under Deng Xiaoping, the People's Republic of China runs some of the most economically free regions in the world, including Hong Kong, which is regarded by the Hoover Institute and the Wall Street Journal as the world's freest economy [25].

These Special Economic Zones have few restrictions upon businesses, industries, imports and exports, including the elimination of duties, and a free price system. Since the opening of the Free Trade Zones China has maintained a growth rate of over 8%, and originally saw growth rates around 12%. These Special Economic Zones are different than the State Capitalism, as practiced in the Soviet Union, because the SEZs allow for capitalists to build and expand their industries and private property, free from the control of the central government. SEZ's operate under market economy rather than the state capitalist top down command economy approach.

According to China.org "After opening Shenzhen and other three coastal cities in South China as special economic regions and then dozens of economic and technological development zones in the 1980s, the country introduced free trade zones in the early 1990s in 15 coast cities, including Shanghai, Guangzhou, Shenzhen and Tianjin." [26]

Several other self proclaimed communist countries have also made pro market reforms in the last few decades including Vietnam.

---

what do you propose?

The only thing that needs to be done is add alittle more info on other market reforms and find the appropriate place within the communist article...which really means cleaning up the headings and reorgnizing them...which i will do as soon as the communist editors delete my section with no discussion for the 35th time. (Gibby 06:00, 31 December 2005 (UTC))

It doesn't fit the context. See Wikipedia:Summary. It might find a place in more specialised articles, specifically Economy of the People's Republic of China. But surprise, surprise, it already contains this info, and more, except without the observation of "contrary". -- Natalinasmpf 06:14, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Deletions

When you delete a page, please make sure to delete the associated talk pages (Template talk:Mosblock & Template talk:Styles4). -- Netoholic @ 17:01, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Templates

User:Jtdirl just undeleted all of the templates you removed as a violation of policy. Since he was the creator of these same templates, doesn't this violate Wikipedia procedure? Firebug 22:51, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

thanks

Greetings Dan100, I wish to offer my gratitude for supporting me on my recent nomination for adminship, which passed with the final tally of 65/4/3. If you would ever desire my assistance in anything, or wish to give me feedback on any actions I take, feel free to let me know. Cheers! Elle vécut heureusement toujours dorénavant (Be eudaimonic!) 08:01, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

user:allabout2006 (Alkyl nitrites)

hi,

allabout2006 and his ips are back to destroying the alkyl nitrites article, and i was wondering if you could help keep an eye on it as you were doing a few weeks ago. thanks --Heah ^talk 15:52, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

joke templates at Template:TestTemplates

What's going on at with the "joke" templates? Unless you want to use the somewhat-smarmy

As they say in the movies, "oh be-have". Seriously, though, we are trying to write an encyclopedia here, so don't make joke edits. Some readers looking for a serious article might not find them amusing. Remember, millions of people read Wikipedia, so we have to take what we do a bit seriously here. If you'd like to experiment with editing, try the sandbox, where you can write whatever you want (as long as it's not offensive).

, as it now stands Level 1 (use sandbox), Level 2 (Could be seen as vandalism), and Level 3 (Warning) are all the message. Doesn't seem to make sense to give the same message two or three times. You mind if I have a go at it? Herostratus 05:09, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Can I be in your place head mediator? Bonaparte talk 15:28, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

My Request for Adminship

Greetings, Dan100! I wanted to sincerely thank you for voting in my RfA, which passed with a final result of 55/14/3. Your support means a lot to me! If you have any questions or input regarding my activities, be they adminly or just a "normal" user's, or if you just want to chat about anything at all, feel free to drop me a line. Cheers! —Nightstallion (?) 07:47, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank you for your support of my RfA, and for your generous comment. I appreciate your confidence. Best wishes for a happy new year, Tom Harrison ^Talk 13:23, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

My RFA

Thank you for your support in my recent succesful RFA. I appreciate the trust you have shown in me. Kind regards, --TimPope 17:37, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

RfC

i have filed an RfC concerning the behavior of User:Allabout2006 and his socks on Alkyl nitrites which can be found here. you reverted his edits a couple times. comments would be appreciated. thanks. --Heah ^talk 04:21, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

User:Cool Cat/IRC Bot

I responded to your comments. Sorry for the month-long delay, got carried away with work etc. --Cool Cat^Talk|@ 08:43, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

User talk:207.232.169.157

Hi, you've warned this user for vandalizing pages. He did it again: [27] --Roland2 21:23, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Anon talk page comment removals

Did you intentionally remove all of the warnings/etc on User_talk:142.46.54.4 with this edit? If so, in the future could you simply archive it instead? I just reblocked and had to go back to the block log to see it was a repeat vandal and then through the page history to see what had happened in the past and then readjust the block. Thanks. Wikibofh_(talk)

• ...and this? Wikibofh_(talk) 02:40, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Polling the 31/36 hour block...

...here. BD2412 T 02:39, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

WP:V

The burden of evidence lies with the editor who has made the edit. Editors should therefore provide references From WP:V. Sources are required. Please revert. [[Sam Korn]] 13:27, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

vote here

hi, Please Vote here "keep" : Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rosario Poidimani (3 nomination). Regards, M.deSousa 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Current events

• Chinese current events (AfD discussion)
• Indian current events (AfD discussion)

Please contribute to the discussions. Uncle G 12:33, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia Project

Hi, my name is Federico (alias Pain) and I am creating a section for nominating the best user page, I was wondering if you were interested in joining the project.

The project has just started, and we need help to spread the word and ameliorate it.

Best regards, Federico Pistono ✆ ✍ 14:28, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

thank you

thank you for sprotecting that page it was sadly needed -- semi-protection is the best thing yet on the wiki Yuckfoo 00:30, 24 December 2005 (UTC)