User talk:Daniel/Archive/4

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on User talk:Daniel. No further edits should be made to this page. For a list of archives for this user, see User talk:Daniel/Archive.

This page is an archive. Do not edit the contents of this page. Please direct any comments to the current talk page.

[edit] Re:Hey

Fact is the UGCC was formed out of protest against the OGCC, whose rules, their operator and administrator. Fact is the contents of the UGCC don't corresponds with the rules of the OGCC. On the contrary, it permitted expressly topics and contents, reverse to the rules of the OGCC. In the first phase the UGCC breached the copyrights of Linux Cyberjouneurs in several points. The UGCC contains insulting contents towards staff members of the OGCC, as well as severe vulgarity which do not fit with the age class Graal Online want outreach. Regards, Sam, Super Moderator of the OGCC

Thanks for that. I may take it into account when mediating. Killfest2|Daniel.Bryant ^(Talk) 00:58, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Unprotect

I'm in the middle of something. Can you leave request on WP:AN or WP:AN/I? Or I will look at when I can. Tyrenius 00:49, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

No problems. Killfest2|Daniel.Bryant ^(Talk) 00:57, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Sorry for not meeting your request, but I was halfway through vandalism stuff. I didn't know why your page was protected in the first place, and didn't feel I should unprotect it without investigating further. The mention of mediation made me wary - I didn't realise you were the mediator! Tyrenius 01:37, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

No problems. We're all busy some time or another. Killfest2|Daniel.Bryant ^(Talk) 01:38, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Unprotection

Done. --Merovingian - Talk 00:55, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Killfest2|Daniel.Bryant ^(Talk) 00:57, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Heh, it looks like Longhair and I both hopped on it at the same time. --Merovingian - Talk 01:04, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it does look that way. Killfest2|Daniel.Bryant ^(Talk) 01:05, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Repairing and Beggining Fixes

I would like to revert to Di4gram and I's last edit and begin fixing things you requested.

If you have opposition to this please let me know and I will not, but I would rather start with the version that was not modified by Unixmad/Bingo and Stefan first and begin citing my sources.

Thanks, David --Warcaptain 03:04, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Revert to the last edit before this big debarcle started. I will do it for you. Killfest2|Daniel.Bryant ^(Talk) 03:05, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] All this mediation for nothing

The GraalOnline article is not back to the initiale state created 2 years ago but to the same modified version version made by Warcaptain and friends, so what was the goal of the mediation? You decided that no modification should be applied before asking you but i don't see any discussion about restoring the Warcaptain and friend critics section. I really don't understand the actual process, if it's allowed to make modification without your approval then we come back to the same state as before. I will not continue this game, if wikipedia allow a group of 2 people to polute an entire article and put defamatory content against individuals and commercial product then wikipedia is not worst helping it and wasting our time on it. If you are allowed to put any content on an article and that content can stay for a week before being removed then when do defamatory finish? When the content is removed because no source are given then someone can just put slightly modified defamatory content and wait for it to be removed one week after and so on... So if i follow this logic anyone can modify the user page of Daniel Bryant, put defamatory content about you and you will have to wait 1 week to remove it until waiting sources? Also to give source i will just have to open a thread on a obscure forum and wait for anonymous people to make comments on you and say how bad you are or anything worst and false about you? Graal unixmad 09:45, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately for you, editing user pages is generally prohibited, and so is defamation to an individual. Criticism isn't, however, and your unwilligness to co-operate is evident. If they cannot cite it within 7 days, it will be removed and nothing remotely similar will be re-added unless a citation is provided with it. Killfest2|Daniel.Bryant ^(Talk) 09:48, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I will add that your don't reply to my all my question but only to a small part of it where you don't take my point as it (as example) but to the wikipedia rule to not modify User page what is clearly not the point on what i say.

Your comment on my text saying something like "Unfortunately for you" and "your unwilligness to co-operate is evident" don't show a neutral position for a mediator and i will personaly feel more confortable if you ask another mediator to be in charge of this. Speaking about the sources what is for you acceptable sources? Is anonymous post created on a obscure forum and afterward a good source? Graal unixmad 09:56, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I was neutral, until you started undermining my efforts to sort this problem out. And it is general etiquette to attack the claims, not the person, as stated in WP:NPA - comment on the contributions, not the contributor. Killfest2|Daniel.Bryant ^(Talk) 09:58, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

You are neutral when you subscribe to the UGCC forum, speak with one of the party and not with the other. Neutral again when you give your opinion on something that has nothing to do with the mediation ? Neutral again when you allow the same content to be put again on the main article (article written 2 years ago) when it will have been easy and logic to discuss the issue on the discussion before putting back on the article? Graal unixmad 10:05, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I followed the generic mediation process of reverting back to the edit prior to the war. If you have an issue with that, go take it up with the MedCab. I signed up to your forums, and posted around, but I'm not going to reveal my ID because I intend on playing GO and don't want to be banned. I said that this has nothing to do with the mediation, and merely gave an observation. If you are alluding to the fact that I am not capable of remaining neutral, that is a personal attack, and you will be banned for it. I spoke on both forums, yet you only know one of my accounts. Killfest2|Daniel.Bryant ^(Talk) 10:07, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

after reading your reply I am now officialy asking that you stop managing this mediation and ask someone else to do it. Graal unixmad 10:10, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

You will be blocked in the next 15mins per danny's decision. Killfest2|Daniel.Bryant ^(Talk) 10:10, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

And why can you block me ? Graal unixmad 10:13, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Because you violated wikipedia policy by making personal attacks against someone's integrity, and per the ruling of a beauracrat. Killfest2|Daniel.Bryant ^(Talk) 10:15, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

If Wikipedia administrator think that someone saying "Unfortunately for you" and "your unwilligness to co-operate is evident" is neutral then i will have to put this case on public forum so everyone make appreciation on wikipedia administration Graal unixmad 10:21, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

But i think a good part of wikipedia administration is making a real good work and i am sure some other mediator and administrator will have a look at it and take some distance before deciding anything. Graal unixmad 10:23, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

As a mediator, I am required to give my view. I did that. C'mon, if I was really biased, would I have been so lenient in punishing you for what was a violation of procedure. I didn't, because I understood that you may have not have realised the policy. Please, go away, and come back in 6.5 days, and any material that hasn't been cited, you can delete. Killfest2|Daniel.Bryant ^(Talk) 10:23, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I have not spent my complete week-end on this and i will not give up until wikipedia rules are enforced.

I will probably not make a friend of you, and i am really sorry about it, but in my point of view you have not been very good on this mediation, you probably known the wikipedia policy and rules very well but you have not the qualities to make a good mediator. A good mediator is someone completly neutral and you are by far not neutral with the comments you have made. Graal unixmad 10:49, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

We'll agree to disagree. Will you accept the 6.5 day truce? Killfest2|Daniel.Bryant ^(Talk) 10:50, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I just want other mediator or admins to be involved on this, i will not accept to leave until someone neutral manage the GraalOnline article. If you can find one or more well known mediator or admin to replace you i will accept to leave the article managed by this group of people. Graal unixmad 11:03, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Welcome to the Birthday Committee!

Welcome, Daniel/Archive/4, to the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! You have met all of the membership requirements. Any concerns should be directed to Steveo2. See the Birthday Committee Project Page to see our userbox and the Birthday Message Templates. Go to the bulletin board to see any new announcements concerning the committee. Remember, Be Bold!

Thanks for joining. If you have any questions, please feel free to ask me. Mr. Turcotte^talk 23:40, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mediation

Hey, I just wanted to apologize for not sticking my head into the mediation and offering my opinion. When you said the time and date, I thought you meant around now. I figured it out in the morning right before work, but I had no time. That being said, I commend you for your excellent job in working to resolve the conflict and contacting Danny. Hat's off to you, my friend. Regards, Alphachimp ^talk 05:22, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

No problem - the end result was two bans, so mediation clearly wasn't all that effective. Killfest2|Daniel.Bryant ^(Talk) 07:49, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Hey, you did a great job in a completely volunteer effort - very commendable. The result of mediation doesn't have to be that everyone is happy. Two bans could be exactly the shock to the system that was needed. As far as User:Graal unixmad's continuing complaints, don't sweat that either. I don't think s/he was going to be 100% happy no matter what your decision was going to be - unless it was 100% in his or her favor. I've tried to throw in some comments in Talk:GraalOnline to let them know that the attempts at gathering sources so far are not going well. Hopefully that will help the hive there prepare for the criticism section being removed - or severely watered down - because I predict that's going to be the final outcome. Informal and tainted online polls of 30 people in a user base of anywhere from thousands to hundreds of thousands (depending on who you ask) are feeble attempts at reliable sources. —Wknight94 (talk) 11:18, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Ugh... Just breeeeeathe over comments like this. S/he needs to get the last word in so let it happen. For the love of all that is holy, just let it go!  :) —Wknight94 (talk) 13:49, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Can't you do something about that type of senseless and anti-community-spirt comment? Surely we shouldn't allow that to go on? Killfest2|Daniel.Bryant ^(Talk) 06:19, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Update: I just checked my emails, and I have a very threatening email:

"If you do not back down on the GraalOnline case, and have us unbanned, we will sue. Make sure you tell Wikipedia this, as they will be sued too."

It was unsigned. If anyone wants the email, I'll give it to them, but I don't want to violate any policies by posting emails up here, no matter what they email me. Killfest2|Daniel.Bryant ^(Talk) 06:26, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, we could try to get them banned ---- oh wait, they're already banned. As far as the e-mail, User:Danny has offered to talk to them by phone. He works at the Wikimedia Foundation. Unless you're somehow affiliated as well, I can't imagine it's your problem. Pass on the e-mail to User:Danny. Read WP:LEGAL. That's my suggestion anyway... I'll bet you $1 this isn't the first time someone at WP has been threatened with legal action!  :)

It's too obvious to need to mention. Sorry you got involved? Your just a volunteer trying to help, you didn't do anything wrong.  :) You rock. --RogueShadow 20:23, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Ah well, the death of the Mediation Cabal has arrived, as Wikipedia has faltered in its resolve to remain NPOV when threatened with legal implications. Killfest2|Daniel.Bryant ^(Talk) 08:21, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Hey Daniel, sorry to butt in (this is James205 from the UGCC). I'm just wondering what is exactly going on with this mediation situation. I know Unixmad threatened you but why even bother? Nothing about Graal Online is legitimately citable so why not just delete the whole wiki? The situation is getting out of hand and I don't really see why he is trying to take legal actions (which is unrealistic really) over such a ridiculous issue. Maybe some professional source should write about this so its citable? Just my 2 cents. --Brandon Mitchell 1:38, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

This basically describes the sort of mood I'm in at the moment. I can't believe that a big corporation would bow down and take orders from some ****ed-up little **** in France. Killfest2|Daniel.Bryant ^(Talk) 08:43, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Hey, Kuribo from the GraalOnline article here. Sorry to hear about the mediation being disrupted the way it was, but I think the best thing to do now is to keep calm and find some other solution (and if you won't, then we probably will. Don't worry about it). I also hear you've been threatened by Unixmad/Stephane (or it could be Stefan) even though you're a neutral party. That is outright wrong. I also frequent the UGCC forums but have changed my name here to keep somewhat anonymous, what with the possible bans.--Kuribo 10:12, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Barnstar

For everything you do to the Esperanza, I, Minun, award you this barnstar —Min un ^Spiderman 10:38, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia Research Survey Request

Hello, I am a member of a research group at Palo Alto Research Center (formerly known as Xerox PARC) studying how conflicts occur and resolve on Wikipedia. Due to your experience in conflict resolution on Wikipedia (e.g., as a member of the Mediation Cabal) we’re extremely interested in your insights on this topic. We have a survey at http://www.surveymonkey.com/s.asp?u=400792384029 which we are inviting a few selected Wikipedians to participate in, and we would be extremely appreciative if you would take the time to complete it. As a token of our gratitude, we would like to present you with a PARC research star upon completion. Thank you for your time.

Parc wiki researcher 23:50, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
PARC User Interface Research Group

I will do it, but I am able to wait 5 days, as at the moment I currently have slightly more pressing issues - is doing it Sat/Sun fine? Killfest2|Daniel.Bryant ^(Talk) 06:21, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Edit: Just completed it. Killfest2|Daniel.Bryant ^(Talk) 10:01, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Let's see it?

Can we see that Menacing E-mail, please? Complete with headers. DS 17:16, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm not divulging personal information of any email unless anyone of Danny's status and above wants it. He's dealing with this, and the last thing I want is to fall into the trap that someone has set, to try and get me banned because I published personal info. Sorry. Killfest2|Daniel.Bryant ^(Talk) 06:29, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Medcab

Hey Daniel,

What exactly happened over that mediation case- as I read it did an admin step in and remove all the dispute material (even the stuff you had managed to get them to agree on) and then protect the page?

If so it should probably get reported at the admin's abuse board - Medcab discussions are highly unstable at the best of times and for an admin to undermine that process is not on at all!!

Oh and don't worry too much about the legal threats, even if they do try and carry them through you have broken no law and done nothing wrong - they won't get anywhere!!

Basically what happened is we came to an agreement (they all signed), then the user from the corporation decided that they'd push their luck even further and try and get all the criticism removed (which was not agreeded on during mediation), then Danny banned them for a variety of reasons, and since the corporation has run up threating Wikipedia and a number of its' users of criminal proceedings if they don't remove the whole article. Wikipedia legal experts have since removed the whole section, deeming the whole mediation exercise useless. Killfest2|Daniel.Bryant ^(Talk) 08:54, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Did you ever get the report about the sockpuppet? It seems obvious to the rest of us, but evidence is always nice. --RogueShadow 11:55, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Nope, I just followed up about it. Awaiting a response. Killfest2|Daniel.Bryant ^(Talk) 11:56, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

So did the legal team let you know why they did that? I really don't think that having a critical article about the game can be illegal!! In fact if that was the legal precedings they threatened then there is a reverse case of supression advertising....

Anyway I really feel for you Daniel it's very disheartening when something like that happens...

As far as admin abuse, the removal was done by the "General Counsel and interim Executive Director at the Wikimedia Foundation", BradPatrick (talk • contribs). I don't think you'd get too far with admin abuse there!  :) Besides, in retrospect, we probably should have reverted to a version which did not include any of the unsourced criticism. It's better to have it empty and then added in as sources are found rather than the converse, i.e. having it full and removing stuff when sources cannot be found. As far as being upset about Wikipedia's actions, that's awfully easy for us to say - we don't have any money at stake here. Say what you will about the GraalOnline management but that may be the source of their entire income we're fighting over. We're just quibbling over the quality of an article - they're worried about whether they'll be able to put food on their kids' table because a bunch of angry rogue teenage users trash their reputation on a highly public web site. We don't exactly have equal amounts in the pot. —Wknight94 (talk) 16:01, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Wknight, I'd love if you put more research into both sides instead of calling us rogue teenagers. I for one am not a teenager and I'm not here to trash the wiki. I don't see how you can get the perception that equality is being met by legal actions. If they have a problem with the wiki then get rid of it, there is no solution for this at the moment and it will keep on going on. Restarting the wiki after a decision was made was a bad idea and is causing more problems and getting people more angry. Threats are now being exchanged to players and even Daniel and this should truly be avoided. We are willing to comply to such things but as we stated before there is no citable sources for Graal and it's being used as pure advertisement. I'd love to chat with you more about the situation, but we are not just littering the GO Wiki.—Brandon Mitchell

Sorry if I offended but hopefully you can understand my perception after edits like this - and that's from the creator of one of the rival forums. What's next - "nyah nyah nyah..."? —Wknight94 (talk) 00:29, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

This whole situation is completely screwed up. If unixmad really believes the article would draw people away form his game, he would have to be very stupid. I mean, come on, he threatened daniel, and attacked his neutrality? He didn't even know Daniel was a volunteer mediator (staff supported, but not staff) until after his phone conversation. Last I checked, you (daniel) wants to check out graal. That fact alone should be more than enough to prove the article isn't 'that' bad. I personally love the whole idea behind graal. Especially as a development tool (not as much as a great game to play right now, but that's a years of other history, and a situation similar to this. Except that guy just left). Lot's of poeple have had graal on thier resume's and it helped them! One works for microsoft!! It's true. --RogueShadow 00:19, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Of Wikipedia, Anger and Resolutions

After Daniels recent comments on talk pages as well as his user page I woul like to extend a hand of friendship. I know he feels angry over what happened after his Graal mediation got (in his words) undermained, and it is the sad fact that Wikipedia has failed him as a community. I am not laying the blame at all but I think we ahould show him he can place trust in us again.

I wrote him this email (which I hope he gets) and which I hope you will all agree with and mirror.

Hey Daniel,

Before I begin (just in case you didnt realise) I am Errant (or Tmorton166) from Wikipedia.

What i wanted to say is that I am really sorry about how you seem to have lost trust in our community. There are not many editors I remember as both good, friendly and useful - apart from some obvious ones (Kylu, kim other admins etc.) however after our initial dealings on the World Cup Controversies article I felt you would shape up to be a good addition to the WIkipedian community.

And I'm glad I was not wrong. You successfully steered the controversies article away from NPOV and then turned your attention to other causes - such as improving australian articles and vandal fighting (which saw impressive results). To each of these things you brought good humor and quality editing (if a little hotheadednes at times - which is not necessairily a bad thing!!).

Turning your attention to mediation seemed like a good idea (at least to me) and you handled the Graal case excellently! Sadly I guess you became angry at the apparent disregard of your mediation attempts. I can totally agree with how you feel.

However I think that the roots of this whole argument is not the Wikipedia article but rather the entire Graal community. The fight started on their forums and has moved to other parts of the Internet - such as the wiki article. As such I think the Wikimedia Foundations decision to remove large sections of the article are probably the safest move, not only to protect them but you as a user.

Mediation is a hard cop, and requires both sides to accept the mediators non-authority. I think in this case that was never going to happen - which is a shame but something that is bound to happen given the very nature of Medcab.

As I said on the articles talk page it is important to remember that compared to the rest of Wikipedia the Graal article is a tiny part - not that is any less important, just that there is so much more out there to do.

I also see from your user page threats to vandalise the Wikipedia Project.

I cant make you trust the community again, I'm not even going to try and convince you not to take action on those threats rather I want to ask you some questions.

Do you really feel Wikipedia as a community is at fault here? I can see why you might and in a way yes they are, the openness of the community amounts to no real consensus and so just about anything can happen - many of them bad things. But (and this is the important one) will vandalising and attacking the community - whilst probably making you feel better - really help? Rather can you not learn from this experience and try and help the rest of us become a more caring and helpful place.

All I am saying is please consider joining in again, drop the Graal article, start again and put all this down to experience.

I dont want this to sound degrading or snooty but I was until now considering nominating you for adminship, due to your great contribution. However given the circumstances that will have to go on hold... :P Im hoping that proves at least one person was willing to place trust in you and I believe many other Wikipeidans would too - including many of the participants in the Graal mediation. Can you put that trust back in Wikipedia.

As I have said many times - to quote Jimbo Wales himself - we are here to build an encyclopedia, I just hope you can help us again.

Sorry if I have been patronizing (that was not my intention) and sorry if this email doesnt help. But I hope you do appreciate this extended hand of friendship.

Cheers, Tom

Thanks for the email Errant. I was most certainly angry, but I've decided that I will never view that article, its current AfD, any user talk pages which specificially regard to the GO article etc., again. Amazingly, it is suprising for me how much a comforting email which shows that people still value your contributions can mean to a user when they're future at a certain place is unsure. I most certainly won't vandalise any pages considering my above pledge, and will hopefully try and keep a cooler head when another issue rears it's ugly head in the future. I actually am quite suprised that you were considering me for the Mop, but I totally understand your reasoning behind delaying this, as I, for one, wouldn't vote for anybody who showed the sort of ill-directed attributes that I did. From now on, Assuming Good Faith and Civility will be my primary goals, and I hope that it will be my civility, not my hostility, which will prevail in the future. Once again, Errant, you are a very good contributor, but not only that - you are a good person, which was exemplified by the time you took to write the above email. I am considering RfA-ing you, and this kind of act makes me even the more encouraged. However, considering my recent history, I think I'll wait, or maybe co-nominate with someone else in maybe a couple of weeks time. Thanks again. Killfest2|Daniel.Bryant ^(Talk) 11:59, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Im glad my email helped and glad you made a positive decision. Thanks for your kind words back too, its nice to be appreciated :D --Errant Tmorton166^(Talk)(Review me) 12:06, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

It's not that hard to get frustrated with Wikipedia, especially when you've worked very hard on something and just had your work nullified. You did an amazing job handling the GO dispute. Even though they went above your head with the threats, you still were able to keep a cool head. You dealt with the manner in a way that most of us could not have. Daniel, I've been really impressed with you since I first bumped into you a week or two ago (with the AIV thing). I'd like to encourage you, like Tmorton said, to hang in there. Maybe take a break from some of the inflammatory people and situations (e.g. don't mediate for a little while). I'll be rooting for you, and don't hesitate to drop me a line if you need any help or encouragement. Once again, thanks for the excellent job with the mediation. Best Regards, αChimp ^laudare 12:42, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for all the support. Yep, I'll heed your intelligent advice, and stay away from things that cause tense situations (so no CVU or MEDCAB work) until next weekend. By the way, I love your new signature :D Killfest2—Daniel.Bryant 12:44, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I like that advice "drop the graal article" I'm going to do the same thing. :) Maybe we'll meet up in some other way sometimes. Thanks for all your help no matter what happens. I hate bringing other people into problems that are not thiers, I hope no trouble came for you because of all this. :) --RogueShadow 13:34, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

No problems that are too severe, except my email inbox is filled with complaint-like emails. Killfest2—Daniel.Bryant 13:37, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Daniel, thank you very much for your mediation. Even though it was nullified, it still means alot to our community and is encouraging because it shows that there are people out there willing to look into it more and see what we see. I wish you well on your future endeavors on Wikipedia, and as the original writer of the controversial peice, I can't help but feel responsible for this mess. I am truly sorry; not for what I wrote, but that you had to suffer for it, and I am sure that an overwhelming majority of people on Wikipedia will appreciate your presense. Di4gram 18:13, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thank you for the Barnstar

Dear Daniel, thank you for awarding me a barnstar for contributing to saving 2006 FIFA World Cup controversies from deletion. It's my first barnstar in my year and 6 days as a Wikipedia user, so naturally I'm quite thrilled to be its recipient. Thanks again. --Mareklug ^talk 06:46, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

No problems - you certainly deserve it. Killfest2—Daniel.Bryant 08:31, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] GraalOnline methods

Thanks for the Zen Garden!  :) You always need to keep in mind that there's no pleasing some people here. I can't even figure out what some of the people's motives are with this mess but I think you and I are the only ones trying to do what's best for Wikipedia. Just try to keep an even keel!  :) —Wknight94 (talk) 15:17, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Here is a nice example of how people can be. Yelling at me for leaving a {{welcome}} message on their talk page! LOL. Just shake your head and move on... —Wknight94 (talk) 20:01, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hey

Thanks for welcome, man. It's great to be here. Casper Raid 13:58, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

You're welcome. Killfest2—Daniel.Bryant 12:52, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks for welcoming me!

I've been reading and hanging out around this part of the net anonymously since about (DD/MM/YYYY) 12.10.2005. MrCEO 12:43, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

No problems...I'm happy to do my bit to welcome new users. Killfest2—Daniel.Bryant 12:53, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Barnstar

Thank you very much for nice award. I am trying to do what I can do with stub-sorting. - Darwinek 07:22, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

You're welcome. You're doing an awesome job at the moment - keep it up! Killfest2—Daniel.Bryant 06:21, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Still going?

Hey, do you really think things like User:Daniel.Bryant/GraalOnlineSandbox coupled with edits like this in reaction to edits like this are really wise? We don't know anything about the claim which Unixmad made on GraalOnline and you'd never be able to get the full story on the background of it. That's why Wikipedia's policies are the way they are. And what are the loopholes that you're referring to? I'm not going to do anything to stop you but it really seems like you're fighting a battle that isn't worth fighting. —Wknight94 (talk) 11:29, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I would like an answer to that also. Do you have any idea who Viper is, and what he has done to Graalonline over the years? Obviously you do not. Viper has been very distructive to Graal for years now, as well as a few others.

I suggest that you do a lot of research, and know what you are getting into. Viper is looking for ::revenge, and he is using the wiki to get it. Are you really going to help him? Ugh...how frustrating. --Moon Goddess 12:33, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Heyhey keep it calm, don't drag up the whole discussion. However you might want to think about your claims Moon Goddess, alot of what Viper has brought to the table is factual - there are sources.

There is alot of criticism about Graal online and such information has to be included in a fair article on the topic - end of story. On the other hand it shouldnt be the thing that swings the article - fairness is important too. The Graal administration are doing a good job of working around the web protecting their baby, fair enough I suppose it is their income. I'm not a huge fan of the idea but I admire their efforts if not their methods.

Regarding the posting of that IP and personal information in their forums this is illegal and I am going to remind them as such. It's a shame they feel so threatenend by criticism. --Errant Tmorton166^(Talk)(Review me) 12:40, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I wasn't trying to re-start the argument. Just trying to have a sanity check here. Daniel.Bryant seems to have good intentions but I fear they are starting to turn ugly when I hear things like "knowledge of the loopholes and precise definitions of policies", etc. This is an on-line game, not some political or religious topic. It's not worth it. Also, tmorton166's idea that "such information has to be included in a fair article on the topic" is a total fallacy. Nothing has to be included on Wikipedia that doesn't follow Wikipedia's own policies. My uneducated guess is that that is part of what fueled legal arguments here - the article did not even follow WP's own clear written "official" policies. —Wknight94 (talk) 12:59, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Ok point taken, I will clarify what I mean. If criticism exists of Graal online in verifiable sources it should be noted in the article. Consider the flip side - can the good stuff about Graal be included? Yes if there are verifiable sources. Most good articles here on wikipedia follow the same rough outline (especially when describing an organisation or community). They contain an objective overview of the subject, verified 3rd party praise for hte subject and verified 3rd party criticism of the subject. However for those last 2 it can only really be presented as opinion (there has been much praise of x among the community, most notably by... or some apsects of the system such as x have been criticised by....) rahter than as fact (the system is good or the system sis bad). I don't think I explained that well but the point is there is normally 2 sides to a story and both should be neutrally analysed by the wikipedia article. --Errant Tmorton166^(Talk)(Review me) 13:45, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re: 2005-06 player project

Hey, I was just wondering whether we should change the "2005-06 Player Project" to the "A-League Player Project", and continuallu update it. I'm currently re-organising the WP:A-L page for you, and hopefully we can make this a very active Wikiproject. Killfest2—Daniel.Bryant 08:25, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and what do you think about this? I hope it doesn't look like I'm trying to take over this Wikiproject, but I'm just trying to make it more active. My apologies if it appears like what I mentioned previous. Feel free to sign the newsletter (if you approve), as you are the co-ordinator. Any ideas, feel free to post here. Killfest2—Daniel.Bryant 11:58, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Hey mate thanks for the comments. Firstly, yeh the player project should be expanded – in my infinite wisdom thought we would be able to get them all done by the start of the new season, which is obviously not going to happen. I think the page should be split up into seasons, with only new players listed at each season (eg ==2005-06== would contain Brian Deane, Dwight Yorke, Danny Vukovic and then ==2006-07== would only contain people like Tony Vidmar, Alessandro and Paul Okon).

Secondly, I like the newsletter (the idea, and what you've done), we certainly need some help getting everything more active. Further to this though (and something I've been meaning to bring up for a while), someone mentioned that it would be a good idea to expand WikiProject A-League to (say) WikiProject Football (soccer) in Australia, which would mean it could include the largely neglected areas such as the NSL, NSL teams, state leagues, national teams (mens womens olyroos etc) and one huge thing I was looking at: summaries of seasons in Australian football (similar to Seasons in English football). All the A-League stuff would be kept and those who only want to work on that could continue there, and we would perhaps be able to attract more people who want to work on just NSL or just the national team to the project. Like I said, I have been meaning to put forward a full proposal to do this at WP:AL but just haven't got around to it yet. And whatever you do don't worry about "taking over the project", I don't see myself as the official (or even unofficial) leader of it, and even if it was so I need all the help I can get! Cheers. – AlbinoMonkey ^(Talk) 03:13, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

::Do you want me to distribute the newsletter to all involved with WP:A-L? Killfest2—Daniel.Bryant 03:15, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Yep sure, it will be quite useful when we need to promote new collaborations or changes etc. Perhaps you could also make a template similar to what is used for the Wikipedia Signpost (see an example of it in use here) which is updated with the major points from each newsletter, so people can put it on their userpages or something. – AlbinoMonkey ^(Talk) 03:40, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

Just wanted you to know that I saw the nice things you said at Wikipedia:Wikihalo nomination/Essjay and that I appreciated them; I find the whole idea of an award where the receipient has to accept the nomination, and where there are oppose votes, to be a bit odd. I think I'll stick to barnstars. :) Essjay (Talk) 01:47, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] thanks

.... for the thanks on the CCM table. Great work in getting that table started. --Boltonfan22 09:22, 4 August 2006 (UTC)Boltonfan22

[edit] GraalOnline AFD Discussion

Figured I should discuss further here instead of on the AFD. I apologize since I didn't realize that the WMF had talked to you. But just to clarify, you have express permission to post a personal question about being blocked on Graal in the AFD? JoshWook 14:12, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

For the record, I am in no way affiliated with Graal and have never even played the game. And based only on their wikipedia behavior, I find the people in charge of it to be childish bullies. However, I just find the politics distracting and think they have nothing to do with creating a good encyclopedia, so I would prefer if they were left out and the AFD focus solely on whether or not Graal is notable enough for an article, and whether reliable sources can be found to document that notability. JoshWook 14:42, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm, I really don't know exactly why I was given permission to do it - I'm guessing a variant of WP:OFFICE maybe. Anyways, as Wknight94 said, I see admininstration potential in you. The way you conducted yourself on the AfD was commendable, and I'll be sure to keep an eye on you (not staking, just an eye :P) to see if you hang around. If you do, well, an RfA might be coming up soon :D Killfest2—Daniel.Bryant 06:09, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] I feel sorry for you, bro.

Damn, the whole GO AFD is still going?!?!? I'm glad I didn't take that MedCab case leading to it. (I was going to, but you beat me to it.) :o Torinir _{( Ding my phone My support calls E-Support Options )} 18:31, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Nope, it's over, and it got deleted. Yay. Killfest2—Daniel.Bryant 06:07, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] A-League 2006-07 Newsletter I

[edit] Hey

Your recent contributions to Wikipedia are very much appreciated. However, please take a moment to look over your contributions for spelling, grammatical, and punctuation errors before submitting them in final. This will help lessen the amount of copyediting work that fellow Wikipedians need to do, and will help improve the overall appearance of Wikipedia. This is not meant to be a disciplinary message, but merely a friendly request. Thank you!

I'll make sure I check all my comments in the #wikipedia IRC channel in future, just for you. Traget. (Kinda internal joke). Killfest2—Daniel.Bryant 06:28, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] vandalism?

What are you talking about? I never engage in any vandalism.Giovanni33 07:44, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Blanking the user pages of other uses is considered vandalism. Unless you are going to claim that they are your user pages, and therefore be banned for being a sock puppeteir, you have no right to blank other users' pages. Killfest2—Daniel.Bryant 07:45, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

What I am doing is undoing personal attacks and vandalism to other user talk pages in accords with the wishes of these users. Its not "blanking" it removing a specific edit that they want removed. I am returning the favor and helping them out. This is not considered vandalism. This is against the efforts of other editors who have a long history of harassment against myself and others who oppose them in edit conficts within particular articles relating to Chrstian content. I revert back false accusations aimed to harass me, esp. at banned users who no loner edit here. This is a question of defending my good name. User checks have shown no connection to me. If there is any evidence that I am any of these other users then I'd like to see it, and then let the labels stand on the basis of real evidence. Otherwise, these are just personal attacks against my good name given that I do not have sock puppets!Giovanni33 07:49, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

"in accords with the wishes of these users."

The only way you'd know that is is you are one user and the same.

No, I know this because they reverted it, and the nature of the edit made on their page is negative. That is why they, and I, revert this, which is slanderous in nature. I see other editors, including admins, reverting user talk pages to what that user wanted themseleves. This is common practice and its helpful. I appreciate it when other do so for my page, and I happily return the favor.

"Its not "blanking" it removing a specific edit that they want removed."

I quote policy: "Removing warnings for vandalism from one's talk page is also considered vandalism."

Yes, but I've done no such thing. I've removed no warnings for vandalism. I've removed a false socket-puppet label that alleges a claim that I know is false and directed against my good name. Because this is not a warning for vandalism your quote of this policy is not relevant here.

This is against the efforts of other editors who have a long history of harassment against myself and others who oppose them in edit conficts within particular articles relating to Chrstian content.

I couldn't care less what happened with a content dispute. The fact of the matter, as stated above in policy, is that it is vandalism.

The above policy is you quotes is not talking about what I'm removing.

Otherwise, these are just personal attacks against my good name given that I do not have sock puppets!

That's not for you to state. Killfest2—Daniel.Bryant 07:54, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

If it is not for me to defend my own good name then who will, pretell?!Giovanni33 08:00, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

No-one, because all the facts point to you having no "good name". How many times have you been blocked? 18, at least count. One more removal that violates Wikipedia policy, and you will be blocked for disruption. Killfest2—Daniel.Bryant 08:05, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Oh you have no argument so you go back to false blocks in the past, not even related to this? Did you count the unblocks overturned by other admis who can see the blatant unjust nature of those blocks? Distruption? That is what you are doing with the false accusations and real vandalism of my own user page!Giovanni33 08:08, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Theres no way will I let abusive false, slanderous lables like that stand to deface my own User page! How dare you stay it should stand?! Take this to arbcom if you feel its true. Its FALSE! Name one confirmed abusive socketpuppet! Name just ONE and prove its confirmed. PLEASE. Otherwise you are engaged in a personal attack that is defmation of character.Giovanni33 08:06, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, you've been blocked twice for sockpuppetry. That's enough to have that template on the page. You've also been blocked 10+ times for 3RR, and that makes the sockpuppeteer message even more justified, as more-often-than-not sockpuppets are used for 3RR. Killfest2—Daniel.Bryant 08:10, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and here's two of them: User:BelindaGong, established by Checkuser, and User:Freethinker99, established by linking edits. Killfest2—Daniel.Bryant 08:12, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Wrong on both counts. BelindaGong is my wife, thus not a socketpuppet. Care to have me prove it? Belinda Gong is her real name. She lives here and shares an IP address. Ofcourse you wont care about that as no one does. But, for those who are interested in truth, the offer still stands. Freethinker is a friend, but a real, different person. These make both people NOT socketpuppets. Also, neither of them has ever been abusive in any way. So your label which alleges abusive socketpuppets is false.Giovanni33 08:33, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Until both are disproven and therefore unblocked, I dismiss your claims, and the template stands. Killfest2—Daniel.Bryant 08:38, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Disprove what? I already explained my connection to these two users. The pertinent fact is that they were NOT abusive--so why does your label on my talk page allege I have confirmed "abusive" puppets?Giovanni33 08:51, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Because they are still blocked for being sockpuppets, and therefore WMF acknowledges it so. Do you want me to fix your template so it doesn't read "abusive". I must agree with you on that one, they certainly aren't abusive. If you want, I'll also fix it so it reads "suspected" in a distinctive way until you can get it totally cleared up. Killfest2—Daniel.Bryant 08:52, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

I did it anyways. Lets just end this, OK? If you managed to get the two "confirmed" sockpuppets cleared, consult with an administrator, or even better, a Wikimedia Foundation member (looks at User:Danny) and work out what to do next. Agreed? If it is, I'll archive this. Killfest2—Daniel.Bryant 08:57, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fantastic Userpage

I award you this barnstar for having one of the best userpages ever! - Abstract Idiot [ Talk • Contribs ] 12:12, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Wow, thanks *adds to Awards* - yours isn't looking too bad either :P Killfest2—Daniel.Bryant 12:13, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Giovanni 33 tag

Dear Daniel,

I have seen that after much lobbying from that user you have removed the words "confirmed" and "abusive" from the tag. Since Gio misrepresents the history of that case, I must point you to the folling link.

Not only have the two accounts of Belinda Gong and Freethinker99 been confirmed as Gio's puppets through technical means (usercheck, see here, and accidental signature, see link), not only do Gio's explanations (only presented after having been found out and not changing the fact that both accounts acted as puppets), but there is also a whole bunch of other accounts associated with him, that though not sharing an IP with Gio (though sometimes among each other) have been conclusively shown to be his puppets.

So much for confirmed. As for abusive and disruptive, that is a bit subjective. But IMHO Gio's and his puppet's behaviour clearly can only be classified as that: repeatedly violating 3RR by far, extra reverts and extra votes through puppets, edit warring etc. makes him in my book the user with the greated disdain of wiki-rules (except when he tries to use them in his favour) and surrounds him with an aura of untrustworthiness that makes it hard to WP:AGF.

I am sorry if I to bother you with this, but have to ask you to reconsider the changes. Cheers, Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 13:21, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi Daniel. I concur with what Str1977 says. I appreciate your efforts to help in this, and the time that you've taken. Two problems with your version are that by changing It is suspected or confirmed to It is suspected you take away the fact that he has two confirmed puppets. That template gives separate links for the suspected ones and the confirmed ones. The fact that he claims that the confirmed ones are separate people (which would make them meatpuppets) is irrelevant to the fact that they were used in violation of the WP:SOCK policy, and that that policy was brought to their attention in good time which would have allowed them to stop before they were actually caught. (It's also quite possible that he's married to someone called BelindaGong, but that he made the edits and just used her name, with her consent.) The Arbitration Committee has ruled that, "for the purpose of dispute resolution, when there is uncertainty whether a party is one user with sock puppets, or several users acting as meatpuppets, they may be treated as one individual." It's also worth noting that at the time when he was carrying on this pretence of having no connection to BelindaGong, he posted to another admin saying that I was a possible meat puppet for Str1977. (And this was while his account was posting things about double standards, and the BelindaGong account was posting things about not being able to stand hypocrisy and dishonesty! ! !) Just out of interest, I've looked at my last 1000 article edits, and find that I have three reverts to Str1977. That doesn't include the numerous edits I make to project space, which Str1977 doesn't come near. The proportion would be higher except that on a recent occasion when Giovanni was unblocked, he was warned to stay away from the Christianity articles, but it would always be possible to find 100 consecutive edits that have absolutely nothing to do with Str1977, and to find examples of my being online and not reverting to Str1977 when an article was in the "wrong" version. Compare that with Kecik, who has 40 reverts to Giovanni out of a total of 45 edits, who was editing for four months before ever touching an article that Giovanni wasn't editing, whose seventh edit was a vote for something Giovanni wanted at a page which he'd have been unlikely to find as a brand new user (when it wasn't mentioned at the pages he was at, and when he didn't have e-mail enabled and no message had been left on his talk page asking him to vote), when his IP shows him to be in the same area as Giovanni33, and when he has some of the same linguistic idiosyncrasies. The MikaM account is similar. There is really no possibility that those accounts have no connection to Giovanni, the way they follow him to unrelated articles, and support him and revert for him, and did so from the very beginning, before he had built up a record as a puppeteer. There is overwhelming evidence, technical, behavioural, and linguistic, and I have been in touch with bureaucrats and ArbCom members about this issue.

The other point about your change is that it removes the word "abusive". Now, I see that you agree with him that the puppets were not abusive, and I'd certainly agree that they weren't like this or this. However, "abusive", in this context, does not have to mean engaging in extremely objectionable personal attacks and using foul language. The behaviour was an abuse of Wikipedia policy, and was also an abuse of our trust. That is what "abusive" means, when used about puppets. There are editors who openly take out sockpuppet accounts because they want to keep separate watchlists. The administrator Geni is one such example. Those puppets are not "abusive" ones. (Incidentally, the HK30 account was banned for abusive behaviour — massive edit warring, followed by the reinsertion of links to a website that attacked and gave personal information about editors, after another editor had removed those links.) Just to put you in the picture, this is what David Gerard (the most experienced checkuser admin) has to say about him. This is what another checkuser admin said. And this is what a third checkuser admin said. Other administors who believe that Giovanni33 has engaged in sockpuppetry include (but are not limited to) Tom harrison, Deskana, MONGO, Proto, SlimVirgin, KillerChihuahua, Jossi, Wikibofh, Guettarda, and FeloniousMonk.

I very recently removed a puppet tag from a page where the alleged puppeteer (who is currently under a one-year ban) denied having created that account. I will add that I was "on the other side" from the banned editor. I was one of the editors who constantly reverted his edits, and protected pages so that he couldn't edit them anonymously. The reason I removed that particular tag was that he admitted to having created the other puppets, apologized, expressed regret, and promised that that behaviour would not recur. Now, Giovanni pretended not to know BelindaGong until he was caught, and even after he was caught, he insisted that he had done nothing wrong. He has constantly made untrue claims. I won't clog up your page with details, but they're available (with diffs) on request. If he were to say that he did, indeed, knowingly violate our WP:SOCK policy, and that it was hypocritical of him to accuse others of meatpuppetry at a time that he was pretending not to know BelindaGong, and that he regrets it; if he admitted that, say, ten of the twelve suspected puppets are indeed his, but the other two are not, and that he's very sorry, and won't do such a thing again, some friendly admin (such as myself) would probably be prepared to remove the tags from the two accounts. And, if he edited honourably from now on, showing respect for other views, and not stooping to unscrupulous means of enforcing his POV, we'd probably, in time, remove the tag from his own page.

For those reasons, I've replaced the original tag on Giovanni's page. I'd consider removing it if he owned up, as it's not my purpose to humiliate anyone. (It's interesting that several admins supported the idea of blocking him indefinitely until he owned up. This is a less drastic measure!) Anyway, thanks for getting involved in this issue. Cheers. AnnH ♫ 16:30, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

You guys do that. I want no further part in this saga. I have my problems to deal with. Killfest2—Daniel.Bryant 01:50, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] You've got a Thank you card!

Open your card!

Dear Daniel, thank you so much for your beautiful words, your kidness and your trust in me. My Request for Adminship is finally over, and the support and appreciation that the community has gifted me will stick in my mind as long as I live. I have no way to properly express how grateful I am to you for all you've done for me, and all I can tell you is, I'll try not to disappoint you nor anyone else with my use of the buttons... and if I mess up, make sure to come here and give me a good yell! :) Seriously, tho, if you ever need my help, either for admin-related stuff or in any other way, you'll always be welcome to message me, and I promise I'll try my very best.
Dear Daniel, this is also a great chance to thank you deeply for the beautiful prize you've just gifted me, which has completely melted me in an "awwwww" state :) You don't know me yet, but I always start blushing furiously and looking to the floor when I get so much attention and kindness; I guess I'm more used to give than receive! :) Your kind words and your wonderful gesture mean the world to me, and I sincerely hope this is but the beginning of a friendship. You'll always be a welcome face at my Talk page, if you need my help in any possible way, or if you simply feel like talking! With a big hug, your friend,

Phaedriel ♥ tell me

No problems, you certainly deserve every award you get and more. By the way, nice card :D Killfest2—Daniel.Bryant 06:24, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Here's a Barnstar for helpin' me out :)

		The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
		Thank you for assisting me with the basics of Wikipedia! Your help is much appreciated. Jauffre 05:59, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! Killfest2—Daniel.Bryant 06:24, 6 August 2006 (UTC)