From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
| This talk page is automatically archived by Werdnabot. Any sections older than 14 days are automatically archived to User_talk:David.Mestel/Archive_08. Sections without timestamps are not archived. |
See Archive 1, Archive 2, Archive 3, Archive 4, Archive 5, Archive 6 and Archive 7.
|
Contents
- 1 Signpost
- 2 Signpost
- 3 Dbachmann RfAr Case
- 4 Signpost updated for January 14th, 2008.
- 5 Signpost updated for January 21st, 2008.
- 6 Signpost updated for January 28th, 2008.
- 7 Signpost updated for February 4th, 2008.
- 8 Signpost updated for February 11th, 2008.
- 9 FYI
- 10 Signpost updated for February 18th and 25th, 2008.
- 11 Happy Birthday!
- 12 Signpost updated for March 3rd, 2008.
- 13 Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-03-13/Arbitration report
- 14 DYK
- 15 Signpost updated for March 13th and 17th, 2008.
- 16 Happy First Day of Spring!
- 17 Signpost updated for March 24th, 2008.
- 18 Signpost updated for March 31st, 2008.
- 19 Signpost for Monday
- 20 Dbachman
- 21 Signpost updated for April 7th, 2008.
- 22 Clerkship
- 23 Image copyright problem with Image:705 image 10.jpg
- 24 Signpost updated for April 21st, 2008.
- 25 Signpost updated for May 2nd and 9th, 2008.
- 26 Signpost updated for May 12th, 2008.
- 27 Signpost updated for May 19th and 26th, 2008.
- 28 Signpost updated for June 2, 2008.
|
[edit] Signpost
Hello, I've noticed that your arbitration report says that NE2 ignored consensus at WP:HWY. This is not correct; this took place at WP:USRD. Thank you. --Rschen7754 (T C) 04:02, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks for the correction. Too many damn wikiprojects! David Mestel(Talk) 20:16, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Signpost
The article Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-01-07/Arbitration report says that five new cases were opened, but lists only four. (Sorry to bother you with this - and thanks for all your good work!). -- John Broughton (♫♫) 14:21, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Dbachmann RfAr Case
Hi, would you mind explaining your summary on the project page, or point me to where the procedure is explained? It has to do with Proposed Remedies #3 and #3.1, of which you transfered only 3.1, even though both passed. Does the numbering convention require that only one of any such grouping is to be included in the final decision, and if so how is the choice made among multiple passed versions? Thanks! (Please reply here, I'll check back.) rudra (talk) 01:49, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
- Good question. There is currently no well-defined system for determining which of alternative proposals pass (all proposals with subsidiary numbering, like for example 3, 3.1 and 3.2, are alternative to each other), although I have set out some thoughts about what such a system should be here. Generally, clerks set out their thoughts on closure in the "Implementation notes" section, to be commented upon by arbitrators. In my close, I relied upon the fact that Daniel commented "finding of fact 4.1 ... appears from first reading to have a stronger "first choice" preference ... with remedy 3.1 being in a similar situation to finding of fact 4.1", to which no arbitrators. Additionally, both proposals appeared to have the same number of first choice votes (five), and 3.1 is more recent and has fewer opposes. David Mestel(Talk) 15:50, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
-
- A few things, in no particular order:
- Excellent start with the essay. The lack of a formal procedure is definitely a hole in the arb process, inviting snafus such as inadvertent exercise of judgment by the clerk based on implicit assumptions (that is, the clerk isn't aware that he should really ask the arbitrators about something, because the answer seems "obvious", when in fact it isn't) and the potentially severe problems with any resolution mechanism that arise in the (albeit rare) situations where more than two alternatives exist (see, e.g., Arrow's impossibility theorem.) Explicit rules are certainly preferable. I'd like to see your essay aired for feedback and eventual inclusion in the process pages.
- I think Daniel was referring to 4.1 and 3.1 being similar in neither of them having yet passed at that point, rather than in apparent strength of preference. In any case, it may be a good idea to add a note on your reasoning to the Implementation Notes section, just for completeness.
- I'm not so sure about your late addition to the rule-set with respect to times, especially when the times aren't far enough apart: if they're both part of the same login/edit session, the one further down the page could have a later time-stamp simply by virtue of one's working habits. OTOH, if the arbitrators were aware of your rule in advance, and consciously took it into account, then it could work, as they could obviate a default "wrong" choice by adding an explicit indication. I realize that you used the rule to break the tie in this particular case (James F.'s votes), but there's room to argue that this could have been an "obvious answer that really wasn't".
- One final detail, on a completely different matter, having to do with archiving. The FoF:4/4.1 cite evidence in the /Evidence page that exists only virtually, by template. It may be good idea if you, as the clerk for the case, subst-ed it to get the actual contents into the page history, lest the evidence morph in the future.
- Thanks for the reply! rudra (talk) 01:39, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Signpost updated for January 14th, 2008.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 08:09, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Signpost updated for January 21st, 2008.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 23:29, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Signpost updated for January 28th, 2008.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 03:26, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Signpost updated for February 4th, 2008.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 07:48, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Signpost updated for February 11th, 2008.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 08:23, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
You may be interested discussion concerning vote-counting procedures regarding Everyking's appeal, now being discussed on WP:RfAr and on User talk:Thatcher. I'd appreciate any comments you might have. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:50, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
- Commented on WP:RfAr David Mestel(Talk) 16:22, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Signpost updated for February 18th and 25th, 2008.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 08:52, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Happy Birthday!
--Nadir D Steinmetz 09:58, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks :-) David Mestel(Talk) 15:32, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
--SMS Talk 16:55, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
Λua∫Wise (Operibus anteire) 18:05, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
Bah, I missed it! Happy birthday, David. Now GET BACK TO WORK! :) Ral315 (talk) 18:13, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
- Once again, thanks to all. Much appreciated :-) David Mestel(Talk) 18:42, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Signpost updated for March 3rd, 2008.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 07:31, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
Just a note. The Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Episodes and characters 2 arbitration case closed three days ago (a few hours after you wrote your report). I really appreciate your work on the Signpost by the way. I look forward to reading it every week. --Pixelface (talk) 20:21, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
- David is also an arbitration clerk and would know that the case closed. I've made comments like this to him sometimes too and the answer is that there has to be a cut-off point sometime or the report will never be finished. I'm sure he'll be reporting on the final decision in this case next week. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:34, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
--Gatoclass (talk) 08:58, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Signpost updated for March 13th and 17th, 2008.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 22:36, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Happy First Day of Spring!
Happy First Day of Spring!
A Beautiful Cherry Tree in Spring Bloom
Theres nothing like seeing a field full of spring flowers.
Just wishing you a wonderful First Day of Spring 2008! ~~~~
If you live in the Southern Hemisphere and are entering the season of Autumn not Spring then I wish you a happy First Day of Autumn 2008!
[edit] Signpost updated for March 24th, 2008.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 07:01, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Signpost updated for March 31st, 2008.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 20:48, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Signpost for Monday
Hope you had a good holiday :) Just wanted to confirm whether you'll be able to take care of Monday's arbitration report (if not, don't sweat it, and I'll cover it). A note as to whether you'll be able to or not, at WP:POST/N/O or on my talk page, would be great in helping me plan for Monday. Thanks, Ral315 (talk) 08:37, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Dbachman
Dear Sir, Thanks for answering my question about Vandalism (on NYBrand's site). I think that even Mr. Wales knows about the vandalism issue...but I don't want to talk about this issue. I notice in one your talk posts above, it is mentioned that Dbachman was reprimanded somehow. Personally, IMO, the second worst problem plaguing Wikipedia besides vandalism is the presence of POV'ers who push unorthodox or unprovable ideas--that the ancient Egyptians were black Africans for example or that the ancient kingdom of Mitanni was a direct ancestor to either the Kurds or Armenians...when everyone knows Mitanni disappeared from history long ago in the 12th century BC (that is more than 3,200 yrs ago) with the arrival of the Sea Peoples into the Near East. Personally, I find Dbachman to be a good editor who keeps crank contributors from destroying the integrity of Wikipedia's articles. If he reportedly abused his authority as an admin, I am sorry. Personally, I am quite interested in Ancient Egypt and I notice that there have been people who place wild ideas that the Great Pyramids of Giza were created by aliens, rather than the Ancient Egyptians themselves. Egyptologists generally call this people 'pyramidiots'--not a kind term but accurate. Without an editor like Dbachman, many of your articles would be filled with nonsensical claims or fringe POV theories which would be ridiculed by Wikipedia's main competitor--Brittanica. Regards, Leoboudv (talk) 08:26, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Signpost updated for April 7th, 2008.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 15:44, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Clerkship
I am interested in becoming a clerk. Nothing444 10:49, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
- Really bad idea, to be honest. Daniel (talk) 11:27, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Hi David.Mestel!
We thank you for uploading Image:705 image 10.jpg, but there is a problem. Your image is currently missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. Unless you can help by adding a copyright tag, it may be deleted by an Administrator. If you know this information, then we urge you to add a copyright tag to the image description page. We apologize for this, but all images must confirm to policy on Wikipedia.
If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks so much for your cooperation.
This message is from a robot. --John Bot III (talk) 20:59, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Signpost updated for April 21st, 2008.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 16:31, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Signpost updated for May 2nd and 9th, 2008.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 06:32, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Signpost updated for May 12th, 2008.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 09:37, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Signpost updated for May 19th and 26th, 2008.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 07:24, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Signpost updated for June 2, 2008.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 07:44, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
