Changes

From Nordan Symposia
Jump to navigationJump to search

Wikipedia Daynal talkpage (view source)

Revision as of 02:44, 13 December 2020

15,490 bytes added ,  02:44, 13 December 2020
m
Text replacement - "http://" to "https://"
Line 1: Line 1:  
[[Image:lighterstill.jpg]]
 
[[Image:lighterstill.jpg]]
 
[[Image:Deleted_article.jpg|center|frame]]
 
[[Image:Deleted_article.jpg|center|frame]]
−
User talk:Daynal
+
==User talk:Daynal==
 
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
Jump to: navigation, search
 
Jump to: navigation, search
Line 112: Line 112:     
Rob
 
Rob
 +
==becoming an article==
   −
==License tagging for Image:Barnard telescope.jpg==
+
After discovering Wikipedia featured only a sentence on [[Landon Garland]], I did some initial research and composed the article as it exists at the moment. As I am not that familiar with all the technical requirements for an ideal Wikipedia article, I wanted to register my interest in eliciting any input that others might have.
   −
Daynal (talk) 02:57, 22 January 2008 (UTC) Thanks for uploading Image:Barnard telescope.jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information; to add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia. For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 12:05, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
+
It would appear that it no longer is but a 'stub', however, I would like to see the article feature pertinent references and sections, but will wait until I conclude further research. Additionally, the categories under which the article is labelled seem to need adjustment if not supplementation. After studying the subject further, I will check back.
   −
===becoming an article===
+
Daynal (talk) 20:09, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
   −
After discovering Wikipedia featured only a sentence on Landon Garland, I did some initial research and composed the article as it exists at the moment. As I am not that familiar with all the technical requirements for an ideal Wikipedia article, I wanted to register my interest in eliciting any input that others might have.
+
===License tagging for Image:Barnard telescope.jpg===
   −
It would appear that it no longer is but a 'stub', however, I would like to see the article feature pertinent references and sections, but will wait until I conclude further research. Additionally, the categories under which the article is labelled seem to need adjustment if not supplementation. After studying the subject further, I will check back.
+
Daynal (talk) 02:57, 22 January 2008 (UTC) Thanks for uploading Image:Barnard telescope.jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information; to add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia. For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 12:05, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
−
 
  −
Daynal (talk) 20:09, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
      
===rue-the-Bots===
 
===rue-the-Bots===
Line 186: Line 185:  
--Daynal (talk) 22:32, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
 
--Daynal (talk) 22:32, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
   −
What an honor to be 'banned' from Wikipedia for contributing the articles Landon Garland, Timothy Wyllie, and Daynal Institute Press. The first article was greeted with automated accusations of "vandalism", the second was judged as having an inappropriate 'tone", and the third was "deleted" without discussion due to "blatant advertising". As such, Wikipedia represents well a mechanistic culture by the sustained exhibition of a precipitous disinclination to dialogue where
+
What an honor to be 'banned' from Wikipedia for contributing the articles [[Landon Garland]], [[Timothy Wyllie]], and [[Daynal Institute Press]]. The first article was greeted with automated accusations of "vandalism", the second was judged as having an inappropriate 'tone", and the third was "deleted" without discussion due to "blatant advertising". As such, Wikipedia represents well a mechanistic culture by the sustained exhibition of a precipitous disinclination to dialogue where
      Line 266: Line 265:  
--Rldavisiv (talk) 23:21, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
 
--Rldavisiv (talk) 23:21, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
   −
After consultating with Wikipedia editors, I am compiling a list of third party citations to address the first objections posted against the merits of the article. As to 'tone', given no one has answered how such is defined, I will address that when it becomes more evident there is an policy statement making more vivid the intent of the reference to an "inappropriate tone".
+
After consulting with Wikipedia editors, I am compiling a list of third party citations to address the first objections posted against the merits of the article. As to 'tone', given no one has answered how such is defined, I will address that when it becomes more evident there is an policy statement making more vivid the intent of the reference to an "inappropriate tone".
    
Looking foward
 
Looking foward
Line 288: Line 287:  
Further comments are welcome.
 
Further comments are welcome.
   −
It appears the only comments ensuing are those of pastordavid whose user page identifies his username representating the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America on Wikipedia. His comments on this article consist of accusations against it as Sockpuppetry. His talk page also cites that while "Wikipedia is not censored, his talk page is", and that any writing he considers to be 'obscene' i.e. 'vandalism', etc. "will be deleted". This together with the automated deletion of articles on Wikpedia, it seems best to provide a link to the original {uncensored?} article here.
+
It appears the only comments ensuing are those of [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Pastordavid pastordavid] whose user page identifies his username representating the [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evangelical_Lutheran_Church_in_America Evangelical Lutheran Church in America] on Wikipedia. His comments on this article consist of accusations against it as Sockpuppetry. His talk page also cites that while "Wikipedia is not censored, his talk page is", and that any writing he considers to be 'obscene' i.e. 'vandalism', etc. "will be deleted". This together with the automated deletion of articles on Wikpedia, it seems best to provide a link to the original {uncensored?} article here.
    
Rob Davis (usernames Rldavisiv and Daynal)
 
Rob Davis (usernames Rldavisiv and Daynal)
Line 315: Line 314:     
===Policy Review===
 
===Policy Review===
−
  −
Behavior that is unacceptable Please note that some of the following are of sufficient importance to be official Wikipedia policy. Violations (and especially repeated violations) may lead to the offender being blocked or banned from editing Wikipedia.
  −
  −
* No personal attacks: A personal attack is saying something negative about another person. This mainly means:
  −
  −
o No insults: Do not make ad hominem attacks, such as calling someone an idiot, fascist (or incorrigible spammer). Instead, explain what is wrong with an edit and how to fix it.
  −
   
Hello Anthony:
 
Hello Anthony:
   Line 352: Line 344:  
Hello Andrew:
 
Hello Andrew:
   −
After some consideration, I think it will be best for me to retain the username Daynal given that under such circumstances it will be blocked indefinitely accomplishing the purpose outlined above with Anthony. Otherwise, I will continue corresponding in venues appreciative of the constructive role writers' interests bring to bear upon the advancement of knowledge.
+
<u>After some consideration, I think it will be best for me to retain the username Daynal given that under such circumstances it will be blocked indefinitely accomplishing the purpose outlined above</u> with Anthony. Otherwise, I will continue corresponding in venues appreciative of the constructive role writers' interests bring to bear upon the advancement of knowledge.
    
Gratefully,
 
Gratefully,
Line 386: Line 378:  
After examining forty or so of the 'publishing company stubs' in a somewhat random sampling, it was clear that the exception(s) are those citing anything other than their own internal production. While conflict of interest is of concern in any undertaking at anytime, for 'conflict' to exist, there must be present two or more interests in opposition to at least one of the others that is commonplace in competitive settings of any kind, be they academic, commercial, ecclesiastical, or otherwise. Where all such interests share a common goal there can be no 'conflict of interest'. The only 'conflict' then is one always present in human evaluation(s) based as these are upon the 'perceived' merits of any given work.
 
After examining forty or so of the 'publishing company stubs' in a somewhat random sampling, it was clear that the exception(s) are those citing anything other than their own internal production. While conflict of interest is of concern in any undertaking at anytime, for 'conflict' to exist, there must be present two or more interests in opposition to at least one of the others that is commonplace in competitive settings of any kind, be they academic, commercial, ecclesiastical, or otherwise. Where all such interests share a common goal there can be no 'conflict of interest'. The only 'conflict' then is one always present in human evaluation(s) based as these are upon the 'perceived' merits of any given work.
   −
For this reason, in view of the perceptions of questionable 'intent' behind this article, it appears best to withdraw interest in seeing any such stub or article on the Daynal Institute or its Press unless such may arise naturally from the general recognition of its work. It is just such work that is understood to be an organic process unfolding without the more familiar coercive pressures animating so much trade and academic writing that I know is the shared objective of Wikipedia and countless other initiatives that are germinating throughout this world all too hungry for the "genuine article".
+
For this reason, in view of the perceptions of questionable 'intent' behind this article, it appears best to withdraw interest in seeing any such stub or article on the [[Daynal Institute]] or its [[Daynal Institute Press|Press]] unless such may arise naturally from the general recognition of its work. It is just such work that is understood to be an organic process unfolding without the more familiar coercive pressures animating so much trade and academic writing that I know is the shared objective of Wikipedia and countless other initiatives that are germinating throughout this world all too hungry for the "genuine article".
    
Gratefully,
 
Gratefully,
Line 482: Line 474:     
(copies of this exchange will be archived for future reference) [here] --72.250.232.242 (talk) 18:38, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
 
(copies of this exchange will be archived for future reference) [here] --72.250.232.242 (talk) 18:38, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
−
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Daynal"
+
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Daynal"
 
Categories: Proposed deletion as of 30 April 2008 | All articles proposed for deletion | Wikipedian usernames editors have expressed concern over | Temporary Wikipedian userpages
 
Categories: Proposed deletion as of 30 April 2008 | All articles proposed for deletion | Wikipedian usernames editors have expressed concern over | Temporary Wikipedian userpages
   Line 520: Line 512:  
==Moving forward==
 
==Moving forward==
   −
It appears that the original editor of the article is no longer active here.  I'm going to try and salvage the article, or determine if it meets the deletion criteria. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Paulbrock User:Paulbrock|Paulbrock] [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Paulbrock User talk:Paulbrock|talk] 17:35, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
+
It appears that the original editor of the article is no longer active here.  I'm going to try and salvage the article, or determine if it meets the deletion criteria. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Paulbrock User:Paulbrock|Paulbrock] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Paulbrock User talk:Paulbrock|talk] 17:35, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
    
The writer is watching with interest how Wikipedia 'salvages' articles given the Evangelical Lutheran Church's displeasure with the thought of this on Wikipedia.
 
The writer is watching with interest how Wikipedia 'salvages' articles given the Evangelical Lutheran Church's displeasure with the thought of this on Wikipedia.
Line 526: Line 518:     
[[Image:silensor2.jpg|center|frame]]
 
[[Image:silensor2.jpg|center|frame]]
−
Why is this page black?
+
fr: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Silensor Silensor]
 +
 
 +
==Sockpuppetry Case==
 +
Suspected sockpuppets
 +
Rldavisiv
 +
 
 +
<!--If there are additional suspected sockpuppets to be included, add them above this comment using the form {{user5|1=SOCKPUPPET}}<br>, replacing SOCKPUPPET in each case with the user name that you suspect is a sockpuppet of the puppetmaster. (Leave out the "User:" prefix.)  Leave the <br> tag after each one and add or remove lines as necessary.  Remove this comment once completed. -->
 +
 
 +
Report submission by
 +
<!--Sign your name BELOW this comment line with 4 tilde characters "~~~~" -->
 +
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Pastordavid User:Pastordavid|Pastordavid] ([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Pastordavid/Archive_5#Daynal User talk:Pastordavid|talk]) 20:40, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 +
<!--Do not use "==" or "===" style headers in this report.  Such headers disorganize the report page.  Please use ";" style (as below)-->
 +
 
 +
Evidence
 +
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Rldavisiv User:Rldavisiv] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Rldavisiv&diff=207296558&oldid=207296170 responded] to a cluebot warning for blanking two articles by stating that he/she had started these articles.  Article histories ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Timothy_Wyllie&action=history here] and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Landon_Garland&action=history here] show that both articles were begun by indef-blocked user Daynal, who is using his/her talkpage for a [[WP:SOAPBOX]] of one sort or another. [[User:Pastordavid|Pastordavid]] ([[User talk:Pastordavid|talk]]) 20:40, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 +
 
 +
Comments
 +
I gave the original user the opportunity to rename his account by unblocking him per his unblock request.  Instead of filing for a user name change, he continued editing articles that are directly connected to his publishing company, Daynal Institute Press.  In all likelihood the user could have resumed his editing with minimal objection, but now it appears that, after my reblocking him for the aforementioned actions, he went ahead and created a new account for himself.  I do not see it as typical sock behavior, as there is some transparency, but his philosophical disagreements with how we work, which are completely absent in his private correspondence with me, are here evident, and suggest that he may choose to operate under his own rules and disregard the community's agreed-upon policies and standards.  I'm uncertain how to respond to him now, as I feel completely deceived.  For now, I intend to make public any further email correspondence of his with me for the sake of transparency; he would do well to instead correspond with all Wikipedians within the same framework as the rest of us. -&nbsp;<font face="Verdana">[[User:Cobaltbluetony|CobaltBlueTony™]]&nbsp;<sub>[[User_talk:Cobaltbluetony|talk]]</sub></font> 21:01, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 +
 
 +
I endorse CobaltBlueTony's comments, especially regarding Daynal's potential for ignoring our community norms. --[[User:AndrewHowse|AndrewHowse]] ([[User talk:AndrewHowse|talk]]) 02:03, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
 +
 
 +
----
 +
 
 +
A sock puppet is an alternative account used deceptively.
 +
Although not common, some Wikipedians also create alternative accounts.
 +
It is recommended that he or she provide links between the accounts.
 +
 
 +
<center>[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Rldavisiv Sockpuppet]</center>
 +
 
 +
<center>This is a '[[sockpuppet]] account', however, the '[[hand]]' can easily be found [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Daynal here]</center>
 +
 
 +
 
 +
 
 +
--[[Special:Contributions/75.104.157.17|75.104.157.17]] ([[User talk:75.104.157.17|talk]]) 03:25, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
 +
 
 +
----
 +
<center>Free [[intelligence]] is endowed with the '''potential''' for violating norms. If such were not the case, [[meaning|meaningful]] discussions of [[normativity]] could not exist.</center>
 +
 
 +
--[[Special:Contributions/75.104.157.17|75.104.157.17]] ([[User talk:75.104.157.17|talk]]) 13:49, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
 +
 
 +
;Conclusions
 +
 
 +
Blocked accordingly. <sub>[[User:Gb|GB]]</sub><sup>[[User talk:Gb|T]]/[[Special:Contributions/Gb|C]]</sup> 15:51, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
 +
 
 +
<center>The [[justice]] that governs genuine [[public]] space is never administered by persons using fictitious 'usernames'.  [https://nordan.daynal.org/wiki/index.php?title=Rob_Davis Rob Davis]</center>
 +
 
 +
==Pastordavid/ Daynal dialogue==
 +
===Daynal===
 +
Dear Pastordavid,
 +
 
 +
Would you find it more comfortable discussing here the public display of what is described as an 'archived' page where your charge of [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/Daynal Sockpuppetry] was sustained against [[user:Daynal]]? If the page should be really archived as was the [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Timothy_Wyllie/Archive_1 'discussion'] of the [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timothy_Wyllie article] that apparently offended your personal beliefs, we can agree to let this 'lie'. Gratefully, Rob Davis --[[Special:Contributions/72.250.232.242|72.250.232.242]] ([[User talk:72.250.232.242|talk]]) 19:47, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
 +
 
 +
:Ah, you ascribe to me sensitivities that I am afraid I do not posses.  I am not offended in the least.  In fact, the SSP page is indeed archived just the same as the talk page in question - both are still viewable by the general public, as shown by your ability to view both of them.  Neither of them, however, has been [[WP:DELETE|deleted]].  You are welcome to persue deletion for them ... I would guess that asking at [[WP:MFD|misc. for deletion]] would be the right place.  I would not, however, expect the deletion of either to be likely.  And if you feel, as you continue to insinuate, my particular background produces an undue bias or conflict of interest in either my editing or my use of the administrative tools, you are encouraged to file a report either at [[WP:RFC|requests for comment on user behavior]] or at [[WP:ANI|the administrators' incident noticeboard]].  Thanks. [[User:Pastordavid|Pastordavid]] ([[User talk:Pastordavid#top|talk]]) 21:07, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
 +
 
 +
 
 +
::Dear Pastordavid, Thank you for your reply!  It is not sensitivities you possess, but rather the appearance of such that is suggested by your interjection into what was otherwise an evolving dialogue addressing issues raised by the article in question. That dialogue was silenced by the sustained accusation of using a  'sockpuppet' to evade compliance with Wikipedia policies.  Deletion is not what is sought, far from it, but discussion of the perception of wrongdoing is, and such discussion must begin with the 'plaintiff' that you are in this virtual 'case' and myself who would otherwise be the 'defendant'. Obviously, such legal descriptors are inappropriate in a private environment, but the appearance of due process is suggested by the legal terminology utilized in this venue. I would suggest however, that two human beings capable of penetrating mere perceptions to probe the truth of any matter would be far more conducive to the collegial atmosphere sought at Wikipedia than any 'legal' pretensions could realize. Are you amenable to such? Gratefully, Rob --[[Special:Contributions/72.250.232.242|72.250.232.242]] ([[User talk:72.250.232.242|talk]]) 21:59, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
 +
 
 +
:::Very well. The disinclination to dialogue sustains the appearance you otherwise forswear. Rob--[[Special:Contributions/71.125.97.151|71.125.97.151]] ([[User talk:71.125.97.151|talk]]) 19:30, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
 +
 
 +
::::No.  What it sustains is the limited amount of time I am available online right now given real life responsibilities.  Patience.  [[User:Pastordavid|Pastordavid]] ([[User talk:Pastordavid#top|talk]]) 20:05, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
 +
 
 +
:::::Gladly! Genuine dialogue is well worth the wait and work.--[[Special:Contributions/74.223.63.66|74.223.63.66]] ([[User talk:74.223.63.66|talk]]) 21:31, 8 June 2008 (UTC) Rob
 +
 
 +
Rob, please have a look at this [https://nordan.daynal.org/wiki/index.php?title=Wikipedia_Daynal_talkpage#Unblock.3F unblock proposal].  Let me know if you are interested. [[User:Pastordavid|Pastordavid]] ([[User talk:Pastordavid#top|talk]]) 19:09, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
 +
 
 +
:Hello Pastordavid, Looks like a reasonable solution, but before we proceed, I would like to know a few things about Wikipedia that have been brought to mind by your original accusations using the term 'sockpuppet', once was a delightful term of endearing innocence, but now synonymous with deceptive practices of virtual sabotage on Wikipedia.
 +
#Is Wikipedia so preoccupied with fraud, vandalism, and malicious actions of mean spirited persons to preempt the need to inquire with any apparent offender directly before bringing a virtual 'court case' against innocent, unsuspecting persons whose only desire is to contribute to a culture where sharing is valued above all else?
 +
#What criteria operates whereby usernames officially representing organizations are approved and disapproved by Wikpedia?
 +
:Looking forward,  Rob aka--[[Special:Contributions/68.238.123.94|68.238.123.94]] ([[User talk:68.238.123.94|talk]]) 19:14, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
 +
 
 +
::Rob, there is a long history behind the policy of [[WP:SOCK]], much of which occured long before I arrived here (the conversation about the practice begins really around the spring of 2004).  Suffice it to say that wikipedia's visibility, combined with the easy accessibility, makes it prone to disruption.  One particular way to be disruptive, is to register multiple accounts, and have them operate simultaneously -- quite simply, persons with multiple accounts (except for in certain, well-defined situations) are usually being intentionally disruptive - and so multiple accounts are not allowed.  It may be helpful to understand the rationale, but the bottom line is that it is one of the accepted norms of this project, and to take part in the project on must be willing to uphold it.  In regard to the "preoccupation" with such things, not that there are millions of visitors to wikipedia each day, and any one can edit wikipedia - and so it takes a dedicated effort to keep the vandalism in check. 
 +
::As to "usernames officially representing organizations", see [[Wikipedia:USERNAME#Company.2Fgroup_names|this policy page]].  In short, they are always ''discouraged'', and beyond that are handled on a case by case basis. Another admin deemed that your editing habits were a bad combination with the username.  The process would then be for me to unblock the [[User:Daynal]] account, and walk you through the changing username process. [[User:Pastordavid|Pastordavid]] ([[User talk:Pastordavid#top|talk]]) 21:57, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
 +
 
 +
Hello Pastordavid:
 +
 
 +
Thank you for this as I understand well how security issues  loom large proportionate to the profile of any 'target' and relative to the culture in which it functions. The username policy is understood given that 'defense' of integrity in the context of a civilization learning to be 'civil' will necessarily injure innocent parties, but case by case basis review, even if requiring lavish exposure over time for authentication purposes, is the requisite price for security in an insecure world.
 +
 
 +
Gratefully,
 +
 
 +
Rob--[[Special:Contributions/74.223.63.66|74.223.63.66]] ([[User talk:74.223.63.66|talk]]) 23:36, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
 +
 
 +
==Unblock?==
 +
<!-- DO NOT EDIT THE "----" NOR THE </div> KEEP THEM WHERE THEY ARE. REMEMBER TO SIGN! USING FOUR TILDES -->
 +
 
 +
I have been in conversation with various IPs which seem to be connected to {{user:Daynal}}.  I believe that the editor behind these accounts, currently blocked for [[WP:SOCK|operating multiple accounts]] can be a productive editor.  However, I do have a couple of reservations, which I hope we can address here.  I have asked a couple of editors to step in and help to [[WP:MENTOR|mentor]] [[User:Daynal]] and direct him toward the ways of contructively participating in the wikipedia project.
 +
 
 +
Here are my conditions for unblocking:
 +
# At least one trusted editor agrees to function as mentor (I have asked two).
 +
# Editor will only operate one account, and preferably limit the amount of un-logged in editing.
 +
# Editor will refrain from copying the comments of others to various places and refactoring them (which breaks the [[WP:GFDL|contribution history]] and [[WP:TALK|misrepresents the words of others]]).
 +
# Editor will focus on content, not [[WP:SOAP|soapboxing]].
 +
 
 +
==Agreement to unblock conditions==
 +
*Editor:
 +
*Mentor(s):
 +
** [[User:Merzul|Merzul]] ([[User talk:Merzul|talk]]) 23:50, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
 +
*Blocking admin:  These are my expectations: The user must complete the name change process under which I originally unblocked him, under technical guidance if requested/needed.  The user must also to agree not to edit subjects which are directly connected to his publishing company without the mentor's agreement/guidance.  The user will also not start any articles directly related to his publishing company at all.  I will not mentor. -&nbsp;<font face="Verdana">[[User:Cobaltbluetony|CobaltBlueTony™]]&nbsp;<sub>[[User_talk:Cobaltbluetony#top|talk]]</sub></font> 00:19, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
 +
 
 +
==Discussion==
 +
Greetings! How good it is to see opportunities to discuss issues of concern for all those concerned-virtually present together.
    +
Until the charge of sockpuppetry was made against account [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Daynal user:Daynal], I was content to use but this name only, and then only to prevent others from using it as I have a responsibility to and for the public use of this name by virtue of serving as admin to most domains operating with this name.
    +
The articles I wrote, [[Landon Garland]] and [[Timothy Wyllie]] (read by bots as vandalism) prior to sustaining the sockpuppetry charge stand on record for continued examination and revision. After consultation with CobaltBlueTony, the unblock procedure was implemented as per his instructions, but just before the sockpuppetry charge, it appeared to him "for some reason" the change was not processed as expected. Another editor, AndrewHowse, had suggested that I address the conflict of interest raised by the [[Timothy Wyllie]] article by editing the article under his oversight. By this point, such required an alternate account [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Rldavisiv user:Rldavisiv] to do so without working anonymously. To avoid misunderstanding, these were linked as per suggestions of Wikipedia policy. This apparently triggered the accusation of sockpuppetry by [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Pastordavid user:Pastordavid] (quickly sustained) bringing to an immediate halt the implementation of any suggestions of these two editors.
   −
#Because I am mourning the loss of civility and and the loss of too many good editors from the Wikipedia.
+
Further dialogue to address the situation has required the utilization of anonymous IP addresses, and traveling extensively finds the number of IP addresses uncountable for most tracking purposes.
−
#Because the Wikipedia has become a victim of its own success and its internal mechanisms for helping maintain civility have not scaled well.
  −
#Requests for comments now generates more heat than light.
  −
#Even some members of the Mediation Committee admit that it is not working and skip Requests for mediation and go on to the next step.
  −
#Finally there is Requests for arbitration, which takes forever to make decisions, and seemingly refuses to take on the bad behavior of some administrators unless the admin's behavior is so egregious that it can't ignore it.
  −
#I will not even attempt to enumerate the other dysfunctional areas of the Wikipedia, such as Articles for deletion.
      +
<u>'''replies''' to ''conditions'' and ''expectations'' above</u>:
 +
 +
#The process of mentoring was previously initiated, even if informally, but stopped by the sockpuppetry case.
 +
#This editor desired but one account linked directly to his personal contact page to demonstrate transparency.
 +
#This editor 'copied comments' to the personal talkpage to "centralize discussion" as per Wikipedia policy addressing confusion of a fragmented dialogue.
 +
#After writing two articles, requests were made to Wikipedia editors for their comments on the 'content'. The reply to the [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Landon_Garland first] was an automated accusation of vandalism, and the [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Timothy_Wyllie/Archive_1 second] elicited only the Sockpuppetry charge from Pastordavid.
 +
#This editor had [https://nordan.daynal.org/wiki/index.php?title=Wikipedia_Daynal_talkpage#Policy_Review elected], after consulting with CobaltBlueTony, to retain username [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Daynal Daynal] to block it indefinitely.
 +
#This editor will not edit Wikipedia articles unless requested given [https://www.press.daynal.org/about.html all subjects] of human inquiry are 'directly connected to his publishing company'.
 +
 +
Gratefully,
 +
 +
Rob Davis --[[Special:Contributions/74.223.63.66|74.223.63.66]] ([[User talk:74.223.63.66|talk]]) 23:26, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
 +
 +
: Hi Rob, I have a hard time understanding what you exactly mean with your last points. Also, why do you refer to yourself in the third person? [[User:Merzul|Merzul]] ([[User talk:Merzul|talk]]) 23:49, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
 +
 +
Hello Merzul, and thank you for your willingness to work with us through this process!
 +
 +
The last two points causing misunderstanding are replies to the expectations of CobaltBlueTony stipulating that I agree not to edit subjects directly connected to Daynal Institute Press that as per our [https://www.press.daynal.org/about.html purpose] necessarily includes all subject areas that preclude then my direct contributions to this particular wiki project.
 +
 +
As for referencing myself' in the third person, it is my understanding Wikipedia prefers to limit first person pronouns to foster neutrality. However, the use of third person references seem appropriate when pointing to the 'account' at issue, while first person usage might be best reserved solely for the 'person' I am.
 +
 +
Gratefully,
 +
 +
Rob--[[Special:Contributions/12.172.30.9|12.172.30.9]] ([[User talk:12.172.30.9|talk]]) 22:56, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
 +
 +
Gentlemen:
 +
 +
It appears I have come to an understanding of how 'special contributions' can be appropriate to my interest in blocking indefinitely any use of Daynal on Wikipedia and avoiding any further edits related to any "subject connected with Daynal Institute Press" i.e. all subjects of human inquiry.
 +
 +
I will not initiate any articles on Wikipedia, and any future  'edits' will be done under my name [https://nordan.daynal.org/wiki/index.php?title=Rob_Davis Rob Davis] using the 'special contributions allowance' and then only in response to a request for such by an editor working on an article in need of citations or other such evidence. Otherwise, my support for Wikipedia and its 'sister' sites will be by direct contributions to [[MediaWiki]], its use and ongoing development.
 +
 +
Gratefully,
   −
Just one part of the solution: There are some editors who don't necessarily need to be banned, but just need a time out, which is why the Wikipedia has a temporary blocking process. Well admins are editors too, and they also occasionally step over the bounds of appropriate behavior for editors. What is worse is that they can use their admin tools to do their misbehavior.
+
Rob Davis --[[Special:Contributions/12.198.116.2|12.198.116.2]] ([[User talk:12.198.116.2|talk]]) 05:01, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
   −
Right now there is no quick and effective way to punish a misbehaving administrator or even stop their misbehavior. If another admin blocks them, they can unblock themself. If an article is protected, they can edit it anyway. If they are in a revert war, they can continually use their rollback tool. And they can do all of this basically with impunity.
+
==Background material==
 +
*[[Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Daynal]]
   −
Because admins are trusted members of the Wikipedia community I feel that their misbehavior must be taken more seriously than those actions of other editors. There needs to be a small group of trusted supervisor administrators who have the ability to temporarily block misbehaving admins from doing any editing for periods of time up to a week and removal of admin powers for at least a month based upon the severity of the misbehavior. Any further misbehavior would be grounds for permanent removal as an administrator and they would have to reapply at Requests for adminship.
+
Note; This 'background material' was deleted by Wikipedia, and I note that Pastordavid is still away 'for a month or so'--rdavis 17:23, 20 August 2008 (EDT)
   −
(Also, the number of admins is growing so large, and the Wikipedia is growing so complex, that it would be a very good idea to have volunteer "mentor" admins to help show the newbie admins the lay of the land.)
+
==More 'Cleansing'==
 +
[[Image:Deletionlg.jpg|center]]
   −
Look at the Requests for adminship page. It says, "Admins...are held to high standards, as they are perceived by some users as the "official face" of Wikipedia." Unfortunately the first part of that statement is not true. Instead, because they are admins, they can do practically anything they want without facing any consequences in almost all cases of admin misbehavior. Because they are admins they are given much more slack than other Wikipedia editors for any of their misbehavior. This needs to be changed.
+
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Pastordavid Pastordavid] apparently is now back to Wikipedia on a 'very limited' basis.
    
[[Category: Censored Articles]]
 
[[Category: Censored Articles]]
Retrieved from "http://nordan.daynal.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/17478...134164"

Navigation menu