| Revision as of 10:06, 16 November 2006 editDaniel (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Checkusers, Oversighters, Administrators75,520 edits →Checkuser Policy: further bad← Previous edit | Revision as of 10:20, 16 November 2006 edit undoDakshayani (talk | contribs)36 edits →Checkuser Policy: very bad indeed and ofcourse trolling.Next edit → | ||
| Line 382: | Line 382: | ||
| :Yes, the same policy was followed, and the exception was procedure-based and not policy-based. Diffs are added to demonstrate to the editors with the checkuser tool that abuse occured; if a editors with the checkuser tool finds abusive editing occuring, there is no need to list the diffs, because there is no need to prove to themselves that abuse occured. So, yes it was followed, and no, that wasn't an exception to policy. '''] <sup>] · ] ]</sup>''' 10:02, 16 November 2006 (UTC) | :Yes, the same policy was followed, and the exception was procedure-based and not policy-based. Diffs are added to demonstrate to the editors with the checkuser tool that abuse occured; if a editors with the checkuser tool finds abusive editing occuring, there is no need to list the diffs, because there is no need to prove to themselves that abuse occured. So, yes it was followed, and no, that wasn't an exception to policy. '''] <sup>] · ] ]</sup>''' 10:02, 16 November 2006 (UTC) | ||
| Thankyou. What about the indicators? Something like "The following are all the same person" is acceptable? If editor with editors with the checkuser tool conducts one check sue motto, is (s)he supposed to declare the result in full. That is, even if some users are not related, is (s)he supposed declare that as well.''']]''' 10:20, 16 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 10:20, 16 November 2006
Please post new messages at the bottom of this page, or click here to start a new section which will automatically be placed at the bottom. I have formatted my archives in groups of 30, and archive messages off my main talk page after a while. If you wish to revisit an archived discussion, please copy and paste all text, formatting included, to the bottom of this page.
i. Always sign your name and time using ~~~~ ii. Use colons (:) to indent iii. Please be civil
|
|
HeyHey Daniel. Long time no speak. I've been pretty much inactive from around here recently what with Uni and business commitments (thanks to WP I got published in a National mag!! woot). Anyway I just dropped in to do some research and noticed you were running for Arbcom. So I thought I drop by to say good luck and that I hope you get voted in! I'll try and remember to come back and vote for you at the appropriate time! Soon I might even get back to editing - doubt it though... too much stress! :D --Errant Tmorton166 02:36, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
CCMFC pageCheers for fixing up that reference with the CCMFC article. I was restructuring the whole sentence (it was very POV, how it was), but it's good to see interest in the article. I nominated it for Football Collaboration of the Week a little while ago, and it looks like it will make it - I reckon that it could be the first FA for the Wikiproject. Anyways, thanks, and keep up the good work, Daniel.Bryant 05:46, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Declining unblocksHi Daniel! Yeah, good point ("normal users in good standing") that I was groping for - and missed by about " " much.. but I think the point still stands - if you are doing any job that doesn't require admin tools, then it isn't an admin job. If an unblock was declined in bad faith, then that would be bad, if not downright disruptive... but that applies to admins as much (if not more) as it does to "ordinary" users. Our next generation of admins should be doing these types of jobs, IMHO. Although I could easily be wrong. I often am :o) ➨ ЯEDVERS 21:18, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
ThanksLike the signature, it's all thanks to you. So thanks!!! Jamo 23:03, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
RfA thanks
Meanwhile, your RfA gets more and more overdue... :-) Kindest regards.--Húsönd 21:13, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
Survey QHave you ever been to the southern hemisphere? Respond here Deadline for entries is December 15th, PST. AstroBoy 03:32, 12 November 2006 (UTC) Not like I've been stalking you or anything, but...
Australian collaboration of the fortnightHi. You voted for United States-Australia relations for WP:ACOTF. It has been selected, so please help to improve the article in any way you can. Thanks. --Scott Davis 13:12, 12 November 2006 (UTC) Football AID 12 November – 19 November Central Coast Mariners FC has been selected as this week's collaboration. Please do help in working to improve it. (Untitled)Hi Daniel, Re the Just What Is It that Makes Today's Homes So Different, So Appealing? site, it keeps getting stubbed by people who nothing about the subject matter so rather than spend countless hours trying to get the truth out to the public it seems better for us to hold off and wait until the art world catches up and responds in due course.ottex. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ottex (talk • contribs)
Altered CommentBy the way, I noticed you altered your comment on Walton monarchist89's recently-closed RfA, citing that it appeared someone had changed your comment. However, that was your original comment. -- tariqabjotu 11:10, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
Userpage help!Hey, I was planning to have something on my userpage on Misplaced Pages and the Rare Witch Wiki Project similar to your header. Could you give me the source code or tell me how to make something like it. Thanks! --Andre 19:14, 13 November 2006 (UTC) Banning User:NisarKandAfter continued racist remarks as well as vandalism (his edits cannot be considered "good faith" anymore), I believe that banning NisarKand, especially after his most recent racist attacks (calling an entire ethnic group "rats" as well as openly taking pride in the actions of the Taliban; User:Golbez reverted his latest racist comment ), would be the best solution. In fact, this is not only my opinion, but also that of User:Sikandarji, an academic at Oxford University who is a specialist in the fields that have been under POVish attack by NisarKand. What are the steps to such an action? And what are your views in this regard? Tājik 22:21, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
I mentioned you in an RfCHey there. I have mentioned you in an RfC that I have filed. Could you possibly read over it and take a look? Thanks! :: Colin Keigher (Talk)
Signpost updated for November 13th.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 05:03, 14 November 2006 (UTC) Shiny new buttons
Missed oneThanks. -Will Beback 08:54, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
SolicitationPlease do not solicit other users' opinion on an Articles for Deletion debate, as you did here. It is considered canvassing, and you can be blocked for it. As such, the AfD debate in question may be voided because of these actions. Please do not do it again - repeat attempts at creating a false sense of concensus may end up with you being blocked. Daniel.Bryant 22:51, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
HehSince you were amused by the shrubbery, you might find this amusing as well. DS 00:52, 15 November 2006 (UTC) James HolDaniel, I noticed this user was accusing me of rubbish, that I don't understand. Could you please check this out. James Hol has also vandalized my user page, check it out Kelvin Williams. Could you please fix this probalem for me Kelvin Williams 01:34, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
SignatureI changed it again and guess what? Dfrg.msc adopted me. Yay! Drizzt Jamo 03:16, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
VandalismThanks for the note. However, I'm not very active user here, so I'm not gonna waste my time going through all the formal procedures and so on. I suppose vandalism is a thing which doesn't require lots of formalities to fight with. My user page is a subject to vandalism on purpose, that's clear, you may just look to the history. User vandalizing it has dynamic IP adress or maybe uses proxy, so blocking is not a proper solution. All I ask is to lock that page. Otherwise I will be forced to delete my account (don't even know if that's possible :) ). Please don't get me wrong and thanks again :) --Windom 07:55, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
Maybe its the fact it's 4 am, or maybe I'm just bored but
User:68.52.206.175No worries, I dont think protection is necessary yet but absolutely let me know Glen 03:27, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
HappyisgayShould I continue putting the sockpuppet notice back up or not? -WarthogDemon 03:58, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Malformed RFCUThere is a request on the IP check subpage that looks like it should be formatted as a regular check (and in any case should not have been posted on the subpage). It's midnight here and I need to finish up another problem and get off for the night. Thatcher131 04:56, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Checkuser PolicyI saw your response to a checkuser request, and I believe it is in accordance with the checkuser policy. I would like to know whether the same policy was followed when this checkuser was conducted on the user who has placed this request now. My interest is just academic and I am just curious to know whether there are exceptions to this policy. Dakshayani തമ്പുരാട്ടി 09:57, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Thankyou. What about the indicators? Something like "The following are all the same person" is acceptable? If editor with editors with the checkuser tool conducts one check sue motto, is (s)he supposed to declare the result in full. That is, even if some users are not related, is (s)he supposed declare that as well. Dakshayani തമ്പുരാട്ടി 10:20, 16 November 2006 (UTC) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
