User talk:DanielDeibler
 Archives (Index) |
|
This page is archived by ClueBot III.
|
Name-dropping
Can we do something about the IP user who has been vandalising the Name-dropping article for the past 28 months? They've just acted innocent on my talk page: [User_talk:Fences_and_windows#Your_edits_on_Name-dropping]. Would a request at WP:ANI help? I like your "guide to vandalism" by the way! Fences and windows (talk) 14:48, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
MfD nomination of User:DanielDeibler/Investigation of Rodhullandemu
User:DanielDeibler/Investigation of Rodhullandemu, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:DanielDeibler/Investigation of Rodhullandemu and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User:DanielDeibler/Investigation of Rodhullandemu during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:10, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
- You asked for reviews, and I put my case. Moving it to the talk page could easily give the impression that you are attempting to stifle my response; for one thing, the chronology becomes more obscure. If you are trying to be fair to me, that is not yet apparent. Should anyone come across your page, it might be assumed that I have nothing to say on the matter; that is incorrect. Thanks. Rodhullandemu 22:48, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
- I wasn't asking for reviews of the investigation itself. Please read the box at the top of the page. Please be more careful in the future when reverting edits. Anyone looking for your comments would expect to find them on the discussion page, which is where they belong, and where they have been moved to. If you're worried about the chronology, I can put it where it belongs, but that would bury it in the middle of the page somewhere, making it less noticeable, which is precisely what you're arguing against doing. For now, it's in it's own section in the most noticeable part of the discussion page, the bottom. I expect any interested people to understand how to read timestamps, but if you're concerned about it, add a note explaining it, or just move it up where it chronologically belongs. Thanks. --DanielDeibler (talk) 23:01, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
- What exactly were you asking for reviews of, then? In my country, an accused is expected, and even required, to provide some explanation; that's part of due process. Nobody is going to compare the main page with the talk page to see who said what, and when. Suffice it to say that I think that this investigation (and I've been involved in a fair few) has to go somewhere, and very rapidly indeed. No court of competent jurisdiction would accept this vacillation and uncertainty on your part, let alone your open-to-interpretation removal of my comments here. At the moment it seems that you're just gathering dirt, which is not permitted by WP:UPNOT, #10, with no clear object in mind. There's only one word for that, given the way you've stopped anything other than this topic- poisonous. Where's the balance? Non-existent, thus far. Go back over 21 months of some 42000 edits, please, and select some where I've help editors in good faith. Meanwhile, kindly stop gathering mud in the hope that some might stick. Rodhullandemu 23:15, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
- Read the box at the top of the investigation page. Nobody expects anyone to compare the main page with the talk page. That is why the investigation is on the main page, and discussion of the investigation is on the discussion page. What vacillation and uncertainty are you referring to? I didn't remove your comments. I moved them to the discussion page where they should have been added originally. By the way, please refrain from posting commentary on the investigation page. Commentary belongs on the talk page. You're free to believe what you wish. The investigation is balanced to begin with. Edits are not reviewed with any bias, but rather with a neutral, objective eye. If you wish to add your own review of an edit, or wish to request that an edit be reviewed, add it in the designated "Requests for review" section, which I suppose needs renaming and/or a concise description within it, and if it is relevant, it will be incorporated in the investigation, and if not, archived, relocated or removed depending on the situation. I'm not questioning your contribution history or edit count. You've been a valuable contributor to the English Wikipedia project. That's not being investigated and isn't being questioned. It would be pointless to review edits that are obviously helpful and appropriate when investigating someone's conduct. You claim to be concerned with the timeframe of the investigation, but at the same time suggest I review additional, benign edits as well, which would greatly increase the duration of the investigation. You spend so much time questioning this investigation and claiming it is some evil plot to defame you and yet not once have you addressed its content. If you spent a fraction of that time considering the virtue of the edits being reviewed in the investigation and honestly assessing your conduct, you could likely render the entire investigation pointless. The reason the investigation exists is that you responded to a warning regarding your conduct by indicating you thought your vandalism was acceptable due to your edit count and sysop flag, rather than addressing your conduct, the same behavior you continue to exhibit now. --DanielDeibler (talk) 01:29, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
- No. Either get on with it, or don't. I did address the content in general terms, but you shuffled it off to a Talk page. Thanks. Please make up your mind whether you're giving me a fair analysis or not. So far, that isn't apparent. The time you spent posting the above could have been spent on looking into your edits for review, but it wasn't, judging by your contribution history. Now, the assumption of good faith has its limits, but you seem to be being a netcop here with much bluster but very little apparent commitment, and I need to know where you stand on this. A prettily-formatted page is all very well, but thus far is lacking in the meat department. Meanwhile, your concentration on me could reasonably be interpreted as Wikistalking unless and until you focus on (a) a process and (b) moving towards that. Thus far, I see little evidence of either. "Digging the dirt" is inimical to a rational analysis, and your shortcomings in this respect should be obvious to all. One last time; commit or don't. {{db-author}} is your way of escaping the increasing criticism coming your way, and would at least allow you to retain some credibility as an editor here. Rodhullandemu 01:47, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
- I agree. Your continued questions and accusations here are wasting a great deal of time that could be spent working on the investigation. You've managed to slow it down even more than LessHeard. --DanielDeibler (talk) 02:02, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
- No. Either get on with it, or don't. I did address the content in general terms, but you shuffled it off to a Talk page. Thanks. Please make up your mind whether you're giving me a fair analysis or not. So far, that isn't apparent. The time you spent posting the above could have been spent on looking into your edits for review, but it wasn't, judging by your contribution history. Now, the assumption of good faith has its limits, but you seem to be being a netcop here with much bluster but very little apparent commitment, and I need to know where you stand on this. A prettily-formatted page is all very well, but thus far is lacking in the meat department. Meanwhile, your concentration on me could reasonably be interpreted as Wikistalking unless and until you focus on (a) a process and (b) moving towards that. Thus far, I see little evidence of either. "Digging the dirt" is inimical to a rational analysis, and your shortcomings in this respect should be obvious to all. One last time; commit or don't. {{db-author}} is your way of escaping the increasing criticism coming your way, and would at least allow you to retain some credibility as an editor here. Rodhullandemu 01:47, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
- Read the box at the top of the investigation page. Nobody expects anyone to compare the main page with the talk page. That is why the investigation is on the main page, and discussion of the investigation is on the discussion page. What vacillation and uncertainty are you referring to? I didn't remove your comments. I moved them to the discussion page where they should have been added originally. By the way, please refrain from posting commentary on the investigation page. Commentary belongs on the talk page. You're free to believe what you wish. The investigation is balanced to begin with. Edits are not reviewed with any bias, but rather with a neutral, objective eye. If you wish to add your own review of an edit, or wish to request that an edit be reviewed, add it in the designated "Requests for review" section, which I suppose needs renaming and/or a concise description within it, and if it is relevant, it will be incorporated in the investigation, and if not, archived, relocated or removed depending on the situation. I'm not questioning your contribution history or edit count. You've been a valuable contributor to the English Wikipedia project. That's not being investigated and isn't being questioned. It would be pointless to review edits that are obviously helpful and appropriate when investigating someone's conduct. You claim to be concerned with the timeframe of the investigation, but at the same time suggest I review additional, benign edits as well, which would greatly increase the duration of the investigation. You spend so much time questioning this investigation and claiming it is some evil plot to defame you and yet not once have you addressed its content. If you spent a fraction of that time considering the virtue of the edits being reviewed in the investigation and honestly assessing your conduct, you could likely render the entire investigation pointless. The reason the investigation exists is that you responded to a warning regarding your conduct by indicating you thought your vandalism was acceptable due to your edit count and sysop flag, rather than addressing your conduct, the same behavior you continue to exhibit now. --DanielDeibler (talk) 01:29, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
- I'll just add this: you didn't put {{NOINDEX}} on these pages, so they are now indexed by Google. As an admin, one gathers enemies, whether deserved or not, but to so negligently fail to keep this within Wikipedia doesn't help one iota. Rodhullandemu 23:17, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
- What exactly were you asking for reviews of, then? In my country, an accused is expected, and even required, to provide some explanation; that's part of due process. Nobody is going to compare the main page with the talk page to see who said what, and when. Suffice it to say that I think that this investigation (and I've been involved in a fair few) has to go somewhere, and very rapidly indeed. No court of competent jurisdiction would accept this vacillation and uncertainty on your part, let alone your open-to-interpretation removal of my comments here. At the moment it seems that you're just gathering dirt, which is not permitted by WP:UPNOT, #10, with no clear object in mind. There's only one word for that, given the way you've stopped anything other than this topic- poisonous. Where's the balance? Non-existent, thus far. Go back over 21 months of some 42000 edits, please, and select some where I've help editors in good faith. Meanwhile, kindly stop gathering mud in the hope that some might stick. Rodhullandemu 23:15, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
- I wasn't asking for reviews of the investigation itself. Please read the box at the top of the page. Please be more careful in the future when reverting edits. Anyone looking for your comments would expect to find them on the discussion page, which is where they belong, and where they have been moved to. If you're worried about the chronology, I can put it where it belongs, but that would bury it in the middle of the page somewhere, making it less noticeable, which is precisely what you're arguing against doing. For now, it's in it's own section in the most noticeable part of the discussion page, the bottom. I expect any interested people to understand how to read timestamps, but if you're concerned about it, add a note explaining it, or just move it up where it chronologically belongs. Thanks. --DanielDeibler (talk) 23:01, 21 April 2009 (UTC)