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.
Last year, an informal pact/commitment was made late in the year to aim for 100 good articles by the end of the year. As a result, a net increase of 24 GAs was achieved in December 2007 and the GA count hit triple figures, ending the year on 106 GAs. This year seasonally adjusted, the GA production has been slower than in last during the May-November periods (see graphs below). At the start of the month, our WikiProject had 178 good articles. Another GA Drive has been organised, with the hope of reaching the double century by the end of the year or Australia Day 2009 at the least. As of 16 December, there are 180 GAs and 15 currently nominated, primarily in response to the GA appeal. Everyone's help is requested to make the drive a success.
Following the 2008 Summer Olympics, some Australian Wikipedians attended the various welcome home parades for the athletes, with one objective being to help create free images of the athletes. Previously, less than ten had photos. However, there are now over 100 athletes that do have photos, but unfortunately in some cases, they have not yet been identified. Help is requested for this purpose at the link above.
After much hard work in slogging through paperwork and government regulations, Wikimedia Australia was incorporated on 6 August, and membership was opened on 12 November. Its stated purpose is to be "an independent, not-for-profit organisation, whose primary aim is to promote equality of opportunity to access and participate in the collaborative creation of Free Cultural Works, especially educational works, and works about Australia, its culture, natural environment, and Australian news and media". It will be developing a joint publication with Creative Commons Australia, and members are in the process of spreading the Wikipedia message, with Wikipedia being introduced into the curriculum in some courses in Australia next year. The first AGM is planned for 11 January 2009.
Well known Australian Wikipedian and polyglot FA writer Casliber, known for his writings on Australian wildlife among other things, has placed first in this year's arbitration election and appears certain to be appointed.
Mattinbgn is rather camera shy, so here is Harry Trott.
Here are some statistics for WikiProject Australia in terms of 2008's good article and featured article promotions. Summing it up: 116 featured articles, and 178 good articles. So far this year, a net 36 FAs and 72 GAs have been added. The areas of FA growth were cricket (+12), military history (+7), swimming (+5), Powderfinger (+4), birds (+4), Silverchair (+2), Holden (+1), Wiggles (+1). These areas have been traditional strengths of the project, and this year, Abraham, B.S. has started another strong tradition, with a series of articles on Australian Victoria Cross awardees (1FA, 8GA). It would be great to see a wider range of Australian topics represented at FA in future. Two FAs were sent to Featured article review, but Bilby was instrumental in renovating and saving both Shrine of Remembrance and Waterfall Gully, South Australia.
Just a friendly reminder that it's Thursday. :-) —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 07:17, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
Heh, sorry about that - Christmas is a horrid time for such things :) I spoke to Cary (who works at the Office), and he said it'd be fine to include an email address to email@example.com as well as a phone number, but he also noted that cos the office is only open 30-odd-% of the day and often law enforcement requests come from all time zones and therefore at all hours, there may not be anyone there. Cheers, Daniel (talk) 12:45, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
Quite alright; very understandable. Thanks for the info! —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 17:08, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
I asked a CheckUser, who would be able to confirm whether they are the same. They declined to run the check, because "the history of that article doesn't indicate they are "pushing" anything, and the IP is likely the same person, but are probably due to simply having troubles staying logged in". I would suggest you get assistance with the content part of the dispute (as opposed to the IP-and-editor behavioural part) at WP:AWNB from people who are better-versed in the subject matter. Daniel (talk) 13:07, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
Daniel: I suspect you have a grasp of broader Wiki-procedure of the kind that I lack. I still have a little flesh to put on AdminWatch, including election procedure, but the basics are there already. I'm encouraged that many admins accept—even support—the general concept.
I now realise that my original plan to have it operate (trial) from my userspace with coordinators of my choosing, hoping to move it to public space later, is not the way to go. I believe that by early January, with a few more tweaks and more feedback on the talk page, a more public move should be made. Have you suggestions of the best way to do this? One option might be to:
move it to WP:ADMINWATCH and put it to an RfC on its talk page, widely advertised (asking either one broad do-you-approve-or-not question, or seeking approval of / comments on a series of detailed aspects, like the staged process, the method of election, etc);
run an election over about 10 days;
start it, open to further feedback/review/tweaking.
Your thoughts? Tony(talk) 07:05, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
Hiya Tony, I'll hopefully answer this on Dec 26 (my time) when I have some more time to sit down and write up my thoughts. Cheers, Daniel (talk) 01:52, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
Ultimately, this concept doesn't require a consensus of the community to stay alive; it merely needs a consensus not to be deleted, which is a massive difference. It can operate even if 90% of people dislike it, although it's effect may be diminished. To that end, in contrast with some other proposals which qualify as "power-grabs", this one has a distinct advantage in that it can operate within its few pages without anyone getting upset about the fact that people are overreaching their "authority". To that end, I really don't think you need to discuss its existence much; maybe call for comments on the process and then shortly afterwards ask for candidates (is that a job offer? :D). The support you've received on the talk page at the user subpage is clearly sufficient to survive any MfD attempt, and that's all you really need as a base line of support to function.
With the election, I'd suggest keeping it as simple as possible, and maybe consider using approval-only voting to keep acrimony to a minimum, although it will make for a popularity contest. Set low-ish boundaries for qualifying to vote (just enough to keep out socks - maybe 50 edits by the date the election starts or similar), consider not having a questions page, etc. etc. - keeping it simple to avoid screaming about bureaucracy. Clearly specify how the winners are decided, and also make a final decision on the number of admin and non-admin seats before it goes ahead - unlike ArbCom, surprises for this wouldn't be as much fun :)
With regards to advertising the concept and the election, I don't think a watchlist notice is the way to go, as this isn't anything official and a watchlist will likely appeal to the wrong people. I think the best places will be WP:AN, WP:VPP, as well as WP:CENT.
Cheers, and hope you had a good Christmas, Daniel (talk) 12:54, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
I wish you and your family all the best this Christmas and that you also have a Happy and safe new year.
Thankyou for all your contributions to Wikipedia this year and I look forward to seeing many more from you in the future.
Your work around Wikipedia has not gone un-noticed, this notice is testimony to that
Please feel free to drop by my talkpage any time to say Hi, as I will probably say Hi back :)
You invited me, in your capacity as clerk, to participate in the present ArbCom case. I have been submitting evidence to the PHG case, which has required some work. However, already I am finding the Fringe science case acrimonious. I certainly didn't expect the kind of response from Sceptre that I got when I explained that Scientology, Adolf Hitler and Saddam Hussein were off-topic in a discussion on solving the problems of fringe science on WP. You have even now asked Sceptre to provide information about me as "evidence". I read this as meaning in the "evidence" section. How is this related to this fringe science case, where I am just an uninvolved editor? I hope I'm mistaken.
There is no way to withdraw from a case; the Arbitration Committee doesn't concern itself with who wishes to stop being involved when proposing a final decision based on the evidence submitted. However, not participating at all is likely to reduce instances of your previous actions being tendered as evidence. If Sceptre wants to show a pattern of editors related to this topic area acting in a certain manner, he will be allowed to; it is not sufficiently divorced from the scope to merit prohibiting it. Daniel (talk) 02:10, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for removing the comments left on my talkpage. If you have no objections, I would like to restore them so that other users who are concerned can see them . I propose to remove them in a couple of days, if that isn't a problem. Thank you for looking out. Die4Dixie (talk) 08:47, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
Naturally you can, but I really don't see the point, to be honest. Denying drama should be priority number one, and all the relevant parties know about the comments from the ANI discussion. But, feel free to do as you please. Daniel (talk) 08:49, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
I'm tired, so I'll sleep on it. Sounds like sage counsel that you offer.Die4Dixie (talk) 09:00, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
Don't worry. I remember how much of a time-sink he was last time (as I said), I'll be keeping a *very* close eye on him, and if he goes anywhere near the issues he had last time, my blocks will be indefinite as well. Black Kite 00:28, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
Thanks; indefinite is the minimum length anyone should be considering. Daniel (talk) 00:40, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
I thought that once I added myself as a party I am entitled to a statement on that page, which does not cut into my evidence word count. Can't I have that? ——MartinphiΨ~Φ—— 00:48, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
No, that page is purely for pre-acceptance statements, because pre-acceptance statements are a record of what ArbCom based their decision off. If it means anything, feel free to tack onto your evidence submission another 500 words; I won't pull you up on it. Daniel (talk) 00:52, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
Okay, that's great, all I wanted. Thanks! (: ——MartinphiΨ~Φ—— 00:58, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
I don't think that's needed; nb: the second div, line 2, is closed on the same line. ;) Cheers, Jack Merridew 14:13, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
It was, because before then, the text was small. Daniel (talk) 21:26, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
The divs are mis-balanced. I didn't see a text size issue; if you were, it would seem to be something else. Try another browser? Anyway, I'm off those pages for the time being. Thanks for archiving that thread instead of just clearing it. Cheers, Jack Merridew 04:52, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
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.--ragesoss (talk) 21:42, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
Hey. I'm doing a GA review of the Steven Moffat article, and I need to check the permission given for this picture. Seeing as you have an OTRS account, could you please check it for me? Thanks - weebiloobil (talk) 14:56, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
I can confirm that it is correct. Daniel (talk) 05:22, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
Why did you do that? I had just posted a request for the ArbCom to consider the matter for a few more days. Everyking (talk) 15:23, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
Because the motion passed 9-0, there was no stipulation from Arbitrators to hold at all, and arbitrators had already seen your previous requests for a change in the motion and proceeded to support the one presented by Wizardman. Parties cannot prevent a motion passing by two clear votes above the majority at their say-so, especially when their previous calls have been roundly dismissed by the arbitrators in supporting the motion as presented. Daniel (talk) 15:27, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
They never even acknowledged the alternatives I suggested; for all I know they hadn't even seen them yet. Everyking (talk) 15:29, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
Then why would postponing it at your request - not that you have any grounds or ability to formally do so, especially when a majority (plus extras) of the Committee support the motion - make any difference? Daniel (talk) 15:32, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
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.--ragesoss (talk) 20:00, 11 January 2009 (UTC)§hepBot (Disable) 19:05, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
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.--ragesoss (talk) 21:12, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
Hi Daniel. I see that in May 2008, you fully-protected this article per OTRS for one year but you added a semi-protected tag, so I was wondering if you meant semi-protection ? Cenarium(Talk) 14:29, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
Judging by the deleted edits, I probably meant full-protection. Daniel (talk) 10:52, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
Hello, On behalf of the concerned parties in the mediation case of The Man Who Would Be Queen. I know that none of you have to accept our case. I felt that asking all of you would be the best first approach. If you have any interest in mediating for us, or not, please indicate this on the talk page of the mediation case. If you are outright interested, want to mediate this case, and need no other convincing then please indicate that as well and we can get the ball rolling. If not we will not bother you anymore. Thankyou. --Hfarmer (talk) 08:15, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
If I may add to what Hfarmer wrote above, we very much need your help. As a group, we have had an enormous number of disputes on a set of related pages, and parts of this dispute have even put WP in The New York Times. The pages themselves remain an embarrassment to WP, and I hope you can help us solve our long-standing impasse for our own good as well as for WP's.
I can’t imagine what you or any other mediator uses in deciding which cases to take. I can’t say that the specific issues we need help addressing are novel (COI, incivility, etc.); however, I do have some confidence that most people would find the subject matter rather engaging. Such issues include the nature of transsexuality, the controversies between how (some) scientists describes transsexuality versus how (some) transsexual activists describe transsexuality, a book on the topic that immediately became wildly controversial, and the individual activists and scientists involved (some of whom participate here), all of which became quite ugly. The most complete (yet brief) description of where we now stand (in my opinion) is here.
Thank you for your attention, and I hope you can help us to resolve this wide-ranging problem.
There is something wrong with the arblisting at this case's PD talk page. It has 14 with 1 inactive, but there are 16 arbs. Can you figure out who it is and their status, then update the talk PD listing and the arb count on main PD accordingly? Thanks! — Rlevse • Talk • 02:57, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
The missing arbitrator was Calisber. As Risker is inactive, I've corrected the talk and voting pages. Many thanks, Gazimoff 10:52, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
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.--ragesoss (talk) 03:08, 25 January 2009 (UTC)