User talk:Daniel

Archives
	May 2006; June 2006; July 2006; August 2006

User:Daniel.Bryant/Archive User:Daniel.Bryant/Background

Any message on this talk page which is considered to violate any Wikipedia policy, especially no personal attacks, may be deleted without notice, at the discretion of Daniel.Bryant and Administrators only.

When leaving a message on my talk page, please observe the following guidelines:-

i. Always sign your name and time using ~~~~

ii. Always leave a blank line between the previous comment and yours
eg. Yes, I agree

Good to hear

iii. Use colons (:) to indent

iv. Please be civil!

Feel frjáls til leyfi þinn skilaboð í Íslenska, ef þessi hvaða þú raunverulega vilja til gera.
(Feel free to leave your message in Icelandic, if that's what you really want to do.)

Fantastic Userpage

I award you this barnstar for having one of the best userpages ever! - Abstract Idiot [ Talk • Contribs ] 12:12, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, thanks *adds to Awards* - yours isn't looking too bad either :P Killfest2—Daniel.Bryant 12:13, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Giovanni 33 tag

Dear Daniel,

I have seen that after much lobbying from that user you have removed the words "confirmed" and "abusive" from the tag. Since Gio misrepresents the history of that case, I must point you to the folling link.

Not only have the two accounts of Belinda Gong and Freethinker99 been confirmed as Gio's puppets through technical means (usercheck, see here, and accidental signature, see link), not only do Gio's explanations (only presented after having been found out and not changing the fact that both accounts acted as puppets), but there is also a whole bunch of other accounts associated with him, that though not sharing an IP with Gio (though sometimes among each other) have been conclusively shown to be his puppets.

So much for confirmed. As for abusive and disruptive, that is a bit subjective. But IMHO Gio's and his puppet's behaviour clearly can only be classified as that: repeatedly violating 3RR by far, extra reverts and extra votes through puppets, edit warring etc. makes him in my book the user with the greated disdain of wiki-rules (except when he tries to use them in his favour) and surrounds him with an aura of untrustworthiness that makes it hard to WP:AGF.

I am sorry if I to bother you with this, but have to ask you to reconsider the changes. Cheers, Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 13:21, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Daniel. I concur with what Str1977 says. I appreciate your efforts to help in this, and the time that you've taken. Two problems with your version are that by changing It is suspected or confirmed to It is suspected you take away the fact that he has two confirmed puppets. That template gives separate links for the suspected ones and the confirmed ones. The fact that he claims that the confirmed ones are separate people (which would make them meatpuppets) is irrelevant to the fact that they were used in violation of the WP:SOCK policy, and that that policy was brought to their attention in good time which would have allowed them to stop before they were actually caught. (It's also quite possible that he's married to someone called BelindaGong, but that he made the edits and just used her name, with her consent.) The Arbitration Committee has ruled that, "for the purpose of dispute resolution, when there is uncertainty whether a party is one user with sock puppets, or several users acting as meatpuppets, they may be treated as one individual." It's also worth noting that at the time when he was carrying on this pretence of having no connection to BelindaGong, he posted to another admin saying that I was a possible meat puppet for Str1977. (And this was while his account was posting things about double standards, and the BelindaGong account was posting things about not being able to stand hypocrisy and dishonesty! ! !) Just out of interest, I've looked at my last 1000 article edits, and find that I have three reverts to Str1977. That doesn't include the numerous edits I make to project space, which Str1977 doesn't come near. The proportion would be higher except that on a recent occasion when Giovanni was unblocked, he was warned to stay away from the Christianity articles, but it would always be possible to find 100 consecutive edits that have absolutely nothing to do with Str1977, and to find examples of my being online and not reverting to Str1977 when an article was in the "wrong" version. Compare that with Kecik, who has 40 reverts to Giovanni out of a total of 45 edits, who was editing for four months before ever touching an article that Giovanni wasn't editing, whose seventh edit was a vote for something Giovanni wanted at a page which he'd have been unlikely to find as a brand new user (when it wasn't mentioned at the pages he was at, and when he didn't have e-mail enabled and no message had been left on his talk page asking him to vote), when his IP shows him to be in the same area as Giovanni33, and when he has some of the same linguistic idiosyncrasies. The MikaM account is similar. There is really no possibility that those accounts have no connection to Giovanni, the way they follow him to unrelated articles, and support him and revert for him, and did so from the very beginning, before he had built up a record as a puppeteer. There is overwhelming evidence, technical, behavioural, and linguistic, and I have been in touch with bureaucrats and ArbCom members about this issue.

The other point about your change is that it removes the word "abusive". Now, I see that you agree with him that the puppets were not abusive, and I'd certainly agree that they weren't like this or this. However, "abusive", in this context, does not have to mean engaging in extremely objectionable personal attacks and using foul language. The behaviour was an abuse of Wikipedia policy, and was also an abuse of our trust. That is what "abusive" means, when used about puppets. There are editors who openly take out sockpuppet accounts because they want to keep separate watchlists. The administrator Geni is one such example. Those puppets are not "abusive" ones. (Incidentally, the HK30 account was banned for abusive behaviour — massive edit warring, followed by the reinsertion of links to a website that attacked and gave personal information about editors, after another editor had removed those links.) Just to put you in the picture, this is what David Gerard (the most experienced checkuser admin) has to say about him. This is what another checkuser admin said. And this is what a third checkuser admin said. Other administors who believe that Giovanni33 has engaged in sockpuppetry include (but are not limited to) Tom harrison, Deskana, MONGO, Proto, SlimVirgin, KillerChihuahua, Jossi, Wikibofh, Guettarda, and FeloniousMonk.

I very recently removed a puppet tag from a page where the alleged puppeteer (who is currently under a one-year ban) denied having created that account. I will add that I was "on the other side" from the banned editor. I was one of the editors who constantly reverted his edits, and protected pages so that he couldn't edit them anonymously. The reason I removed that particular tag was that he admitted to having created the other puppets, apologized, expressed regret, and promised that that behaviour would not recur. Now, Giovanni pretended not to know BelindaGong until he was caught, and even after he was caught, he insisted that he had done nothing wrong. He has constantly made untrue claims. I won't clog up your page with details, but they're available (with diffs) on request. If he were to say that he did, indeed, knowingly violate our WP:SOCK policy, and that it was hypocritical of him to accuse others of meatpuppetry at a time that he was pretending not to know BelindaGong, and that he regrets it; if he admitted that, say, ten of the twelve suspected puppets are indeed his, but the other two are not, and that he's very sorry, and won't do such a thing again, some friendly admin (such as myself) would probably be prepared to remove the tags from the two accounts. And, if he edited honourably from now on, showing respect for other views, and not stooping to unscrupulous means of enforcing his POV, we'd probably, in time, remove the tag from his own page.

For those reasons, I've replaced the original tag on Giovanni's page. I'd consider removing it if he owned up, as it's not my purpose to humiliate anyone. (It's interesting that several admins supported the idea of blocking him indefinitely until he owned up. This is a less drastic measure!) Anyway, thanks for getting involved in this issue. Cheers. AnnH ♫ 16:30, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You guys do that. I want no further part in this saga. I have my problems to deal with. Killfest2—Daniel.Bryant 01:50, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You've got a Thank you card!

Open your card!

No problems, you certainly deserve every award you get and more. By the way, nice card :D Killfest2—Daniel.Bryant 06:24, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a Barnstar for helpin' me out :)

		The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
		Thank you for assisting me with the basics of Wikipedia! Your help is much appreciated. Jauffre 05:59, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Killfest2—Daniel.Bryant 06:24, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Welcoming me and being friendly on MSN

For helping me out with friendly tips over MSN when I was confused about Wikipedia, and for offering and creating my user page for me. Hide7Seek 07:54, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, it's barnstar day today :D - no problems with helping you out. That reminds me, I better add a welcome message to your talk page *runs off and adds one*. Remember, any questions you have, just ask me here or over MSN, and I'll be happy to help you. Killfest2—Daniel.Bryant 07:56, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]