Dan Polansky

Welcome to Meta!

Hello Dan Polansky, and welcome to the Wikimedia Meta-Wiki! This website is for coordinating and discussing all Wikimedia projects. You may find it useful to read our policy page. If you are interested in doing translations, visit Meta:Babylon. You can also leave a note on Meta:Babel or Wikimedia Forum (please read the instructions at the top of the page before posting there). If you would like, feel free to ask me questions on my talk page. Happy editing! --John Vandenberg 09:56, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

SRGP

Like I said, the discussion is officially closed. Then do not continue posting comments. Thanks. Trijnstel_talk 15:22, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Officially closed discussions are a horrible idea. We do not have that in the English Wiktionary. I do not see any harm in additional input that is coming late. --Dan Polansky (talk) 15:24, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Like I said, continue the discussion elsewhere if necessary. Trijnstel_talk 15:29, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

I won't be continuing the discussion. But let it be made on record that I disagree with the reversal of my latest post and with the discussion-is-closed mindset. --Dan Polansky (talk) 15:30, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Playing with the data

Hey Dan,

I'm on wikibreak from Enwiki. I note that you're still quite keen on including "per capita rates" and I understand why. Usually theyre not reported until the peak of the curve. Do you want to play with the ECDC data and see if you can get what I think is a much more appropriate figure to "per capita counts" - the 14-day incidence/and total cumulative incidence. --49.180.155.165 17:34, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Heres a good start:

The overall 14-day incidence for the EU/EEA and the UK has increased from 36 cases per 100 000 population on 25 March to 82 cases per 100 000 population on 7 April 2020

Years later: Thank you. I do not know any longer why I did not respond in 2020. --Dan Polansky (talk) 06:54, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

Concern about a post

Hi Dan,

I noticed your comment in response to Zlata Night, where you stated that The above statements do not trace to any evidence. In certain contexts, they could amount to defamation. The user listed five criteria in their comment, each of which is supported by evidence present in the global ban discussion iteslf:

1. Insults. The very block reason for the user on the Russian Wikipedia is продолжение оскорблений участников на СО, which is to say that the Russian Wiki blocked them for making insults.
2. Threats. As has been noted by Lemonaka, the user previously threatened to simply create a large number of socks to evade blocks on-wiki. As noted by me, the user has also threatened to intentionally damage Wikipedia's content in particular areas if I did not help her get unblocked.
3. Harassment. As I noted, and as has been noted by Lemonaka, a number of editors have been receiving harassing e-mails from PlanespotterA320. See also this lock log.
4. Accusations of nazism. The evidence section of the global ban discussion links to Requests for comment/Concerning sentiments in a particular wiki and to the deleted Requests for comment/Nazis in Ukrainian Wikipedia. If you so much as open up the first link, you will find it extremely obvious that Planespotter has made accusations of neo-nazism.
5. Trolling. She literally blanked the ban discussion to insert an ethnically charged rant. Not sure how much more troll-like one can get.

In the future, please be sure to read the whole discussion before stating that particular editor are plausibly engaging in "defamation" when they are instead simply being truthful. I would ask that you kindly apologize to Zlata Night for implying that they were engaging in defamation, and that you strike your comment that contained this implication.

— Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 23:42, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

A careful formal analyst will find multiple aspects by which the above is problematic. I will state some of them while leaving other unspecified.

To bring maximum explicitness and clarity as far as relevant to my self-interest, I said:

"The above statements do not trace to any evidence. In certain contexts, they could amount to defamation. "

There are the following limiting elements:

1) "In certain contexts", meaning in some countries, in some regulatory regimes, etc.

2) "could". This disclaims positive assertion, instead using a disclaiming modal verb, indicating lack of positive knowledge.

We can rephrase my statement more formally and carefully: accusations that run the risk of being exaggerated (and therefore, literally, untrue) and that threaten to damage the reputation of a person may meet the definition of defamation in some regulatory regimes (e.g. jurisdictions). This is suggestive of there being an objective moral duty to avoid such accusations, regardless of actual legal impact. I do not undertake any legal action, nor do I plan any legal action. I am raising awareness of the concept of defamation, which on the whole seems seriously lacking in on-wiki communications.

As a sound principle, all statements that are liable to damage the reputation of the person editing under a user account ought to meet a sound traceability standard. This is often not the case, but wiki projects ought to do better. --Dan Polansky (talk) 05:08, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

As for 'falsely accuse others of "defamation"', that is factually incorrect, as just explained. Furthermore, as a refresher, approximately and as far as I know, a defamation is an untrue statement liable to damage another's reputation regardless of the intent of the author of the statement. (A lawyer can correct any defects in my exposition; I am not a lawyer.) --Dan Polansky (talk) 05:29, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

Yes, but the key part is "an untrue statement". If the facts are correct, which I have laid out above as so, then it is not plausibly defamatory. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 16:46, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

For the record, I have changed the discussion title since it seems to assert something that has not been established yet, and that is very much open to doubt. --Dan Polansky (talk) 06:16, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

Please don't reopen closed discussions

Yes, I know you think it is a bad idea to have closed discussions, yes you might not have them on en.wiktionary, but we do have them on Meta, and you need to respect that. Do not continue adding comments after a discussion has closed. Open a new discussion if you want to dispute the result. Mako001 (C)  (T)  🇺🇦 01:19, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

I request evidence that closed discussions ought to be no longer edited, on Meta. Since, in general, a closure can contain a mistake and there needs to be a recourse to pointing that mistake out. And containing a mistake seems to be the case here.

Further on this note, in general, prohibiting posts to a closed discussion appears to be irrational and serve no useful purpose, and therefore seems unlikely to be supported by genuine consensus; naturally, I can be wrong about that consensus and those know know better than the present metaphorical Athenian ought to be able to produce objective verifiable evidence of that consensus.

As an aside, placing a flag of a country into a user signature as some kind of political gesture seems inappropriate. Every sane person knows there is a war, knows who the aggressor is, knows who the glaring misrepresenters are, etc. User signatures ought not serve as a propaganda tool for anything, whether good or bad. Sure, Russia ought to cease and desist from the aggressive war of national glory and resource grab immediately; there can be no reasonable dispute about that. --Dan Polansky (talk) 05:43, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

@Dan PolanskyHi, if you really want to change the RFC results, please appeal it on SN or open a new RFC. Do not open a closed RFC, or an archived one. Lemonaka (talk) 00:28, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

I request that the opposition to my actions provides a link or links to authoritative descriptions of the proper process to be used on Meta, ideally with quotations from relevant passages. As an aside, I am not Lemonaka's subordinate, I do not know who Lemonaka is, and I deem it imprudent to act on imperatives originating from persons with unknown qualitative identity and authority. Here, the problematic imperatives are "please appeal" and "do not open a closed RFC".

As a general principles, I request links to policies, rules and recommendations, and I reject imperatives presented as if falling from the sky, perhaps from an ultimate spirit. --Dan Polansky (talk) 04:21, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

Ahhh, I see. Just a piece of advice, from common sense. My common sense from English Wikipedia is avoiding editing any archives. Anyway, it's not my responsible to find policies for you, if you believe this is imperative but you are the one continuedly reopen it, even likely engage in an edit war though still want to appeal it, then finding the policy for appealing method is your works, not mine.

TL;DR, reopen it again will lead to an edit-war, this can be easily referenced, and consdering your long-term work on wiki, obvious longer than me as persons with unknown qualitative identity and authority, you have known that policy. Please refrain from reopening it again on that specific page. Thank you. Lemonaka (talk) 06:35, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

The refusal to provide links to policies, rules and recommendations has been duly noted.

Would you (Lemonaka) consider stating your native language on your user page? If not, why not? You are reporting zh-1 on your user page; given the fact, is it wise for you to be contributing so many zh translations on Meta? How can you have the requisite confidence given only zh-1 level? Are you really semi-retired, as your user page says? What does it even mean to be semi-retired? (You are not obliged to answer any of these questions; you have the option to leave this post without any response whatsoever, and that is fine.) --Dan Polansky (talk) 07:43, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

ehh, nothing to say. I decide to retire after PlanespotterA320 case is finally done. Have a look of my translations, if they are long, most of them are from tts server, others are some short words and sentences. For example, I know that members means 成員, block means 封鎖 and something like that. I have also contributed some Japanese translations in the same method, which already got a warn here. Lemonaka (talk) 08:14, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

(outdent) Your native tongue? --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:35, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

Good question, I prefer not to say. Lemonaka (talk) 08:40, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

Which country? (This is in reference to your "Here's a hint, where second language of this country is Arabic and English", which you deleted.)

What does the Ukrainian flag on your user page signify? Does it mean you are Ukrainian or that you support Ukrainians in the present criminal war?

Why does the Ukrainian flag says in German "für Frieden"?

Why is the current war referred to as "the full end of the age" on your user page?

Your user page leaves me puzzled about what it is you are on to here. It also gives a scary impression; who knows what kind of symbolic meanings are behind these confusing signs? The feeling of something's wrong/astray about your user page is considerable. --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:53, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

• If you have a problem with the closure, you can either leave your comment on the talk page of the page or SN. If you think the user should be unbanned, feel free to open another Request for comment. A closed discussion means it has ran it's course and no further comments will be accepted. Please do not re-open it without consensus.--BRP ^ever 12:59, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

  As for "A closed discussion means it has ran it's course and no further comments will be accepted": citation missing.

  Where is the objective verifiable evidence for what process ought to be followed? Where is the transparency and traceability typical for certain portions of the Western civilization? Surely this must be such a typical and useful process (challenging a closure) that it must be described somewhere, right? Or is this some kind of tribal society of elders here? --Dan Polansky (talk) 13:04, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

Notice of Stewards' noticeboard ‎discussion

There is currently a discussion at SN regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. I have told you not to revert it again, this is a clear edit war and it's the time that I believe something called w:WP:CIR applied. From your question, I have known what is really imperatives Lemonaka (talk) 16:11, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

As for w:WP:CIR, it is Wikipedia:Competence is required, and it says: "This is an explanatory essay about the disruptive editing guideline. This page is intended to provide additional information about concepts in the page(s) it supplements. This page is not one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community."

What is the purpose of a page that is neither a policy nor a guideline, yet keeps on being referred to as if it were in fact a policy or guideline? The whole concept of mere-editor-essay-but-not-policy needs to be abolished as soon as possible to prevent projects from developing into some kind of Orwellian or Kafkaesque dystopias. The projects ought to identify clearly what the policies are, what the guidelines are, and referring to mere essays ought to be forbidden. The mere essays ought to be marked as archived and ideally moved away from Wikipedia namespace.

I have no intent to edit Requests for comment/Global ban for PlanespotterA320 (2) any further; that would have to be done by someone else, by someone who sees the same grave problems that I do.

For reference, User Lemonaka has reported me here: Stewards' noticeboard#Edit warring on Requests for comment/Global ban for PlanespotterA320 (2). The solution is truly simple: a person who has the right authority states their authority and then expressly forbids me from editing that request page. That will not be a rule of law, but will be better than the sheer lawlessness that we are witnessing right now, where the traceability standard is being thoroughly violated. --Dan Polansky (talk) 17:21, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

Block

Your conduct today and over the last few weeks is textbook disruptive sealioning. You make up policies when it suits you and demand excessive policy references (and answers to irrelevant questions) when challenged.

Multiple users have raised concerns with your conduct, and you have done nothing but double down. I want you to understand that your style of engagement is harmful to constructive community discourse, and is not welcome on this project in line with our civility policy.

Your conduct has thus necessitated administrative action. In consideration of your pattern of this conduct, namely your recent indefinite block (from significant community discussion) for the same problems on your former home project, the English Wiktionary, the block is indefinite.

I would advise any admin handling an appeal to consider carefully whether such an appeal articulates and understands the reasoning for this block, and provides assurance that such behavior will not continue. Dan Polansky, I would also note that your talk page access is retained only for the purposes of an appeal, or asking questions about the action.

If you have questions about this block, I would be happy to help explain it so long as they abide by our civility policy. Best regards, Vermont (🐿️—🏳️‍🌈) 18:14, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

Given my current state of mind, I don't understand this block. I kindly ask the block to be reduced to one month, during which time I will ponder the intent of the essays and policies referred to, including essay W: WP:BLUDGEON, essay W: WP:WIKILAWYERING, policy WM:CIV, and essay W: WP:SEALION. It seems to me the proper understanding of the meaning requires a deeper thought, and I may in fact well need a month to process and understand the non-literalist culture behind these artifacts. There is also the possibility that the block is completely unjustified, but that is for authorities to judge, and I will probably need a month to process that idea, based on a new non-literalist interpretation of the referenced artifacts. If some steward decides to review the block and lift it altogether, I will be all the happier, but I will in fact need time to build up a non-literalist interpretation of the said artifacts. --Dan Polansky (talk) 06:11, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

This is a local meta block and shouldn't (and doesn't) fall within the purvue of Stewards. It does fall to meta sysops which Vermont and I both are. I understand the possible confusion as we are both also Stewards, but neither of us are wearing that hat right now. I've reviewed the block and decline to alter it at this time. You're welcome to follow the correct procedure by using an {{unblock}} request, but I'd strongly suggest waiting at least 2 to 3 months. Operator873 ^connect 07:41, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

Thank you. I have never used {{unblock}} before. Is it correct that blocking someone for infinite time is procedurally very simple while obtaining an unblock requires a dedicated, and stringent formal process? Can someone please point me to a page that best describes how I can formally properly use {{unblock}}, and point perhaps to some previous successful unblocks, so I can learn from others how to properly formally fill {{unblock}}? --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:27, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

Please read w:wp:unblock Lemonaka (talk) 02:12, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

I've generally found the English Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks to be helpful in explaining what's expected from an unblock request. Vermont (🐿️—🏳️‍🌈) 06:02, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

Hi, @Dan Polansky, Although dispute happened, I have changed my quote to another one to avoid further confusion. But I still have the right to support Ukraine, by any means. Regards Lemonaka (talk) 18:28, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

Unblock request granted This blocked user asked to be unblocked, and one or more administrators has reviewed and granted this request. Request reason: In summary, I realized there were valid concerns with my conduct and I see a way how to eliminate the problems in future. I must have been in a problematic state of mind when I was blocked. Problematic or questionable conduct, at a minimum: I made an assumption about how the strength of the argument should apply to a Meta vote/request for comments. I did so without consulting the Meta-specific page Consensus. I assumed that the Wikipedia principle that consensus is from arguments should have considerable weight. I asked multiple questions irrelevant to the determination of whether the rationale provided for the vote under discussion was valid. In retrospect, I do not see why I asked these questions. I continued a discussion longer than productive; it is better to disengage much sooner. Going forward: To be on the perfectly safe side, I have the option to participate on a vote/request for comment by posting my vote and then disengaging. This guarantees that any problems with my interaction patterns are preemptively eliminated. In case of even graver doubt, I may cease participating on votes/requests for comment entirely, but it seems unnecessary. If I decide to interact with other editors on the vote page--and I should think twice before doing it--I should be very careful not create an occasion for the concerns raised with my interaction patterns. Reference vote/request for comments: Requests for comment/Global ban for PlanespotterA320 (2). Thank you for considering this request. I am eager to answer questions. I am willing to subject myself to specific limitations or prohibitions that would apply to my person only, if that would help anything. --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:18, 14 May 2023 (UTC) Unblock reason: Appeal granted, see notes below. — xaosflux Talk 13:06, 13 June 2023 (UTC) This template should be archived normally. English | español | français | italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | 中文 | edit

block log gblock log blocklist stalktoy guc unblock gunblock contribs: +/-

As the blocking admin, I have no specific opposition to an unblock. I am somewhat concerned about the possibility of continuing wikilawyering/sealioning, but the recognition and articulation of unconstructive conduct is a strong positive. In the event of an unblock, I would be opposed to behavioral restrictions: outside of RfC bans we rarely (if ever) do that here, and if conduct problems re-arise, the block can simply be reinstated. Best regards, Vermont (🐿️—🏳️‍🌈) 16:37, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

Question: Hello Dan Polansky, have you had the opportunity to review Meta:Civility and foundation:Policy:Universal Code of Conduct, understand the expectations, and agree to follow the policies? — xaosflux ^Talk 17:19, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

I have read the Meta policy and the global policy. I shall abide by the two policies. --Dan Polansky (talk) 12:19, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

@Dan Polansky your account has been unblocked. I do hope this doesn't have to be revisted in the future. — xaosflux ^Talk 13:07, 13 June 2023 (UTC)