User talk:DanielTom

-- Wikinews Welcome (talk) 23:34, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Repeating warning in case you missed it...
... without extremely strong evidence, you may not accuse anyone of defamation nor creating attack pages. As already stipulated on the Admin alerts page, none of your evidence supports this. The next you make such an accusation, you will be blocked. This type of behavior towards another editor is unacceptable and you have been told this by at least two others administrators. --LauraHale (talk) 17:08, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Laura, me and Cirt reached an agreement. Why did you interfere? Please provide evidence that "Diogotome" or "Daniel Tomé" are Wikinews sockpuppets (might be hard for you to do given they have zero edits here). ~ DanielTom (talk) 17:18, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I did not interfere with your agreement with Cirt. That was your agreement with Cirt.  The reblocks were based on .  There is, as you were informed earlier, no policy against blocking other socks from another project on English Wikinews. Indeed, this is regularly done. The users may request an unblock if that is their wish.  I will let another administrator review the unblock request. --LauraHale (talk) 17:27, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Laura, Wikipedia is not Wikinews. Wikinews is a different project. Wikinews is an independent project. I asked Cirt to review the block, because I'd like to move on, as I told him. ~ DanielTom (talk) 17:30, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
 * The page does not show these accounts are sockpuppets. It shows me and my brother edit from the same house. A trivial fact. ~ DanielTom (talk) 17:33, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Wikinews is a different project, with its own policies. These different policies, including the one allowing blocking of socks based on evidence from other wikimedia foundation projects, is allowed locally.  There are very real news reasons why we do not tolerate this locally because socking of any kind is inherently dangerous to a news organization and its credibility. Cirt is part of our community here, and his deletion/unblock stipulated that any admin could reblock/restore if they felt it warranted.  Your agreement was with ONE administrator, not with the community.  The users who are blocked for socking have been allowed talk page access, and may appeal their blocks. --LauraHale (talk) 17:36, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Where is the evidence that these editors are Wikinews sockpuppets, please provide it? ~ DanielTom (talk) 17:39, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
 * You have been repeatedly provided with it, but since you appear unable to find it,  says, "A rare case where I tag a case as checked but don't actually run a check nor check the evidence that was provided with the case. I actually ran this check myself a few weeks ago for another reason, and therefore based on that it is  Confirmed that the following accounts are related" which then lists the accounts blocked as socks.  If there is other evidence other than "my brother" (which requires taking your word for it when you have no accumulated reputation on the project to bank on), the users in question may post it on their talk page as part of their requests for unblock.  If you have other evidence yourself, it needs to involve a CU request from someone other than yourself, and cannot include any claims by any of the CU confirmed socks about brothers, that says the results are confirm not/unlikely to be a sock.  Until that other evidence is provided, please for your own benefit drop the topic as other admins are likely watching and you are walking towards a block.  --LauraHale (talk) 17:44, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Of course the accounts are related. "Daniel Tomé" is a public rename, "Diogotome" lives in my house. I have already provided that evidence to info@wikinews.org ~ DanielTom (talk) 17:47, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
 * See the email, and there you have scans of my brother's Identity Card, and my Passport. Also, please see the email with which my brother registered his "Diogotome" account in 2009. That email is diogofact@hotmail.com, and if you search that on Facebook, you can find him (Diogo Tomé). ~ DanielTom (talk) 17:49, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Contact us contains contact e-mail. I cannot check the e-mail.  It probably went to a black hole.  As specified earlier, you do not have the personal accumulated on project reputation for us to take you at your word about your brother over a CU. This was not the evidence requested.  If you would reread what I said, you may understand the only acceptable evidence you may provide. --LauraHale (talk) 17:52, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Laura, I have provided very strong evidence that "Diogotome" is my brother. I sent it his Identity Card, are you kidding? Why can't you check the email? Also, his email diogofact@hotmail.com, why don't you confirm that was the email he registered with? Why don't you see on Facebook that's him? Diogo Tomé is my brother, and no one doubts it, so this is just a waste of time. See OTRS ticket 2013070410010677. ~ DanielTom (talk) 17:56, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Check your email. ~ DanielTom (talk) 18:01, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Laura are you still not convinced that Diogo is my brother? ~ DanielTom (talk) 18:47, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

24-hour block
You've been warned about accusations. I've given you a short block in which to contemplate the error of your ways. --Pi zero (talk) 18:25, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
 * If you like, you can unblock me, Pi zero. I'm not going to make any more "accusations". I just want this solved, so I can move on. ~ DanielTom (talk) 18:31, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Curiosity badly compels me to ask, what do you define as solved? (Please remember: You cannot ask cirt. You have had explained to you the ONLY acceptable evidence above.  Removing the sock listings on the page is unlikely, nor is removing the blocks for those accounts unless they ask for it.)  Please bear in mind, this answer will likely impact any decision to unblock or increase the time of your block. --LauraHale (talk) 19:28, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what you mean, Laura. I have sent you very private information proving that I am Daniel Tomé, and that my brother is Diogo Tomé. Are you still pretending that Diogo is not my brother? I don't understand why you are doing this. ~ DanielTom (talk) 19:32, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I would prefer not to handle confidential material marked very private, especially as there appears to be no compelling reason to do so. Also, given the English Wikipedia documentation regarding a history of abusive e-mails, I would especially not preferred to be contacted via e-mail by you.  Might I suggest another administrator deal with this?  More ideally, because you have failed to recognize and acknowledge local policies and the extreme importance of a zero tolerance sock puppeting, would you please read the evidence I have requested and then provide it?  For me, as an administrator, having provided you with the statement regarding sockpuppeting found in the SPI on English Wikipedia, this is evidence enough to support the block and the current pages listing it as a sock.  You are better off finding a different English Wikinews administrator and asking them.  Please be aware that upon doing so, other contributors are likely to point to everything else you have posted so far on English Wikinews.  This includes your behavior towards Cirt leading to the block.  --LauraHale (talk) 20:32, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
 * A few corrections.
 * 1) there is zero documentation of abusive emails on Wikipedia. That was already disproven. Cirt claimed that I had sent him an abusive email via Commons, and I was blocked for it, but that too has already been disproven (that block was quickly reverted at Commons).
 * 2) there is zero evidence of sockpuppetry. There is evidence that me and my brother edit from the same IP, which is trivially true, given that we live in the same house.
 * 3) you have seen the evidence that Diogo is my brother. To pretend that my email to you, which only consisted of my passport, and of my brother's Identity Card, was abusive, is outright ridiculous.
 * Cirt rightly deleted these user pages, and so should you. You recreated them, I don't know why, you can delete them. Why do you want to excuse yourself after the unwarranted actions you've already taken? ~ DanielTom (talk) 20:48, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

"Distruptive behaviour"
For the record. Mr. Patrick Gillett and I had an exchange just minutes ago, and apparently until then he didn't feel it was appropriate to block me for "distruptive behaviour".

Then Mr. Brian McNeil gave me a warning asking me to be civil, and I followed his advice to the letter, and was civil in my reply.

Unexpectedly, Mr. Patrick Gillett then blocked me for 32 days, out of the blue. ~ DanielTom (talk) 00:44, 1 August 2013 (UTC)


 * If Mr. Patrick Gillett feels he would be wasting his time by helping me, then he doesn't have to help me, and can just move on to other things.
 * Brian, asking for help is not disruptive. You will note I followed your advice and was civil. This block for 32 days is inappropriate. ~ DanielTom (talk) 00:53, 1 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Mr. Patrick Gillett, I sent you an email with my brother's ID and my Passport. Could you please confirm this to the community? ~ DanielTom (talk) 00:45, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I'll review this decision when I can do so appropriately. This will be some time this afternoon my time. Until then I request that you be patient and allow that to happen.
 * Just so I understand, if you don't have any other interest in this project, why go through all of this effort? --RockerballAustralia c 01:31, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
 * It shouldn't be a big effort. These false tags were already removed on other projects, including Wikiquote, Commons, and Wikisource (where my brother's account was also unblocked). Cirt (who created these pages) also deleted them at Wikinews, but then they were restored. Once they are deleted again, I will leave. I am not here to waste your time, I just don't want my real name, nor my brother's real name, damaged on a project where we have zero edits. ~ DanielTom (talk) 01:41, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I've considered the block. The quoted "disruptive behaviour" was a misinterpret by me.
 * However, given that you have emailed me a copy of [what you claim to be] identification belonging to someone who is not you without their indisputable expressed permission, I will not be lifting the block. As far as I know, this action violated privacy laws where I am, privacy laws where Wikinews servers are held and [an educated guess tells me] privacy laws where you are.
 * Given that any person you claim to have sent the ID too have any consideration to misappropriate the information, I would consider myself lucky to only be getting a months wikiblock and nothing more if I were you. --RockerballAustralia c 06:39, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
 * The information is not misappropriate, and I have my brother's permission to send it, as he can tell you. You said you had to take my word for it that he was my brother, so I showed you evidence that you hadn't, and I'm glad you say you've confirmed such evidence. I didn't send it via wiki, I sent it via email, so this block isn't preventing me from sending it to other people, and is thus quite absurd. ~ DanielTom (talk) 13:50, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Indefinite block notice
Hi. You have been indefinitely blocked from English Wikinews. This was because twice, and against advice regarding the only acceptable evidence, you contacted via e-mail two administrators who had not identified to the Wikimedia Foundation. These users are not subject to Access to nonpublic data policy. Project CUs and OTRS staff should have been contacted regarding the sharing of private information. According to your own words, you sent these two admistrators, myself and RockerballAustralia, copies of your passport and your brother's passport. The latter passport sharing is the most problematic one in a serious of extremely problematic actions, because there is zero evidence that you had any type of permission to share that sort of private information belonging to another individual with any Wikinews administrator. This is a massive violation of privacy against your brother, and demonstrates such a severe lack in judgement that only an indefinite block appears reasonable. I would ask that any administrator considering changing the terms of this indefinite block also consult me regarding this because of the severity of the conduct breach. --LauraHale (talk) 06:58, 1 August 2013 (UTC)


 * I will agree with this action by LauraHale based on my comments above. --RockerballAustralia c 07:05, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
 * You two clearly have no understanding of law, nor of blocking policy. I sent these documents to you because you were insinuating that I was lying by saying that Diogo is my brother. Now that you know he is my brother, and have seen the evidence, you blocked me. I sent the same information to other admins, on other wikis, and they have not blocked me (quite the opposite, they deleted the tags, and unblocked my brother). Please see OTRS ticket 2013070410010677. Blocking me does not prevent me from sending further emails to people with evidence of mine or my brother's identity. My brother also sent an email, a long time ago, to ArbCom with his ID. As I said, I have his permission to do the same, and he clearly doesn't mind. The Passport is mine, by the way, not my brother's, as you can clearly see it says Daniel Tomé. I can't send such documents on-wiki anyway, so this block makes no sense, really. ~ DanielTom (talk) 13:57, 1 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Interesting how one person, with no prior discussion, can just make up policy as they go. ~ DanielTom (talk) 17:58, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Laura, you said you gave me "advice regarding the only acceptable evidence" on how to get my brother unblocked, and the userpages deleted, but I cannot see such advice. Could you tell me what to do? Sincerely. ~ DanielTom (talk) 22:05, 5 August 2013 (UTC)


 * "You have been repeatedly provided with it, but since you appear unable to find it, Sockpuppet investigations/DanielTom/Archive says, "A rare case where I tag a case as checked but don't actually run a check nor check the evidence that was provided with the case. I actually ran this check myself a few weeks ago for another reason, and therefore based on that it is Confirmed that the following accounts are related" which then lists the accounts blocked as socks. If there is other evidence other than "my brother" (which requires taking your word for it when you have no accumulated reputation on the project to bank on), the users in question may post it on their talk page as part of their requests for unblock. If you have other evidence yourself, it needs to involve a CU request from someone other than yourself, and cannot include any claims by any of the CU confirmed socks about brothers, that says the results are confirm not/unlikely to be a sock. Until that other evidence is provided, please for your own benefit drop the topic as other admins are likely watching and you are walking towards a block. --LauraHale (talk) 17:44, 30 July 2013 (UTC)"

Summmarizing:
 * An unblock request from the users in question on their talk page requesting the accounts be unblocked.
 * A Check User not initiated by you or an account labelled as sock that says the accounts are unlikely to be socks.
 * Some other evidence not provided/created by you or your brother that does not rely on your word or the word of "your brother" that these are unique accounts run by completely separate individuals. Evidence by other project functionaries or by other English Wikinews contributors with an accumulated reputation on project would be best.

This does not in anyway guarantee the deletion of any user pages, nor impact your indefinite block. (Given that you are patently not here to write news and are here to cause disruption, the lifting of the indefinite block appears unlikely. Positive contributions to Wikinews projects in other languages over an extended period of time demonstrating that you are on Wikinews to write news would likely be the only precursor I could see towards getting the local block lifted for you.) --LauraHale (talk) 22:22, 5 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Laura, are you joking? The users in question have zero edits here. Saying they need to come here to make their first edits by asking to be unblocked is ridiculous.
 * It's like saying you killed someone in Italy. The facts are, you have never been to Italy. Would you go there to face the murder charges? I don't think so. ~ DanielTom (talk) 22:31, 5 August 2013 (UTC)


 * As the comment makes clear the user is more interested in creating drama, talk page access has been removed. Admins have better uses of their time.  If the CU verified on en.wp socks are interested in unblocks, they can request them.  --LauraHale (talk) 22:47, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Global ban for DanielTom
Hello, per Global bans, I have to inform you of the global ban requests for comment I have started about you. Since you are currently blocked, you are able to post responses to queries posted on the page at your talk page or request to be temporarily unblocked to participate in that RfC only. Thanks, John F. Lewis (talk) 09:17, 2 February 2014 (UTC)