Jump to content

User talk:Wizardman/Archive26

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


GA review of Adam Birch

Hi! Thank you for your review of Adam Birch. I thought that I'd let you know that I have responded to all the issues you raised at the review page. Thanks, ♥Nici♥Vampire♥Heart♥ 07:39, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Just wanted to thank you again for the review. ♥Nici♥Vampire♥Heart♥ 00:09, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Committee

I can't remember if I ever congratulated you on your mention on the Colbert Report ... priceless. Anyway ... thanks for your invitation to join the committee to look into how to handle Obama-related articles, but with all the hoopla over this, I think it's a bad time to be joining ArbCom-appointed committees, so I'm going to pass for now. Thanks kindly for thinking of me. - Dank (push to talk) 13:18, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

I was disappointed to see your last edit talking about a long wikibreak. I hope the kerfuffle I just linked hasn't given you or anyone on ArbCom the wrong impression: there's a solid majority that appreciates your efforts and wishes you well. This recent episode is slightly embarrassing, but it's the kind of mistake we all make, continually. (Watching) - Dank (push to talk) 18:31, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Happy Bastille Day!

Dear fellow Wikipedian, on behalf of the Kindness campaign, I just want to wish you a Happy Bastille Day, whether you are French, Republican or not!  :) Happy Editing! Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 23:40, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

WP:NODRAMA reminder

Thanks for signing up for the Great Wikipedia Dramaout. Wikipedia stands to benefit from the improvements in the article space as a result of this campaign. This is a double reminder. First, the campaign begins on July 18, 2009 at 00:00 (UTC). Second, please remember to log any articles you have worked on during the campaign at Wikipedia:The Great Wikipedia Dramaout/Log. Thanks again for your participation! --Jayron32.talk.say no to drama 22:03, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Polo

As a recent significant contributor to the Marco Polo article, I would welcome your views in the discussion, [[1]].  Chzz  ►  13:23, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

FYI

See WP:AE#Continued incivility and censorship at Obama articles violating NPOV and other core policies. You've managed to censor contributors of certain viewpoints, but the hostility, the incivility and the censorship that were at the core of the problem are continuing. ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:13, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Queue 5

The first hook you put in there has no bolded article link and doesn't link to the nominated article, can you fix this? Cheers,--Giants27 (c|s) 23:29, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

No problem, thanks for fixing it.--Giants27 (c|s) 23:54, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Did I goof?

I wanted to renominate an article of mine now that another user was kind enough to add inline citations. Is it back under consideration elsewhere on the page? Thanks.  :) --PMDrive1061 (talk) 01:43, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

  • Oops...never mind. I see it. The "cheeseburgers with cheese" is on the sign on the right, but it's cut off. "Dead chicken" is painted on the roof on the right. I don't know if either are visible. Feel free to change the hook. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 01:45, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks again. I'll consider a new hook. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 01:47, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Vilmorin DYK

I know not every DYK nomination can make the cut, but I wanted to clarify your reason for removing the Vilmorin nomination from consideration. Your edit summary said "rm per concerns". Maybe you didn't notice that the concerns were addressed, and I had posted a follow-up to say so? Robert K S (talk) 04:01, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

No drama days 2009

I was happy to see your contributions in the DYK area. I haven't been there much lately so maybe you frequent that area, but I saw the discussion of whether Arbs could participate in the Nodrama campaign and I wanted to voice my support and encouragement for you and any other arbs who want to participate to do so. ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:18, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

CU flag

hello Wizardman i have remvoed your CU based on your own will --Mardetanha talk 14:01, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Barnstars

Thanks for what I think is my first after all these years. I don't think I'm taking too much crap but your sentiment is appreciated, and the good wishes reciprocated. Regards --Stephen 00:57, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

From AfD to DYK...

...not too bad. Trouble is, I don't see the entry for the Snow Cap on the archive nor on the front page. Can it be put up at a later date? Thanks again for the consideration. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 01:33, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Ah, gotcha. Thanks for letting me know. Nice to have another DYK under my belt; I have an idea for a feature when I get back from my break and start editing full time again. Again, many thanks. I genuinely appreciate the honor. PMDrive1061 (talk) 02:49, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for making WP:NODRAMA a success!

Thank you again for your support of the Great Wikipedia Dramaout. Preliminary statistics indicate that 129 new articles were created, 203 other articles were improved, and 183 images were uploaded. Additionally, 41 articles were nominated for DYK, of which at least 2 have already been promoted. There are currently also 8 articles up for GA status and 3 up for FA/FL status. Though the campaign is technically over, please continue to update the log page at WP:NODRAMA/L with any articles which you worked during the campaign, and also to note any that receive commendation, such as DYK, GA or FA status. You may find the following links helpful in nominating your work:

  • T:TDYK for Did You Know nominations
  • WP:GAC for Good Article nominations
  • WP:FAC for Featured Article nominations
  • WP:FLC for Featured List nominations
  • WP:FPC for Featured Picture nominations

Again, thank you for making this event a success! --Jayron32.talk.say no to drama 02:21, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Statement_by_Shoemaker.27s_Holiday

As I see it, this is simple: Mr. Bain is making false statements, perhaps originally unknowingly, but he has now said that he saw the oversighted diffs, and till refuses to retract them, even when pointed out that his position gives them an unwarranted patina of respectability, and that they're grossly misleading.

Arbcom have served me very badly - I will remind you that Arbcom never sanctioned the constantattacks made by a sitting arbitrator in the Matthew Hoffman case.

If Mr. Bain will not withdraw the accusations, then he is in violation of WP:NPA and WP:HARASS, and, after reviewing the evidence (which only oversighters can see), he should be given a public warning or block over this.

Ideally, I'd like him to simply admit he was wrong, of course, and then this can be dropped.

Unfortunately, arbcom has failed me very badly repeatedly, and it has routinely required extreme measures for any progress to be made. It took a year and a half for the injustices in the Matthew Hoffman case to be apologised for. In this case, the problem is not as extreme, but still damaging, and I would ask that this be handled a bit quicker.

The major problem with my interactions with Arbcom - you probably know about Matthew Hoffman - is that things tend to be delayed so long that they're much, much worse problems by the time they've been dealt with. What could be dropped instantly with a minor clarification or apology gets met with complete stonewalling, and by the time it's dealt with, a lot of damage has been done. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 15:56, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

GA review of Beth Phoenix

Hey, thanks for the review. I've adressed your points at Talk:Beth Phoenix/GA1. ♥Nici♥Vampire♥Heart♥ 19:22, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. ♥Nici♥Vampire♥Heart♥ 19:35, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Responded to your comments at Talk:Jillian Hall/GA1. Thanks for the review. ♥Nici♥Vampire♥Heart♥ 17:28, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks once again. ♥Nici♥Vampire♥Heart♥ 18:03, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia on Colbert

I was in complete shock when I saw this. Have you seen it? [2] Voyaging(talk) 21:51, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Kimberley Joseph

Thanks for reviewing! Bradley0110 (talk) 17:11, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Herschel Bennett

Updated DYK query On July 24, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Herschel Bennett, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

BorgQueen (talk) 18:08, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Marty Hogan

Hi Wizardman, Thanks for nominating Marty Hogan for GA status! Best, twelsht (talk) 04:24, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Spotlight needs suggestions

Question

For an article such as Rome, Mississippi, is it necessary to include the postcode? Just wondering.--The LegendarySky Attacker 01:57, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

It was just that I don't usually see that. Thanks for your time.--The LegendarySky Attacker 02:01, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Louie Caporusso GAC

I have responded to your concerns at Talk:Louie Caporusso/GA1.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 22:41, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

You should be familiar with Wikipedia:Good_articles/recent by now. I will add his name there, but try to remember to do so in the future.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 00:04, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
I presume that doing it by hand won't mess up the bot.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 00:15, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Mark Vlasic

I will begin a GA review of this article tomorrow. Letting you know as nominator. Nosleep break my slumber 15:59, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

[[Template:Bio]]

Hi. You seem to have deleted this template redirect that I have frequently used as a "Recently-created, implausible redirect". I wonder if you might reconsider. Is there something that makes tagging an article talk page {{tl|Bio}}, as I have long done (as here, in April), problematic? --Moonriddengirl (talk) 00:46, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I frequently encounter articles not tagged by project at CP, and the bio redirect is so much quicker than WPBiography. I have a hard time remembering some of the more esoteric project tags, but have also always found that one simple to use. I note there is a bot that replaces it, so perhaps the script it breaks is a brief error? I know little about such technical things. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 00:53, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

How can I bring the Betsy Aardsma article up in the rankings? You tagged it as a C. Thx. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.181.161.250 (talk) 19:16, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 27 July 2009

Delivered by -- Tinu Cherian BOT - 14:55, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Article

Hi, I noticed that you worked on 2007 NBA betting scandal. I found this while working on Tim Donaghy, which is at GAN; it's a bit old, but might be useful. Cheers, Dabomb87 (talk) 21:53, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

See also here. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:52, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't think the motion is passing

Please see my comment here. Paul August ☎ 19:41, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Jeffrey D. Sadow at DYK

Hi there - you might want to take a look at what I've said at this DYK, and on the article's talk page, in case you don't agree. Cheers. hamiltonstone (talk) 03:35, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

File:250px-Israel-peleg.jpg

Hi, you have deleted File:250px-Israel-peleg.jpg, with the reason "F3: Media file with improper license". However, iddo lavie, who took this picture, has sent a permission (Ticket#2009071610018913) that says: "You have my pernission to use this picture in the wikipedia". I believe that this means acceptance of Wikipedia GFDL license. Please restore the file. Thanks, Ohad1584 (talk) 14:51, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Trade

Cheers! You guys got a good deal out of it too. Carrasco figures to take Lee's place next season or 2011, and Marson will be an instant replacement if they trade Martinez. You guys definitely got some good picks. I hope you can turn some of my Phillies DYK articles into featured content for Cleveland! KV5 (Talk • Phils) 22:30, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

GA Sweeps August update

Thanks to everyone's dedicated efforts to the GA Sweeps process, a total of 215 articles were swept in July! We are currently nearly 80% done with Sweeps, with under 600 articles left to review. With 50 members, that averages out to about 12 articles per person. Once the remaining articles drop to 100, I'll help in reviewing the last articles (I'm currently taking a break). If each member reviews an article every other day this month (or several!), we'll be completely finished. Again, I want to thank you for using your time to ensure the quality of the older GAs. Feel free to recruit other editors who have reviewed GANs in the past and might be interested in the process. The more editors, the less the workload, and hopefully the faster this will be completed. If you have any questions about reviews or the process let me know and I'll be happy to get back to you. Again, thank you for taking the time to help with the process, I appreciate your efforts! --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 19:36, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

York Park

Thanks very much for your help :) Aaroncrick (talk) 22:24, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

York City F.C. season 2008–09

Hi, I picked the above out of the GAN list and then found that you had started the review. Then I found that you had withdrawn [3] so I will pick up. Hope that this is OK. Jezhotwells (talk) 16:26, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 3 August 2009

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 06:56, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Recovery of a deleted article

Hello:

On 17 December 2008 you deleted the article Unusual articles per this log: [4]

Would it be possible for you to recover a copy of it for me to download. Perhaps you could place it on a sub-page of your or my Talk page? I understand the reason for the deletion. It was an article that I had been involved with several years ago and I was quite fond of it.

Thank you. --AStanhope (talk) 15:26, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Scott_Doe/GA1#GA_Review

I have left you a comment here. regards--Vintagekits (talk) 09:30, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Wizardman, your comment might be appreciated at Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2009_July_30#Scott_Doe. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:40, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

What are the chances that you might ever acknowledge any of this?--Vintagekits (talk) 08:20, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Gawrsh!

Two keep and two delete !votes and you deleted, whats with that? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 05:23, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Since RAN hasn't seen fit to notify you that he's opened a DRV for this close, I will. Otto4711 (talk) 21:05, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Infoboxes & player positions

There is conversation going on at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Baseball and on Rickey Henderson's and Babe Ruth's talk pages about infoboxes and the position listed for the players. I'd appreciate your input regardless of whether or not you agree with me.--Johnny Spasm (talk) 23:38, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

ArbCom Clarification

I need a clarification on an ArbCom dicision. ChildofMidnight (CoM) is commenting on a Obama related discussion on ANI. I feel that falls under his ban on Obama related articles/discussions. Can I get a clarification on this please? - NeutralHomer • Talk • 01:22, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

OK, just checking. I thought I had missed you so I also emailed this just a moment ago. You can disregard that. Thanks...NeutralHomer • Talk • 01:32, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
The interpretation that the topic ban applies only to articles and article talk space, but not Wikipedia space, contradicts the interpretation given by at least one administrator.[5][6] The edits are also problematic per Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Obama articles#ChildofMidnight and Wikidemon restricted, as they have chased me away from a section I started at AN/I by accusing me there of bad faith. Is there a safe harbor to state my concerns, short of a Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement / Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification? Wikidemon (talk) 01:47, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
Like CIreland (who Wikidemon refers to above with the diffs) I had assumed the topic ban applied project wide. If it doesn't it doesn't, but that seems rather odd. Much of the disruption surrounding the Obama pages (not just from ChildofMidnight by the way) came from ANI or other noticeboard threads, and to say that ChildofMidnight and Scjessey (the other editor topic banned - though he as far as I know has indeed avoided these subjects) can comment on ANI and AfDs and the like somewhat defeats the purpose in my view. I don't know if it's standard in ArbCom cases to limit topic bans to article space, but it seems rather intuitive to me that such bans should be all encompassing, given that controversial article issues inevitably spill over into project space. There might well be something I'm missing in terms of past precedent but that's how I see it.
Thanks for clarifying regardless—there's actually been a good deal of confusion over the Obama remedies unfortunately. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 02:43, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
I will likely be filing a formal request for clarification, as none have answered my question yet. Wikidemon (talk) 03:07, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
Please provide a link to that formal request, as I would like to be a part of it. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 03:34, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
Link: here - Wikidemon (talk) 21:33, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

More on the Obama situation

I'm sorry to pester you about this, but we are rather in need of some clarification here, the sooner the better. Part of the problem is that there seems to be contradictory information coming from the committee over the course of the past couple of months. In terms of ChildofMidnight's topic ban, you commented here that it only applied to article and article talk space. Back in late June, an edit C of M made to an AfD related to Obama was reverted as violating the topic ban, and it was agreed after that the C of M should not edit AfDs related to Obama (C of M agreed as well, though I don't have a link handy—the issues was partially discussed here but elsewhere as well I believe and I don't think any Arbs participated). I had to dig around to find this, but the admin who reverted C of M on the AfD specifically invoked these comments from multiple Arbs in a request for clarification active at that time. Comments include Coren saying "Please note and remember that when someone is banned from a topic, then there is no "list" of pages that cannot be edited: new articles, centralized discussion, AfD subpages, requests for comments, etc. are all off-limits when within the banned topic."

I had been interpreting the Obama topic bans in light of those comments, but your recent statement seems to contradict them. Can we please get this clarified post-haste? ChildofMidnight now feels he can discuss Obama-related issues in non-article space, and a recent block against him was undone by arbitrator John Vandenberg, apparently as not falling under the topic ban, though I'm not sure John understood the full background, and C of M was unblocked before the blocking admin, SarekofVulcan, offered a more detailed rationale (not a huge problem though since Sarek had said it was fine to do this).

All in all we have a real mess here which has led to multiple ANI threads, a block and an unblock, and lot of acrimony and accusations. I really hope the committee can firmly address the various questions about Obama remedies currently up on the requests for clarification page, particularly as it relates to how far topic bans extend. I know you folks have your hands full and then some, but this is an active problem right now and we need to get everyone on the same page before the lack of clarity causes further difficulties. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 20:35, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

The never-ending attempts to extend the restrictions to more and more articles that I edit is a continuation of the hounding, stalking and harassment that I reported to Arbcom in the original proceeding. I had hoped Arbcom would address this activity along with the incivility and personal attacks that were causing problems in the first place. These activities are unrelated to article content and are disruptive, and they are continuing because they were not stopped and in effect encouraged.
As I predicted, punishing those who are being hounded, harassed, and stalked with abuse of noticeboards to win content disputes has only increased the problem. If there is a subject I am editing that is problematic, all someone needs to do is point it out to me politely on my talk page. Individuals are using the restrictions to go after me and will continue to do so because they have been rewarded for this behavior.
I have voluntarily stepped away from several articles that are not about Obama to avoid disputes, but the hounding hasn't stopped. Suggesting I should not participate in an AfD about someone who is not Barack Obama is a real stretch, but I stepped away anyway. The hounding, stalking and harassment that were at the core of the problem to begin with will continue to take place until I am banned or it the editors engaging in these behaviors are made to stop. ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:42, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Wizardman has already clarified this "Since CoM was banned from articles and article talk pages, talking about it on ANI is technically not a violation of the restriction." Bigtimepeace is comparing an editor who was banned from Macedonia topic and commented in an AfD discussion about Macedonia to my comments about policies, harassment, and abusive behavior. I haven't commented in any AfDs or article about Obama. Please stop hounding me and leave me alone to edit articles. I know Wizardman is sick of this dispute, but imagine how I feel with this constant hounding. PLEASE LEAVE ME ALONE TO MAKE CONTENT CONTRIBUTIONS AND TO EDIT IN PEACE. ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:49, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Please note that I am not remotely seeking any remedy against C of M, be it a block or a ban. This is actually not about him, though his situation has provoked the recent confusion. I just want clarity on the Obama remedies, and if the Arbs say C of M can edit Obama-related AfDs and comment on Obama-related ANI threads I am fine with that since the committee defines how the remedies are to be worded and construed. For me at least there's nothing personal here, we just need to understand the scope of the remedies as soon as possible. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 20:59, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
In terms of C of M's followup, he commented in an AfD about Gerald Walpin, who was fired by Barack Obama. It's obvious, and I don't even need an Arb to tell me this, that that article is Obama related, the question is whether or not commenting in the AfD violates the topic ban or not. I know what Wizardman said C of M, I linked to it above, but previous comments by Arbs seemed to contradict that (see Coren's statement at the end of my first paragraph, an apparently general comment which would seem to apply here). Maybe you don't read them that way but I do. I am not remotely hounding you, ironically I'm trying to get this clarified so none of us (including you) have to worry about it anymore. If the Arbs say your topic ban is limited only to articles and article talk pages I will very much be satisfied, but I want to make sure that other Arbs are in agreement with Wizardman here. It's really nothing to get up in arms about. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 20:59, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
Gerald Walpin has had a very long career as a prominent attorney, including as Mia Farrow's attorney, and as Federal prosecutor in New York dealing with high profile cases, and as a prominent public serveant..
"From 1957-60, he served in the United States Air Force Judge Advocate General, with a rank of lieutenant.[1] Walpin was an Assistant U.S. Attorney and Chief of Special Prosecutions for the United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York for five years. He went on to become a senior partner at the New York-based law firm Rosenman & Colin LLP—and then of counsel at its successor Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP—for a combined total of over 40 years.[1]
From 2002-2004, Walpin served as president of the Federal Bar Council, an association of attorneys that practice in the courts within the Second Circuit. He received the American Inns of Court Professionalism Award in 2003 for outstanding professionalism as an attorney and for mentoring younger lawyers.[1]"
On August 3, 2006, President George W. Bush nominated Walpin as Inspector General (IG) of Corporation for National and Community Service (CNCS), an office in the CNCS charged with conducting independent and object audits, investigations and inspections of the CNCS and its service programs, which include AmeriCorps, Volunteers in Service to America (VISTA) and Senior Corps.[3] After he was confirmed by the U.S. Senate on December 9, 2006, Walpin was sworn in on January 8, 2007.[1][3][4]
He has also been involved in high profile prosecutions. He was notable long before being fired. I would add more content, but I've voluntarily stayed away. There was a separate article on the firing, which is Obama related, but it was agressively pursued for deletion by Tarc and is now gone. The Gerald Walpin article is not about Barack Obama. But I still left it alone. But nothing puts a stop to this relentless disruption. What's so hard about leaving me alone? I don't edit the Walpin article any more. So stop hounding me. I'm banned from the Obama articles. Isn't that enough? You got what you wanted. ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:30, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
  • To be blunt to all of you, we can all agree that the other arbs' views of how those remedies should be enacted would probably help you guys out a lot more. You're probably all tired of me by now :) I commented on how I meant for them to be interpreted when I originally wrote them up. Wizardman 21:44, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
I was a bit confused by that reply at first (and initially typed a different comment) but then saw your comment on the clarification requests page and understand now. Thanks for that and I guess we'll wait to see what other Arbs have to say about the issue.
Just a suggestion, and maybe you folks have already talked about this or made a change, but perhaps you can come up with standard verbiage which makes it obvious if to which parts of the project a given topic ban applies (everywhere, just articles, articles and article talk, etc.). Obviously there's about a thousand other things to think of when writing up a proposed decision, but maybe there can be some sort of standard so that problems of interpretation don't come up in the future. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 22:30, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

1998 Music City Bowl

Thanks for the GA pass! JKBrooks85 (talk) 04:10, 10 August 2009 (UTC)


May I ask about this?

Hi Wizardman, [7] interested me. Personally I kind of admire you for giving a very dubious editor the benefit of the doubt and for being prepared to take the time to review an absurdly large number of edits to try to work out fault in this case (or maybe you weren't familiar with it all). I am sure you will reach the right conclusion in the end. But your "no question" vote here implies you are convinced that there is an obvious policy forbidding an admin from blocking someone for any crime (and no one disputes the crime AFAICT) if there is an open arbcom case between them. So where does this rule come from? I cannot find it at WP:Block, since there does not seem to be any current content dispute between them? If opening a case give Sub judice rules which are so obvious that there is "no question" could you tell me where they are? Or perhaps when people have cases opened against them they should be notified? Prudence is another matter of course but we don't de-sysop for imprudence? --BozMo talk 14:54, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, I disagree (and I've been an admin longer than you so I win: just kidding). If its that obvious then why not make it a rule, or try and see if WP:Block throws it out? Blocks are not arbitrary, what matters is whether there is a case or not. In your example I would expect a block from you or from any other admin to be subject to the usual review procedures and it would get overturned quickly if there was no good reason. IF you were found to make a block which was then overturned as unfair then more fuel to my side of the case but making a block in itself is neither prohibited nor obviously wrong as far as I can see? --BozMo talk 15:07, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
There is an obvious thing that makes it impossible for the admin to block during an ArbCom case and get away with it - its called the CoI clause in the admin policy. As an admin who has been around as long as you claim, you should have known that. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:12, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
Funnily I wasn't concerned in the least where the decision was going I was more interested in contributing to your (or my education), and perhaps adding some policy if needed. I can see WP:Blocking_policy#Conflicts_of_interest which doesn't apply because there is no (active) content dispute involved (it is a dispute about behaviour). And I can read Wikipedia:Administrators. But I cannot see any policy which applies here, so if it is so obvious to you then why not write one and see who agrees? I have to say I don't block many people (and one of the handful of blocks I have done was overturned by WMC as it happens, leaving me a lasting impression about how eyewateringly fair he was to the blocked party at my expense). And as for the "as long as you claim", for Ottava's benefit I only made the comment only because I happened to remember that my adminship Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/BozMo was exactly a whole week before Wizardman's Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Wizardman so I am big brother for ever and ever as it were... :) --BozMo talk 16:32, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
Wait, are you honestly trying to say that an ArbCom case about pages and dealing with two users would not be what the CoI clause would include? Even though the wording makes it rather clear that it would? There should be -no- conflict between people. There are plenty of admin, so that would mean anyone with a history with another user does not really have an excuse in the matter. The proper channel is ANI if nothing has happened. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:35, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
Please, please tell me which COI clause you are referring to? If we are so at odds perhaps we are talking about different things? Since they stopped google botting the policy pages I have struggled to find stuff anyway and I don't track it all (but I have asked several times where the policy is and got no link back). --BozMo talk 16:43, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
"Administrators must not block users with whom they are engaged in a content dispute; instead, they should report the problem to other administrators. Administrators should also be aware of potential conflicts of interest involving pages or subject areas with which they are involved."
That applies to more than article space. If you don't feel the same, then here is WP:UNINVOLVED: "Administrators should not use their tools to advantage [...] or where a significant conflict of interest is likely to exist. With few specific exceptions [...] administrators should ensure they are reasonably neutral parties when they use the tools."
This was not a case that he was a neutral party when using the tools. An ArbCom case is enough to conflict out an admin from use of further tools against that individual, especially during the case. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:01, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
This is far from clear. The first case is limited to content dispute whereas this Arbcom case specifically excludes all issues of content. In the case of content one could see how an Admin might be seeking to gain advantage (in the content dispute, for example by excluding someone from commenting on an AfD by blocking them for the duration) via a block. In this Arbcom case I do see how blocking the other party could conceivably help in the Arbcom "dispute". So the only question is whether it looks like Playground politics. However, I daresay here it was a bit provocative on the part of an Admin who probably feels he does more than his fair share of front line work on 3RR etc, takes on many disruptive editors because others (me for example) lack the energy and that Arbcom are giving far to much time and credibility to someone who does not deserve it, only supported by other serial troublemakers. Of course the Admin should be more Angelic, but at least he is on the side of the Angels in the front line of Battle whereas I am cowering :) --BozMo talk 17:38, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
Actually, only the first sentence of the Blocking policy is about content issues. The second is clearly for all possibilities that there is no neutrality ("Administrators should also be aware of potential conflicts of interest involving pages or subject areas with which they are involved.") The "pages" means everything. And if you can't understand how blocking one's opposition can help your cause, well, I don't know what to say. Forcefully shutting up an opponent is a very old tactic. At the lowest, it is intimidation; at the most, it is a full out attack. Another term for it is "bullying". A bully with ops is never acceptable, which is why the CoI policies were created to ensure that administrators know that they will be desysopped when they resort to such tactics. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:07, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
We have probably overstayed our welcome on Wizardmand's page but whatever you say the policy means that can only be an opinion. All I am doing is read what the policy says. It makes it clear not to block when there is a content dispute (but here that is clearly not the case). It says that Admins should be aware of potential conflict of interest, which was fine here too. A COI does not exist the first time a troublemaker is warned and if it starts existing at some point we need to decide exactly where. The texts you have referred to do not anywhere say what you appear to wish them to say so we perhaps need to change them. Words like intimidation, full out attack etc though do fall into what I referred to earlier as "playground politics". I don't think surrounding a block with psycho drama is helpful, and we are careful everywhere not to make out blocks are punishments etc because turning it all that way clouds the straightforward issue that the best interest of the project should be the most important thing. The policy does not say "don't block a serial offender if Arbcom have agreed to look at a case in which you are both named". Perhaps it should. Asking for another admin to do it wastes someone elses time, is it worth doing that? Probably, but perhaps not dogmatically. --BozMo talk 05:21, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
Seeing as how my career is in analyzing texts, I think you should reconsider your condescension. As put above, the words clearly state what I claim they mean. This is not "implied". This is blatant. If you want, I can dissect each and every sentence, break down the verbal clauses, and the rest for you. However, you have made it clear by your second response that you made up your mind and don't really care about what Wiki policy says about it. You also don't seem to care about WP:CIVIL, as your condescending statements and lack of care for our policies only verify. So please, if you are going to try and defend an admin who made a major mistake, go about it in a different way. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:07, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 10 August 2009

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 06:21, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Wizardman/Archive26&oldid=1144748563"