|
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 {{Bio}}, as I have long done (as here, in April), problematic? --Moonriddengirl 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 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)
 Misplaced Pages Signpost: 27 July 2009
Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe
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 Misplaced Pages 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)
I have left you a comment here. regards--Vintagekits (talk) 09:30, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
Wizardman, your comment might be appreciated at Misplaced Pages: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)
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)
Thanks very much for your help :) Aaroncrick (talk) 22:24, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
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 so I will pick up. Hope that this is OK. Jezhotwells (talk) 16:26, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
Misplaced Pages Signpost: 3 August 2009
Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe
Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 06:56, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
Userpage
How come you don't have your userpage semi-protected, or even full protected for that matter? Until It Sleeps ``
Recovery of a deleted article
Hello:
On 17 December 2008 you deleted the article Unusual articles per this log:
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)
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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages space, contradicts the interpretation given by at least one administrator. The edits are also problematic per Misplaced Pages: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 Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement / Misplaced Pages: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. 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.
- 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."
- 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. After he was confirmed by the U.S. Senate on December 9, 2006, Walpin was sworn in on January 8, 2007.
- 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)
GA Review
I enjoyed working with you on the Youkilis GA review. If you have time/interest in another, I've listed Ian Kinsler for a GA review. I tried to anticipate your comments (or those of another reviewer) from my experience working with you on Youkilis, and believe that this may already be GA-level ... but leave it for you or another reviewer to decide. Thank you.--Epeefleche (talk) 07:48, 9 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, 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 Misplaced Pages: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 Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_adminship/BozMo was exactly a whole week before Wizardman's Misplaced Pages: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)
|
