Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 17:30, 26 March 2012

My Email Rules

Due to emails I get related to Admin or Medcom duties you need to know if you choose to email me using this link or by using the email user function my rules are as follows: I may not agree email is the appropriate place for the exchange, I will advise you on your talk page that I received the email and I think the conversation belongs on wiki. If I do elect to have an email exchange with you then it is privileged and confidential, you do not have my permission to post it publicly without asking to do so. Whether you follow my email rules is up to you but be aware I may refuse to engage in the use of email with you if you refuse to follow them.

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13

This page has archives. Sections older than 8 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

The most valuable of all talents is that of never using two words when one will do.

— Thomas Jefferson

Chesdovi appeal

As he can't notify you I will do it for him: http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Arbitration_enforcement_action_appeal_by_Chesdovi --Shrike (talk) 12:13, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. --WGFinley (talk) 14:09, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Wiqi55 and his 1RR: now at ANI

Wgfinley, I have opened a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Next steps for User:Wiqi55 — advice needed. The question is whether Wiqi55's indef block should be restored since he has broken his1RR for the second time since December. Diffs are given at User talk:Wiqi55#Your unblock condition from December. I am notifying you since your name appears in Wiqi55's block log. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 17:27, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Ping

Decided I'd been too verbose, here, but if you're by chance in the process of responding to or quoting from that longer version feel free to revert. I say so since I see you've just edited a separate section of the page, as well. Cheers,  – OhioStandard (talk) 16:25, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm done commenting on that one on AE, too big already. I see where you are coming from, what I had decided to do though was to clear up the various sanctions he had against him, they were too complex. I decided to just go with the indef TBAN and see if he could earn his way back to editing there as others have. He doesn't seem able to do it. So I really didn't take his previous unblock conditions into account, I was sanctioning under his new ban. --WGFinley (talk) 16:35, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Okay, but you know that Gwen's unblock conditions were imposed (as I understand) to prevent edits like this one, to an article about a 16th Century rabbi, right? Our friend had been involved in a long-running feud with another user over whether long-deceased certain rabbis who lived outside the boundaries of modern Israel, but in neighboring areas, should be categorized as "Palestinian" or as "Israeli". (I think I've described the crux of the dispute correctly.)

So if I understand correctly that you intended the TBAN to supersede or "clear up" the complex pre-existing sanctions, would the I/P topic ban currently in place prohibit involvement in that categorization feud? I have no intrinsic interest in the question or dispute; I only ask because I imagine the user might have had plans to return to that dispute once Gwen's unblock conditions expired in May of this year. You can see his discussion of the issue with Gwen here; he does indeed ask her, toward the end of that fairly short thread, what he'll be able to do about that feud when the conditions expire. Btw, I want to make it clear that nothing in these comments to your talk should be construed as a request for any kind of warning or sanction. I'm strongly of the opinion that anything but the most routine admin requests should be made on admin boards rather than admin talk pages.  – OhioStandard (talk) 18:52, 14 March 2012 (UTC) ( First paragraph revised as indicated, in late edit. Singularity42's summary of crux of dispute, referred to below, is more accurate. - Ohiostandard 02:59, 15 March 2012 (UTC) )

It was my intention to stiffen up the sanctions that were in place and get them all on one track. It seemed to me he had various different sanctions pending so my intent was to say indefinite ARBPIA, that is it, violations are going to be blocks. I'm not sure the diff you presented is ARBPIA and the category shenanigans in general wouldn't be, I was mainly looking at his ARBPIA issues. No worries about this venue, I have no issue with it. --WGFinley (talk) 22:17, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. It'll be moot if Chesdovi still doesn't have editing privileges ( per the three-month block you imposed on 9 March 2012 ) but I'm afraid I'm still not clear as to your intent; I suspect that means the user in question probably won't be clear either, as to whether Gwen's November 2011 unblocking conditions would still apply if he has editing privileges when they were set to expire, in May 2012. But then, I'm not entirely sure I clearly understand the dispute between Chesdovi and Debresser, either, except that I know it's about how to "geo-categorize" some subset of Middle East rabbis, most or all now (?) deceased, I think.

I do want to make sure you're aware that you may be stepping on quite a large land mine, though, if you're specifying that the I/P TBAN has now superseded Gwen Gale's unblocking conditions re categories. This categorization dispute has consumed a very great deal of disk space on WP's servers, and sprawled across at least four venues, eg AN/I, RfC, CfD, DRV, and, of course, many different talk pages. Here are three examples, two from AN/I, in two different "cases" brought there, and one from "Categories for Discussion": (1) Debresser nominates Palestinian rabbis for category for deletion, (2) Chesdovi and Palestinian edits, and (3) Categories for Discussion:16th-century Palestinian rabbis. That first link actually has the most concise summary of the crux of the category dispute that I've yet seen, and it was made by an uninvolved editor, Singularity42, to boot: See the 4th post at that "Debresser nominates" link.

This isn't my fight, so no additional reply to me is necessary or expected, although welcome. I'll just close by suggesting that if it is indeed your intention that Gwen Gale's unblocking conditions are now superseded by the I/P topic ban, she should probably be informed of it if she hasn't already been, simply as a courtesy, and perhaps also because she's familiar with the recondite history of this sprawling category dispute.... Isn't if fun, being an admin? ;-) So glamorous, and all the delightful perks, too: The hospitality suites, the limousines, the free event tickets, the swooning groupies. Seriously though, I feel for you; I really do.  – OhioStandard (talk) 02:38, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Sigh, I'm so dang ADD sometimes. Re my immediately preceding, I'd completely missed your statement that "the category shenanigans in general wouldn't be" covered under the ARBPIA topic ban; sorry. Your exclusion of the category dispute from the tban you implemented makes sense to me, although I shudder to consider the complications if that dispute actually includes any still-living rabbis. I'm not sure whether it does. If I recall correctly, Chesdovi has described himself a "Palestinian rabbi" previously (although I can't now find the edit in which he did so), so perhaps it does. The community can cross that bridge if we come to it in article space, though, I suppose. Cheers,  – OhioStandard (talk) 03:20, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Appeal

Hello. It’s been nearly 9 weeks since the sanction and I’d like to ask for a reprieve or pardon based on the following considerations.

1. Since the sanction I’ve done a lot of content work in the article space, focusing on military history, though I’ve also expanded or created articles on subjects as varied as orthopedics, archeology, logistics, weapon systems and sports personalities. See Contributions

2. I’ve made good use of article talk pages in an effort to work collaboratively. On one occasion, this effort bore fruit and rectified a technical inaccuracy and in another, it facilitated a successful compromise. See for example and as well as See also this where I made use of talk pages before adding content.

3. In addition, I acknowledge less than stellar behavior in the actions which led to the sanction. My use of the talk pages was belated and should have been contemporaneous given the controversial nature of the edit. In addition, the usage of the flag icon was in poor taste and in hindsight, should have been dispensed with. I did not act collaboratively and should have known better.

4. I give you my solemn promise that the events that led up to the imposition of the sanction will not be repeated. This will be ensured by a promise to make better use of talk pages when making substantive edits and a good-faith effort to work collaboratively in the topic area.

5. I have a lot to offer in the topic area, especially in the field of Israeli military history and geography. I think that my contributions during the period of the sanction demonstrate that I am not here to indoctrinate but rather to educate and edit in a neutral dispassionate manner. If you grant my appeal, I will strive to do just that with the understanding that my edits (at least for the next few months) will be subject to much scrutiny and that will further ensure compliance.

6. I am also willing to undergo a period of probation (the duration of which to be decided by you) whereby if you feel that I am out of line, you can re-impose the sanction unilaterally and I will accept it without question.

I hope that you will look favorably on this application and believe me when I tell you that I am sincere in my desire to edit neutrally, collaboratively and in a manner consistent with Misplaced Pages guidelines and policy.

Thanks--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 03:27, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

self-block?

Good afternoon,
I saw your comment on "Drowning is generally a bad idea," and would like to request that you please block me from editing from work for two weeks. By blocking me from editing "from work" what I mean is that I'd like you to please block this IP address, regardless of whether I log in or not (that is, "blocking edits by logged-in users" enabled, or "Block anonymous users only" disabled), but with autoblock disabled (so that if I test to verify that the block still works after I log-in, I won't be blocked at home). Please note, in case it is relevant to your criteria for issuing self-blocks, that I already asked one of your colleagues and received no response.
Thanks.
68.55.112.31 (talk) 17:30, 26 March 2012 (UTC)