User talk:Wizardman

To those leaving messages: Try to keep them brief and to the point. Posts that are too lengthy may not get a timely response. Thank you. Wizardman

To those leaving RfA thankspam: Consider yourself welcomed. I appriciate the thought, but they tend to take up a lot of my page and archives, and I really don't need them for anything. Wizardman

This talk page is automatically archived by User:MiszaBot III. Any sections older than 14 days are automatically archived. Sections without timestamps are not archived.

2002 Gator Bowl Thanks for the GA check! It's always great to get feedback, especially positive feedback. If you've got the time and the inclination, I've also got a FAC that's looking for comments. :) JKBrooks85 (talk) 07:30, 29 May 2009 (UTC) WP:Good articles/recent Hey Wizardman. I would just to update you on some developments with the WP:Good articles/recent page. Following a bot request, it became apparent that it would be handy to have a bot pipe new additions to WP:GA onto the /recent subpage. Now, I admit that the bot's been having a few problems, but I hope these have now been worked out. It should mean that every 5 minutes the newest additions are added automatically, so all users like you have to do is add the newly listed GA to WP:GA and let the bot do the work. Of course, you're allowed to do it yourself, but you don't have to. Essentially though, you can either carry on as normal or take advantage of the bot, as you wish. - Jarry1250 (t, c) 17:07, 29 May 2009 (UTC) New York Yankees[1] I think that semi protection is necessary based on WP:Semi. [2]--KANESUE 01:11, 30 May 2009 (UTC) DYK for Scott Zolak On May 30, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Scott Zolak, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. Dravecky (talk) 14:22, 30 May 2009 (UTC) Rejecting "Locus of dispute" as written In the "Tang Dynasty" ArbCom case, the "locus of dispute" factfinding should be rejected as written. A new, better locus of dispute should be adduced. I write to encourage you to re-visit this because the first and last sentences are fundamentally flawed. NO to 1st sentence. The case originated when Teeninvestor rejected any and all inquiry relating to WP:V, WP:Burden and WP:RSUE, alleging vandalism and disruptive editing instead. This persistent confrontational strategy is endorsed and encouraged by those voting in support Newyorkbrad's locus of dispute. These votes effectively disregard Tenmei's locus, Teeninvestor's locus and, most importantly, Teeninvestor's restatment at Summarizing "more or less the entire dispute". This obfuscation marginalizes even the attempt to pursue a strategy of collaborative editing; and for this very practical reason, I could not disagree more with this sentence NO to 3rd sentence. In the specific context of this case, it is procedurally unsound to adopt the expanded scope proposed by Teeninvestor and Caspian blue. One of the few areas of agreement acknowledged the initially limited focus of our case when it was opened. I could not disagree more with this sentence. In support, I highlight a crucial fulcrum or pivot between "A" and "B" below: A. Tenmei's analysis here and here paraphrases Coren's measured language here: "We appear to confront a small scale replica of what has occurred in other, wider disputes ... informed by a four-prong examination at each and every point of this escalating drama: 1. "What is the quality of the sources used by both sides in the dispute? 2. "What is the consensus of scholars in the field; and does the source reflect that consensus? 3. "Are the sources actually supporting the assertions for which they are cited? 4. "Are unsourced assertions being used? "As others will know better than me, these four points are, unsurprisingly, at the center of most protracted disputes and are all violations of our core content policies, e.g., verifiability, no original research and neutrality." B. Teeninvestor's rejection is entire here and here: "This guy is out of control, man." [emphasis added] In this instance, Tenmei's paraphrase of Coren's moderating analysis was posted on the talk pages of all arguably interested participants at Talk:Inner Asia during the Tang Dynasty. The "out of control" accusatory phrasing was repeated in diffs on the talk pages of PericlesofAthens and Arilang1234. This suggests a deliberate strategy rather than a merely transient outburst. In these pivotal diffs, Teeninvestor cannot feign to have misunderstood my writing. These are plainly Coren's paraphrased words; and yet, this modest effort to frame collaborative editing issues was immediately converted into a contrived hostile encounter. This destructive pattern is reflected ad nauseam on the evidence and workshop pages. Despite the cumulative attacks, the edit history confirms my participation focused on issues, but this outcome tells me clearly that I was wrong to take the high road. In voting to support this awkward "spin", ArbCom's counter-intuitive judgment effectively affirms that the contributions of Teeninvestor and Caspian blue were above reproach and I was not. This alchemy is difficult to digest. ArbCom rewards what is bad and denigrates what is good. __Tenmei (talk) 19:14, 30 May 2009 (UTC) suggestion I suggest dropping mention of that particular block from the proposed Arbcom decision. The violation of processes involved in the block and the dubious nature of the block itself, put you (for your involvement), Wikipedia and Arbcom (if the block is made part of its decision) in an unfortunate light. I think it's best to put it behind all of us and to avoid citing it with regard to myself and Scjessey. I also noticed a rather far fetched accusation of templating on your part against me. You seem to be reaching. Finally, I know Arbcom is above the law, but it also occurs to me that enforcement isn't supposed to be punitive. After such a slow and disruptive process (no one would enforce probation pending the Arbcom outcome which has taken all this time) casting about for sanctions on such old issues is a rather poor showing. Not to mention that one of the key actors in disrupting content focused discussion and progress gets off with a slap on the wrist and that Sceptre and others are continuing to behave inappropriately. I'm trying to limit the time and energy I devote to such a flawed the process as much as I can, but if it's outcome is going to be a complete travesty unhelpful it may necessitate further involvement on my part. Cheers. ChildofMidnight (talk) 01:40, 1 June 2009 (UTC) Okay. Thanks for your consideration and for your response. I apologize for being a tad bitey. It's a bit late here, but I have some additional thoughts for your consideration. I'd like to get into them more when I'm fresher. I appreciate your time and consideration, and I am genuine in apologizing for coming on a little strong at first in my post above. I was troubled by the direction some of the conclusions seemed to be taking. I very much appreciate you taking my concerns seriously. I will try to be appreciative and to avoid harshness in my future posts. :) ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:48, 1 June 2009 (UTC) Suggestion: Wikidemon vs CoM I think I may be too late at this time because I have been lazy to add evidences for other busy matters, but the interaction between Wikidemon and CoM is worse than that of Scjessey and CoM in my view. Could you consider about the pointer? Regardless of CoM's unwelcome messages more than 10 times, Wikidemon posted more than 15 times on his page, and the former considered the visits "harassment". User_talk:ChildofMidnight#Wikidemon posting here despite repeated requests to avoid my talk page User_talk:Wikidemon#User:ChildofMidnight So I think a possible remedy for the two not to interact each other may be good for the sake of peace. It is just my thought.--Caspian blue 03:14, 1 June 2009 (UTC) It would be unreasonable to put a restriction on me simply because ChildofMidnight has been tendentious and uncivil in interacting with me. ChildofMidnight has regularly accused a number of regular editors of vandalism, POV pushing, harassment, stalking, etc., in a variety of forums - it is one of the ways he has tried to deflect concerns over his own editing problems. No legitimate evidence has ever been presented that I did anything improper in my dealings with ChildofMidnight. Please don't punish good editors for dealing with disruption, or prevent them from doing so. That hurts the cause of the encyclopedia, it does not help it. Wikidemon (talk) 06:16, 1 June 2009 (UTC) Incidentally, any comments of mine that remain on ChildofMidnight's talk page are not a true reflection of my posts there or final statements. ChildofMidnight has manipulated them by selective deletion and, after some attempt to fix that, I gave up because it would cause more trouble than it would prevent to try to set things straight. ChildofMidnight and to some extent Caspian Blue have tried to trap me in a argued for a rule that would trap me in a in a Cache-22 here because ChildofMidnight has stridently demanded that I never post on his talk page, which I consider the correct location to post certain notices, e.g. a recent 3RR warning (it is a courtesy, and I have found it helpful, to post 3RR warnings before and in place of filing 3RR or AN/I reports). Instead ChildofMidnight demands that I mention such things on the article talk page, which is the wrong place to put them per WP:TALK and article probation terms. Further, both have accused me of bad faith frivolous AN/I reports when I bring these things to the attention of AN/I. I can and have mentioned some of these things in my ArbCom evidence, but a 3-month long Arbcom case cannot be an umbrella under which ChildofMidnight continues to edit war. ChildofMidnight responded to my 3RR report by accusing me of lying and harassment. What is the correct procedure here? It surely can't be that I or other editors have to sit still and allow the edit warring to continue because ChildofMidnight accuses us of wikistalking. The procedure every other editor faces should they edit war is a 3RR or AN/I report, which is customarily preceded by a warning on their talk page. If ChildofMidnight reacts badly to that, it is ChildofMidnight's issue, not the reporting editors, and I would think that bad reaction factors into the remedy. Wikidemon (talk) 06:26, 1 June 2009 (UTC) Trap = your ABF = No thanks, Wikidemon = Be reasonable for the next time. Your view is yours but my view is mine. I should've just added diffs to the Evidence page so should you. --Caspian blue 06:33, 1 June 2009 (UTC) Feel free. Incidentally (addressed to Wizardman), I have responded in depth to ChildofMidnight's evidence. One thing that concerns me is that even though none of it amounts to anything, one of the most shoddy examples, which you repeated on the PD page (apparently in the negative, as you did not support the finding), was endorsed by Casliber in the PD: the claim that my deleting this talk page "comment"[3] is somehow a violation of talk page guidelines. A review of my evidence, or even a careful look at that diff, would show that what I deleted is (other than the heading and the link) in its entirety a copyvio, a cut-and-paste of the Aaron Klein article -- which three different editors added to the article the same day. Further, although I don't think I've participated in edit wars, I'm to be admonished for edit warring. I have spent many hours preparing, and am about halfway through with, a detailed review of the history of ChildofMidnight's one-sided campaign against me. If anyone actually reviewed it instead of resting on unsubstantiated allegations, I've been the long-suffering target of some outrageous behavior. I think I deserve commendation, not reproach. However, if nobody is going to carefully review that evidence here, I don't see the point of adding more unexamined diffs to the pile. If yet more claims or evidence are really under consideration, I would ask that I have a few days to respond as well and/or to present this history, and that my response be taken seriously. I do not go out of my way to bother ChildofMidnight, and many times I pull back. However, when ChildofMidnight has disrupted articles I am working on or watching, I've done what any responsible editor should, and tried to keep things in order. Wikidemon (talk) 15:40, 1 June 2009 (UTC) Caspian Blue, will you kindly remove the claim you inserted on the evidence page here[4] that I am making a "laughable" allegation above. I can see how you could misread my comment, and I have refactored it accordinly. I do not claim that you are deliberately trying to trap me in a cache-22, but rather that you and ChildofMidnight are advocating for a dispute resolution restriction that does in fact create a cache-22. It's pretty simple. ChildofMidnight says don't post behavior notices to his talk page, but post instead on the article talk page. Article probation and WP:TALK both say don't post these on article talk pages. AN/I is for dispute resolution on things that cannot be resolved on article and editor talk pages, the next step in the path, but both you and ChildofMidnight argue that my comments there are frivolous and in bad faith. When those accusations go to AN/I, they shut down AN/I and administrators defer to Arbcom, which has sat on this case for almost 3 months. That's my point - no dispute resolution mechanism is open, while disruption continues that should be dealt with. When faced with a choice of simply walking away and letting the trouble worsen, or following the correct procedure at the risk of being accused of bad faith, as a careful editor patrolling an important article I choose the latter and just take my lumps like everyone else.Wikidemon (talk) 17:48, 1 June 2009 (UTC) ANI is NOT dispute resolution. Repeatedly seeking admin intervention against editors who make changes you disagree with is abusive and disruptive. All five of your reports were rejected because they were content disputes. On the last one you refactored in a new allegation that was unrelated to your initial report. But you hit at the jackpot when a couple admins, including Wizardman, grew fed up and simply blocked me (and ScJ) despite the weak evidence to support the assertion of edit warring (which you, I and ScJ have all said was s mistaken verdict, not to mention the violations of procedure involved). And here again, we see Wiz is sick of this dispute, as am I. And yet he hasn't born the brunt of the personal attacks, refactoring, wikilawyering, assumptions of bad faith, harassment etc. as I have for months. I've made some mistakes in dealing with it all, but the bottom line is that the NPOV policy (a core policy) is being violated, and that editors have camped out on the Obama articles calling themselves "defenders" and "patrollers" as they engage in policy violating behavior. The evidence and the record is clear. An enforcement mechanism to prevent future abuse by WikiD and others needs to be enacted so we can all get back to improving the encyclopedia. I'm opposed to punitive measures because they are against policy and aren't effective in improving behavior instead of punishing past transgressions. Arbcom should set the highest standards, not punish good faith editors who have made mistakes. I hope those passing judgment will sortthrough the distortions toget at the core issues. WikiDemon claims he needs to post on my talk page, but his record of harassment (15 POSTS!!! on May 24) is clear. He needs to discuss article content on article talk pages, avoid soapboxing and personal attacks, and let's get on with it. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:54, 1 June 2009 (UTC) Please do not use yet another editor's talk page to repeat all of these accusations of bad faith against me. The integrity of article probation / patrol and the actions of editors like me in upholding it are adequately covered in the Arbcom case. I respond here only because Caspian Blue was advocating for a result not supported by evidence. Regarding the claims you repeat, AN/I is the right place to bring actional behavior policy transgressions such as yours to the attention of administrators, and your talk page is the right place to caution you that I will file such a report unless you stop. Nobody has once presented a credible claim that I used the forum inappropriately - you have never introduced any evidence, just bald assertions, which are untrue. You are making stuff up out of whole cloth to claim that my reports were content disputes or rejected as inappropriate. Saying I refactored the last report is another claim you know to be untrue. I never said your block was mistaken, only that your edit warring did not that time violate 3RR. The long and short of it is that both times (your block, and the supposed 15 posts) you were again revert warring to insert nonconsensus material into an Obama-related article subject to probation; the first time you did not stop after a warning so I filed a report to AN/I, based on which you and Scjessey were both blocked. The second time you stopped, although you did engage in some tendentious behavior on your talk page and mine. Can we please stick to Arbcom, and not use Wizardman's page to repeat the claims made there? Wikidemon (talk) 19:32, 1 June 2009 (UTC) I added in that remedy. The fact that you're (both of you) continuing to say "he harassed me" "no he harassed me" shows that the dispute is pretty deeply rooted. When two people say they're the good faith editor and the other is just out to attack them, both are never right, and in fact both have at least some degree of blame. You're right about one thing though. I'm getting sick of this already, and I've only been dealing with replies for 18 hours. Imagine how the opposition feels with your back and forth going on for months. Honestly, I think all the major players would do some good away from Obama for a while, whether or not any topic bans pass. As I said earlier, I'll read through new evidence as it comes in. If I need to add remedies I'll do that as well. For now (and I'm speaking as a fellow editor rather than an arb here), CoM go create some bacon articles, Wikidemon go create some food articles, and all parties should go do the same. Neither of you are bad editors, though you're definitely not showing your good side from my vantage point. Wizardman 19:27, 1 June 2009 (UTC) I am sorry to have taken up your time with this. It is a one-sided issue, though, not back-and-forth. Even assuming we both sincerely believe that we are right and the other is acting out, the bottom line question is who is actually causing trouble, an objectively answerable question that Arbcom does not seem to answer, not whether our subjective beliefs appear on the surface to mirror one another. Being cast in the same light for having done so much to uphold Wikipedia's integrity, even if the restriction itself is not very limiting when viewed in light of other remedies, is quite demoralizing. Wikidemon (talk) 20:44, 1 June 2009 (UTC) Just to clarify my comments, the most recent ANI report was initially made after Wikidemon disputed my edits on the ACORN article and attacked me on its talk page accusing me of BLP violation for an edit that contained no names. When I responded he refactored. When I reverted he went to ANI. After his initial ANI post and AFTER I had already responded, he added in diffs regarding unrelated Obama edits that had nothing to do with the content dispute we were in, and that involved a page that neither me nor ScJ was actively working on at that time. He often engages in a shotgun approach of accusations and supposed policy violations hoping something will stick. He got lucky that time, and a trigger happy Admin administered a punitive block with no warning, no discussion, no report to the proper board, no block notice and a refusal to explain himself except to say something along the lines of "policies and guidelines are subject to my interpretation". ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:36, 1 June 2009 (UTC) That bears only the most distant relationship to what actually happened, and I stand behind my edits there (which I believe Wizardman has already reviewed). However, I do not wish to re-argue the case now on Wizardman's page. I think we are being urged not to do so. May we please wrap this up? Wikidemon (talk) 09:03, 2 June 2009 (UTC) Deletion review for Jonathan Kotula An editor has asked for a deletion review of Jonathan Kotula. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. ---I'm Spartacus! NO! I'm Spartacus! 05:25, 1 June 2009 (UTC) GA Sweeps June update Thanks to everyone's dedicated efforts to the GA Sweeps process, a total of 396 articles were swept in May! That more than doubles our most successful month of 163 swept articles in September 2007 (and the 2 articles swept in April)! I plan to be sending out updates at the beginning of each month detailing any changes, updates, or other news until Sweeps are completed. So if you get sick of me, keep reviewing articles so we can be done (and then maybe you'll just occasionally bump into me). We are currently over 60% done with Sweeps, with just over a 1,000 articles left to review. With over 40 members, that averages out to about 24 articles per person. If each member reviews an article a day this month (or several!), we'll be completely finished. I know that may be asking for a lot, but it would allow us to complete Sweeps and allow you to spend more time writing GAs, reviewing GANs, or focusing on other GARs (or whatever else it is you do to improve Wikipedia) as well as finish ahead of the two-year mark coming up in August. I recognize that this can be a difficult process at times and appreciate your tenacity in spending time in ensuring 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) 18:18, 1 June 2009 (UTC) Wikipedia Signpost: 1 June 2009 From the editor: Browsing the archives Book review: Review of The Future of the Internet Scientology: End of Scientology arbitration brings blocks, media coverage News and notes: Picture of the Year, Wikipedia's first logo, Board elections, and more Wikipedia in the news: Tamil Wikipedia, Internet Watch Foundation, and more Features and admins: Approved this week Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 23:16, 1 June 2009 (UTC) Obam articles proposed decision finding 14 link? Your proposed finding 14, "14) Baseball Bugs ... has engaged in incivility, and removed talk page discussions while using the talk page as a forum himself" ends with this link: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Barney_Frank&diff=prev&oldid=282164993 which seems to be an edit by Scjessey to the Barney Frank article, possibly relevant to the relationship between Scjessey and ChildofMidnight, but not a lot to do with Baseball Bugs. Did you mean to use a different link there? --GRuban (talk) 14:13, 2 June 2009 (UTC) Adding diffs after votes I noticed that you have added a diff after votes have already taken place, which seems a little unfair. Is this part of the usual procedure? And for the record, I began monitoring Barney Frank when he started turning up all over the mainstream media, not because of any edits ChildofMidnight may have made. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:41, 2 June 2009 (UTC) "Oversight" request Hi Wizardman, As an arbitrator you have super-duper deleting ("oversight") powers, right? I've been dealing on-and-off with a banned user who keeps coming back in a variety of guises, and I've been informed by User:Griffinofwales that one of the sockpuppets of the banned user made an attempted outing of another user quite some time ago: [5]. I know the banned user did this to another user at some point, but that one was already taken care of. Thanks, Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:45, 3 June 2009 (UTC) Talk:2008–09 Big Ten Conference men's basketball season/GA1 Please comment at Talk:2008–09 Big Ten Conference men's basketball season/GA1. I have addressed all your concerns.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 07:41, 4 June 2009 (UTC) Robert Rossen I'll give the GA review a couple more days, so it's just over a week since I so kindly provided a few research leads to fill the gaps (geez!). But thanks for the reminder, I guess I'm too reluctant to fail articles when I can see some reasonable prospects - and when I can find that the subject is more significant than I realised (sigh). --Philcha (talk) 16:13, 4 June 2009 (UTC) Stephen Colbert... Congrats Wizard... You were mentioned by Stephen Colbert on his The Colbert Report on June 4, 2009 show - you're famous now... Dinkytown 03:41, 5 June 2009 (UTC) Yes, I saw that as well. Wizardman, you are now officially a celebrity! I guess your hocus-pocus finally actually did something for you. ;) Master&Expert (Talk) 06:36, 5 June 2009 (UTC) Ya, check it here. There was also a throwback to the cabal, so if you'd like to make it official, photos submissions can be made to me via email. :D لennavecia 13:13, 5 June 2009 (UTC) I hereby award you the "Stephen T Colbert Barnstar for Public Humiliation" :P Benders Game 14:31, 5 June 2009 (UTC) You're out until the 9th? What? Are you getting a life now? :) seicer | talk | contribs 23:10, 5 June 2009 (UTC) I don't know if this call for a congratulations or not, but it was awesome. --Bwryan2006 (talk) 12:49, 6 June 2009 (UTC) Agreed :) -- Earle Martin [t/c] 18:42, 6 June 2009 (UTC) [6] I'm not sure it's something to be bragging about, actually. ++Lar: t/c 23:14, 7 June 2009 (UTC) I thought Colbert was joking when he mentioned your name, I had no idea he was serious. Suddenly I recognize your name on my watchlist, props to you man. I'd brag about it too. Great username, generic and corny, even if you didn't intend on it being that way, its still freakin great. Happy editing. --ErgoSum•talk•trib 13:58, 8 June 2009 (UTC) File:Vishal bhaashan excerpts.ogg Hi, File: Vishal bhaashan excerpts.ogg was erroneously deleted, even though the copyright permission was emailed on permissions-commons@wikimedia.org Please advice on what more am I to do and how can I get the file back? Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shweta1977 (talk • contribs) 09:51, 5 June 2009 (UTC) GA delisting It could just be me, but you've unilaterally delisted a load of GAs today. Bloody good work, if you ask me. The light of common sense shining through, please, keep it up. - Jarry1250 (t, c) 19:01, 5 June 2009 (UTC) Hi Sorry to bother you. I believe two editors who are uninvolved in the ADHD articles and scuro are going to try and hijack the arbcom to attack me. I have opened up an RfC here.Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/ADHD/Evidence#Requests_for_comment_Is_Skinwalkers_evidence_acceptable_and_can_I_be_allowed_additional_space_to_respond_to_the_accusations.3F--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 03:15, 6 June 2009 (UTC) Looking for you on IRC Log on if you get a minute, please!  iMatthew :  Chat  (Review Me) 16:10, 6 June 2009 (UTC) RFA Thanks RfA thanks Thank you for participating in my RfA, which succeeded with 56 in support, 12 in opposition and 3 neutral votes. I am truly honored by the trust that the community has placed in me. Whether you supported me, opposed me, or if you only posted questions or commented om my RfA, I thank you for your input and I will be looking at the reasons that people opposed me so I can improve in those areas :). If you ever need anything please feel free to ask me and I would be happy to help you :). All the Best, Mifter (talk) Mifter (talk) 23:56, 6 June 2009 (UTC) Re:Bleacher Creatures I've been keeping half an eye on it, and I didn't want to fail it without giving him a chance. I left a note on Sportskido8's talk page, so he is aware of it. You are right though, so I'll fail it and let the article improve before another GA nom. Thanks. Apterygial 04:21, 8 June 2009 (UTC) Bias, censorship, and Arbcom Hi Wizardman. I was just reading about your fellow Arbcom member's sockpuppeteering and POV pushing. Are you guys close? It seems your desire for punishments against good faith editors abiding by NPOV policies and trying to maintain the integrity of Wikipedia will continue the well established tradition of improper activity by Arbcom. And here I thought Arbcom might help rein in some of the worst abuses by those engaging in grotesque incivility and policy violating behavior. Live and learn! ChildofMidnight (talk) 00:07, 9 June 2009 (UTC) Roger Federer Article: Use of Primary Sources I noticed you were one of the reviewers for the Roger Federer article so I thought you would be the one to ask. I know Wikipedia guidelines state that secondary sources (e.g. news articles) are the usual choice for references. However, when citing sources for his ATP tournament results wouldn't the ATP website be the more reliable source to use (in preference to news sites etc.) and cite, despite its standing as a somewhat primary source? Cheers, Bittersweetsmile (talk) 10:47, 9 June 2009 (UTC) Please correct the falsehoods and misrepresentations Hi Wizardman. I've been pretty patient, but perhaps I simply need to point out where you've erred in your Arbcom findings? The core of the case you've made against me is an accusation of edit warring, along with some trumped up fluff about "templating" that's pure untruth and should be removed forthwith. There's also the accusation that I attacked another editor who was teaming up with Wikidemon against me in making numerous frivolous and abusive reports against me on admin boards. And of course we have Wikidemon's own statement that he uses those boards for dispute resolution. So I would like to resolve the remaining accusation which is really at the core of the major sanctions you're pushing to impose against me, and that's regarding a claim of edit warring. Here is where Wikidemon posts that he's filed something against me [7]. Please notice it's at the ACORN board, as I've always maintained. If you follow the thread back you'll see that he and Scjessey invoke BLP in an attempt to wikilawyer over well sourced content they object to despite there being no mention of any names in the edit (which I didn't add and attempted to discuss). So here again we see that Wikidemon has misrepresented the events and was using an ANI report abusively to harass and intimidate me. He obviously went into my edit history to trump something else up when he realized that he didn't have anything on the merits of the actual dispute. There was no ongoing edit war. I made two reversions that day to a totally separate and unrelated article and moved on. Here my contribution history for that day early late May 7 and early May 8 [8]. I understand people make mistakes, and perhaps Werdna and you were simply having an off day and weren't interested enough at that time to investigate and see what was really happening. But as the Arbcom hearing has gone on now for some months, there is really no excuse. If you have any questions, please let me know. But encouraging Wikidemon's abusive behavior and sanctioning good faith editors who make every effort to abide by policy is totally unacceptable. I trust you will correct this error as soon as practicable and move that the prosoposed sanctions against me be dropped. I will certainly do my best to use talk pages as much as possible and I'm encouraged that the worst abusers and most uncivil participants on the political articles will not be harassing me in future. If the Arbcom result reduces the incivilities on those article talk pages, I think we can start making some real progres to fix the NPOV violations that are so widespread. Thank you kindly for your consideration. Let me know if I need to clarify anything for you. Cheers. ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:18, 9 June 2009 (UTC) You are correct that I'm fed up. Here's why: the case has dragged on for months. If you look back I supported it being taken because I had hoped that Arbcom could step up the enforcement to rein in the incivility that is well documented by myself and others in the evidence. Instead the case dragged on and on, and when third parties reported Scjessey, for example, for his incivility while the case was ongoing they were told to wait for Arbcom. So I've had to wait all this time for Arbcom, and now based on the flimsiest misreprestations of evidence, y'all are trying to impose a one revert rule and a 6 month topic ban on me. And your argument that since stuff is passing it must be right is utter bullshit. You presented the evidence in such a way, and consensus being what it is, that others were bound to follow your lead. I've presented you clear evidence now about the actual history of events and what actually led to my being blocked for edit warring. It was an abusive report. It was the fifth (if I remember right) attempt to use admin reports for dispute resolution by the same editor, and he says he's done nothing wrong and has openly stated he uses the admin boards for dispute resolution. It's not too late to fix this thing. Don't impose outrageous sanctions on good faith editors who have long contribution histories. I've worked long and hard to improve the encyclopedia including our polical coverage. Grundle and I have started articles and contributed a great deal, yet we're getting hit with the heaviest penalties while the well documented campers are getting slaps on the wrist. And We were reluctant and late participants to the Arbcom process in the first place, because, if Grundle feels the same way I do, I'd rather edit and improve the encyclopedia than deal with this nonsense. It takes too long, it's punitive, and in this case (and apparently others) the outcome bears no relation to the problem. I edit lots of articles, many of them are contentious. Sometimes I run into problems, I'm trying to get better all the time and to learn from my mistakes. But if you follow through in the direction you're heading you will be making a very big mistake. Please read my prior post and see that Wikidemon was making a report against me because he didn't like my comments on the ACORN article talk page, not the article he said I edit warred on. Using reports to go after another editor in that way is inappropriate. Yet this supposed edit warring is at the core of your evidence against me. There's a reason that both Scjessey and I have been consistent in saying it was a mistaken reading of the situation. Look at my edits from around that time. Two edits in the midst of all those others. Please be reasonable. You're right I'm tired and frustrated. It pisses me off to wait so long and to spend that amount of time depicting the incivility and nastiness on those articles with diffs, and now to be punished based on this trumped up evidence. Please fix this Wizardman. I don't mind taking a break from the Obama stuff, but at the very least don't restrict my ability to revert on all articles. I work on lots of stuff most days. I make hundreds of edits. Sometimes I revert. I will certainly try to be diligent about using talk pages, but a once a week revert rule is not a workable or a reasonable solution. I can't be looking over my shoulder all the time wonderign if maybe I reverted soemthing that wasn't vandalism and trying to keep track of whether I already reverted something that WEEK on any given article. I do lots of good work here and I need you help to make sure I can continue to do so. Look at my contribs on a day to day basis and see if you think that's fair. Thanks again for your consideration. ChildofMidnight (talk) 00:22, 10 June 2009 (UTC)