Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 21:07, 20 February 2010

Messages

Please put messages at foot. I will delete them when I have read them. If you are replying to a message I left I don't mind where you reply but try to keep conversations together. If you are offering to help with the Schools DVD I would be very glad to hear from you. There is loads to do at present and we are working through the new subject index:

Art Business Studies Citizenship Countries Design and Technology Everyday life Geography History IT Language and literature Mathematics Music People Religion Science

The new selection of articles is about two weeks away. We are still hand checking version numbers (yawn) and still aiming for about 5500 articles to fit on a DVD. Just to update the selection of articles has just moved off wiki to allow a quicker automated run but it will come back. --BozMo talk 06:58, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Hello I had no idea what to put this, but here it goes, I was looking at the discussion page of the Algarve article located at en.wikipedia.org/Algarve and a huge mistake was made. You claim that the webpage www . visitalgarve . pt is not official, but it is, you see, that website belongs to a government entity called Tourism of Algarve, which is located at http://www.turismodoalgarve.pt/, you can look at the link from that website to that one. I sugest the website visitalgarve to be restored to a whitepage. Also it might be a good idea to put it back at the Algarve's article, as it contains several information about the region itself. Those kind of links are common ammong other regions. I am sure you added it by mistake, I am portuguese so I can assure you it is an official one :) If you need to contact me, www.doc.ic.ac.uk/~pmd09 . Bye —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.72.186.91 (talk) 20:41, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Barnstars

Thank you for the appreciation which I have moved off as they clutter the page. --BozMo talk 18:35, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

HAITI EMERGENCY APPEAL

Please see http://www.soschildrensvillages.org.uk/charity-news/Haitiappeal anyone with a blog etc who could link to this would be appreciated. --BozMo talk 16:19, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Agreed etc - hope you don't mind a compromise for now currently on mine - http://shelterbox.org/, will look more at yours soon. Cheers --Herby 16:33, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

AGF

Hi BozMo

Your block of ChildofMidnight is a mistake for several reasons:

• The assumption of good faith is a rebuttable one. CoM, while he didn't cite specific diffs or block log entries, cited specific behavior that in his opinion demonstrated significant bias and disruption.
• Editors are encouraged to raise issues directly with other editors rather than running to third parties or noticeboards.
• Characterizing unnamed editors are "disruptive propagandists" is not a personal attack. If you go to new page patrol, or simply watch pages, you will with certainty agree that many editors here can be so-described accurately. What should they be referred to? "Misguided, good-faith editors who with the best of intentions insert non-confirming material into the encyclopedia, requiring other editors to spend time re-conforming articles they have edited"?

The words used, while potentially provocative, are not personal attacks, and are not harassment. Admins can reasonably be expected to have thick skins, and (to mix metaphors) let accusations of incorrect admin action roll off their backs. Blocking editors for expressing opinions that have some basis (not necessarily a full justification) in reality is just a terrible way to run things around here. While Misplaced Pages is not a democracy, etc., most effective civil societies have determined that regulation on people's expression of opinion is a bad idea.

_matic 22:22, 12 February 2010 (UTC) <subst:user:bongomatic/notb}}

Sorry I disagree, and wonder if you have had a proper look. There is plenty of scope for raising directly to an admin whether the admin is impartial without using phrases like "grotesquely biased and damaging" "bullying" and so on. I do not have a problem with a polite statement of bias but the repeated aggressive and accusatory language (it goes on ..) is completely unacceptable. --BozMo talk 23:05, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

WP:AN

Hello BozMo - as I see nobody has notified you, your block of ChildofMidnight is being discussed on the administrators' noticeboard - You might wish to take a look. Regards, Ryan Postlethwaite 00:31, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

A bad block and now misrepresentations of the unblock?

This edit is very disturbing . You just had your block undone unanimously, whatever Beeblebrox wrote in the unblock summary, and now you're suggesting that your block wasn't overturned? And you're abusing your position AGAIN to go after me about the same stuff in a new forum? You have got to be kidding me.

I was going to let your wholly inappropriate block and your comments regarding me and your indefensible protecting of incivilities by William and try to move forward, but if you pursue this tack then you've really crossed the line and there's no way to assume good faith in your actions. How can you think you're not involved on this issue when your judgment was just overturned on the same stuff? And you defended the very comments your buddy William got blocked for, while saying it was "categorically" okay to call people old fruits? Please step back and think about what you're doing. It's not too late to retract your statement so we can stand down and move forward. A good block of William was finally made so there's a chance we can have some civility and respect for one another on the relevant article pages. Please don't poison things with some kind of disruptive vendetta. ChildofMidnight (talk) 08:32, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

"Unanimously"? I am not even going to read further down the message if you misrepresent things in such a manner. --BozMo talk 09:00, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

According to Beeblebrox, the unblock was unconditional and in accord with ANI. I see he hasn't even troubled to tell you about it. That looks like a slap in your face from him William M. Connolley (talk) 18:18, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

CoM, we've gotten along, but you do some pretty disruptive things too. Logs and specks, y'know. So why not let it all slide on both sides and start fresh?

As to: "categorically" okay to call people old fruits, though I'm ignorant of the context, "old fruit" is a really innocent expression in my experience with the Brits. So yes, I'd say "categorically OK".

Not sure what Beeblebrox was doing; he IMO always tries to do the right thing, but came down neutral to sort of against me once when I was arguing against leaving the expanding earth nuttiness out of mainstream geology articles. I think it was because I was becoming short after the other editor evaded my questions for the seventh or eighth time. So I imagine that he is all right on behavioral issues, if not on scientific content issues. Awickert (talk) 18:59, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Hard to see an unconditional unblock without even bothering to talk to the blocking admin as "the right thing", still, your standards may vary; just to rub your nose in it, 19:18:08 . . Beeblebrox (talk | contribs) blocked ChildofMidnight (talk | contribs) (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 1 minute (correction:unblock was primarily due to consensus to unblock established at WP:ANI, ArbCom matter was secondary), still without a word to BozMo William M. Connolley (talk) 21:27, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Re:William - Beeblebrox tries to do the right thing; he mostly failed in my case and looks to have partially failed here. But he has the spirit of it. Awickert (talk) 16:54, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Certainly I am not fussed about my nose. However there is a correct procedure for appealing blocks, you put an unblock notice and an admin considers it. When you are involved with a group of other people in a large scale content dispute under probation per Climate Change deciding instead that you want the block posted on AN/I whilst it is still current so editors who was engaged on your side can all say how injust it was, in my view was a process failure but life is too short to worry about it. And yes, I guess being told would have been more courteous. I was told when I became an admin that if people did not call you Hitler sometimes you were failing to do your job and I don't often run into this kind of thing so I am not going to be weeping into my porridge. --BozMo talk 07:25, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

without doubt you are more courteous than Beeblebrox William M. Connolley (talk) 11:20, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Oh stop stirring it really isn't a big deal... --BozMo talk 12:19, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

I just asked you a question at A/N

Bozmo, I just asked you a question at the A/N thread involving your block of ChildofMidnight. I see an inconsistency in your statements, and I'm hoping you can clear it up. Although the contrast in your defense of Connelly and block of CoM makes me suspicious, I'm not assuming you don't have a good answer. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 18:02, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

My reply there was:

It seems unlikely that this question was raised after any serious examination of CoM's remarks, or of the reasons given for the block. CoM made several inflammatory edits for which he was correctly blocked. I have also said on Wiki that the block of Connolley was correct. However in the two cases the level of inflammatory language etc. was completely different. 2/0 has been widely thanked as an outside admin who dared come into a difficult probation area, where we are trying hard to calm things down. On principle accusing him of bias is possible and kind of freedom of speech, but the language in "grotesquely biased and damaging. It's played a large part in contributing to the frustrating and toxic environment" is gratutious, the technical accusation could have been made in a considerably politer way, and the language was inflamatory. 2/0's talk is widely watched by people of both sides, and neutral ones. The statement about "disruptive propagandists" was made in the context of a known group of good faith admins and editors who were engaged in various disputes with CoM. It was clearly written acknowledging that those he was refering to was known to him, 2/0 and readers of the page in general. The fact he does not give a list of names in my view is irrelevant, the comment was clearly intended to provoke. --BozMo talk 07:20, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

The Misplaced Pages Signpost: 15 February 2010

• News and notes: New Georgia Encyclopedia, BLPs, Ombudsmen, and more

• In the news: Labor squeeze revisited, journalist consultations, philosophy bungles, and more

• WikiProject report: WikiProject Singapore

• Features and admins: Approved this week

• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

Climate general sanctions comment

Do you mean to make this comment to be a resolution of the matter in your role as administrator, or simply an uninvolved editor comment? I was doing some self-appointed volunteer page organization to the sanctions page and was wondering if you may just want to close the report with that comment, or else thread it as part of the general discussion? Thanks for pointing those things out, you raise a good point - I think Marknutley's edits, though a little aggressive, could easily be explained as someone trying to do the right thing rather than blindly reverting. On the other hand, Stephan Schultz, the other party to the edit war, strongly believes he has science and the sources on his side. Maye a perfect case where self-restraint is needed for both. Cheers, - Wikidemon (talk) 20:25, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, I probably was being a bit disorganised. I made a comment in the uninvolved admin section moving towards close with a reminder or something along those lines and then put the other comment in as a specific answer to Schulz. In general with these things, I make a judgement and leave it for 24-48 hours for another uninvolved admin either to agree and close or to dissent and discuss. I do miss things and miscount things sometimes. If no one else has commented at the end of 48 hours I would probably close it. You are welcome to do the honours and close in the meantime if you agree. --BozMo talk 20:30, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

How nice to see you bending over backwards for MN. Three clear violations of his 1RR parole apparently deserve nothing but a friendly warning William M. Connolley (talk) 20:38, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Which 1RR parole is this? I may have missed it but I thought he had just been warned against edit warring in the end? I had proposed 2RR for him. On top of which there were no three clear violations listed in the complaint. --BozMo talk 20:43, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

I was wrong: he isn't on 1RR. Sorry about that. But this is edit warring, and the parole says "similar", so why do you feel he deserves 2RR whilst I deserve 1RR? Am I twice as evil as him? And I've listed 3 clear violations of a 1RR parole William M. Connolley (talk) 21:07, 20 February 2010 (UTC)