User talk:Wizardman/Archive24

James Wyche
Wow, did you actually nominate James Wyche for deletion? That's insane. You should have known that'd never go through.► Chris Nelson Holla! 02:10, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

re: Articles for deletion/Game builders academy
Hi Wizardman,

I received a nasty email from the article's author. I sent him a reply trying to explain our referencing policy, and suggesting that if he didn't agree with the deletion to DRV. I fully believe that the article was properly deleted and I don't think there's any basis for restoring this article in its present state, but is it appropriate to open a DRV discussion for him as a measure of good-will (and not be BITEy) so he can present his references (or what he claims to have) or would that be wasting everybody's time? - 2 ... says you, says me, suggestion box 15:04, 28 April 2009 (UTC) == Wikipedia Signpost : 27 April 2009 ==


 * Book reviews: Reviews of Lazy Virtues: Teaching Writing in the Age of Wikipedia
 * News and notes: Usability study, Wiki Loves Art, and more
 * Wikipedia in the news: Wikipedia Art dispute, and brief headlines
 * WikiProject report: Interview on WikiProject Final Fantasy
 * 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 &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe

Delivered by SoxBot II (talk) at 05:04, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Michelle Leslie
Thanks for taking the time to close that AfD. I don't intend taking this to DRV. While I think it is a poor decision and flagrantly breaches BLP1E, I would be hard pressed to say that you read consensus incorrectly. I am not quite sure how BLP1E can be enforced while the community (as seen in this AfD) continue to refuse to take it seriously. There seems to be a refusal to understand that the people we have articles on are real people with real feelings and not just tabloid fodder for our entertainment.

Anyway, enough of my whining! Would you like to courtesy blank the discussion? In the discussion, Leslie was compared to a mass murderer, to drug dealers etc. and her supposed crimes were poured over by a bunch of keyboard moralists. I think a courtesy blank is appropriate and I would do it myself except I feel it would likely be reversed by an editor who thinks free speech means that Wikipedia should be the venue for holding judgement on worthiness of others.

Thanks again for the close. While I won't take it to AfD, I can guarantee it would have been there if your decision was to delete. It probably will be there anyway. Cheers, Mattinbgn\talk 20:39, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I should clarify the "poor decision" was by the community, not you. I fail to see how you could have closed it differently. Which is a shame. -- `Mattinbgn\talk

Courtesy blanking was possibly a good call (I'm not sure). I could have reasonably seen this to go either way. (A quick aside to Matt- the primary issue here was whether this article was a BLP1E. Disagreeing about what constitutes a BLP1E is not the same as not taking it seriously. Furthermore, while it is helpful not to lose sight that these are real people it is equally helpful to recall that if the basis for BLP is Do-No-Harm then someone covered in international news and continuing to get coverage isn't going to be harmed by a Wikipedia article). JoshuaZ (talk) 22:37, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Josh, i particularly agree with you last sentence. To that I would add "isn't going to be harmed by a good wikipedia article." Indeed, isn't that what wikipedia is about and how it "makes the internet not suck"? I argued that the discussion was getting confused with notability  (ie, afd) and quality (BLP). I did try to say this on the afd, but it seemed to get misinterpreted and/or overtaken by responses to my other comments.. You say it more clearly. thanks. --Merbabu (talk) 23:50, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Michelle Leslie
Good close, even if/because I don't agree with the "keep's". Cheers,  Dloh  cierekim  22:13, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

(Probably because I agreed with the final outcome) I'm not taking this to DRV, but calling The Advertiser a tabloid source is a little harsh as it is the only daily at Michelle Leslie's home town, Adelaide.
 * I certainly agree with the above - it was a hard call, but no consensus seems to be a good reading of a very difficult debate. - Bilby (talk) 23:55, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Also, I can see why the discussion was blanked, and anyone can look in the history, but shouldn't the result (and everything up to, but not including, the nomination text) not be blanked, which would help simplify locating and referencing the discussion if (when :- there are future deletion attempts. Mark Hurd (talk) 02:50, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Removal of image placeholders
I'm just curious. Why are you currently removing the image placeholders? Just a note, there was no consensus to remove the image from articles and there's no real reason for their removal without more detailed explanation. So I was just hoping to get a little insight, for future reference for myself in case I was missing something. – LATICS   talk  19:25, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Eh, good enough. I never looked at the discussion itself, rather just the note left on the image itself. Thanks for responding. :) – LATICS   talk  21:52, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

The J&S case
Hi Wizardman,

I hope this isn't inappropriate. I fear some of the evidence may have gone ignored by those who have already voted, so I urge you to read the evidence discussion page and perhaps also a couple of the talk pagesfrom the relevant period before you vote. Apologies if you have done so already. MeteorMaker (talk) 23:00, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy/Poll Results
Wizardman, you deleted this page as a G8 after a RfD decided that the article page should be deleted (Redirects for discussion/Log/2009 April 14). The decision to delete the article was correct, but the talk page is not dependent on the article, but is a subpage of Talk:Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy, and has quite a number of incoming links a well. I don't believe that this talk page falls under g8 or that it should be deleted. I have restored it, but if you disagree, I'm happy to take it to DRV instead. Fram (talk) 12:30, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Personal attack in his abusive report? Come on.
This is ridiculous. Now he says "ChildofMidnight is a long-term problem editor who attacks me and other editors regularly in support of some partisan and sometimes fringe conservative political issues, and attacks me with particular determination whenever he/she is here at AN/I." This is a personal attack. I would never get away with calling him a long term problem editor like that. Make him refactor that bullshit. I've never worked on any of the right wing radical stuff. I've simply asked that editors be treated respectfully that guidelines be followed and the the focus be on content instead of other editors. I spent a lot of time providing diffs of the abuse from Wikidemon and others. The obvious personal attacks. It's a waste of time. I just want to edit the encyclopedia and have some Admin put a stop to this abuse. H eneeds to stop attacking me and stop refactoring my comments. Period. ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:32, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Oksana Grigorieva
You deleted this listing today due to lack of notability. Ms. Grigorieva is currently the pregnant partner of actor Mel Gibson and is very much in the current events news, due to her involvement in the Gibson divorce matter. (see here: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30629966/   scroll down to third section.) She reportedly was involved with Timothy Dalton in the past. She is also a composer. One notes that the discussion of whether to delete her article was decided in only one week without much meaningful input from the discussants. Perhaps this decision to delete should be reconsidered? NDM (talk) 20:01, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

== Wikipedia Signpost : 11 May 2009 ==


 * News and notes: Wikimania 2010, usability project, link rot, and more
 * Wikipedia in the news: Quote hoax replicated in traditional media, and more
 * Dispatches: WikiProject Birds reaches an FA milestone
 * WikiProject report: WikiProject Michael Jackson
 * 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 &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 22:38, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Removal of article sources
User:Tarc, who is involved the Obama arbitration, is removing sources from the Air Force One photo op incident article. As I was recently blocked with your support for one reversion after adding back this type of content after it was removed, I'd appreciate your help and guidance. That article was recently subject to an AfD where a lot of editors (including Tarc as I recall) wanted it deleted, so it seems very inappropriate to remove a series of legitimate sources with substantial coverage. My understanding is that Wikipedia content is supposed to be built on reliable sources and I hope we can have them restored. Links sometimes go dead or are disputed, so having several good sources is very helpful and important particularly on disputed content, and I see no advantage to removing them. Thank you very much for your help in this matter. ChildofMidnight (talk) 00:20, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

RfA friendly reminder
In my RfA you stated "Leaning support, but we'll see". The !vote is almost over, so here's your last chance to move from neutral to support or oppose! — BQZip01 — talk 23:41, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Question
Why I'm being lump togeter in this group? . I'm in the military stationed in Japan, I have never used or being associated with this IP sharing group. I have never engaged or being accused of edit warring or any incivility. On what basis I'm being lump in this group? Bravehartbear (talk) 22:18, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

I have three questions
I made an edit today--one edit--to the article Carrie Prejean and have not made an edit to the article in days, but yet another editor reversed my ONE edit and then reported me on the 3RR notice board. I find this to be a clear use of Wikipedia to win a debate about article content and direction. Prejean was called a series of negative things by Perez Hilton, most of the words are contemptuous and vile, such as the b-word and c-word. There are editors that believe that each and every one of Hilton's use of those words MUST be included in the article about Prejean. Now, I don't see the need to have an article about Prejean dominated by the words and comments of ONE individual (highly negative words at that) dominate the life story of Prejean. It is tantamount to having the words of Saddam Hussein concerning George W Bush dominate the Wikipedia article about Bush. It violates Wikipedia avowed goal of NPOV and it violates BLP. Now, I know that consensus in Wikipedia editing is one of the goals, but consensus does NOT override other valid Wikipedia ideals such as BLP. There can be a compromise made where the gist of Hilton's highly negative opinion is included in the article, but at the same time it does NOT dominate the life story of Prejean. Prejean is notable for many, many reasons, not just her public fight with Hilton. She is notable for being a successful model; she is notable for participating in Deal or No Deal; she is notable for being the current Miss California USA; and she is now notable for being a TV personality. My first question is: Can you at least review the article and see if the second, third, fourth, and fifth repetitions of the b-word and c-word violates BLP? I believe that it does. And my second question is: Is it appropriate to make a report on an editor for violating 3RR even though that editor has only made one edit? And my third question is: Is misusing 3RR to win a debate on the proper interpretation of BLP appropriate? I don't think so.--InaMaka (talk) 15:59, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

GA Sweeps invitation
Hello, I hope you are doing well. I am sending you this message since you are listed as a GA reviewer. I would like to invite you to consider helping with the GA sweeps process. Sweeps helps to ensure that the oldest GAs still meet the criteria, and improve the quality of GAs overall. Unfortunately, last month only two articles were reviewed. This is definitely a low point after our peak at the beginning of the process when 163 articles were reviewed in September 2007. After nearly two years, the running total has just passed the 50% mark. In order to expediate the reviewing, several changes have been made to the process. A new worklist has been created, detailing which articles are left to review. All exempt and previously reviewed articles have already been removed from the list. Instead of reviewing by topic, you can consider picking and choosing whichever articles interest you.

We are always looking for new members to assist with the remaining articles, so if you are interested or know of anybody that can assist, please visit the GA sweeps page. In addition, for every member that reviews 100 articles or has a significant impact on the process, s/he will get an award when they reach that threshold. If only 14 editors achieve this feat starting now, we would be done with Sweeps! Of course, having more people reviewing less articles would be better for all involved, so please consider asking others to help out. Feel free to stop by and only review a few articles, something's better than nothing! Take a look at the list, and see what articles interest you. Let's work to complete Sweeps so that efforts can be fully focused on the backlog at GAN. If you have any questions about the process, reviewing, or need help with a particular article, please contact me or OhanaUnited and we'll be happy to help. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 07:39, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Joey Hamilton
Anything you can to help me out with that article would certaintly be welcomed, and the only reason I stopped expansion is because most of the sources I found required registration or payments and such to be able to read the article.-- Giants27 (  t  |  c  |  r  |  s  ) 20:03, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Double vote

 * FYI, you voted oppose twice on this one. Nathan  T 14:17, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

== Wikipedia Signpost : 18 May 2009 ==


 * From the editor: Writers needed
 * Special report: WikiChemists and Chemical Abstracts announce collaboration
 * Special report: Embassies sponsor article-writing contests in three languages
 * News and notes: Wiki Loves Arts winners, Wikimania Conference Japan, and more
 * Wikipedia in the news: Arbitrator blogs, French government edits, brief headlines
 * WikiProject report: WikiProject Opera
 * Features and admins: Approved this week
 * Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 13:49, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Question concerning closure
Would you agree that the closure doesn't prevent my second suggestion? (As the discussion was about that particular redirect, and not about the content.) - jc37 06:12, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2009_May_10

Transclusion Matthew Butler
Thanks for that. I notified the author in April by writing on his/her talk page that I did a review. I'm beginning to wonder whether there'll be a response. The article is decent, so I don't want to fail it, but it's been a long time on hold with no change - and my talk page message even linked to the review page so... Do you think I should fail it? Hekerui (talk) 19:33, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Red Sox template
Hello It certainly can be done, but not in anywhere near as easy a way as I'm doing it now. You point out that this leaves two templates on one talk page - which is true, but this is already true anyway, so it's hardly compounding the problem. Also, most of these are unassessed anyway, so presumably, someone should go into Category:Unknown-importance Boston Red Sox articles and add assessment ratings at which point they can combine the templates. I agree that having two of them on the same talk page is not desirable, but it is slightly more desirable that at least one of them isn't deprecated. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:47, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Reviews
Yes, they took so long because of problems with the articles and then me coming under time constraints. Greetings Wandalstouring (talk) 13:09, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Barnstar
Consider yourself barnstarred for adding a reference to an article unreferenced since September 2006. :D  Lucifer  (Talk)  03:57, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

About some behaviors
Hello, Wizardman. Since you're the drafting arbitrator for the Obama case, can I ask your input? I don't know what exactly is going on the U.S drama case, but I'm sick and tired of watching a certain group's engagement in persistent harassment and threats to some users. May I just add my view to the Evidence page that would state the problematic behaviors without commenting about whether any party's political position is biased or neutral? Thanks in advance.--Caspian blue 22:53, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Have a nice day. :)--Caspian blue 22:59, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Talk:1998–99 NBA lockout/GA1
Left responses to your review on the linked page. Whenever you're ready, it should be ready for another look. Thanks for taking the time to review the article.  Giants2008  ( 17-14 ) 01:15, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

50 DYK's
== Wikipedia Signpost : 25 May 2009 ==


 * License update: Licensing vote results announced, resolution passed
 * News and notes: New board member, flagged revisions, Eurovision interviews
 * Wikipedia in the news: Wikipedia: threat or menace?
 * WikiProject report: WikiProject LGBT studies
 * Discussion report: Discussion Reports and Miscellaneous Articulations
 * 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 &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 04:25, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

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. 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
I think that semi protection is necessary based on WP:Semi. -- KANE  SUE  01:11, 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
 * User_talk:Wikidemon

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" 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 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)