Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Courcelles (talk | contribs) at 07:34, 3 March 2011 (→User:Sol Goldstone: reply). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Home	Talk	Contribs	Guestbook	Awards	Adoption	Toolbox

This user is busy in real life and may not respond swiftly to queries.

• For copies of the Misplaced Pages Signpost I have received, see this.
• For copies of the WikiProject Tropical cyclones newsletter I have received, see this.
• For archived discussions from August 29 to November 1 in 2008, see Archive1.
• For archived discussions from November 1 to November 26 in 2008, see Archive2.
• For archived discussions from November 26 to December 20 in 2008, see Archive3.
• For archived discussions from December 20, 2008, to January 31, 2009, see Archive4.

• NOTE: As of late March 2009, my talk page is automatically archived by MiszaBot III (talk · contribs). Any sections older than 5 days are automatically archived. See:
• /Archives

RFA spam

Thank you for participating in WP:Requests for adminship/Kww 3
Sometimes, being turned back at the door isn't such a bad thing

Hello...

User:Anhamirak/Christmas

WikiCup 2010 June newsletter

We're half way through 2010, and the end of the WikiCup is in sight! Round 3 is over, and we're down to our final 16. Our pool winners were Ian Rose (submissions) (A), Sturmvogel_66 (submissions) (B, and the round's overall leader), ThinkBlue (submissions) (C) Casliber (submissions) and TonyTheTiger (submissions) (D, joint), but, with the scores reset, everything is to play for in our last pooled round. The pools will be up before midnight tonight, and have been selected randomly by J Milburn. This will be the toughest round yet, and so, as ever, anything you worry may not receive the necessary attention before the end of the round (such as outstanding GA or FA nominations) is welcome at Misplaced Pages:WikiCup/Reviews, and please remember to continue offering reviews yourself where possible. As always, the judges are available to contact via email, IRC or their talk pages, and general discussion about the Cup is welcome on the WikiCup talk page.

Though unaffiliated with the WikiCup, July sees the third Great Misplaced Pages Dramaout- a project with not dissimilar goals to the WikiCup. Everyone is welcome to take part and do their bit to contribute to the encyclopedia itself.

If you're interested in the scores for the last round of the Cup, please take a look at Misplaced Pages:WikiCup/History/2010/Round 3 and Misplaced Pages:WikiCup/History/2010/Full/Round 3. Our thanks go to Stone (submissions) for compiling these. As was predicted, Group C ended up the "Group of Death", with 670 points required for second place, and, therefore, automatic promotion. This round will probably be even tougher- again, the top two from each of the two groups will make it through, while the twelve remaining participants will compete for four wildcard places- good luck everyone! If you wish to start receiving or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Misplaced Pages:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn, Fox and The ed17

WikiCup 2011 February newsletter

So begins round two of the WikiCup! We now have eight pools, each with eight random contestants. This round will continue until the end of April, when the top two of each pool, as well as the next 16 highest scorers of those remaining, will make it to round three. Congratulations to The Bushranger (submissions) (first, with 487 points) and Hurricanehink (submissions) (second, with 459), who stormed the first round. Casliber (submissions) finished third with 223. Twelve others finished with over 100 points- well done to all of you! The final standings in round one can be seen here. A mere 8 points were required to reach round two; competition will no doubt be much more fierce this round, so be ready for a challenge! A special thanks goes, again, to Jarry1250 (submissions) for dealing with all bot work. This year's bot, as well as running smoothly, is doing some very helpful things that last year's did not. Also, thanks to Stone (submissions) for some helpful behind-the-scenes updating and number crunching.

Some news for those who are interested- March will see a GAN backlog elimination drive, which you are still free to join. Organised by WikiProject Good articles, the drive aims to minimise the GAN backlog and offers prizes to those who help out. Of course, you may well be able to claim WikiCup points for the articles you review as part of the drive. Also ongoing is the Great Backlog Drive, looking to work on clearing all of the backlogs on Misplaced Pages; again, incentives are offered, and the spirit of friendly competition is alive, while helping the encyclopedia is the ultimate aim. Though unrelated to the WikiCup, these may well be of interest to some of you.

Just a reminder of the rules; if you have done significant work on content this year and it is promoted in this round, you may claim for it. Also, anything that was promoted after the end of round one but before the beginning of round two may be claimed for in round two. Details of the rules can be found on this page. For those interested in statistics, a running total of claims can be seen here, and a very interesting table of that information (along with the highest scorers in each category) can be seen here. If you are concerned that your nomination will not receive the necessary reviews, and you hope to get it promoted before the end of the round, please list it on Misplaced Pages:WikiCup/Reviews. However, please remember to continue to offer reviews at GAC, FAC and all the other pages that require them to prevent any backlogs which could otherwise be caused by the Cup. As ever, questions are welcome on Misplaced Pages talk:WikiCup and the judges are reachable on their talk pages, or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start receiving or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Misplaced Pages:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn and The ed17 23:40, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

in this case

two mins would be plenty, please replace the template on his userpage - User:Sol Goldstone and please replace the addition at Misplaced Pages:List of banned users when you accept that. thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 02:16, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

I suppose you (and N419BH, for that matter) are right. When I requested for the Access Denied ban discussion to be closed early, it never happened, so I assumed that an admin had declined to do so. I came to the conclusion that even obvious cases should be open for 48 hours - I guess I was wrong, at least as far as Sol is concerned. A failure to IAR on my part - I'll restore your edits right after this post. Please accept my apologies. --Dylan620 04:05, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Its up to you but you have added a claim of criminal harassment to the wiki here in this diff- this is up to you and I don't support such allegations but I would say to take it easy with the assertions. Off2riorob (talk) 04:48, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

User:Sol Goldstone

I've reverted your closure here. Your close had three faults, in increasing order they were, 1) The formal motion to ban was only open for around 3 hours. To allow a broad and worldwide crosssection of the community to comment, WP:BAN requires 24 hours. 2) Again, per WP:BAN, an uninvolved administrator must close ban discussions. 3) As the person who formally made the ban motion, you couldn't have closed this one even if you were an admin. Banning users is a horrible duty, and it must be done soberly. Perhaps this one is indefensible, and can have no other outcome, but the fundamental principle must be preserved- it is difficult to enact a community ban, and it must remain so. Three hour discussions in the middle of the night UTC cannot be sufficient to enact such a remedy. Courcelles 06:22, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

ETA: The third was the true grave fault here. You can't be the one to close and enact discussions after expressing such a clear opinion when making a motion. Here, I'll prevent myself from closing it: This user will be banned, he will have earned it. But we follow process in these discussions because the duty is so terrible, not in the clear and obvious cases, but in the tough ones. Because this is our highest and harshest remedy as a community, and three hour discussions do not allow the sobering thought that is necessary in the hard cases. Because of how hard this can be, we do not and must not take shortcuts in the easy cases, it must not become an easy thing to do in less time than it takes to eat a nice meal. Someone is going to haul me up on WP:IAR here, I can see it already. So be it. If there is one thing that we must preserve process for, it is the banning of a user. Courcelles 06:34, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

That was actually my initial stance on the discussion length; see my response to Rob above. Rob and N419BH convinced me to apply IAR to the discussion, and I closed it per their input; of course I shouldn't be blaming them though, since it was my fault for not double-checking the banning policy and for trying to make such decisions at 11 PM. Thank you for reminding me that IAR does not apply to the banning policy, and for the post in general; I agree 100% with your points, and I will take greater care when handling or participating in ban discussions in the future (though I should note that I was able to close the Jake Duncan ban discussion, and have the OP record the ban in the editor's block log, without any trouble. Nevertheless, if policy prevents non-administrators from closing ban discussions, then I will not do so again). Apologies if I'm not completely making sense here; it's nearly 2 AM here in New England. --Dylan620 06:58, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

WP:BAN does specify "uninvolved administrator", but I really don't really care about that too much, it if says it (and I didn't put it there, and don't really agree it needs to be there), it should probably be followed, but I would never have gone through the song and dance of reverting you over just that issue. That would be policywonking, and largely immaterial. Banning someone must be beyond repute, and the other two problems could have placed this one there. (I can't find the link, likely because I'm half asleep myself ;) but there have been attempts to ram a anything-other-than-obvious ban through under the cover of night before, which was a truly bad thing.) No worries about this one, he's just as gone now after a longer discussion; happy editing. Courcelles 07:34, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you!

Hi Dylan620, I'd like to thank you for your support and the warm words you found for my contributions! Thank you very much, it was really kind of you. Best wishes.--Mbz1 (talk) 19:15, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

You're very welcome :) --Dylan620 06:58, 3 March 2011 (UTC)