FastilyBot (talk | contribs) BOT: Notify user of FfD |
→Arbitration enforcement block: new section |
||
Line 220: | Line 220: | ||
[[File:Information.svg|30px|left]] A file that you uploaded or altered, [[:File:Reg Grundy 20 September 2010.jpg]], has been listed at [[Wikipedia:Files for discussion]]. Please see the [[Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2017 July 5#File:Reg Grundy 20 September 2010.jpg|'''discussion''']] to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. <!-- User:FastilyBot/Task12Note --> |
[[File:Information.svg|30px|left]] A file that you uploaded or altered, [[:File:Reg Grundy 20 September 2010.jpg]], has been listed at [[Wikipedia:Files for discussion]]. Please see the [[Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2017 July 5#File:Reg Grundy 20 September 2010.jpg|'''discussion''']] to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. <!-- User:FastilyBot/Task12Note --> |
||
<span style="color:red;font-weight:bold;">ATTENTION</span>: This is an automated, [[Wikipedia:Bots|bot]]-generated message. This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the [[Help:Page history|page history]] of each individual file for details. Thanks, [[User:FastilyBot|FastilyBot]] ([[User talk:FastilyBot|talk]]) 23:55, 5 July 2017 (UTC) |
<span style="color:red;font-weight:bold;">ATTENTION</span>: This is an automated, [[Wikipedia:Bots|bot]]-generated message. This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the [[Help:Page history|page history]] of each individual file for details. Thanks, [[User:FastilyBot|FastilyBot]] ([[User talk:FastilyBot|talk]]) 23:55, 5 July 2017 (UTC) |
||
== Arbitration enforcement block == |
|||
<div class="user-block" style="min-height: 40px">[[File:Balance icon.svg|40px|left|alt=]]To enforce an [[Wikipedia:Arbitration|arbitration]] decision and for violating [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/The Rambling_Man#The Rambling Man and George Ho interaction banned|IBAN]] with The Rambling Man at [[Talk:2017]] (such as the [[Talk:2017#2017 Manchester Arena bombing]] section and discussion regarding the "Cholera outbreak"), you have been '''[[Wikipedia:Blocking policy|blocked]]''' from editing for a period of '''48 hours'''. You are welcome to edit once the block expires; however, please note that the repetition of similar behavior may result in a longer block or other sanctions. <p>If you believe this block is unjustified, please read the [[Wikipedia:Guide to appealing blocks|guide to appealing blocks]] (specifically [[Wikipedia:Guide to appealing blocks#Arbitration enforcement blocks|this section]]) before appealing. Place the following on your talk page: <!-- Copy the text as it appears on your page, not as it appears in this edit area. --><span style="font-size:97%;">{{tlx|unblock|2=reason=Please copy my appeal to the [[WP:AE{{!}}arbitration enforcement noticeboard]] or [[WP:AN{{!}}administrators' noticeboard]]. ''Your reason here OR place the reason below this template.'' ~~~~}}</span>. If you intend to appeal on the arbitration enforcement noticeboard I suggest you use the [[Template:Arbitration enforcement appeal#Usage|arbitration enforcement appeals template]] on your talk page so it can be copied over easily. You may also appeal directly to me ([[Special:EmailUser/Callanecc|by email]]), before or instead of appealing on your talk page. <b>[[User:Callanecc|Callanecc]]</b> ([[User talk:Callanecc|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Callanecc|contribs]] • [[Special:Log/Callanecc|logs]]) 05:35, 7 July 2017 (UTC) <div class="sysop-show"><hr/><p style="line-height: 90%;"><small>'''Reminder to administrators:''' In May 2014, ArbCom adopted the following [[Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Procedures#Standard provision: appeals and modifications|procedure instructing administrators]] regarding Arbitration Enforcement blocks: "No administrator may modify a sanction placed by another administrator without: (1) the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or (2) prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" [in the procedure]). Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped."</small></p></div></div><!-- Template:uw-aeblock --> |
Revision as of 05:35, 7 July 2017
Further note, I relinquished my rights to edit "extended confirmed"-protected pages, so I cannot edit those pages at this time.
|
An arbitration case regarding The Rambling man has now closed and the final decision is viewable at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:
- The Rambling Man (talk · contribs)'s resignation as an administrator is to be considered under controversial circumstances, and so his administrator status may only be regained via a successful request for adminship.
- The Rambling Man (talk · contribs) is prohibited from insulting and/or belittling other editors. If The Rambling Man finds himself tempted to engage in prohibited conduct, he is to disengage and either let the matter drop or refer it to another editor to resolve. If however, in the opinion of an uninvolved administrator, The Rambling Man does engage in prohibited conduct, he may be blocked for a duration consistent with the blocking policy. The first four blocks under this provision shall be arbitration enforcement actions and may only be reviewed or appealed at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard. Should a fifth block prove necessary, the blocking administrator must notify the Arbitration Committee of the block via a Request for Clarification and Amendment so that the remedy may be reviewed. The enforcing administrator may also at their discretion fully protect The Rambling Man's talk page for the duration of the block.
Nothing in this remedy prevents enforcement of policy by uninvolved administrators in the usual way.
- The Rambling Man (talk · contribs) and George Ho (talk · contribs) are indefinitely prohibited from interacting with, or commenting on, each other anywhere on Wikipedia (subject to the ordinary exceptions).
- George Ho (talk · contribs) is indefinitely restricted from participating in selecting main page content. For clarity, this means he may not participate in:
- Any process in which the content of the main page is selected, including Did you know?, In the news, On this day, Today's featured article, Today's featured list, and Today's featured picture.
- Any process in which possible problems with the content of the main page are reported, including WP:ERRORS and Talk:Main Page.
- Any discussion about the above processes, regardless of venue.
- He may edit articles linked from or eligible to be linked from the main page (e.g., the current featured article) and may participate in content review processes not directly connected to main page content selection (e.g., reviewing Featured article candidates). He may request reconsideration of this restriction twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every six months thereafter.
- The community is encouraged to review the selection process for the Did you know and In the news sections of the main page. The community is also reminded that they may issue topic bans without the involvement of the Arbitration Committee if consensus shows a user has repeatedly submitted poor content, performed poor reviews, or otherwise disrupted these processes.
For the Arbitration Committee, Ks0stm (T•C•G•E) 05:01, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
- Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/The Rambling Man
Interaction Ban Reminder
Hello,
I’m writing to remind you that as a result of the arbitration case that both you and The Rambling Man are prohibited from interacting with each other, barring the usual exceptions. Recently, you posted questions to the election pages of multiple candidates where you indirectly made reference to The Rambling Man. (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15) Please note that such comments are not permitted under the interaction ban and further instances will result in a block. Best regards, Mike V • Talk 22:59, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
- I won't do that anymore for now, Mike. Shall I report this the next time it happens? Or can someone else do it? George Ho (talk) 23:51, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
- If you are referring to a violation of the interaction ban, you can mention it another admin once. Otherwise, it would be best to avoid all discussion related to The Rambling Man. Mike V • Talk 23:55, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
- Shall I report his attempts to excuse himself to you, Mike? I felt unease when he made indirect references by saying "canvassing". I was prompted to ask questions when mentioned "canvassed". Is
thishis actions at the questions subpages excusable? George Ho (talk) 00:11, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
- Shall I report his attempts to excuse himself to you, Mike? I felt unease when he made indirect references by saying "canvassing". I was prompted to ask questions when mentioned "canvassed". Is
- If you are referring to a violation of the interaction ban, you can mention it another admin once. Otherwise, it would be best to avoid all discussion related to The Rambling Man. Mike V • Talk 23:55, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
Just wanted to drop a note that, as a result of extensive community discussion and numerous issues, the warning issued above has been overturned. [1] Regards, The WordsmithTalk to me 22:36, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
Can you do us a favor?
Please forget the retirement nonsense. Just remove the notice, and continue what you do best: building an encyclopedia along with the rest of us! Cheers. The Transhumanist 21:19, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
- Removed the banner for now. George Ho (talk) 21:27, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
- But am doing my best to reduce my activities here, to be frank. --George Ho (talk) 21:37, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
Community Bulletin Board (CBB)
You wrote: Hello again. I see that you have contributed to the bulletin board. I thank you for that. However, seems that we're losing its regulars. Mind if I post a notification at WP:Village pump (miscellaneous) and then WT:Community portal for recruitments? --George Ho (talk) 18:09, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
- Dear George,
- The CBB is like a regular bulletin board, for anyone who needs to post a notice or bulletin about their events, projects, activities, and so on. It is for announcers who have something to announce. It's not a news gathering service, and therefore recruiting volunteers or journalists to post news items goes way beyond the purpose of that department. It's just a spot for everyone in the neighborhood to post stuff when they feel the need to.
- Like regular bulletin boards, activity on the CBB ebbs and flows. Having volunteers to post notices doesn't generally help, because they would have to know what to post. You never know where the announcements are going to come from (people with unusual projects, etc.), or when. It's announcer-driven.
- It's normal for the CBB to slow down during late spring, and summer vacation months. It'll pick back up again in the fall. The main reason it is there is to provide an unrestricted place for posting notices to the general community, as needed. For example, when the new redesign of the Main Page was ready to vote on it was posted there, and it had the biggest turn out ever! All the other notice venues have limitations in scope, or require lead time, etc. But you can always be sure to be able to post a notice at the CBB - it's always available, and is unrestricted.
- The important thing is that the CBB is there ready and waiting.
- Thank you for your interest. The Transhumanist 21:19, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
- With pleasure. I'm new to the bulletin board, though I've recently edited "centralized discussion" template. I don't know whether to announce having more participants at WP:FFD, WP:RFD, and/or WP:TFD. Though others can search for those processes themselves, would posting such notification be fine? --George Ho (talk) 21:47, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
- No, that's not needed: the deletion departments have their own notification system. Good brainstorming though. Remember, bulletin boards just sit there until someone needs to post something. There is no need to advertise the CBB. It is on the community's most trafficked page. People know it is there. I just posted another notice, in case you are interested. Check it out. The Transhumanist 23:37, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
Precious four years!
Four years! |
---|
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:35, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
Dual names
Hello again.
It seems that the naming of articles relating to Taiwan and China continues to be controversial. I think for articles relating to Taiwan, the use of either "Taiwan" or the ROC will never stand the test of time. What do you think about using Taiwan/ROC like HIV/AIDS? Szqecs (talk) 15:36, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
- Thank you for your message, Szqecs. However, please don't think about changing the title to "Taiwan/ROC" or proposing it. You might want to raise this at WP:Administrators' noticeboard if you think the whole issue is beyond your control. Can you do my suggestion please? Thanks. --George Ho (talk) 15:39, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
- Why not? Has it been proposed? Szqecs (talk) 15:47, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
- Let's say, Szqecs, if it were proposed as a compromise, the majority would say no to "Taiwan/ROC" because, obviously, the naming looks ridiculous and... silly. Also, it's not compared to HIV/AIDS, which is a well-known disease, not a country or an unrecognized state. I appreciate your good-faith efforts to resolve the matter, nevertheless. I also responded to your suggestion at Talk:List of political parties in the Republic of China. --George Ho (talk) 16:48, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
- What is so ridiculous about it? The slash is a fairly common grammatical punctuation used for connecting alternatives: Slash_(punctuation)#Connecting_alternatives. Szqecs (talk) 17:00, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
- Well... you can ask at Talk:Taiwan, but just ask before using the RM process. George Ho (talk) 17:05, 6 June 2017 (UTC) Pinging Szqecs, just in case. 17:28, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
- Why not? Has it been proposed? Szqecs (talk) 15:47, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
File:Alan kurdi smiling playground.jpg listed for discussion
File:Reg Grundy 20 September 2010.jpg listed for discussion
We're on Twitter!
WikiLGBT is on Twitter! | |
---|---|
|
Orphaned non-free image File:Boy in the dress.jpg
Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:06, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
The Teamwork Barnstar | |
Thank you for helping me, Brianga, DynaGirl, Money money tickle parsnip, and Shadowowl Marcos Rodriguez handle DonitzLiebt's disruptive edits; the user was ultimately blocked by John Reaves. Yoshiman6464 ♫🥚 16:31, 20 June 2017 (UTC) |
Well!
That was quick! Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:11, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
- Oh... Thanks for the compliment. ;) I also tagged one statement as "original research" per your rationale. --George Ho (talk) 17:12, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
- No, thank you for doing it. It can be frustrating to spend time and energy wrestling with a long RfC such as that only to see it sit untouched. I'm gratified (if a bit pleasantly surprised) at seeing the close recommendations implemented so immediately. Cheers. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:15, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
Help offering accepted.
Just tell me what do you think about what i have written. Also you have already helped.-- Neurorebel ([[User talk:Neurorebel|talk]]) 23:39, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
- By now I have not many time for taking courses though id like to (and I will soon), in turn what you saw on wikiversity (how did you saw that?) is because a mayor concern I have, I read that you have moderate autism so may be you can understand that reason. About wikipedia what I urgently need is a momentary permission for writting articles as to avoid problems as I have some Ideas for edits and articles. --Neurorebel (talk) 00:09, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
- Indeed im prevented, not banned, against editing in the main namespace by one user [[2]], mostly by redacting and indeed I shouldnt have edited for example List of candies, thats why im asking for temporal permission until I can improve my skills over the language.
At the end is not totally clear to me if im banned or not but I want to gain at least minor edits.--Neurorebel (talk) 05:34, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
- Ownership by who? If its related with me and Uruguayan cuisine im not possessive but passionate, of course I dont own the article but I do the best I can to improve it. is my adoption as a personal challenge.
- I want to prevent a ban since im stating this, I can see that you neither are administrator nor rollbacker am I right with that? however my proposal is messure and criterion on my edits and of course the method of editing you meantion that already was of my knowledge is extremely useful in this situation i will adopt it also.--Neurorebel (talk) 05:57, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
Your comments at WP:AN
George Ho, I'm not quite sure why you appear to be encouraging BlaccCrab to take this to ANI, or why you linked to previous disputes he and I had. As I pointed out, he was previously brought to ANI by myself and blocked by Ritchie333 in November last year for the exact behaviour he engaged in again yesterday. I reported him to Ritchie333 again after this incident. If anything, from your experience at such boards, you should clearly be able to see it's not really going to go anywhere and I thought you would have encouraged it be closed. He esssnentially said "I can't be bothered trying to diffs" of whatever he accused me of—also because there really aren't any. People are rarely, if ever, being blocked for being "condescending" in summaries. If that were the case, half the registered editors here would have been blocked for it. This is assumed persecution based on my reverting him at my talk page. There's nothing else to be looked into. Ss112 07:19, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) I struck the encouragement, Ss112. Therefore, I won't get involved in your and BlaccCrab's disputes, okay? I'll stay most out of it for now until I figure out, okay? I did my best to stay neutral or listen to both sides or mediate. I've done my job, so I'll leave the rest to others. --George Ho (talk) 07:21, 22 June 2017 (UTC); modified, 07:23, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
- It's not that I wanted you to "stay out of it", as I didn't say that. It's more that I thought, objectively speaking, that you would have been able to see it was a waste of time, certainly a WP:BOOMERANG case, and the user doing the reporting was in the wrong previously and did so again. Ss112 07:32, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
The sister sites search etc
Thx for your email. The search results I was getting before I disabled it in my css were useless - that's my main beef with this feature (the visual clutter isn't as problematic to me)...so I just don't understand how enabling it would improve my editing. Other editors might find it useful, not even notice it, or might not have an opinion to opt-in or to opt-out via a checkmark-box.
When the feature was brought online, I doubt that any of the sister Wiki-Projects were notified so I don't think that notifying them would be necessary (and where that would or should be done is another matter). And in my opinion letting people know about a discussion isn't canvassing, as long as there's no favoritism or bias towards one side or another, I think of it as being inclusive to the WP-community at large. Not everyone keeps up with all the policy/guidline/rules discussions that take place on all the Village pumps & elsewhere on WP (witness all the thread respondents who knew about the various discussions while I did not). If you've left notices at various on-WP noticeboards etc that's about as much as you can do - if it's possible I think it elevates community when WP-constituents are aware of discussions or changes on-wiki that could impact their editing & their experience. Shearonink (talk) 17:56, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
- You're welcome, Shearonink. May I notify some (just selected ones based on search results) sister projects right away then? --George Ho (talk) 17:59, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
- Do what you think is right, it's fine with me if [whatever] sister-projects are notified. Heh, it's not like any of us around here are in charge of anything in particular - so do what you think is appropriate. Shearonink (talk)
Invitation
Hi, I would like to invite you to participate in this arbitration case I filed regarding the ROC/PRC issue. Supreme Dragon (talk) 00:46, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
Request for Arbitration Special:Permalink/787497450#Cross-Strait conflict: PRC and ROC Closed
This is to inform you that the request for arbitration in which you were recently named as a party has been declined by the committee and closed. GoldenRing (talk) 19:44, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
Me and you, IIO
@In ictu oculi: Why still being so hostile to others and me? Why accusing me of following you? Also, why moving No Way Out (song) to No Way Out (Phil Collins song) without checking whatever links to that other article? If I were following you, I would have cleaned up your messes that you made. However, I was not following you, and I have no plans to clean up the mess you made. I browsed around, looked at No Way Out dabpage, and found that you moved the page, and found that the Stone Temple Pilots song exists! You're lucky you're not sanctioned at ANI, but in one of these days, your luck won't save you. Since our last encounter together, I noticed that you slightly improved some of the articles you created. Impressive. Therefore, I have left you alone for months, and I still intend not to bother you. Well, your disagreements with others and me... and our hostile interactions... must have gotten you... isolating yourself from others. I somewhat... understand that. Still, I don't do what you always do. The more you move pages and create such pages, the more trouble you get yourself in. Please save your accusations before you start accusing any one of us of following you. --George Ho (talk) 21:54, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
- I'm not "accusing you of following me". You are following me. You've just admitted it above. You log on to Wikipedia and follow me. That's what following is. Listen there is no "me and you". We do not have a relationship. You are just following me. That's all. In ictu oculi (talk) 21:56, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
- You know what, In ictu oculi? I'm tired of all this, including "following me" crap, and your adolescent comment. I can prove that I lost interest in you since the "WT:Notability" encounter if you're interested. Please read WP:ASPERSIONS before accusing others; that's all. Also, since you haven't admitted responsibility of your actions, I'm staying clear away from you, your edits and your articles, and you... stop claiming stalking, following, or whatever. Got it? --George Ho (talk) 22:08, 25 June 2017 (UTC); modified, 22:16, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
- And if you want to stay away from my edits and me, please feel free to say so if you wish. Otherwise, don't give me any more of your such responses. --George Ho (talk) 22:15, 25 June 2017 (UTC); amended, 22:28, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
- I'm not "accusing you of following me". You are following me. You've just admitted it above. You log on to Wikipedia and follow me. That's what following is. Listen there is no "me and you". We do not have a relationship. You are just following me. That's all. In ictu oculi (talk) 21:56, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
Orphaned non-free image File:Just the Way You Are by Billy Joel US vinyl.jpg
Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:34, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
Reform of mediation
George, you sent me and undisclosed others an email about reforming mediation and Arbcom and extending mediation from one to multiple articles. I'm afraid that I don't quite get what you mean. Formal Mediation can already include multiple articles, so I'm not sure why you believe that it cannot. I'm also uncertain why you, by implication, feel that Mediation needs to be reformed. Before jumping on my horse and riding off in all directions at the same time, I'd like to better understand your concerns. Could you explain? Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 21:15, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
- Oh... I didn't know about WP:Formal mediation. My apologies, TransporterMan. I didn't realize that. About the reforming thing, I was at daze when I read so many failed requests and was thinking reform without having second thoughts. Also, I read Wikipedia:Mediation and figured by reading Definition figure #4. I initially thought that process would be limited to just one article. I guess I was confused. That's all. If formal mediation can apply to all pages related to one topic, and reformation is unnecessary.... then maybe I can file a request for mediation. Here's one unresolved issue: China/Taiwan thing. It's been ongoing for a long time, especially since PRC became China and ROC became Taiwan. Every RM attempt I've seen, I tried WT:NC-ZH to update the rule, but that went nowhere. Even I tried WP:RFD a couple times, but they decided to leave the redirects as they are, like Politics of Taiwan. Even someone filed an ArbCom request that failed. I thought about inviting participants for mediation, but I'm unsure whether they want to participate. If many participants leave the formal mediation process, then formal mediation would be futile. Maybe that's another reason for reform, but then I now realize the reason is not adequate and good enough for reformation. Still, before requesting mediation, I am going to ask the community about mediation. Thoughts? --George Ho (talk) 21:46, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
- George, if that dispute has not yet gone to DRN it really ought to be tried there first, but first read what I'm about to say about RM's. The more narrow you can define the topic, the better the chances for success, as well. However, if the topic of the discussion is an article name and if you've already gone through the RM process then you may not get much help through dispute resolution. RM is one of those processes, like XFD, which has its own built-in dispute resolution process in the form of a formal closing by an independent editor. Except in unusual cases, the content DR processes are not usually going to be willing to become involved in that since all they can do is try to get the editors to discuss the dispute thoroughly and try to get them to come to consensus. (We have no form of binding content arbitration, only various forms of voluntary mediation. Every attempt to create a system of binding content arbitration — and there have been many attempts over the years — has been rejected by the community as being out of line with the wiki nature of Wikipedia.) By the time a RM or XFD discussion is complete, the matter has usually been discussed about as much as can be expected. Moreover, since all forms of content dispute resolution are done with a view to achieving consensus, if any significant number of the parties to the dispute choose not to participate then any consensus reached by those who do participate can be easily torpedoed when an attempt is made to implement the consensus back at the article; that's the reason that DRN and Formal mediation both require most parties to agree to participate before they will take a case. RFC is about the only type of dispute resolution where parties must either participate or have their views ignored — but RFC's often end in no consensus or have only minimal participation. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 22:09, 27 June 2017 (UTC) PS: Formal closes of RM's, XFD's, and RFC's are also usually not subjects of content dispute resolution because they also have their own appeals processes, q.v.. — TransporterMan (TALK) 22:16, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
Obama bin laden listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Obama bin laden. Since you had some involvement with the Obama bin laden redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Legacypac (talk) 19:13, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
RfC notifications
Regarding this edit: some of the venues to which you post notifications aren't really suitable. For example, in the edit I linked to, the RfC isn't about a proposal as described at the top of the Village Pump (proposals) page. In the interest of targeting specific appropriate audiences, perhaps you could ensure that your notifications are limited to the most relevant project pages? It would be greatly appreciated. isaacl (talk) 06:55, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
- I apologize, Isaacl. It's not easy for me to notify whichever projects and village pump to notify. If I notify more WikiProjects, that'd be seen as excessive. Do you want me to retract that notification from the village pump? I'll do so. --George Ho (talk) 06:59, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
- I"m not sure I follow; notifying the Village Pump about content discussions is excessive and not a replacement for notifying the specific projects that are interested in a topic. Particularly if you find it difficult to identify the appropriate projects, I think it would be best if the interested parties determined the appropriate projects to notify, rather than your trying to do it for them. isaacl (talk) 07:04, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
- Hmm... Well... ... ... I'll take your advice, Isaac, so thanks. I'll partially rephrase about the example you mentioned: What about that notification I made in the "Proposal" subpage? May I leave it alone or remove it myself? Therefore, I'll clean that up. Fair? --George Ho (talk) 07:09, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
- I"m not sure I follow; notifying the Village Pump about content discussions is excessive and not a replacement for notifying the specific projects that are interested in a topic. Particularly if you find it difficult to identify the appropriate projects, I think it would be best if the interested parties determined the appropriate projects to notify, rather than your trying to do it for them. isaacl (talk) 07:04, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
Regarding these edits: perhaps you can help me understand why you believe these discussions are relevant for those following the Notability guideline page? isaacl (talk) 03:48, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
- @Isaacl: Regarding the Wikibooks discussion, Wikipedia's search engine collects existing data. Whenever a user tries to type a nonexistent term, the user may be shown search results from selected sister projects. Non-notable terms can be used to search existing data.
(Moved to opening) I didn't think WP:deletion policy.Any user can use terms to search for deleted pages but will realize that there are search results from sister projects. For the WP:RY guideline discussion, inclusions of events in "year" articles, like "2017", have been debated. --George Ho (talk) 04:52, 3 July 2017 (UTC); moved underlined, 04:54, 3 July 2017 (UTC) - Scratch that; I forgot that I already did. George Ho (talk) 05:04, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
- Also, regarding WP:RY, Isaacl, international prominence of events have been challenged and/or debated. --George Ho (talk) 05:23, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
- Sorry, as far as I can tell, you just summarized what the discussions were about (I've skimmed through them so I already know). I don't understand why you believe that someone who is interested in the notability guideline would be particularly interested in these discussions. isaacl (talk) 05:27, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
- @Isaacl: Reason for notifying them about the Wikibooks discussion? Users have used the search engine to find out whether article about one notable subject exists. If nonexistent, they can be directed to search results, including ones from sister projects recently implemented. About the notification of the "Recent years" guideline discussion... I removed that one as the RY guideline is based on editorial discretions. --George Ho (talk) 05:43, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
- Also, the cross-wiki search results may influence a user's decisions to create or edit an article about something. --George Ho (talk) 05:44, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
- Editors interested in the notability guideline are interested in how English Wikipedia sets the standards for having an article. This has nothing to do with how users search for Wikipedia articles, or articles in other Wikimedia projects. I appreciate that you wish to be helpful in ensuring that discussions have adequate participation, but unfortunately your habit of putting notifications on irrelevant or only tangentially relevant talk pages gives an impression of someone overreaching in their efforts. As you said earlier you had trouble identifying appropriate places to put notifications, my suggestion is that you would be more effective providing assistance in a different way. Perhaps you can leverage your strengths in some way to help the community? isaacl (talk) 05:58, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
- Recently, isaacl, I have been neutrally requesting closures on discussions, especially at WP:ANRFC. That can help the community, right? Also, I know which WikiProjects related to one article topic are to be notified. That's something, right? ...Maybe I can figure out my own other strengths and help the community... ...Maybe I can figure out about myself. Thanks. I will keep that in mind. --George Ho (talk) 06:08, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
- My personal feeling (that some others share) is that it's better to let the interested parties request closure at the RfC closure noticeboard. Having someone drop in to do it seems to remove the initiative from the active participants to work out a resolution. That being said, some times discussions get stuck. However it's not always clear the best result is to request a formal closure. For example, if it's pretty clear there is no consensus, then just letting the discussion end may be better than stirring up the issue again. Thanks for considering how to use your strengths to help out! isaacl (talk) 06:15, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
- Thanks for your response, Isaacl. However, I'm not sure whether informal closures by an involved party are usually appropriate. One closure was recently undone. Nonetheless, sometimes or occasionally I do involved closures because I can see a clear consensus, like Talk:Cold War II#RfC: "Novel risks and measures for preventing escalation" section. But I guess I'll let someone else request a closure... right? If no one else can, then when can I request it at WP:ANRFC or WP:AN? --George Ho (talk) 10:44, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
- Then again, I guess requesting a closure is not necessary for some article discussions about one topic. --George Ho (talk) 11:00, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
- But then again, requesting closures for central discussions may be necessary. How was the joint closure on the WP:NSPORTS discussion personally? I thought it went well. --George Ho (talk) 11:41, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
- Note I didn't say involved parties should close a discussion; I just said, in my view, they should be the ones who work towards an agreement and request a closure if necessary. There are a lot of competing factors that make it difficult to give hard-and-fast rules, and it's also subject to personal judgment, so I can't think of any specific guidance beyond what I've said. Regarding the joint closure of the discussion of the sports-specific notability guideline, well, I offered my opinion at the time. Part of what concerns me about your handling of certain interpersonal-related matters is that some of your comments seem to show that you find it challenging to interpret the opinions of others. Unfortunately I don't really know what to suggest to help. Maybe there's someone to whom you can speak in person about these types of questions so they can provide you with more timely feedback? isaacl (talk) 17:13, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
- My personal feeling (that some others share) is that it's better to let the interested parties request closure at the RfC closure noticeboard. Having someone drop in to do it seems to remove the initiative from the active participants to work out a resolution. That being said, some times discussions get stuck. However it's not always clear the best result is to request a formal closure. For example, if it's pretty clear there is no consensus, then just letting the discussion end may be better than stirring up the issue again. Thanks for considering how to use your strengths to help out! isaacl (talk) 06:15, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
- Recently, isaacl, I have been neutrally requesting closures on discussions, especially at WP:ANRFC. That can help the community, right? Also, I know which WikiProjects related to one article topic are to be notified. That's something, right? ...Maybe I can figure out my own other strengths and help the community... ...Maybe I can figure out about myself. Thanks. I will keep that in mind. --George Ho (talk) 06:08, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
- Editors interested in the notability guideline are interested in how English Wikipedia sets the standards for having an article. This has nothing to do with how users search for Wikipedia articles, or articles in other Wikimedia projects. I appreciate that you wish to be helpful in ensuring that discussions have adequate participation, but unfortunately your habit of putting notifications on irrelevant or only tangentially relevant talk pages gives an impression of someone overreaching in their efforts. As you said earlier you had trouble identifying appropriate places to put notifications, my suggestion is that you would be more effective providing assistance in a different way. Perhaps you can leverage your strengths in some way to help the community? isaacl (talk) 05:58, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
- Sorry, as far as I can tell, you just summarized what the discussions were about (I've skimmed through them so I already know). I don't understand why you believe that someone who is interested in the notability guideline would be particularly interested in these discussions. isaacl (talk) 05:27, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
Hmm... maybe I'll remove the notice and then post the notice to WT:NOT, whose project page mentions Wikibooks. Fair, Isaacl? --George Ho (talk) 05:53, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
- Ask yourself the question: if I'm interested in trying to clarify what types of content is suitable for English Wikipedia, would I be specifically interested in whether or not the search box shows results in other Wikimedia projects? Personally, I don't see a lot of connection. I don't wish to take on the full time role of vetting your thoughts on where to post notifications (if I were going to do invest time on thinking about that, I'd just post notifications myself), so again I feel you may be better suited for a different task than posting notifications. isaacl (talk) 06:02, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
From Legacypac
You made a number of unusual accusations at ArbCom that only muddy the water. Specifically, I've moved plenty of pages but none since the topic ban on page moves (one I don't agree with, but can work around). I was not aware of the Obama bin thing being previous discussed, I just happened upon a mention on some talk page and found it inappropriate. Redirecting Draft:Topic X to Mainspace Topic X is perfectly normal. On the rare occasion there is useful merge content, I'll merge it. I've never been involved with gamergate (its a huge stupid timesink) I only nominated an old drafting page on the topic for deletion, which closed as redirect, which is perfectly fine and what I expected. I would have just redirected it myself on any other topic, but given the sensitivity of the topic, having an MfC result with an Admin doing the redirect is more definitive. I also have not edit warred on RBSS, I removed POV junk that turned the story of group from being against ISIL to supporting ISIL. I posted my rational on the talk page. I've NOT refused to cooperate - that is a wild misreading of the situation. I can't discuss some of the things you posted, but I'd urge you to edit your statement to ensure accuracy and not accuse me of crimes based on misreadings and misunderstandings. 04:09, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
Oh on Individual Quick Freezing I deleted a redirect (not an article) and moved in an article on the topic from draft or userspace. That is a good thing. Legacypac (talk) 04:28, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
- My apologies. I struck part of it out, Legacypac. Is the statement more accurate? --George Ho (talk) 04:36, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
- Also amended my words. --George Ho (talk) 04:54, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
- Thank-you for being so responsive. I have no specific interest in Biographies, there are just tons of them abandoned in user and draft space where I do a lot of cleanup. Perhaps the large number of bios is because most non-bio topics are covered in mainspace but there are 7 billion people in the world who have yet to get their autobio promoting their failing singing career/self published book they can't give away/Youtube channel with 3 subscribers/uninteresting business/normal life etc, accepted on Wikipedia. I'd rather not have an ArbCom case that covers several broad areas operating under my personal username. If you want a different case, go start one, please don't takeover this one. Thanks again. Legacypac (talk) 05:26, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
- You're welcome, Legacypac. I also struck and amended more of my misassumptions out about biographies. To be honest, I don't want them to accept the full case. I just hope a motion is effective enough to make the two-way IBAN and your topic-ban more effective. --George Ho (talk) 05:33, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
- Thank-you for being so responsive. I have no specific interest in Biographies, there are just tons of them abandoned in user and draft space where I do a lot of cleanup. Perhaps the large number of bios is because most non-bio topics are covered in mainspace but there are 7 billion people in the world who have yet to get their autobio promoting their failing singing career/self published book they can't give away/Youtube channel with 3 subscribers/uninteresting business/normal life etc, accepted on Wikipedia. I'd rather not have an ArbCom case that covers several broad areas operating under my personal username. If you want a different case, go start one, please don't takeover this one. Thanks again. Legacypac (talk) 05:26, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
To clarify, I've never suggested I can't live with the page move to mainspace restriction. I think it an unnecessary restriction but it's easy enough to work around until lifted. I maintain a page that shows my track record User:Legacypac/Promotions and assists me in tracking any efforts to delete promoted pages. Legacypac (talk) 09:22, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
File:Reg Grundy 20 September 2010.jpg listed for discussion
ATTENTION: This is an automated, bot-generated message. This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 23:55, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
Arbitration enforcement block
If you believe this block is unjustified, please read the guide to appealing blocks (specifically this section) before appealing. Place the following on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Please copy my appeal to the [[WP:AE|arbitration enforcement noticeboard]] or [[WP:AN|administrators' noticeboard]]. Your reason here OR place the reason below this template. ~~~~}}
. If you intend to appeal on the arbitration enforcement noticeboard I suggest you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template on your talk page so it can be copied over easily. You may also appeal directly to me (by email), before or instead of appealing on your talk page. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:35, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
Reminder to administrators: In May 2014, ArbCom adopted the following procedure instructing administrators regarding Arbitration Enforcement blocks: "No administrator may modify a sanction placed by another administrator without: (1) the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or (2) prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" [in the procedure]). Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped."