Notification: listing of Complete mineral list at redirects for discussion. (TW) |
m . |
||
(One intermediate revision by the same user not shown) | |||
Line 33: | Line 33: | ||
::::::{{re|Barkeep49}} - Does that include not being permitted to comment in the ANI thread itself if I have evidence (such as the 7 reverts above) to present, or would it be better if I run the evidence by you first? -- [[User:Netoholic|Netoholic]] [[User talk:Netoholic|@]] 01:42, 29 June 2020 (UTC) |
::::::{{re|Barkeep49}} - Does that include not being permitted to comment in the ANI thread itself if I have evidence (such as the 7 reverts above) to present, or would it be better if I run the evidence by you first? -- [[User:Netoholic|Netoholic]] [[User talk:Netoholic|@]] 01:42, 29 June 2020 (UTC) |
||
:::::::[[WP:BANEX]] allows you, in my view, to defend your own actions at ANI and other conduct forums such as AE. Presenting evidence of misconduct of others in the topic area would be a violation of the TBAN. [[User:Barkeep49|Barkeep49]] ([[User_talk:Barkeep49|talk]]) 02:10, 29 June 2020 (UTC) |
:::::::[[WP:BANEX]] allows you, in my view, to defend your own actions at ANI and other conduct forums such as AE. Presenting evidence of misconduct of others in the topic area would be a violation of the TBAN. [[User:Barkeep49|Barkeep49]] ([[User_talk:Barkeep49|talk]]) 02:10, 29 June 2020 (UTC) |
||
: {{ping|Barkeep49}} - Based on [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=895393384 your prior stated desire to see me topic-banned], despite that suggestion having already-been soundly-rejected in the section above your post, it would appear that you are [[WP:INVOLVED]] and could be interpreted as waiting to impose a sanction on me at the next opportunity (especially since you sanctioned only me, and refused multiple times here to look at other parties actions). I ask that you rescind this sanction and allow to a truly unbiased admin handle things. -- [[User:Netoholic|Netoholic]] [[User talk:Netoholic|@]] 20:48, 13 July 2020 (UTC) |
|||
==[[:Category:TV listings]] has been nominated for merging== |
==[[:Category:TV listings]] has been nominated for merging== |
||
Revision as of 21:09, 13 July 2020
To Do: Bad disambiguation - (concept)
Some thoughts: | |
---|---|
"To avoid unkind criticism: say nothing, be nothing, do nothing."
|
"There are people who have good sense. There are idiots. A consensus of idiots does not override good sense. Wikipedia is not a democracy." |
Awareness
This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.
You have shown interest in post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.
For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.
Template:Z33 Barkeep49 (talk) 14:28, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
Discretionary sanction
This morning when I looked for a DS alert either placed on you or by you and to edits at AE in the past year, I had not realized you were already considered WP:AWARE of American Politics discretionary sanctions based on your 2018 block which was unsuccessfully appealed. For battleground behavior I am topic banning you from the Boogaloo movement broadly construed for a period of three months. For edit warring in that topic area I am also imposing an indefinite WP:1RR restriction on you on Boogaloo movement edits. I base this decision based on the diffs and evidence on offer in the current ANI thread. You may appeal these sanctions to myself, to WP:AE, or to WP:AN. Barkeep49 (talk) 22:34, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
- @Barkeep49: - The June 2018 block was not within AP2 - the notice I received mentioned nothing about American politics. It was in regards to a WP:COIN post related to KodakCoin which at the time was not under any DS (it is currently is under the cryptocurrency DS - not AP2). I honestly don't keep tabs on the status of AP2, so I'm not sure if some other WP:AWARE condition exists, but I don't think that block qualifies. If you'd like, I'll voluntarily stick with 1RR on boogaloo on my honor, but the reality is I've only edited the page 6 times (never violating 3RR). Since you're an uninvolved admin looking into this, any reason not to comment on GorillaWarfare, since she actually admitted violating 3RR - hitting 7 reverts on June 17 - 00:40, 00:44, 01:17, 01:24, 07:15. 18:54, 21:29? -- Netoholic @ 03:23, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
- Netoholic, the lack of notice for that block threw me at first as well. However, in looking deeper I saw that both Tony's official warning and subsequent block were entered in the AE enforcement log under AP2. It was on this basis I determined you were, per the enforcement procedure, considered WP:AWARE under criteria 2. You are of course welcome to appeal these sanctions suggesting you were not AWARE. Your case is reasonable enough that I would rate your chances of success at AE above average compared to those who typically immediately appeal DS sanctions. As I commented in the ANI thread, I have not looked at either GW's or MWise's actions here so I don't have a comment on either of them. Instead I can tell you that what caused me to look more into you was that this Boogaloo disruption had been found three distinct forms: edit warring, a battleground mentality in discussions, and extending an enwiki content discussion to Commons. It is possible that it would be appropriate for sanctions to be brought against either GW or MWise. However, my first instinct in most disputes, including DS/GS disputes, is to ask people to walk back troubling actions. That is what I would have asked of GW and since she did so voluntarily when contacted I have no desire to issue sanctions on that account. The general pattern of edit warring on that article, however, is why I extended 1RR to it. As to why I did not go with that first instinct with you, it was again because I found the combination of behavior while editing the article, battleground attitude towards others, and desire to extend disputes into other forums disruptive enough to enter the two part sanction which I continue to believe is the necessary and proportionate response for the smooth running of the project. Barkeep49 (talk) 04:32, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
- @Barkeep49: - On the AWARE issue, I have no knowledge or control over where Tony logged the warning, but that seems in error since the COIN post had nothing to do with AP2. The lack of notice related to AP2 on my talk page notification for the block should at least, not fit within the spirit of AWARE, and I really do ask that you reconsider that. I can tell you that in my mind, taking the issue up separately with Commons was due to the different policies compared to en:WP, especially because "fair use" is not justifiable for commons-hosted material. commons:COM:PEOPLE has quite stringent requirements about handling of identifiable people (which that picture has). My posting there was not to "extend it to other forums" which of course is silly since the talk page here gets an automatic notification of the image deletion discussion there, and as always, if the Commons community elects to delete, that doesn't mean WP couldn't host it locally, so there was no realistic chance of me trying to "subvert" the discussion here. I can't speak to the "battleground attitude" since you've not said what prompted your view on that. I can say that I did not push GW's gross violation of 3RR on June 17, electing only to message her about it on her talk page. I think that shows I do not have a "battleground attitude". -- Netoholic @ 04:45, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
- Netoholic, if more discussions had been like what you posted on GW's talk page or with me here then I would not have imposed these sanctions. However, your conduct in the ANI thread itself suggests that the battleground mentality is still there. As to AWARE, I slept on it as I wanted to really consider it. After a review of the situation from 2018, I continue to think my sanctions are within both the letter and spirit of the enforcement procedure. Sorry. You are of course welcome to appeal or to edit the wide swath of AP2 that is not covered by this topic ban. Barkeep49 (talk) 15:38, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
- Just to clarify one thing but the 1RR is a broadly construed sanction (I entered it as such in the log but realized I did not make that clear in communicating that to you). Barkeep49 (talk) 17:02, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
- Netoholic, if more discussions had been like what you posted on GW's talk page or with me here then I would not have imposed these sanctions. However, your conduct in the ANI thread itself suggests that the battleground mentality is still there. As to AWARE, I slept on it as I wanted to really consider it. After a review of the situation from 2018, I continue to think my sanctions are within both the letter and spirit of the enforcement procedure. Sorry. You are of course welcome to appeal or to edit the wide swath of AP2 that is not covered by this topic ban. Barkeep49 (talk) 15:38, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
- @Barkeep49: - On the AWARE issue, I have no knowledge or control over where Tony logged the warning, but that seems in error since the COIN post had nothing to do with AP2. The lack of notice related to AP2 on my talk page notification for the block should at least, not fit within the spirit of AWARE, and I really do ask that you reconsider that. I can tell you that in my mind, taking the issue up separately with Commons was due to the different policies compared to en:WP, especially because "fair use" is not justifiable for commons-hosted material. commons:COM:PEOPLE has quite stringent requirements about handling of identifiable people (which that picture has). My posting there was not to "extend it to other forums" which of course is silly since the talk page here gets an automatic notification of the image deletion discussion there, and as always, if the Commons community elects to delete, that doesn't mean WP couldn't host it locally, so there was no realistic chance of me trying to "subvert" the discussion here. I can't speak to the "battleground attitude" since you've not said what prompted your view on that. I can say that I did not push GW's gross violation of 3RR on June 17, electing only to message her about it on her talk page. I think that shows I do not have a "battleground attitude". -- Netoholic @ 04:45, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
- Netoholic, the lack of notice for that block threw me at first as well. However, in looking deeper I saw that both Tony's official warning and subsequent block were entered in the AE enforcement log under AP2. It was on this basis I determined you were, per the enforcement procedure, considered WP:AWARE under criteria 2. You are of course welcome to appeal these sanctions suggesting you were not AWARE. Your case is reasonable enough that I would rate your chances of success at AE above average compared to those who typically immediately appeal DS sanctions. As I commented in the ANI thread, I have not looked at either GW's or MWise's actions here so I don't have a comment on either of them. Instead I can tell you that what caused me to look more into you was that this Boogaloo disruption had been found three distinct forms: edit warring, a battleground mentality in discussions, and extending an enwiki content discussion to Commons. It is possible that it would be appropriate for sanctions to be brought against either GW or MWise. However, my first instinct in most disputes, including DS/GS disputes, is to ask people to walk back troubling actions. That is what I would have asked of GW and since she did so voluntarily when contacted I have no desire to issue sanctions on that account. The general pattern of edit warring on that article, however, is why I extended 1RR to it. As to why I did not go with that first instinct with you, it was again because I found the combination of behavior while editing the article, battleground attitude towards others, and desire to extend disputes into other forums disruptive enough to enter the two part sanction which I continue to believe is the necessary and proportionate response for the smooth running of the project. Barkeep49 (talk) 04:32, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
- @Barkeep49: - Based on your prior stated desire to see me topic-banned, despite that suggestion having already-been soundly-rejected in the section above your post, it would appear that you are WP:INVOLVED and could be interpreted as waiting to impose a sanction on me at the next opportunity (especially since you sanctioned only me, and refused multiple times here to look at other parties actions). I ask that you rescind this sanction and allow to a truly unbiased admin handle things. -- Netoholic @ 20:48, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
Category:TV listings has been nominated for merging
![](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/5/5f/Ambox_warning_orange.svg/48px-Ambox_warning_orange.svg.png)
Category:TV listings has been nominated for merging. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:42, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
Category:Jeremy Renner has been nominated for deletion
![](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/5/5f/Ambox_warning_orange.svg/48px-Ambox_warning_orange.svg.png)
Category:Jeremy Renner has been nominated for deletion. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:18, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
"Complete mineral list" listed at Redirects for discussion
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Complete mineral list. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 July 6#Complete mineral list until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Steel1943 (talk) 23:14, 6 July 2020 (UTC)