MediaWiki message delivery (talk | contribs) Tags: condition limit reached |
No edit summary |
||
Line 58: | Line 58: | ||
</div> |
</div> |
||
<!-- Message sent by User:WMF Surveys@metawiki using the list at https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Community_Engagement_Insights/MassMessages/Lists/2018/en4&oldid=17881355 --> |
<!-- Message sent by User:WMF Surveys@metawiki using the list at https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Community_Engagement_Insights/MassMessages/Lists/2018/en4&oldid=17881355 --> |
||
==ARCA== |
|||
I am not the only one added as involved user in the DS appeal, but also Sandstein. Even GoldenRing recused, because he was involved in the AE. I am appealing against the sanction imposed by an admin, with whom Doug Weller is [[WP:INVOLVED]] as recently as this appeal was posted. I asked Doug Weller to recuse and also posted the reasons on his talk page but he is refusing to recuse and thinks that he had to be involved with me then only he could recuse.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Doug_Weller&diff=833448503&oldid=833448133] What are your views? — [[User:MapSGV|MapSGV]] ([[User talk:MapSGV|talk]]) 16:48, 31 March 2018 (UTC) |
Revision as of 16:48, 31 March 2018
This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
Revisiting the deleted article on Houston McCoy
Thanks for trying to provide some update on Houston McCoy.
- Courcelles thought you were the individual to say that McCoy, or his family, requested courtesy deletion. But this AFD was so long ago, you don't really remember it? Does this mean you don't remember knowing where or when McCoy, or his relatives, made a request for courtesy deletion?
- Unpleasantness or harassment, at ANI? I had nothing to do with that, other than being a target. The claim Mr Wales was bullying me was an attempt to mock me, from one of my wikistalker.
- Why would anyone be interested in an article on McCoy?
- I encountered the topic of Houston McCoy through the AFD -- I had never heard of him, and had only a vague recollection of the Texas Tower shooting.
- I did my own web search, and concluded he definitely wasn't a BLP1E. Textbooks talked about him in the contexts of (1) the development of the tactic of the SWAT team; (2) the recognition of the Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder; (3) the recognition of the idea that some individuals commit "suicide by cop"; (4) McCoy sued the producers of the first movie about the shooting; (5) reporters sought out his opinion on the Virginia Tech shooting.
So, I concluded McCoy was not a BLP1E. Wikilinks to Houston McCoy from the articles on PTSD, Suicide by cop, SWAT teams, the Virginia Tech shooting, or the movie, should not redirect to a subsection of the Charles Whitman article. This information is relevant, and, really, is largely or completely off-topic in Charles Whitman.
- I think of the deletion of the Houston McCoy often. I see it as the best example of a mistake routinely made at AFD. When a topic is related to multiple topics, coverage of that topic shouldn't be shoehorned into a subsection of one of the related articles. It doesn't really matter which related article is chosen, some of the information relevant to some of the related topics will be off-topic no matter which related topic becomes the redirect target. In my opinion, if a topic is worthy of more than one wikilink, from other articles, and there are meaningful references, the wikipedia's readers are best served by centralizing the information on that topic in a standalone article.
It seemed to me that those who kept arguing McCoy was a BLP1E had a failure of imagination. It seems to me they thought there was one and only one reason readers would want to read about McCoy -- because they ere interested in Whitman, when they might want to read about the first individuals recognized as having PTSD, for whom Whitman is a distraction.
Mr Wales may have many strengths, but I am extremely uncomfortable when he, or anyone else, acts as if it is okay for them to bypass OTRS. In my opinion OTRS should be trusted to be the party which confirms individual corresponding with WMF projects are who they say they are. Even if, for the sake of argument, Mr Wales, or the other individuals who have usurped OTRS's role, were as experienced, or even more experienced, than our OTRS team members, it would still be a mistake to allow this usurpation. When an OTRS team member corresponds with an outsider, and confirms their real world identity, we have an audit trail, of all their correspondence. But when Mr Wales, or anyone else, conducts a private correspondence with an outside person, and then insists we trust their personal judgment that the outsider is who they say they are, their correspondence isn't recorded where OTRS team members can double-check it, or refer back to it, years later, when something comes to light, making confirmation necessary.
Courcelles wrote that it seemed like you were the individual who wrote that McCoy, or members of his family, requested courtesy deletion -- and you don't remember this. So, if you did make this claim, and it was based on private correspondence, am I correct that correspondence wasn't turned over to OTRS?
I am not an administrator. I think I found the version of Talk:Houston McCoy available to me was completely useless. I am wondering whether the requests for courtesy deletion, apparently from McCoy, or his family, were made on deleted versions of Talk:Houston McCoy.
I hope this answers your questions. Geo Swan (talk) 03:39, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
- @Geo Swan:Thanks for the background. I'll be traveling this weekend with only limited time online, so I'll get back to this early next week if I have anything to add. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:50, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
- Thanks. I'll look forward to it. Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 18:49, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
-- Avi (talk) 06:40, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
- Received and responded. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:52, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
- Thank you. -- Avi (talk) 02:23, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
Here you created a talk page header that is not compliant to WP:TALKNEW ("Don't address other users in a heading"). WP:TALKNEW is part of WP:TPG: could you maybe also read my post just above the header you introduced (it is visible in the diff I gave)? Please amend your talk page post on that page so that is compliant to the cited guideline. Tx. --Francis Schonken (talk) 05:28, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
- The substance of what I posted stands, and is so much more important than the formatting guideline you cite, that your focus on the latter is disturbing. Newyorkbrad (talk) 06:05, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
- Disquietingly inadequate response. --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:32, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
Apologies
Somehow, I didn't realize that was an arbcom motion instead of a general request for comments. Sorry for messing things up, and thanks for the cleanup. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:59, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
- It's not a big deal at all. Thanks for taking the time to comment. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:02, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
ARCA
I am not the only one added as involved user in the DS appeal, but also Sandstein. Even GoldenRing recused, because he was involved in the AE. I am appealing against the sanction imposed by an admin, with whom Doug Weller is WP:INVOLVED as recently as this appeal was posted. I asked Doug Weller to recuse and also posted the reasons on his talk page but he is refusing to recuse and thinks that he had to be involved with me then only he could recuse.[1] What are your views? — MapSGV (talk) 16:48, 31 March 2018 (UTC)