User talk:John Vandenberg

Welcome to Meta!

Hello John Vandenberg, and welcome to the Wikimedia Meta-Wiki! This website is for coordinating and discussing all Wikimedia projects. You may find it useful to read our policy page. If you are interested in doing translations, visit Meta:Babylon. You can also leave a note on Meta:Babel (please read the instructions at the top of the page before posting there). If you would like, feel free to ask me questions on my talk page. Happy editing!

Hallo, John Vandenberg, und Willkommen bei Wikimedia Meta-Wiki! Diese Seite ist für die Koordination und Diskussion aller Wikimedia Projekte. Vielleicht findest du es nützlich, unsere Regelseite zu lesen. Wenn du daran interessiert bist, etwas zu übersetzen, besuche Meta:Babylon. Du kannst auch eine Notiz auf Meta:Babel hinterlassen (bitte lies die Anleitung am Anfang der Seite, bevor du schreibst). Wenn du willst, kannst du mir auf meiner Diskussionseite eine Frage stellen. Fröhliches bearbeiten.

Bonjour John Vandenberg, et bienvenue sur le Meta-Wiki de Wikimédia ! Ce site a pour but de coordonner et discuter de l’ensemble des projets Wikimédia. Il vous sera utile de consulter notre page sur les règles de Wikimédia. Si vous êtes intéressé par des projets de traduction, visitez Meta:Babylon. Vous pouvez aussi laisser un message sur Meta:Babel (mais veuillez d’abord lire les instructions en haut de cette page avant d’y poster votre message). Si vous le voulez, vous pouvez me poser vos questions sur ma page de discussion. À bientôt !

Olá John Vandenberg! Seja bem-vindo ao Meta! Este site/sítio é dedicado à discussão e à coordenação de todos os demais projetos da Fundação Wikimedia. Talvez lhe seja útil ler a página contendo a nossa política (em inglês) antes de começar a editar. Se tiver dúvidas, sinta-se à vontade para me fazer perguntas em minha página de discussão, ou deixe uma mensagem para toda a comunidade na Babel, a versão do Meta da Esplanada. Boa sorte!

Hola John Vandenberg! Bienvenido a la Meta-Wiki de la Fundación Wikimedia! Este sitio es para coordinar y discutir todos los proyectos de la Fundación Wikimedia. Tal vez le sea útil leer nuestra página de políticas (en inglés). Si le interesan las traducciones, visite Meta:Babylon. También puede dejar un mensaje en Meta:Babel (pero antes de hacerlo, por favor lea las instrucciones situadas en lo alto de la página). No dude en preguntar si tiene cualquiera duda, o pregunte en mi página de discusión. Buena suerte!

Ciao John Vandenberg! Benvenuto sulla Meta-Wiki della Wikimedia Foundation! Questo sito serve a coordinare e discutere di tutti i progetti della Wikimedia Foundation. Potrebbe esserti utile leggere le nostre policy (in inglese). Se sei interessato a fare traduzioni, visita Meta:Babylon. Puoi anche lasciare un messaggio su Meta:Babel (ma per favore, leggi le istruzioni che si trovano all'inizio della pagina prima di scrivere). Se vuoi, puoi lasciarmi un messagio nella mia pagina di discussione. Buona fortuna!

Ciao John Vandenberg, şi bine aţi venit la Wikimedia Meta-Wiki! Acest website este pentru coordonarea şi discuţiile tuturor proiectelor Wikimedia. Este folositor să citiţi pagina despre politica noastră.. Dacă sunteţi interesaţi de traducere, vizita-ţi Meta:Babylon. De asemenea puteţi lasa o notă pe Meta:Babel (vă rugăm citiţi instrucţiunile de la începutul paginii înainte de a posta acolo). Dacă ai întrebări, nu ezita să mă întrebi pe pagina mea de discuţii talk page. Editare cu succes!

Hej John Vandenberg, och välkommen till Wikimedia Meta-Wiki! Den här sidan är till för att diskutera och samordna alla Wikimedias projekt. Vill du veta mer om sidan, kan vår policy-sida komma väl till pass. Är du intresserad av att hjälpa till med översättningar, besök Meta:Babylon. Du kan också lämna ett meddelande på Meta:Babel (vänligen läs instruktionerna överst på sidan innan du skriver något där). Om du vill, är du välkommen att ställa frågor på min diskussionssida. Lycka till med redigerandet!

Helló John Vandenberg, és üdv a Wikimedia Meta-Wikijén! Ez a weboldal az összes Wikimedia projektet érintő ügyek megtárgyalására és koordinálására szolgál. Hasznosnak találhatod elolvasni az irányelveinket (angolul). Ha szeretnél fordításokat végezni, látogasd meg a Meta:Babylon-t, vagy a Meta:Babel oldalon hagyhatsz üzenetet (mielőtt ide írsz kérlek olvasd el a lap tetején található utasításokat). Ha szeretnél, nyugodtan kérdezz tőlem a vitalapomon. Jó szerkesztést és tartalmas szórakozást! Jó szerkesztést és tartalmas szórakozást!

Здравствуйте, John Vandenberg, и добро пожаловать на Meta-Wiki Фонда Викимедиа! Этот сайт предназначен для координации и обсуждения вопросов, связанных со всеми проектами фонда. Для начала Вы можете ознакомиться с нашими правилами. Если Вы заинтересованы в работе над переводами, посетите Meta:Babylon. Вы также можете обсудить различные вопросы на странице Meta:Babel (пожалуйста, ознакомьтесь с инструкцией сверху, прежде чем писать). Если возникнут вопросы, не бойтесь задавать их мне на моей странице обсуждения. Удачи!

Hola John Vandenberg! Benvingut a la Meta-Wiki de la Fundació Wikimedia! Aquest lloc està fet per a coordinar i discutir tots els projectes de la Fundació Wikimedia. Potser us serà útil llegir la nostra pàgina de polítiques (en anglès). Si us interessen les traduccions, visiteu Meta:Babylon. També podeu deixar un missatge a Meta:Babel (però abans de fer-ho, llegiu les instruccions situades al principi de la pàgina). No dubteu en preguntar si teniu qualsevol dubte. Si cal ho podeu fer en la meva pàgina de discussió. Bona sort!

John Vandenberg, 你好！歡迎光臨維基媒體元維基！這個網站是為協調和討論所有維基媒體項目而設。我們的政策頁可能對您有用。如果您有興趣協助翻譯工作, 請參觀Meta:Babylon。你可在 Meta:Babel 留下口訊 (張貼之前請先讀該頁上指示)。若有問題, 請在我的討論頁問我 。祝
編安!

வணக்கம் John Vandenberg, விக்கிமீடியா மேல்விக்கி! இற்கு நல்வரவு. இவ்விணையத்தளமானது கூட்டாகச் சேர்ந்து விடயங்களை விவாதிப்பதற்கென உருவாக்கப் பட்டது. விக்கித்திட்டங்கள். நீங்கள் எங்களின் பாலிசிகளையும் பாலிசி பக்கம் படித்தறியலாம். நீங்கள் மொழிபெயர்பில் ஆர்வமுடையவராகின், Meta:Babylon ஐப் பார்வையிடவும். நீங்கள் Meta:Babel இல் குறிப்பொன்றையும் விட்டுச் செல்லலாம். (பக்கத்தின் மேலேயிருக்கும் அறிவுறுத்தல்களை வாசித்தபின்னரே அங்கே செய்திகளை இடவும்). நீங்கள் விரும்பினால் எனது பக்கத்தில் செய்தியொன்றை விடவும் talk page. உங்கள் ஆக்கங்களை வரவேற்கின்றோம்!

Cbrown1023 23:47, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

IRC cloak request

I am jayvdb on freenode and I would like the cloak wikimedia/Jayvdb. Thanks. --John Vandenberg 00:24, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

My steward election

Thank you for supporting my steward election having passed with 72-1-4-99%.--Jusjih 23:50, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Wikisource Venetian

Hi, please note that I posted an answer to your last question on Requests for new languages/Wikisource Venetian. If there's anything else that I can do to have my request approved sooner or later, please let me know. Thanks, Candalua 09:31, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

re: Zh.wikinews 文章标记

Are these pages needed on meta: Zh.wikinews 文章标记 ? The templates appear in zh:news:Category:维基整理模板. If you want to retain the history, we could request that zh.wikinews can import the history from meta. John Vandenberg 06:32, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

these pages no needed --Shizhao 06:52, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Special:PrefixIndex/Zh. and Special:PrefixIndex/Template:Zh. no needed--Shizhao 12:16, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Very classy

Thanks for the welcome message John. Take care -- Samir 03:52, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Your question on Stewards/elections 2009/Questions#Jredmond

Hi - not sure if you've noticed, but I answered your question on Stewards/elections 2009/Questions#Jredmond the other day. (There has been a lot of other traffic on that page, so my answer may have gotten lost in the shuffle.) You can read my answer in this diff. Thanks! - jredmond 04:08, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

global rename confirmation

This edit is to confirm that I would like my username changed from "Jayvdb" to "John Vandenberg" on all accounts. John Vandenberg 05:42, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

• DONE on en.wikinews. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 08:54, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

so in ar.wiki--OsamaK 09:37, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

 Done at de.wp — YourEyesOnly 09:51, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

 Done at it.wp & it.source --Frieda 12:49, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, all. John Vandenberg 13:22, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

 Done @eswiki. —Dferg (talk) 13:36, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

 Done es.wikisource, --LadyInGrey 21:50, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

 Not done at fiwiki, the requested username is already taken. — str4nd ⇌ 07:11, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

 Done at fiwiki. — str4nd ⇌ 11:53, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

 Done at cs.wikisource --Milda 05:51, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

 Done at cs.wikipedia --Faigl.ladislav 07:10, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

 Done at nl.wikibooks Pjetter 07:20, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

 Done at lb.wikipedia --Robby 07:57, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

 Done at no.wikipedia Haros 08:36, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Also done at sv.wikisource. /EnDumEn 08:53, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Same  Done @ uk.wikisource. --pavlosh 10:08, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

 Done @ja.wikisource. --kahusi (會話) 11:56, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

 Done @uk.wikipedia --Yakudza 23:19, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

 Done mk.wiki --Бојан

 Done on pt.wikisource. 555 14:50, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

 Done at cy.wikipedia. Anatiomaros = 88.104.160.221 22:22, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

 Done @fa.wikipedia --Mardetanha ^talk 01:49, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

 Done th.wiki --Lerdsuwa 04:46, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

 Done @vi.wiki. DHN 06:42, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

 Done no.wiktionary Mewasul 08:33, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

 Done sk.wikipedia --85.248.47.75 09:04, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

 Done @pl.wikisource Sp5uhe 21:12, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

 Done on tl.wp --Bluemask 07:32, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

 Done on sk.wikisource --AtonX 08:22, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

 Done on jv. wp - Meursault2004 09:22, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

 Done at az.wikipedia - --Sortilegus 11:46, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

 Done at vo.wikipedia. --Malafaya 13:10, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

 Done at sco.wikipedia. Mendor 01:56, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

 Done at he.wikipedia. Magister 08:13, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

 Done at fr.wiktionary. Stephane8888 23:26, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

 Done at simple.wikipedia -Djsasso 12:52, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

 Done at ca.source -Aleator (talk) 18:18, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

 Done at el.wv --ZaDiak 14:13, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

• done for betawikiversity:. Hillgentleman 18:54, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

 Déanta at ga.wikipedia - Alison ^❤ 05:34, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Wikimedia Sudan

I deleted the page, you're right, it made no sense to keep. notafish }<';> 07:25, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Global sysops/vote

Hey John, hope all's well. I noticed that you posted several {{sidebox}}s to comments by users on the Global sysops/Vote page, but only those in the oppose section. I think they're informative, actually, and I can see them helping voters come to a conclusion. But I was wondering if there's any way to do the same for the supporters? I realize that will take endless effort, but as it is, I think it's a bit undue, and has the appearance of trying to sway potential participants. Of course, trying to persuade people is a healthy goal, but I think it would be more fair if both sides had access to these notes. If you have sufficient technical knowledge, maybe you'd be able to program a bot for automatically adding such notes? Cheers, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:53, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

I did my research by hand in order that I could exclude people who only created a userpage, or did other "non-productive" edits.

I look forward to seeing similar annotations to the support column; it will be interesting to see. My gut feeling is that affected users are more likely to vote oppose, so annotating the support column is on my todo list ;-)

If nobody else does it, I will get started on it tomorrow.

John Vandenberg 03:03, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Global sysop - vote

Hello! Request to an administrator – please remove the windows with information about hoe will be affected if the proposal about global sysop won't be accepted. It is an ordinary propaganda and spam. --LidiaFourdraine 11:32, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

It is intended to be information, rather than propaganda.

If you look at the talk page in section Talk:Global_sysops/Vote#Who_decides?, you will see that my concern is that people who are not affected should not be allowed to vote. Many of the voters have never even visited the affected wikis.

John Vandenberg 11:51, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

my vote on global sysops

search the page for my username and it says that Someone was ineligible to vote are you referring to my vote or to the one directly above your comment? Andyzweb 22:50, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

I am referring to the vote by user:Alex norway123.

You are eligible.

John Vandenberg 01:48, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Prod the cardboard cutout

Hope that things are well in your part of the continent. You have been hiding wery wery quietly, hunting wabbits? billinghurst sDrewth 10:24, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Sorry; I'm drowning in paperwork at the office. John Vandenberg 23:55, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Warning

Do not blank other people's statements as you did here. It is inappropriate conduct and not acceptable on Meta. This is an RfC/Proposal, and you do not have the right to remove statements you do not agree with. Ottava Rima (talk) 13:45, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

I have removed it again. Your comment is about other peoples actions in this affair, which is orthogonal to the issue at hand. If you disagree with the petition, state why you disagree with the petition, as written. John Vandenberg 13:57, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

(e/c) p.s. I do not have an opinion on your statement which I removed - I don't doubt that there is some truth in your statement that there have been inappropriate actions by others. I just consider it irrelevant, and that page is a petition.

OTOH, I have no intention of removing anything you say from Requests for comment/Remove Founder flag, even though I disagree with you there. That is an RFC, and room should be given there for discussion, in whatever form it takes.

John Vandenberg 14:07, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

John Vandenberg, you are now vandalising. You do not have the right to blank said section. I have the right to give my reasons however I want in the disagreeing of the petition. You do not have the right to blank other people's comments. Restore it back yourself or, when it is restored back, you will most likely be blocked for repeated vandalism if you try to remove it again. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:01, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Why would you even think you had the right to blank other people's statements? You know that is the very definition of vandalism. What are you trying to do here? Have a melt down and get blocked for whatever reason? If you feel so strongly, turn in your bits and retire. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:05, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Sorry mate, but I am not the melting type. I've explained myself above, and will leave it at that. John Vandenberg 14:14, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Requested your block for repeated vandalism. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:10, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Edit warring over Petition to Jimbo

Please, stop. Another time you remove that section, you will be blocked. vvv^t 14:10, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Ottava Rima and my desysop

[1] Thanks for your comment. Ottava misled the stewards about routine procedure, actual WV policy clearly provides for a 48 hour period to find a new mentor after a withdrawal (or rejection), there is no "routine desysop" based on mentor rejection or expiration of the period, it's been fairly common for actual decision to extend way beyond the "four week period" Ottava cites as if it were a deadline, absolving him of any responsibility for his request, "just routine!." However, until and unless I have a new mentor, it's really moot, and the 'crat can resysop me if he so chooses without steward action. The stewards were correct to request that the request not be discussed there, they really don't want to get deeply into controversy. That Ottava misled them is part of the filing at the custodian feedback report I have filed. This is really Wikiversity business, I'm sure stewards will do whatever we decide (particularly with a 'crat closing). Ottava has also threatened Jtneill, our most active 'crat, with a policy violation report on meta if he does his job.... That's part of the feedback report too. I find Ottava's behavior almost unbelievable, if I hadn't seen him tangling with people elsewhere. Like maybe, above? I've also seen him be right, but he doesn't seem to be able to detach so that he could figure out which is which. --Abd 22:38, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Temp

Hi there! I've granted you temp access to the tool. Have fun working on the fundraiser banners. -Barras 09:56, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll be glad to hand back the tools when it is over! ;-) John Vandenberg 10:48, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Progress bar banner

Just saw that you were makign one, there is actually one I just put up after Moushira asked :) http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/MediaWiki:Centralnotice-shared-2010-fundraising-value-AU is where the amount you've raised is set (the amount left autoupdates). Sadly the bar looks pretty full since 7k is small compared to the total. You can see the banner http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:NoticeTemplate/view&template=20110103_JA058_AU here and the campaign http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:CentralNotice&method=listNoticeDetail&notice=Fundraiser-AU Jalexander 20:59, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. It looks great. I have added a note on the Central Log. John Vandenberg 21:01, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Appreciated thank you! Jalexander 22:23, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Temporary permissions expired

Hello John. The temporary adminship that you requested here has expired. Best regards, --dferg ^{☎ talk} 18:44, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank You

John :) On behalf of WMF I would like to thank you for your cooperation during the last fundraiser and we look forward for more fruitful and successful fundraisers over the next years. Thanks again : --Melamrawy (WMF) 12:06, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Oi! I should be thanking you. Now I feel guilty ;-) You did a wonderful job. John Vandenberg 00:09, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Quillercouch edit

Hi John,

Quillercouch was blocked during the Poetlister/Cato rfc, then unblocked in case he wanted to participate in it, and the subject was dropped. You could certainly make the argument that he should be blocked, as per the current f-l thread, but he's not at the moment. I think the relevant question is whether there should be a cross-project ban for the user, more than a local block for that account. I've reverted your update for clarity; feel free to retag the page if the user's status changes.

–SJ talk | translate   04:13, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

They should be blocked here at meta and I've requested it at Meta:Babel#Poetlister_on_Meta --John Vandenberg 04:21, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Fundraising 2010/Chapters

Thank you very much for updating Wikimedia Australia's row! I have to say, I was quite surprised to see that it made $180K AUD and has no staff. There's only the Board, then? Hmmmm. --MZMcBride 23:51, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Prior to the fundraiser, we had almost no money in the bank, other than relatively grants from the WMF which were for specific purposes. There were talks before the fundraiser about how to employ staff, including sharing staff with similar organisations at a similar level of maturity, like Linux Victoria. After the fundraiser we've been talking a lot about employing people, however one constant problem is that the fundraiser agreement is only a 12 month agreement, which expired June 30, 2011, so we didnt have the financial security needed to employ someone. I'd rather have an imperfect three year contract rather than a 12-month constantly evolving contract, esp. when there is a gorilla in the room and he isn't shy about forcing new terms and conditions down my throat. John Vandenberg 23:59, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Logical contradiction

[2] You cannot remove that while leaving in "and maintained by non-Wikisource contributors". You cannot claim that it is not right for an against to discuss Wikisource community and allow for a for that is based solely on the Wikisource community. You made it clear that your opinion is on one side so it is unseemly for you to remove comments on the opposing side especially in such a contradictory manner. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:43, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

I've revised the argument that I made. I want an informative poll. Both sides need to keep the others arguments in check to ensure they are FUD, misleading or unclear, whether intentional or unintentional. John Vandenberg 03:12, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Your attention is needed

Hi, As a member of the English Arbcom, I want to alert you to a group of users who are, at minimum, biting newbies incessantly. I could, have, and will describe their conduct in more frank terms in other venues. Suffice to say, they need to be looked at-- they appear to be collaborating to perform bot-style deletions of any fair use image they can justify, even "keeping score" as it were. Along the way, they won't issue warnings or have discussions. In years here, two people have manage to piss me off more in one day than others have in years.. If the matter concerns you, you'll know how to find the people I'm talking about. If you've moved beyond wikipedia, I must confess, so have I. If you want this to be a happy place, somebody has to deal with these kids. --Randomcommenter 06:49, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

question

Hello, I could not understand what did you mean under "If there is a problem with the Arbitration Committee on a project, *that* is a valid topic for a meta RFC ". Does it mean that if I have evidences that arbcom acted improperly at my request I could open RFC on meta, concerning arbcom, or you meant something different? Thanks.--Mbz1 05:49, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

First of all, if you arn't happy with a decision of the English Wikipedia Arbitration Committee, you can appeal to Jimmy. (see w:Wikipedia:Arbitration/Policy#Appeal_of_decisions) That is your next appeal venue for an English Wikipedia problem, and you should use it before coming to Meta.

Secondly, you've tried to sell the story on Wikipedia Review and not managed to pique anyones interest. That alone should tell you that you're barking up the wrong tree.

Finally, if you really believe that there is a systemic problem with the English Wikipedia Arbitration Committee, rather than merely that you disagree with a decision they made about yourself, and you believe that the English Wikipedia community cant effectively deal with it, then a Meta RFC would be appropriate. Before exploring that option, I suggest that you consider the following:

1. English Wikipedia frequently has RFCs about their Arbitration Committee, and the community is generally very capable of ripping the ArbCom to shreds. So why do you think the Meta community would be better able to hold an RFC? I have categorised a few of the RFCs at w:Category:Wikipedia Arbitration Committee archives. There is one right now at w:Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Arbitration Committee 3)
2. English Wikipedia has secret elections for the ArbCom, every year, so it would be hard for you to demonstrate to the Meta community that the English Wikipedia community isn't getting the committee that they want.
3. Your situation has been going on for a while, and the committee decision regarding yourself appears to be the consistent despite the members of the committee changing over the years due to the regular turnover of the committee.

To be honest, I don't think you have sufficient grounds to be using the Meta project to review your situation at English Wikipedia. John Vandenberg 08:45, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for responding.

Jimbo does not respond to me.

WR is irrelevant, and proves nothing.

I have at least one evidence that arbcom has never examined at least the latest evidences I presented in RFC.

Besides I see absolutely no confirmation that any of my evidences were looked at ever. Because in none of the emails I have ever got from arbcom there were any specifics about any of the evidences.

I see no reason why arbcom deliberation on my situation should be kept private.

I cannot file RFC on English wikipedia, I am banned there.

Yesterday, one of members of arbcom posted this. So he basically agrees that imposing blocks when involved is misusing the tools. I documented quite a few cases of Gwen Gale misusing the tools while involved. The latest case happened, in the beginning of February. Nobody ever said anything in particular about any of the situations presented in RFC, including,but not limited, to my own.

The only thing I have ever wanted is that somebody looked at my evidences in at least 2 sections of my RFC, and told me where I am getting these wrong not in general phrases, but in particular. Is this so much to ask for? Thanks.--Mbz1 12:19, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

You have received a response from Arbcom. It may not be as detailed as you would like, but you have one. Have you ever received a response from Jimmy? John Vandenberg 02:00, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

John, The RFC I submitted on Meta has about 90%+ of new evidences that were never submitted to arbcom because I was told not to write to them anymore. A few times I posted messages and links to RFC to Jimbo's talk at commons, but he's never responded.

The bottom line: nobody ever looked at new evidences I presented in RFC.--Mbz1 02:10, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Also I was blocked by arbcom for "harassment" against Gwen Gale. I begged them on wiki and off wiki to specify what parts of my RFC they consider to be harassment. I told them I will remove these parts. There was no response.--Mbz1 02:21, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

You should have presented the evidence during your appeal to arbcom. Arbitration policy expressly allows the arbitration committee to tell you to bugger off for a minimum period of time, after which you can appeal again. w:Wikipedia:Arbitration/Policy#Appeal of decisions They typically require that you wait 12 months, which ensures that the committee has a new set of people involved in reviewing the decision.

Is commons:User_talk:Jimbo_Wales#Bullying_on_wikipedia your appeal to Jimbo? Have you emailed him? John Vandenberg 02:27, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

I could not present the evidences before because it took some time to make a research. Arbcom says to wait for 12 months, but this situation is different. There are new evidences that have never been looked at.

I emailed Jimbo the link to RFC on January 20,2012. He's never responded.

The most important part for me is that every arbcom case that contains no private info for anybody involved should be done on wiki. If a user is banned from English wikipedia, it should be done on Meta. Arbcom proceedings should be open, and should be fair. If my request is declined I should be told why. If I am blocked for harassment I should be given specifics and differences. I asked, how many arbitrators,if any voted against my block, but was refused even in this info. --Mbz1 02:57, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

You are not the first person to have new evidences. You are not special. ArbCom tells lots of people to bugger off for 12 months; they have limited time, and need to hear lots of appeals per year.

The arbitration policy disagrees with your opinion regarding ban appeals being done onwiki. Sorry, the community does not agree with you.

Now back to Wikipedia Review. It isn't irrelevant. As a good friend of mine recently said "people do need a space to go and sound off and to get the conspiracy theories out on the table. and I believe that it is called Wikipedia-Review."

That place certainly isnt Meta. Given how many appeals are rejected by En.WP arbcom, even if only a fraction appeal at Meta, this place would be overrun by nutcases complaining about situations which are not meta - they are English Wikipedia centric problem, much like your one.

If you believe there is a fundamental problem with the ban appeals system, you should be able to convince someone at en.WP that an RFC is needed. Of course you can't submit the RFC yourself because you are banned from English Wikipedia, however if your concerns and recommendations are sensible, you should be able to convince people who arn't banned to instigate an RFC, and credit you if appropriate. WR is a great venue for banned people to connect to WP people on an even playing field. If you cant get WR people to listen to you, you are a nutcase beyond saving. John Vandenberg 03:24, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

John, I am not going to appeal my ban. I am trying to do something about bullying on Wikipedia. The RFC I submitted was started before the ban, and even before the block by arbcom. This case is not about me. I could wait for 12 months. The users who are getting blocked (bullied) by an involved admin cannot.--Mbz1 03:35, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Encourage the other banned people to appeal, or encourage someone in good standing to start an enwp RFCU on the bullies. Or find something else to do with your time. I recommend Wikisource :P John Vandenberg 03:40, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

I have no communications with any banned people.

I am more than 100% sure, that if somebody is silly enough to start RFC/U concerning Gwen Gale on English wiki, he would end up blocked. While I was doing my research I saw many evinces that Gwen Gale is "a protected admin".The way I am being treated now is the best demonstration what will happen to anybody who dares to speak up against Gwen Gale.

I have to finish up what I started. There's is only one more step to go. I will file RFC concerning arbcom and Jimbo, and then I will probably end up globally blocked, but I will know I've done everything I could. I have to do it. I own it to the victims of bullying.

You explained to me why you do not believe Meta is a good place for arbitration cases. Maybe you could explain to me why cases that are decided via email cannot be cc to the subjects of these cases. Thanks.--Mbz1 03:53, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Wikimania 2011

Hi John.

Yes. The workshop was held although I didn’t attend because of a serious personal problem. You can find more info here: [3] It is in Catalan but you have a good Catalan English translator here: [4].--Gomà 10:36, 13 February 2012 (UTC)