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)

Comment on activity of RfC creation (as per your suggestion)

FYI:

• Here is my comment
• Here is my comment being removed
• Here is my null edit documenting removal of comment

No comment. -- Proofreader77 (talk) 09:52, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

question

Hi John,

Here it states that I was community banned "for repeated harrassment and defamation of administrators over a period of several years". I am not even saying that there was not a single difference to prove claims of "harrassment and defamation", but I cannot understand "several years".

Here's a timeline:

1. 23 December 2010 Gwen Gale blocks me.
2. 29 December 2010 I am awarding Gwen a barnstar for kindness.
3. 19 March 2011 Gwen Gale gives cookies to me.
4. 20 March 2011 I am awarding Gwen a barnstar for good sense of humor
5. 20 March 2011 I am giving Gwen Gale a wikilove message.
6. 5 April 2011 votes to topic ban me while heavily involved with the content covered by ARBPIA. I have never seen any other admin who made even small edits to the articles under ARBPIA commenting in the section for uninvolved administrators. Most of the time the really uninvolved administrators even will not revert either clear vandalism or BLP violations.
7. 4 January 2012‎ I started working on RFC.

OK, let's even assume I started "defaming" Gwen right after March 20,2011 (there's no single evidence to support this, but let's assume). I was banned on February 13,2012. Where are several years? Were these "several years" added to legitimize the ban that cannot be legitimized? Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 20:02, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Still counting? D=--Mbz1 (talk) 00:04, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

I will respond later today. John Vandenberg (talk) 04:58, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Sorry I havent responded yet. Thank goodness it is Friday! John Vandenberg (talk) 02:48, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

No worries John. You are not alone. Neither members of arbcom nor WMF employee were able to solve this problem either. Is there a requirement that before one runs for arbcom one has to prove he does not know arithmetic :-) When I asked arbcom the same question they emailed me back, and told me they will not alter lies in my record, and, if I dare to email them again they will never respond, and, if I email them earlier than in a year, they will not respond to me for another year and so on, and so on :-) I felt really sorry for them, when I was reading this eamil. It was like this email was written by spoiled children. Anyway... --Mbz1 (talk) 06:01, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

But listen, now I know that at last some members of arbcom are honest and unafraid: [5] --Mbz1 (talk) 18:19, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Sorry for "copy-paste". See I thought that, if you have difficulties in counting, you might have difficulties in reading the differences too. I am relieved it is not the case :-) Cheers.--Mbz1 (talk) 17:42, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

I needed to review everything to be sure, to be sure. With regards to your concerns about the wording, I concur. I think this has been addressed by subsequent edits by Tarc & ASCIIn2Bme, and I have made a further edit.[6]

Arbcom's role is to review ban appeals; not fix up summaries placed all over the project. You should feel sorry for Arbcom; they need to put in about 20+ hours per week just reading emails sent to "arbcom-l" and email addressed to them directly while being primarily related to ArbCom activities. Overworked and underpaid. John Vandenberg (talk) 03:05, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for response:

I am afraid I cannot feel sorry for arbcom because nobody forces anybody to run for arbcom. If one likes what one is doing, the time spent doing this does not count as work, and there's no need to mention this time. If one does not like what one is doing, there's always a choice to resign. I mean sometimes one needs to make money, and has no choice, but members of arbcom have a choice. They are doing what they are doing not for money.

Also, I'd like to ask you, John Vandenberg, as a former member of arbcom, do you believe that arbcom had any merits to block me. I mean blocks should not be punitive, and I was under a self-requested block on English wiki since July of 2011. So what exactly they wanted to prevent? Did they want to punish me, or they wanted to scare me? In any case that block without even a warning violates the blocking policy.

Could you please give me a good reason or a few why I was not included in email exchange between members of arbcom, concerning me? I believe such communications, except only the cases, where user privacy is involved, should be done in a special place on Wiki or at least the subject of the case should be cc each and every email between members of arbcom concerning his case. Otherwise these closed proceedings look much more than closed tribunals.

And the last question. Some users told me I was harassing Gwen Gale, but I kept asking what particular statements of mine could have been read as harassment, nobody ever provided any specifics. Maybe you will be kind enough to help me with this? Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 04:06, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm not going to get into a discussion with you about your block or ban appeal on English Wikipedia. Arbcom's decision is that you can appeal the ban next year. Arbcom's process for ban appeals is defined at w:Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Procedures#Ban_appeals - the English Wikipedia community can propose improvements to that if they feel it is necessary. John Vandenberg (talk) 04:44, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

It is what I thought.

members of arbocm are delusional, if they believe I will ever appeal the ban. Persecution by a closed inquisition's tribunals, and a lynch mob's execution are not something I am going to recognize as a legitimate actions, and not something I am going to appeal ever.

Bye.--Mbz1 (talk) 05:32, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

question

Hi John,

I said a few times in a few places I wish both my user page and my talk page to be replaced with "banned user" template, and it is what I meant. So far my request was not acted upon, but Rd232 changed my editnotice http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Mbz1/Editnotice&oldid=478334801 I repeatedly asked him to change it back, but he refused. The only messages I get at my talk now are from IPs, who have questions about my pictures. They know nothing about wikipedia. It is not the right thing to do to send them to a different place to post. They may never get here. I could read my talk page, and most of the times these IP leave enough info for me to find them and to contact them.

May I please ask you to change my editnotice as it used to be, or act on my other request about redirecting my talk to my user page, leaving only the template there, that IP would not be able to find it.

Thanks,--Mbz1 (talk) 03:30, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

No. John Vandenberg (talk) 09:15, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

I am more than sure that, if somebody redirected my talk to my user page, and I asked you to undo this redirect, the response would have been "no" too, which proves yet another time that you are a great representative of the tyranny of the ignorant. --Mbz1 (talk) 14:36, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

BGC edits

Hello John,

We're in a Board meeting at the moment, and reviewing open resolutions including the approval of the board Governance Committee charter. That was Matt reverting your change to the page about the BGC -- the committee is permanent now, not interim. The three current board committees (BGC, HR Committee, Elections Committee) were confirmed as permanent in our July 2010 meeting (that shows up in the meeting minutes, but didn't rise to the level of a resolution).

While your additions seem accurate, they give an unbalanced view of the committee's current structure and work; could you comment on the updates you'd like to see on the talk page, and why you think that level of detail is appropriate for the first months of the committee's work? Do you want to see all committees publish similar quarterly summaries?

Regards, –SJ talk  15:11, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

I was documenting the part of the history that I was researching at the time, which was the replacement of NomCom. The April-June BGC made some very important recommendations, which influenced the BoT structure going forward. Sorry I went to bed before writing the entire history of the BGC ;-) Of course additional information is needed for the activities and structure of these committees after the June 2010 WMF board meeting. Whether or not three monthly reports are useful depends on the level of activity of the various committees, however changes to the membership and activities of these committees should always been recorded, preferably on meta, and ideally without reverting members of the community who 'seem' to be helping by adding accurate information where previously there was nothing. ;-) John Vandenberg (talk) 15:29, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Global bans policy discussion

At Requests for comment/Global bans, where you have commented in support of Option 2, a third option has recently been implemented. The first two options did not prove a way for respondents to indicate that they oppose global bans entirely, i.e., that it is not possible to write a meaningful global bans policy that would attract their support. Option 3 is intended to provide that opportunity, and to aid in distinguishing between people who oppose the proposed policy because it requires improvements and those who oppose the proposed policy because no policy permitting global bans should be adopted.

Because the third section was added late by a respondent, it is possible that some people who responded early in the RFC have commented at option 2, but would really prefer to support option 3, or support both. If so, you may voluntarily choose to move your original comment or to or strikethrough your original comment and add new comments. This is a courtesy notice of the change, and there is no requirement that you take any action. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:51, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Talk:Wikimedia_Chapters_Association/Resolutions/2012_SG_recruitment#Alternatives

I am not always free these days, and since I am not a WCA member I usualy prioritize it lower than other activities I have to do. Nevertheless, I answered your question in this page. I try to follow but it anything is needed from me it is usually better to send me an email (which I check regularily), write on my user talk page on he.wiki (which I check few times a week) or my talk page here (which I check once every full moon). Tomer A. -- Talk 13:25, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thanks so much for filling in a response on the Scholarships talk page! I (obviously) missed that request for more information! Jwild (talk) 19:40, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

FDC proposal

Hi JV, I hope you are well. Can you say a bit more about this? Not needed this half-year? –SJ talk  04:57, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Candidacy statement needs to be shortened

Hi John, your candidacy statement is about 400 characters too long, and will be abridged by the Election Committee at the 1200-character mark if you don't make these changes promptly. By promptly, I mean before I finish reviewing that all candidates for all roles meet criteria, so about half an hour. Thanks for your attention to this. Risker (talk) 00:08, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

I've fixed that. Thanks Risker. John Vandenberg (talk) 00:26, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost

Dear John,

I've emailed you on a Signpost matter.

Kind regards, Tony (talk) 02:31, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Done John Vandenberg (talk) 06:01, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Important announcement: Election delayed by one week

The Election Committee regrets to advise that it is necessary to delay the start of voting in the WMF Elections 2013 for one week. This delay is being implemented for three reasons:

• We have been unable to verify that the list of eligible voters is complete and that all voters meet the published criteria
• We have been unable to verify that the SecurePoll setups for the election are properly functioning
• The voter interfaces have not been translated and are not currently available in any language other than English, thus disadvantaging Wikimedians who do not read English.

The following changes are now made to the Election timeline:

• 8-22 June 2013: elections
• 23-25 June 2013: vote-checking
• 25-28 June: publication of results.

For the Election Committee, Risker (talk) 21:01, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Thank you Risker. John Vandenberg (talk) 22:20, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Personal ideas and plan

Hello JV, thank you for writing out your thoughts and dreams long-form. I was worried when you didn't respond to the questions at first, but really appreciate your thoughtful comments and ideas. I am glad you decided to take part in the election, and hope we can sort all of our ideas into something constructive beyond just this process. –SJ talk  13:49, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

I was a bit slow starting. I was also a bit worried, as I needed to work offline a lot of the time. :)

Are you thinking of the candidates doing that sorting of ideas now, or after the election? If we did it now, could it run into trouble wrt "[running] on a slate with other candidates", which does seems anti-collaborative. ;-)

Anyway, now or later, count me in. It would be good to take the nuggets from these election pages (and some of the questions are the real nugget) and put them into a better format for collaborative editing so those concepts can be polished and have more community engagement, and maybe picked up by some of the board members, whoever they are, and put into effect. John Vandenberg (talk) 14:49, 8 June 2013 (UTC)