Open main menu

User talk:AReaderOutThataway

Australian monarchyEdit

Howdy. Would you clarify you position at the Rfc on Monarchy of Australia? GoodDay (talk) 22:02, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Done. — AReaderOutThatawayt/c 22:42, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
PS: Sorry, I didn't notice that "both" was ambiguous in the context (both titles vs. both people). — AReaderOutThatawayt/c 00:46, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
If you're supporting using both queen & head of state in the intro? then you'd be supporting Both. GoodDay (talk) 00:50, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
Yeah, I've already cleared up what I meant over at the main thread. — AReaderOutThatawayt/c 02:08, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 7Edit

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Riding Pony, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Equestrian (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:24, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Fixed. — AReaderOutThatawayt/c 13:20, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks from a noobEdit

Hi - Just a note of thanks for your thorough feedback in Talk:Hewlett-Packard as part of a move discussion, earlier this month. Learned a lot about WP protocol. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Evanhatesspam (talkcontribs) 23:40, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

@Evanhatesspam: Glad to help. Absorbing all the policy and guideline details (and their contextual interactions) takes a few years! — AReaderOutThatawayt/c 16:22, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Caves of FujianEdit

  Resolved: Category kept.

A tag has been placed on Category:Caves of Fujian requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Liz Read! Talk! 01:49, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Alternate accounts in project spaceEdit

Please see the second bullet point in WP:BADSOCK, which says that undisclosed alternative accounts may not edit project space. If you've abandoned your old account, fine – but please mark this as a "clean start" or something, not an alternative account. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:25, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

This is not an undisclosed alternative account.  — AReaderOutThatawayt/c 08:31, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
Could you point us to where you have disclosed it? – Joe (talk) 06:53, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
I disclosed it directly to WP:ARBCOM (via their mailing list) when I ran for ArbCom under my main account. Among other times. I've never been secretive about who this account belongs to, other than I don't state it out loud on this account's pages, for doxing-avoidance reasons. The main reason I created this was for editing potentially controversial topics. I also use it sometimes when escaping tendentious hounding by a few weirdos, in lieu of taking a 100% wikibreak. I've both stated in article and project space that this is me, when asked, and in private e-mail when anyone asks, and even on main main account's talk page where I've posted as me but using this account (see, e.g., the thread "Thank you" (24–28 August 2019) on that account's talk page, among others). I don't list it on my main account's non-talk page in my accounts userbox because that would defeat the purpose of having an alternative account that isn't obviously me to someone trying to dig up dirt on me via Google, etc. I normally edit under my real name here, so this matters. But WP regulars already know who this is.  — AReaderOutThatawayt/c 00:31, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

─────── Comment on behalf of the Arbitration Committee:

Hi, AReaderOutThataway. Any user may provide ArbCom with a "notification" that they are editing from a second account.  ArbCom receives and records those notifications under the provisions of WP:SOCK#NOTIFY.  Notifying ArbCom provides a defence against allegations that you were not readying the account for use in some nefarious purpose.  You have told someone about the account, so you cannot later be "caught in the act" of having an undisclosed second account.

However, notifying ArbCom of the second account does not provide you with permission to misuse an account.  The community has adopted clear guidelines about what will constitute misuse of an account.  Edits to the project space (discussions internal to the project) will always be misuse, as will a number of other forms of behaviour.  Although ArbCom does not proactively monitor the use of accounts disclosed to it, the committee will act upon reports of disruptive or inappropriate behaviour.

We do not agree with your using this account to edit the project space  Please now either expressly disclose the connected account on-wiki or cease making edits from this account that are not acceptable within the WP:SOCK policy.  We remind you that the use of any Wikipedia account, but especially secondary accounts, is a privilege extended on the basis of trust that the user will comply with policy and further breaches are likely to result in additional sanctions. For the Arbitration Committee, AGK ■ 12:31, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

@AGK: Please diff something you think violates that policy. Not only have I been clear on my regular account's talk page that this is my alt, I've even said so in an actual post to a project talk page. There's nothing secretive about it. I'm simply not making it super-mega-obvious to offsite-people who this account resolves to, for reasons already stated clearly above. And I'd already gone back to using my regular account when you posted this unnecessarily accusative and diffless socking aspersion. Given WP:ASPERSIONS and its close connection to WP:ARBCOM that's especially ironic and disturbing. Both of your "either expressly disclose the connected account on-wiki or cease making edits from this account" conditions have already been met. And "cease making edits from this account that are not acceptable within the WP:SOCK policy" with no evidence of any such transgression is just one of those "Have you stopped beating your spouse yet?" fallacies. I've been conscientious of not !voting twice in any discussion. If someone thinks I've erred somewhere in that regard, they're free to point it out and I'll go fix it.  — AReaderOutThatawayt/c 20:06, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
I've taken this up in e-mail to arbcom-l.  — AReaderOutThatawayt/c 16:48, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
Responding to your 29 October comment: the problem is simpler. You have been editing the project space from an undisclosed alt. Until you disclose the alt, any edit you make to the project space is a breach of WP:SOCK. I do not think your recent disclosure is good enough; why should future users interacting with your alt be expected to trawl the history of this talk page? Why can you not adopt the practice of hundreds – or thousands – of other users by posting a simple template like {{User alternative account}} on the userpage? This comment is intended to be useful advice and is not a directive from the committee. AGK ■ 14:47, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
@AGK: You don't appear to be absorbing anything at all about what I'm saying, simply re-asserting your own viewpoint as if it has not been challenged and as if it's problems have not already been laid out. See proof by verbosity. Again: 1) That template is not required, on any page. (If you want WP to adopt a precise and formal definition of and process for "disclosure", you know where WP:VPPRO is.) 2) I've disclosed this account's and the other account's connection here, in project-talk space, and at the other account's talk page, and to ArbCom, and to various individuals who've asked. That is more than enough disclosure, and it absolutely is not a BADSOCK breach. If you think otherwise, you know where to file a noticeboard request about it. 3) Using the template you like so much, or one of its alternatives, would defeat the entire purpose of this account, as has already been explained to you here, and at ArbCom-L, and was already made clear on this talk page before you butted in. And, yeah, it's obviously not a directive from the committee, because they would not have missed all three of these points back to back.  — AReaderOutThatawayt/c 04:10, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

Dispute resolutionEdit

Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Manzanar — Preceding unsigned comment added by BeenAroundAWhile (talkcontribs)

This is already closed as having been at the wrong venue.  — AReaderOutThatawayt/c 00:34, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
Return to the user page of "AReaderOutThataway".