User talk:Guerillero/Archives/2016/October

followup to a concern

In several edits ending with this one, I revised my statement, largely to respond to your stated concern ("I don't see an acceptance here of the issues that lead to this topic ban and a willingness not to repeat them.") I hope it is not awkward that my revised statement, although it now has a revised date, appears to be the statement that your comment is directly replying to. I would change how it looks if I could understand how any back-and-forth is supposed to be reflected. But mainly, especially as yours is the only response from an arbitrator so far, I'd be happy to see you revise your negative view there, if you think my revised statement satisfies your concern.

Note in my revised statement, I express disagreement that there is any topic ban against me, which I mean in good faith based on what my interpretation of a topic ban is. So I am reading your statement effectively as addressing "issues that led to the continuing restriction". I try to make it clear that there's no reason to think I would abuse a restored right to create new NRHP articles, by my pointing to new ones I have created by AFC and by stating that I want no issue there to come up ever again. Do I need to be more explicit? I revised my statement to address other issues areas, though I don't see what other issue causes a need for the editing restriction on new NRHP articles. If my revised statement doesn't satisfy your concern, I'd be happy to get any feedback from you as to what you think is missing or needed.

BTW, I didn't mention it at the Amendment request, but I also gave notice to the NRHP wikiproject about it. If that suffices or a different notice is needed, should that be mentioned? By me?

I will watch here for any reply, but I don't mean to push you to reply outside of the formal process if it's not convenient or for any other reason. If you don't reply I will get the implication that you don't think there's enough movement somehow. Sincerely, --doncram 19:04, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

I will look into this --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 21:54, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 14 October 2016

• News and notes: Fundraising, flora and fauna

• Discussion report: Cultivating leadership: Wikimedia Foundation seeks input

• In the media: A news columnist on the frustrations of tweaking his Wikipedia bio

• Technology report: Upcoming tech projects for 2017

• Featured content: Variety is the spice of life

• Traffic report: Debates and escapes

• Recent research: A 2011 study resurfaces in a media report

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:28, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

31 hour CU block?

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&action=view&page=Oneshotofwhiskey&type=block

I'm confused because the editor in question is at an Arb request, and I saw the block template but he wasn't blocked, and frankly, I've never seen a 31 hour CU block, so here I am asking so I can understand. I see the UTRS, but no explanation, or if it is all private, just delete this comment. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 22:58, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

@Dennis Brown:I made the block after consulting with another CU based off of CU evidence. Due to the privacy policy, I can't really say more --In actu (Guerillero) | My Talk 14:09, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

I was also confused by this, particularly as the talk page message left indicated that the block was indefinite, which as has been pointed out it was not and has now expired. Perhaps there should be a different template for such temporary CU blocks, if they are needed for some reason?--Noren (talk) 22:58, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

There really should be --In actu (Guerillero) | My Talk 14:48, 20 October 2016 (UTC)