User talk:The Four Deuces/Archives/2013/August

Tea Party movement case - final decision motion
This is a courtesy notice to inform you that a motion (which affects you) has been proposed to close the Tea Party movement case. For the Arbitration Committee, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 01:00, 30 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Same boat. Calvinball.  Also WP:Tiptibism if you do not mind me using my own apt essay.  Cheers. Collect (talk) 11:38, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Looks like ST added both of us -- which is odd since he gave me a barnstar . Wonder where I ought to place it now? Collect (talk) 21:48, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I suggested that ST is not "uninvolved" if he added people at the last second -- see my comment on the proposed decision talk page. Cheers. Collect (talk) 22:05, 31 July 2013 (UTC)


 * I think you were added on the request of Nuclear Warfare. Along with WLRoss, Xenophrenic, and myself, we were all notified by Penwhale at the same time (18:27, 16 July 2013). Thanks for mentioning me in your comments about the decision.  As I explained I don't see how it makes sense to hold an enquiry, then add parties with no evidence being presented and begin voting before they have been notified on the possible decision.  TFD (talk) 22:38, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't care who added anyone - the point is that adding people at the end of the case and then rewriting ArbCom rules to allow for any punishment which it deems good for the encyclopedia even without a case at all seems a tad far from what the community expects of that committee. It basically turns that committee into a Star Chamber at the very least. Cheers. Collect (talk) 22:45, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
 * BTW, in your 1200 editor count - did you count those who opined on noticeboards and on all the related pages? . I find NW's comments about how upset he is that ArbCom must make this silly decision. Collect (talk) 14:21, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I clicked on "Page information" under the Toolbox for Tea Party movement. It says there are 1,524 "distinct authors."  I did not include anything else - I am not that familiar with the available tools.  TFD (talk) 14:36, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
 * If we were truly "inclusive" I suggest the number is over 2000 editors who should be "included" if they were remotely consistent here.  Including a bunch of admins who made non-admin actions there, and those who commented on noticeboards.  I find the "proposed decision" to be well beyond ludicrous indeed, and am happy you concur. Collect (talk) 14:46, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Over the weekend, I spent some time looking over the archives and also back on the moderated discussion and after all that, I couldn't find a single thing that would put you in an arb case for anything let alone this. I didn't find anything that would justify adding Collect or several of the others either. Not sure it will carry any weight, but I do support leaving off your names from the list. Malke 2010 (talk) 22:18, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you. TFD (talk) 22:39, 5 August 2013 (UTC)


 * It seems all the Arbs have relayed that certain editors clearly deserve sanctions and others clearly do not. That's where their rational thought takes a turn into some odd PC social experiment. Timmy's allergic to peanuts so the entire class cannot have anything which contains peanuts or traces thereof. Except that would actually make some sense per safety concerns. I have no idea who ArbCom thinks they'd be protecting by punishing the whole class. Or why they would need their protection. †TE†   Talk  22:37, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, it's not at all clear what's going on. I can understand adding Ubikwit, and of course Xenophrenic has always been there really, but the rest of you doesn't make sense. Let's hope it gets concluded soon. Malke 2010 (talk) 22:50, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Talkback
Gaijin42 (talk) 20:33, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks
...for your support. It was wonderful to see an old friend. ```Buster Seven   Talk  00:23, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Nomination of Timeline of Rob Ford video scandal for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Timeline of Rob Ford video scandal is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Timeline of Rob Ford video scandal until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Drmies (talk) 21:56, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Congrats
Look like AGK does not have you in his sights any more - but he still is aiming at me (sigh). Cheers. Collect (talk) 17:29, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Racism in the Islamophobia article
I have already made very clear what the reasons are on the talk page. Please send any arguments there.-Rainbowofpeace (talk) 02:49, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Please discuss on the article talk page rather than here. TFD (talk) 02:54, 29 August 2013 (UTC)