User talk:George Ho

I am diagnosed with "moderate autism". I am doing and will continue to do my best to be civil, especially when issues with me are raised, especially by newcomers. If any of my edits is uncivil, please address it, so I will stop whatever is considered uncivil. However, civility is subjective. Even so, I will resist doing something considered uncivil until an edit is decided as civil.

Further note, I relinquished my rights to edit "extended confirmed"-protected pages, so I cannot edit those pages at this time.

Archives

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/The Rambling Man

An arbitration case regarding The Rambling man has now closed and the final decision is viewable at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:

The Rambling Man (talk · contribs)'s resignation as an administrator is to be considered under controversial circumstances, and so his administrator status may only be regained via a successful request for adminship.
The Rambling Man (talk · contribs) is prohibited from insulting and/or belittling other editors. If The Rambling Man finds himself tempted to engage in prohibited conduct, he is to disengage and either let the matter drop or refer it to another editor to resolve. If however, in the opinion of an uninvolved administrator, The Rambling Man does engage in prohibited conduct, he may be blocked for a duration consistent with the blocking policy. The first four blocks under this provision shall be arbitration enforcement actions and may only be reviewed or appealed at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard. Should a fifth block prove necessary, the blocking administrator must notify the Arbitration Committee of the block via a Request for Clarification and Amendment so that the remedy may be reviewed. The enforcing administrator may also at their discretion fully protect The Rambling Man's talk page for the duration of the block.
Nothing in this remedy prevents enforcement of policy by uninvolved administrators in the usual way.
The Rambling Man (talk · contribs) and George Ho (talk · contribs) are indefinitely prohibited from interacting with, or commenting on, each other anywhere on Wikipedia (subject to the ordinary exceptions).
George Ho (talk · contribs) is indefinitely restricted from participating in selecting main page content. For clarity, this means he may not participate in:
1. Any process in which the content of the main page is selected, including Did you know?, In the news, On this day, Today's featured article, Today's featured list, and Today's featured picture.
2. Any process in which possible problems with the content of the main page are reported, including WP:ERRORS and Talk:Main Page.
3. Any discussion about the above processes, regardless of venue.
He may edit articles linked from or eligible to be linked from the main page (e.g., the current featured article) and may participate in content review processes not directly connected to main page content selection (e.g., reviewing Featured article candidates). He may request reconsideration of this restriction twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every six months thereafter.
The community is encouraged to review the selection process for the Did you know and In the news sections of the main page. The community is also reminded that they may issue topic bans without the involvement of the Arbitration Committee if consensus shows a user has repeatedly submitted poor content, performed poor reviews, or otherwise disrupted these processes.

For the Arbitration Committee, Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 05:01, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/The Rambling Man

Interaction Ban Reminder

Hello,

I’m writing to remind you that as a result of the arbitration case that both you and The Rambling Man are prohibited from interacting with each other, barring the usual exceptions. Recently, you posted questions to the election pages of multiple candidates where you indirectly made reference to The Rambling Man. (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15) Please note that such comments are not permitted under the interaction ban and further instances will result in a block. Best regards, Mike V • Talk 22:59, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I won't do that anymore for now, Mike. Shall I report this the next time it happens? Or can someone else do it? George Ho (talk) 23:51, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If you are referring to a violation of the interaction ban, you can mention it another admin once. Otherwise, it would be best to avoid all discussion related to The Rambling Man. Mike V • Talk 23:55, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Shall I report his attempts to excuse himself to you, Mike? I felt unease when he made indirect references by saying "canvassing". I was prompted to ask questions when mentioned "canvassed". Is ~~this~~ his actions at the questions subpages excusable? George Ho (talk) 00:11, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

At this point, a warning has been made and I've encouraged him to leave things alone. I think that is sufficient for now. Mike V • Talk 00:26, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Just wanted to drop a note that, as a result of extensive community discussion and numerous issues, the warning issued above has been overturned. [1] Regards, The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 22:36, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration enforcement block

To enforce an arbitration decision and for violating IBAN with The Rambling Man at Talk:2017 (such as the Talk:2017#2017 Manchester Arena bombing section and discussion regarding the "Cholera outbreak"), you have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours. You are welcome to edit once the block expires; however, please note that the repetition of similar behavior may result in a longer block or other sanctions.

If you believe this block is unjustified, please read the guide to appealing blocks (specifically this section) before appealing. Place the following on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Please copy my appeal to the [[WP:AE|arbitration enforcement noticeboard]] or [[WP:AN|administrators' noticeboard]]. Your reason here OR place the reason below this template. ~~~~}}. If you intend to appeal on the arbitration enforcement noticeboard I suggest you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template on your talk page so it can be copied over easily. You may also appeal directly to me (by email), before or instead of appealing on your talk page. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:35, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reminder to administrators: In May 2014, ArbCom adopted the following procedure instructing administrators regarding Arbitration Enforcement blocks: "No administrator may modify a sanction placed by another administrator without: (1) the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or (2) prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" [in the procedure]). Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped."

Good article criteria

Any reason you changed this back? You overrode the outcome at Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations#Quick fails, yet your edit summary suggested otherwise. I do see how you may have gotten confused, as the closer cited this difference, which accidentally changed the GA criteria, but his or her wording highly implies that the wording should be reverted back prior to the aforementioned change he cited, and that's what the closure actually did. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 20:23, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that. I did get confused because of the diff, so I self-reverted the misassumption, Yellow Evan. --George Ho (talk) 20:33, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Move review for Damn (Kendrick Lamar album)

An editor has asked for a Move review of Damn (Kendrick Lamar album). Because you were involved in the move discussion for this page, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the move review. — TheMagnificentist 12:15, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Ally mcbeal season 4 cast.jpg

⚠
Thanks for uploading File:Ally mcbeal season 4 cast.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:33, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cold War II

I read article about World War 3 between us and China it mistake on Cold War 2 page so sorry about this. GAJJR (talk) 01:43, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, GAJJR, but may you please continue discussing at Talk:Cold War II#CNBC article (August 2017) please? Also, may you undo the addition? Thanks. --George Ho (talk) 01:46, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]