User talk:Georgewilliamherbert/Archives/2010/April

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Re: "poking"

Are you kidding me? That must be a joke. What exactly have I done wrong? Why are other users allowed to comment about that case and give their support to the user who infringed on the rules, and yet I am not allowed to make my own observations? What I said was completely true. Factomancer said that she only stumbled upon Mbz1's new article because it was on her watch list thanks to Avenue editing it. That makes no sense. Watch lists do not work that way, and you are aware of that. I do not appreciate your warning on my talk page. As an admin, I would expect better from you. Factomancer is the one who has violated her sanctions, and yet you are defending her and when she sees the messages you left me, she will feel empowered to keep violating it. Breein1007 (talk) 04:02, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

You are already involved, and not exhibiting good and independent judgement. You are using their behavior as an excuse to attack, and are attacking on their talk page rather than asking for intervention by uninvolved administrators.
That is a direct violation of WP:NPA.
If you violate policy in attacking Factomancer you're going to be held as accountable for it as they were for earlier incidents.
Again - Knock it off. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 04:11, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
Hi Georgewilliamherbert , I wonder, if you may consider to implement that ban condition about removing "pre-existing "baits" please. I will really appreciate it very much. Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 04:20, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
I don't consider you removing anything off your talk page to be a violation, in any way, no matter who put it there.
If anyone objects, let me know, and point them here. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 04:25, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
I sent you email. Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 04:34, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

More disruption by the Mbz1-Stellarkid tag-team

Hi George.

I'm getting rather fed up with being stalked by this Mbz1/Stellarkid tag-team now. Mbz1 has just even disrupted a Sockpuppet report here in order to attack me. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Junief&oldid=353462704 This is getting ridiculous now. I have had my right of reply there, I won't be baited further by Mbz1 at that Sockpuppet section. Cheers Vexorg (talk) 01:58, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

And I thought she only loved me. Unomi (talk) 02:14, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
It's obsessive Vexorg (talk) 02:21, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
Thats the thread that got me involved in the I/P articles!, I should have stayed in bed that day :( On the up side I have made loads new friends. Unomi (talk) 02:26, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Another example of time wasting another editor by Mbz1 Vexorg (talk) 16:27, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Factomancer

Given that you & Daniel Case have queried the lastest block and that Sanstein has stated "If an administrator disagrees with this block, they are welcome to lift it." [1] could you please consider undoing the block? Aside from the obvious merits of the request, Factomancer has been treated shabbily with the previous block's request being declined by mistake and this one having to be re-requested because it was left on hold. Misarxist (talk) 09:52, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

At this particular instant, no. I am, as I said, not entirely in agreement with Sandstein on that block, but he is another administrator with a long track record of fairly and impartially engaging in disruptive situations to calm them down. I may discuss it further with him tomorrow, but I don't intend to overturn it at least without that further discussion.
This is all highly complicated now by ongoing multi-party disruption from others, related to the Israeli / Palestinian conflict, on both sides. Even if that particular block was somewhat unfair, we are likely to have to issue much wider, many more editor sanctions (edit restrictions, topic bans, interaction bans, blocks, possibly community bans) in the not too distant future.
I think that Factomancer has gotten a somewhat shorter end of the stick than they deserved given the overall situation, but it's escalating in many sectors overall and perfectly fair treatment of all the individual parties is likely going to be impossible. Balanced in the not-taking-sides sense, hopefully, but perfectly fair will just not happen. I don't like that, but it's reality of what we have to deal with in complicated enforcement situations. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 10:12, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Responses to the 2006 Duke University lacrosse case

Accusing me of sharing political sentiments with a racist, antisemitic Black supremacist—as Nicmart did—is a personal attack. I shouldn't have responded in kind, and I'm sorry that I did. I'll try to be more thoughtful and less impulsive in the future. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 18:53, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

What are you doing?

You've been running around doing a bunch of edits that would appear to be extremely bad April 1 pranks, except you appear to be serious about it, and it's well past the "It's not funny anymore" point.

Please stop. You're well into disruption now. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 08:52, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

For example? ¦ Reisio (talk) 14:51, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
You asked, on your talk page, what I thought you were doing which was disruptive. So -
Edit warring at Compact fluorescent lamp to remove cited content which multiple other editors have restored, including questionable edit summaries: "sure, but ASSUMING pigs fly and ASSUMING muppets are sentient, lights made out of pudding emit even less mercury!" ...you're saying it isn't a nonsensical contrivance depending on not one but two fantastical assumptions merely... because it exists? Or what? (rvl)
Your edits on the page in conflict here, Wikipedia:The difference between policies, guidelines and essays - [2] being the one that started the edit war, and which you've reverted to.
* "there are no useful definitions for"
* "even though it's a waste of time"
* "an essay by the principal author of [[WP:ROUGE]] about a silly word"
* "Most Wikipedia policies and guidelines directly contradict each other"
* "Furthermore, [[WP:Ignore all rules]] is a major policy which invalidates all other policies, guidelines, and even itself."
* insertion of three {{fact}} citation needed tags in the essay.
* changing "scrutinized more closely" to "completely unnoticed"
In addition to edit warring, this is more or less textbook disruption of Wikipedia to prove a point. Please stop. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 18:24, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Don't know if you're interested, but here's my reply to this^:

  1. No amount of endorsement by the EPA is going to make that graph anything but a fantastical contrivance. As soon as there's a Wikipedia policy saying I shouldn't attempt to remove nonsense from articles, I'll probably stop attempting to.
  2. He started the edit war, not me, and in case you hadn't noticed (as it appears you haven't [maybe because you didn't read my replies? Not sure what else could explain it]), his claims were unfounded (he even contradicted himself).

¦ Reisio (talk) 00:55, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Changing the text of the interaction ban

Hi, George. Since you were the admin who wrote the interaction ban I thought I'd run this by you first.

The problem with the ban as it stands is that the prohibition of reverting the other users' edits has no effective time limit. I can understand why a ban would discourage both parties from reverting the other, and indeed I think that is a fair and reasonable restriction, but it should only apply to recent edits.

Otherwise, as you have observed, this places an excessive burden on us. It would be very easy to inadvertently alter or remove a character that was once inserted or altered by the other party. The only way to be sure that one was not contravening the ban would be to exhaustively search the article history to check the provenance of every single letter.

If I realized at the time that this was how the ban would be interpreted I would have made an effort to oppose the ban. I assumed that revert ban would only apply to recent edits as the WP:3RR rule does but Sandstein is interpreting the interaction ban in a maximal fashion.

Worst of a all, the ban as it is now encourages gaming. By making multiple small edits to an article one could prevent the other party from editing it at all. It creates an incentive to "own" articles by "booby trapping" the article contributio history.

A reasonable solution to this problem is to add a clarification to the ban that specifies a time limit after which one can safely alter material added or inserted by the other party without fear of being blocked. This would still discourage revert wars and encourage the editing of the material by neutral third parties who would have no such limitation on their edits.

The time limit would be something like 24 hours or a week. Off the top of my head, 48 hours seems like a good value but I'm open to any possibility.

I would have asked the other users under the ban how they feel about changing the text but can't for obvious reasons.

Even Sandstein has stated that "...the more other people have edited the material and the longer it has been in the article the less its removal can be reasonably construed as a prohibited interaction". However he seems to be making a maximal interpretation of the ban to include every possible transgression, so such allowances needs to be explicit and objective not implicit and subjective.

Anyway, I know that I will need to achieve some kind of official consensus with admin support before this change can be made. Which noticeboard would be appropriate in which to start a discussion of the proposed change? Factomancer (talk) 05:03, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 5 April 2010

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLIX (March 2010)

The March 2010 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 21:47, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

SPI

All I can think of to say to you is that, genuinely, I feel bad for you... you are making such a huge mistake getting yourself involved in all this I-P drama. And you can't even imagine how you look to people who know the truth and read your comments on the SPI. Anyway, I really just want to caution you, with only good intentions... because seriously, one day you will regret getting in the middle of all this. Cheers, Breein1007 (talk) 00:44, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Uh, yeah. Attempting to intimidate administrators who are considering blocking you as a sockpuppet but gave you an opportunity to explain the situation is an excellent strategy. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:06, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
I was afraid you would misunderstand my tone. There was no intimidation implied. I can't put it any more clearly... my comments were made as genuinely as I could possibly put into words. All the best, Breein1007 (talk) 01:07, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Although the SPI has been archived, I am still waiting on a response from you. I understand if you are choosing to exercise your right to refuse to respond, but I would appreciate hearing what you have to say about this issue now. Breein1007 (talk) 05:52, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Glad to see you back editing again. Can you at least confirm that you see these messages and are refusing to respond to me? While that is rather rude after the wild accusations you made about me on SPI, at least I will know where you stand and can forget about this issue. Breein1007 (talk) 02:03, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

What does mean to leave each other alone?

I have to question about your message here, where you wrote: "Both of you should probably voluntarily simply leave each other alone at this point." May I please ask you, if this edit falls under that request? The thing is that as much as I am aware the admin neither has edited in this area before nor he was involved in creating the list in question. On the other hand most of my today's edits were in regards to the list and to the nomination. Thank you for your time, and your input.--Mbz1 (talk) 23:27, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Sorry for the late reply, I had a note to respond to this this morning, and ended up putting it off through 5 hrs of meetings and short snippets of time I spent on other things. My bad.
I am not entirely happy about that interaction, but you started the featured list nomination on your own and in obvious good faith, and he's asking civil and generally constructive questions.
If the two of you can get along now going forwards, and what's happening there seems to be, then that's fine.
It it dengenerates, you were there first doing the nomination, he should bow out.
Let me know if anything negative happens there, so I can review and advise. But for now, if it seems to be remaining calm, go ahead and see if it works...
Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 02:33, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
Well, you said to let you know. Here it is [3]. Thank you.--Mbz1 (talk) 03:41, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

User talk:121.7.234.244

You have new messages at User talk:121.7.234.244 regarding the block you enacted. Regards. Weakopedia (talk) 07:53, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Interaction ban violation

[4] The user mentioned me with no reason whatsoever, which is a violation of the ban. Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 03:11, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Factomancer's block

Hello Georgewilliamherbert. I don't disagree with your decision that Factomancer's edit violates her interaction ban, nor with your block. I want to inquire about one thing though. I asked her to remove the comment, almost immediately after she wrote it, and she did promptly. Does that still count as an infraction (for future reference, that is)? Best. Yazan (talk) 09:43, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Regrettably yes. The block was as short and mild as possible given the circumstances, but we can't ignore it just because it was eventually self-reverted. There have been people who used that technique intentionally. We have to make it clear that once you save the page, you're responsible for what was in your edit, no matter what you do afterwards.
Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 17:20, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Myself, the "community" et al

I wouldn't be so sharp and "over-sensitive" (which I'm not) with people if others had not immediately shown bad faith. Accusing me of oversteping my authority then continuing to offer their advice after many civil attempts to disengage communications. And now I'm a "troll", for trying to have a matter that is affecting my ability to edit this site dealt with. As far as I'm concerned, I'm only returning the treatment I received. Lefty101 (talk) 17:41, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

You can't do that. If you continue to aggressively respond like that eventually you're going to get blocked.
Please find a way to disengage and work on something that doesn't involve butting heads with those people.
Thanks. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 18:12, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 12 April 2010

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 00:55, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

My message from yesterday

Hi George,

I left you the message yesterday [5]. If you saw it, and did not feel like responding, that's fine. I understand. I just wanted to make sure you did not miss on it because I do sometimes, if an old post was updated and a new ones are posted. Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 01:23, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

RicoCorinth

I agree that RicoCorinth's comment was not helpful, and I'm hoping to de-escalate the conflict there. I think he's sufficiently warned now and won't need further warnings - nor a block. I hope that I'm not wrong.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 10:25, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

ANI

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Go on, block me for this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Factomancer (talk • contribs) 15:28, April 15, 2010 (UTC)

The relevant thread is Unequal implementation of a supposedly bilateral interaction ban. — Satori Son 15:58, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

ok

hello, at ferst I did not offend anyone. I just said what I felt, I'm not new in Wikipedia On the contrary am an administrator in the Arabic Wikipedia.

If the rules are contrary to those found in the Arabic Wikipedia, I was wrong. if not my edit was based on the Endnotes iii.

Despite being a Muslim Arab, Look at the way in which I changed the sentence, I did not say Jerusalem is the capital of Palestine. But they did not accept it, Why?

For this I wrote what you saw, you Tell me go to the article's talk page! ok you can see that But in the end. In the article Jerusalem remain Israel's capital, In spite of all the world.

I hate politics, but I hate liars and counterfeiting more. Thank you for reading this. greetings Trabelsiismail (talk) 23:04, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 19 April 2010

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 12:06, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Quick Request

Please inform Raaggio that I am required to notify a user of edit warring when reporting them to the noticeboard. Thanks. –Turian (talk) 02:49, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Done. Thanks for asking someone else to do the notification. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:06, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
I want his block extended for the personal attacks in this remark. –Turian (talk) 23:35, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Coming right up...

Thanks for alerting me to that issue with that blocked user. I'll leave word on the talk page ASAP. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 01:07, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Ani medjool

So posting in bold on your talk page that "Zion will fail" is not a violation of WP:SOAP? If not, I've misunderstood that policy all this time, and will go ahead and put something similar on my talk page. If you do agree that it is a violation, then why exactly should I "knock it off"? If he is violating a policy, I will let him know that he should fix it, otherwise I will request admin intervention. PS: I see that you have decided to stop ignoring me. That's very convenient. Just so you know, my concerns above in the section called "SPI" as well as the things that were said in the SPI itself remain, and I will not forget about them just because you are refusing to address the things you said in that investigation. Breein1007 (talk) 23:09, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

There are significantly more liberal limits on users' own comments in userboxes or text in their own user or user talk page. What would be soapboxing or WP:BATTLE violations elsewhere are more tolerated in userspace.
What was wrong with your warning was threefold:
  1. As I warned you over that other user earlier, the comment was uncivil.
  2. You're overly strictly interpreting WP:SOAP as I said here.
  3. People involved in a disputed topic, particularly those focused singularly on it, are the worst possible people to be leaving warnings for other users. People in that position have a conflict of interest, biased judgement regarding neutrality and reasonable behavior, and are seen as launching attacks instead of seeking calming solutions.
Regarding your comments about SPI; I am unable to disambiguate the situation regarding your activities without the CU information. I can't clear you or block you with the info at hand, so I'm not doing anything, and unless further information shows up that's where it will remain on that point. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 23:23, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
I would appreciate a clear answer about the issue, though. Is "Zion will fail" a violation of any policy? Or is he free to keep that on his talk page? If that comment is fine, then am I free to put "Palestinians will fail" or "Islamists will fail" on mine? Breein1007 (talk) 23:29, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
What I would suggest is that you point it out to Sandstein, on his talk page, and ask him to review both Ani medjool's talk page and the conversation here and see if he feels that either Ani medjool's current comment or your proposed one cause any problems.
Finding an uninvolved admin for review is always a good idea. Doing it before you provoke a confrontation somewhere is preferred. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 23:48, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
On the contrary. I am giving ani medjool the chance to do the right thing before involving an admin who will possibly take action. Anyway, I see that we've reached a conclusion here. Thanks for all the help, as always. Breein1007 (talk) 23:56, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
I think we should just file and AE about Ani after this Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 April 22#Category:Israeli companies operating in the occupied territories non-productive 'contribution'. --Shuki (talk) 22:18, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

By the way

Don't want to fall more between the true believers and the defenders of judaism over there. But most Chabad do not believe that Schneerson was the messiah; just a small, rather controversial hard core do today. It was far from universally believe at the time of his death. What happened was one section seeking to prove something. But even if this weren't true it would still be absurd to write it that way. When we write of christians we write "Christians believe Jesus was the son of God" etc... Thoroughly appropriate, and not denigrating of their belief system. Nothing can be proved in this regard, after all. If you want to be hypersensitive, that sentence could be written thus: "Many came to see Schneerson as the messiah towards the end of his life, and wrote tracts seeking to prove this assertion." But it's a small point. The whole article is littered with problems like that (which i acknowledge will never be fixed). Best.Bali ultimate (talk) 20:58, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Your threat confuses me

I just saw your post. What's a "mutually disruptive engagement"? It's okay for others to accuse me of things, but it's not okay for me to defend myself? I'm not supposed to present a vigorous defense? I think I don't understand the nature of ANI. If you think it's jumped the shark, why don't you close the thread? What's to keep people from just believing things that have been written about me, if I don't reply to them? Is that fair? I just got finished contradicting a disingenuous statement with the facts. I'm not supposed to do that? -- Rico 04:44, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 26 April 2010

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 12:27, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Need you to take a look at this

Hey, I need you to go trough a SPI. No SPI clerk took a look at it, and it was then closed based on an old CU, when I had asked for the confirmation through the behaviour.[6]

So far the only admin that have looked at it was at the ANI and she said it looked quacky and that I should open a SPI.[7]

I have now gotten MuZemike to reverse the closure, I ask you now to please go through the evidence there as no SPI clerk has done it so far: [8] Its very important that you read through everything.

Do you think you can do this? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 11:19, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

I need an answer if you can look through the evidence or not? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 00:42, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
I looked at it; on first reflection, the "Unrelated" from last year means that it could be meatpuppets, but is more likely merely unrelated people with similar interests. The similarity of interests is not in and of itself evidence of sockpuppetry. The edit styles didn't seem to line up closely on first inspection, etc.
I could be wrong, but actual Sockpuppetry behavioral detection standards require a bit more correlation and similarity than that, usually.
If you think you have more specific edit style / language style correlations, that might help make your case. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:04, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
Could you please explain how this could be a coincidence when he contacted his sock here This is not a simple case of "similar interest" when all edits the NT account does is the exact same as AC. For example look at what he did at the coptic article, or the English/Swedish Sharif picture. The way he first came to WP right after AC had just found out what a RfC is, considering that the only thing the NT account is used for, for 9 months is to perform the exact same edits as AC at all articles, even through different language versions of wikipedia, how can something like that when he connected ACs sock be a coincidence?
The language style correlations I added it in bold text, didn't you see it? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 10:06, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

FYI

As you seem to be keeping an eye on Rico, just wanted you to know that he has issued me a warning because I posted in the thread about him on AN/I. [9] This is very typical of my experience with him. I'm thinking it's not good if it continues, with me or with anyone. Just my opinion. SlimVirgin talk contribs 20:34, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Clarification

Could you please clarify your opposition to topic ban Mathsci? Specifically these 2 questions:

  1. Did you give Mathsci a license to use WQA as a battleground (by importing unrelated disputes about uninvolved users) as he has here?
  2. Were you of the view that Mathsci is not the worst offender and should not be the first/only user sanctioned? Or were you of the view that everyone except Mathsci should take a break from the dispute? Or were you of some other view?

Thank you. Ncmvocalist (talk) 10:34, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

The comments in this exchange should provide more background, and the last comment should touch on what it is I'd like. Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:50, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Georgewilliamherbert/Archives/2010/April&oldid=1045819084"