User talk:Georgewilliamherbert/Archives/2010/August

User:David.Kane
I hope I'm not wheel-warring, but I've unblocked this user as he's requested that he wants to give evidence at the related arb-com case, and has agreed not to edit the disputed article for the duration of the remaining block. If there's any further problems, feel free to re-block. —  Tivedshambo   (t/c) 07:05, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Additionally, I would strongly recommend you don't edit the article even after the end of your original block, until the end of the arb-com case, to prevent yourself being accused of any further disruption. —  Tivedshambo   (t/c) 07:07, 31 July 2010 (UTC) - Sorry, that should have been on David's page. —   Tivedshambo   (t/c) 14:44, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Even though David.Kane has been unblocked now, Mikemikev and I still have some questions about the block that we’ve asked on the proposed decision talk page here, which we’d appreciate you answering. --Captain Occam (talk) 12:46, 31 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Follow-up - I have reblocked him for a further 24 hours for violating the conditions I placed on unblocking him. —  Tivedshambo   (t/c) 15:48, 31 July 2010 (UTC)


 * David.Kane (unblocked again by Beeblebrox) has also asked some questions related to his block here. From your contributions it looks like you haven't been online in the past day, but I hope you'll get back to us about this eventually. --Captain Occam (talk) 17:44, 1 August 2010 (UTC)


 * re the unblocks/reblocks - no problem.
 * Re his note on the proposed decision talk page - I have reviewed it now and am considering a response. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 18:08, 2 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Please don’t forget that Mikemikev and I also had some questions about the principles underlying this block, which we asked in the thread that’s linked to in my first comment here. --Captain Occam (talk) 18:34, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 2 August 2010
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 23:07, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Accidental revert
I'm very sorry but I accidentally reverted one of your edits at WP:AE. My mouse seems to be malfunctioning (hair-trigger sensitivity). I've now restored your comment to its correct place. Once again, my apologies,  Roger Davies  talk 07:29, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * No worries, I seem to do that about once a year myself. As long as you saw that you did it and fixed it, and it wasn't on purpose, that's really all I can ask for.  Thanks for communicating it to make sure that there was no confusion, though.  Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 08:04, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Conversation on admin noticeboard re: block of ISP for low-income users
I have started a conversation regarding a block of an ISP for low income users that was initiated two and a half years ago and was recently lifted. You were one of the people that helped review the initial block or helped review it when it was lifted. I am cordially inviting you to join in the conversation.

Administrators' noticeboard

Thank you very much for you thoughtful consideration. - Hydroxonium (talk &#124; contribs) 03:43, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 9 August 2010
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 00:32, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Wars about wars between democratic states
I don't know if you have been following things on the detailed talk pages. However Ellen of the Roads came up with a key insight which has developed from here. Much of the usual conflict between Pmanserson and OpenFuture surfaced as well. But was a ray of light there. If you would take a look? Fully understand if you have had enough of it, and I liked the trout. -- Snowded TALK  09:18, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I think I must ask you to continue with your analysis of the evidence. OpenFuture is now contending that a source does not verify that the First Kashmir War was not a war between democracies when there is a source which is
 * A (slightly abridgemed) publicaction of a database on crises, which states
 * That it was a "full-scale war".
 * Every state involved in a crisis is rated (among other things) on whether they were a democracy, civil authoritarianism, or military government.
 * That India was a democracy.
 * That India and Pakistan have the same ranking.
 * i am taking your advice and consulting an admin. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:41, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I am continuing, but an illness and a travel day interfered with a conclusion. My apologies for that; another admin might have had better luck resolving this quicker in retrospect.
 * Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 22:26, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
 * That's all right; the article can always be protected. If you want to hand over your diffs to another admin, fine; but I am happy with someone who already knows the situation. Just keep me posted.  Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:56, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Hope you're feeling better soon. Without wishing to appear to psychoanalyse the situation, I think the problem is that OpenFuture sees everything in black and white. The way his and Bish's countup of the outcome so far of the RFCU varies, I think shows this. This may mean that his interpretation of sources is always 'yes it supports' or 'no it doesn't'. Certainly, if he thinks it doesn't support, that is sufficient. He doesn't add further sources. Equally, if it does support, he doesn't see how it can be challenged. Again, he doesn't add further sources. The other thing is a tendency to see things as a personal attack, which is justified sometimes, but not always. I've just recommended that he try regarding this as a content dispute, in which the normal approach is to find more sources. We should see how this is responded to. Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:19, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I've been following this as well, and I do think that the complaints about Pmanderson (who I should disclose I have worked with productively in the past and who I have respect for as an editor) and the resulting RfC have distracted somewhat from the other concerns here. I agree with Georgewilliamherbert that the situation is complex, but would urge that sufficient experienced eyes look at the situation here and the conduct of the other editors involved here, to ensure that editors such as Pmanderson don't get drawn into something like this and find themselves overwhelmed. Dealing with only one aspect of a problem is sometimes worse than doing nothing. And I'll add here a personal pleas for Pmanderson (who I hope will read this) to take the comments at the RfC to heart and find ways to disengage or get others involved when any particular situation seems to be getting out of hand. Carcharoth (talk) 23:32, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

My thanks for your timely intervention. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:07, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Follow up question on your block of me two weeks ago
Hi,

As you might recall, you blocked me two weeks ago. I had comments on that block at the Arb Com case, and you kindly replied. But your reply had a major mistake in it. Did you see my follow up comment here? Summary: Your concerns that I "kept making them (edits) despite the lack of consensus on the article talk page" is misplaced since I did not do so. There were no complaints on the Talk page while I was editing. Moreover, 98% of my changes have stayed in the article because they accurately reflected consensus.

Would you care to respond, either there or here? I suspect that one reason other editors (not me this time!) are acting in ways that you disapprove of is that we are still confused by your block of me. If you could make the reasoning for that more clear, perhaps better behavior would follow. Thanks for your time. David.Kane (talk) 00:39, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Don't bother. GWH is a huge piece of shit. Just forget about him and move on. FunBob1986 (talk) 08:01, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Jessica Liao
The usual rule applies. If any administrator unblocks her she is not banned. What's to discuss? If she could edit I would happily guide her myself in learning the ropes. Fred Talk 10:41, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Administrators'_noticeboard Fred Talk 11:40, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
 * The discussion there went where I expected; I'll wait a couple of days and close it if we get no objections, that should formalize it to my satisfaction that process was duly followed. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:16, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the protection of the Race (classification of humans) article
I see the edit warring must take a respite now that the article is fully protected. I hope the beleaguered volunteers on ArbCom are soon able to take the steps in their power to prevent recurrences of such fracases. Thanks for your help meanwhile. By the way, I found the French quotation you used interesting, as I had heard it in English before but had never seen the French or its historical background. After I finish posting some evidence to the ArbCom case file I will go back to editing less controversial articles, adding sources as usual. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 21:39, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
 * (sorry to jump in here!) You used everything2.com? Why not Wikipedia? Pour encourager les autres? :-) OK, that is a redirect, but maybe see the essay When to shoot an admiral? It's a bit out-of-date now (and you may not recognise any of the names), but it does in part concern the principle of pour encourager les autres. Carcharoth (talk) 23:05, 9 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Carcharoth, you asked me, "You used everything2.com? Why not Wikipedia?" Partly because I don't know French, but mostly because the other link came up higher in a Google search. Thanks for the additional links. I hope to perk up Wikiquotes over time, as I cull through a set of quotation files I've kept over the years to feed into a former rotating tagline program for online posts. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 23:27, 9 August 2010 (UTC)


 * George, sorry to disturb, but one of the admirals seems to be disregarding instructions from the Admiralty. Thank you for your kind attention to this. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 19:22, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Got Q?
List of U.S. Army weapons by supply catalog designation dont suppose youv ever run accross any Q-number titles? Brian in denver (talk) 19:54, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Talk:List of wars between democracies
I started to post this in the recent edit wars discussion, and by the time I'd finished, it was closed. I don't know what to do with it, but since you're the neutral admin who continues to examine this, I'm putting it here. Please tell me if it should be posted elsewhere.

A pattern of behavior

 * If Georgewilliamherbert is reading Talk:List of wars between democracies (he has my sympathy), there are a couple of things I'd like to point out in regard to this action. As I said above, OpenFuture refuses to rewrite or contribute content; I just attempted a close, point-by-point edit of the contentious entry on the First Kashmir War. PMA was willing to look at what he had written critically, but OpenFuture seemed unable to focus on close reading and the process of making the language accurate in regard to the sources. The main obstacle in working toward a consensus on this page has been OpenFuture's "nihilism," for want of a better word. He tags and deletes, but adds nothing constructive. Here's an example of his process:


 * 1) OpenFuture adds a "verification failed" tag in regard to a source I'll refer to as WBM, and PMA deletes it. Lather, and repeat.
 * 2) PMA adds a source to amplify and support his reading of WBM. Twenty-five minutes later, Marknutley adds the vf tag. Less than half an hour isn't much time to have read and digested two heavy-duty sources, and certainly not to have discussed on this highly active talk page whether they fail verification.
 * 3) PMA adds another good-quality source to the entry; OpenFuture deletes it, claiming Omar doesn't say what PMA thinks he does. However, his edit summary says It says that the constitutions of both countries (which both came later) was based on the westminister model of parliamentary democracy. The "model" in question (of parliamentary democracy) was the form of political governance that applied to Pakistan at the time of the war, but OpenFuture wishes to exclude the source for reasons that remain unclear to me. PMA restores the deleted material.
 * 4) PMA then rewrites to clarify why Omar is a relevant source. OpenFuture again deletes the material.
 * 5) PMA puts Omar back. At least two other editors support the inclusion of this source.
 * 6) PMA adds more sources, including the Cambridge History of India and more explanatory text, including Ray, who unambiguously supports PMA's reading of WBM. The time code reads 17:57 August 8.
 * 7) Seven minutes later, OpenFuture tags all this material as vf and OR. The "OR" tag is evidence of a persistent tactic from OF: when confronted by thorough research covering multiple sources, he dismisses it with charges of "original" or "synthesis." I'm willing to assert that the vf was a bad-faith edit, because seven minutes is not a lot of time to have looked up the new sources, read them, and thought about what they mean in the context of the entry. In fact, there's concrete proof that OpenFuture had not read the sources carefully, if at all, before adding the vf tag: two days later he admits he's looking at the quote from Ray for the first time.

I could go on and on, but I believe this to be a fair representation of OpenFuture's tactics in general. He does not edit the article constructively with revisions or additions of material, but only through deletions and meaningless tags. His tone is more often than not belittling of other editors, though unlike me, Elen, and PMA, he is less likely to lapse into overly harsh language. Rather, he consistently demeans the ability of others to read and understand the material, and claims his own readings to be so self-evident as to merit no explanation or further supporting sources. I see this as unhelpful obstructionism. Cynwolfe (talk) 15:15, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm going to have to walk away from the article - I've been reduced to taking the piss and calling OF a Cyberman. This is not good.  I am rapidly coming to the conclusion that he is not competent to edit, because he does not understand the process.  The fixation on one source, the obsession with making it read one way, the conviction that everyone else is stupid or lying.  The way when he reflects back something I've said, he hasn't just put a bad spin on it (everyone does that) but missed the point entirely.  His response in the "A brief tribute" section. Starting that ludicrous section "what we agree on". This exchange Elen of the Roads The run of sources above suggest that both countries were legal democracies at inception, but Pakistan had a great deal of difficulty getting it to happen in practice. If that nuance can be read into the article, that would be good. --OpenFuture How do you get to that conclusion from the sources? Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:49, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I've had similar experiences on that article and the mass killings under communism one. It is simply impossible to make any progress and its exhausting -- Snowded  TALK  08:15, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

I am reading the talk page there, and if I were not still at work would have dropped a preliminary note there tonight (hopefully will get home back to the hotel by midnight, and get a chance to weigh in. I think there's a failure of OF to respect consensus here.  I think it's time to call it, and shift the burden of proof expectations clearly.  Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:18, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
 * We'll wait. Don't kill yourself with overwork over Wikipedia!

Elen of the Roads (talk) 07:34, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I hope you're not on a hiding to nothing. I've not responded there so far, as I'm not sure how helpful it will be.  I've already said above that I stopped editing when I realised I had descended to the lowest form of wit.  I think we may have begun to identify possible routes for the article to take, noting the issues with modern democracies, and also dealing with ancient times, which is not covered by the peace theory/democracy watch organisations; but none of this will be of any avail if OF continues in current vein.Elen of the Roads (talk) 10:54, 11 August 2010 (UTC)


 * FGS. Elen, Cynwolfe, PMA, George. You only have one life! How can you waste it arguing with OpenFuture, an editor who by your own description "is not competent to edit, because he does not understand the process"? Assuming good faith is a lovely sentiment, and I note you all do it until it's literally thumped out of you (as with OF's seven-minute review of new sources,) and so do I, to my capacity, but good faith is not enough. Competence is required as well. Are you expecting OF to have an epiphany or something? You might find the old RFAR on Sam Spade from 2006 enlightening — it's a similar case. To the people now walking away: it's about time. and I hope you mean it. You're all highly qualified editors, and there's so much constructive stuff you could be doing on this site; letting OF wear you down isn't one of them. It's not like it's a priceless article anyway! AfD the sucker! Even just dipping into Talk:List of wars between democracies makes me want to shoot myself. Has Georgewilliamherbert's post had any effect on OF's demeanour and/or conduct? No, it hasn't. George, you're too roundabout, you're not making any impression. I urge you to page ban OpenFuture from List of wars between democracies, and from any other page where he's acting the same way. I bet he'd notice that. Bishonen | talk 23:28, 11 August 2010 (UTC).
 * Carrot, Stick, Club, Banhammer.... Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:07, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I favour escalation all the way up to User:Bishzilla soonest. Preferably before people start leaving not only those pages but the project. Bishonen | talk 09:48, 12 August 2010 (UTC).
 * George, for now, I've dropped out of the discussion because of this, not knowing what to say other than "Please tell me what college you went to so I can send my daughter somewhere else." From this point we're essentially saying "this article needs to be constructed on the basis of ignorance." To me, this is like saying "literacy" has nothing to do with "publishing," unless I can cite a source that states in a single sentence "historically, books were printed in order that they might be read." I've tried my damnedest after my early missteps to focus on applying policies and guidelines and on scholarly methodology with no human tonality, and on other contentious pages I"ve felt that I could make a positive contribution and help solve problems. I don't see how we can create high-quality articles this way. This particular article may be of no importance, but what if it were? This kind of irrational argumentation accounts for why humanities articles in general are of inferior quality to those on the sciences: in the humanities, individual facts are less important than context and cumulative knowledge. If you compare the intellectual environment at Talk:List of wars between democracies to (an article under active development I've recently admired) Talk:Ezra Pound, there's a heap o' difference. E.P. is a highly divisive subject, but Pound only attracts editors who arrive with some kind of basic knowledge for weighing his merits and faults. I've found this whole thing sad, discouraging, and (when I'm feeling less weary) absolutely outrageous. However, I've "met" some cool people because of it, and for that I'm grateful. Thanks again for your efforts. Cynwolfe (talk) 22:53, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Understood. I can't respond immediately, but I will.  Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:03, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Just a note for future reference. Why isn't this a personal attack or evidence of gross incivility? Maybe I shouldn't have posted at all, but when I saw how OpenFuture was treating Snowded, I really felt indignant. Snowded reached the point that we all reached: after trying to discuss or argue the same way you would on any other page ('way past reason), you become baffled at what the obstacle is, and can only locate it in the singular obstinacy of an individual who (perversely) regards all disagreement as a personal attack. In my view, Snowded has maintained a civil tone while attempting to locate the problem. OpenFuture is violating so many guidelines and policies on civility, hounding, and ownership that it would take days to document them all. Cynwolfe (talk) 18:14, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, I thought we were making progress, but I've left now - after posting what I freely admit was a piece of gross incivility, which mark nutley of all people kindly removed and advised me to go get a beer instead. Bish is right. Life is too short. Elen of the Roads (talk) 18:31, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Gross incivility = "stop me before I kill (myself) again." When your methods of conflict resolution have worked elsewhere, and they fail so miserably on That Page, it's hard to convince yourself that it isn't worth working through. I've been involved in other discussions that made me think Why am I doing this? And yet in the end these came to a workable conclusion, because the parties most diametrically opposed in the beginning were willing to give a little here and there, and not just engage in wiki-lawyering and tactics of psychological resistance to prevent resolution. I omitted, for instance,"zero-sum game" in my list of OpenFuture's m.o. Progress has seemed imminent before, and OF dashes it — who knows why: to prolong the adversarial pleasures? But this too is a pattern that could be documented with time and patience, if it were worth it. The benefit of PMA's refusal to surrender is that it keeps OF busy on that page, and helps confine the toxic discourse. Cynwolfe (talk) 19:06, 17 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm afraid that I have reached the end of my tether, its impossible to make progress with this editor. Thanks for the comment above by the way Cynwolfe  -- Snowded  TALK  19:16, 17 August 2010 (UTC)


 * OpenFutures has been blocked for 24 hrs. If he returns to disruption, I will file for a community topic ban on that article (and at admins discretion, other articles related to geopolitics that he disrupts on).  block notice Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 20:50, 17 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks, I was getting to the point of despair ...-- Snowded TALK  21:04, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

I note he has posted an unblock request, in which he says he was reaching 'a consensus', opposed only by three quarters of the contributors to the discussion. Altered reality or what. Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:24, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I think he really believes it mind you -- Snowded TALK  21:26, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Maybe he doesn't notice that he's the only one left talking. Seriously.  His habit of posting several posts, with different indentations, makes it look as if there are several people involved in the discussion. Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:16, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
 * That would explain why he so often contradicts himself. I'm not optimistic about contrition from OpenFuture, given this remark in regard to the ban: I do admit that it was unnecessary to make any comment to Cynwolfe at all, and that I let myself get baited, which was stupid. I have also already removed the comment before the block. First, I object to the characterization of my remark as baiting: what I saw was Snowded trying to have a civil if frustrated discussion, and OpenFuture beating up on her/him. I didn't like that, and said so. Second, OF doesn't regret the behavior, only that he was "stupid" tactically. Third, he claims his remark was misunderstood, but instead of explaining it, he deleted it (time 19:32) only after I pointed it out to George here (18:14). It might be plausible that he meant only that I shouldn't assume tensions had continued, and in my absence things had settled down — except that he offered a contorted defense about causation/correlation, and didn't just say "sorry, you misunderstood, I didn't mean your absence was the cause of a return to civility." And anyway, as George noted, that remark only happened to be the last straw. I would support blocking OF from editing List of wars between democracies, because there are other voices who have been arguing any legitimate points he may have without bullying, obstructionism, and ownership assertion. He seems, for instance, not to notice at times when Elen has agreed with him. This may be relevant to Elen's comment preceding. Cynwolfe (talk) 23:20, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
 * He frequently did not notice when I agreed with him, but he also says people are agreeing with him when they are not. Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:32, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
 * George, I find it hard to believe that the very first edit a new user would make on WP would be to List of wars between democracies — here. Just sayin', coincidence and all, not to mention the stylistic quirk of plural subjects with singular verbs. Cynwolfe (talk) 16:27, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

I also suspect a sockpuppet. But since I know it's not me, I can only suspect that it was created by somebody to make it look like me to smear me. Cynwolfe noticed it was his/her first edit. I've never checked a user like that when they enter a topic I'm discussing, I let their edits speak for themselves, so I find that kind of check strange. Cynwolfe for some reason posted messages on several user talk pages about this user, calling it a "charade", etc. Notifying you, or making an ANI or something is obvioulsy the correct thing when suspecting a sockpuppet, but why start discussing it on several other users talk pages and be rude about it? The Ally74 user apparently noticed that Cynwolfe did that. That's either very insightful or paranoid of Ally74. Or both. I don't generally go through other peoples contributions when they answer me. Especially not as a new user when getting welcomed. So that behavior by Ally74 is also strange. Checking up everybody who has edited the page with CheckUser is as I understand it not going to happen (for various good reasons), which probably means that this will go unresolved. But I think it also shows who people is actually creating the poisonous discussion environment on that talk page. --OpenFuture (talk) 04:58, 19 August 2010 (UTC)


 * This would be funny if it weren't so insulting. My WP identity is no secret to people who know me, and it's embarrassing to have my character impugned. I could list several reasons Ally74 seemed fishy, and I didn't know it was wrong to point it out to two other more-experienced editors whose discernment I trust. I'm unfamiliar with the procedures because I've never made an accusation against an editor, and I've only recently begun to participate in that kind of discussion, after coming to see that editors I respect were subject to harassment. WP admins are invited to check out my activities as thoroughly as they wish; I expect they'll see that over the previous two days I've been too busy to get up to furtive mischief, since I contributed five new articles (one the substantial product of longer labor, and four pieces ex nihilo in trying to help a charming DYK nomination have fewer redlinks) and have made numerous other contributions to article space. This in addition to back-to-school preparations for my eighth-grader, the ordinary responsibilities of running a household with six mammals both human and non-, working with an editor on my book ms., and maintaining contact with two friends whose lives right now aren't bowls of cherries. I work on WP because I like contributing to the sum of "human knowledge," as WP likes to put it, and having regular contact with smart people interested in geeky subjects. I don't believe that WP participation should require an editor to surrender freedoms of speech and association as normally exercised in a real-world workplace, nor should editors have to put up with frivolous harassment that wouldn't be tolerated in a workplace. It's clear that this is a bigger problem for the WP community than any single incident. Cynwolfe (talk) 13:45, 20 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Excuse me, but how is your character "impugned"? And what's insulting? That you, instead of just reporting a suspected sockpuppet start discussing it on several users talk pages and calling it a "charade" clearly implying that Ally74 was me? Or is it insulting that I criticize you for doing it? If you wish to not be criticized, try to behave in a civil and respectful manner. --OpenFuture (talk) 15:37, 20 August 2010 (UTC)


 * If the word 'impugn' is unfamiliar to you, I'll just point out that I was the only editor you named. I never named you in any remark about Ally74, and I pointed out Ally74's post (which did indeed seem dubious to me) to two more-experienced editors whose discernment I trust. I'm unfamiliar with the procedures. But more to the point: if you weren't following me around, how would you know what I was saying on other users' talk pages? Cynwolfe (talk) 16:58, 20 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Because I saw Ally74's comments, and found them strange, so I looked for a reason for them. That's not hounding. In the end I checked up pretty much all users involved on the article to see what they had said. You were the one who raise the suspicion that it was a sock puppet. You were the one who were rude about it on other peoples talk page (in effect calling me a termite, thank you very much, how is that for incivility) and it was clearly your comments Ally74 was referring to. Everybody else pretty much ignored it. So you were the only one worth mentioning. That's why I only mentioned you, which should be pretty obvious. The question is why you think it's insulting and that your character has been impugned. All I did was describe what you have been doing. Do you find that insulting? Compared to this? The lady doth protest too much, methinks. --OpenFuture (talk) 17:20, 20 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Actually, I made the termite joke about Ally74. But thanks for the confession. Cynwolfe (talk) 17:29, 20 August 2010 (UTC)


 * You said a termite in disguise. Ally74 is obviously the disguise, not the termite. First you are rude, then dishonest when you try to make excuses for the rudeness. And you accuse me of poisoning the environment. --OpenFuture (talk) 18:08, 20 August 2010 (UTC)


 * You two have both violated the no personal attacks policy above and failed to assume good faith or edit in a collegial manner. I could block you both at this time.  I am not going to do so right now - but this needs to stop right now.
 * Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 19:01, 20 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I apologize, George. I should not have used your talk page in this way. I appreciate your efforts to maintain a civil environment. Cynwolfe (talk) 20:25, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Cynwolfe has left. Since I have a e-mail contact, I will try to persuade her to try again, sometime, with a different article. But this was an unnecessary cost. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 06:41, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I've done the same with email; wikipedia can't afford to lose such editors. Haploidavey (talk) 13:15, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Please take a look at User talk:Mikemikev
It seems conversation is degenerating into name-calling from dubious anon IPs. It might be worth considering to semi-protect or completely protect this page (four-letter expletives are not my cup of tea). Thanks for your consideration.--Ramdrake (talk) 16:13, 14 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree with the suggestion. Thanks for your help. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 16:47, 14 August 2010 (UTC)


 * You may also want to consider blocking anon IP User:146.179.212.89 for a short while to help him cool his heels.--Ramdrake (talk) 17:15, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, it's degenerating, but you all are poking at him on his talk page while he's blocked, which is not considered good etiquette. Please leave him alone - he can discuss this elsewhere when the block's over.  Continuing to confront him when he's angry like that is baiting, and baiting which escalates a situation is explicitly uncivil behavior under our WP:CIVIL policy.  Please stop.  Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 20:13, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Instead of blocking other editors, perhaps you could answer my questions about your reasoning for blocking me, as detailed above. David.Kane (talk) 17:56, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
 * David - I have already explained the reason for the block. Anyone involved as a named party in an arbcom case should not be making large changes to articles which are closely related to those explicitly listed in the case, which have not been discussed previously and found by all sides to be acceptable and uncontroversial.  Doing so - even with the best of intentions - is inherently disruptive.  Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 20:17, 14 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for this clarification. As I explained above, I was concerned that you had missed the actual sequence of events. No one complained about my changes while I was making them. Only one editor complained about my changes afterward. And, despite his complaints, 98% of the changes I made have stayed in the article, now more than two months later. But, if the standard you used is truly that "Anyone involved as a named party in an arbcom case should not be making large changes to articles which are closely related to those explicitly listed in the case, which have not been discussed previously and found by all sides to be acceptable and uncontroversial." then you are correct that I did, in fact, do that. Of course, it would have been helpful if you (or anyone) had pointed out this standard ahead of time, or warned me before blocking me.


 * Would it be helpful for me to point out other editors who have violated the standard you claim to be using? That way no could accuse you of just blocking an editor on one "side" of the dispute. David.Kane (talk) 23:17, 14 August 2010 (UTC)


 * It's been some years since anyone did the sort of ongoing disruption that both sides are doing here during the arbcom case. Normally both sides stop the on-article fighting for the duration completely.  If you look at the arbcom members statements on the case proposed decision talk page you'll see a quiet exasperation that should have tipped everyone off...
 * If you believe others are doing the same thing (and I don't discount the possibility, though I haven't seen it; I am far from following the articles involved slavishly every day to check out all the changes), then the best thing is to post it to the proposed decision talk page. Preferrably with diffs, including talk page consensus or lack thereof for article edits.  Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 23:34, 14 August 2010 (UTC)


 * But isn't that the rub? In this case, I was demonstrating exactly what a good editor I am, improving an article in precisely the way that editors should: small changes, detailed edited summaries, seeking consensus before making edits and so on. Yet, according to your rule above, even that is not enough. In order to make a non-trivial edit, I should have, first, read MathSci's mind and figured out the single link change in hundreds of words of editing that he would complain about. Being correct that 98% of the changes would be accepted is not enough. Even honestly believing that all my changes had wide consensus is not enough. If one editor complains about one thing after the fact, then, in your view, I should be blocked.


 * Again, that is a perfectly clear policy. And, what it means is that no named party in an Arb Com should make any non-trivial changes in any related article. But that is not the policy that Arb Com itself currently enforces or even mentions. That is your policy, never before mentioned in this lengthy proceeding. And that is OK! Wikipedia provides lots of freedom to admins to block who they want, when they want, for whatever reasons they want. But, next time, you really ought to warn the editor ahead of time. David.Kane (talk) 00:03, 15 August 2010 (UTC)


 * “If you believe others are doing the same thing (and I don't discount the possibility, though I haven't seen it; I am far from following the articles involved slavishly every day to check out all the changes), then the best thing is to post it to the proposed decision talk page.”


 * Would it be all right to just post it here, in your user talk? It’s happened a couple times that examples of things like this were brought up on the proposed decision talk page, but you apparently didn’t see them right away, and within a few hours they had been buried under an avalanche of accusations and counter-accusations.  In some of these threads people were specifically requesting attention from an administrator, but you never commented in them, and I’m guessing this was because by the time you saw these threads they had grown too long for you to read them all. If David.Kane or I are going to point out the current examples of people making controversial changes to these articles during the arbitration case, I’d prefer if it could be done in a way where this same thing isn’t as likely to happen again. --Captain Occam (talk) 05:31, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I won't tell you not to post it here - but please also post it on the PD talk page.
 * Reasons -
 * 1. My availability is intermittent - It could take me more than 24 hrs to respond right now.
 * 2. I am not the only admin watching this, and I don't want to be the only admin dealing with this.
 * 3. Arbcom has to be aware of the issues (and, for this reason, you should put them on your evidence as well)
 * Thanks. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 17:33, 15 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Please let's keep individual conflicts individual. There's already been enough snowballing. P ЄTЄRS  J V ЄСRUМВА  ►TALK 18:30, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

User:IainUK
...feel free to note my comments on User talk:Taelus as well. I appreciate your commentary on the user's talkpage. ( talk→  BWilkins   ←track ) 22:58, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 16 August 2010
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 08:09, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : LIII (July 2010)
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 21:26, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Disruption on the Snyderman and Rothman article
GWH,

You told me a few days ago that I could contact you here if there were further examples of people making controversial changes to race and intelligence related articles during the arbitration case, but that I should also post about it on the proposed decision talk page. I would appreciate it if you could take a look at what I posted here. This issue involves three editors (Ramdrake, Mathsci and WeijiBaikeBianji) undoing edits that had been in the Snyderman and Rothman article for more than two months, repeatedly reinstating these changes without consensus, and (most recently) continuing to revert the article while refusing to participate in discussion on the talk page, even when I’ve been specifically trying to get the editors reinstating this rollback to discuss it there. Could you please take a look at this? --Captain Occam (talk) 05:20, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I am looking at it, but it looks complicated to untangle. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 08:58, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Agreed that it is complicated. But so was the case I was involved in last month. Your proposed standard was (sorry that I can't find the exact quote) that anyone making non-trivial changes in R&I articles during the Arb Com case should be blocked (at least temporarily) unless they ensure that all other editors agree with the changes that they are making beforehand. Only one editor disagreed with (a single aspect of) the changes I made, and yet you blocked me. Why block me but not Ramdrake, Mathsci and WeijiBaikeBianji? They have done precisely the same thing. David.Kane (talk) 12:50, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Help
Hello, I'd like to ask you to impose an interaction ban between me and unomi. The user has been wiki-hounding and harassing me for quite some time. We practically do not edit in the same area. Here are only few examples of the user harassing me: calls me "psychotic bitch", and just a few days later he initiated a frivolous proposal that was opposed 17 to 3. Wikipedia community will benefit from this ban. Please consider this message as a cry for help. Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 21:43, 19 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, lets get the context in there, I was indefinitely blocked for an intemperate edit summary I made directed at a completely different editor, in a completely different sphere of wikipedia. As soon as Mbz1 sees that I am indefinitely blocked she comes to dance on my talkpage, she later also blanks my userpage while I was subject to a self-requested talkpage lock.
 * A few days later a group of editors with whom I have had little interaction and seem to not be I/P regulars post an ANI thread citing that Mbz1 had cast aspersions and seemed to be trying to make the argument that the votes were either racially motivated or were akin to racially motivated actions, the details are a bit fuzzy - naturally this brought to mind the 3 month topic ban that Mbz1 had achieved by making similar allusions.
 * Actually maybe you are the man for closing this thread. Cheers, un☯mi 21:56, 19 August 2010 (UTC)


 * You claiming "I was dancing on your grave", which means you believe I was harassing you. Very well. Let's have an official interaction ban, and stop harassing each other and taking the community time in the process. See, unomi, IMO, if one editor begs for interaction ban as I am begging for it now, and the other user refuses to have one, it only proves that the other user wants to go on with their harassment. --Mbz1 (talk) 22:07, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I have no intention of harassing you Mbz1, but I find it inconceivable that you don't find yourself at ANI or AE again in the near future, and I would naturally consider it appropriate to be able to submit evidence if necessary. Furthermore I can see that you have not yet resolved the issues at Yolande Harmer and I don't feel that I should be excluded from improving based on you being unable contain yourself from harassing me on my talkpage while I was blocked. un</b><b style="color:#373">☯</b><b style="color:#273">m</b><b style="color:#173">i</b> 22:12, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
 * So, you see, Georgewilliamherbert, the harassment is going to continue. Please help me!--Mbz1 (talk) 22:17, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Mbz1, that does not constitute harassment, at least not that I am aware. Continually forwarding the view that I am in fact harassing you might be though. Look, I don't have anything in particular against you, but you know what the issues are with the Yolande article, and I think that you know yourself that you tend to be quite abrasive with editors that you disagree with, if those issues can be fixed then we likely would have no reason to interact at all :) <b style="color:#967">u</b><b style="color:#866">n</b><b style="color:#766">☯</b><b style="color:#666">m</b><b style="color:#566">i</b> 22:26, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 23 August 2010
<div style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;">Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 20:07, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for ANI participation
Hi Georgewilliamherbert! I just wanted to express my gratitude for your having taken the time to block Amp873 just now, based on the thread about him at ANI. ( I'm having my own "Admin Appreciation Week" re admin participants at ANI. We're so short of actual admins there that I think we should be especially kind to those who do show up! ) More seriously, I do appreciate your effort, and your recommendation, too, that we all make the effort to counsel new users who are behaving badly, to inform them politely of relevant policies. I'll keep that in mind, myself, next time I come across such a user. Best, –  OhioStandard  (talk) 09:16, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

rudeness at ani toward NovaSkola
I agree with you. That was the sort of unprofessional behavior that causes people to despise admins and hate the project. While I completely agree that Nova misused Twinkle and can't understand that, the way the matter was handled did nothing to help them understand. What's sadder is, the people at ANI did not understand that what they did was equally unbecoming. Or has adminship sunk that low into the morass of arrogance and elitism? Cheers, Dloh  cierekim  13:43, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

A question about discretionary sanctions
Hi. I have a brief question about how discretionary sanctions work: if there's someone who's engaging in incivility or POV-pushing on an article that has discretionary sanctions in place, how should one bring that to an administrator's attention? Should someone bring it up on the arbitration enforcement noticeboard, contact an administrator directly, or something else? Thanks. -Ferahgo the Assassin (talk) 01:52, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Either of those; an uninvolved admin who is reasonably responsive is the lowest-drama way. If you can't get attention after a reasonable waiting period, a noticeboard works.
 * For something very seriously problematic, go straight to ANI, etc. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 05:53, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

A question about discretionary sanctions
Hi. I have a brief question about how discretionary sanctions work: if there's someone who's engaging in incivility or POV-pushing on an article that has discretionary sanctions in place, how should one bring that to an administrator's attention? Should someone bring it up on the arbitration enforcement noticeboard, contact an administrator directly, or something else? Thanks. -Ferahgo the Assassin (talk) 01:52, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Either of those; an uninvolved admin who is reasonably responsive is the lowest-drama way. If you can't get attention after a reasonable waiting period, a noticeboard works.
 * For something very seriously problematic, go straight to ANI, etc. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 05:53, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Spelling
It's not a big deal, but could you try and spell my username right? I corrected it once, but it seems you have some spelling fixed in your head for my name. :-) Carcharoth (talk) 20:45, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
 * My apologies.
 * I was the managing editor of my high school newspaper and was personally responsible for 50% of the spelling mistakes that made it to print. It's just one of those things.  If I get the wrong version stuck, it takes spellcheck or repeated beatings to unstick it...  Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 20:56, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
 * No problem. Thanks for fixing it. Carcharoth (talk) 21:07, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Comment
Hey there. Thanks for defending me. Three weeks was a little bit harsh. Nevertheless, I have promised to be civil. But thanks again.--Jerzeykydd (talk) 03:23, 31 August 2010 (UTC)