User talk:Georgewilliamherbert/Archives/2010/July

WP:AN WP:ANI and community bans
Read on ANI you're going to open a thread at AN on community bans. I completely agree that there needs to be a set policy for community bans (minimum discussion time, history, etc). I'm actually thinking there should be a separate noticeboard for bans as well. They take up too much room and ANI is pretty much impossible to navigate because of all the issues that are brought up there. Perhaps there could be an Administrators noticeboard/bans (maybe move the WP:ANB abbreviation to it) with specific instructions for what is to be included in a ban discussion and the time required before one is considered closed. Just a few thoughts. You can be sure I'll be commenting at your AN thread. Cheers!  N419 BH  03:59, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Your AN topic
These community bans are happening way too fast. None of the community bans are emergencies. The massive vandalism attack by a user is handled by rapid block, not community ban. ArbCom takes time to carefully ban people and so should we. We are not talking about formal arguments before the International Tribunal but at least a few days. RFAs take a week. AFDs take a week. Community bans of 24-48 hours are way too short. Some people even mention that they do not edit on weekends so they would miss some ban discussions. A minimum of 72 hours to a standard 7 days should be done. Why the rush? This is particularly true if someone is already blocked since e-mailed responses that are posted take time.

By being responsible and fair, Wikipedia's reputation is enhanced. Having a procedure will not let anyone who is going to be banned get off unbanned! However, a rush to justice will only make us look bad.

Having rules for bans doesn't affect 99.9% of users so there is no rule creep in practice. Others just edit and fix. Only when they do pseudo-criminal acts do they have to be afraid of the rules. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 15:01, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Suomi, this is similar to what I posted on Daedalus' talk page:

"I am however seeking a proper way to achieve consensus on future bans. The ban was justifiable, but the means on how justice was served were not (a less than 24 hour discussion and the lack of response from the accused user). Forget Sugar Bear, as this applies to all bans. You seem personally offended because of the comment I left on Jimbo's talk page. I apologize, but as a constructive editor who obviously cares about consensus and the work-arounds of Wikipedia, I implore you to understand that 16 hours is not enough time to decide on the exiling of a community member. Not only is it not enough time, but it doesn't provide a good example to how conscientious we are about making decisions on Wikipedia. 21:23, 1 July 2010 (UTC) Feedback ☎21:30, 1 July 2010 (UTC)"


 * You should be posting this on the AN page to continue our path towards consensus. Feed  back  ☎ 18:05, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 5 July 2010
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 15:37, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : LII (June 2010)
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 19:02, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Pedophilia
The title has been redirected to Child protection, and the contents added as policy to WP:BLOCK. To complete the process, I'd like to merge the page histories. Just checking that you have no objection as the protecting admin. SlimVirgin talk| contribs 05:17, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Cancel that. Someone else has done it. :) SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 09:30, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
 * No problem. Protection was to end the edit warring, not keep consensus process from moving forwards.  8-)  Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 22:16, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Race and Intelligence 1RR
Would appreciate a second opinion here. mikemikev (talk) 18:37, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

A Nobody Banned from Wikipedia - Need Your Help
Hello,

Until about a year ago, I used to contribute to Wikipedia, quite often. Even though I did contribute often, and considered myself to be part of the Wikipedia Community, I felt I was a bit "green" on the rules, and procedures. I decided to put myself up for adoption, and was adopted by A Nobody. I see that A Nobody was permanently banned from Wikipedia, mainly for socking(?). Well, since I have not been involved in Wikipedia for about a year, I am in no position to comment. I will say that when A Nobody did adopt me, I thought that they were very nice but not very helpful, and I honestly did not learn much, at all. They shared so little about themselves with me, that I can honestly tell you, I am not sure if A Nobody was male or female. Anyway, I have been involved in the WikiAnswers Community, which has been a great place, and a learning experience. I am not going to leave WikiAnswers but would like to know how I can rejoin the Wikipedia Community and seek another, experienced Wikipedian to adopt me. Could you please advice? Thank you, Irshgrl500 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Irshgrl500 (talk • contribs) 05:49, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 12 July 2010
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 20:38, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Long-term abuse report on Ron_liebman
The long-term abuse project is currently being revamped and integrated with the abuse response project to provide a more effective and centralized project to effectively counter long-term vandalism. As part of this cleanup, old inactive reports are being deleted. I see that you created the report on User:Ron liebman back in June 2007, but from what I can see, this user is no longer active. Could you verify that he is no longer active so we can delete the report? Or, if he still is, please help us update the report. Thanks. Netalarm talk 13:05, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure that removing old inactive reports is a good idea - a lot of these people got more sophisticated about sock evading and sleeper accounts - but I'll take that to the new abuse team page.
 * Regarding Ron specifically, I have not seen anything during 2010 but I'm asking around if others did.
 * Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 19:15, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Ya... I know that there are benefits to both keeping and deleting those reports, but LTA still needs to be cleaned up. Regarding your comments about growing sophistication of long-term abuse vandals, the new system was designed from scratch to provide an easy to use project that editors can pull needed information from, so hopefully we can more effectively counter them. if you have suggestions on how to make LTA better, please please suggest it on the talk page. Netalarm talk 20:04, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I'll try and contribute over there - currently in a new and challenging work situation but I have bandwidth after work hours. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 21:25, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 19 July 2010
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 15:48, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Re: Liebman
We've had occasional reappearances by Ronnie, which a few of us have typically reverted. Last night there was a rash of vandalism on the ref desk talk page with familiar-sounding comments, which might or might not have been Ronnie, but they did emanate from the New York area. I recommend you run this subject past Wknight94, if you have not done so already. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:19, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

1RR on race and intelligence
The status of the 1RR has recently been called into question on Talk:Race and intelligence. The 1RR has been violated including the multiple violations listed in this report. As per my previous complaint, despite the existence of the 1rr and numerous violations, it has never been enforced. If it will never be enforced wouldn't be a good idea to simply scrap it altogether. Wapondaponda (talk) 16:56, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

AN/I
Hi. Don't want to further clutter the AN/I, as it promises to get long. I recognize and appreciate that you are trying to do the right thing.

I haven't, though you've not asked, been stalking Jay. This AN/I follows by many months the incident Jay points to. In the interim, he has tagged dozens of items in articles I've been the primary contributor to. I've not complained once. I've simply gone about supplying refs. On related issues, though we haven't had one of late, I've engaged in discussion with him on the talk page.

Look at my DYKs, and you will see that this article falls within the sphere of articles I edit, and is clearly (in addition to the timing) not a case of wp:stalk.

Furthermore, look at my edits to the article. They are highly constructive.

Wikistalkers are people who follow others to articles they work on and make disruptive edits. They are not people, who months after being on of many in disagreement with Jay, and who Jay has made overlapping edits with for weeks without any friction, happen to edit an article within their typical scope. And improve it greatly. And request that within the precise indubitable language of the guidance, sentences with quotes be referenced.

And look at the wp:own displayed by Jay. The threats. The hostility. And look at how I responded.

The language requiring refs in sentences that have quotes couldn't be clearer. It won't take you hours to look at the "are refs required in a sentence with a quote" issue. I gave you, at the AN/I, the precise quote. Jay is wrong.

Jay and I have had literally dozens of overlapping edits at another article over the past week. Have I expressed ownership of it? Have you expressed to Jay that he should stay away from it? Have you said "Jay - I don't want to blame you here, but its an article where he has been the major contributor, and his participation there, even if well intentioned, seems to be becoming something unrelated to the content. Would you consent to moving on to other articles, or at least finding someone else you trust on source citations to help on this and restrict yourself to the talk page there for a while?"

You haven't. Nor have I asked you. Nor is that what this is about. They are entirely separate issues. But you feed the wp:own monster here with such an un-evenhanded response.

The reason I haven't asked for you to tell Jay to go away is that I don't own the article. It seems odd that you would ask me to stay away from an article where I have fixed two dozen mistakes, which from his reaction appear all to be his.

And not ask him to stay away form an article where all he has done is make edits that are other than additive, as I have quietly responded to them.

Plus, as you will gather from my response at AN/I, I believe that on a number of levels Jay has violated wp:admin. I have special concern when admins bully others in violation of wikipedia guidelines. Good newbie editors are driven away by such behavior. That isn't good for the project.--Epeefleche (talk) 07:10, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
 * You're not a newbie (by a long shot), and I didn't threaten you with any admin tools (much less use them). Now, exactly how was it you ended up editing that article I'd recently nominated for GA? Have you edited other GA nominees recently? Jayjg (talk) 07:24, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Of course I'm not a newbie. Had I been a newbie, faced with your unwarranted hostility I would have withered and cried and given up on wikipedia forever and never made another contribution to the project.  Who needs uncalled for hostility from people who say "I expect I worked on 12 GAs, and you I expect worked on a smaller number, so fealty is in order".
 * You, as I've explained at the AN/I, seem not to be familiar with the fact that wp:admin does not (as you seem to misapprehend) relate to abuse of admin tools.
 * I've also explained at the AN/I how this article falls squarely in my topics of editing (NY and Judaism articles), and how I came to that article today (I seem to have been editing another article in that sphere, that was in the same cat, and went from there). And I think we've both edited still other Brooklyn synagogue articles in the past.  And, as you know, it's a synagogue I've been to.--Epeefleche (talk) 10:18, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Sweetpoet/Daedalus (A last note discussion)
FYI I believe Daedalus was referring to Sweetpoet reverting him on his (Daedalus's) talk page, not Sweetpoet's page. Especially as I do not see Daedalus reverting him on Sweetpoet's page. See and. ;) Mauler90  talk 00:42, 22 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I see that now and I sit corrected. I will note that on the discussion.  Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:44, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

collision
I blocked SweetPoet before reading your note on his/her talk page. Wasn't intending to second guess you. Feel free to unblock if you see fit. I'm going to be offline. Toddst1 (talk) 01:31, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Never mind. After the email I got and the rant on the talk page, this editor should remain blocked. I've disabled talk page privs. Toddst1 (talk) 01:48, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
 * No problem. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 22:08, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Not even for 48 hours
I believe we're going to have another problem with Daedalus969. Following on the heels of the incident referred to, he posted this to the talk page of the closing admin of an AN/I I was involved in which took place five months ago. It seems that Daedalus is unhappy about the outcome of yesterday's incident and needs to make up for it somehow in his own mind. The long and the short of this is that Daedalus has been told numerous times that he is not to interact with me at all on Wikipedia, but as you can see from his posts on RegentsParks talk page, he is disregarding that and once again attempting to provoke an uncivil incident.  R ad io pa th y  •talk•  02:08, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for completely lying, and misconstruing the facts. First of all, the 48 hour interaction ban had absolutely nothing to do with you at all.  What it had to do with was an editor who was posting unrelenting, unacceptable personal attacks aimed at myself and others.  They have been rightly indef blocked with their talk page removed.  If you even read the report to which you refer, you would see how out of line it is for you to refer to it, especially because you have been warned to stay away from me.  Instead you insist on stalking my talk page and my edits, in violation of that warning.  Second of all, it took place three months ago.  Not five, but three.


 * Lastly, you are the only one here attempting to provoke anything, first calling me disruptive for a fairly minor incident, and now this. My post to Regent's page had everything to do with records, and nothing to do with sparking anything.  That page is for logging restrictions.  You are an editor, who has restrictions.  It is per policy that yours should be logged there.—  Dæ  dαlus Contribs 02:22, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

RE:
Any unwanted edition, will be promptly reversed. Vítor&amp;R (talk) 22:42, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
 * That's fine, as I indicated our policy allows you to do that all you want. But if you call it vandalism again, as I warned you, it's a form of personal attack, and ultimately if you keep making personal attacks you get blocked for it.  Removing the comment and attacking those who made the comment are two very different things.  Remove all you want.  Don't attack the commenters.
 * Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 22:55, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Rangeblock and ban
Hi, I noticed you tagged Viper 265 as a sock of Yattum and also the rangeblock of the IP. I'm not sure if my AN/ANI requests were very clear but to clarify, I'm not interested in banning the IP range; just a community ban on Yattum. Also, I'm 99% sure that a block of 88.106.0.0/16 isn't necessary (only 88.106.64.0/18) as all of the disruptive IPs originate from that sub-range based on my review of the range contributions. Vedant (talk) 03:03, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 26 July 2010
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 03:07, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

PMA ANI

 * What was unreasonable? Don’t do what again? I wasn’t involved with the edit war and name calling going on between mark and PMA. I came to the ANI—after mark started it—to state my opinion that PMA was clearly in violation of WP:NPA for calling mark a “semi-literate imbecile” and since he has a history of this and isn’t apologetic, he needs to be blocked. I did no personal attacks and I honestly stated the truth as I saw it. That is unreasonable? Greg L (talk) 01:39, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
 * You were acting vehemently unreasonably in attacking PMA there. Expressing your opinion and engaging in the discussion are ok, but you were pushing way harder than was useful or constructive, to the point that it was disruptive.  It wasn't about you - but your engagement there became an issue on its own.
 * Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 19:45, 28 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I see. You had me guessing. As to your last post at the ANI, it wasn’t my intention to “push buttons” but to state what I truly believed without personal attacks. Sorry. And as mark pointed out there, I too consider that particular ANI settled. My point was that on the broader issue of making ANI more effective, if admins decide a complaint such as mark’s isn’t actionable, then stating as much would settle things sooner and prevent threads from unnecessarily growing. Wouldn’t you agree that is a fair statement? Greg L (talk) 23:48, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

FYI
Oh crap. Your Outside view is the only one that's widely supported, by people from different camps. It's very good. But that guy's comment sticks out like a sore thumb. Maybe I'm being fussy here, but I think I'll have to remove my own sig from the list, if that comment stays. :-( What's your take on it? Should I simply send in Bishzilla? Her sig has the strength of thousands, you know. Bishonen | talk 17:55, 30 July 2010 (UTC).