User talk:Georgewilliamherbert/Archives/2010/November

Roux
As you unblocked Roux (Ryan Postlethwaite blocked him), I think you should be aware of this among other edits that are incivil and borderline personal attacks, which is what Ryan blocked him for. Roux was unblocked by the community, but it isn't working out. Roux has a major chip (hell, the whole damned tree) on his shoulder and the attitude coming from him is incivil at best. He is even butting heads with admins tonight. I will leave it up to you on what should be done, but something, even if it is a cooldown block, needs to be done. -  Neutralhomer •  Talk  • 01:33, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Perhaps this would go better if you actually told the whole story? Rlevse made this edit, in response to which I templated her--deliberately; I see absolutely no reason why it's okay to give new people mindless warnings with no personal input--here. Rlevse's response was to revert, and then post this gem (and an addendum). Neutralhomer also showed up to say this, for what reason I have no idea. I then warned Rlevse again, to be reverted again with a comment of 'some people never learn.' I made a final post to Rlevse's talkpage here, which granted was snarky but after the repeated crap from a sitting arbitrator I am indeed getting fed up. Somewhere in there I told Neutralhomer to stay away from my talkpage; he has since posted on my tpage twice. No idea what he said, and I really don't care. Edited to add for the sake of completeness, my edit that started the abuse from Rlevse and Neutralhomer. → ROUX   ₪  01:41, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
 * You can see by that post that the incivility and attitude are flying tonight. -  Neutralhomer •  Talk  • 01:43, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Yup. Not necessarily from Roux though. Cut the goading. Shubinator (talk) 01:45, 31 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Rlevse also apparently referred to me as a "jaw flapping malcontent." This is completely unacceptable. → ROUX   ₪  01:51, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
 * And before anyone makes any tiresome accusations, User:SandyGeorgia/sandbox is where I found that malcontent link. → ROUX   ₪  01:53, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Roux, if Rlevse called you a "jaw flapping asshole", that would be slightly different, but a "malcontent" is even less of an insult than "idiot". Let it go.  If he called me that, I would get a good chuckle and move on.  Don't dig for things people said and act insulted because you were called something so minor it isn't even funny.  Drop it, let it go, move on.  Simple as that. -  Neutralhomer  •  Talk  • 02:02, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
 * And yet I don't see you taking your own advice. → ROUX   ₪  02:03, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I am not the one freshly off an indef block, now am I? That makes things oh-so-much different. -  Neutralhomer  •  Talk  • 02:18, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

(Point of information - I didn't unblock Roux; I blocked him briefly on Oct 4 for a civility incident, please read the logs correctly. I am going to briefly attempt to decode this frufru above, having just returned from the Space Manufacturing Conference 14 sessions today.  Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 09:00, 31 October 2010 (UTC))
 * For anyone following here but not elsewhere, 2 warnings issued to Roux and Rlevse, and asked Neutralhomer to disengage for the moment. I also pinged Sandstein for another uninvolved review and in case this blows up again before I get online in the morning.  Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 10:01, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
 * After a brief review of your messages, George, I believe I can broadly agree with them. Everybody will probably feel better about this if they take your messages as a signal to disengage and enjoy the weekend.  Sandstein   10:14, 31 October 2010 (UTC)


 * You appear to have entirely the wrong end of the stick here, GWH and Sandstein. At no point whatsoever did I make anything even close to a personal attack. I commented only on content and actions, and not on Rlevse personally. Rlevse, on the other hand, made quite deliberate personal attacks. Had I said what Rlevse said I would have been blocked without a second thought; had any other non-admin non-arb said what Rlevse said they would have been blocked without a second thought. Usually I think Malleus and Sandy go too far when they complain about admin abuse. Now I am not so sure. Further, Neutralhomer showed up out of nowhere to continue the goading, baiting, and personal attacks. I was deliberately baited by the two of them, and somehow I get warned? This is patent nonsense, and outright maltreatment of me, yet again, by editors (one of them, I remind you again, who is a sitting arbitrator and should know better) who walk away without a single consequence, and I get told to have an interaction ban? I did nothing to either of them. They showed up to harass and attack me. → ROUX   ₪  10:30, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
 * It appears as though Rlevse's outbursts were symptomatic of other, or larger, problems. In that case, while I still contend that your grasp of the situation is in grave error, I am quite willing to forget this mess. This is a sad state of affairs, and I hope that the diff I linked is merely a moment of pique. If not, I do--though this may surprise some--wish Rlevse the best and hope that he gets over whatever is apparently bothering him. I would post the same sentiment on his talkpage, but... → ROUX   ₪  11:28, 31 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm somewhat dissapointed that you aren't reflecting on your own contributions and taking any responsibility here, Roux. The incident seems to be over, and I am not going to beat anyone up further for what's now firmly in the past, but you've had a long series of problems with uninvolved admins and other editors calling you on similar behavior now.  You really need to understand that we find this behavior highly problematic and that if you continue it indefinitely it's going to get you in indefinite trouble eventually.  I very much want to see you avoid ending up that way.
 * I am glad that you don't wish Rlevese ill. I am going to comment on his talk page later.  I will pass your sentiment along and understand why you don't want to directly.  Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 20:45, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I guess I wasn't clear. Let me try again. Rlevse decided to attack me with complete impunity. Neutralhomer piled on. Perhaps you could explain exactly what I did there? Nobody 'called me' on anything; Rlevse merely decided to make personal attacks when I had done nothing but comment on content. I thought that's what we were supposed to do here, or are you now going to tell me I'm simply not allowed to comment on anything? Plenty of people in that thread used language and phrasing as strong or stronger than I did. The choice to template Rlevse was quite deliberate; I am sick and tired of newbies around here getting the short end of the stick, which includes impersonal templated messages. The notion that somehow regular editors deserve nicer treatment than the newest people here is both bizarre and distasteful. Rlevse followed that up with further personal attacks, including calling me childish. I am vexed in the extreme that you don't comprehend my frustration here; in the face of being baited and goaded I stuck, hard, to commenting solely actions and content, and did not comment on the contributor. And for that, I get holier-than-thou lecturing? There is no similar behaviour that I have been called on. I was colouring well within the lines here, your apparent predisposition to assume the worst about me notwithstanding. How about you try this mental exercise: imagine If I had said what Rlevse had said and vice versa. You cannot honestly tell me that if that were the case my block log would not be an entry longer, and Rlevse wouldn't have been commended for restraint in the face of outright deliberate baiting. Or to put it another way: how about treating me the same as everyone else gets treated? That includes actually doing something about it when I am being deliberately baited and goaded. As I have tried to explain to you before--though it appears to have fallen on deaf ears--my frustration is due entirely to the fact that nobody gives a flying fuck when I'm harassed. But should I make the mistake of being less than absolutely fucking perfect, BAM, I get the smackdown. And when there is any dispute of any sort, you and other admins make the immediate default assumption that I am to blame. Either start A'ing some GF with me or stay far, far, far away from me until you learn how to, please. What part of this is not getting through to you? → ROUX   ₪  23:01, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Roux - you're the one who started using abusive language by suggesting the whole project was crap. You didn't aim that at any one user, but you took the conversation south and it just kept getting worse from there.
 * As I said, you did carefully not make personal attacks despite getting very angry with the responses. The message to you was carefully crafted specifically mentioning that and keeping it in mind.  As you avoided personal attacks, despite having aggressively commented and made the situation worse, your warning was much less severe than the one to Rlevse.
 * If you call a major Wikipedia project Crap and call for its removal, you cannot then play innocent with the hordes of upset people that get upset with you. Constructive criticism requires civility, so that the people both involved and outside the criticized group will accept the input and opinion.
 * Civility here doesn't by policy require that all criticism be constructive. But if you use confrontational and rude criticism it's going to have the results you saw.
 * If you really don't understand that, there's something fundamentally wrong with your understanding of interpersonal relations and how the community works.
 * My assumption of good faith here is that you didn't realize that you were being that confrontational initially and are still reacting emotionally, not seeing what you did clearly.
 * Your statement that nobody cares if you're harrassed is absolute bunk. I just came close to blocking a then-active arbcom member for harrassing you, and did leave a very strong warning, as you may have noticed.  I've previously blocked the then-OTRS coordinator for a personal attack and have gone on record that I'll do it to anyone on the project up to and including Jimbo for a clear and strong enough personal attack.
 * Taking it seriously is one thing. Taking your word that you were purely innocent of provoking a reaction in the situation, without looking at it as an uninvolved party and rendering my own opinion on that, is completely another.  I didn't take your word on that, I didn't take Neutralhomer's word on what he saw either.  What I saw was you insult a bunch of people by calling their project crap.  You doing that explains and justifies them getting angry with you.  It did NOT justify the personal attack you got which I warned Rlevse for strongly.  Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 23:33, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I suggest you re-read my original statement on ANI. You appear to be misinterpreting it. I notice a distinct silence on your end regarding the multiple other users who made similar statements. And, sorry, "I almost did X" doesn't cut it. Very, very easy to say that you came close to doing something that you didn't do. You have told me explicitly--indeed, when you blocked me for making perfectly accurate statements about Xanderliptak, if memory serves--that it doesn't matter whether I've been provoked. Yet somehow provocation is okay when it's someone else? Perhaps you could also show me where I stated I was, using your words, an 'innocent party'? Ah well, we both know the truth, don't we? Rlevse was an admin and an arb, I'm just a peon. → ROUX   ₪  23:40, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I think that you're asking for the Moon, as it ain't gonna happen. The best we peons can do is to retreat and live to fight another day; you ain't gonna win this one in the current climate. Not saying that you're wrong, just saying. Malleus Fatuorum 23:52, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents ‎
I appreciate your recent comments there. Communicat continues to make threats on the RfAr page. Edward321 (talk) 20:43, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

communicat
Hi, thanks for your messages, the contents or which are noted.

I hope you have issued similar warnings to those who have been aiming low-level personal attacks and miscellaneous sniping at me for some time now in the ANI discussion, and there has also been some procedurally discourteous prejudgment of issues and outcomes re arbcom.

I trust in particular that, in demonstrating a committment to impartiality, you will tell Nick-D to stop making false and provocative statements, as he has recently done at ANI discussion, where he refers to: ''... Communicat's disruptive conduct (at RFarb) ... Nick-D (talk) 07:21, 31 October 2010 (UTC'')

It is unacceptable that I should be disallowed from setting the record straight. I have exhibited no "disruptive conduct" whatsoever in my arbcom statements, and in fact my statements allege rampant disruption on the part of Nick-D and one other. Thanks for your interest. Communicat (talk) 21:36, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

RfAr
Petru Krohn has refactored Communicat's edits there for readability. Good faith, IMO, but a bad precedent. Communicat is still making threats. Edward321 (talk) 04:05, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

ANI notice
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Pumpie's talk page. Thank you.—  Dæ dαlus Contribs 01:16, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Regarding Pumpie, they are still acting as if they are going to be unblocked. It seems they still haven't gotten the message the original block belayed; that the need to go take an English class, leaving wikipedia for a year. I feel that the only way to make them understand this is to revoke their talk and email access for a year, forcing them to actually leave wikipedia. This has other reasons too, however; with the single diff shown in the ANI thread, I don't believe they can be trusted with either, given that they were waiting 'for a newbie admin'.—  Dæ dαlus Contribs 21:12, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 1 November 2010
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 03:46, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

dummy section
For spacing due to cookie interference. . . . ..
 * Hey, now, cookies should interfere. Either with disputes, or with waistlines, possibly both.  Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:24, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Pmanderson
This was the comment I was about to make but had an edit conflict due to your request. To be clear, PMA said "unless I had something novel". This is novel.


 * No, you have not answered the question about "the comment I made that you characterized as a misrepresentation of policy" is a mischaracterization of policy. This was my initial comment in the discussion and, your reply to it in which you characterized it as a misrepresentation of policy:


 * Strong Support. True naming consistency stems from compliance with the principal naming criteria and conventions that apply to all Wikipedia article titles, which includes "only as precise as is necessary to identify the topic of the article unambiguously".  It's a good thing that Paris, Texas is disambiguated, but Paris is not, because that tell the reader that the latter is the primary topic for the name Paris.  Similarly, Louis XIV clearly conveys the primacy of this subject to that name, while Louis XIV of France incorrectly implies that "of France" is necessary to disambiguate from other approximately equal (in terms of primacy) uses of Louis XIV.  --Born2cycle (talk) 20:03, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
 * That's one criterion out of five; consistency is another. When they conflict, as here, it may be necessary to trade off two or more of the criteria against one another. Misrepresenting policy, as this post does, is not helpful; I hope that this schematic and over-simplified view will be amended. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:22, 1 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm asking specifically about the highlighted words: "Misrepresenting policy, as this post does". How is anything I said in that post, the one time stamped 11/1 20:03 (since that's the one you were referring to) "misrepresenting policy"? As to your claim that you've already answered this here and at the article page, you have not.  Do you really not realize that there has been no discussion about this particular comment/reply here or at the article page?  Well, I've asked you to explain it, but you did not seem to understand that when I asked about where I misrepresented policy, I was referring to the comment/reply (quoted above) in which you accused me of doing so, because your answer did not address that at all.  I also referred to the misrepresentation here on your talk page a few times, but there has been no explanation provided here either.  However, now there should be no confusion at all about what you're being asked, and here's your chance to finally provide basis/explanation for this incredible accusation! --Born2cycle (talk) 01:15, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

The bottom line is that PMA made derisive accusations about me in an RM discussion, did not provide basis/explanation at the time, or even in extended discussion afterwards. We finally got to a point where I thought there was an understanding about a misunderstanding, but he still will not back off his position that I misrepresented and disagree with policy. Why is that acceptable? --Born2cycle (talk) 01:15, 4 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I am acutely aware of his civility problem; check his block log. This incident didn't rise to that level in my opinion.
 * I'm not ordering you to drop it (though I suggest that). I am telling you, it's reached the end of useful discussion on his talk page.  If you feel it's unresolved and worth admin review beyond mine, WP:ANI is thataway...
 * Another admin may chose to intervene where I judged it not worthy. I don't think so, but it's up to you.
 * Thanks. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:22, 4 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree this incident does not rise to the level of a block. All I wanted was confirmation from him and/or an admin that it was broaching that level, to nip this kind of thing in the bud.  I'm tired of him making borderline uncivil comments like this for years.  --Born2cycle (talk) 01:46, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Pumpie
I am afraid Pumpie does not get it. He is continuing to demonstrate classic incompetence. He was unblocked almost immediately after making a statement that denied having any serious language problems and he has now resumed translating articles. It is occupying a lot of time to fix his stuff, and I for one cannot seem to get through to him. Perhaps you can. I am not known for my tact. In trying to fix his latest group of articles, since they were from Greek, which I can't read, I did a fair bit of searching, and discovered quite a few articles he had created that are still in a bad state years later. This is a detriment to the project. I am also not sure what you meant by the requirement you set, that he must discuss remedies with us; the unblocking admin took it that by responding he had fulfilled this condition, but as JamesBWatson had meanwhile observed, he shows no sign of being competent to do what is needed or even to fully understand it. Where do we go from here? Can you help in any way, either by talking to him or by intervening with Arbcom? At least one of them clearly did not understand how deficient his articles are, but I understood from the instructions that we weren't allowed to provide diffs yet. Yngvadottir (talk) 21:37, 17 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your previous words to Pumpie. He did resume translating from both French and Greek and further words have now been exchanged on his talk page by all 3 of us. He continues not to get it and in particular does not seem willing to go back and really start fixing his earlier articles. I think at this point all of us are convinced he can't - that it is a classic case of incompetence. But he claims he "can't" leave en.wikipedia. I wonder whether a suggestion I made during our discussion before we put up the RfC page would help at all: that the auto-reviewed right (or whatever it is now called - the thing whereby his new articles are marked as reviewed at NewPages because he has created more than a certain number) be withdrawn so that the NewPages reviewers share the job of initially examining them and noting passages that do not make sense, differing versions of the name in the article title, lead paragraph, and infobox heading, and other stuff that he continues not to catch before moving on to create another article. It would increase their workload but that in turn might help the community grasp and convey to him that his translations are causing a problem. And it would spread the load that remains on the 3 of us who have been trying to fix his new output. At any rate, although that suggestion was dismissed as a punishment, it's less of a punishment than his being again indef-blocked. But it may well be that the latter is more appropriate, since it is indeed a clear case of incompetence. Yngvadottir (talk) 20:47, 26 October 2010 (UTC)


 * The other 2 editors who are more active in fixing Pumpie's work than I have gone ahead and posted about him at ANI. Yngvadottir (talk) 17:51, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Block evasion attempt?
I know you blocked Pumpie with account creation disabled, but the de.wikipedia admin clearly thinks User:Favorite Hobby is the same person. Does this mean what it looks like? I hope not :-( Yngvadottir (talk) 20:53, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't see the connection listed anywhere, not sure what it was...
 * I'm kinda busy, can you contact the admin on dewiki and ask them what the connection was? Thanks...  Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 21:11, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Here's my question and the response: de:Benutzer_Diskussion:Nolispanmo. Favorite Hobby created by Pumpie at 00:02, 3. Nov. 2010. Yngvadottir (talk) 16:31, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you
Been Watching that discussion all day. hopefully they can drop the Stick nowThe Resident Anthropologist (talk) 01:02, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Legwarmers
I've followed up with them on their talk page. It may be more a case of WP:COMPETENCY than wanton abuse... I've explained that they can upload photos they physically took themself all they like but that the older photos (which they don't own copyright for) will need an OTRS e-mail from the copyright holder. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 13:20, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Israel-Palestine editing
Hi Georgewilliamherbert, following the recent deterioration in editing of the Israel-Palestine set of articles, I've set up a page to discuss the problem and possible solutions at WikiProject Arbitration Enforcement/Israel-Palestine articles. Your input would be appreciated. PhilKnight (talk) 15:18, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Xanderliptak
Hello GWH, thanks for not banning Xanderliptak. Malke 2010 (talk) 21:52, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Community was fairly loud on that point, and I agree - he's had good contributions at times and I hope he can work back into being productive, if that's what he wants. AGF.  Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 22:00, 5 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Was there any reason(s) you, considering the user in question has not yet been blocked? If yes, then for what reasons? Hey  Mid  (contributions) 19:17, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Forgot to push the button on the block setup, my bad. Someone else did it.  Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 20:45, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Arbitration enforcement action appeal by WookieInHeat
Hello. A block by you has been appealed to WP:AE. Regards,  Sandstein   20:50, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Spaceflight portals
Hello! As an member editor of one or more of the Spaceflight, Human spaceflight, Unmanned spaceflight, Timeline of spaceflight or Space colonisation WikiProjects, I'd like to draw to your attention a proposal I have made with regards to the future of the spaceflight-related portals, which can be found at Portal talk:Spaceflight. I'd very much appreciate any suggestions or feedback you'd be able to offer! Many thanks,

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of WikiProject Human spaceflight at 08:44, 9 November 2010 (UTC).

The Signpost: 8 November 2010
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 16:32, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

1913 B.C. (ani-section)
I will, but at the moment I was reviewing my accuser's case.Nate2357 (talk) 03:13, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

wookie block
hi george, i'd like to discuss my recent block with you if you don't mind. i'm sure you've seen my appeal and are aware that i disagree that i called nableezy a "terrorist supporter", i never used these words. if the logic that led to my block is to be followed and making an observation about another users possible support for hamas equates to calling them a "terrorist supporter", likewise shouldn't nableezy have been blocked for insinuating another user supported nazism when he called them "right wing ultra nationalists" on the psagot talk page a few days ago ? i realize that association is a bit ambiguous and far fetched, but this is how i see your reasoning for blocking me. hamas, while designated as a terrorist organization by various governments, is also a political entity. thus, observing that a user may support hamas doesn't automatically eqaute to claiming they support terrorism, just as calling another user a right wing nationalist doesn't equate to saying they support nazism.

it would seem the idea that i called nableezy a "terrorist supporter" was fabricated in the AE discussion which prompted you to block me. i find it extremely unfair that while nableezy was notified of the discussion and had the opportunity to defend himself, i was blocked without such a courtesy. meaning your reasoning for my block was based entirely on other users interpretations of my comments and had no basis in what i had actually intended. also, maybe i did cross the line in commenting on the contributor and not the contributions, but that doesn't mean i personally attacked nableezy. and even if i had, a 48 hour block for an editor with no previous complaints or blocks seems a bit excessive, as many other editors noted in my appeal. meanwhile, nableezy has made a number of direct and indirect personal attacks in the last couple weeks and has had numerous complaints (formal and otherwise) about their civility; but yet he receives a token block of only three hours for a direct personal attack. it does seem nableezy is being treated with kid gloves, he is allowed to get away with far more then any other user in this topic area. up until the conversation where i made the comment you blocked me for, i had completely avoided commenting on other users. it was only after witnessing the personal attacks and incivility that nableezy regularly gets away with that i thought it wouldn't make a difference to do similarly with him.

regardless, if you had taken the time to notify or warn me before the block, i would have been more then happy to retract or modify my comments. even in your message notifying me of the block on my talk page, you made no mention of that AE discussion. so now instead i have a block in my block log that says i made a statement that i never made, for a situation that was completely avoidable and unecessary. WookieInHeat (talk) 05:13, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 15 November 2010
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 00:24, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Could you take a look at...
this? Thanks. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:48, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Moot, now. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:38, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
 * The SRQ thread at ANI now requires a closure enacting community consensus; could you please deal with it? Cheers, Ncmvocalist (talk) 13:59, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Communicat
Communicat has been making accusations and insinuations about me for weeks now. He continued those on the Rfc talk page, where I responded with proof (again) that his charges are false. Since you dismissed my doing so as "sniping" obviously you feel I did something wrong by this, so I am hoping you can take the time to explain what I should have done instead. Thank you. Edward321 (talk) 14:05, 11 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi George, are you going to complete and certify this, or have you decided to drop your involvement in the matter? (which would be fair enough...). I think that this situation needs to be resolved and the incomplete RfC/U isn't helping. Cheers, Nick-D (talk) 04:34, 15 November 2010 (UTC)


 * No, it's not. I was at a conference for 4 days and on a panel Saturday; was catching up on sleep.  Will be connecting back up with the case Monday.  Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 09:36, 15 November 2010 (UTC)


 * OK, thanks George. Nick-D (talk) 10:13, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Assume bad faith much?
Where did I insist that Aircraft design process needed to be deleted? Or rather where did I insist that Aircraft design needed to be deleted? I'm not sure which article you're talking about because I'm not sure which one is being discussed at the AfD. That Afd is a hot mess now, but your characterization of my actions is way off. AniMate 19:28, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I wasn't talking about your actions, sorry if you interpreted it that way. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 20:38, 16 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I reversed your archiving as I think the discussion has legs and i simply can't accept that there is no actionable disruption about making an AFD point at the wrong article for a substantial period. Spartaz Humbug! 20:42, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I think the "point at wrong article" was incidental and not intentional; however, I'm not going to re-archive in the near future. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 20:45, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
 * At 20.00 10 Nov the AFD was created for a page at Aircraft Design Process. This page was move moved to Aircraft design by Col Walden at 22.37 on 11 November. The redirect was then replaced by a stub article. The original article was then left orphaned at Aircraft Design. Animate left a note on Col Walden's talk page at 09.44 on 16 November querying what article the AFD should be discussing. Col walden took no action after this to clarify where the AFD was pointed. At 19.20 16 November Uncle G had tomove the AFD to reflect the location of the original page and amend the header to include both titled. This means that as a result of Col Walden's page move and lack of care the AFD was pointing at the wrong article for almost 5 days. Please explain how this is not disruption? Spartaz Humbug! 21:49, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Communicat RfC/U
Hi George, thanks a lot for starting this. I generally with the statement of dispute as it currently stands, but the main article in question is the World War II article, not the Aftermath of World War II article (which Communicat has only started working on in the last few days - though opposition to his or her edits seems to be developing). As such, could you please change this to World War II so it accuratly captures where the disagreements have been occuring? Regards, Nick-D (talk) 01:16, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Will refocus that this evening. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:23, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Nick -D is correct that he is also exhibiting the same behaviour in the Aftermath of World War II article, though the audience/target list is shorter. He has entirely rewritten the article in a short span of time and I don't think anyone's noticed. This was done based on advice given him by former EEML member, Petri Kohn. --Habap (talk) 19:05, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I had noticed. I was just disengaging for a bit after he filed the RfAr against me. Far from that calming Communicat down, it seems to have had the opposite effect. Edward321 (talk) 00:22, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
 * My apologies for mistakenly labelling Petri as part of the EEML. I had mis-read the EEML discussion. I retract per Communicat's suggestion. --Habap (talk) 20:35, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi George, are you going to tweak this RfC as you said you'd do above and certify it? It's probably expired and Communicat is claiming that this exonerates him or her. Nick-D (talk) 22:16, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
 * How can it have expired when it hasn't been formally listed yet? Edward321 (talk) 03:17, 7 November 2010 (UTC)


 * GWH, in an above message posted to you by user Habap on 4 November, it is alleged that He (communicat) has entirely rewritten the article in a short span of time and I don't think anyone's noticed. This was done based on advice given him by former EEML member, Petri Kohn[1]. --Habap (talk) 19:05, 4 November 2010 (UTC)User Paul Siebert then posted a message on Habap's talk page clarifying that user Petri Krohn is/was not an EEML member. As far as I can tell, Habap has failed to retract the false allegation which is clearly intended to discredit both me and Petri Krohn, and intended also to prejudice your opinion against me in particular.


 * You have been adroit in the recent past to block me on the grounds of WP:NPA. I would very much appreciate a demonstration of impartiality on your part by blocking Habap for the personal attack, and warning him not to do so again. (There have been other personal attacks on me by another individual user, of which more later, one thing at a time).


 * As for the allegation that I've entirely rewritten the (Aftermath) article in a short span of time and I don't think anyone's noticed: the implied meaning of which appears to be that I have been acting in a sneaky and/or non-collegial manner. However, you will see from the relevant discussion page that I gave a couple of weeks notice of my intentions and proposed edits of the Aftermath article, and neither Habap nor anyone else objected or responded in any way. I also made a point of stating clearly during the course of my Arbcom application, (of which Habap and others became parties to), that I was at that time in the process of editing/reworking the Aftermath article. So, in this additional aspect of attempts to discredit me in your view and in the views of others, I respectfully repeat my request that you demonstrate impartiality by instituting disciplinary measures against Habap, as you have done against me. Thanks. Communicat (talk) 12:41, 26 November 2010 (UTC)


 * GWH, in addition to the above concerning personal attacks, please refer to my very recent post at NPOV talk Operation Dropshot concerning personal attack by Edward321. Thank you. Communicat (talk) 14:14, 26 November 2010 (UTC)


 * There is also the unresolved matter of Edward321 repeatedly accusing me of dishonesty and/or copyright theft concerning a photo at History of South Africa page. His repeated allegations are not supported by a shred of evidence. To wrongly accuse someone of dishonesty and/or copyright theft is IMO a personal attack. Kindly demonstrate your impartiality by taking disciplinary action against Edward321 this and other personal attacks. Communicat (talk) 21:35, 26 November 2010 (UTC)


 * We are in complete agreement when you state neither Habap nor anyone else objected or responded in any way. That is exactly what I said when I stated I don't think anyone's noticed. How is it an attack to state a simple fact that no one appeared to have noticed? --Habap (talk) 20:39, 26 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Habap, you know perfectly well that your posting as mentioned above stated much more than the "simple fact" of nobody noticing. In any event, my posting was directed not at you Habap, but at GWH on GWH's own talk page. If I wished to address you, I'd have posted to your own talk page. But since you do happen to be here for some strange reason, allow me to observe that your posting above makes evident the fact that you are still not retracting your false and prejudicial claim that Petri Krohn is/was "an EEML member". I strongly suggest you address that particular matter, instead of obscuring the issues while disrupting this thread. Communicat (talk) 22:20, 26 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry. Did you miss the retraction that appears above ?
 * I was not implying anything and I find it disappointing that in every statement you read, you impute meaning that is not found in the statement. --Habap (talk) 17:41, 27 November 2010 (UTC)


 * GWH, you might note that Habap refactored this thread, which is why I failed to notice his retraction. You might also care to note that it has taken Habap all of three weeks to make his belated retraction, despite a notification sent to him by another editor almost immediately after he made his false and misleading claim about Petri Krohn.
 * I am unable to account for why Habap is attempting to conduct a conversation with me on your talk page instead of my own. Communicat (talk) 18:46, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Ugh.
I.was.doing.FACTS,.not.any,other.thing.....I.knew.this.was.correct....I.checked.everything. Never.think.of.me.doing.such.again..--76.123.187.211 (talk) 22:13, 19 November 2010 (UTC)Unkwown.Person,.I.will.Not.Tell.√

Longevity self-IDs
George (to use the reasonably parsed short form of your user ID), I had a feeling I could count on you to be a reasonable guy (to use "guy" to refer to the usual maleness of the reasonably parsed components of your user ID). Thanks for your apology. To review, my first insertion of names was in good faith in that I believe they were fully self-identified with one trivial exception, and thought they were useful party details as often relevant to the COI issues. (I admit the trivial exception was my own due-diligence failure.) The first reverter did not explain, so I researched, provided links, discovered one party was technically not self-identified, and concluded that the issue would be settled with the posting to RFARB of the links and the resolution of the one exception. My reply indicates this as well as the depth of my commitment to "not outing", but there was no response; as I said, lacking any other guidance, I proceeded with the second insertion.

The affected users are as follows, using my insertions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject World's Oldest People as a guide: Please confirm that this constitutes prima facie evidence of intent to project a personal-name identity in each case, and please comment on the suitability of reinsertion to ArbCom, or of alternately further highlighting a reference to the COI list at the WikiProject. Obviously if any of these were taken as failing a prima facie case, there would be a very large number of revisions and echoes to hide.
 * User:John J. Bulten, User:Ryoung122, User:12.144.5.2, User:Bart Versieck, User:Plyjacks, and User:Kletetschka all self-identify on their current talk pages and (with the exception of the last) many other places.
 * A minor variation for User:Plyjacks appears nontrivially in the self-written history of that user's talk page.
 * The IDs User:NickOrnstein and User:Petervermaelen are clearly inferable by a reasonable party to be construed as identical to the personal-name forms "Nick Ornstein" and "Peter Vermaelen", and these stylistic forms of the IDs are also accepted by the editors in conversation. (The reasonable-party standard is commonly used to waive capitalization and spacing variations in domain name disputes. The admission in this statement that the self-identification forms I quoted in these two cases happen to mirror the user-ID forms should not be taken as implying anything other than that bare fact, and should particularly not imply any conclusion about any other ID.)
 * User:StanPrimmer and an alternate name for User:Bart Versieck self-identify in their regular signatures.
 * User:NealIRC posted "his" identity at a minimum to WP:WOP and there was much discussion about these edits generally on its talk page.

As you can see from my comments to Seddon, the remaining case technically not self-identified can go one of two ways; you can either formally conclude (and advise) that the case is truly trivial and needs no further action, or you can remove the name from its one remaining appearance on Wikipedia (findable per my instructions) and perform the revision hiding, which totals about 200 revisions. If you decide it's trivial, I will drop it immediately and nobody else need raise it either; but if not, those revisions do need hiding, and Seddon has taken a break after the initial reversion and revision hiding. Thank you for your attention to this matter.

If you would like to serve as backup in case further discovery of identities needs floating by an uninvolved party, please let me know; if not, please advise whether or not I should stop the collection of such self-identifications at the project COI list at this point. JJB 13:30, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I understand you're busy, I have emailed Oversight instead. Anyway, thanks for your attention. JJB 22:09, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

WikiProject Space Colonization activity
Hello there! As part of an experiment to determine how many active editors are present in the spaceflight-related WikiProjects, some changes have been made to the list of members of WikiProject Space Colonization. If you still consider yourself to be an active editor in this project, we would be grateful if you would please edit the list so that your name is not struck out - thus a clearer idea of the critical mass of editors can be determined. Many thanks in advance.

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of WikiProject Space Colonization at 16:07, 21 November 2010 (UTC).

The Bugle: Issue LVI, October 2010
To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 22:43, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 22 November 2010
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 00:30, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Mikemikev
Hi George, this is mikemikev. I would like to go on record as stating that you are an embarassment to the discipline of science. You appear to be some kind of self appointed internet cowboy, who sadly has decided to police an encylopedia. Hilarity ensues as George demonstrates his total ignorance of the subject matter by blocking people simply because certain words offend his sensibilities. Cheers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.149.247.203 (talk) 10:52, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Welcome to the elections!
Dear Georgewilliamherbert, thank you for nominating yourself as a candidate in the 2010 Arbitration Committee elections. On behalf of the coordinators, allow me to welcome you to the election and make a few suggestions to help you get set up. By now, you ought to have written your nomination statement, which should be no more than 400 words and declare any alternate or former user accounts you have contributed under (or, in the case of privacy concerns, a declaration that you have disclosed them to the Arbitration Committee). Although there are no fixed guidelines for how to write a statement, note that many candidates treat this as an opportunity, in their own way, to put a cogent case as to why editors should vote for them—highlighting the strengths they would bring to the job, and convincing the community they would cope with the workload and responsibilities of being an arbitrator.

You should at this point have your own questions subpage; feel free to begin answering the questions as you please. Together, the nomination statement and questions subpage should be transcluded to your candidate profile, whose talkpage will serve as the central location for discussion of your candidacy. If you experience any difficulty setting up these pages, please follow the links in the footer below. If you need assistance, on this or any other matter (including objectionable questions or commentary by others on your candidate pages), please notify the coordinators at their talkpage. If you have followed these instructions correctly, congratulations, you are now officially a candidate for the Arbitration Committee. Good luck! Skomorokh  20:04, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Request
George, sorry to bother you when you must be in the midst of answering a slew of questions, but would you mind amending your nomination statement with language to the effect of "I have never edited Wikipedia from an account other than those listed here" or similar? I am asking all candidates to make their disclosures full and categorical. Thanks,  Skomorokh   20:56, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Will do. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 21:29, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Questions from Lar
Hi. Best of luck in your upcoming trial by fire. As in previous years I have a series of questions I ask candidates. This year there are restrictions on the length and number of questions on the "official" page for questions, restrictions which I do not agree with, but which I will abide by. I nevertheless think my questions are important and relevant (and I am not the only person to think so, in previous years they have drawn favorable comment from many, including in at least one case indepth analysis of candidates answers to them by third parties). You are invited to answer them if you so choose. I suggest that the talk page of your questions page is a good place to put them and I will do so with your acquiescence (for example, SirFozzie's page already has them as do the majority of other candidates). Your answers, (or non-answers should you decide not to answer them), that will be a factor in my evaluation of your candidacy. Please let me know as soon as practical what your wish is. Thanks and best of luck. (please answer here, I'll see it, and it keeps things together better) ++Lar: t/c 22:12, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure I'm comfortable discussing my favorite color in public ;-)
 * Go ahead and put them on my questions talk page, I will answer at least most of them. Thanks.  Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 22:30, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Requests for comment/Communicat
I think you may have forgotten about this RfC/U. It spent three weeks in Wikipedia space with out being edited or certified. Perhaps its time to go forward or delete it. I know he's blocked, but we don't let these things hang out indefinitely. AniMate 01:41, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah. I'm a little busy but I'll poke it some direction later today.  Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 19:39, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

communicat -- recent block for block "evasion" & IP address
GWH, something quite useful has come out of the recent and now expired block imposed on me and endorsed by you for block "evasion". I have established that, previously unknown to me, a total of 36 people were sharing the same IP address as mine. (Apparently, this also accounts for a loophole through which one of the address-sharers has been stealing bandwith, which I'd not been earlier aware of).

The service provider is in the process of sorting out the mess, and I have been allocated a new IP address, which I trust nobody else is using.

I reiterate that it was not I who was responsible for posting at the Rfc/NPOV discussion an unsolicited item accusing you of "authoritarianism and rank buffoonery" -- though I agree with his other observations which seem quite valid. Communicat (talk) 13:03, 26 November 2010 (UTC)


 * In case you or anyone else is interested, this is Communicat's new IP address. Please let me know if any a-hole decides to disparage you in my name. 41.135.78.117 (talk) 14:19, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Communicat responds at last to your question
I refer to your question of 16 November posted at my talk page, which I was unable to respond to earlier because of successive blockings. I refer also to your remark at around the same time at NPOV Rfc discussion about my alleged contravention of wikepedia's "community values and social and behavioral expectations".

Your question: ''I need you to consider what it is about your interactions with other Wikipedians that is causing such significant negative reaction and response ... Have you considered that you may be engaging in a fundamentally inappropriate mode of discussion and debate for the collaborative environment here?''

My answer: The negative reaction that you refer to is certainly not unanimous. It is confined essentially to just three editors: Nick-D, Habap, and Edward321. Other editors have been far less reactionary, and they include among others the late Tony Judt who described my work as "valuable" and another senior editor Novickas who in the same discussion described my work as "referenced and well written". I would suggest that the opinion of Tony Judt in particular carries more weight than that of all the milhist editors together.

The only difference between my behaviour and that of Nick-D, Habap, and Edward321 is the fact that my conduct is very open and upfront, whereas the conduct of Nick-D, Habap, and Edward321 is far more insidious and evidently unnoticed by you. They practise what is known as "mobbing" and "flamebaiting". Allow me to explain: I have attempted unsuccessfuly several times to engage each of them on a one-to-one basis on their separate and respective talk pages, whenever a content or other dispute has arisen. They refuse to engage with me on a one-to-one basis. Instead, they combine their efforts with the effect of forcing me to defend myself simultaneously on several fronts in differing forums and in deliberately ambiguated threads that serve to obscure and distort the real issues at stake. The end result of which is to overload me to the extent that I don't know whether I'm coming or going. Alternatively, they will restrain themselves from any discussion at article talk pages when I propose changes, additions or whatever, which silence is then taken by me as concurrence. And then, after I've put in a lot of work doing the proposed edits, one or all of them editors will revert my edits on the grounds that the edits have "not been discussed". Now, is this the kind of thing you have in mind when you invoke "community values and social and behavioral expectations"?

As for the flamebaiting, viz., provocation intended deliberately to cause a negative knee-jerk reaction (and consequent blocking), there are many examples available as well -- the most recent of which have already been brought to your attention both on this page near the top above, and at the current NPOV/Rfc talk, to which I await your response.

While on the subject of behaviour, I would suggest respectfully that your own behaviour bears scrutiny. Despite a mediator having earlier pointed out that poor behaviour is general throughout the military history project and is noticeable at ALL milhist articles, (including articles that I've never worked on), you for some reason singled me out for special treatment. I was blocked the first time because I complained of snapping and snarling by some editors and which was reminiscent of a pack of wild dogs -- yet you did nothing about the editors who were persistently snapping, snarling and biting. Then I was blocked again because I told an editor his continual resurrection of a certain WP:DEADHORSE issue was becoming "boring" -- yet you did nothing about the constant revival of that WP:DEADHORSE issue (which consequently still keeps cropping up). I find it hard to believe that all this demonstrates impartiality on your part, and I'd be glad for you can prove me wrong.

IMO, there is one and only one issue involved here. It is the same issue that I have been trying for nearly a full year to have decisively resolved. Everyone seems determined, one way or another, to obscure and evade that issue. It is both a content and an NPOV issue, namely the question of why the WW2 article has nearly 400 references reflecting an orthodox Western position, and not even one reference reflecting a non-Western or Western revisionist or significant-minority position. The same applies to other articles where certain editors have actively been endeavouring to disrupt my neutral edits. All of which is in clear and continuing violation of the fundamental NPOV rule. Nobody wants to acknowledge this problem, and from this one basic problem stem all the other problems, in particular my "interactions with other Wikipedians", as you describe it.

I trust I have answered your question. I can provide all necessary diffs to support the above, if challenged to do so. Thanks for your time, (if you've not by now already declared this posting TL;DR). Communicat (talk) 18:30, 26 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I was asked to comment here . I supported a separate article for Controversial command decisions of WWII at this Afd Articles for deletion/Controversial command decisions, World War II. Looking at this version of the Western betrayal article, before it was reverted by decision of the Afd closer, I see several topics that were familiar to me as command controversies: the Fall of Singapore, the slow pace of opening a second front, and Operation Sunrise (aka Operation Crossword). I didn't evaluate the references closely - most were book refs - nor do I know how much of that was authored by C; but in my view the topic coverage was well-written, and I saw nothing especially novel or startling. Probably not as NPOV as possible, but not too bad - fixable. Hence my support for a separate article. Novickas (talk) 18:56, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

military history POV-bias
You are involved in a recently-filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Arbitration/Requests and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—
 * Arbitration/Requests;
 * Arbitration guide.

Thanks,

The Signpost: 29 November 2010
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 21:02, 29 November 2010 (UTC)