User talk:Georgewilliamherbert/Archives/2010/October

Excuse me, do I know you?
Nice job turning down the heat, there.

You are not supposed to threaten established users with blocks for no good reason. Final warning. I like that. I guess I missed all the warnings leading up to the final warning.

You are given the power to block users so that we can get rid of vandals and suchlike. It was not so you, personally, can make threats against people who personally irritate you or to cut off content discussions that are not going the way you, personally, might not like.

I have been editing Wikipedia for many years now and have many thousands of edits. I have never been threatened in this manner and I don't like it. This is my hobby and you threatening to take that away from me for absolutely no good reason is chilling to say the least.

This is a very serious threat and goes way, way beyond any reasonable reaction to anything seen on any of the threads you refer to. Even the threat is a very serious abuse of your admin rights. I am certainly going to have to think this one over.

I see that your user page includes the notation "Trying hard not to let any power go to my head."

I suggest you try a bit harder. Herostratus (talk) 15:13, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Herostratus, User:HandThatFeeds gave you good advice at ANI. Don't freak out, just take a break for a while and/or find some other topic area to edit.  Sticking around areas that get you into stress is masochistic. 67.119.14.180 (talk) 08:55, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Shshshsh used a roll back actually edited his own former edit Off2riorob -
PPls rotect Cinema of Andhra from edit  and vandalism suspected vandalism by Shshshsh - In accordance with agreement

Protect Cinema of Andhra from edit and vandalism
suspected vandalism by Shshshsh - In accordance with agreement Shshshsh used a roll back actually edited his own former edit Off2riorob —Preceding unsigned comment added by 6poundhammer (talk • contribs) 04:48, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Edit filter
Hello, I have modified the filter that was disallowing your edit, and hopefully you should be able to make that edit now. There was a minor bug. Evil saltine (talk) 07:26, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you! Prompt response.  Have a good night.  Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 07:30, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
 * No problem! Evil saltine (talk) 07:31, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

User:75.105.241.135
Mea culpa. I didn't realize that impersonating other editors was blockable like that. Where should I report something like that next time? Ishdarian&#124; lol wut 09:07, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
 * You didn't do anything wrong. If you want to report it, you can report it to the main administrators' noticeboard for incidents, WP:ANI.
 * Have a good night! Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 09:42, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok! Thanks! Ishdarian&#124; lol wut 09:52, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you!
I appreciate the feedback you gave on my comments on the AE page. You didn't see any problems with my comments but, in general, if you do see something that you think is not ok., giving a feedback with a precise quote and explanation why this is wrong, would be welcomed by me.

The problem with this whole "advocacy" thing is that it is rather vague. Sometimes people will have some vague perception that "I'm at it again" and mention that. But then, without pointing to specific problematic edits, there is little that I can change about this. Of course, I could decide not to get involved in issues relating to Brews at all, but I would oppose that. The reason I have been involved with him has to do with the way some technical articles should (or can) be editited and I should be able to have my say here. This is not about me always agreeing with Brews about specific edits or in specific disputes (I strongly disagreed with Brews on the Speed of Light page that was the subject of the original ArbCom case).

Basically, the core of the issue as far as editing Wikipedia is concerned, is where one should the draw the line in WP:NOTTEXTBOOK. This is obviously a judgement call that editors on different pages have different opinions on. While Brews and I share the same rather liberal view on this, the articles I've mostly been involved in (e.g. thermodynamics and statistical physics), allowed me to edit without much disputes. Brews, on the other hand, with a similar editing philosophy, has faced much more opposition on other physics pages (e.g. classical mechanics related pages). I have been involved on these pages too, but less frequently.

My observation there is that some other editors have an extreme opposite view on WP:NOTTEXTBOOK where even simple examples are not allowed (sometimes even regarded as OR). And Brews also gets quite easily drawn into escalating conflicts when facing opposition. The reason why the physics topic ban has been re-imposed was precisely because of such a dispute on one of the classical mechanics pages (Brews was appealing an article ban on speed of light, but one Arbitrator noted that there was a new dispute with Brews on another physics page, leading to Brews getting topic banned).

So, in conclusion, the whole issue with me being involved with Brews is not motivated by some unconditional support for him. Rather, there are real issues regarding editing Wikipedia here that are perhaps a bit hidden from view. And in such disputes, I always tell Brews to take into account opposition against his edits and try to make modifications to get the necessary consensus. Count Iblis (talk) 17:39, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Recent admin addition
Hello. I am trying to understand what factors you are weighing, and what exactly you are trying to determine, at this recent Stevertigo ANI. Also, are you looking at multple issues which will help determine the degree of enforcement? In addition, I am inclined to file for enforcement of the 1RR restriction at WP:AE. However, if you have decided to do this I will step aside.

Furthermore, I have piece of new evidence (a diff within the last 28 hours) that indicates Stevertigo, may be irredeemable at this time. Hence, based on this indication I feel that a total block of some duration is neccessary. The point I am trying to make is I would like to enter this diff, and make this statement, based on the diff. However, it appears with your intervention, an involved person such as myself is unable to add this to the ANI. The other avenue of course, is to make this statement with the diff at the request for arbritration. So (respectfully) what is allowed here since you have joined the discussion?

Feel free to reply here. I now have your talk page on my watchlist. Steve Quinn (talk) 01:30, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
 * If you're talking about the "uninvolved admin" section, then as it says, that section is admin-only and you shouldn't post in it. You can still post in the other sections (or create a new section) and so you should post your diff in one of them. 67.119.2.101 (talk) 01:54, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
 * OK, I hope you are correct 67.119.... (thanks) Steve Quinn (talk) 02:04, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Question re: Stevertigo AN/I
GWH: I note that Stevertigo commented in the section for uninvolved admins you created there. Since he's neither univolved or an admin, I thought his placement was incorrect, and thought about moving it, but I don't want to make an undue fuss or be a dick about it. Still, it seems to me to be a bit in line with his opening an ArbCom case on himself when the AN/I discussion was still active, or trying to rename that case "Punishment" instead of "Stevertigo 2" -- just a bit too close to "working the refs" or "gaming the system" for my taste, trying to manipulate circumstances to get an edge instead of engaging in straight-forward open discussion. In any case, is it usual to allow the subject to comment in "uninvolved admin" sections? Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:42, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Usually not, but let the admins deal with it. 67.119.2.101 (talk) 02:05, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that's why I stopped myself before I moved the comment elsewhere. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:50, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Couple of things

 * 1) Thanks on the block. The chap had not seemed to have learnt, despite the other 3 discussing. Hopefully he will.
 * 2) There was another query I had (which I didnt notice during edits on the article page, but just took note of on the talk page) User: JonathanMFeldman commented at Talk:Swedish_general_election,_2010, but earlier on Swedish general election, 2010 there was a quoted passage (that was disputed by someone hence he had the respected caveats of the author/source (which was fair)), but now it seems the person quoted who wrote the article on the source is the same user who is editing the page and referring the quoted text as "his." Now, i dont think its off-base per se, but maybe something to look at..
 * Hes also only edited said pages . and then had ownership issues Lihaas (talk) 04:41, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Follow-up
You wrote at the ANI: "Nothing is "enough to discredit the views of editors who rejected your proposed changes outright", Steve. You seem to be indicating a profound lack of understanding for and respect for Wikipedia's core value of consensus, here." - You make a good point. What I meant to say is if there were any who held the view that my suggestions were without merit, the one fact alone (that "person"/"personhood" was not in the human article) amply negated such views.

BTW, I appreciate the effort you put into a fair review of the ANI. Now that Arbcom appears to be taking the case, I am sure that Arbcom will appreciate your general take on things. -Stevertigo (t | log | c) 20:06, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 27 September 2010
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 21:06, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Communication
George, I believe that when you communciate with Stevertigo you are being non-judgemental and that you are aiming to discover the best possible conditions for him. I agree with this. However, I notice that if you communicate with him on Wikipedia others are free to jump in and chastise or lecture. I believe this is not conducive to what you are trying to accomplish. Hence, I strongly reccomend that you and Stevertigo communicate only by email, or even one on one chats in real time. I think in this instance, it is important that you create a safe enviornment for him to communicate. I think the benefits of doing this are readily apparent. Steve Quinn (talk) 21:49, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

If anyone cares, I left a comment at Jehochman's talk that mentions the ANI and the arb request. 67.122.209.115 (talk) 22:52, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Impersonating administrators
I noticed your comment at WP:ANI (diff) where you said that it is against policy to impersonate administrators (in connection with a user who apparently had placed an admin userbox on their user page).

Would you care to comment at WT:User pages where a proposal was made to prohibit deliberate misinformation on a user page, with "I an admin" being the misinformation example. Johnuniq (talk) 10:37, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
 * George has been impersonating an administrator for years, how does he manage to get away with it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.210.97.32 (talk) 00:49, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Question about personal attacks
What happens if these attacks continue by the user???15jan19932010 (talk) 14:34, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

User talk:85.210.97.32
The above user is currently attacking you on their talk page. I'm not sure if it's necessary to continue warning a blocked user?  Bramble  claw  x   01:12, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Talkpage privileges revoked for the duration of the block.  Acroterion  (talk)  01:16, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Some people just don't get it. Thanks.  Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:17, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Oops, we protect-conflicted
Sorry, didn't see you there. Here's my rationale for full protection, but I don't mind if you downgrade to semi. Cheers, Dabomb87 (talk) 02:41, 29 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't think it's worth arguing over. I'm fine with full protection, too.  No worries, stepping on each other by accident happens.  Thanks for letting me know, though.  Always appreciated when communications are clear!  Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 02:45, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the understanding. I just noticed this ANI thread; I assume that was what drew you to the article, whereas I had been directed there by a RFPP request, which probably caused the double protection. In any case, I'll leave a note on the ANI thread just so everything's cleared up. Cheers, Dabomb87 (talk) 02:47, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Another slight request,
Could you please add your opinion, as an uninvolved administrator, to this thread?. Thank you for your time.—  Dæ dαlus Contribs 04:32, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Malleus
I was about to post in this ANI thread, but since the discussion now seems to be moving off of Malleus Fatuorum, I won't drag him back in. However... I disagree with what you said. Malleus doesn't represent a "tiny community fringe viewpoint" that the whole idea of civility on Wikipedia is flawed and/or wrong. He represents a big, bouncing, alive-and-well broad viewpoint that the Wikipedia notion of civility is flawed, wrong, and used by the more powerful to lord it over the others. Bishonen | talk 06:29, 29 September 2010 (UTC).
 * I, for one, think that there's a fair amount wrong with the WP notion of "civility", and, in particular, the way that it is sometimes valued over more important things, such as competence and productivity ... but Malleus Fatuorum does not in  any way represent me or my views. He is a walking, talking, life-size outlier of acceptable behavior, and should, in my opinion, have been permanently banished a long time ago.  That he is, effectively, untouchable, is totally inexplicable to me, but is another thing that points to the system being broken in fundamental ways.  Any system that says it values "civility", which allows MF free reign to say whatever he wants, whenever he wants, is clearly lacking in effective enforcement methods. If MF is concerned that "civility" is unequally enforced, then the next time he is blocked by some admin who's finally had enough of his bullshit, he should let his supporters know that they shouldn't unblock him, because the biggest poster-boy for unequal enforcement of the civility standard is Malleus Fatuorum himself. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:46, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
 * It doesn't look like you read what I wrote with any care, Beyond My Ken; you're not addressing my point. But then I don't quite see why you thought a remark by me to GWH, on GWH's page, was a good time and place for snatching up the ball and running off with it. Bishonen | talk 12:21, 29 September 2010 (UTC).
 * If your remark to GWH was meant to be private, then it would have been more appropriate to contact him via e-mail. As it was, you made remarks here that were provoked by the discussion on AN/I, as were mine. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:15, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
 * And running off with it. Never mind, say no more, I will certainly use e-mail in the future. Bishonen | talk 21:19, 29 September 2010 (UTC).


 * Any time I think I've been too pointed in my comments to someone, I check MF's latest donations to see how much worse it could have been. :) ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:38, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Not that you would ever care, Baseball Bugs, but the worst comment I have ever read on Wikipedia was yours. Hands down and no question. On his worst day I doubt Malleus would ever dream of meeting or exceeding it. --Moni3 (talk) 22:07, 29 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I admire MF's contrarian spirit, but struggle with the logical incoherency of being against civility but complaining when he perceives that others are uncivil, which seems to be his position. I also regret the pointy disruptiveness of his methods; complaining at AN/I about how flawed AN/I is, and complaining at WT:RFA about how terrible admins are, while understandable sentiments, are unlikely to lead to anything beyond mild annoyance in the reader. Bishonen, if what you say is true about the big, bouncing, alive-and-well broad viewpoint, it should be no problem to change the policy or have it derecognised. If it turns out you are wrong, there will be no consensus for this (as I believe to be the case) and we will all have to keep following this policy as best we can. --John (talk) 15:49, 29 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I just googled ["Malleus Fatuorum"] and the first screen was filled with references to the wikipedia user. How does that happen? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:58, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Bishonen - If you want to email, please feel free.

On point - Last time we had polls on civility policy, there was a huge mandate that the policy mattered and had to be enforced. Those arguing that it was intrinsically flawed were a tiny fringe.

I don't reject the notion that there are problems with it. But in this case that brought us here, it certainly wasn't any "insider" bringing a complaint against a less favored person. The complaining party is not someone I recognize from ANI previously, though I didn't do a complete search. They're not in any inside clique that I know of.

Malleus managed to push more buttons in his ANI responses than the two parties actually had in the discussion that lead to the ANI complaint. He knows what he's doing. He could be making the point non-disruptively, on policy boards, as can you and others. You, when it bothers you to get involved, do so in an appropriate manner. He tends to beat people up who don't deserve it, as was the case here. The complaining party was feeling abused, and Malleus went and abused him some more. This was not good.

The case didn't require hitting the Parrot over the head with a mallet either, but wasn't a false report. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 21:37, 29 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Do you think its acceptable to be labelled as obstructive, a bully, and an article-owner? Which would you think more serious - those allegations, or the use by another editor of a few rude words not made as a personal attack?  I most certainly consider it a false report.  I share Malleus's views on civility, which I estimate are more to do with the inconsistency with which it is applied (especially when aimed at administrators), than any objection against the idea of no personal attacks itself.  I think you're taking a large leap of faith when you suggest that dissenting views on civility are a tiny minority. Parrot of Doom 21:58, 29 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't want to re-fight the nonexistent actual ANI resolution of this here - as it seems to have worked itself out - but here, you miss the point, Parrot.
 * It's not a "Which is more serious". Both things are wrong.
 * Your claim that it wasn't personal attacks is not supported - the edit summaries, to me, looked like they were. If they didn't this would never have gone anywhere.  I'm sorry if you think it was a false report, but I don't.
 * When you use rude language like that, you create a new escalation of the situation, that makes it harder to resolve. Others coming in have to judge both your language and the timing of it, in reviewing the sequence of actions.  It makes the other editor angry, and less likely to cooperate on compromise or to see your perspective.  It's inherently increasing of drama.
 * Ideally, one can fling a few curses out to the winds and not get people around you upset. That does happen pretty much every day, where nobody around sees them as aimed at them or personal attacks against someone else, and everyone still goes home happy.  But a certain percentage of the time, you end up with insulted users who feel injured by the language, and something like this on ANI happens.
 * Casual rudeness doesn't have to be part of the way you interact here. Even if it typically is ok, sometimes it isn't, and this was one of those times.
 * Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 22:46, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
 * If you think that anything I've written is even close to a personal attack then I see no point in continuing this discussion. I'm quite glad I didn't join that pointless ANI discussion. Parrot of Doom 22:53, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
 * These two edit summaries were:
 * "Undid revision 387595434 by Str1977 (talk) just fucking pack it in will you? Take it to talk."
 * "only a dimwit needs uk and us explaining"
 * The first was more rude than personal-attacky, but it was seen as both. The second is a personal attack.
 * You wrote many dozens of fine discussion edits before, after, and between those in those same threads. It's not like you are unable to edit in a collaborative manner ever, by any means.  But those two pushed his buttons, and he pushed the ANI buttons.  So...  Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 23:01, 29 September 2010 (UTC)


 * The second would have been a personal attack if I'd written "you're a dimwit if you need....". It was a general comment aimed only at the dimwits who do need UK and US explaining. Parrot of Doom 07:17, 30 September 2010 (UTC)


 * The problem you have George is that you've simply become a heat-seeking naughty word missile. Take the second of your examples for instance. It's very clear to any rationale person that PoD was saying that only a dimwitted reader would need to have it explained that the US was the United States and the UK was the United Kingdom, not that the editor who added that unnecessary expansion of the perfectly well-understood abbreviations was a dimwit. But of course you only see what you want to see. Malleus Fatuorum 23:33, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I didn't file the report; Str1977 did. He felt it was aimed at him and said so.  I was unable to exclude the possibility that it was aimed at him when I reviewed.
 * In US workplace relations law and policy, someone is legally harrassed (sexually, or racially, or by otherwise hostile workplace etc) if there's activity past minimum thresholds AND they feel harrassed. That's not exactly Wikipedia's policy - but for the sake of argument, that's a valid place to draw the line, and both conditions happened here.
 * This is part of why casual rudeness is dangerous. You can entirely honestly intend it as a generic, non-personal expletive, and it can be taken by another person in the conversation as aimed at them, and then we have a problem.
 * As to whether I'm overreacting generally - I probably see high tens, sometimes 100 plus rude words slide past on Wikipedia a day. 95% of those clearly aren't aimed at people.  A very, very small percent of those not aimed at people are sufficiently rude that I leave someone a brief note.  The ones which are seen as NPAs are the only ones I consider taking enforcement actions on.  I do not have a personal objection to the idea of profanity, as my language this morning when I stubbed my toe will attest.  I have a problem with Wikipedia being a hostile editing environment.
 * To the extent that this particular blowup was pretty minor, all the discussion was low key, nobody waved hammer at Parrot, etc. It wasn't appropriate to go ape over it.  But someone felt that it was a hostile environment, there were potentially abusive words involved, and we responded.  That's the formula.  Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 23:44, 29 September 2010 (UTC)


 * We will quite likely never agree, as I think that the attitude you express "someone felt that it was a hostile environment" is naive and counter-productive. What someone actually felt was "I'd like to see PoD taken down a peg or two with a block, so I'm taking this to ANI", and if you can't see that then I'm afraid that you ought not to be let out unattended. In addition, if you're determined to stamp out all "potentially abusive words" then we'll be working with a pretty restricted vocabulary here. I don't take kindly to being called a troll (by User:Baseball Bugs), or disruptive (by you) for instance, both of which happened in the last 24 hours, but of course that doesn't matter, because I never go crying to mommy at ANI, so it's not on your radar screen. Anyway, don't be concerned, I've got no intention of disrupting your pink and fluffy world view any further by continuing this discussion here. Malleus Fatuorum 00:01, 30 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I'd like to know what part of my world resembles "fluffy and pink" - none of this is "happy happy joy joy" sort of stuff, here. People are angry, we're trying to deal with that.
 * Your disruption was in standing up to Str1977 and essentially yelling in their face and getting in the way of discussing with them what happened. Your greater point - that we need to discuss what are real issues and what aren't - is entirely valid, as you've demonstrated here.  You're not changing my mind so far, but it's not a bad conversation to have.  But he needed to be heard out, and you got in the way of that.  Even if his case didn't merit administrator intervention (which, you can note, hasn't really happened yet in any way other than generally cooperative chats on user talk pages) we needed to talk to him about it.  It's disrespectful, rude, and abusive to him to try and keep him from having that conversation.
 * If you intend to interfere with the normal function of ANI in dealing with harrassment / NPA / abuse situations, that IS disruptive. I certainly hope that you won't do that regularly.
 * Both the specific points (this complaint may not be admin actionable or should not be here) and general points (what is our civility policy, what should it be, what are we trying to accomplish within the editing community's social constructs) are made repeatedly by other editors and admins. See Bishonen above, etc.  There is no grousing about it, or any claims that it's disruptive.  Because they approach it in a constructive manner, rather than disruptive.
 * What you're doing is civil disobedience in a sense. But we have to have some defensible standards and some structure.  Online anarchies don't last.  See the "Communities are their own worst enemy" essay and various other sociological research on online communities.  We have a political process, for setting community standards and evolving them.  Your chosen approach is to butt heads with the political process rather than engage in it.  That's your decision, and choice, but you can't really complain when the consequences of that come back to bite you from time to time.
 * Yes, I'm sure the civility standards aren't enforced consistently across the wiki. None of the community standards, policies, pillars are.  Admins deal with what they see, with what is brought to their attention.  90% of what admins do isn't cross checked.  We have comparatively very little review and guidance structure compared to other activity areas like the law or corporate environments.
 * Abandoning them would be disaster, however.
 * Pointing out where there are problems with them is a good thing. We need people to do that.  Pointing out ways to make it done better is a good thing.  Pointing out philosophical alternatives that could form survivable social structures is a good thing.
 * Griping when we call you on it when you disrupt as a form of civil disobedience? Come on, man.  You know where the  limits are, even if you fundamentally disagree with them.  Every time you chose to step over them you're doing something you know may bite you.  I don't expect you not do do it, because I believe you believe what you do sincerely, and it matters to you.  But you can't expect us not to hold you accountable.  That's the point.  Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:58, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
 * As I said, we're not going to agree. I believe that your position is morally indefensible, but hey, you're the administrator, so you must be right. Malleus Fatuorum 01:51, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I have no delusion that I must be right. I'm convinced well enough that I act on it; without admins willing to act, we have no defensible structure.  But doing that and keeping in mind that we could all be wrong is important.
 * Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 02:07, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

George, I'd like to see more emphasis on enforcing CIV among admins. Certain admins feel they can post whatever they want while telling others how to behave. That's the really divisive thing about the CIV policy. SlimVirgin talk| contribs 01:57, 30 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I've gone on the record as being willing to block anyone - Jimbo, arbcom members, OTRS members, and normal admins - for sufficiently abusive behavior.
 * Bonus points if you know which of the above I actually did.
 * I've called people out on it and asked or told them to stop, when it was less serious than blockable but enough to follow up on, to varying effect.
 * I agree that it's a serious problem. I don't know what to do to make serious progress on it.  I don't think we spend enough time/energy/attention on it, but there are a lot of problems in that category.
 * cf Marc Riddell's offline discussions, etc. This goes back a ways...   Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 02:07, 30 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I wonder whether adding something to CIV would be supported, about admins being expected to adhere to it, with consequences if they don't. SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 03:49, 30 September 2010 (UTC)


 * My personal opinion? We should hold admins to a higher standard, if anything.  Occasional outbursts of frustration notwithstanding, if we don't set good examples it drags the project down and exposes the hypocrisy that Malleus and others object to.
 * I'd support pushing to add something to that effect to CIV. I'll argue with anyone who opposes it.  I would be disappointed if it didn't succeed.
 * If you want to start that, post me a pointer... Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:59, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
 * We already have Administrators are expected to lead by example and to behave in a respectful, civil manner in their interactions with others. (WP:ADMIN) and I think multiple ARBCOM remedies have referenced this in the past. Would it achieve anything to copy it to CIV? Maybe not. Would I oppose it? Probably not. --John (talk) 04:04, 30 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I'd like to make it a little stronger, but it would be better than nothing as a start. SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 04:11, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Dilma Rousseff
Hello, George! Here it is:


 * "A luta armada fracassou por que o objetivo final das organizações que a promoveram era transformar o Brasil numa ditadura, talvez socialista, certamente revolucionária. Seu projeto não passava pelo restabelecimento das liberdades democráticas. Como informou o PCBR: 'Ao lutarmos contra a ditadura devemos colocar como objetivo a conquista de um Governo Popular Revolucionário e não a chamada 'redemocratização'.' Documentos de dez organizações armadas, coletados por Daniel Aarão Reis Filho e Jair Ferreira de Sá, mostram que quatro propunham a substituição da ditadura militar por um 'governo popular revolucionário' (PC do B, Colina, PCBR e ALN). Outras quatro (Ala Vermelha, PCR, VAR e Polop) usavam sinônimos ou demarcavam etapas para chegar aquilo que, em última instância, seria uma ditadura da vanguarda revolucionária. Variavam nas proposições intermediárias, mas, no final, de seu projeto resultaria um 'Cubão'."


 * "Ao contrário do que sucedeu nas resistências francesa e italiana ao nazismo e até mesmo na Revolução Cubana, onde conservadores e anticoministas se integraram na luta contra a tirania, as organizações armadas brasileiras não tiveram, nem buscaram, adesões fora da esquerda. A sociedade podia não estar interessada em sustentar a ditadura militar, mas interessava-se muito menos pela chegada à ditadura do proletariado ou de qualquer grupo político ou social que se auto-intitulasse sua vanguarda. A natureza intrinsicamente revolucionária ds organizações armadas retirou-lhes o apoio, ainda que tênue, do grosso das forças que se opunham ao regime. Elas viam na estrutura da Igreja católica e na militância oposiocionista de civis como Tancredo Neves e Ulysses Guimarães um estorvo no caminho da revolução. Eles, por seu lado, viam na luta armada um estorvo para a redemocratização."


 * Now the translation: "The armed struggle failed because the final goal of the organizations which promoted it was to turn Brazil into a dictatorship, perhaps socialist, certainly revolutionary. Its project did not have as an objective the reestablishment of democratic freedoms. As the PCBR informed: 'When we fight against the dictatorship we must put as an objetive the conquest of the Revolutionary Popular Government and not the so-called 'redemocratization'.' Documentos from ten armed organizations, collected by Daniel Aarão Reis Filho and Jair Ferreira de Sá, reveal that four of them proposed the substitution of the military dictatorship for a 'Revolutionary Popular Government' (PC do B, Colina, PCBR and ALN). Other four (Ala Vermalha, PCR, VAR e Polop) used synonymous or established steps to reach that what, in the last instance, would be a dictatorship of the revolutionary vanguard. They varied in their middle proposals, but, in the end, their project would result in a 'Big Cuba'."


 * "Unlike what happened in the French and Italian resistances gainst the Nazism and even in the Cuba Revolution, where conservatives and anticommunists joined forces against tyranny, the Brazilian armed organizations did not have, nor were after, adhesion outside the left. The society could not be interested in supporting the military dictatorship, but was far less interested by the arrival of the Dictatorship of the proletariat or of any social or political group that entitled itself its vanguard. The intrinsically revolutionary nature of the armed organizations took away from them the support, even if weak, of the vast majority of the forces that opposed the regime. They [the armed organizations] saw in the structure of the Catholic Church or in the opposionist activism of civilians such as Tancredo Neves and Ulysses Guimarães a hindrance into the path of the revolution. They [the Catholic Church and the civilian activists], on their side, saw the armed struggle as a hindrance for the redemocratization."


 * Source: Gaspari, Elio.A ditadura escancarada. São paulo: Companhia das Letras, 2002, p.193 ISBN 8535902996

As you can see, there is no POV in the source. The communist armed groups had as goal the creation of yet another Cuba, China, North Korea or USSR, not the restoration of democracy. Nowhere the text that was removed claimed that she supports a communist dictatorship nowadays, but she did in the 1960s and 1970s. It really, really bothers me when "editors" appear to whitewash history in Wikipedia. I've seen that in the article about Hugo Chávez and I am trying to stop that in here. The article on Dilma Rousseff - as we speak, a presidential candidate - is nothing more than one piece of political propaganda. I am not even trying to deal with the entire article since my interest in here is only Brazilian history (as you can see in my user page). But the way it is written now, simply stating that she fought against the Military dictatorship, will lead the reader to believe that she was fighting for the democracy, which she wasn't. --Lecen (talk) 12:24, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
 * On the article talk page, there's significant question being raised as to the credibility of this source. A mention in passing of her working for creating a revolutionary dictatorship, in a questionable source, is not good enough.  Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 21:26, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Significant from whom? The book has won a prize from the Academia Brasileira de Letras (Here: ) and along with the other volumes (Here:, and ) was widely acclaimed. Are you telling me that the communist groups in activity in Latin America in the 1960 were after the restoration of democracy? Did you see anyone in that article bring one single source saying that? --Lecen (talk) 21:38, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you for not helping at all in this matter. If you were not going to do anything - including simply answer me - you should have let another editor deal with it. I have a couple of Brazilian-history related articles that are going to be nominated featured and once I'm done with them I will try to resolve this issue on Dilma's article. Thanks for nothing. --Lecen (talk) 11:34, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Arbitration/Requests/Case/Stevertigo 2
An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Arbitration/Requests/Case/Stevertigo 2/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Arbitration/Requests/Case/Stevertigo 2/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, NW ( Talk ) 17:27, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

cats
I appreciate your comments, I would prefer a personal I am an atheist reliable citation, but I defer to the multiple objections. I will remove the issue from my watchlist, thanks, Off2riorob (talk) 23:28, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Libertarianism
seems determined to continue the same sort of soapboxing as Xerographica. Yworo (talk) 13:25, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

also seems to be strongly soapboxing as well. Yworo (talk) 18:56, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Georgewilliamherbert, let me know if it ever dawns on you how strange it is that that everybody on one side of the debate engages in "soapboxing"...while nobody on the other side of the debate does. Also, let me know if you ever decide to place more value on Wikipedia policy than on the biased perspectives of involved editors on one side of the debate. --Xerographica (talk) 20:09, 30 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Maybe that would be because they initiate almost all the discussion, repeatedly bringing up the same topics, using many more words than necessary as if giving a speech rather than starting a discussion, then dismiss any response? Yworo (talk) 20:12, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
 * A long time ago we simply stated that we're dealing with very different meanings so the simple solution is to rely on the disambiguation page to allow readers to select the meaning that they are interested in learning about. Separating the mutually exclusive ideologies would diffuse the conflict.  The solution is just as relevant then as it is now.  --Xerographica (talk) 21:02, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
 * And an RfC decided that even though there were a broad range of meaning, the entire range of views fell under the topic of libertarianism and all should be included in the article. Nothing at all has changed since then except the volume (in both senses). Yworo (talk) 21:06, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Errant's feedback on my list of quotes was that "there was no simple conclusion". In actuality, the conclusion was very simple.  The conclusion was simply that, at a bare minimum, the government should protect its citizens from harm.  That Errant could miss such a simple conclusion explains how the RfC could come to the wrong conclusion.  --Xerographica (talk) 21:38, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Xerographica has just spammed the same essay to half a dozen talk pages explaining his Venn diagram which is listed for deletion. That is soapboxing an abuse of talk pages and X should be blocked.  TFD (talk) 23:53, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Blocked for a week... Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:01, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Another personal attack from Communicat on myself and others
Hello George, In this comment on the request for mediation he tried to initiate regarding the World War II article he labels me (as the person who declined to participate in mediation) "the main POV culprit" and claims that I "declined to consent to mediation was because a long history of partisan editing and POV dirty washing would have come to light and been curtailed. As it turned out, however, airing of the dirty washing was effectively blocked by the main partisan editor concerned, and partisan editing and POV bias at the milhist project continues to this day." The disagreement of basically all editors active in the World War II article to his actual and proposed changes are later labeled "agressive obstructionism, disruption or outright harrasment". Can you please look into this and take action as appropriate? - this appears to continue the editor's pattern of personal attacks and allegations of cabals. Cheers, Nick-D (talk) 00:14, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
 * There was also another one today (further claims of being victim of a cabal and editors accused of "unsocial networking characterised by vindictiveness, harassment, personal attacks, rumour mongering, disruption, unfounded allegations, and suchlike unreasonable and unpleasant behaviour directed currently at me in particular, though there have of course been other similar victims in the past.". Cheers, Nick-D (talk) 09:53, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Over the top?
I just happened to come across this. Some people seem to over reacting, and I think inappropriate comments have been left on Epson291's talk page, by Talktome, at the bottom of the page. I removed those comments, now take a look at the edit history of Epson291's talk page. Steve Quinn (talk) 07:08, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 4 October 2010
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 00:03, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi George! (second time)
It's Orijentolog here; I'm writing from collage because unfortunately you blocked mine IP address for one month, which is huge misunderstanding. First of all, as you probably remember you have advised me not to use Wikipedia for few month after my ban, so I did follow your advice. After few months or more precisely in early May, I contacted your colleague Dougweller who is also Wiki administrator but more active on history-related articles then you, because he was the most hostile toward my edits (beside you). In my message to him, I stated this:
 * Next time when I found some mistake on Wikipedia (like this or this) I'll inform you personally about it because I don't want you guys to consider it as vandalism. I know my situation and I don't have time for appeal to unblock my account, but some articles are important to me coz I'm working on one academic work so I use "what links here" very often - that's why I've found many mistakes. Cheers, vandal-killer! :)

He agreed with it as you can see it on upper link, and I've also noticed that since my IP is changing I'll always contact him, and that I won't bother him with banal changes. Since then (May 8), I participated in dozens of changes and every time I noticed administrator Dougweller: we have few disscusions and there was no absolutely any hostilities or contra-positions. Beside changes, I participated in "vandal hunt", discussions about categories and many other Wiki issues. You can see it on this list on Dougweller talk page, I listed it for you by dates:
 * May 20
 * May 20-22
 * June 9-14
 * June 21
 * July 4-5

After all signatures, I have added "(Orijentolog)" for clearly identification (you can check it). Also, to prove there was no even one my abusive edit or even one suspected abusive edit from agreement with Dougweller, you can check it on "User:Orijentolog" article by viewing history of suspected sockpuppets, confirmed socks or sockpuppet investigations casepage - as you can see, there is no any change after May 8.

So, talking about recent edits, I've made changes on article Cyrus Cylinder along with explanation on talk page; administrator Dougweller saw it even before I posted new message on his talk page, so on Cyrus Cylinder talk page he advised me about few things and I said "You're the boss", and I've followed his corrections.

I understand that you have hostile policy toward vandals on Wikipedia, but in this case you're wrong because as I prove it upper - I've followed your advices, and everything I've done was under supervision of Wikipedia administrator. If it's possible, it would be kind from you to remove IP block, and if you have further questions or demands feel free to post it here. I'll also notice User:Athenean about this whole issue. Cheers! --161.53.35.105 (talk) 09:52, 17 September 2010 (UTC)(Orijentolog)
 * I don't agree with the large changes made a few days ago or today. Dougweller (talk) 16:08, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Can you please answer to this message? Is it so hard to confess you're were wrong about this move, or you'll still keep whole network under blockade for no reason? --161.53.99.49 (talk) 01:53, 5 October 2010 (UTC)(Orijentolog)

Croatia
Good afternoon George. I have an IP address questioning the need to block "half of Croatia" via Rangeblock. The IP in question is, and the rangeblock appears to be centered on 93.143.0.0/16. My knowledge of rangeblocks hovers between nothing and next-to-nothing, but I did tell the IP I'd mention the concern to you. So, there you go. Best, UltraExactZZ Said~ Did 18:41, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Do you see the comment immediately above you, from Orijentolog, using yet another IP?
 * Unfortunately, it's rather necessary. This is a very persistent abusive user.  Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 18:54, 5 October 2010 (UTC)


 * No problem at all - looks fine to me. Didn't catch that the IP above was the same user - which shows why it's best left to admins who aren't me. Thanks, UltraExactZZ Said~ Did 19:46, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I really can't understand your intolerance toward me, especially since I've proved there wasn't even one mine abusive edit during last six months and that everything I contributed was under supervision of administrators. Seems like you simply refuse to listen what I had to say so you're rather listen one nationalistic Greek who accused me without any arguments. Enjoy your fascism. --161.53.99.49 (talk) 20:11, 5 October 2010 (UTC)(Orijentolog)


 * You are permanently blocked and have continued abusing Wikipedia every time the IP blocks expired. Please stop.  I will block any IP address you start using, as I have with the IP above.  Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 20:31, 5 October 2010 (UTC)


 * - removed personal attack and warned user. Off2riorob (talk) 00:32, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Oh, great, I see that you had this discussion already. I see that you even threatened to block any IP range this this guy uses. Well, you are not threatening to him, but to 300,000 other people, so, please, take it easy and talk to other admins about IP range blocks. I don't see the point in blocking entire city of Split just because one troll lives there. What You are doing is nonsense. --Argo Navis (talk) 14:29, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia Discussion On Me(Kagome_85) PLEASE READ!!!!!!
Although I know you might delete this and refuse to reply to it given that another user has been deleting my posts claiming how I am not allowed to post since I'm banned, I think you should listen to me, given that a user is harassing me(the one that started the discussion on me). This is what I posted on the Wikipedia thread that was removed: Although I know that this account will be banned for "sockpuppetry" or "evasion of block" or whatever, I just want to point out have you thought to see if these accounts created to say how the account Kagome_85 should have a sitewide ban MIGHT be related to Moukity? Kagome_85 is my account, but these accounts created to say there should be a sitewide ban are not. If an IP trace was done you would find that this account and the accounts made to say there should be a sitewide ban put on me probably start with 142., but you would also see that the rest of the digits that follow my account and the ones that follow the accounts made to say there should be a sitewide ban put in place on me are different. I know you may say that any user that is guilty would say that, however, I am pointing that out since a.) I am not stupid enough to go on here saying you should put a sitewide ban on me by using a different account since I know you can trace it and b.) Why would I go make another account to report something I did on another account when I know that would just get me in trouble since I can get caught? and c.) Why would I go linking to a news article about me when I don't want people to know about it? I'm not looking for attention or anything like some people are.

I hope that you consider what I said since I felt I should point out the fact that Moukity could(and more than likely is) be behind these new accounts made to say that I should be banned from the site permanently. Anyway, feel free to ban this account as you probably will, but I'll be putting the retirement sign on it anyway since you can be guaranteed I won't be using this anymore. By the way, the only reason I found this post was that I went to check the Incidents Noticeboards for something on another topic that I was told about that has nothing to do with me, so you can't say that I had any knowledge of this thread because I never, if you looked at the date that this post was made you would see that. Please, I implore you, to do an investigation into the accounts that started this discussion on me, and see if they were made by Moukity (a.k.a. Blackmagic1234). If you see this, then you will know that he is at fault as well. Sango 42 (talk) 11:11, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

I Do Not Understand
DD2K deleted a discussion (not a posting on the article board) about how the attorney general's (Mike Cox) anti-gay cyber bullying assistant appeared by physical and audible cues to be gay himself. That would make the anti-gay political agenda of both the AG and assistant AG hypocritical and should be highly interesting to the reader. Arent users permitted to discuss on the discussion board about whether or not that may be going on? If so, wasnt DD2K censoring relevant discussion?

--Fpetes (talk) 16:29, 6 October 2010 (UTC)


 * That entire line of discussion is inappropriate for Wikipedia. We're an encyclopedia, not a blog, not a discussion forum, not a source of original research.
 * It also violates our policy on biographical articles of living persons, which applies to talk pages and other pages.
 * Please take this activity somewhere else. If you want to contribute to the encyclopedia, using reliably sourced information we can verify was published, isn't original research, isn't unsourced negative biographical claims or information, etc, you are welcome to do so.  But what you did earlier?  Is not ok.
 * Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 18:33, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Requested Sources on Tapioca Express Article
^ "Franchiser tests lure of Tapioca 'boba' balls beyond California.". Los Angeles Business Journal. August 19, 2002. http://www.accessmylibrary.com/coms2/summary_0286-25881166_ITM. Retrieved 2008-09-23. ^ "Taiwan tapioca tea on tap in Palo Alto, Mountain View". San Francisco Chronicle. August 23, 2002. http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2002/08/23/PN167816.DTL&type=travel. Retrieved 2008-09-23. ^ "Quench your thirst at Tapioca Express". The Daily Cougar. June 8, 2006. http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P1-124906382.html. Retrieved 2008-09-23. ^ "TAPIOCA WITH YOUR TEA?". Rocky Mountain News. September 27, 2002. http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-92220160.html. Retrieved 2008-09-23. ^ "Missing dog is Kaheka Street pawmark". Star Bulletin. January 10, 2006. http://starbulletin.com/2006/01/10/news/story09.html. Retrieved 2008-09-23. ^  ^   ^   ^   ^ "Franchiser tests lure of Tapioca 'boba' balls beyond California". All Business. August 19 2002. http://www.allbusiness.com/north-america/united-states-california-metro-areas/254192-1.html. Retrieved 2010-04-10. ^ "Franchiser tests lure of Tapioca 'boba' balls beyond California". All Business. August 19 2002. http://www.allbusiness.com/north-america/united-states-california-metro-areas/254192-1.html. Retrieved 2010-04-10. ^  ^   ^ "UC San Diego Cafe and Restaurants". University of California San Diego. August 19 2008. http://universitycenters.ucsd.edu/eat.php#Tapioca%20Express. Retrieved 2010-04-10. ^ "Quench your thirst at Tapioca Express". http://www.thefranchisemall.com/news/articles/12895-0.htm. Retrieved 2010-10-04. ^ "Yelp Reviews of Tapioca Express". Yelp!. August 20 2010. http://www.yelp.com/biz/tapioca-express-san-gabriel-4. Retrieved 2010-10-04. ^  ^  http://www.feryah.com/?p=6722

BLP violation, but related to cold fusion.
I was just reviewing the history of cold-fusion related articles (elsewhere, not on Wikipedia) and it occurred to me to look at Stanley Pons, I see on that page some serious BLP violations. I have not looked at all the sources, but this is clearly a case of some allegations having been made, but not a "determination" by the "scientific community." Many sources specifically deny that, for example, fraud was involved. I can address it, but you could easily consider this as within my ban. What do you suggest? I have some of the sources (Taubes and Simon), and could check them in depth. Given that this is a BLP, would you allow me to work on that?

If you compare Martin Fleischmann -- and about every charge made about Pons would have been made about Fleischmann -- you can see an article which has had much more neutral attention, and has a much more balanced presentation (even though I wouldn't call it complete, it is far better).

Thanks. --Abd (talk) 01:33, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Example of source not supporting text: is cited to support the determination of "unethical." The source does use the word, but not how it is claimed (as an overall judgment). To quote:
 * ''Claims were made daily and weekly concerning the reproducibility of the experiment. However, more often, claims were made that the experiments were not reproducible. Those who could not reproduce the experiments often described the work of Fleischmann and Pons and of Jones as unethical, and sloppy.
 * ''Unfortunately in this case the process of scientific research failed in many ways. Many different parties on all sides of this dispute violated ethical norms.... [and he goes on to give details. If anything, he is more critical of the fierce rejection of cold fusion than of the supporters].

I'm familiar with Simon and Simon's position is similar. He's often been cited on Wikipedia as supporting the rejection of cold fusion by the scientific community, but, in fact, he takes a position similar to that of Shamoo and Resnik. The cherry-picking of those sources to present an entirely negative picture on Pons is typical of what's been done. I'm not trying to address the rest of that now, I'm here purely because this is a BLP. --Abd (talk) 01:59, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Re Abd
Does your Topic Ban of Abd permit him to raise issues related to Cold Fusion at noticboards, such as WP:RSN? How about on his talk page? Thanks for any clarification. Hipocrite (talk) 17:29, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Ditto this. Raul654 (talk) 17:35, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Hipocrite and Raul, these could be very useful comments/questions. Since GWH seems to be absent for the moment, I'll present my interpretation. Yes, it prevents noticeboard comments related to Cold fusion, generally (and specifically RSN), though he wasn't explicit on that, I'm taking it that way. I'm also taking it that I can't edit Stanley Pons. But BLP issues do trump about every rule. I first asked GWH here for permission or other guidance. He hasn't responded, so, since this is a very clear BLP issue, I posted a brief comment on the BLP noticeboard, asking for neutral eyes to look at it. Got a problem with that? I'm sure that ArbComm will find this quite interesting. Or they won't, telling me the real truth about the Wikipedia situation. I need to know.
 * As to my Talk page, unless he makes it clear that I cannot discuss the issues anywhere, I'm explicitly assuming that I'm allowed to discuss this there. If you can get another neutral admin to come up with a discretionary sanction that prohibits it, there you go. Nobody is obligated to read my Talk page. It is all likely to end up before ArbComm, which will determine my editing future as well as, possibly, that of a number of other involved persons. Or not. I have no crystal ball. --Abd (talk) 18:16, 7 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I am up and reviewing. I have work to do but will respond later this afternoon.  I just see the one BLPN post, and I agree that you've identified a legitimate BLP question if not issue to be resolved/fixed, and whatever happens in larger response I'm not going to take any action over that one posting.  Please refrain from anything else until I've had a chance to respond properly later this afternoon, though.  Thanks.  Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 20:52, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks, GWH. I assure you, I have no intention of repeating that. Unless, maybe, I find something worse! I wasn't looking to find something, I was writing about the history of this stuff on netknowledge.org, and was making a list of cold fusion related articles, and thus a list of articles on figures in the field, so I looked at it.... I did my duty by, first, asking you, and then, when there wasn't reasonably rapid response, by the noticeboard post, and I tried to keep it pretty brief. I appreciate you looking at this and recognizing the BLP problem, it's really encouraging.
 * The others above did raise an important issue. I'd mentioned before that I interpreted that I was allowed to discuss cold fusion on my Talk page, and presumably on the talk pages of consenting editors. You did not negate that, but .... the others raised that issue, so, please do be specific, so that neither they nor I waste more time worrying about this. --Abd (talk) 21:35, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I still owe you a real answer, but I just got done at work (ugh) and am going to go home and log in from there after I get some downtime. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 04:34, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
 * No problem, GWH, no rush. News: lenr-canr.org was delisted at meta, as a result of that request. If communicating with me becomes a burden, let me know, and I'll suggest an alternative that would require less attention from you. As long as we are working together, this need not escalate, and I'm hopeful. From what has come down, you might come to understand the conditions I've faced. Thanks for your patience. --Abd (talk) 18:23, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Request from Abd re self-reverted edits to articles under ban
I have long been interested in how experts and knowledgeable amateurs who have become banned -- it's common, if their understanding is contrary to that of a majority of editors -- could still make contributions, point out errors, etc., to articles from which they are banned, and hit upon self-reversion as a device well before it was about me. When it was allowed, it worked, and fostered cooperation between banned editors and others, including, I've seen, the very editors who had requested a ban.

I request permission to make self-reverted edits to articles covered by the cold fusion ban you established, accompanied by at most a brief notice/justification for the edit on the Talk page. Any lengthy explanation that might be needed would be placed elsewhere and linked. I was already using self-reversion for any edits where I expected controversy, due to COI. A self-reverted edit is a far more efficient way of proposing changes, especially minor ones, than describing the change on Talk, and the restriction as described addresses the core of the complaints about me, alleged domination of the Talk page with lengthy argument.

I would respect any additional restrictions you place, pending review. Naturally, if this causes problems, you could retract this permission, but self-reversion is simple to verify and places a burden on no editor to review what they don't want to review.

Almost every day, on various articles, I see small corrections, or even easily resolvable major problems, based on what's in reliable source. In the example above, Stanley Pons, I could have commented on the Talk page there, similarly. (As the article was protected, I could not now edit it, but I would use reference on Talk for anything lengthy, and I'd interpret "lengthy" very strictly.)

Thanks for considering this. --Abd (talk) 13:54, 10 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Ok. Here's my opinion and interpretation -
 * The point here is that this is a topic ban. It's not a "you need to be extra careful there", it's an enforceable request that you stay away from the topic, where the community and Arbcom have determined your contributions have a significant chance of becoming problematic.
 * If you notice a BLP problem or other serious policy problem, pointing it out to people neutrally is a slight topic ban violation, but can be done in a harmless manner. I would like to generally discourage your doing it again, but the one you did earlier was appropriate for the encyclopedia and harmless.  Engaging in followup discussions would be a topic ban violation.
 * Edits to articles - of any type, even self reverted - is a topic ban violation. Again - the point is that we've reviewed and found that your contributions tend to become problematic.
 * Part of the point here is that it's important that you understand the community position, which I believe is what Arbcom intended in its prior case. I believe that you still disagree with Arbcom and the community positions that your editing was the source of the problems.  Your efforts to wiggle around a bit here indicate that you think you can make positive contributions, that perhaps you need to be careful but that you can do so constructively.  The topic ban is already past that point.  It's pretty much a finding that we think that at the moment, any contribution is likely to be problematic, and that you need to stay away from the topic.
 * I think that this is a reasonable point for you to ask Arbcom for review on, relative to the current case. But, unless reviewed by them or a community board and overturned, please don't touch the topic area.
 * Thanks. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 23:36, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I had a braino with the 'current case' comment, struck. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 23:43, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I think we are done with this stage. There are some serious problems to be addressed, that will require ArbComm review anyway, so, in a way, I'm relieved that you did not consent to this. Thanks for considering it. I appreciate your comment about the BLP action being appropriate. --Abd (talk) 20:07, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Revert issue
Hi George! The article Brazil and weapons of mass destruction was recently nominated for deletion. The result was keep and the case was closed yesterday. During the AfD, I inserted a rescue tag to see if we could improve the article. I edited the article and added about 20 reliable sources, including SIPRI, Wisconsin Project on Nuclear Arms Control, Arms Control Association, GlobalSecurity.org, Global Security Institute, German Council on Foreign Relations, GlobalSecurity.org, to name a few. I didn't make any radical changes, I basically reworded some parts (to reflect the sources), improved the lead and added a history section. Now, User:NPguy has reverted all my edits, erasing all the sources. If you have a chance, could you please leave your input on the article's talk page? I think that will really be helpful. Thanks! Limongi (talk) 13:06, 8 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Ahh... I am sort of saturated at the moment but let me go take a look when I get a chance. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 19:36, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Blocking IP ranges
Hi,

This is me:
 * User talk:93.143.27.44
 * User talk:93.142.182.118

In the last few days, I tried to fix some minor errors on 2 pages, but I was unable to do so because of your blocking of entire IP range 93.142.x.x and 93.143.x.x. This is insane! I live in city of Split (city) and I never had IP address outside this IP range. So, you blocked some 300,000 people. Well done!

Of course, I have my account and I could log in, but this isn't about me. If I were new user, I could only bark on the moon. Because of your triger-happines.

If you bother to ask CU to check the number of people that use this IP range, he/she would probably tell you that the number of users is quite high. But, you didn't bother to ask, didn't you?

Please, read the basics and try not to do any harm to the protect in the future.

And, You might consider unblocking this IP range.

Excuse me for my language, but I have low tolarance for ignorance.

Thanks.

--Argo Navis (talk) 14:19, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

P.S.

Don't bother to answer (at least not at my talk page), since I log in once every 6 months. --Argo Navis (talk) 14:24, 8 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Wouldn't logging in be less trouble than typing paragraph after paragraph of insults? Argo, sometimes we have no choice but to block large ranges in the case of long-term abuse from dedicated trolls.  If you look at the history for just one of these ranges, that's what you see -- that and little else.  Note that the ranges are blocked anon-only so logged-in users are not affected, and there are clear instructions on the block page letting innocent users know how to create an account.  Sometimes Wikipedia has to protect itself against seriously disruptive users.  GWH, sorry for butting in.  Thank you, Antandrus  (talk) 14:40, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Nothing to be sorry about, Antandrus.
 * Argo - There is an extremely persistent extremely disruptive banned editor who has claimed they will reform and stop it repeatedly and who keeps coming back and disrupting Wikipedia. The IP range blocks are the only way to keep them from disrupting large swaths of articles.
 * We don't block that many IP addresses lightly, and I'm fully aware of how much of Croatia is affected. That is highly unfortunate.  But, you and anyone else can continue to edit with accounts that you have, if you just log in.
 * Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 09:11, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Disruption of WWII talk page.
Hello. Despite your repeated advice to user:Communicat, he continues to disrupt talk:World War II. It is very difficult to assume good faith from him any more. He appears to cherry pick phrases out of context which give the opposite meaning to a fuller reading of the sources he provides. In my opinion, the disruption he is causing far outweighs the limited benefit of the occasional valid point he makes. Could give some advice on how to make the talk page for this extremely high profile article productive again? ( Hohum  @ ) 17:49, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 11 October 2010
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 06:54, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Banned user "Leon E Panetta" is back.
Banned user Leon E Panetta is back under alias Leon pan and once more he reverted the Edgar Valdez Villarreal‎ article to his OR version. BatteryIncluded (talk) 19:25, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Sorry
Hi there, I have sent an apology to user (NawlinWiki) about blanking NawlinWiki's talk page and replacing it with my message re: not to delete the future radio station article. I did that because she kept putting the Article for Deletion request and was disappointed because I had just created it. What I did to NawlinWiki, this will never ever happen again and I promise!!! Thank you and take care. Webfan29 06:00, 16 October 2010 (UTC).


 * Ok. Thanks for that.
 * As I said, you can argue to keep the article at its AFD page. Please keep calm when you discuss it there, your discussion is more persuasive when you are calm about it.
 * Good luck editing going forwards. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 06:05, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Update: I had e-mailed the station for the information on the new radio station, 88.7 FM Campbell River, British Columbia and the new call sign will be CHVI-FM and they told me that they will be signing on in December 2010. The station also has a website for the new radio station. I had moved 88.7 Campbell River, BC to their new callsign CHVI-FM without deleting the AFD request just to avoid getting blocked. How do I access the AFD page to discuss? I started editing and creating articles on Wikipedia in 1997, more than three years ago and I have never experienced an article deletion for an article on a new radio station I had just created...new changes/rules? There's an editor named Bearcat who took care of a lot of radio station articles mostly in Canada and hasn't done so in awhile. He used to help me out a lot on them. Thanks for your message. Take care. Webfan29 05:00, 17 October 2010 (UTC).

Uncivil editor
What to do with this uncivil editor user:Russian.science? For days he has been adding that Andre Geim is of Jewish family although he hasn't come up with any valid source for it. When I told him/her to stop adding it without providing a source he instead did this. Not only he is uncivil but he also blanked the sources I gave for him being of German family. He/she thinks I don't know Russian culture but that surely is wrong. I surely know that it's a very popular habit in Russia to point out people as being Jewish on the only grounds of them having a non-Russian name (for example Russian nationalists say that president Medvedev is of Jewish ancestry only because one of his ancestors had the name Veniamin - and all this to discredit). But there surely are many other nationalities in Russia, and not only Russian and Jewish as this editor seem to think. Närking (talk) 08:19, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
 * He/she continues against another editor here . Närking (talk) 21:26, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Congratulations
Another glorious victory for you. Could you put the light out when you leave the project. Thank you.  Giacomo  08:20, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

recent block
I suggest revoking talkpage-rights, he's spewing his junk. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 09:34, 16 October 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)

The Signpost: 18 October 2010
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 00:40, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Please help
I'm currently being harassed on my talk page by a AlexanderLiptak, and apparently you're fimiliar with him, as I see you have dealt with him ind the past, and am hoping you could please deal with him again, giving him a warning or whatever else you deem fit. As you can see, he has called me a thief, insulted me, and refuses to leave me alone despite my making it clear I did not wish to be contacted by him any longer. I have left all evidence on my talk page for your review. Thanks for any assistance. Fry1989 (talk) 05:18, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Please stop harassing me
Why you are trying to beat a dead horse is beyond me, that conversation ended already. Also, I never stated that, so do not put words into my mouth. [tk]  XANDERLIPTAK  06:32, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Apparently not, as you can see directly above your comment. He thinks you are, or were, still at it.
 * Read what you wrote on his page yourself. But please don't comment there again.  Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 07:32, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
 * He makes accusations agaisnt my character and then practically says if I respond to his accusations I am harassing him. If he wanted the conversation to end earlier, all he had to do was 1.) stop accusing me of things, which I have a right to respond to, and 2.) stop asking me questions, which the appropriate thing was to answer when asked. The conversation was over before he even contacted you, and if you took the time to read his talk page, you would have seen that he was not being harassed and that the conversation was already over. Apparently you did not do that, and instead thought it better to merely come to my page and bully me around for without taking a look at the situation. [tk]   XANDERLIPTAK  12:04, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I've made no insults upon his character. When you are blocked because of previous behaiviour, that speaks for itself. And yes, you did call me a thief, several times, which is factually incorrect. When I ask someone 3 times to leave me alone, I expect that to be respected. That's why I reported you, and clearly you wouldn't stop until I did. I have absolutely nothing else to say about this matter, except that I will not tolerate someone pestering me. Fry1989 (talk) 18:43, 20 October 2010 (UTC)


 * As a matter of interest... I call Xanderliptak's comments lies (demonstrably and objectively accurate), I get blocked. Xanderliptak calls Fry a thief (not accurate), he doesn't get blocked. Fascinating. → ROUX   ₪  21:32, 20 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Sorry, but I was attracted by the section title, and the fact that it's on George's page :>) (Is my life that empty?) I just want to say Xanderliptak is headed for a block. In fact I am surprised he is not blocked already. Oh, but not for patient Admins....  Steve Quinn (talk) 21:59, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

I spent most of what were supposed to be my asleep hours last night reviewing, analyzing, and responding to newly released technical evidence on the apparent May 12, 2010 North Korean nuclear weapons test. I really have better things to be doing today than dealing with this. Honest. Plus, I'm sleep deprived, and thus grumpy.

Xanderliptak did, in fact, stop here when asked, other than complaining once on my talk page. That weighs heavily in the lack of further intervention.

As to whether his earlier behavior was OK or not, the answer is no. Blockable? Possibly. Blockable by me, while I was analyzing Xenon isotope decays and fairly unhappy about that? No.

Xanderliptak is arguably behaving in a manner which is likely to get him blocked for a long period of time in the near future. That I did not stomp up and down on him last night doesn't change that.

X, if you care about participating in Wikipedia, please calm down and stop poking people. You're over the line on acceptable behavior. There's considerable range between "over the line" and "blocked and gone from the project". You're somehwere in that range. It would help you, and everyone around you, if you find a course back to behavior that isn't over the line, that people can deal with and not find offensive or abusive and file complaints over.

Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 22:32, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Stop editing in a disruptive manner in these articles?
I was accused of being disruptive regarding judaism and bus stops, but I fail to see the disruption caused at Rachel's Tomb or the illegal settlements on the GH. But thanks for your opinion. Chesdovi (talk) 11:23, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Excuse me, do I know you?
Nice job turning down the heat, there.

You are not supposed to threaten established users with blocks for no good reason. Final warning. I like that. I guess I missed all the warnings leading up to the final warning.

You are given the power to block users so that we can get rid of vandals and suchlike. It was not so you, personally, can make threats against people who personally irritate you or to cut off content discussions that are not going the way you, personally, might not like.

I have been editing Wikipedia for many years now and have many thousands of edits. I have never been threatened in this manner and I don't like it. This is my hobby and you threatening to take that away from me for absolutely no good reason is chilling to say the least.

This is a very serious threat and goes way, way beyond any reasonable reaction to anything seen on any of the threads you refer to. Even the threat is a very serious abuse of your admin rights. I am certainly going to have to think this one over.

I see that your user page includes the notation "Trying hard not to let any power go to my head."

I suggest you try a bit harder. Herostratus (talk) 15:13, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Herostratus, User:HandThatFeeds gave you good advice at ANI. Don't freak out, just take a break for a while and/or find some other topic area to edit.  Sticking around areas that get you into stress is masochistic. 67.119.14.180 (talk) 08:55, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Shshshsh used a roll back actually edited his own former edit Off2riorob -
PPls rotect Cinema of Andhra from edit  and vandalism suspected vandalism by Shshshsh - In accordance with agreement

Protect Cinema of Andhra from edit and vandalism
suspected vandalism by Shshshsh - In accordance with agreement Shshshsh used a roll back actually edited his own former edit Off2riorob —Preceding unsigned comment added by 6poundhammer (talk • contribs) 04:48, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Edit filter
Hello, I have modified the filter that was disallowing your edit, and hopefully you should be able to make that edit now. There was a minor bug. Evil saltine (talk) 07:26, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you! Prompt response.  Have a good night.  Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 07:30, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
 * No problem! Evil saltine (talk) 07:31, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

User:75.105.241.135
Mea culpa. I didn't realize that impersonating other editors was blockable like that. Where should I report something like that next time? Ishdarian&#124; lol wut 09:07, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
 * You didn't do anything wrong. If you want to report it, you can report it to the main administrators' noticeboard for incidents, WP:ANI.
 * Have a good night! Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 09:42, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok! Thanks! Ishdarian&#124; lol wut 09:52, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you!
I appreciate the feedback you gave on my comments on the AE page. You didn't see any problems with my comments but, in general, if you do see something that you think is not ok., giving a feedback with a precise quote and explanation why this is wrong, would be welcomed by me.

The problem with this whole "advocacy" thing is that it is rather vague. Sometimes people will have some vague perception that "I'm at it again" and mention that. But then, without pointing to specific problematic edits, there is little that I can change about this. Of course, I could decide not to get involved in issues relating to Brews at all, but I would oppose that. The reason I have been involved with him has to do with the way some technical articles should (or can) be editited and I should be able to have my say here. This is not about me always agreeing with Brews about specific edits or in specific disputes (I strongly disagreed with Brews on the Speed of Light page that was the subject of the original ArbCom case).

Basically, the core of the issue as far as editing Wikipedia is concerned, is where one should the draw the line in WP:NOTTEXTBOOK. This is obviously a judgement call that editors on different pages have different opinions on. While Brews and I share the same rather liberal view on this, the articles I've mostly been involved in (e.g. thermodynamics and statistical physics), allowed me to edit without much disputes. Brews, on the other hand, with a similar editing philosophy, has faced much more opposition on other physics pages (e.g. classical mechanics related pages). I have been involved on these pages too, but less frequently.

My observation there is that some other editors have an extreme opposite view on WP:NOTTEXTBOOK where even simple examples are not allowed (sometimes even regarded as OR). And Brews also gets quite easily drawn into escalating conflicts when facing opposition. The reason why the physics topic ban has been re-imposed was precisely because of such a dispute on one of the classical mechanics pages (Brews was appealing an article ban on speed of light, but one Arbitrator noted that there was a new dispute with Brews on another physics page, leading to Brews getting topic banned).

So, in conclusion, the whole issue with me being involved with Brews is not motivated by some unconditional support for him. Rather, there are real issues regarding editing Wikipedia here that are perhaps a bit hidden from view. And in such disputes, I always tell Brews to take into account opposition against his edits and try to make modifications to get the necessary consensus. Count Iblis (talk) 17:39, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Recent admin addition
Hello. I am trying to understand what factors you are weighing, and what exactly you are trying to determine, at this recent Stevertigo ANI. Also, are you looking at multple issues which will help determine the degree of enforcement? In addition, I am inclined to file for enforcement of the 1RR restriction at WP:AE. However, if you have decided to do this I will step aside.

Furthermore, I have piece of new evidence (a diff within the last 28 hours) that indicates Stevertigo, may be irredeemable at this time. Hence, based on this indication I feel that a total block of some duration is neccessary. The point I am trying to make is I would like to enter this diff, and make this statement, based on the diff. However, it appears with your intervention, an involved person such as myself is unable to add this to the ANI. The other avenue of course, is to make this statement with the diff at the request for arbritration. So (respectfully) what is allowed here since you have joined the discussion?

Feel free to reply here. I now have your talk page on my watchlist. Steve Quinn (talk) 01:30, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
 * If you're talking about the "uninvolved admin" section, then as it says, that section is admin-only and you shouldn't post in it. You can still post in the other sections (or create a new section) and so you should post your diff in one of them. 67.119.2.101 (talk) 01:54, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
 * OK, I hope you are correct 67.119.... (thanks) Steve Quinn (talk) 02:04, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Question re: Stevertigo AN/I
GWH: I note that Stevertigo commented in the section for uninvolved admins you created there. Since he's neither univolved or an admin, I thought his placement was incorrect, and thought about moving it, but I don't want to make an undue fuss or be a dick about it. Still, it seems to me to be a bit in line with his opening an ArbCom case on himself when the AN/I discussion was still active, or trying to rename that case "Punishment" instead of "Stevertigo 2" -- just a bit too close to "working the refs" or "gaming the system" for my taste, trying to manipulate circumstances to get an edge instead of engaging in straight-forward open discussion. In any case, is it usual to allow the subject to comment in "uninvolved admin" sections? Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:42, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Usually not, but let the admins deal with it. 67.119.2.101 (talk) 02:05, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that's why I stopped myself before I moved the comment elsewhere. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:50, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Couple of things

 * 1) Thanks on the block. The chap had not seemed to have learnt, despite the other 3 discussing. Hopefully he will.
 * 2) There was another query I had (which I didnt notice during edits on the article page, but just took note of on the talk page) User: JonathanMFeldman commented at Talk:Swedish_general_election,_2010, but earlier on Swedish general election, 2010 there was a quoted passage (that was disputed by someone hence he had the respected caveats of the author/source (which was fair)), but now it seems the person quoted who wrote the article on the source is the same user who is editing the page and referring the quoted text as "his." Now, i dont think its off-base per se, but maybe something to look at..
 * Hes also only edited said pages . and then had ownership issues Lihaas (talk) 04:41, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Follow-up
You wrote at the ANI: "Nothing is "enough to discredit the views of editors who rejected your proposed changes outright", Steve. You seem to be indicating a profound lack of understanding for and respect for Wikipedia's core value of consensus, here." - You make a good point. What I meant to say is if there were any who held the view that my suggestions were without merit, the one fact alone (that "person"/"personhood" was not in the human article) amply negated such views.

BTW, I appreciate the effort you put into a fair review of the ANI. Now that Arbcom appears to be taking the case, I am sure that Arbcom will appreciate your general take on things. -Stevertigo (t | log | c) 20:06, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 27 September 2010
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 21:06, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Communication
George, I believe that when you communciate with Stevertigo you are being non-judgemental and that you are aiming to discover the best possible conditions for him. I agree with this. However, I notice that if you communicate with him on Wikipedia others are free to jump in and chastise or lecture. I believe this is not conducive to what you are trying to accomplish. Hence, I strongly reccomend that you and Stevertigo communicate only by email, or even one on one chats in real time. I think in this instance, it is important that you create a safe enviornment for him to communicate. I think the benefits of doing this are readily apparent. Steve Quinn (talk) 21:49, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

If anyone cares, I left a comment at Jehochman's talk that mentions the ANI and the arb request. 67.122.209.115 (talk) 22:52, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Impersonating administrators
I noticed your comment at WP:ANI (diff) where you said that it is against policy to impersonate administrators (in connection with a user who apparently had placed an admin userbox on their user page).

Would you care to comment at WT:User pages where a proposal was made to prohibit deliberate misinformation on a user page, with "I an admin" being the misinformation example. Johnuniq (talk) 10:37, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
 * George has been impersonating an administrator for years, how does he manage to get away with it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.210.97.32 (talk) 00:49, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Question about personal attacks
What happens if these attacks continue by the user???15jan19932010 (talk) 14:34, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

User talk:85.210.97.32
The above user is currently attacking you on their talk page. I'm not sure if it's necessary to continue warning a blocked user?  Bramble  claw  x   01:12, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Talkpage privileges revoked for the duration of the block.  Acroterion  (talk)  01:16, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Some people just don't get it. Thanks.  Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:17, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Oops, we protect-conflicted
Sorry, didn't see you there. Here's my rationale for full protection, but I don't mind if you downgrade to semi. Cheers, Dabomb87 (talk) 02:41, 29 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't think it's worth arguing over. I'm fine with full protection, too.  No worries, stepping on each other by accident happens.  Thanks for letting me know, though.  Always appreciated when communications are clear!  Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 02:45, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the understanding. I just noticed this ANI thread; I assume that was what drew you to the article, whereas I had been directed there by a RFPP request, which probably caused the double protection. In any case, I'll leave a note on the ANI thread just so everything's cleared up. Cheers, Dabomb87 (talk) 02:47, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Another slight request,
Could you please add your opinion, as an uninvolved administrator, to this thread?. Thank you for your time.—  Dæ dαlus Contribs 04:32, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Malleus
I was about to post in this ANI thread, but since the discussion now seems to be moving off of Malleus Fatuorum, I won't drag him back in. However... I disagree with what you said. Malleus doesn't represent a "tiny community fringe viewpoint" that the whole idea of civility on Wikipedia is flawed and/or wrong. He represents a big, bouncing, alive-and-well broad viewpoint that the Wikipedia notion of civility is flawed, wrong, and used by the more powerful to lord it over the others. Bishonen | talk 06:29, 29 September 2010 (UTC).
 * I, for one, think that there's a fair amount wrong with the WP notion of "civility", and, in particular, the way that it is sometimes valued over more important things, such as competence and productivity ... but Malleus Fatuorum does not in  any way represent me or my views. He is a walking, talking, life-size outlier of acceptable behavior, and should, in my opinion, have been permanently banished a long time ago.  That he is, effectively, untouchable, is totally inexplicable to me, but is another thing that points to the system being broken in fundamental ways.  Any system that says it values "civility", which allows MF free reign to say whatever he wants, whenever he wants, is clearly lacking in effective enforcement methods. If MF is concerned that "civility" is unequally enforced, then the next time he is blocked by some admin who's finally had enough of his bullshit, he should let his supporters know that they shouldn't unblock him, because the biggest poster-boy for unequal enforcement of the civility standard is Malleus Fatuorum himself. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:46, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
 * It doesn't look like you read what I wrote with any care, Beyond My Ken; you're not addressing my point. But then I don't quite see why you thought a remark by me to GWH, on GWH's page, was a good time and place for snatching up the ball and running off with it. Bishonen | talk 12:21, 29 September 2010 (UTC).
 * If your remark to GWH was meant to be private, then it would have been more appropriate to contact him via e-mail. As it was, you made remarks here that were provoked by the discussion on AN/I, as were mine. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:15, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
 * And running off with it. Never mind, say no more, I will certainly use e-mail in the future. Bishonen | talk 21:19, 29 September 2010 (UTC).


 * Any time I think I've been too pointed in my comments to someone, I check MF's latest donations to see how much worse it could have been. :) ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:38, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Not that you would ever care, Baseball Bugs, but the worst comment I have ever read on Wikipedia was yours. Hands down and no question. On his worst day I doubt Malleus would ever dream of meeting or exceeding it. --Moni3 (talk) 22:07, 29 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I admire MF's contrarian spirit, but struggle with the logical incoherency of being against civility but complaining when he perceives that others are uncivil, which seems to be his position. I also regret the pointy disruptiveness of his methods; complaining at AN/I about how flawed AN/I is, and complaining at WT:RFA about how terrible admins are, while understandable sentiments, are unlikely to lead to anything beyond mild annoyance in the reader. Bishonen, if what you say is true about the big, bouncing, alive-and-well broad viewpoint, it should be no problem to change the policy or have it derecognised. If it turns out you are wrong, there will be no consensus for this (as I believe to be the case) and we will all have to keep following this policy as best we can. --John (talk) 15:49, 29 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I just googled ["Malleus Fatuorum"] and the first screen was filled with references to the wikipedia user. How does that happen? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:58, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Bishonen - If you want to email, please feel free.

On point - Last time we had polls on civility policy, there was a huge mandate that the policy mattered and had to be enforced. Those arguing that it was intrinsically flawed were a tiny fringe.

I don't reject the notion that there are problems with it. But in this case that brought us here, it certainly wasn't any "insider" bringing a complaint against a less favored person. The complaining party is not someone I recognize from ANI previously, though I didn't do a complete search. They're not in any inside clique that I know of.

Malleus managed to push more buttons in his ANI responses than the two parties actually had in the discussion that lead to the ANI complaint. He knows what he's doing. He could be making the point non-disruptively, on policy boards, as can you and others. You, when it bothers you to get involved, do so in an appropriate manner. He tends to beat people up who don't deserve it, as was the case here. The complaining party was feeling abused, and Malleus went and abused him some more. This was not good.

The case didn't require hitting the Parrot over the head with a mallet either, but wasn't a false report. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 21:37, 29 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Do you think its acceptable to be labelled as obstructive, a bully, and an article-owner? Which would you think more serious - those allegations, or the use by another editor of a few rude words not made as a personal attack?  I most certainly consider it a false report.  I share Malleus's views on civility, which I estimate are more to do with the inconsistency with which it is applied (especially when aimed at administrators), than any objection against the idea of no personal attacks itself.  I think you're taking a large leap of faith when you suggest that dissenting views on civility are a tiny minority. Parrot of Doom 21:58, 29 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't want to re-fight the nonexistent actual ANI resolution of this here - as it seems to have worked itself out - but here, you miss the point, Parrot.
 * It's not a "Which is more serious". Both things are wrong.
 * Your claim that it wasn't personal attacks is not supported - the edit summaries, to me, looked like they were. If they didn't this would never have gone anywhere.  I'm sorry if you think it was a false report, but I don't.
 * When you use rude language like that, you create a new escalation of the situation, that makes it harder to resolve. Others coming in have to judge both your language and the timing of it, in reviewing the sequence of actions.  It makes the other editor angry, and less likely to cooperate on compromise or to see your perspective.  It's inherently increasing of drama.
 * Ideally, one can fling a few curses out to the winds and not get people around you upset. That does happen pretty much every day, where nobody around sees them as aimed at them or personal attacks against someone else, and everyone still goes home happy.  But a certain percentage of the time, you end up with insulted users who feel injured by the language, and something like this on ANI happens.
 * Casual rudeness doesn't have to be part of the way you interact here. Even if it typically is ok, sometimes it isn't, and this was one of those times.
 * Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 22:46, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
 * If you think that anything I've written is even close to a personal attack then I see no point in continuing this discussion. I'm quite glad I didn't join that pointless ANI discussion. Parrot of Doom 22:53, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
 * These two edit summaries were:
 * "Undid revision 387595434 by Str1977 (talk) just fucking pack it in will you? Take it to talk."
 * "only a dimwit needs uk and us explaining"
 * The first was more rude than personal-attacky, but it was seen as both. The second is a personal attack.
 * You wrote many dozens of fine discussion edits before, after, and between those in those same threads. It's not like you are unable to edit in a collaborative manner ever, by any means.  But those two pushed his buttons, and he pushed the ANI buttons.  So...  Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 23:01, 29 September 2010 (UTC)


 * The second would have been a personal attack if I'd written "you're a dimwit if you need....". It was a general comment aimed only at the dimwits who do need UK and US explaining. Parrot of Doom 07:17, 30 September 2010 (UTC)


 * The problem you have George is that you've simply become a heat-seeking naughty word missile. Take the second of your examples for instance. It's very clear to any rationale person that PoD was saying that only a dimwitted reader would need to have it explained that the US was the United States and the UK was the United Kingdom, not that the editor who added that unnecessary expansion of the perfectly well-understood abbreviations was a dimwit. But of course you only see what you want to see. Malleus Fatuorum 23:33, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I didn't file the report; Str1977 did. He felt it was aimed at him and said so.  I was unable to exclude the possibility that it was aimed at him when I reviewed.
 * In US workplace relations law and policy, someone is legally harrassed (sexually, or racially, or by otherwise hostile workplace etc) if there's activity past minimum thresholds AND they feel harrassed. That's not exactly Wikipedia's policy - but for the sake of argument, that's a valid place to draw the line, and both conditions happened here.
 * This is part of why casual rudeness is dangerous. You can entirely honestly intend it as a generic, non-personal expletive, and it can be taken by another person in the conversation as aimed at them, and then we have a problem.
 * As to whether I'm overreacting generally - I probably see high tens, sometimes 100 plus rude words slide past on Wikipedia a day. 95% of those clearly aren't aimed at people.  A very, very small percent of those not aimed at people are sufficiently rude that I leave someone a brief note.  The ones which are seen as NPAs are the only ones I consider taking enforcement actions on.  I do not have a personal objection to the idea of profanity, as my language this morning when I stubbed my toe will attest.  I have a problem with Wikipedia being a hostile editing environment.
 * To the extent that this particular blowup was pretty minor, all the discussion was low key, nobody waved hammer at Parrot, etc. It wasn't appropriate to go ape over it.  But someone felt that it was a hostile environment, there were potentially abusive words involved, and we responded.  That's the formula.  Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 23:44, 29 September 2010 (UTC)


 * We will quite likely never agree, as I think that the attitude you express "someone felt that it was a hostile environment" is naive and counter-productive. What someone actually felt was "I'd like to see PoD taken down a peg or two with a block, so I'm taking this to ANI", and if you can't see that then I'm afraid that you ought not to be let out unattended. In addition, if you're determined to stamp out all "potentially abusive words" then we'll be working with a pretty restricted vocabulary here. I don't take kindly to being called a troll (by User:Baseball Bugs), or disruptive (by you) for instance, both of which happened in the last 24 hours, but of course that doesn't matter, because I never go crying to mommy at ANI, so it's not on your radar screen. Anyway, don't be concerned, I've got no intention of disrupting your pink and fluffy world view any further by continuing this discussion here. Malleus Fatuorum 00:01, 30 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I'd like to know what part of my world resembles "fluffy and pink" - none of this is "happy happy joy joy" sort of stuff, here. People are angry, we're trying to deal with that.
 * Your disruption was in standing up to Str1977 and essentially yelling in their face and getting in the way of discussing with them what happened. Your greater point - that we need to discuss what are real issues and what aren't - is entirely valid, as you've demonstrated here.  You're not changing my mind so far, but it's not a bad conversation to have.  But he needed to be heard out, and you got in the way of that.  Even if his case didn't merit administrator intervention (which, you can note, hasn't really happened yet in any way other than generally cooperative chats on user talk pages) we needed to talk to him about it.  It's disrespectful, rude, and abusive to him to try and keep him from having that conversation.
 * If you intend to interfere with the normal function of ANI in dealing with harrassment / NPA / abuse situations, that IS disruptive. I certainly hope that you won't do that regularly.
 * Both the specific points (this complaint may not be admin actionable or should not be here) and general points (what is our civility policy, what should it be, what are we trying to accomplish within the editing community's social constructs) are made repeatedly by other editors and admins. See Bishonen above, etc.  There is no grousing about it, or any claims that it's disruptive.  Because they approach it in a constructive manner, rather than disruptive.
 * What you're doing is civil disobedience in a sense. But we have to have some defensible standards and some structure.  Online anarchies don't last.  See the "Communities are their own worst enemy" essay and various other sociological research on online communities.  We have a political process, for setting community standards and evolving them.  Your chosen approach is to butt heads with the political process rather than engage in it.  That's your decision, and choice, but you can't really complain when the consequences of that come back to bite you from time to time.
 * Yes, I'm sure the civility standards aren't enforced consistently across the wiki. None of the community standards, policies, pillars are.  Admins deal with what they see, with what is brought to their attention.  90% of what admins do isn't cross checked.  We have comparatively very little review and guidance structure compared to other activity areas like the law or corporate environments.
 * Abandoning them would be disaster, however.
 * Pointing out where there are problems with them is a good thing. We need people to do that.  Pointing out ways to make it done better is a good thing.  Pointing out philosophical alternatives that could form survivable social structures is a good thing.
 * Griping when we call you on it when you disrupt as a form of civil disobedience? Come on, man.  You know where the  limits are, even if you fundamentally disagree with them.  Every time you chose to step over them you're doing something you know may bite you.  I don't expect you not do do it, because I believe you believe what you do sincerely, and it matters to you.  But you can't expect us not to hold you accountable.  That's the point.  Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:58, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
 * As I said, we're not going to agree. I believe that your position is morally indefensible, but hey, you're the administrator, so you must be right. Malleus Fatuorum 01:51, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I have no delusion that I must be right. I'm convinced well enough that I act on it; without admins willing to act, we have no defensible structure.  But doing that and keeping in mind that we could all be wrong is important.
 * Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 02:07, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

George, I'd like to see more emphasis on enforcing CIV among admins. Certain admins feel they can post whatever they want while telling others how to behave. That's the really divisive thing about the CIV policy. SlimVirgin talk| contribs 01:57, 30 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I've gone on the record as being willing to block anyone - Jimbo, arbcom members, OTRS members, and normal admins - for sufficiently abusive behavior.
 * Bonus points if you know which of the above I actually did.
 * I've called people out on it and asked or told them to stop, when it was less serious than blockable but enough to follow up on, to varying effect.
 * I agree that it's a serious problem. I don't know what to do to make serious progress on it.  I don't think we spend enough time/energy/attention on it, but there are a lot of problems in that category.
 * cf Marc Riddell's offline discussions, etc. This goes back a ways...   Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 02:07, 30 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I wonder whether adding something to CIV would be supported, about admins being expected to adhere to it, with consequences if they don't. SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 03:49, 30 September 2010 (UTC)


 * My personal opinion? We should hold admins to a higher standard, if anything.  Occasional outbursts of frustration notwithstanding, if we don't set good examples it drags the project down and exposes the hypocrisy that Malleus and others object to.
 * I'd support pushing to add something to that effect to CIV. I'll argue with anyone who opposes it.  I would be disappointed if it didn't succeed.
 * If you want to start that, post me a pointer... Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:59, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
 * We already have Administrators are expected to lead by example and to behave in a respectful, civil manner in their interactions with others. (WP:ADMIN) and I think multiple ARBCOM remedies have referenced this in the past. Would it achieve anything to copy it to CIV? Maybe not. Would I oppose it? Probably not. --John (talk) 04:04, 30 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I'd like to make it a little stronger, but it would be better than nothing as a start. SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 04:11, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Dilma Rousseff
Hello, George! Here it is:


 * "A luta armada fracassou por que o objetivo final das organizações que a promoveram era transformar o Brasil numa ditadura, talvez socialista, certamente revolucionária. Seu projeto não passava pelo restabelecimento das liberdades democráticas. Como informou o PCBR: 'Ao lutarmos contra a ditadura devemos colocar como objetivo a conquista de um Governo Popular Revolucionário e não a chamada 'redemocratização'.' Documentos de dez organizações armadas, coletados por Daniel Aarão Reis Filho e Jair Ferreira de Sá, mostram que quatro propunham a substituição da ditadura militar por um 'governo popular revolucionário' (PC do B, Colina, PCBR e ALN). Outras quatro (Ala Vermelha, PCR, VAR e Polop) usavam sinônimos ou demarcavam etapas para chegar aquilo que, em última instância, seria uma ditadura da vanguarda revolucionária. Variavam nas proposições intermediárias, mas, no final, de seu projeto resultaria um 'Cubão'."


 * "Ao contrário do que sucedeu nas resistências francesa e italiana ao nazismo e até mesmo na Revolução Cubana, onde conservadores e anticoministas se integraram na luta contra a tirania, as organizações armadas brasileiras não tiveram, nem buscaram, adesões fora da esquerda. A sociedade podia não estar interessada em sustentar a ditadura militar, mas interessava-se muito menos pela chegada à ditadura do proletariado ou de qualquer grupo político ou social que se auto-intitulasse sua vanguarda. A natureza intrinsicamente revolucionária ds organizações armadas retirou-lhes o apoio, ainda que tênue, do grosso das forças que se opunham ao regime. Elas viam na estrutura da Igreja católica e na militância oposiocionista de civis como Tancredo Neves e Ulysses Guimarães um estorvo no caminho da revolução. Eles, por seu lado, viam na luta armada um estorvo para a redemocratização."


 * Now the translation: "The armed struggle failed because the final goal of the organizations which promoted it was to turn Brazil into a dictatorship, perhaps socialist, certainly revolutionary. Its project did not have as an objective the reestablishment of democratic freedoms. As the PCBR informed: 'When we fight against the dictatorship we must put as an objetive the conquest of the Revolutionary Popular Government and not the so-called 'redemocratization'.' Documentos from ten armed organizations, collected by Daniel Aarão Reis Filho and Jair Ferreira de Sá, reveal that four of them proposed the substitution of the military dictatorship for a 'Revolutionary Popular Government' (PC do B, Colina, PCBR and ALN). Other four (Ala Vermalha, PCR, VAR e Polop) used synonymous or established steps to reach that what, in the last instance, would be a dictatorship of the revolutionary vanguard. They varied in their middle proposals, but, in the end, their project would result in a 'Big Cuba'."


 * "Unlike what happened in the French and Italian resistances gainst the Nazism and even in the Cuba Revolution, where conservatives and anticommunists joined forces against tyranny, the Brazilian armed organizations did not have, nor were after, adhesion outside the left. The society could not be interested in supporting the military dictatorship, but was far less interested by the arrival of the Dictatorship of the proletariat or of any social or political group that entitled itself its vanguard. The intrinsically revolutionary nature of the armed organizations took away from them the support, even if weak, of the vast majority of the forces that opposed the regime. They [the armed organizations] saw in the structure of the Catholic Church or in the opposionist activism of civilians such as Tancredo Neves and Ulysses Guimarães a hindrance into the path of the revolution. They [the Catholic Church and the civilian activists], on their side, saw the armed struggle as a hindrance for the redemocratization."


 * Source: Gaspari, Elio.A ditadura escancarada. São paulo: Companhia das Letras, 2002, p.193 ISBN 8535902996

As you can see, there is no POV in the source. The communist armed groups had as goal the creation of yet another Cuba, China, North Korea or USSR, not the restoration of democracy. Nowhere the text that was removed claimed that she supports a communist dictatorship nowadays, but she did in the 1960s and 1970s. It really, really bothers me when "editors" appear to whitewash history in Wikipedia. I've seen that in the article about Hugo Chávez and I am trying to stop that in here. The article on Dilma Rousseff - as we speak, a presidential candidate - is nothing more than one piece of political propaganda. I am not even trying to deal with the entire article since my interest in here is only Brazilian history (as you can see in my user page). But the way it is written now, simply stating that she fought against the Military dictatorship, will lead the reader to believe that she was fighting for the democracy, which she wasn't. --Lecen (talk) 12:24, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
 * On the article talk page, there's significant question being raised as to the credibility of this source. A mention in passing of her working for creating a revolutionary dictatorship, in a questionable source, is not good enough.  Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 21:26, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Significant from whom? The book has won a prize from the Academia Brasileira de Letras (Here: ) and along with the other volumes (Here:, and ) was widely acclaimed. Are you telling me that the communist groups in activity in Latin America in the 1960 were after the restoration of democracy? Did you see anyone in that article bring one single source saying that? --Lecen (talk) 21:38, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you for not helping at all in this matter. If you were not going to do anything - including simply answer me - you should have let another editor deal with it. I have a couple of Brazilian-history related articles that are going to be nominated featured and once I'm done with them I will try to resolve this issue on Dilma's article. Thanks for nothing. --Lecen (talk) 11:34, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Arbitration/Requests/Case/Stevertigo 2
An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Arbitration/Requests/Case/Stevertigo 2/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Arbitration/Requests/Case/Stevertigo 2/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, NW ( Talk ) 17:27, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

cats
I appreciate your comments, I would prefer a personal I am an atheist reliable citation, but I defer to the multiple objections. I will remove the issue from my watchlist, thanks, Off2riorob (talk) 23:28, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Libertarianism
seems determined to continue the same sort of soapboxing as Xerographica. Yworo (talk) 13:25, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

also seems to be strongly soapboxing as well. Yworo (talk) 18:56, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Georgewilliamherbert, let me know if it ever dawns on you how strange it is that that everybody on one side of the debate engages in "soapboxing"...while nobody on the other side of the debate does. Also, let me know if you ever decide to place more value on Wikipedia policy than on the biased perspectives of involved editors on one side of the debate. --Xerographica (talk) 20:09, 30 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Maybe that would be because they initiate almost all the discussion, repeatedly bringing up the same topics, using many more words than necessary as if giving a speech rather than starting a discussion, then dismiss any response? Yworo (talk) 20:12, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
 * A long time ago we simply stated that we're dealing with very different meanings so the simple solution is to rely on the disambiguation page to allow readers to select the meaning that they are interested in learning about. Separating the mutually exclusive ideologies would diffuse the conflict.  The solution is just as relevant then as it is now.  --Xerographica (talk) 21:02, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
 * And an RfC decided that even though there were a broad range of meaning, the entire range of views fell under the topic of libertarianism and all should be included in the article. Nothing at all has changed since then except the volume (in both senses). Yworo (talk) 21:06, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Errant's feedback on my list of quotes was that "there was no simple conclusion". In actuality, the conclusion was very simple.  The conclusion was simply that, at a bare minimum, the government should protect its citizens from harm.  That Errant could miss such a simple conclusion explains how the RfC could come to the wrong conclusion.  --Xerographica (talk) 21:38, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Xerographica has just spammed the same essay to half a dozen talk pages explaining his Venn diagram which is listed for deletion. That is soapboxing an abuse of talk pages and X should be blocked.  TFD (talk) 23:53, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Blocked for a week... Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:01, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Another personal attack from Communicat on myself and others
Hello George, In this comment on the request for mediation he tried to initiate regarding the World War II article he labels me (as the person who declined to participate in mediation) "the main POV culprit" and claims that I "declined to consent to mediation was because a long history of partisan editing and POV dirty washing would have come to light and been curtailed. As it turned out, however, airing of the dirty washing was effectively blocked by the main partisan editor concerned, and partisan editing and POV bias at the milhist project continues to this day." The disagreement of basically all editors active in the World War II article to his actual and proposed changes are later labeled "agressive obstructionism, disruption or outright harrasment". Can you please look into this and take action as appropriate? - this appears to continue the editor's pattern of personal attacks and allegations of cabals. Cheers, Nick-D (talk) 00:14, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
 * There was also another one today (further claims of being victim of a cabal and editors accused of "unsocial networking characterised by vindictiveness, harassment, personal attacks, rumour mongering, disruption, unfounded allegations, and suchlike unreasonable and unpleasant behaviour directed currently at me in particular, though there have of course been other similar victims in the past.". Cheers, Nick-D (talk) 09:53, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Over the top?
I just happened to come across this. Some people seem to over reacting, and I think inappropriate comments have been left on Epson291's talk page, by Talktome, at the bottom of the page. I removed those comments, now take a look at the edit history of Epson291's talk page. Steve Quinn (talk) 07:08, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 4 October 2010
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 00:03, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi George! (second time)
It's Orijentolog here; I'm writing from collage because unfortunately you blocked mine IP address for one month, which is huge misunderstanding. First of all, as you probably remember you have advised me not to use Wikipedia for few month after my ban, so I did follow your advice. After few months or more precisely in early May, I contacted your colleague Dougweller who is also Wiki administrator but more active on history-related articles then you, because he was the most hostile toward my edits (beside you). In my message to him, I stated this:
 * Next time when I found some mistake on Wikipedia (like this or this) I'll inform you personally about it because I don't want you guys to consider it as vandalism. I know my situation and I don't have time for appeal to unblock my account, but some articles are important to me coz I'm working on one academic work so I use "what links here" very often - that's why I've found many mistakes. Cheers, vandal-killer! :)

He agreed with it as you can see it on upper link, and I've also noticed that since my IP is changing I'll always contact him, and that I won't bother him with banal changes. Since then (May 8), I participated in dozens of changes and every time I noticed administrator Dougweller: we have few disscusions and there was no absolutely any hostilities or contra-positions. Beside changes, I participated in "vandal hunt", discussions about categories and many other Wiki issues. You can see it on this list on Dougweller talk page, I listed it for you by dates:
 * May 20
 * May 20-22
 * June 9-14
 * June 21
 * July 4-5

After all signatures, I have added "(Orijentolog)" for clearly identification (you can check it). Also, to prove there was no even one my abusive edit or even one suspected abusive edit from agreement with Dougweller, you can check it on "User:Orijentolog" article by viewing history of suspected sockpuppets, confirmed socks or sockpuppet investigations casepage - as you can see, there is no any change after May 8.

So, talking about recent edits, I've made changes on article Cyrus Cylinder along with explanation on talk page; administrator Dougweller saw it even before I posted new message on his talk page, so on Cyrus Cylinder talk page he advised me about few things and I said "You're the boss", and I've followed his corrections.

I understand that you have hostile policy toward vandals on Wikipedia, but in this case you're wrong because as I prove it upper - I've followed your advices, and everything I've done was under supervision of Wikipedia administrator. If it's possible, it would be kind from you to remove IP block, and if you have further questions or demands feel free to post it here. I'll also notice User:Athenean about this whole issue. Cheers! --161.53.35.105 (talk) 09:52, 17 September 2010 (UTC)(Orijentolog)
 * I don't agree with the large changes made a few days ago or today. Dougweller (talk) 16:08, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Can you please answer to this message? Is it so hard to confess you're were wrong about this move, or you'll still keep whole network under blockade for no reason? --161.53.99.49 (talk) 01:53, 5 October 2010 (UTC)(Orijentolog)

Croatia
Good afternoon George. I have an IP address questioning the need to block "half of Croatia" via Rangeblock. The IP in question is, and the rangeblock appears to be centered on 93.143.0.0/16. My knowledge of rangeblocks hovers between nothing and next-to-nothing, but I did tell the IP I'd mention the concern to you. So, there you go. Best, UltraExactZZ Said~ Did 18:41, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Do you see the comment immediately above you, from Orijentolog, using yet another IP?
 * Unfortunately, it's rather necessary. This is a very persistent abusive user.  Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 18:54, 5 October 2010 (UTC)


 * No problem at all - looks fine to me. Didn't catch that the IP above was the same user - which shows why it's best left to admins who aren't me. Thanks, UltraExactZZ Said~ Did 19:46, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I really can't understand your intolerance toward me, especially since I've proved there wasn't even one mine abusive edit during last six months and that everything I contributed was under supervision of administrators. Seems like you simply refuse to listen what I had to say so you're rather listen one nationalistic Greek who accused me without any arguments. Enjoy your fascism. --161.53.99.49 (talk) 20:11, 5 October 2010 (UTC)(Orijentolog)


 * You are permanently blocked and have continued abusing Wikipedia every time the IP blocks expired. Please stop.  I will block any IP address you start using, as I have with the IP above.  Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 20:31, 5 October 2010 (UTC)


 * - removed personal attack and warned user. Off2riorob (talk) 00:32, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Oh, great, I see that you had this discussion already. I see that you even threatened to block any IP range this this guy uses. Well, you are not threatening to him, but to 300,000 other people, so, please, take it easy and talk to other admins about IP range blocks. I don't see the point in blocking entire city of Split just because one troll lives there. What You are doing is nonsense. --Argo Navis (talk) 14:29, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia Discussion On Me(Kagome_85) PLEASE READ!!!!!!
Although I know you might delete this and refuse to reply to it given that another user has been deleting my posts claiming how I am not allowed to post since I'm banned, I think you should listen to me, given that a user is harassing me(the one that started the discussion on me). This is what I posted on the Wikipedia thread that was removed: Although I know that this account will be banned for "sockpuppetry" or "evasion of block" or whatever, I just want to point out have you thought to see if these accounts created to say how the account Kagome_85 should have a sitewide ban MIGHT be related to Moukity? Kagome_85 is my account, but these accounts created to say there should be a sitewide ban are not. If an IP trace was done you would find that this account and the accounts made to say there should be a sitewide ban put on me probably start with 142., but you would also see that the rest of the digits that follow my account and the ones that follow the accounts made to say there should be a sitewide ban put in place on me are different. I know you may say that any user that is guilty would say that, however, I am pointing that out since a.) I am not stupid enough to go on here saying you should put a sitewide ban on me by using a different account since I know you can trace it and b.) Why would I go make another account to report something I did on another account when I know that would just get me in trouble since I can get caught? and c.) Why would I go linking to a news article about me when I don't want people to know about it? I'm not looking for attention or anything like some people are.

I hope that you consider what I said since I felt I should point out the fact that Moukity could(and more than likely is) be behind these new accounts made to say that I should be banned from the site permanently. Anyway, feel free to ban this account as you probably will, but I'll be putting the retirement sign on it anyway since you can be guaranteed I won't be using this anymore. By the way, the only reason I found this post was that I went to check the Incidents Noticeboards for something on another topic that I was told about that has nothing to do with me, so you can't say that I had any knowledge of this thread because I never, if you looked at the date that this post was made you would see that. Please, I implore you, to do an investigation into the accounts that started this discussion on me, and see if they were made by Moukity (a.k.a. Blackmagic1234). If you see this, then you will know that he is at fault as well. Sango 42 (talk) 11:11, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

I Do Not Understand
DD2K deleted a discussion (not a posting on the article board) about how the attorney general's (Mike Cox) anti-gay cyber bullying assistant appeared by physical and audible cues to be gay himself. That would make the anti-gay political agenda of both the AG and assistant AG hypocritical and should be highly interesting to the reader. Arent users permitted to discuss on the discussion board about whether or not that may be going on? If so, wasnt DD2K censoring relevant discussion?

--Fpetes (talk) 16:29, 6 October 2010 (UTC)


 * That entire line of discussion is inappropriate for Wikipedia. We're an encyclopedia, not a blog, not a discussion forum, not a source of original research.
 * It also violates our policy on biographical articles of living persons, which applies to talk pages and other pages.
 * Please take this activity somewhere else. If you want to contribute to the encyclopedia, using reliably sourced information we can verify was published, isn't original research, isn't unsourced negative biographical claims or information, etc, you are welcome to do so.  But what you did earlier?  Is not ok.
 * Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 18:33, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Requested Sources on Tapioca Express Article
^ "Franchiser tests lure of Tapioca 'boba' balls beyond California.". Los Angeles Business Journal. August 19, 2002. http://www.accessmylibrary.com/coms2/summary_0286-25881166_ITM. Retrieved 2008-09-23. ^ "Taiwan tapioca tea on tap in Palo Alto, Mountain View". San Francisco Chronicle. August 23, 2002. http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2002/08/23/PN167816.DTL&type=travel. Retrieved 2008-09-23. ^ "Quench your thirst at Tapioca Express". The Daily Cougar. June 8, 2006. http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P1-124906382.html. Retrieved 2008-09-23. ^ "TAPIOCA WITH YOUR TEA?". Rocky Mountain News. September 27, 2002. http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-92220160.html. Retrieved 2008-09-23. ^ "Missing dog is Kaheka Street pawmark". Star Bulletin. January 10, 2006. http://starbulletin.com/2006/01/10/news/story09.html. Retrieved 2008-09-23. ^  ^   ^   ^   ^ "Franchiser tests lure of Tapioca 'boba' balls beyond California". All Business. August 19 2002. http://www.allbusiness.com/north-america/united-states-california-metro-areas/254192-1.html. Retrieved 2010-04-10. ^ "Franchiser tests lure of Tapioca 'boba' balls beyond California". All Business. August 19 2002. http://www.allbusiness.com/north-america/united-states-california-metro-areas/254192-1.html. Retrieved 2010-04-10. ^  ^   ^ "UC San Diego Cafe and Restaurants". University of California San Diego. August 19 2008. http://universitycenters.ucsd.edu/eat.php#Tapioca%20Express. Retrieved 2010-04-10. ^ "Quench your thirst at Tapioca Express". http://www.thefranchisemall.com/news/articles/12895-0.htm. Retrieved 2010-10-04. ^ "Yelp Reviews of Tapioca Express". Yelp!. August 20 2010. http://www.yelp.com/biz/tapioca-express-san-gabriel-4. Retrieved 2010-10-04. ^  ^  http://www.feryah.com/?p=6722

BLP violation, but related to cold fusion.
I was just reviewing the history of cold-fusion related articles (elsewhere, not on Wikipedia) and it occurred to me to look at Stanley Pons, I see on that page some serious BLP violations. I have not looked at all the sources, but this is clearly a case of some allegations having been made, but not a "determination" by the "scientific community." Many sources specifically deny that, for example, fraud was involved. I can address it, but you could easily consider this as within my ban. What do you suggest? I have some of the sources (Taubes and Simon), and could check them in depth. Given that this is a BLP, would you allow me to work on that?

If you compare Martin Fleischmann -- and about every charge made about Pons would have been made about Fleischmann -- you can see an article which has had much more neutral attention, and has a much more balanced presentation (even though I wouldn't call it complete, it is far better).

Thanks. --Abd (talk) 01:33, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Example of source not supporting text: is cited to support the determination of "unethical." The source does use the word, but not how it is claimed (as an overall judgment). To quote:
 * ''Claims were made daily and weekly concerning the reproducibility of the experiment. However, more often, claims were made that the experiments were not reproducible. Those who could not reproduce the experiments often described the work of Fleischmann and Pons and of Jones as unethical, and sloppy.
 * ''Unfortunately in this case the process of scientific research failed in many ways. Many different parties on all sides of this dispute violated ethical norms.... [and he goes on to give details. If anything, he is more critical of the fierce rejection of cold fusion than of the supporters].

I'm familiar with Simon and Simon's position is similar. He's often been cited on Wikipedia as supporting the rejection of cold fusion by the scientific community, but, in fact, he takes a position similar to that of Shamoo and Resnik. The cherry-picking of those sources to present an entirely negative picture on Pons is typical of what's been done. I'm not trying to address the rest of that now, I'm here purely because this is a BLP. --Abd (talk) 01:59, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Revert issue
Hi George! The article Brazil and weapons of mass destruction was recently nominated for deletion. The result was keep and the case was closed yesterday. During the AfD, I inserted a rescue tag to see if we could improve the article. I edited the article and added about 20 reliable sources, including SIPRI, Wisconsin Project on Nuclear Arms Control, Arms Control Association, GlobalSecurity.org, Global Security Institute, German Council on Foreign Relations, GlobalSecurity.org, to name a few. I didn't make any radical changes, I basically reworded some parts (to reflect the sources), improved the lead and added a history section. Now, User:NPguy has reverted all my edits, erasing all the sources. If you have a chance, could you please leave your input on the article's talk page? I think that will really be helpful. Thanks! Limongi (talk) 13:06, 8 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Ahh... I am sort of saturated at the moment but let me go take a look when I get a chance. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 19:36, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Disruption of WWII talk page.
Hello. Despite your repeated advice to user:Communicat, he continues to disrupt talk:World War II. It is very difficult to assume good faith from him any more. He appears to cherry pick phrases out of context which give the opposite meaning to a fuller reading of the sources he provides. In my opinion, the disruption he is causing far outweighs the limited benefit of the occasional valid point he makes. Could give some advice on how to make the talk page for this extremely high profile article productive again? ( Hohum  @ ) 17:49, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Blocking IP ranges
Hi,

This is me:
 * User talk:93.143.27.44
 * User talk:93.142.182.118

In the last few days, I tried to fix some minor errors on 2 pages, but I was unable to do so because of your blocking of entire IP range 93.142.x.x and 93.143.x.x. This is insane! I live in city of Split (city) and I never had IP address outside this IP range. So, you blocked some 300,000 people. Well done!

Of course, I have my account and I could log in, but this isn't about me. If I were new user, I could only bark on the moon. Because of your triger-happines.

If you bother to ask CU to check the number of people that use this IP range, he/she would probably tell you that the number of users is quite high. But, you didn't bother to ask, didn't you?

Please, read the basics and try not to do any harm to the protect in the future.

And, You might consider unblocking this IP range.

Excuse me for my language, but I have low tolarance for ignorance.

Thanks.

--Argo Navis (talk) 14:19, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

P.S.

Don't bother to answer (at least not at my talk page), since I log in once every 6 months. --Argo Navis (talk) 14:24, 8 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Wouldn't logging in be less trouble than typing paragraph after paragraph of insults? Argo, sometimes we have no choice but to block large ranges in the case of long-term abuse from dedicated trolls.  If you look at the history for just one of these ranges, that's what you see -- that and little else.  Note that the ranges are blocked anon-only so logged-in users are not affected, and there are clear instructions on the block page letting innocent users know how to create an account.  Sometimes Wikipedia has to protect itself against seriously disruptive users.  GWH, sorry for butting in.  Thank you, Antandrus  (talk) 14:40, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Nothing to be sorry about, Antandrus.
 * Argo - There is an extremely persistent extremely disruptive banned editor who has claimed they will reform and stop it repeatedly and who keeps coming back and disrupting Wikipedia. The IP range blocks are the only way to keep them from disrupting large swaths of articles.
 * We don't block that many IP addresses lightly, and I'm fully aware of how much of Croatia is affected. That is highly unfortunate.  But, you and anyone else can continue to edit with accounts that you have, if you just log in.
 * Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 09:11, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Re Abd
Does your Topic Ban of Abd permit him to raise issues related to Cold Fusion at noticboards, such as WP:RSN? How about on his talk page? Thanks for any clarification. Hipocrite (talk) 17:29, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Ditto this. Raul654 (talk) 17:35, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Hipocrite and Raul, these could be very useful comments/questions. Since GWH seems to be absent for the moment, I'll present my interpretation. Yes, it prevents noticeboard comments related to Cold fusion, generally (and specifically RSN), though he wasn't explicit on that, I'm taking it that way. I'm also taking it that I can't edit Stanley Pons. But BLP issues do trump about every rule. I first asked GWH here for permission or other guidance. He hasn't responded, so, since this is a very clear BLP issue, I posted a brief comment on the BLP noticeboard, asking for neutral eyes to look at it. Got a problem with that? I'm sure that ArbComm will find this quite interesting. Or they won't, telling me the real truth about the Wikipedia situation. I need to know.
 * As to my Talk page, unless he makes it clear that I cannot discuss the issues anywhere, I'm explicitly assuming that I'm allowed to discuss this there. If you can get another neutral admin to come up with a discretionary sanction that prohibits it, there you go. Nobody is obligated to read my Talk page. It is all likely to end up before ArbComm, which will determine my editing future as well as, possibly, that of a number of other involved persons. Or not. I have no crystal ball. --Abd (talk) 18:16, 7 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I am up and reviewing. I have work to do but will respond later this afternoon.  I just see the one BLPN post, and I agree that you've identified a legitimate BLP question if not issue to be resolved/fixed, and whatever happens in larger response I'm not going to take any action over that one posting.  Please refrain from anything else until I've had a chance to respond properly later this afternoon, though.  Thanks.  Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 20:52, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks, GWH. I assure you, I have no intention of repeating that. Unless, maybe, I find something worse! I wasn't looking to find something, I was writing about the history of this stuff on netknowledge.org, and was making a list of cold fusion related articles, and thus a list of articles on figures in the field, so I looked at it.... I did my duty by, first, asking you, and then, when there wasn't reasonably rapid response, by the noticeboard post, and I tried to keep it pretty brief. I appreciate you looking at this and recognizing the BLP problem, it's really encouraging.
 * The others above did raise an important issue. I'd mentioned before that I interpreted that I was allowed to discuss cold fusion on my Talk page, and presumably on the talk pages of consenting editors. You did not negate that, but .... the others raised that issue, so, please do be specific, so that neither they nor I waste more time worrying about this. --Abd (talk) 21:35, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I still owe you a real answer, but I just got done at work (ugh) and am going to go home and log in from there after I get some downtime. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 04:34, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
 * No problem, GWH, no rush. News: lenr-canr.org was delisted at meta, as a result of that request. If communicating with me becomes a burden, let me know, and I'll suggest an alternative that would require less attention from you. As long as we are working together, this need not escalate, and I'm hopeful. From what has come down, you might come to understand the conditions I've faced. Thanks for your patience. --Abd (talk) 18:23, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Request from Abd re self-reverted edits to articles under ban
I have long been interested in how experts and knowledgeable amateurs who have become banned -- it's common, if their understanding is contrary to that of a majority of editors -- could still make contributions, point out errors, etc., to articles from which they are banned, and hit upon self-reversion as a device well before it was about me. When it was allowed, it worked, and fostered cooperation between banned editors and others, including, I've seen, the very editors who had requested a ban.

I request permission to make self-reverted edits to articles covered by the cold fusion ban you established, accompanied by at most a brief notice/justification for the edit on the Talk page. Any lengthy explanation that might be needed would be placed elsewhere and linked. I was already using self-reversion for any edits where I expected controversy, due to COI. A self-reverted edit is a far more efficient way of proposing changes, especially minor ones, than describing the change on Talk, and the restriction as described addresses the core of the complaints about me, alleged domination of the Talk page with lengthy argument.

I would respect any additional restrictions you place, pending review. Naturally, if this causes problems, you could retract this permission, but self-reversion is simple to verify and places a burden on no editor to review what they don't want to review.

Almost every day, on various articles, I see small corrections, or even easily resolvable major problems, based on what's in reliable source. In the example above, Stanley Pons, I could have commented on the Talk page there, similarly. (As the article was protected, I could not now edit it, but I would use reference on Talk for anything lengthy, and I'd interpret "lengthy" very strictly.)

Thanks for considering this. --Abd (talk) 13:54, 10 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Ok. Here's my opinion and interpretation -
 * The point here is that this is a topic ban. It's not a "you need to be extra careful there", it's an enforceable request that you stay away from the topic, where the community and Arbcom have determined your contributions have a significant chance of becoming problematic.
 * If you notice a BLP problem or other serious policy problem, pointing it out to people neutrally is a slight topic ban violation, but can be done in a harmless manner. I would like to generally discourage your doing it again, but the one you did earlier was appropriate for the encyclopedia and harmless.  Engaging in followup discussions would be a topic ban violation.
 * Edits to articles - of any type, even self reverted - is a topic ban violation. Again - the point is that we've reviewed and found that your contributions tend to become problematic.
 * Part of the point here is that it's important that you understand the community position, which I believe is what Arbcom intended in its prior case. I believe that you still disagree with Arbcom and the community positions that your editing was the source of the problems.  Your efforts to wiggle around a bit here indicate that you think you can make positive contributions, that perhaps you need to be careful but that you can do so constructively.  The topic ban is already past that point.  It's pretty much a finding that we think that at the moment, any contribution is likely to be problematic, and that you need to stay away from the topic.
 * I think that this is a reasonable point for you to ask Arbcom for review on, relative to the current case. But, unless reviewed by them or a community board and overturned, please don't touch the topic area.
 * Thanks. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 23:36, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I had a braino with the 'current case' comment, struck. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 23:43, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I think we are done with this stage. There are some serious problems to be addressed, that will require ArbComm review anyway, so, in a way, I'm relieved that you did not consent to this. Thanks for considering it. I appreciate your comment about the BLP action being appropriate. --Abd (talk) 20:07, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 11 October 2010
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 06:54, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Banned user "Leon E Panetta" is back.
Banned user Leon E Panetta is back under alias Leon pan and once more he reverted the Edgar Valdez Villarreal‎ article to his OR version. BatteryIncluded (talk) 19:25, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Uncivil editor
What to do with this uncivil editor user:Russian.science? For days he has been adding that Andre Geim is of Jewish family although he hasn't come up with any valid source for it. When I told him/her to stop adding it without providing a source he instead did this. Not only he is uncivil but he also blanked the sources I gave for him being of German family. He/she thinks I don't know Russian culture but that surely is wrong. I surely know that it's a very popular habit in Russia to point out people as being Jewish on the only grounds of them having a non-Russian name (for example Russian nationalists say that president Medvedev is of Jewish ancestry only because one of his ancestors had the name Veniamin - and all this to discredit). But there surely are many other nationalities in Russia, and not only Russian and Jewish as this editor seem to think. Närking (talk) 08:19, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
 * He/she continues against another editor here . Närking (talk) 21:26, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Congratulations
Another glorious victory for you. Could you put the light out when you leave the project. Thank you.  Giacomo  08:20, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

recent block
I suggest revoking talkpage-rights, he's spewing his junk. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 09:34, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 18 October 2010
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 00:40, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Please help
I'm currently being harassed on my talk page by a AlexanderLiptak, and apparently you're fimiliar with him, as I see you have dealt with him ind the past, and am hoping you could please deal with him again, giving him a warning or whatever else you deem fit. As you can see, he has called me a thief, insulted me, and refuses to leave me alone despite my making it clear I did not wish to be contacted by him any longer. I have left all evidence on my talk page for your review. Thanks for any assistance. Fry1989 (talk) 05:18, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Please stop harassing me
Why you are trying to beat a dead horse is beyond me, that conversation ended already. Also, I never stated that, so do not put words into my mouth. [tk]  XANDERLIPTAK  06:32, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Apparently not, as you can see directly above your comment. He thinks you are, or were, still at it.
 * Read what you wrote on his page yourself. But please don't comment there again.  Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 07:32, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
 * He makes accusations agaisnt my character and then practically says if I respond to his accusations I am harassing him. If he wanted the conversation to end earlier, all he had to do was 1.) stop accusing me of things, which I have a right to respond to, and 2.) stop asking me questions, which the appropriate thing was to answer when asked. The conversation was over before he even contacted you, and if you took the time to read his talk page, you would have seen that he was not being harassed and that the conversation was already over. Apparently you did not do that, and instead thought it better to merely come to my page and bully me around for without taking a look at the situation. [tk]   XANDERLIPTAK  12:04, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I've made no insults upon his character. When you are blocked because of previous behaiviour, that speaks for itself. And yes, you did call me a thief, several times, which is factually incorrect. When I ask someone 3 times to leave me alone, I expect that to be respected. That's why I reported you, and clearly you wouldn't stop until I did. I have absolutely nothing else to say about this matter, except that I will not tolerate someone pestering me. Fry1989 (talk) 18:43, 20 October 2010 (UTC)


 * As a matter of interest... I call Xanderliptak's comments lies (demonstrably and objectively accurate), I get blocked. Xanderliptak calls Fry a thief (not accurate), he doesn't get blocked. Fascinating. → ROUX   ₪  21:32, 20 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Sorry, but I was attracted by the section title, and the fact that it's on George's page :>) (Is my life that empty?) I just want to say Xanderliptak is headed for a block. In fact I am surprised he is not blocked already. Oh, but not for patient Admins....  Steve Quinn (talk) 21:59, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

I spent most of what were supposed to be my asleep hours last night reviewing, analyzing, and responding to newly released technical evidence on the apparent May 12, 2010 North Korean nuclear weapons test. I really have better things to be doing today than dealing with this. Honest. Plus, I'm sleep deprived, and thus grumpy.

Xanderliptak did, in fact, stop here when asked, other than complaining once on my talk page. That weighs heavily in the lack of further intervention.

As to whether his earlier behavior was OK or not, the answer is no. Blockable? Possibly. Blockable by me, while I was analyzing Xenon isotope decays and fairly unhappy about that? No.

Xanderliptak is arguably behaving in a manner which is likely to get him blocked for a long period of time in the near future. That I did not stomp up and down on him last night doesn't change that.

X, if you care about participating in Wikipedia, please calm down and stop poking people. You're over the line on acceptable behavior. There's considerable range between "over the line" and "blocked and gone from the project". You're somehwere in that range. It would help you, and everyone around you, if you find a course back to behavior that isn't over the line, that people can deal with and not find offensive or abusive and file complaints over.

Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 22:32, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Stop editing in a disruptive manner in these articles?
I was accused of being disruptive regarding judaism and bus stops, but I fail to see the disruption caused at Rachel's Tomb or the illegal settlements on the GH. But thanks for your opinion. Chesdovi (talk) 11:23, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Interaction ban violation
I very recently created Operation Damocles. These reversions and additions are a very clear provocation and a brazen violation of the interaction ban. I was blocked by you for far less at Maimonides Synagogue.

,, , , , , , etc...

Factomancer (talk) 22:53, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
 * What interaction ban you are talking about? Also, how it can be called interaction? That user did not talk to you or do anything to your edits reverting or nothing... what do you think it means, interaction ban = any article you touch is banned for other user? Crazy. LibiBamizrach (talk) 23:33, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok I just found this interaction ban. It says "This restriction by itself does not prohibit mutual participation on articles, as long as the editors stay away from each other." What are you report here then exactly? You are allow to contribute on same articles. Also, it says there that you are not allow to make any report until 12 hours after the supposed breaking of interaction ban. Your link here show that this happen just few hours ago. You are breaking terms of that interaction ban by writing this here. LibiBamizrach (talk) 23:37, 23 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Interestingly, "LibiBamizrach", you arrived at Wikipedia on the 9th of September and then appeared to know about obscure Wikipedia policies such as "WP:UNDUE" and "WP:FRINGE" on the 10th -.


 * Be honest. Have you owned any accounts prior to "LibiBamizrach"? Have they been blocked for disruptive editing? I ask because in the short time you've been with us you've caused a lot of disruption. Factomancer (talk) 00:04, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Additionally, - this edit clearly violates the prohibition against "commenting in other venues about the other party". Also apologies for posting this a little early, that was a genuine mistake. I entreat you to enforce the _spirit_ of the ban and not the small print. Factomancer (talk) 00:10, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I guess I miss something here? This link shows Mbz1 post to another user page a link that says "FYI". How possibly you interpret this post as "commenting in other venues about the other party"? Is your name FYI? If you changed your username one more time from Factsontheground to Factomancer now this time to FYI, you should be update your signature so people will not be confused. LibiBamizrach (talk) 00:58, 24 October 2010 (UTC)


 * FYI, heh, I changed my username to Factomancer because GWH complained about my former username. I'd be very happy to change it back, but it was a gesture of goodwill and compromise. Not an attempt to avoid scrutiny. Speaking of which, I'm amazed (well, not really) that you know about this since I changed it about a year ago and you "arrived" in September. Just keep digging yourself deeper, "Libi".
 * Oh yeah, and you don't have to overtly use the other parties username to violate the interaction ban. I know since I've been banned quite a few times for making comments which weren't even about the other party, let alone explicitly writing their username.
 * Factomancer (talk) 02:39, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I dig myself deeper meaning what? I fail to understand what you mean, is it a threat? You accuse me of something because I am knowing how to read English? I said above how I found this interaction ban details (and FYI, you can too see it in case you need refresher, Mbz1 posted the link down under here). On that link it say very clear that you change your username. I didn't have to be too much investigator to figure this one out, amigo. LibiBamizrach (talk) 03:25, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Also just to add what you are saying here, you want Mbz1 to get block or in trouble because they post a link to a user's page notify them that someone talking about them on another page. You say before that you hope Georgewilliamherbert admin will enforce the _spirit_ (sic) of the ban. You now report Mbz1 in this circumstance? HAHAHA LibiBamizrach (talk) 03:28, 24 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Other than noting that LibiBamizrach just got indefinitely blocked by another administrator, I'm not going to do anything here. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 21:55, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

My interaction ban condition
as stated here are "This editing restriction shall include a complete prohibition from comments on the respective user talk pages, filing reports on admin noticeboards, reverting edits on articles, commenting in other venues about the other party, or directly responding to each other's comments on article talk pages. This restriction by itself does not prohibit mutual participation on articles, as long as the editors stay away from each other. The restriction is to be interpreted broadly." I did not violate any of those conditions. I did some work on the article, but I've never reverted anybody at all, not a single revert was done by me. I only added new sourced information. Besides adding some new info all other my edits were fixing my own mistakes, made in prior edits,fixing my English and/or moving my own additions from one place to another:, , ,  Some of my additions were removed altogether later on, and I have never added them back. Regards.--Mbz1 (talk) 23:49, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Croatian language
Hi,

Since your temporary full protection of Croatian language has expired, could you replace the previous permanent semi-protection? There's already been an anon. editor falsifying quotations. I hate to do it myself, as I'm involved and I'm sure the POV warriors will scream that I'm committing genocide or something. — kwami (talk) 13:26, 24 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Never mind. Courcelles got it. — kwami (talk) 14:56, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Requests for comment/Xanderliptak
I have opened an RfC/U on Xanderliptak. Since you have attempted to deal with the concerns that I raise, I have mentioned you in the RfC. The RfC is not yet certified and may not be; currently I am the sole signatory, and any RfC not accompanied by evidence showing that two users tried and failed to resolve the same dispute will be deleted after 48 hours as "uncertified". But I thought you should be made aware. Any feedback will, of course, be most welcome. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:27, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Why are you ignoring my request?
You block me instantaneously when I "violate" the interaction ban for doing far less than what I pointed out above. Can you explain the double standard here? Anyway, I'm going to AE. Factomancer (talk) 08:04, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

FYI
Regards.--Mbz1 (talk) 11:55, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 25 October 2010
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 01:01, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Croatian language
Georgewilliamherbert, is this edit by Kwamikagami (Hello_Kwamikagami) a possible violation of administrator privileges, due to his heavy involvement in the article Croatian language? --Roberta F. (talk) 10:37, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Croatian language 2
Georgewilliamherbert, sorry, can you give an answer to above question? --Roberta F. (talk) 14:17, 24 October 2010 (UTC)


 * That edit merely maintained the status quo as GWH protected it, as the file was moved without a redirect. I offered to revert it if a redirect were created, or the revert war on that image were stopped. — kwami (talk) 14:58, 24 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Georgewilliamherbert, would you be so kind and answer to above question. This is your talk page and I'm not interested in getting answers from other interested parties, but from you, else I would ask somewhere else. Thanks in adwance. --Roberta F. (talk) 21:00, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

User:Vodomar at WP:AE
Hello GWH. Please see Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement. You previously left a comment on this issue. The submitter of this request, User:Kwamikagami, has asked to withdraw his complaint in view of some negotiations that are occurring with Vodomar. I'm willing to go along with that, subject to an endorsement for any admin to restore full protection of Serbo-Croatian if the negotiations don't succeed. How would you feel about that proposal? You can respond at AE if you wish. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 19:00, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I noticed the message that you left at Talk:Croatian language. The article in the present case is Serbo-Croatian, though the issues are similar. As a closure of the enforcement request how about:
 * All editors who have reverted excessively at either article would be notified under Digwuren (you state that some of them broke 1RR at Croatian language)
 * Serbo-Croatian would be placed under 1RR (Croatian language is already under 1RR)
 * The editors now working for a compromise at Talk:Serbo-Croatian would be encouraged to continue.
 * EdJohnston (talk) 15:46, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Never mind, I see that Tim Song closed the enforcement request as 'Withdrawn'. Since the recent editing of both articles seems acceptable, I am willing to wait and see. Anyone can reopen the request if problems resume, and we can 'catch up' on any notifications if needed. For that matter, any admin who is so inclined could go ahead and issue notifications anyway. At this moment, notifications might spoil the mood. EdJohnston (talk) 16:01, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

ANI notification
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. Thank you.
 * Please see: Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents (I'm notifying you as a previously involved admin) Nick-D (talk) 10:08, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

HIIII
Frequent False positive claims are being made by the user - Shshshsh and personal opinions are being made and original citations are being constantly removed by the user Shshshsh frequently over several National Film Award articles - Dubious edits are being made over citations of other users - Protection requested from the user october 28 edits. (61.2.74.223 (talk) 08:09, 28 October 2010 (UTC)). thank you

Thank you
Hi George,

Thanks for the help out there. I was trying to get away from the Climate Change insanity, and then my own topic area of expertise went crazy too. Oh, the dramahz! I need some kind of way to express in writing a very weary laugh.

I don't think I could ever deal with being an admin and constantly wading into other people's problems, so I really appreciate your help. Awickert (talk) 00:00, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

notice
hey again george, regarding your comments here, is there anything you would recommend that i should handle differently in the future? also, you said you reviewed some of the discourse between the other editor and myself, do you have any opinion? not trying to drag you into the fray, won't ask for further input on the topic, just curious. cheers WookieInHeat (talk) 02:33, 30 October 2010 (UTC)