User talk:Georgewilliamherbert/Archives/2011/January

The Downlink: Issue 1

 * You have recieved this newsletter because you are currently listed as a member of WikiProject Spaceflight, or because you are not a member but have requested it. If you do not wish to receive future issues, please add your name to the opt-out list.

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of WikiProject Spaceflight at 14:58, 1 January 2011 (UTC).

A thought
Just a thought -- I don't especially like blocks of editors who are not apparent risks for disruption during the pendency of their block when there is an ongoing noticeboard discussion about them. It keeps us from seeing what their responses would be at the AN/I. It's like muzzling a witness who is on trial -- the opposite of what we strive to do ITRW with witnesses, when we seek to reach the most just resolutions. So, and there are I imagine more than one way in which you could accomplish this (with agreement from Legit, perhaps), I would think it helpful to the resolution of the Legit issue if you would unblock Legit at least to the extent required to participate it its own ANI. Thanks for considering this, and happy holidays.--Epeefleche (talk) 08:00, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
 * The thread has now been archived. If LAEC wishes to contest the block then a fresh thread should be started. If unblocked, I think he should at least have a topic ban and a civility/AGF parole. However it seems pointless or vindictive to pursue that if he's content with being blocked.   Will Beback    talk    11:12, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, Will is of course absolutely correct that my points above are only of any worth if the blocked editor wishes to be unblocked. If that is in fact the case (or develops to be the case), my thoughts are as above.  HNY all.--Epeefleche (talk) 09:05, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Just FYI - There was an active off-wiki email conversation; LAEC concluded with deciding he needed to discuss this with Arbcom, which I assume he's done by now. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:09, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

And more privately
My "abrasiveness" consists largely of an unwillingness to truckle to a half-dozen editors who complain at ANI when they don't get their way. You and a handful of other admins reinforce this behavior by rewarding it; you can, if necessary, cause me to  disappear from article space, which would be at least a small loss to Wikipedia. But I hope you will not. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:37, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I hope you note I didn't do anything other than discuss the situation.
 * As you describe this, your "unwillingness to truckle to a half-dozen editors..." is an abject failure to assume they're acting in good faith and with the best interests of Wikipedia at heart.
 * This is the point - they certainly aren't perfect, either, but by and large they and other editors get along. Disputes come up, they're discussed, they get resolved.  People don't resort to name calling, etc.
 * If you aren't willing to AGF and attempt to work with them (and to some degree, I need to tell them the reverse of this) then eventually assuming bad faith for a long enough period becomes disruptive editing, and leads to the upset community and the stuff I said on ANI.
 * If you can't assume good faith, you need to walk away from dealing in areas they care about, and anyone else you get into conflict with, before you get rude about it. Or ask for more third / outside opinions rather than confronting them directly.  Or figure out how to edit and discuss and confront them on content and policy without saying the near-the-line things that get them angry at you and lead to ANI arguments.
 * Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:53, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
 * No; in each case (and half-a-dozen is about what an editor of my frequency and tange of edits ought to have; consider how many editors I interact with), the problem is a failure to observe good faith where it does not exist. Ryulong (not to bore you with the other five, unless you ask) has a guideline page that he owns and edits at whim, despite objections from everybody else who edits the page; pretending that this is good faith when it is not would be harmful to Wikipedia. If you wish to pretend, fine; but you should not require it of others. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 04:12, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
 * You haven't made a case for that in a manner that attracted support to your position, so far.
 * If you assume that you're right and that we just can't and won't see it, you're putting yourself outside the community and inviting what's going to come. Do you really want that?
 * Either make the case and get some external review of those pages, or walk away from it. Acting like it's clear they're behaving in bad faith and continuing to respond like that is not OK.  Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 04:19, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I cited the exact revert that I surreverted; the disagreements with Ryulong fill the guideline talk page. Must I make an ArbCom case against everu nuisance that can find ANI? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 04:28, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Arbcom case, no. Just neutrally asking for an ANI review of the dispute, would be nice.
 * I don't want to do it because you believe I'm not neutral enough; but someone else should respond if you make the request. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 04:34, 4 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Let me clarify; I did not say you were not neutral - and if you can be so, I would welcome your intervention. My objection is that you value above all else Wikipedia as a social experiment, in which "we all get along" over such minor desirables as verifiability and neutrality. Those who value their National or Sectarian Truths above all else will always take advantage, when they can, of such attitudes. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:49, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 3 January 2011
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 00:30, 4 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Indeed. Apologies for the inconvenience, as it were, though I'm glad to know someone actually reads the Tech report :) - Jarry1250 [Who? Discuss.] 10:06, 4 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes; believe it or not, I read it regularly, not just kibozing for my name. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 22:34, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

WP:DUCK
Thought I'd point out that per my friendly talkpage stalker reply on User talk:Will Beback, User:Justadude appears to be another duck, or else he's become extremely familiar with several different policies in the space of 10 edits. Never mind, he says he's been editing for years as an IP and I notice the account was created years ago.  Giftiger Wunsch   [TALK]  12:33, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 10 January 2011
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 05:06, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Arbitration/Requests/Case/World War II
This Arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. The following remedies have been passed:


 * is prohibited from editing or commenting on articles about World War II or the Aftermath of World War II. This prohibition is of indefinite duration, but may be appealed to the Committee by Communicat after six months;
 * Communicat is placed under a behavioral editing restriction for a period of one year.

For the Arbitration Committee, AGK  [&bull; ] 16:02, 10 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi George, I'd just like to thank you for your participation in this matter. I supported your nomination for ArbCom on the basis of the methodological and careful way you approached things, and I hope that you stand again. Cheers, Nick-D (talk) 09:56, 11 January 2011 (UTC)


 * (Late reply, I was on vacation...)
 * Thanks. I regret that it wasn't an effective involvement, in the sense of getting Communicat into a positive contributor role.  The outcome was unfortunate from that perspective.
 * We'll see about next arbcom elections next year. Thanks for the support there.  Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 21:09, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 17 January 2011
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 18:43, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

"Restriction... appears punitive not preventive"
Remind me, next time you run for an ArbCom, to vote for you :) It is so rare I see editors remembering that crucial, totally vital part of our policies. Do you know I once had an AE admin explain to me - seriously, and in good faith - that some remedies have to be punitive to a certain user, to act as a preventative to others? Greater good by sacrificing individuals, huh? Or can you spell "slippery slope"... --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 05:04, 19 January 2011 (UTC)