User talk:Georgewilliamherbert/Archives/2010/February


The Wikipedia Signpost: 1 February 2010

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLVII (January 2010)

The January 2010 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 03:36, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

User:Nothughthomas

Hi George. I've just declined Nothughthomas's requested unblock. I hope you don't mind - let me know if you have any thoughts/disagreements. Do you think it's worth noting at ANI for the benefit of anyone involved in the original thread? I'm still a little new at this whole thing so any advice would be appreciated! Cheers, Olaf Davis (talk) 10:22, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 8 February 2010

Hi

Just letting you know that I closed the tag ban discussion; also logged, and notified Rama. With any luck, the participants will be ready for closing the RfC/U. :) Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:22, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Liar

I suggest you back up your claims with diffs or I will call you a liar. You can't, so an apology will, possibly, be forthcoming I hope?. Pedro :  Chat  22:05, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Out of courtesy, and my fault for not mentioning it to help you through any random floundering, we're talking about the lies you are peddeling on Giano's talk about me claiming wikistalking. Retract or RFC. Your call. Pedro :  Chat  22:12, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
I was speaking to Giano, not you, though obviously the way I phrased it confused you and Malleus.
I had no idea that it could be misinterpreted when I wrote it, but multiple consistent misinterpretations means that the blame is likely to be mine for the phrasing and indenting making it unclear.
I posted this on Giano's talk, but to make it perfectly clear, I was talking to him, not you, and I have no comment on your activities earlier today, other than being a little confused at why this went to an assumption of bad faith and not asking me for clarification.
Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 22:41, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
My activities earlier today? Complex, I appreciate, but on Wikipedia we have diffs. Please provide the diffs where I was active earlier today (per your comment above). Pedro :  Chat  22:44, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
I can't provide diffs for anything earlier - as I said, I AM NOT making any comment about anything prior to your complaint here.
My issue with the complaint is that you assumed bad faith. I understand, looking at it, why you thought what you did, and I apologize for the confusion. I was speaking to Giano. It came out like I might be speaking about you. I'm sorry for that; that wasn't what I was talking about at all. There was nothing to complain about, you aren't wikistalking anyone that I'm aware of, no issue.
I understand the initial confusion and consternation. I would have hoped that you'd AGF and wait for me to clarify or explain, rather than assume I'd decided to attack you out of the blue for no reason. I'm sorry for causing the confusion. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 22:51, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Your block of 32.175.156.35

Gross abuse of admin tools. You did not even sign the block notice. Your block reason and duration of block utterly incompatible with the comments made by the IP - that you seem even more surealy is me. I intend to undo your block. Do you object? Pedro :  Chat  22:16, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

You do realise the IP is American... Do you have any clue at all? Do you do even the most minimal of research before blocking? What an utter abuse of the bit. Disgusting. No wonder good people like Giano and Malleus hate this project when we have abusive people like you mishandling such a simple tool as the block button. Pedro :  Chat  22:19, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
No offence Pedro, but what are you going on about? You really think an IP just popping up and saying "There are some whiners butt-hurt about comments you made" is really on? The IP was trolling pure and simple and then made an egregious personal attack. Just chill out man - the attitude which you're displaying above doesn't suit you. Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 22:44, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
(ec)
I understand what the confusion was about the comments I intended to make to Giano, on his talk page.
I don't understand the issue here. I did sign the block notice, it being in the US is not connected in any way to why it was blocked, and how is this not a personal attack? It was clearly an experienced user logging out to be snarky - which is most most not ok here, by policy and precedent.
Pedro, can you please clarify what was wrong with the block? Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 22:46, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
GWH seem to think this IP is me, unless he can't read timestamps or understand thread indentation. Pedro :  Chat  22:48, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
But where has he said that he thinks it's you? I honestly don't think that that he thought that Pedro. Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 22:51, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
I think this a misunderstanding of indents [1] and if so then hands up - my fault. Pedro :  Chat  22:53, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
(ec)
Why would I think the IP was you, Pedro?
No, I didn't think that, I have no reason to think that. Again, I apologize for creating a situation which you think was an attack on you, Pedro, but I had no intent to do so. Nothing you've done today or at any point in the past would make me think you'd be the sort of editor who'd do the logged out IP snarky thing I blocked the IP for. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 22:55, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
This was the diff. Okay, on closer reading my fault. Totally. Looked like a reply to me. I'm still not convinced about a 36 hour on the IP, to be honest, but I can see that indent goes two ways. Sorry. Pedro :  Chat  22:59, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
Not totally your fault - I see why it came out ambiguously and you weren't the only person to read it that way. Again, I'm sorry that the way it appeared was ambiguous and could be interpreted as an attack on you. You have been doing great work on ANI, and I appreciate that. Please accept my apologies and my thanks for all you've done there recently. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 23:07, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
I dropped the "AGF ball". My fault. And I'm a big "Giano fan". So , well it what it is. Again, my fault. Pedro :  Chat  23:14, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Wikistalking

Hi George,

I don't want to add to the general wikidrama, but I thought it best to set the record straight on the claims of Wikistalking. It's true that I've decided to contribute to Blenheim Palace, but allow me to explain how this has come about. During discussion on Wikipedia talk:Incivility blocks, Giano commented in the thread Wikipedia talk:Incivility blocks#Escalation and descalation that he wanted the article locked due to edit warring. I went to have a look, but didn't see anything actionable. However, my interest was piqued - certainly the article is in a bad state, so I made a number of comments on the talk page.

As there is a bounty, and I've been looking for an article to focus my attentions on, I thought that this would be ideal. So I've been making some comments to see what needs to be done. I'm basically going to research the article - I'm not at all concerned if Giano merges in his material before I do, I actually quite welcome it. I don't see it as a race really, and even if my research comes to nothing I'll have at the very least been able to read up on a quite interesting topic.

Anyway, I figured that I'd make a comment on this matter as you seem to have some concerns. Please feel free to ask me for clarifications if you want. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 01:10, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Hey, if I'm an admin now, do I get my own theme music?

If so, I want this. That'd be so cool. HalfShadow 17:41, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Notification of proposed topic/interaction ban on Tbsdy

See here for the proposal. Based on some recent interaction you may have had with the user(s) I thought you might want to know. Thanks. Equazcion (talk) 23:49, 14 Feb 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 15 February 2010

r

i've responded [[2]] but then i reverted your comments. i don't want to interact with you, and i don't want you interacting with me. i've not found you to be a fair admin towards me, so i would prefer that you stayed away from me, interpreted broadly. so if you see me involved in any given situation, just remember that there are thousands of other admins who can help, and you could feasibly just stay away from me indefinitely. fairwell! Theserialcomma (talk) 03:20, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately, you believing that I have a conflict of interest or somehow am biased against you does not constitute reason under the Admin guidelines for me to remove myself from interacting with you. There has to be some actual bias or preference or conflict. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:24, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
Further; you appear to have breached [Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Tothwolf#Dealing with harassment] in the manner you approached this perceived problem. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:32, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
you have been harassing me since last summer when you decided to 30 day block me for 'baiting' - it was my first block, and it was with no warning. 30 days for a first time block seems a bit passionate, doesn't it? the other user was a proven sockpuppet with over 9 civility blocks over his 3 abusive accounts. yet i get a 30 day block from you, out of nowhere, without warning. so yes, i am sure that you want me to have 'breached' some violation somewhere, because that is how you operate. unfortunately, you are grasping at straws here, and you won't misconstrue or manipulate tothwolf's restriction violation into a 'baiting' attempt by me. so let me reiterate: i want nothing to do with you, and i want you to have nothing to do with me. you are harassing me. whether you choose to disengage or continue bothering me, and your reasoning behind anything you say is irrelevant to me. leave me alone. Theserialcomma (talk) 03:49, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, no. You're welcome to request further uninvolved review on ANI - but we've had that before, and there was no support for your claim that I'm somehow biased or conflict of interest barred from administrative actions about you.
I had been making some effort not to follow you around or bother you, out of an abundance of caution - however, the sequence of events today marched right across my watchlist.
I'm looking forwards to further uninvolved admin review on AE. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:54, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

you are right, you don't have to leave me the hell alone. i am just asking you to leave me the hell alone. you don't have to disengage from me to mollify the situation, even though your presence significantly and immediately inflames any issue i'm involved in because i think you engaged in gross administrative incompetence at best, and egregious admin abuse at worst (your 30 day block of me in july for my first and only block - without warning). you know that you don't have to back away from any situation i'm involved in; in fact, you could literally interlope into each and every situation of which i'm involved, without any accountability for your own actions. this, as we all know, is how the system works. but regardless of what you can and cannot do, i am just telling you that i don't want anything to do with you, ever, on any level. take that as you wish, or don't. i am uninterested in engaging you further. Theserialcomma (talk) 04:22, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Mentorship

Although I think that you are likely to be disinterested, I write again to invite you to join others in becoming a co-mentor for me.

You may be unaware that the "Finding of facts" in the decision at Tang Dynasty explicitly encompasses a message on your talk page -- see User talk:Georgewilliamherbert#Seeking help in presenting thoughts clearly

Your experience will help remedy a deficit in the composition of a small group. The nascent status of a mentorship committee is clarified in the currently active thread at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification/Tang Dynasty. Hopefully, this mentorship experiment will prove to be more effective and less burdensome than previous wiki-mentoring schemes.

This is a time for hortatory concepts. Do you know this one?

"I am only one, but I am one. I can not do everything, but I can do something.
I must not fail to do the something that I can do."

If Wikiquote:Helen Keller#Misattributed is to believed, then I am not alone in linking these words with Helen Keller. The salient question becomes this: Does precise attribution matter in the context of a teachable moment? No – not always, but often.

What can I say or do to convince you to agree tentatively?

Core policies are the tools at hand; and if you agree to help connect the dots, it could benefit more than me. In this search for a mentor deemed acceptable by ArbCom, I cite Wikipedia:Mentorship#Unintended consequences as a plausible context for discussing what I have in mind.

Your background causes me to share something already explained to another prospective mentor, "Among a prospective mentor's many burdens, the most difficult would involve (a) helping me discern why or when I should apologize or (b) helping me to explain why or when I will not apologize in a wiki-context" -- see diff. May I offer an on-topic writing sample? As you think about agreeing to join a mentorship committee, please review Patrick Lennox Tierney#Showa apology rebuffed.

Are you willing to look into this a bit further? I assume that time constraints will limit your participation; but perhaps you might consider making yourself available as a "non-public mentor", as an advisor to the co-mentors whose questions are likely to be different than mine?

If you please, contact me by e-mail or on my talk page. --Tenmei (talk) 19:19, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

You probably don't know that the final decision also included a link to this: User talk:Georgewilliamherbert#How to disagree without being disagreeable. --Tenmei (talk) 19:25, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for your advice. I truly apreciated it. The problem is that it is something quite foolish, if you take a look. It's the typical case of an editor who doesn't knoew much about the subject and try to make edits while ignoring anyone or anything that tries to tell him about the true path. However, I found out that he is quite a trouble maker in the Portuguese wikipedia and got envolved on several disputes due to that behavior. It's his way or the highway. The article about Pedro II unfortunately has only one contributor: my self. So, there is isn't anyone else that is somehow related to the subject that could help me out. Although, as I said before, I thank you for your advice I will not press further this matter. I will leave the article with the wrong edit. I'm not that new in here and i know quite well that I will have to lose a lot of time writing reasons and more reasons and getting into endless discussions to resolve something simple (that is: tell the other editor to stop doing what he does unless he get at least a source). I prefer to work on other articles. Kind regards, --Lecen (talk) 05:34, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Not over

So apparently this isn't over. [3]. Should an admin make an abuse complaint to his ISP perhaps?--Crossmr (talk) 09:23, 21 February 2010 (UTC)