User talk:Georgewilliamherbert/Archives/2010/June

The Wikipedia Signpost: 31 May 2010

• Photography: Making money with free photos

• News and notes: Wikimedians at Maker Faire, brief news

• WikiProject report: WikiProject Zoo

• Features and admins: Approved this week

• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 21:55, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Star_Wars_Kid#Subsection

Take a look if you can - we've got two new articles - I'd AFD them but that would be a high visibility move - any way we can nuke them on 'only inherited notability' / 'no independent notability' grounds to avoid a high profile shitstorm that would have the precise opposite effect of our intentions, which are (imho) to keep his real name and the meme unconnected on the site. Exxolon (talk) 17:32, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : LI (May 2010)

The May 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) 21:08, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

RFAR Race and intelligence

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, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Race and intelligence/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Race and intelligence/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) (talk) 12:20, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

I B Wright – what's up with that guy?

Hi. After a rather unpleasant, grueling experience with I B Wright (and what currently seems to be his alter ego, 86.182.66.217) on my talk page and elsewhere, I decided to take a look at the history of his talk page and and wasn't too surprised to find that he clashed with many other users in the past, you among them.

And while I think it was wrong of some of you to threaten him with being blocked (for tendentious editing, personal attacks, harassment or whatever), he's really damaging Wikipedia, putting falsehoods in article after article (I'm still not sure as to why he does what he does: Is he really serious, or is this all some kind of a very bad joke? Or maybe he's got some, um, "other issues" to deal with?). Isn't there anything that can be done short of revoking his editing rights (which already had been tried once before)? Couldn't it be arranged that his changes must be approved by someone higher up before they are applied? Oh, well, that's probably not feasible, still, it's comforting to see that I'm not the only one who's had a close encounter of the third kind with this unnerving guy... Thanks!

By the way, did you ever read the self-description on his user page?

"[...]he has a wide ranging knowledge on some often surprising subjects.

Note: I B Wright is not his real name, but an apposite if modest description."

It doesn't get much more disconnected from reality than that.

Regards – ὁ οἶστρος (talk) 21:42, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Block of Anthonyhcole

George, as I see you're around, could I trouble you to take a look at this complaint on AN/I? Anthonyhcole has been blocked for appearing to imply a legal threat (but not really), and then apparently for calling someone a fool for seeing it that way. He has emailed me to ask for advice. I've asked Sarek, the blocking admin, if I may unblock but he's not around, so I left a note at the end of that AN/I thread. Your opinion would be appreciated if you have time. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 07:02, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Race and intelligence

You said here that everyone involved in these articles is under 1RR for them. Is that still the case? The reason I’m asking is because Arthur Rubin has reverted this article twice in the past few hours, [1] and [2]. I consider his second revert especially problematic, because he’s attempting to unilaterally undo the last five months of changes to this article without any discussion. But since I’ve already reverted him once a few hours ago, if everyone’s still under 1RR I can’t do so again.

If the 1-revert restriction on these articles has been lifted, I’d like to know. Otherwise, if it’s still in place and Arthur Rubin is ignoring it, I’d like you to please do something about this. If he’s going to be reverting other users any number of times, but the rest of us are following 1RR by only reverting him once per day, he’ll have basically free reign to make any major changes to the article that are opposed by consensus. --Captain Occam (talk) 09:10, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Please don't do anything yourself about this in terms of more reverts. If you want to report to other admins that's fine.

I will look into it tomorrow morning sometime.

Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 10:05, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Which other admins should I report it to? Since you're the admin who said that everyone’s under 1RR for these articles, you’re who I figured I should talk to about this. --Captain Occam (talk) 10:17, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

It looks like you’re offline for the night now. Oh well, I guess this problem can wait for a few hours.

I think it would be best if this problem could be dealt with on a user-by-user basis, but if you decide to protect the whole article instead, I think it would be a good idea to make sure that the version you protect isn’t one that contains major undiscussed or barely-discussed changes. I’m not normally one to complain about admins protecting the “wrong version” of an article, but when we’re dealing with an edit war over an attempt to revert five months’ worth of edits without discussing it beforehand, I think it’s important for admins to be careful that they don’t inadvertently preserve an edit to the article that’s this clearly disruptive.

If you’re looking for a recent version to protect from before the beginning of the recent bout of edit warring, the last revision from before the start of this problem is this one by Aprock. Just to make sure you don’t think I’m deliberately suggestion a version that supports my point of view, I should mention that Aprock and I disagree more often than we agree. (Although this particular edit from him was non-contentious enough that I don’t think anyone had a problem with it.) The reason I’m suggesting this version is just because unlike all of the subsequent versions, there isn’t anything in it that hasn’t been discussed and supported by at least some amount of consensus. This version is the closest thing there’s been to a “stable” version of the article since the beginning of the month. --Captain Occam (talk) 12:41, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Left a comment

Hey George, I left a comment for you, I'm just wondering, you said: "you're doing so without introducing new evidence we haven't already considered and decided not to act on."

Does that include these things he have said here? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 19:37, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

"RFC on editors behaviour"

Hey, I got a feeling that user Nsaum 75 will soon open a "RFC on editors behaviour" about me as you can see here: [3]

He have started pages before about me before starting arb requests, you can clearly see that its completely inappropriate for a non-admin to do something like this. This is harassment. He has no right to open this about me. If he has any problems with me he should about a normal enforcement request, nothing else. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 22:04, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Sigh. This is precisely the battleground behavior I mentioned at Breein's AE. Where is the assumption of good faith? Where does this stop?? My placing it in one of my many sandboxes is not about you or your edits nor was it intended to provoke you or "threaten" you. If you looked through my sandboxes, you will note I have a lot of "administrative" and template shortcuts in them. Its for my own easy and quick reference. Please stop making a mountain out of a molehill. --nsaum75^{¡שיחת!‎} 22:17, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Before you started the first RfC against me, I asked you if your were planing something special for me when I saw your sandbox edit. And when I came back and you warned me on my talkpage on the 31st,[4][5] and at the same time you also made this edit in your sandbox [6] "II", What was I supposed to believe here? And then here: (x2) "second enforcement" [7] And then now during the enforcement against Breein, together with your comments there against me you open a sandbox "RFC on editors behaviour".. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 23:04, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

FYI --nsaum75^{¡שיחת!‎} 23:08, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 7 June 2010

• From the team: Changes to the Signpost

• News and notes: "Pending changes" trial, Chief hires, British Museum prizes, Interwiki debate, and more

• In the news: Cancer coverage, cognitive surplus, Wikipedia monarchy, and more

• Free Travel-Shirts: "Free Travel-Shirts" signed by Jimmy Wales and others purchasable

• WikiProject report: WikiProject Comedy

• Features and admins: Approved this week

• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 11:36, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Something different

		The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
		Hello Georgewilliamherbert, May I please ask you to accept this barnstar as my appreciation for your kindness and your understanding! --Mbz1 (talk) 13:17, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Notification

As you have commented in an ANI thread or RfC relating to User:Pedant17, this is to (formally) notify you that the same user's conduct is being discussed here, along with sanction proposals. Ncmvocalist (talk) 13:14, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Inniverse

Just wanted to make sure you noticed that I have detailed my reasoning a bit at WP:ANI#New editor's experience as evidence of guilt.—Kww(talk) 21:42, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Si. Thanks. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 21:58, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to go through this. First time I've had such a straightforward sock block generate such resistance.—Kww(talk) 16:21, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate change

An Arbitration request in which you are involved has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate change/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate change/Workshop.

Additionally, please note that for this case specific procedural guidelines have been stipulated; if you have any questions please ask. The full outline is listed on the Evidence and Workshop pages, but please adhere to the basics:

• The issues raised in the "Sock Puppet Standards of Evidence" and "Stephen Schultz and Lar" requests may be raised and addressed in evidence in this case if (but only if) they have not been resolved by other means.
• Preparation of a formal list of "parties to the case" will not be required.
• Within five days from the opening of the case, participants are asked to provide a listing of the sub-issues that they believe should be addressed in the committee's decision. This should be done in a section of the Workshop page designated for that purpose. Each issue should be set forth as a one-sentence, neutrally worded question—for example:
  • "Should User:X be sanctioned for tendentious editing on Article:Y"?
  • "Has User:Foo made personal attacks on editors of Article:Z?"
  • "Did Administrator:Bar violate the ABC policy on (date)?"
  • "Should the current community probation on Global Warming articles by modified by (suggested change)?"

The committee will not be obliged to address all the identified sub-issues in its decision, but having the questions identified should help focus the evidence and workshop proposals.

• All evidence should be posted within 15 days from the opening of the case. The drafters will seek to move the case to arbitrator workshop proposals and/or a proposed decision within a reasonable time thereafter, bearing in mind the need for the committee to examine what will presumably be a very considerable body of evidence.
• Participants are urgently requested to keep their evidence and workshop proposals as concise as reasonably possible.
• The length limitation on evidence submissions is to be enforced in a flexible manner to maximize the value of each user's evidence to the arbitrators. Users who submit overlength diatribes or repetitious presentations will be asked by the clerks to pare them. On the other hand, the word limit should preferably not be enforced in a way that hampers the reader's ability to evaluate the evidence.
• All participants are expected to abide by the general guideline for Conduct on arbitration pages, which states:
• Incivility, personal attacks, and strident rhetoric should be avoided in Arbitration as in all other areas of Wikipedia.
• Until this case is decided, the existing community sanctions and procedures for Climate change and Global warming articles remain in full effect, and editors on these articles are expected to be on their best behavior.
• Any arbitrator, clerk, or other uninvolved administrator is authorized to block, page-ban, or otherwise appropriately sanction any participant in this case whose conduct on the case pages departs repeatedly or severely from appropriate standards of decorum. Except in truly egregious cases, a warning will first be given with a citation to this notice. (Hopefully, it will never be necessary to invoke this paragraph.)

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, ~ Amory (u • t • c) 00:36, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

User:Oliovkley

Last week you blocked this user for 31 hrs for vandalism. They have today vandalised Bolton Wanderers F.C., although they immediately cleaned up after themselves. I noticed that you have already warned them re this type of behaviour. Quentin X (talk) 16:56, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Just want to let you know...

Hello Mr. Williamherbert,

This is User:Keegscee. You got me banned a few weeks ago. I just wanted to let you know that I have since made a new account and I have become an auto-confirmed user. I will continue to edit, mostly because I think my ban was ridiculous. Have a nice day. SwimmingSam (talk) 22:31, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Hello Mr. Williamherbert,

Keegscee again. Remember that for community bans you are supposed to follow WP:RBI. By starting a sockpuppet investigation, you are giving me exactly what I want: attention. I can promise you that my new account will never make a bad edit if that helps you sleep at night. In fact, my original Keegscee account was primarily a good faith account (with the exception of my first week when I was learning the rules). You are solely responsible for all of the drama that occurred. Had you not blocked my account, the entire fiasco would have been avoided. You are a real asset to the project. KayakingFred (talk) 23:03, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 14 June 2010

• News and notes: Pending changes goes live, first state-funded Wikipedia project concludes, brief news

• In the news: Hoaxes in France and at university, Wikipedia used in Indian court, Is Wikipedia a cult?, and more

• WikiProject report: WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors

• Features and admins: Approved this week

• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 20:28, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Keegscee Sock #I Lost Count

User:TubingTommy posted on Keegscee's SPI, claims to be Keegscee. Might want to get with a checkuser and flush out the other ones and rangeblock. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 23:54, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

I have asked User:Rlevse, a checkuser, to take a look at the SPI and possibly flush out the other accounts and do a rangeblock. You might want to converse with him. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 00:17, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

User:Rlevse posted this on the Keegscee SPI: "Confirmed all socks are same, four range blocks done". That should keep Keegscee at bay for the time being. :) If I can be of assistance in the future, please let me know. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 00:57, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Yep, I was following that. Thanks for the assists. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:58, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

agree

I completely agree with you message on that IP's page within the past few hours. The only shred of defense is that another person shouldn't have called his edit "drivel". That is not very nice. Your use of text instead of grunting or a template is very commendable. Often templates are slapped on and the wording isn't entirely appropriate. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 00:25, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

That would be me who called the user's edit "drivel". Probably a little rough, but something that went on and on with, as Gwen put it, "flowery language" and read like a movie review seemed like drivel. I will try to do better in my choice of words. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 00:37, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Neutralhomer, I understand the emotional reaction there and sympathize, but we all need to remember that anyone can cause M0ar Drahmaz... We all need to resist doing so 8-) Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 02:06, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Will try my best. In other news: User:BoatingBob is the new name of Keegscee. This guy don't know when to quit. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 02:09, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Doesn't he have anything better to do with his time? WadingWill (talk) 18:17, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

We simply cannot put up with scum like Keegscee. SplashingSteve (talk) 19:25, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

98.82.3.81

Could you take a look at the edits by this user? I believe them to be a sockpuppet of User:Wiki Historian N OH, specifically by their first edit made as 98.82.3.81. That banner is something that Wiki Historian N OH fought over and was brought to ANI about. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 05:05, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Might want to add User:Walkjaw to that as well. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 05:06, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

98.82.3.81 posted on Walkjaw's talk page. I think there might be a connection there too. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 05:19, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I saw that; I don't think that the overlap is sufficiently clear to form a duck test determination. I think it was just two editors literally crossing in the night. I blocked the IP anon-only and pointed him back at their User:Wiki Historian N OH account; I think that's all that's appropriate at the moment. Who knows what tomorrow will bring. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 05:30, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Okie Dokie....I will keep an eye on the pages. Just a heads up, the anon is requesting an unblock. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 05:33, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

• Just a note, User:Risker, a checkuser, last edited in the past 10 minutes. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 06:13, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

• If you haven't noticed, the SPI has been closed and the user unblocked. We kinda got admonished for biting the user. Oh well. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 08:09, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

• Yeah. This is why I try to keep an open mind about my admin actions. We can't be paralyzed by not having absolute proof on everything - but we are human and we make mistakes. If we treat people like we can't make mistakes and must not be making one at the moment, we end up looking like fools or assholes. Fortunately this IP seems to earlier have been reacting very well and engaging in reasonable discussion. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 08:24, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Captain Occam 1RR violation

Fresh from his unblock Captain Occam has just violated the 1RR restriction on Talk:Race and intelligence/FAQ [8], [9]. Wapondaponda (talk) 10:14, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

FAIR CRITICISM

I WILL SUE WIKIPEDIA IF THEY ALLOW ZEALOTS TO BLACKLIST ME.

I HAVE CRITICISM FOR VAWA. I WON 2.5 CASES I KNOW WHAT I'M TALKING ABOUT.

I HAVE CRITICISM OF PAGES THAT USE COMPUTER TERMS BUT ADVERTISE MICROSOFT PRODUCTS. SO WHAT. THAT'S JUST ME BEING ETHICAL.

IT'S ME WHO WAS FOLLOWING RULES. CHECK YOUR LOGS. WHEN THEY DISCUSSED I PARTICIPATED AND MADE CHANGES THEY ASKED FOR.

FACT: THESE PEOPLE WERE DELETING THINGS AS I WROTE WITH NO DISCUSSION. AND I FEEL I CAN PROVE THAT IT WAS ALL MOTIVATED TO DELETE ANY ETHICAL VIEW WHICH WAS NOT ALIGNED WITH THEIR PURPOSE OF CONTROLLING TOPICS.

I'VE ALLOWED THEM TO DELETE MY WORK. I'VE EDITED WORK THAT WAS DELETED - ONLY TO SEE THAT NOTHING IS NOT DELETED.

I'M NOT GOING TO PUT UP WITH THEIR DEFAMING ME.

I'LL BEND OVER BACKWARDS TO ALLOW THEM TO FALSIFY HISTORY ON THEIR PAGE. I'LL MAKE MY OWN.

BUT THERE'S NO WAY THEY ARE DEFAMING ME PUBLICLY. THAT COULD RESULT IN A LAWSUIT. FAIR AND SQUARE.

   You have been warned repeatedly and told about Wikipedia policies that apply to how you are editing here.
   Your edits since my warnings yesterday include:

       [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] and [6].

   These edits violate our policy against using Wikipedia to promote an external policy agenda or as a battlefield, our policy requiring articles to maintain a neutral point of view, our policy against inserting original research and opinons instead of reliably sourced facts and commentary from real world sources.
   It is evident that you do not understand, or perhaps understand but refuse to abide by, Wikipedia policies. You must read those policies and abide by them in future edits. What you have been doing is disruptive and in violation of multiple policies. You cannot continue doing so. If you refuse to abide by policy and continue editing in this manner you will be blocked from editing until it's clear that you understand policy and will abide by it.
   Please take this warning seriously and make a reasonable attempt to educate yourself as to those policies and abide by them. If you ignore this warning your ability to edit Wikipedia will be removed in short order.
   Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 23:18, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

   * Reinforcing George's point. You have made another remark on this page using legal language[7]. If you do not refrain from this we will be forced to take action to prevent more being posted. If this continues you will be blocked--Cailil talk 16:46, 17 June 2010 (UTC)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sven nestle (talk • contribs)  

98.82.3.81 (Part 2)

The anon has become disruptive and slightly stalking. Coming onto an article I frequent often and removing information from it (1, 2). When directed to the page where the term came from, he deleted it too. This is clear disruptive editing and stalking, since you don't just popup on the Stephens City, Virginia article out of the 3 million+. Since you spoke with this user previously, I will leave this one to you. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 04:05, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

• Now that this has been brought up, it has to be addressed, so if you don't mind, I need some clarification. Should I leave "semiquincentennial", go back to the sourced "bicenquinquagenary", or drop the word altogether and just stick with "250th anniversary" on the Stephens City, Virginia article? - NeutralHomer • Talk • 04:40, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Keegscee

Stupid sock is stupid. User:CharlieLittle, just watchlist my talkpage, he seems to pop up there. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 04:14, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Andranikpasha

Hi, you concured to the other admin, I am wondering if you have read my comment. The sentence removed could have been a clear violation of BLP, the woman is not even an Armenian, the sentence would make readers assume she is an Armenian and a nationalist at that. Also, the applicant made two reverts when he is placed to indefinite 1rr restriction too. Ionidasz (talk) 05:14, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

I read your comment, but I disagree. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 05:22, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

And the disagreement is? Ionidasz (talk) 05:23, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Interesting, I just checked Andranikpasha contributions, to find out that both Grandmaster and him are engaged in BLP issues. See here, under the same BLP basis, users seem to try discrediting living persons who they do not like. But if you do not agree that calling someone who is not even an Armenian, an Armenian nationalist is not misleading and not a violation of BLP, I hope you will keep your words when the editor appeal to the committee under the basis that he was blocked for 3 months because he genuinly believed he was removing a BLP issue. Also, you said nothing about the fact that the aplicant too is placed indefinitly to 1rr. Ionidasz (talk) 05:33, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

And where is the logics here? You say your friend grandmaster does the same, but no measures will be taken. And when another user does the same think, you fill bad, agree to revert and block him. Double standards, mr 'admin'! Andranikpasha (talk) 07:21, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

It is not the same problem as in the article about Thomas de Waal. First, the decision on BLP in Thomas de Waal article was made by an uninvolved admin User:Shell Kinney. In case with Caroline Cox the issue was also discussed with the third party admins, and the decision was that it was not a BLP issue. [10] Andranikpasha knew about this discussion at WP:BLPN, so it was not like he "genuinely believed he was removing a BLP issue', as is claimed above. And while Andranikpasha knew about the decision at WP:BLPN, he still chose to ignore it and violate his editing restriction. I don't think such behavior should be encouraged, especially considering that he made no attempt at dispute resolution in accordance with rules. Grandmaster 08:46, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Ridiculous, the discussion Grandmaster is refering too, relates to 2007, and we know that the rules regarding BLP are stricter now. Not long ago, informations were being added and as long as they were attributed, no one had problem with. Grandmaster claims that it was discussed by admins, which is wrong, only an admin answered. In the case of De Waal, the information was also attributed, but it was still claimed as being a violation. I think this should be brought before the arbitration and the decision should be reversed. Lack of admin judgement here. Ionidasz (talk) 14:29, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Again, if anyone thinks that there's a BLP problem, he needs to take it to WP:BLPN, which is a board that exist for such situations. Edit warring is not justified under any circumstances. In this particular case, Andranikpasha was trying to remove a compliment made in presence of Mrs. Cox by her friend Frank Pallone, the leader of the Armenian Caucus in the US Congress. It is a notable opinion, which cannot be removed without discussion and consensus, and especially with violation of editing restrictions. Grandmaster 14:42, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

That's a removal of BLP violation, which overrules the 1RR. Even a 5 years old kid who knows that Cox is not Armenian, will know that such a quotation can only be interpreted as if she was an Armenian. Source attribution does not wave off the responsability of a user, when both sides know that the material being added will obviously be misinterpreted. But this discussion is worthless, because obviously no administrator will be unblocking him now, this should go to the committee and if there are other similar case of long block, they should be also included. Ionidasz (talk) 14:55, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Ionidasz -

I understand that you and he believe it's a BLP issue. But one cannot merely assert that something is a BLP issue and then ignore others saying it is not.

This came up on the BLP noticeboard and was generally concluded as not being a problem.

If after it's been discussed, and a noticeboard consensus and uninvolved admins conclude it's not a problem, you keep using BLP as an excuse to edit war, you're operating outside policy. Merely saying it's BLP doesn't make everything you do afterwards justified, and if consensus says it's not BLP then continuing to say it is doesn't protect you from sanction for disruptive actions.

Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 19:40, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

What concensus, being an admin does not give someones word more streight. To the contrary, when a block is involved, admins may be tended to support a block. How many obvious mistakes had admins support a block, before one goes against the crowd and unblock, to then end up having finally admins comming and giving their voices that they agree. BTW, you have mail. Ionidasz (talk) 00:34, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Hello, Georgewilliamherbert. You have new messages at 98.82.3.81's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Barnstar

		The Newyorkbrad Dispute Resolution Barnstar
		For investing a lot of time and for using your knowledge of the underlying workings of Wikipedia to help this anonymous user clear his name of being after being falsely accused of being a vandal (when I was 98.82.3.81), despite that fact that you had nothing to gain from your actions, I award you this Dispute Resolution Barnstar. Thanks, GWH, you're a standup guy. 74.178.231.10 (talk) 01:16, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for your independent review of my block of Captain Occam (talk · contribs), and for your thoughtful note explaining your reasoning. I cannot speak for how their editing has improved in recent months, but am glad that you say that it has - I respect your opinion, and with you on the case there is hope for that article. I found that page while looking into an unrelated case of possible sockpuppetry and decided that while the original matter probably did not warrant action, the editing there was significantly outside Wikipedia norms. I fully support the do not block and run rule, but did not expect it to be an issue as I planned to be around for several hours before moving and other real life issues took over (see my usertalk page, but I think I just noted "busy" there). Those took a while longer to resolve than I expected, and I am sorry for the confusion that my unavailability caused. I am not following the R&I ArbCom case, but if you would let me know if a comment from me would help there, I would appreciate it. Regards, - 2/0 (cont.) 21:26, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 21 June 2010

• Sister projects: Picture of the Year results declared on Wikimedia Commons

• News and notes: Collaboration with the British Museum and in Serbia, Interaction with researchers, and more

• In the news: Wikipedia better than Britannica, Pending changes as a victory of tradition, and more

• WikiProject report: WikiProject U2

• Features and admins: Approved this week

• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 18:42, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

M113

Hello

Excuse-me, but... I can't find where you read 550 M113 in the reference you gave (I knew that .pdf already). P. 7, I read : APCs : M113 : 383 (only). Where are the other 167 ones ?

It's important for me, because on my native Wikipedia, which is the french one, we have to deal with some very stubborn users, who change our datas about the weaponry of the Moroccan Army, without ever submiting any evidence for their numbers, except other articles from Wikipedia, including some in english. If you can also help me with the many websites you're talking about, it will be appreciated, really.

Sorry for my poor english

Regards Chaoborus (talk) 01:38, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

And more : look at this ! Do you think he actually read the reference he's cheating on ? Do you see any reference here ? It seems you got the same kind of problems, as Wikipedia-in-french : worthless self-reference.

Regards Chaoborus (talk) 10:54, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

I re-read all the sources again; I agree that the information on quantity is questionable. It's reliably sources that they have a large number of them but you may well be right on verifiable quantity. Go ahead and put in the lower number. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 17:30, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Chaoborus (talk) 21:05, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 28 June 2010

• Objectionable material: Board resolution on offensive content

• News and notes: 2010–15 plan, Smithsonian outreach, Teaching Wikipedia, brief news

• In the news: Wikipedia controlled by pedophiles, left-wing trolls, Islamofascists and Communist commandos?

• Public Policy Initiative: Introducing the Public Policy Initiative

• WikiProject report: Talking with WikiProject Ships

• Features and admins: Approved this week

• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 21:14, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

WRONGVERSION and all that

It seems like you were waiting for a certain version before protecting. Is that the case (obviously no way to prove anything). Thanks. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 03:58, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

This is not an article content dispute; it's a policy. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 04:05, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Did not know that. There are correct version of policies? - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 04:15, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

FWIW: Whatever you protect on, it's always gonna be the WP:WRONGVERSION; and I'd strongly recommend you stick to the WRONGVERSION as your defence.

If you claim that you are doing this "because the page is policy", you're going to be in trouble, because there are a significant number of people who disagree with that assessment, therefore no consensus, therefore it's not policy; and there you have a self-defeating prophecy on your hands.

Using a meatball:PowerAnswer in this powder-keg will cause it to blow up in your face. Just to add insult to injury, the sharks at fox news may smell your blood from miles away. This Might Hurt.

TL;DR: I recommend you say that this is an edit war, and you WP:WRONGVERSIONed it and that that's your story and you're sticking to it.

Have a nice day! :-)

--Kim Bruning (talk) 13:58, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

If this had been someone editwarring on one of the pillars, the response would have been locking it and blocking the person. I'm trying to avoid stomping on people too hard in a way that inhibits legitimate discussion of the status quo, but we need to protect stuff.

"Some people disagree" is fine. But it's perfectly reasonable to assert that this is a handed-down-from-elsewhere policy in the manner of the copyright policy and the pillars and the original BLP, and that edit warring over it is unacceptable. All of the handed down policy has over time come under community consensus in detail, and I am sure this one will continue to evolve somewhat. But it is what it is. Edit warring over the tag on the page doesn't change the policy. One could remove the page entirely and the policy would remain.

Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 18:33, 30 June 2010 (UTC)