Wikipedia

User talk:Georgewilliamherbert/Archives/2011/October

< User talk:Georgewilliamherbert
Latest comment: 13 years ago by Off2riorob in topic re..


The Signpost: 3 October 2011

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Request

Latest comment: 13 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion

Hi GWH. I have recently filed an RfC on Kiefer.Wolfowitz. I would prefer it to be a productive RfC - and as such I would like to adhere to one of his requests that you confirm there is a basis for dispute. I am not asking you to endorse or oppose the summary, though you are welcome to, I would just like you to confirm that this not a frivolous RfC. WormTT · (talk) 18:47, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Hi George,
My intention was that an editor like yourself read, investigate a bit, and then agree with the RfC statement, not that you write a blurb, "Yeah, there seems to be a problem worth discussing in an RfC".
This would have made life easier for me and Worm, I think he'd agree now.
You are welcome to participate, of course, if you want to ruin a decaying-rate Poisson process model for the participants.
Sincerely,  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 16:45, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
I took a quick look at it and don't have the background on the situation. I will attempt to spend some more time looking at it today, but work is extremely busy right now, so I can't guarantee spending enough time to have any useful input. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 18:45, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
I know of only one additional editor who has indicated a wish to participate, and I trust that he will run his posting past Worm or the other originator of the RfC/U (if he thinks it helpful). It may wind down naturally before you have free time.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 21:35, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
Hi George, there's no rush. Kiefer has already started participating in the RfC, which has allayed my fear that it would be ignored. If you have time, then I'm sure your opinion will be gratefully received, but if not, don't worry. WormTT · (talk) 08:23, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 10 October 2011

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Claudio

Latest comment: 13 years ago12 comments3 people in discussion
Please re-read WP:NOT - particularly the section on Wikipedia is not a soapbox.
Coming here with an agenda is bad. Insisting, after sanctions, that you MUST increase your agenda-driven editing, will in short order lead to you being asked to leave and if necessary blocked indefinitely.
That's not what Wikipedia is here for. If you want to blog or write papers or do speeches to advocate your cause, please feel free to do so. This is a site to reflect information about the world, not change it. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 20:09, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

This is a summary of my recent edits at wikipedia:

1. I have provided verifiable and academic reliable sources for the following facts, which were already included by other users at Margaret Sanger's article: she, founder of Planned Parenthood, was an advocate and supporter of eugenics and she expressed that birth control like eugenics sought to "assist the race toward the elimination of the unfit". She also supported coercion to prevent the "undeniably feeble-minded" from procreating, and she recommended that immigration exclude those "whose condition is known to be detrimental to the stamina of the race," and that sterilization and segregation be applied to those with incurable, hereditary disabilities.
2. In the euthanasia article, I have included and referenced the following historical fact: the euthanasia movement was intertwined and linked with the eugenics movement.
3. In the euthanasia article, I have included and referenced the following historical fact: the american euthanasia movement supported euthanasia arguing eugenics grounds and they also supported coercive euthanasia.

I will not discuss anything about those facts, nor I will argue for their inclution in wikipedia. Indeed, those facts are part of the mentioned wikipedia-articles and they were accepted as well referenced facts, despite of certain structural resistence from some users. If those edits are not the motive of your comment, then I have to add that I am not advocating nor promoting nor endorsing any cause, but indeed rejecting, for example to be invited to endorse causes like "(self)criticism", which is a well known philosophical, political and neurological cause, practice and surely an agenda. -- ClaudioSantos¿? 23:28, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Claudio -
Let me be blunt.
You are one step away from being indefinitely blocked.
You have been warned repeatedly. You are under among the most stringent sanctions ever applied by the community short of a community ban.
The response to Carrite's request that you consider self-criticism rather than becoming more combative blatantly indicated that you intend to violate WP:NOT. You have not that I can see actually done so, but you obviously and blatantly claimed you were going to: "I can not agree. Criticism is superfluos, because what is not coherent to its concept, soon or later collapses. What is needed here is to mention that criticism is based on and is coming from capitalism, which is the underlying and incoherent structure, that deserves all combativeness in order to collapse it, better now than too late. "
If that is what you intend to do, flaunting the community's warnings and restrictions and WP:NOT, then I will be happy to avoid wasting any more of your or my time and just block you permanently now.
That type of behavior does not belong at Wikipedia. If that is your goal, go somewhere else. If you stay here, abide by Wikipedia's goals and core values. If you stay but continue to disrupt, you'll be blocked indefinitely.
This round of restrictions is your last warning.
Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:42, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
And you missed to mention that this "most stringent sanctions ever applied by the community short of a community ban" were applied based on the opinion of 9 users and against the opinion of 7 users. But at any rate, let me be blunt again: I encourage you to disengage from me like I was doing with you, since I did discover you were not able to objectively consider the things around me. As you said, I have not done nothing, but also neither I have claimed any intention to do nothing. But, indeed I have rejected to be invited to practice "self-criticism". What is self-criticism? To write speeches or dissertations denigrating and promoting shame about "my" doings? And certainly I also know that self-criticism is an obligation under certain regimes and institutions. But if self-criticism is a political, philosophical or therapeutical practice that some users endorse, then I am not even interested to discuss anymore why I found it superflous and a waste of time. So this discussion about self-criticism is over. -- ClaudioSantos¿? 01:03, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
And you seem to have missed that those 9 guys are people who have tried to collaborate with you, while those 7 guys were canvassed to oppose. Night of the Big Wind talk 08:53, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
I already told you that I have not canvassed those 7 guys. So, you are false accusing me again. No news. -- ClaudioSantos¿? 15:01, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
Excuse me? Do you remember this edit to Marauder40, or this edit about emailing people? Or do you remember this edit, asking for help? Or is this edit still in your mind? Off course you will remember your invitation to NYyankees51. Seeing his ideas, he will be a good partner for spreading your ideas. Come out of your cave, dear Claudio! Bluntly ignoring and removing critism will not help you. Contrary, as Georgewilliamherbert already stated above, you are working hard to earn yourself a community ban. Night of the Big Wind talk 15:27, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Inviting people who is against and in favor is not canvassing, read the policy. And do the maths. From those mentioned users I did invite to comment: 2 supported the ban, 1 did not take any position, 1 did not comment at all and solely 1 opposed the ban. But you are telling that 7 users, who actually opposed the ban, were all invited by me to comment. False accusation. -- ClaudioSantos¿? 15:49, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

LOL. Did you read WP:CANVAS yourself? Then you should have been silent if you did. Please read the paragraphs "Votestacking" and "Stealth canvassing". They give an adequate description of your activities. Okay, I know I see it wrong and that I am stalking. You claim that time and time again the last few months...Night of the Big Wind talk 16:06, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
At any rate, from those invited by me, solely 1 user opposed the ban. But you are telling that 7 users, who actually opposed the ban, were all invited by me to comment. So, at any rate: wrong math, false accusation, misleading claim. Yes, you were invited more than one time to stop leaving this sort of comments and false accusations which have not any encyclopedic purpose, or do they?. I will not endorse your philosophical, political and therapeutical invitation to "self-criticism". This discussion is over. -- ClaudioSantos¿? 16:34, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
Ow, do you quit Wikipedia? Night of the Big Wind talk 18:23, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
You are such a pity boy, Claudio. You can not win from me, so now you start crying about hounding? Hoping that Qwyrxian or Shirik will fall for your bait? owowowowowowow, now I am afraid (NOT!) Night of the Big Wind talk 19:17, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 17 October 2011

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Blocked IP user editing under a different account

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hi George, you blocked User:79.233.6.9 a few days ago for disruptive editing. However he has now just posted another comment on Talk:Foreign relations of South Sudan under a different IP address (User:79.233.21.151). It is definitely the same editor as he always signs his posts "Sascha, Germany". His block is due to expire soon, and this latest post wasn't abusive or disruptive (although not particularly contructive either), so perhaps it isn't worth doing anything, but I thought I ought to bring it to your attention. Thanks, Bazonka (talk) 17:07, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 24 October 2011

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The Bugle: Issue LXVII, September 2011

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
 

To receive this newsletter on your talk page, join the project or sign up here. If you are a member who does not want delivery, please go to this page. EdwardsBot (talk) 02:11, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Blocking of 32alpha4tango

Latest comment: 13 years ago4 comments4 people in discussion

FYI, I think you had a cut-and-paste failure when giving the diff for the reason for the block. - The Bushranger One ping only 03:10, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

I was coming here for the same reason as the diff you left is regarding Malleus. :)
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 03:13, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
Wishful thinking on George's part. Malleus Fatuorum 03:29, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
So many issues, so much time...
No, wait...
(Yes, the diff that was substituted in the block message, the last ANI one, was the one I intended to cut/paste there with the block)
Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 08:53, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

RE: Rude Comments

Latest comment: 13 years ago7 comments3 people in discussion

If you've decided to take such a keen interest in what is said, then perhaps you should look at what your friend Malleus Fatuorum has said. If anything, what I said was a drop in the bucket compared to what he has done. And don't you dare brush it off as "It doesn't matter if someone else is rude, you shouldn't be." If you have time to bust me for a small snide comment, you have time to look into his. --Tarage (talk) 04:43, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

And do tell how my comments stating the truth were rude? He has pushed POV, and he has harassed other editors. --Tarage (talk) 04:47, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
Hi Tarage,
Please look at my RfC, and ask yourself how much you would enjoy being the target of an RfC, where you might have less support than I do. Take it from me: You don't want the aggravation. Walk away and enjoy editing. We have a million articles waiting for you to improve.
Best regards,  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 04:53, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
Kiefer - with all due respect, I don't need defending or help here, and this won't help at the moment. I understand and appreciate, but you can stand down here. If you chose to discuss it with him on your or his talk pages feel free...
Tarage - Malleus is not "my friend". I respect the editing he does in many areas. I also have a profound objection both in theory and practice to his usual style of abusing other users, which the two of us have tussled with to great lengths over the years.
What he may or may not have done is no excuse for what you did. Poking at editors who are causing trouble is prohibited. Poking at editors who have been sanctioned, blocked, or banned, is specifically prohibited. It's called "tap-dancing on someone's grave" and will result in a prompt and in most cases permanent block on your account.
You did not take a severe verbal swing at him, but it was a personal attack, he did nothing to provoke it on that page, and it's not ok. Given the unprovoked nature it was in several key ways worse than anything he's done lately, and trust me, I have been watching what he's doing lately, and it's not making me happy.
If you feel that that's how you want to interact with others on Wikipedia then your career here will not go well or very long.
Please find something else to do here. If he picks a fight with you on an article or user talk page, ask an admin for help. And by no means don't go swinging at him again like that for no good reason.
Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 08:08, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
Unprovoked nothing. You are clearly turning a blind eye to all that he has done to goad editors on the talk page. He wasn't blocked at the time of posting his snide remark about it 'not being his job', so I wasn't dancing of any sort. My career here on Wikipedia has been a long one, and I would appreciate it if you wouldn't butt your head into situations that you obviously haven't been following very closely, regardless of how closely you claim to follow Malleus. I take pride in my editing, and refuse to be bullied away because an outside Admin refuses to take the time to properly investigate a problem. If that means you'll be RFCing me as Keifer claims, then go for it. I've stood up to weak RFCs before and I can do it again. --Tarage (talk) 19:11, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
This is not RFC-land. This is "you're blatantly crossing the no personal attacks policy line. That's a blockable offense.
I am not turning a blind eye to anything. I'm entirely aware that he's provoked people or gotten into mutual combat with people in many venues recently (and for the last several years). I am not happy about any of that. But he hadn't done so there and then when you hauled off and took a swing at him.
"I really don't like him" is not him provoking you. You're angry about his general behavior (which I understand) but you initiated that particular confrontation on your own, and walked right across the line with it.
Don't do it again. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 19:34, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
I would be more than happy to get a block by you overturned any time. --Tarage (talk) 04:03, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

re..

Latest comment: 13 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Hi George, glad to see you're well. Regarding your comment at the WMC issue. As regards consensus, yes there is a consensus that there is in this case nothing worthy of report or action but I am seeing plenty of comment that WMC should be avoiding such articles. I am not seeing anything worthy of arb clarification and have no intention of a report. My position is just that WMC would do well to walk down the middle of the road of his relaxed editing restrictions and do well to stay away from the redline areas. IMO it is good faith and beneficial to him that he gets this advice at this time rather than creating dubious and debatable exceptions. Best regards. - Off2riorob (talk) 00:35, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

I think the point of the relaxed edit restriction was that Arbcom feels that he safely now can edit those areas, with the specific exclusions listed.
I think you want him to stay further back than the line they actually drew.
If you disagree with or dispute what appears to be the consensus on what the line drawn is, then you really should file a clarification request, so that it gets settled and you don't feel he's abusing things if he continues doing what he seems to want to do now. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:50, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
I will wait to see where he settles with his contributions and his interpretation of his restrictions and report when there is a small history of warnings and requests and continued disputed actions and edits. Thanks - Off2riorob (talk) 01:10, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Georgewilliamherbert/Archives/2011/October&oldid=1143021013"