User talk:Georgewilliamherbert/Archive2007-10

An apparent troll

By the way, what's new with Liebman (from George 10/1/2007) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Georgewmherbert (talk • contribs) 15:06, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

The above account has been indefinitely blocked for having a username designed to imitate mine, and apparently being the latest Liebman sockpuppet. Georgewilliamherbert 21:39, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XIX (September 2007)

The September 2007 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.

Delivered by grafikbot 09:31, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Changes

Sorry i need to answer on your message. You said the changes of aicha are vandalism but i still think i have a privacy and i can choose my own privacy. If i don't want this on wikipedia i am free to remove this cause of my privacy! I changed it again.

Thanx!

Wikipedia:Debate camp

Please check out Wikipedia:Debate camp. Thank you very much. WAS 4.250 17:25, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

60.240.22.251

Vandalism from this IP address has picked up right where it left off when it was blocked for a month. All of their edits other than those to Covenant vehicles in Halo have been reverted, although it is possible that those should have been as well. 199.125.109.50 03:38, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

What does this mean...

...[1]? —Wknight94 (talk) 01:25, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

My chief reason for hiding the account list is that I can't think of any other reason for Liebman to continue his nonsense. It's not like he's sneaking his edits in. What else could he possibly be doing at this point other than trying to accumulate the most socks ever? I may be on the right track since I deleted a bunch of the sock tags and Liebman retaliated by creating six new accounts. This seems like a perfect application of WP:DENY. Would you prefer the deleted list were kept elsewhere? —Wknight94 (talk) 04:39, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

(continuing here for continuity) Liebman's been continuing all over, for a long time, on and off as he/she has time. I recommend you put the tags you deleted back on everything. If it's an active abuse case, and until it's faded enough afterwards that we're sure they're gone, we should leave all the tags active. The specifics are potentially important to id'ing new socks and new admins understanding what the case is about. I doubt that anything we could do would convince "Liebman" to just go away. We need to keep playing whack-a-mole or range-block the NYC library system. Georgewilliamherbert 04:44, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I initiated an IP request at WP:RFCU but don't expect much help there. The tags I've deleted are only the oldest accounts. I've personally seen examples where long-term cases have fizzled out but only after their vandalism monuments are destroyed. It's a natural reaction - just like good editors are fueled by editcountitis, vandals are fueled by LTA reports and sock lists. Even this conversation is probably keeping him going. —Wknight94 (talk) 05:02, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Talk pages and harassment

A "long standing policy"? If it's so long standing and policy, how come it doesn't appear in the very article/guideline that discusses harassment? May I suggest that it's because if it were it could quite possibly allow the precedent I mentioned in my remarks? I still maintain that from what I saw of the conversation it didn't even come close to any definition of harassment that I'm aware of. Personally I believe that User:Kscottbailey is being treated unfairly, both in this instance and the wiki-lawyering he's be subjected to over the last day or so. ---- WebHamster 01:33, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

WP:HARASS is not a checklist, it's a policy guideline. This sort of abuse has happened before, and always been treated as a violation of the harrassment policy. We don't have to list every type of conceivable behavior in the policy.

The block was discussed on WP:ANI and not only supported by every admin who looked at it, but the unblock request was reviewed and denied by an uninvolved admin. If you (or Kscottbailey) insist on trying to interpret the rules this strictly (only what's explicitly written in the policy and guidelines) you're in for a rude awakening in short order.

It's quite possible for someone to be a good contributor in terms of vandal fighting and edit contributions, and be too rude or abusive or harrassing, at the same time. We cannot overlook the abuse just because he's a good vandal fighter. In particular, when it goes from vague and directed at vandals and IPs to focused and directed at another normal user, that is most particularly not ok. WP:CIVIL is very important. If he cannot behave in a civil manner to other participants, including responding in a reasonable manner rather than confrontational when reasonable complaints are made, then he's a liability to the project overall and should go.

It is my hope that he and you will come to understand this without further admin interaction. This stuff is important. Georgewilliamherbert 01:51, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

In my view it's an over reaction. A block wasn't called for, an admin-type slap on the wrists verbal warning maybe, but I suspect that you've been manipulated by someone with an axe to grind who was crying crocodile tears to get what he wanted, he couldn't get it via ANI, but he succeeded another way. Just for the record I have no connection to Kscottbailey, I don't know him and other than what I've seen and discussed on ANI I've never had previous communications with him. I'm basing all my comments purely on what I've seen and not on some idea of loyalty. As for the idolatry surrounding civility. IMV Civility should be earned not handed out to people who don't deserve it. And yes, it's very important to be civil to people who deserve it, less so for those who don't. Incidentally I'm not of the view that you were a "tame admin", but I do think you've been played. ---- WebHamster 02:11, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't think any experienced admin is going to take the word of someone complaining to ANI without researching. In the particular case, given the stuff above that complaint, I looked really hard. HiEv asked nicely for him to stop, and Kscottbailey verbally escalated the threats.

I didn't block him for a day. I could have just warned him, but the comments above indicated he was arguing with people extensively rather than take criticism as given. Given the escalating harrassment, I chose a short block as policy and precedent compliant (we usually block talk-page harrassers for a nominal 24 hrs, but Kscottbailey was not generally a normal user harrasser previously) but not overly harsh.

That Kscottbailey then felt it necessary to claim I was working for HiEv (who I never met before), send me a nasty-ish email, start badmouthing the uninvolved admin who rejected his unblock request, and posted another unblock request and abuse after the first one was turned down, show that he's operating past the "ok" line at the moment.

We can give users the benefit of the doubt, but when they start beating each other up, admins bear some responsibility if we let it happen. It's not ok. It's bad for the project, it's against the rules, it isn't something any of us appreciate seeing happen around. I want it to stop, in this case. The short block was unambiguous as a warning, but didn't interfere with Kscottbailey's normal editing to any significant degree. I hope he calms down and returns to vandal fighting. But the abuse has to stop. Georgewilliamherbert 02:22, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

You posted the block something like 38 minutes after HiEv's last post on his talk page. You can see how I just MIGHT have been of the belief that there was some type of "friendly admin" thing going on. And given the fact that I never harrassed him, at any point, you can also see how I would be MORE than a bit frustrated when I was blocked for harrassment after I spent all afternoon yesterday defending myself from a pointless AnI and frivolous complaints from the same user who managed to get me blocked. I have had my userpage frozen for posting an explanation of a barnstar I was given that did not mention said user. I've been accused of harrassment, when I did not harrass anyone, and I've been pulled into a frivolous defense of an AnI that should have never been posted. If you can't see how a normal user, of even average temperament would become frustrated given all that, I don't know how to explain it to you.

And for the record, people can't just order others not to post on their talk page. It doesn't work that way. Harrassment is about the CONTENT of the post, not WHETHER it was posted. In principle, the block was wrong, it's as simple as that. K. Scott Bailey 02:28, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Harrassment defined?

Please point to the specific thing I wrote on HIEV's talk page that constitutes "harrassment." Are you (per your post on WebHamster's page) saying that any user at any time can simply say "stop posting to my talk page" and further posts (no matter the content) become "harrassment"? If so, that is one of the most ludicrous explanations of the term I've ever heard. Here's what I think: HIEV had lost ground on the field of ideas, so--in lieu of making any rational points--he simply found a friendly admin to block me. Very unscrupulous, to say the least, but especially so given his behavior in starting a frivolous and time-consuming AnI the previous day. K. Scott Bailey 02:17, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

I have never met HiEv before. I was going entirely by the responses to the initial report in the (closed) ANI inicident above, the complaint, the specifics of what you posted to his talk page, and your edit history (I went back and scanned a fraction of your last 500 edits, and all the edit summaries etc).

I recommend that you go re-read the ANI threads. If you think that you "won" or he "lost" (or visa versa) you need to reread it again.

Yes, if someone says "stop posting to my talk page" and you continue, that has repeatedly and consistently been held to be harrassment.

Your last comment was clearly over the line:

That's rich. Now that your draconian edit summary policing has been repudiated--after forcing me to waste several good hours defending myself from your attacks--you have the gall to accuse ME of attacking YOU?!? That's rich. I'll tell you what: you desist from policing my edit summaries again, and I'll never post another message to your page as long as I work on the project. Fair? K. Scott Bailey 16:56, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

You were, exactly and precisely, attacking and harrassing HiEv on his talk page, and the comment I'll tell you what: you desist from policing my edit summaries again, and I'll never post another message to your page as long as I work on the project. is a threat.

I want you to take this as a firm but polite correction that yes, there are rules on being nice to people on Wikipedia, and you went past them, and let this drop and go back to vandal fighting. You do that very well. You don't have to abuse anyone, particularly other WP editors who you get into arguments with, to do that.

As I said above, if you keep harrassing people, the harm outweighs any good your positive edits and vandal fighting contribute, and it will be better for everyone if you leave. If you want to keep contributing, and I hope you do, you need to do so in a civil manner. You can argue with people all you want, but don't harrass them, and don't threaten them. If you do those things, it's not ok.

Thanks. Georgewilliamherbert 02:33, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Please refrain from referring to what I wrote to HIEV as a "threat." He had asked me to not post to his talk page anymore, and I simply stated that basically, if he left me alone, I would reciprocate. That's not a thread, that's offering a deal of sorts. How you manage to interpret it as a "threat" is beyond me, and such an utterly far-fetched interpretation (given my history) that it strains all credulity. Additionally, users can not "ban" people from posting on their talk pages. Talk pages are a public space, and (aside from abuse) whoever wants to can post on any given user's page. You know this. You also know that I was not abusive in any way in my posts to him. Was he irritated with me? Certainly. Did you give him exactly what he wanted when he brought his fit of pique to you? For certain as well. K. Scott Bailey 02:38, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

If it was not a series of abusive posts, you would not have been blocked for 3 hours. I blocked you; your unblock request was rejected by User:Madman. Admins were notified on WP:ANI and asked to review. Madman locked your page after your second unblock request and tirade against him. User:Viridae agreed with the block and the unblock denial and the talk page protection. Nobody else objected there, on my talk page, or unblocked you.

Three admins directly commenting, a whole bunch more who read and edited ANI in the meantime and didn't chose to get involved. Three strikes, you're out.

You don't get to set the terms under which the community judges if you're abusive or not. We do. You were. Please don't do it again. Georgewilliamherbert 02:46, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

You're not WP God, sorry. Just because three admins put their heads together (and Viridae is hardly unbiased, based upon his participation as the only admin supportive of the AnI yesterday) and deem me "abusive" doesn't change the facts. I was not abusive toward that user. As WebHamster pointed out above, you were played like a fiddle. You will never admit it, and that's fine. But your opinion on the matter carries no more weight than mine. And my words were what they were, and they were NOT abusive, your inappropriate block notwithstanding. Good bye and good riddance to the lot of you who think that wasting time on such matters is important. K. Scott Bailey 02:53, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Your edit summary

When you made this edit, I'm curious as to how you determined that you were reverting to the "consensus version." Did you take a poll? Did you count the number of editors on the talk page who argued in favor and in opposition to that version? The funny is, I actually did count them, and it appeared to me that I reverted to the "consensus version." But I didn't feel that I ought to make that claim, so I wonder why you did make it. --Gelsomina 06:15, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Um, no, there's already plenty of evidence and a couple of Arbcom case decisions that a few LaRouche activists do not a consensus make. Georgewilliamherbert 09:51, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

My question, rather, is what does make a consensus, and how did you determine that you were acting on behalf of it? --Gelsomina 16:05, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

• Note. Gelsomina (talk · contribs) has been blocked as a sock of banned user Herschelkrustofsky (talk · contribs), based on checkuser evidence and editing. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 07:31, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Request

I believe that you experienced with sockpuppets and therefore I would like for you to check into the following. I believe that User:72.84.31.214 is a sockpuppet of User:Linda9, due to the edits going on the Joaquin Phoenix article (see:[2]). Now, I am not experienced in this sort of thing, but I placed "sockpuppet" tags on both users pages. I would like for you to take a look and if you can fix what ever I may have done wrong. Thank you Tony the Marine 07:58, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Matters nautical

GWH-- thanks for your input on hull matters. My question arose out of work on SS Christopher Columbus where depth was originally confused with draft. There is also a question as to whether a field in the standard ship infobox template should be entitled depth and whether that covers the area. If you have time, could you look at Talk:SS_Christopher_Columbus#Infobox and let us know what you think? Thank you. Kablammo 14:08, 25 October 2007 (UTC)