User talk:Georgewilliamherbert/Archives/2014/February

This is an archive of past discussions with User:Georgewilliamherbert. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

User:Krutoi dezigner has added the following edit to his talk page "Putting that arrogant asshole in his place was totally worth it". Said edit has been reverted by User:Lukeno94 and User:Berean Hunter has reblocked him again for a month without talk page access. However, I am afraid that he cannot be reasoned with. As you warned him a permanent block is now in order.--RAF910 (talk) 02:55, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

I was not ignoring this but was extremely busy in real life. I am not going to escalate the block to permanent in the last week of a month-long block, with no additional abuse evidence since the talk page access was revoked. I will probably leave a note that further misbehavior will result in a permanent block on his talk page, for when the block is over, but leave it at that. Either he gets along suitably well with community members starting next week or he does not. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:28, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Further to you recent block, the editor continues to use talk page to make personal attacks. Best wishes Flat Out let's discuss it 11:08, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Hello,

Concerning user: DigDeep4Truth: Can you delete the discussion: Concerning edits on Sirach... in: Talk:Sirach. The user had started a personal attack as a first response in the discussion, so I reported the user to Admin: Ged UK. I was waiting or still waiting for a response from the admin, but it seems you unexpectedly solved the problem first. ♣Jerm♣729 11:10, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Note: It is the same discussion on his/her talk page, instead, when moved to: Talk:Sirach, the user added the attacks and manipulated the discussion to revert the topic against me. -- ♣Jerm♣729 11:57, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Hey GeeDubya - about this block, I'm feeling uneasy here. I'm looking at CensoredScribe's edits and I think there is a real good case for a WP:CIR block. Giantesses being the feminine version of Giant? CFD tags without a discussion? Accusations of gender discrimination? It's all a little much and I think a 1-sided block would've been appropriate. Thoughts?--v/r - TP 06:04, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

I just hat'ted all the subsections in the excruciating ANI thread. In summary - both parties edited disruptively and behaved badly on ANI for about a week. That is not OK. I applied the community sanction Drmies suggested on CensoredScribe, per that discussions' consensus. But separately from that, both earned a time out for disruption.

That said, I do invite a noticeboard review of the blocks, if you think I was off base on doing so to Ryulong.

sob, did I just suggest another discussion section at ANI for this...

Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 06:11, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm not particularly privy to what exactly you think they've done because I don't see it myself, I've only take a cursory glance. However, looking at CensoredScribe's contribs, I'd say this editor is entirely incompetent. I mean, a random glance at his contribs gives me this "(A Jedi or Sith who goes into battle is automatically a super soldier because of the force." and "Gandalf fights in numerous battles which makes him a soldier. His ability to use magic makes him a super soldier. One can be super soldier without being molded by a military; they just need to be super and a soldier." If I ran up on this editor, I'd be bashing my head against a brick wall too, just like Ryulong did. He's...well, insert adjective with a bad intellect connotation (that doesn't start with "R") here. That's not to excuse Ryulong, but it is to say that Ryulong deserves a trout; not a block.--v/r - TP 06:20, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

• I have serious doubts about the Scribe's competence in the areas they were working in. I can understand Ryulong's interest in keeping the problems in check. What I do not understand is the zeal that led Ryulong to this ridiculous disagreement on X96's talk page, and on the piling on in the ANI threads for CS and X96. If someone files a complaint on a noticeboard, they should let it ride and not comment every five minutes. If Ryulong were to acknowledge, even slightly, that their edits were deemed disruptive, I could support an unblock: Ryulong is a productive though often difficult editor and they have a lot to contribute, but they should have known better here. So I support the block, and am simultaneously in favor of an unblock, with my caveat. Thank you both, Drmies (talk) 19:19, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
• Definitely support. This user seems to edit his favourite topics with an iron fist. His history of reporting every person he had a conflict with plus an arbitration case over a feud with another editor offsite makes this overdue. 174.236.74.198 (talk) 01:47, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi George, I just left you a message at Talk:Jewish_exodus_from_Arab_and_Muslim_countries#Full_protected_for_one_week.

Oncenawhile (talk) 10:43, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi George, just left you another message on the same. Oncenawhile (talk) 19:37, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

I respect your decision but I am confused by it, because I feel like clearly uncivil conduct toward me was ignored, and in some ways, justified. Please let me know if we can discuss this. I am not sure why the one who wanted dispute resolution is being accused of not respecting the validity of others' beliefs, while editors who refused dispute resolution are not. I did respect their beliefs, which is why I asked for admin guidance. --Precision123 (talk) 04:49, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

I think you are missing that you have been warned repeatedly and twice notified about the ARBPIA sanctions, and continued acting in this manner across a number of pages.

I cannot read your mind. Your actions are both polite and within administrative and discussion channels, and simultaneously you are expressing and advocating a viewpoint in which it seems like you do not believe other participants can legitimately hold dissenting opinions on underlying discussion topics.

It's not that you hold that opinion; it's that you are acting like everyone else must be doing something wrong by disagreeing with you. You are doing that very persistently.

I do not want to chase you away from the project, but I felt that the point had to be made more forcefully. I lost count past 15 other editors who had told you similar messages on the various talk pages, plus the two ARBPIA notifications. To edit Wikipedia successfully, you need to learn to accept that everyone else has differing, equally valid personal opinions on topics. It is not uncivil or harassing for them to advocate for them, point out policy issues with your editorial preferences, etc. On any given point, an eventual consensus may be established that you are right, they are right, or some third viewpoint/stance/approach may end up preferred. You need to respect the other editors and the process.

It is my hope that this is a sufficiently strong message that you will clearly hear it and begin working to change your behavior somewhat to avoid causing more problems in the future. Your writing and commenting style are ok, your use of talk pages and noticeboards is aimed in the right direction, but you need to learn to discuss and compromise and accept everyone as equal constructive participants.

Note that this does only apply to the Israel article and for one week. If you feel it is constructive you can continue to participate on the administrators' noticeboard and on any other related articles freely during this time period. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 05:04, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. I do fully accept that everyone has differing, valid personal opinions on topics. I understand your concern for respecting people's beliefs and engaging in discussion; I fully agree. But what seems very odd is that an editor who explicitly used language indicating my belief was not legitimate (comparing it to Holocaust denial and intelligent decision) is OK, while I, who for argument's sake, may have crossed the line into persistency, accepted our disagreement was reasonable and sought the advice of admins and DR. Certainly, if our priority is NPOV and civility, those comments made to me should be a cause of concern, because I did not deserve them and it only hurt honest attempts to resolve a dispute.

I respect your advice as an admin, and I am sure you know that some of these topics are very contentious. When an editor refuses DR, the only medium left was discussing in talk and I did indeed propose a compromise. When rejected, I simply said, "We have a disagreement," and little else, and suggested mediation. That seems to be in line with your advice. I did not shut down his viewpoint. Perhaps I could have gone about it differently. I probably would have, and I am sorry if it seemed as if I did not respect those viewpoints. But much of this advice is applicable to other parties in this dispute, and my hope was that they too get a strong enough message, because that behavior was not civil and did not respect my viewpoint. --Precision123 (talk) 05:38, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Due to a family emergency, I am currently unavailable. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 13:34, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Due to a family emergency, I am currently unavailable. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 13:34, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi, you recently blocked Enclipse (talk · contribs) as a block-evading account of Rajpurohit-Veer (talk · contribs). I've just reverted the (mockingly-named) Pitush (talk · contribs) for similar behaviour. Can you do the honours or should I take it to SPI? - Sitush (talk) 10:42, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Ah, I've just seen your notice above. I hope that all works out ok. Sorry to have bothered you. - Sitush (talk) 10:46, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new Featured and A-Class content Book reviews: Rabaul in World War II and Australia in World War I

Krutoi dezigner is back, he's edit warring and continuing personal attacks, ie. "Deleted edits added by a special boy..." --RAF910 (talk) 01:10, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for putting an end to Krutoi dezigner edit warring and personal attacks--RAF910 (talk) 16:29, 26 February 2014 (UTC)