Jump to content

User talk:Georgewilliamherbert/Archives/2013/February

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


"Disruption"

If you want to talk about your subjective view of disruption, I suggest that you raise it at ANI. Stay off my talkpage. ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 01:35, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

That was an "official" (whatever that means on WP) administrator warning flowing out of the ANI discussion. As such, it needs to be on your talkpage "on the record" - or needed to be put there, your removal is entirely within policy.
I will be happy to avoid bothering you on your talkpage, OTHER than administrative actions.
Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 02:41, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi George. I haven't defended either of the parties involved in the current sequence of issues surrounding Danjel - indeed, as a close collaborator, I have privately chided Dan for being combative. However, although I'm absolutely sure it was intended in good faith, I do feel that your comment here was a touch too much and I was more surprised to see it coming from a fellow admin. Enough has been said already on the various official discussions, Danjel is a teacher and a mature individual, and I'm sure he will have noted it all. Further comments just fuel the fire and I am worried that we may now have lost an otherwise excellent contributor to education and other articles. Kind regards, --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:33, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

I spent some time calibrating that to the combination of perceived problem (both the ANI discussion viewpoints and my own assessment looking at things) and Danjel's obviously positive contributions in many areas. Up through his later ANI comments he was still acting like there was no problem, and he did not need to pay any significant heed of the community's inputs. In my opinion, as an otherwise uninvolved admin, both the ANI discussion and the other source incidents rose to the level of administrative warning, and the trajectory is / was headed in a way that could result in eventual blocks.
It would not be doing him a service to understate the significance of disrupting things or pissing off large segments of the community in that manner. Exhaustion of community patience gets people banned (though, he is not THAT far along by any means).
Positive contributions exist, were considered and valued by me, and were reflected in the warning note.
I am sorry if you think that my conclusion or the general consensus of the ANI discussion were too negative. But I stand by my position. It's obviously still open for discussion, and I value your input here and elsewhere.
Thanks for having come here and said that. Feedback and dialog are appreciated, even if I still believe I was right. Gotta keep eyes and ears open for good feedback and contrary opinions, and the ever-present possibility of another consensus than my own opinion... Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 02:51, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
I can't argue with your ANI closure as it's probably very similar to how I would have closed it myself if I were not involved through my long knowledge of the work of those concerned. I appreciate your comment above and I just thought that your message to Dan was just a little more than needed. As I said, Dan has now, presumably, left Wikipedia - IMO a net loss to content and certainly a loss of one of the most active contributors to WP:WPSCH. Cheers, Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:18, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 04 February 2013

Sexology arbitration case opened

An arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Sexology. Evidence that you wish the Arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence sub-page, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Sexology/Evidence. Please add your evidence by February 22, 2013, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can contribute to the case workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Sexology/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Ks0stm (T•C•G•E) 03:25, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 11 February 2013

The Signpost: 18 February 2013

The Bugle: Issue LXXXIII, February 2013

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 07:14, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Meryle Secrest

Hey! Just to let you know, I've unprotect Meryle Secrest as it seems to be fairly quiet on the page. Hopefully you're alright with it, but by all means reprotect if you have any problem with it. All the best and hopefully you're well! Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 22:58, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 25 February 2013

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Georgewilliamherbert/Archives/2013/February&oldid=1091674084"