Jump to content

User talk:Georgewilliamherbert/Archives/2013/January

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


Happy Holidays

Happy holidays.
Best wishes for joy and happiness. Keep up the good work as an administrator. All the best for the new year, Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 22:26, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Thank you! And to all, a happy 2013. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:15, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

warning

I've asked some questions on my talk page and would appreciate a response. nableezy - 23:21, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

I dont know if youre watching my page or not, if so just let me know, but I responded. nableezy - 23:46, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Malleus ban proposal

Don't follow the rules simply for the sake of following the rules. The specific discussion itself may or may not had been exceptionally harsh, disruptive or bad tempered, but the context it was taking place in, and arguably what lead to the incident in the first place 1, [2], 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 were certainly not pleasant either. Letting the discussion go on, when it was obviously not going to gain consensus, is a waste of everyone time and energy that can be better spent on improving the encyclopedia. Reopening it now, especially when you don't even believe the result would become any different, is process for process sake of the worst kind, and will only serve to create yet more drama. Having said that, if a totally uninvolved admin (from the discussions and Malleus in general) genuinely believe reopening the discussion is the right thing to do, then they should feel free to do so without worrying about WP:WHEEL. -- KTC (talk) 12:21, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

I read all the stuff that came before, yes.
Despite your "waste of everyone time and energy" comment, allowing discussions to run to a reasonable, timely conclusion, even if we know they're going to end up NC, may be important for the community writ large to have its say and explore and exhaust discussion and options. You are explicitly disregarding many of the reasons why "bare minimum of 24 hours" was specified in how long those are supposed to run.
That is not NOTBUREAU, that's either ignorance or intentional disregard of carefully thought out and extensively discussed policy and community consensus on how to balance things - yes, including the "this is going to go nowhere and waste people's time" aspect, which was judged, and felt to be wanting as a justification to SNOW things. The opposite, calling a ban early FOR banning someone, has been done and has been felt to have been an unmitigated error in the past. Having inconsistent "OK to call early as a NO or NC but not for YES" policy puts too much up to an individual admin's interpretation of the situation.
Shooting from the hip, FOR BANS, is a mistake. They need to be slow and deliberate. Again, I don't think slower deliberation would have changed things here, but there's very very very good reasons for moderately slow process (not a month, not a week, but at least a day and preferably longer) for these.
Please do not do this again.
Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 22:01, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
I agree that bans need to be slow and deliberate. The fact of the matter is, though, that whatever the general principle this is a very good example of where it falls down, because anyone and their pet dog can tell you that there's going to be no progress made on any Malleus ban. And why is this so apparent? Because we have discussed it for a day. We've discussed it for a week. We've discussed it for a month. In the last year the energy occupied on should-we-should-we-not-ban-Malleus has been sufficient to write all the FAs we'd lose out on if we did. Malleus ban proposals come up so regularly and constantly you can set a watch by them, and it's become readily apparent to pretty much everyone that baring a change in the attitude or attendance of meta-editors (people who participate in governance discussions) no progress in either direction is going to be made.
So, while I do think that the rules say you should keep it open for 24 hours, and that these rules have a perfectly legitimate rationale, I agree with KTC that this is ultimately process for the sake of process. The rule exists to cover situations where a ban proposal needs reasoned discussion, has the potential to alter in weighting given time, and/or where it's a relatively novel prospect for the user in question. This situation follows none of those. The idea of banning him has been discussed ad infinitum, recently, for precisely the behaviour this thread covered, and has consistently made the decision that we can't make a decision. The thread discussed showed no sign of failing to follow this precedent. Closing it was a perfectly legitimate action to avoid wasting community time and energy on a proposal that served for nothing other than to het people up. Ironholds (talk) 14:45, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 31 December 2012

Since you say there are serious questions still unresolved about Darkstar1st, what should be done?

As above. I would appreciate it if you could suggest what course of action should be taken. And if so, could you post it on that thread on the AN/I before it is closed. The poll on the topic ban was divided, but many users were calling for topic bans, and as you say serious questions remain unresolved. I believe that a solution to these serious issues is needed, I would prefer it if you as an administrator could provide guidance.--R-41 (talk) 23:45, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Our edits crossed in-flight. I do believe that further investigation should be done. I think that it being led by uninvolved admins or experienced users would be for the best; I think that everyone yelling at each other obscured the underlying behavior issue significantly. I don't know if I have enough time to lead or motivate that uninvolved investigation; I will try to if nobody else steps up but I am hoping someone else will step up.
Feel free to reply here or on the ANI thread if you have any more input or questions. I understand your frustration, but I hope you understand how hard it is right now to look past the arguments to the underlying behavior, and the facts behind the original claims.
Thanks. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 23:59, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 07 January 2013

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Doncram opened

An arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Doncram. Evidence that you wish the Arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence sub-page, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Doncram/Evidence. Please add your evidence by November 23, 2013, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can contribute to the case workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Doncram/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, (X! · talk)  · @810  ·  18:25, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 14 January 2013

Strange closure of AN/I item "No rational argumentation at Talk:Paul Krugman "Consensus on inclusion on the Gary Becker quote""

With regard to your answer to my procedural question at [1]: I call your attention to [2]

Can you cast some light on what is going on? I don't understand. Deicas (talk) 20:33, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Aside: I'm sorry that the links to the referenced AN/I are clumsy -- I'd having troubles getting permanent links to specific ANI/Is to work correctly.

I call your attention to the closure of AN/I [No rational argumentation at Talk:Paul Krugman "Consensus on inclusion on the Gary Becker quote] It was closed with a status of "NO ACTION: Content discussion, not appropriate for this forum". That closure reason makes *no* sense to me as I had specifically asserted "This discussion ... is in regard to *conduct* not *content*"Closed AN/I. Can you cast any light on this matter or to point me to an editor/admin/forum in which to as the question?

In the course of the AN/I discussion I asked the question: I request that this AN/I be escalated to a higher level in the dispute resolution process. If this isn't the correct place to make the escalation request, then would you please point me to the correct location?Closed AN/I ] Can you cast any light on this matter or to point me to an editor/admin/forum in which to ask the question?

Thank you Deicas (talk) 22:02, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

About the links, Deicas: I've put a note on your page, because I get the feeling you're keen to learn how best to create them. Bishonen | talk 23:29, 18 January 2013 (UTC).

I have been absent from Wikipedia for a few days, what is being done involving issues of Darkstar1st's editing behaviour since the AN/I closed?

The AN/I has since been closed, but you mentioned that you believed it needed to be sent to mediation or dispute resolution. Has the matter been sent to either yet?--R-41 (talk) 03:29, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm not ignoring you, I was very sick for a few days.
I am going to talk to the mediation people, I think they may be the next step. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 20:21, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
For the record, I contacted the mediation committee via email a couple of days ago (I think) to ask their opinion as to whether the issues were suitable for their group / venue / policy and processes. They have acknowledged the mail and said they would review and let me know. Things will proceed once they respond, whether it's yes and with a case there or no and we can figure out what/where else. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 23:42, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
Over the weekend they indicated that the situation is not amenable to mediation because of user behavior issues. So it's one of the more normal methods like RFC or DRN...
Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:55, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXXII, January 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) 12:59, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 21 January 2013

The Signpost: 28 January 2013

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Georgewilliamherbert/Archives/2013/January&oldid=1079476394"