User talk:Georgewilliamherbert/Archives/2011/November

This page is an archive of past discussions. 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.

The Signpost: 31 October 2011

Opinion essay: The monster under the rug

Recent research: WikiSym; predicting editor survival; drug information found lacking; RfAs and trust; Wikipedia's search engine ranking justified

News and notes: German Wikipedia continues image filter protest

In the news: Citizendium on the rocks, Shankbone celebrated, and the week in vandalism

Discussion report: Proposal to return this section from hiatus is successful

WikiProject report: 'In touch' with WikiProject Rugby union

Featured content: The best of the week

Arbitration report: Abortion case stalls, request for clarification on Δ, discretionary sanctions streamlined

Technology report: Wikipedia Zero announced; New Orleans successfully hacked

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 17:17, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

"Involved" admin

The statement in your draft RfAr that I have "very recently been in direct conflict with the editor" is not true. The diff they are talking about is from February and hardly represents a significant conflict. Kaldari (talk) 23:37, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

That's just not true. You last posted on the wife selling talk page on 17 October. Malleus Fatuorum 23:44, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

And you seem to have conveniently forgotten about this recent AfD. Malleus Fatuorum 23:48, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Just because I didn't have the same opinion as you doesn't mean it was a conflict. Our few interactions have been relatively uneventful, in my opinion (apart from the issue at hand). Kaldari (talk) 00:07, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

That's not an opinion I share, given the history of the wife selling article. Malleus Fatuorum 00:10, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

"Involvement is generally construed very broadly by the community, to include current or past conflicts with an editor (or editors), and disputes on topics, regardless of the nature, age, or outcome of the dispute." (my emphasis) I suspect one reason it's construed very broadly is because we have about 1,500 admins. There was no need for you to step in, we had 1,499 others who could do so and one (me) who in fact had done so. --Mkativerata (talk) 00:17, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm quoting Mkativerata there, not asserting a statement of fact. If you perceive it as me asserting those things I can rephrase it before filing. I just wanted to get the objections about the block included in my filing, for the record. I'm happy to rephrase or make it clearer I am quoting him.

I don't think that my talk page is a useful place to argue about this. I won't ask you all to leave or shut it down, but I'm not sure this will be helpful. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:25, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

George, the same way you cannot put wings on a pig and make it fly, you cannot use a bad block as a platform for fixing or clarifying admin policies. This RfAr won't fly. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 00:33, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

It's a disputed and controversial block, not a bad block. There is a difference. I believe the difference is subtle but pertains to when the "except in cases of clear error" in the block policy kicks in, and that particular point has been much ignored and abused. That's the point of all this. With a disputed consensus on ANI, with due notification and discussion, an uninvolved administrator can without controversy or without abusing the policy unblock someone. But - I argue, and I believe importantly - should not simply pull the trigger. Several strong opinions that its bad do not a consensus make when there are countervailing opinions that it was good.

Unambiguous bad blocks without support clearly meet "clear error". This incident was exactly and precisely on the line of the problem, and is in fact a perfect test case. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:47, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

I respect your opinion, although I am not convinced. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 00:55, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Also, in your summary of events, you should mention that I warned Tbhotch.[1] Otherwise it sounds like I completely ignored his personal attack against Malleus. Kaldari (talk) 09:31, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

You didn't warn the other user at the same time as you blocked Malleus,you only warned him after complaints about the unbalanced nature of your block were raised at ANI - Off2riorob (talk) 20:50, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Proceeding

I am finishing up the filing and will put it in place shortly. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 07:56, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Are you hiring?

Hi,

I just graduated from university with an aerospace degree and I'm having trouble finding work in this economy. I noticed that you own an aerospace consulting company. If you don't mind, I'd like to talk to you about employment opportunities.

Thanks, — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.68.86.111 (talk) 07:18, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Regrettably Retro Aerospace has no active projects looking for new staff. However, if you send me email via the Wikipedia interface, I can put you in touch with others who are actively growing and hiring, and provide you some email lists and places to go to participate more. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 07:53, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

"Enabling unblocks" at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case

"… which have been periodic and persistent enough to earn a specific nickname - 'enabling unblocks'". Really? That's a nickname? Widely used, is it? As in, used by people who aren't you? Bishonen | talk 11:49, 4 November 2011 (UTC).

Do you think I'd have unanimous arbcom acceptance of the case if this was something I was pulling out of my nether regions? ... Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 21:30, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Frankly, yes. Malleus Fatuorum 21:32, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

I have them under my spell or something? This is a power I was unaware I had... I think you talk to them individually about as much as I do. Bish used to (and hopefully will again, now that she's back). Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 21:36, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Under a common spell, the myth of civility. Malleus Fatuorum 21:45, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

If it's a commonly shared myth, then it's not a myth, it's a social construct. Regardless of how good an idea it is, whether it's reasonable or not from any particular person's viewpoint, how it came to be... Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 22:27, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

A myth is a myth no matter how many people share it. For instance, how many times have you heard doctors telling their patients to avoid alcohol when taking antibiotics? Or teachers spreading the ludicrously untrue "'i' before 'e' except after 'c'" cant? Malleus Fatuorum 22:48, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

I was hoping for diffs, George. Either a few of them, or that you'd realise you'd been writing too fast and put your point carelessly (especially with the "earn.. a nickname"); it came out as a statement of fact, and one that really deserves a little evidence, or, alternatively, deserves crossing out. Oh, and surely you don't suppose the unanimous acceptance means the arbs all agree with you? I have indeed not spoken with any arb in any backchannel about this matter (nice hinting there!), but surely they might as well agree with Collect's point about symmetry, a point now made in various ways by several editors? Bishonen | talk 22:01, 4 November 2011 (UTC).

I haven't talked to any arb about this case in any channel, on or off wiki. I was speaking of generalities.

Collect's proposal establishes a first-mover veto "don't do anything" which isn't in any existing policy and precedent, though a few admins have asserted it on and off. I don't agree it's a good idea. It would also mean for example that an administrator who directly saw something go wrong and started responding would be "in the wrong" for blocking if a less-involved-aware admin on ANI saw a prompt report and declined to act, while the first was still getting ready to go in the pages in question.

There are a bunch of situational cases where we have some inconsistency on that ... "routine" unblock requests on talk pages are usually first come first serve (though not always). So it's not unreasonable to propose what Collect proposed. But thinking it through I believe it's a mistake.

Re the title - Nobody else is asking "what does that mean" by which I take it that they saw the same repeated ANI discussions I did. I didn't create the term or champion it. I'm just using it, from its prior usage. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 22:27, 4 November 2011 (UTC)