User talk:Georgewilliamherbert/Archives/2015/July
 | This is an archive of past discussions about 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. |
The Signpost: 10 June 2015
- News and notes: Chapter financial trends analyzed, news in brief
- Traffic report: Two households, both alike in dignity
- Featured content: Just the bear facts, ma'am
- Technology report: Wikimedia sites are going HTTPS only
The Signpost: 17 June 2015
- Arbitration report: An election has consequences
- News and notes: Labs outage kills tools, self; news in brief
- Featured content: Great Dane hits 150
- Discussion report: A quick way of becoming an admin
- WikiProject report: Western Australia speaks – we are back
The Bugle: Issue CXI, June 2015
|
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) 13:38, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
Trying to nip in the bud
Since it looks like Kww blocked TRM before you posted your note, would it be better to unblock both of them, rather than block both of them and have a long ANI discussion? I was a keystroke away from unblocking TRM (that was clearly not an acceptable block on Kww's part) when I saw you'd blocked Kww. I mean, there will be a long ANI discussion anyway, I'm sure, but it might have slightly less heat if they're both unblocked. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:09, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
- Ah. I guess I'm too late. I suppose I'll comment there. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:11, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
- I need to step away briefly, but if you would like to unblock both for the ANI discussion I won't object. That went sideways faster than anyone outside could throw cold water on it... Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 22:12, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
- I was trying to throw cold water, watching it happen for like 10 minutes, but I type so slowly that events kept overtaking me before I could hit "save". I had to delete 3 different notes while it was unfolding. Anyway, I have to step away myself now, so as much as I think dual unblocking is best, I'm not going to do it myself. Thanks, though. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:26, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
- I'm still of the mind that ARB needs to review. We can't issue sanctions of any kind if needed, and judging from KWW's unblock request, it seems he doesn't understand the reason he is blocked. I prefer to stay neutral at this stage, so I won't deny his unblock request, but I can't fathom how unblocking will cool things down right now, particularly since KWW maintains the block was legit and it was BLP violations, something no one else has agreed with. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 22:33, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
- George, it does look like there are several issues at play, and I don't think anyone but Arb can figure this out. I'm disturbed with the ease of which we can claim something is BLP and block when it isn't remotely negative, but the bigger issues, well, you know them, and you would be the logical choice to file there. Whatever comes of it, at least some clarity should follow. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 00:27, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
- I told him I'd hold off until constructive discussion was over, and / or tomorrow; that he has not yet gotten it doesn't mean constructive discussion is yet over, nor is it tomorrow (even if we give up on ongoing constructive discussion). I am not currently hopeful but, giving up on hope and being rash is what got us all to this situation, and I'd rather talk talk rather than file file. I agree that if this is the same position set after ongoing discussion something needs to be done about it. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:30, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
- George, it does look like there are several issues at play, and I don't think anyone but Arb can figure this out. I'm disturbed with the ease of which we can claim something is BLP and block when it isn't remotely negative, but the bigger issues, well, you know them, and you would be the logical choice to file there. Whatever comes of it, at least some clarity should follow. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 00:27, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
- I'm still of the mind that ARB needs to review. We can't issue sanctions of any kind if needed, and judging from KWW's unblock request, it seems he doesn't understand the reason he is blocked. I prefer to stay neutral at this stage, so I won't deny his unblock request, but I can't fathom how unblocking will cool things down right now, particularly since KWW maintains the block was legit and it was BLP violations, something no one else has agreed with. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 22:33, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
- I was trying to throw cold water, watching it happen for like 10 minutes, but I type so slowly that events kept overtaking me before I could hit "save". I had to delete 3 different notes while it was unfolding. Anyway, I have to step away myself now, so as much as I think dual unblocking is best, I'm not going to do it myself. Thanks, though. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:26, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
- I need to step away briefly, but if you would like to unblock both for the ANI discussion I won't object. That went sideways faster than anyone outside could throw cold water on it... Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 22:12, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
The Signpost: 24 June 2015
- From the editor: The Signpost tagging initiative
- Featured content: One eye when begun, two when it's done
- Technology report: 2015 MediaWiki architecture focus and Multimedia roadmap announced
- News and notes: Board of Trustees propose bylaw amendments
- Arbitration report: Politics by other means: The American politics 2 arbitration
Talkback
Message added 03:34, 26 June 2015 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Arb case request
You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Kww and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. As threaded discussion is not permitted in most arbitration pages please ensure that you make all comments in your own section only. Additionally, the guide to arbitration and the Arbitration Committee's procedures may be of use.
Thanks, Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 16:38, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
- Hello George, it would help to have commentary from you there before the case is accepted or declined. Snuggums (talk / edits) 17:16, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
Arbitration motion regarding Arbitration enforcement
By motion, the Arbitration Committee authorises the following injunction effective immediately:
- The case is to be opened forthwith and entitled "Arbitration enforcement";
- During the case, no user who has commented about this matter on the AN page, the AE page or the Case Requests page, may take or initiate administrative action involving any of the named parties in this case.
- Reports of alleged breaches of (2) are to be made only by email to the Arbitration Committee, via the main contact page.
You are receiving this message because you have commented about this matter on the AN page, the AE page or the Case Requests page
and are therefore restricted as specified in (2). For the Arbitration Committee, L235 (t / c / ping in reply) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:30, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
- acknowledged. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 09:57, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
Arbitration enforcement arbitration case opened
By motion, the committee authorises the following injunction effective immediately:
- The [Arbitration enforcement] case [request] is to be opened forthwith and entitled "Arbitration enforcement";
- During the case, no user who has commented about this matter on the AN page, the AE page or the Case Requests page, may take or initiate administrative action involving any of the named parties in this case.
- Reports of alleged breaches of (2) are to be made only by email to the Arbitration Committee, via the main contact page.
You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has, per the above, accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arbitration enforcement. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arbitration enforcement/Evidence. Please add your evidence by July 13, 2015, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arbitration enforcement/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. Apologies for the potential duplicate message. For the Arbitration Committee, L235 (t / c / ping in reply) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:43, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
Kww and The Rambling Man Arbitration Case Opening
You were recently listed as a party to a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kww and The Rambling Man. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kww and The Rambling Man/Evidence. Please add your evidence by July 13, 2015, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kww and The Rambling Man/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Liz Read! Talk! 18:19, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
Change from announced time table for the Arbitration enforcement arbitration case
You are receiving this message either because you are a party to the Arbitration enforcement arbitration case, because you have commented in the case request, or the AN or AE discussions leading to this arbitration case, or because you have specifically opted in to receiving these messages. Unless you are a party to this arbitration case, you may opt out of receiving further messages at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arbitration enforcement/Notification list. The drafters of the Arbitration enforcement arbitration case have published a revised timetable for the case, which changes what you may have been told when the case was opened. The dates have been revised as follows: the Evidence phase will close 5 July 2015, one week earlier than originally scheduled; the Workshop phase will close 26 July 2015, one week later than originally scheduled; the Proposed decision is scheduled to be posted 9 August 2015, two weeks later than originally scheduled. Thank you. On behalf of the arbitration clerks, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 07:58, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
Kenny Loggins vandal
Hey there, I didn't know if you saw this because of helperbot but that's classic K.L.V. activity. Not sure if that got logged on Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Kenny Loggins vandal but I didn't see it there. Ogress smash! 09:17, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
The Signpost: 01 July 2015
- News and notes: Training the Trainers; VP of Engineering leaves WMF
- In the media: EU freedom of panorama; Nehru outrage; BBC apology
- WikiProject report: Able to make a stand
- Featured content: Viva V.E.R.D.I.
- Traffic report: We're Baaaaack
- Technology report: Technical updates and improvements
Motion passed in AE arbitration case granting amnesty and rescinding previous temporary injunction
This message is sent at 12:53, 5 July 2015 (UTC) by Arbitration Clerk User:Penwhale via MassMessage on behalf of the Arbitration Committee. You are receiving this message because your name appears on this list and have not elected to opt-out of being notified of development in the arbitration case.
On 5 July, 2015, the following motion was passed and enacted:
- Paragraphs (2) and (3) of the Arbitration Committee's motion of 29 June 2015 about the injunction and reporting breaches of it are hereby rescinded.
- The Arbitration Committee hereby declares an amnesty covering:
- the original comment made by Eric Corbett on 25 June 2015 and any subsequent related comments made by him up until the enactment of this current motion; and
- the subsequent actions related to that comment taken by Black Kite, GorillaWarfare, Reaper Eternal, Kevin Gorman, GregJackP and RGloucester before this case was opened on 29 June 2015.