User talk:Georgewilliamherbert/Archives/2009/November

A user who was indefinitely blocked from Wikipedia is back....

Hello, you helped me out with someone who is vandalizing the website and I wanted to let you know that the user was back on Wikipedia. He was originally known as azayas4reel; you (and perhaps others) took care of a series of vandalisms and self-promoting articles he wrote on Wikipedia. Since then, he signed up as User:HarabianNights.

He has created a Wikipedia article for himself (Anthony Zayas). While he was trying to appeal his indefinite block, he said he wanted to create a Wikipedia article of himself. I am concerned he may try to vandalize the other articles that he worked on as azayas4reel. Can you please block his account? Given his past behavior his next step is likely to be vandalism and retaliation.

Thank you for your cooperation and courtesy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.205.161.192 (talk) 18:45, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 2 November 2009

• Article contest: Durova wins 2009 WikiCup

• Conference report: WikiSym features research on Wikipedia

• Election report: 2009 ArbCom elections report

• Audit Subcommittee: Inaugural Audit Subcommittee elections underway

• Dispatches: Wikipedia remembers the Wall

• News and notes: Strategic planning, November conference, brief news and milestones

• Discussion report: Discussion Reports and Miscellaneous Articulations

• WikiProject report: Project banner meta-templates

• Features and admins: Approved this week

• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 04:28, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Involuntary euthanasia

Thanks. The IP also attacked Action T4 a few months ago and only finally gave up when it was semi-protected for a long time. I suspect that's next. ► RATEL ◄ 06:40, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I semi'ed it for 3 days to match the other articles, that's a legit preventive measure given the IP's exuberance. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 06:54, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm. I was not editing Acion T4. But you are exposing as an unfair, arbitrary and paranoic persons. Whatever. I was discussing the thing on involuntary euthanasia, you arrived blocking. And Ratel, well Ratel: are these your arguments and sources? this is the way you do when you are lacking of arguments and sources? you Ratel even said that my edition could be added to a specific part of the article. We were discussing the thing, why do you prefer this easy and unfair way? is this a fake? do you believe yourselves? As I said you are exposing yourselves, so I didn't waste my time. 190.25.109.141 (talk) 07:05, 3 November 2009 (UTC)::

Blocking a whole range of IPs should be a good bussiness for wikimedia not? What do you think that freedom of speech means when arbitrary blocking me? 190.25.109.141 (talk) 07:07, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Freedom of speech means that governments should not be engaged in the business of interfering with what types of things people can say. It says nothing about what individual groups or persons or organizations may do to control their content, projects, and property.

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. You do not have the right to violate our WP:NOT and WP:BATTLE policies and bring your disruptive fight about euthanasia here. You fundamentally misunderstand what Wikipedia exists for and why. We are not here to be a platform to publish your opinion or for you to wage a publicity battle. We are an encyclopedia. When you try to use Wikipedia for non-encyclopedia things, you are insulting our project and our purpose of existence.

When you do those things - you are not welcome here.

As you keep trying to do those things, you are not welcome here. Please go away and do them elsewhere. Blogs and twitter feeds and Facebook and MySpace pages were meant for this - or you could try books or articles or TV shows in the real world. Those are all entirely appropriate places to go communicate your opinions.

Wikipedia is an entirely inappropriate place for that. If you will not understand that we'll block you from editing. It's as simple as that. Learn why we're here and what our rules are, or you will be prohibited from participating here. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 07:21, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

A little fairness

• [1] "what a load of shit", "Frankly, you make me sick."
• [2] "it seems the "inquisitors" have had the tables turned on them by their own over eager evangelizing/drama mongering"
• [3] " excuse my poor formatting skills, I'm kinda high"

etc. You can find many, many more. Beeblebrox has been quite disruptive on multiple pages, and Malleus tried to get him to stop. Did it resolve properly? No, but the user provides strong evidence as to why. Ottava Rima (talk) 06:30, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Poking at people like that on their talk pages is a particularly odious form of interpersonal conflict on Wikipedia. And as a form of dispute resolution it's spectacularly ineffective.

"He started it" is specifically not a valid defense on civility issues.

I could leave a dozen civility warnings for the varied events of the last 72 hours - but that one stood out, to me. I don't feel like spending all night leaving warnings, and I don't feel that any of the combatants quite earned a block, so I'm planning on leaving it at that. This is not a statement or opinion that Beeblebrox was innocent of wrongdoing. But I'm not going to engage on that right now. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 06:37, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

It is better to get a fuller background of how events unfolded instead of just warning one side of the dispute when it is clear that the other side crying foul started the mess. Malleus is not an administrator. Beeblebrox is, and ArbCom has made it clear that such actions are unbecoming of administrators. Ottava Rima (talk) 06:41, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I believe I stated that I could leave a dozen civility warnings for the varied events of the last 72 hours. I don't know how you get from that clear statement to your "It is better to get a fuller background...". I have a plenty full background on this, thank you.

Such actions are unbecoming of all Wikipedians. If you believe that Beeblebrox' comments violated policy and that he should be examined by Arbcom, they're over on their pages. As I said - I reviewed the situation. I am not taking other actions at this time. That is not a judgement that no other wrongs were committed. If you can make a case to Arbcom that a case should be made out of this, you know where their page is. I would be happy to submit an evidence statement that a bunch of people were abusive, in my opinion.

But I don't feel like doing more myself at this point.

I need to sleep tonight, and not spend the next 8-10 hours tracking down every comment well enough to appropriately warn a dozen or more people for all the offensive things they did. That would include you, by the way, though as I have noted I'm not going to chase anyone else down and warn them at the moment. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 06:48, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Saying you could and doing it are two different things. you state "a dozen" but there is one that I haven't seen you make that is well deserved. All I ask is that you apply things per proportion, which making a statement at Malleus's page when he was provoked by an admin who should have known better but not warning that guy is only going to lead to more problems. Ottava Rima (talk) 06:55, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I have left the one warning I felt I had to make, to the one person I judged to have done the single most offensive series of things, over the incident.

I appreciate that you feel that others deserved warnings more. But I disagree.

As I said - I am going to go home and sleep rather than leave the dozen plus detailed warnings I could, given the rampant misbehavior. I appreciate that you disgree with my opinion about which specific behavior was the worst. I am not saying "Don't file a RFC or Arbcom case". I am saying - I act based on my own judgement of the situation. If I felt I absolutely had to act more I would have. I don't, and I haven't.

You can spend all night trying to convince me otherwise if you like. But a RFC or an Arbcom filing would probably be more effective.

I don't disagree that you have a point about the behavior, but with a finite amount of time, there's a difference between "bad" and "actionable". They both, and you, and about 10 other people all behaved badly. I acted on the one issue that poked up out of that, in my opinion. Arbcom can act against all 12ish of you if they want, if you file on it. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 07:08, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

"to the one person I judged to have done the single most offensive series of things, over the incident." thus, you create a "winner" situation, in which taunting, personal attacks, and incivility from an admin that covers many hours during the time and has far more statements than Malleus is ignored. The reason why the community no longer has respect for such warnings is because of this inappropriate standard. You want the community to think you are doing what is fair, you block the admin next time for doing such things. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:09, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

• [4] This shows that he edited Malleus's post and applied Malleus's signature to an image it did not belong to. This is a direct violating of WP:TALK, as you are not allowed to apply people's signatures to what is not theirs. He was edit warring this violation in. That is an egregious offense. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:20, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

• Thank you for taking time to address the other side. All I ever ask for is a little fairness around so it does not seem like there is favoritism nor can a "I won" mentality exist. There are no winners at ANI (but there are great losses to the Wiki there). Ottava Rima (talk) 23:02, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Making fun of editors you have sanctioned

hello George, I just wanted to advise that I find your "trout of shame" quite condescending. I think it is in bad taste to make fun of editors you have sanctioned. Wapondaponda (talk) 08:27, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I have reduced the trout to a much smaller size, on wiki the trout is used widely and in good taste, it is not at all meant to be condescending. Perhaps George will remove it altogether. Off2riorob (talk) 15:24, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Race and genetics

Since you have intervened in this dispute, I will keep you updated as to what is going on. I have posted my suggestions on the talk page here, if there are no objections, I will proceed to implement the addition of new material. I believe this is consistent with the restrictions you have placed. Wapondaponda (talk) 09:39, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Hope no one minds me commenting, Wapondaponda, you can add anything you want to the article as long as it is new, as long as it is cited, readding anything that has been removed would be a revert. Your asking if there are objections on the talk page is a good idea for a major additions as it would be a waste of your time to add it only to have it immediately removed. Off2riorob (talk) 15:22, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Civility warning

Please cease your attacks and intimidation of good faith contributors. It is highly improper to take the side of an abusive admin who is refactoring comments made by another editor to misrepresent what they've said. This is absolutely unacceptable and needs to stop. ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:35, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I am an uninvolved administrator and the message I left was entirely polite and proper.

If you have a problem with the warning you can take it up at ANI for other admins to review. Leaving me a civility warning is inappropriate and disruptive. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 22:03, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Leaving a threatening message to an editor who has had their comment refactored inappropriately multiple times by an admin is totally unacceptable. Please do not do it again. ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:35, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

User:119.173.81.176

I hate to be a bother again tonight but could you have a look at our interactions? User seems to believe that I am bad faith reverting their edits and stalking them. I came across this IP on the Danzig, Groping and All-terrain vehicle articles a few months ago. Other editors had reverted his work and I decided to watchlist them and forgot about it until the user reappeared. I have had quite a few interactions with the user now (mostly due to content removal) and would like to know if I am out of line. Regards. - 4twenty42o (talk) 05:42, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

There's a fine line in dealing with someone who is causing a minor problem - pushing hard enough to resolve the problem, but not escalating it into a headbutting contest, making it personal, etc.

I believe that you correctly read the underlying situation and were responding as needed, but you managed to let it become partly about you vs them. That's not a "You did wrong!", that's a "If you respond differently it can help de-escalate and reduce drama". Asking for help at this time was a really good move, however, one of the things that takes the headbutting out of the situation. Any form of aikido rather than hard contact responses helps.

I issued a short (3 hr) block and a hopefully constructive warning to them to help move the conversation in the right direction, i.e. talk page discussions rather than extra-bold actions that then cause a push-pull fight like this. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 06:13, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

I found the above comments to be strange. Strange that 420 claims to have had those three articles on his watch list since my edits a few months ago - until less than a month ago, I had never edited either the ATV or the groping article. All this "oh they were on my watchlist but I forgot about them" stuff, seems pretty unlikely, when combined with claims of "I saw him edit them months ago, but didn't do anything" - I don't really see the point in lying about it, so it just seems strange. Why bother trying to mislead someone about how, why and when you encountered someone? 119.173.81.176 (talk) 13:35, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

but after a moments reflection, I have come to the conclusion that it does not matter. I shall go edit something and try to avoid more drama. 119.173.81.176 (talk) 14:19, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

• Understood and thank you for looking into this matter. I left a message on the IP talk apologizing for giving them the wrong impression and I would like to thank you for your frankness. I hope you know that this was more about getting a fair review of my interactions than it was the edits themselves. I tend to be a bit of a dick after a few reverts and tend to stop listening pretty quickly. I came to you because I knew if I was out of line I would get a fair review, and at the same time so would the other user. I do not like to see anyone blocked and was a little ashamed of myself when I saw the user had been blocked as it was not my intention. After reading your comments and the anon's IP I get it now though. I saw you are the topic of conversation at AN/I, and I sincerely hope that all goes well there. - 4twenty42o (talk) 05:22, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Disruptive drama mongering?

Could you please explain why you're reopening a closed ANI thread to pursue some grudge you have against me because I object to your bullying, harassment and intimidation of good faith editors? If you'd like to discuss why your behavior was inappropriate in going after an editor whose comments were being refactored inappropriately by one of our admins I am happy to do so. But your pursuing of vendettas me is very problematic GWH. Your recent behavior is very concerning. ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:21, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Possible LaRouche sock

It appears that this account, judging from its name and contributions, may be an abusive sock of User:Dking. Dking has apparently voluntarily accepted a topic ban from the LaRouche articles due to COI and POV concerns, under the previous ArbCom decision. Care should probably be taken, however, to ensure that this account isn't an imposter trying to defame the DKing account. Perhaps a checkuser of Larouche planet and DKing would clear that up? Cla68 (talk) 00:06, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

User:Larouche planet clearly is connected to http://www.laroucheplanet.info. The domain registration is not public - but reading the site, I sort of sincerely doubt that it's Dennis King. They describe themselves as ex-members of LaRouche's organization ( http://laroucheplanet.info/pmwiki/pmwiki.php?n=Main.AboutUs ) and the writing throughout that site is frankly far more amateurish than anything I've ever seen from Dennis King either on the web or in print (not that I slavishly read all of King's material, but from what I have seen of it...). The account also dates to 2007, so it's not a recent sock for evading that informal topic ban.

If you have more specific info that ties King to that site, or that account, let me know. Otherwise... I think they're fellow travelers with King, but the evidence would suggest not him in disguise. He's much more well written and edited and frankly more coherent, both elsewhere and what he previously contributed on the article when he was active there.

If you strongly disagree and think the sites are related or people are connected, I'm open to looking further. Him socking here would be no better for Wikipedia than Hershelkrustofsky doing so...

As to whether they have a COI - I would assume yes, but it's not clear yet if they're editing abusively given that. It's obviously a concern... Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:34, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I hate to follow myself up, but...

Based on what I see now, I don't think a CU is called for (yet). But I wouldn't oppose one, if you file a SPI request. You may not convince the checkusers to run it with just the currently available information, but it would help clarify the situation if they do. If more connecting info shows up somewhere then I'd support a CU. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:37, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I think you're probably right that it isn't King. Perhaps we should just keep a watch over its editing to make sure it conforms to NPOV. Cla68 (talk) 01:22, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

The account appears, so far, to be solely adding links to the LaRouche-Watch website, which is apparently an anti-LaRouche site. I would suggest that the edits be reverted and the account notified and warned that it may be in violation of the ArbCom ruling regarding the LaRouche articles, but I'll leave it up to your discretion. Cla68 (talk) 01:28, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

My current opinion having seen the site is that the site is evidently not a reliable source, and not sufficiently notable for an external link. That said - I have to go to bed, and I'm not reverting anything tonight. I promised someone else I'd look in to a bunch of admin conduct issues tomorrow morning first - after that, I'll take another look at this one and consider reverting.

If you want to revert them back out now, you have my support and blessing and can point people to this conversation if they object. If you can wait until I get bandwidth, I'll do it rather than you having to get involved directly, but that could be a while to wait. Up to you... Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 10:39, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

It looks like Will removed the links already. I left a COI and RS reminder / notice on their user talk page. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 18:29, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your attention on the matter. Cla68 (talk) 22:57, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Malleus

Hi. I trust you're going to notify Malleus of his block? –Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:26, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunate timing issue came up, I was starting to and then had 5 min of people in my cube... Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:34, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Malleus Fatuorum

Hey George. Just a quick comment about your block - I'd personally have warned first; I don't think it was that egregious to warrant a straight block. Malleus does a lot of good work here and is well renowned (and liked) as a straight shooter and I viewed his comment as straight shooting, not that uncivil - perhaps you could reduce it down to time served? Just my 2 cents, hope you're well. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 01:28, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, the "shit for brains" bit was way across the line. I'd have blocked Jimbo for saying that about someone. Admin consensus can overrule, of course, but that's just not OK. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:33, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm not going to take it to a noticeboard, but he didn't specifically label anyone as having "shit for brains," he made the comment collectively. If he'd have said "you have shit for brains" well I'd have blocked (well actually, I'd still probably have warned first but that's just me!). Anyway, that was just my opinion on things, I'll leave it up to you. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 01:36, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't see any way to read that other than that the person he was referring to was the person he was replying to. He phrased it with a little wiggle room, but that's just smokescreen. Again, if community consensus is that I misread it, so be it, but I still would have blocked anyone including Jimbo for saying that... Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:40, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Ryan, Malleus has had several warnings regarding civility over the course of several months and reacts to them all negatively. They are not obvious as he rarely if ever includes them in his talk page archives and prefers instead to blank them. None of our editors deserved to be told they have "shit for brains" and it is our duty as admins to prevent such abuse. Chillum 01:41, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

• Whoa there big boy .. bad block there. I'll give you a bit to rethink this, but that block on Malleus is way out of line if the link you are providing is all you've got to justify it. I have the utmost respect for your work here ... but unless there's something I'm not seeing - sorry, you kinda goofed on that one. No offense intended, and if there's something I'm not aware of, I'll gladly look at it... but as it stands with what you're linking to ... it just doesn't work. I'll re-read it all, before I do anything, but ...Talk to me GWH. — Ched :  ?  01:44, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

As I said to Ryan above - the "shit for brains" comment is grossly inappropriate, immediately so, and I would block Jimbo (or, for a more immediate sample candidate, anyone on Arbcom) if they'd made the same comment. It's not Ok. WP:NPA and WP:CIVILITY put lines in the sand. There is much argument about where the line is, how strictly, when, etc. But there's a line. And that was across it.

If you are seriously in opposition then start an ANI section on it and find a consensus. I am always open to review... Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:54, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

(ec) Backing up and looking at the whole thing from a greater distance: don't we have a huge unsolved policy issue here that needs some sort of structured, measured, and non-dramatic discussion: how do we deal with editors who 1) do very good things for Wikipedia, and 2) grossly violate civility, NPA, AGF policies, and generally interact in such a way that drives away editors who are not thick-skinned (for not all excellent content contributors are -- why should that be a requirement? isn't the whole point of our behavioral policies to make this a welcoming environment for everyone)? It's just my perception, but I think this issue has recently come to the front, and needs solving. Any ideas on how to proceed? Antandrus (talk) 01:48, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

• allright .. I'm gonna go back and read some of the history here ... — Ched :  ?  01:57, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

AN/I

Hi George, actually I have taken this to AN/I - not because of your actions, but I would like to see consensus before a unilateral unblock. Hopefully, you'll find the report as neutrally worded as possible. You can find it here. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 01:55, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

That's fine. Thanks for the notification! As I keep telling people, independent review is fine by me... I'm not so arrogant as to assume I never make mistakes. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 02:00, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

George, I'm sorry for jumping so hard so fast. I think you do fantastic work here, I really do - I have the utmost respect for your work. I just really believe that this was a bad block. I think there's way too much drama going on lately, and "blocks" are not going to alleviate tense situations. We need to TALK to people - no shut them out. I ask politely, may I please unblock? — Ched :  ?  02:13, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi, George, I'm not sure how much of your recent comment was replying to me, so I wanted to make one thing clear: I'm not saying it's inappropriate to block for civility, only that I personally will not do so. (All truth to be told, I'd have been surprised if Malleus hadn't drawn a block this time. I just would not have been the one to do it.) Heimstern Läufer (talk) 02:38, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I think I was replying primarily to Ched with that. I have no problem with any individual person who choses not to take action under given circumstances where they are concerned it may be counterproductive... Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:14, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

• George ... I'm not sure how to evaluate that. Will you allow me to unblock? — Ched :  ?  03:56, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I would prefer a consensus to emerge on ANI before you do anything. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 04:07, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't agree with the direction here. I think there should be "consensus" for block, rather than unblock. Unblock is the default, so my opinion is that there needs to be "consensus" for any kind of block of an established editor. That said, I have no desire to make things worse than they are, so I'll ride out the storm. If, however, Mal posts an unblock request with a reasonable rational, I'll likely respond in favor of that request. As I've mentioned before, I do have the utmost respect for your work here, so I'll defer to your request at this time. All my best. — Ched :  ?  04:31, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Ched, your view that 'there should be consensus for block rather than unblock' sounds like a divergence from policy. As Wizardman recently observed at WP:AN, "Undoing a block without discussion, especially when there was discussion on the block, is wheel warring, and unacceptable.." EdJohnston (talk) 04:43, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

That tell-tale aroma

George, you know very well that Will Beback and SlimVirgin have tramped all over policy in their control of the LaRouche articles. You have turned a blind eye to their edit-warring and calculated circumvention of the BLP policy (or as you so delicately put it, making the articles "not a whitewash,") because you are part the support network for their POV-pushing. Your sanctimonious posturing at ANI was really too much; "just say you're a LaRouche supporter and prove you don't live in California, and we'll be happy to work with you." Yeah, right. The emetic stench of your personal corruption stands out amidst the miasma of hypocrisy that pervades Wikipedia. --Tisiphone redux (talk) 07:57, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Your recent civility blocks

I for one, would like to thank you George, for all the entertainment you've helped provide. Your brave efforts to be impartial are appriciated, though of course ultimately doomed due to interprative failure. RMHED (talk) 23:56, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Apparently it's only a slightly cool day in heck, and people are complaining that I didn't set the AC down lower or bring more ice to the party. I can only call it like I see it...

Thanks. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 23:59, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Stay cool George and don't let the silliness drag you down. RMHED (talk) 00:07, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure if I agree or disagree with the blocks, and I think I've refrained from commenting anywhere else, but I salute you for at least trying to cut the Gordian Knot of dispute and incivility that was going on. I appreciate your good intentions and courage. It's worth fighting for civility; the generally civil and calm atmosphere here was one of the things that attracted me to contribute. It would be a real shame to lose it. Keep up the good fight. --John (talk) 03:13, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

[5] If you're going to persist in trying to throw your weight around without bothering to check your facts you're going to find yourself in hot water. What ArbCom restriction do you believe that I'm under? --Malleus Fatuorum 02:22, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

My apologies - stricken from your talk page. I had gotten confused about the edit restrictions that were applied to Child of Midnight in the Obama arbcom case. Too much going on this week, and I misremembered a detail. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:15, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

It may be just a "detail" to you ... please try to be more careful in future. --Malleus Fatuorum 03:28, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Detail was a poor choice of words. Misapplying a sanction, had I done so, would have been a serious problem. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 07:25, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

You were threatening to do so; just as serious. I strongly advise you to ease up on your civility crusade, or at least to think more carefully about what you're doing before you do it. If you persist with the kind of mistakes that you've been prone to making recently then I will be requesting that you are once again desysoped. --Malleus Fatuorum 07:32, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

I've never been desysoped - nor threatened with it. What are you referring to? Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 07:53, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I'm sorry, I was prejudging and making wrong assumptions, just like you do. --Malleus Fatuorum 18:08, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Twinkle

I would like to be taken off the Twinkle blacklist. Radiopathy •talk• 05:35, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

I would recommend against such an action, as you still have not shown you understood what was wrong with your edits when you used twinkle. Until such a time, giving you back twinkle would be unwise.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 06:12, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

I won't be undoing that while you're on the six-month 1RR restriction, Radiopathy. That edit restriction indicates that other admins have considerable concern about your editing practices. The 1RR was supported in the ANI thread on it. Giving you back a tool to enable you to more rapidly revert stuff, while you're on a 1RR revert limit for six months, seems like a poor choice.

On the other hand - the edits you've made today seem to be good work. If you can keep that up for six months you will rebuild community trust in you.

Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 07:23, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Test your World War I knowledge with the Henry Allingham International Contest!

As a member of the Military history WikiProject or World War I task force, you may be interested in competing in the Henry Allingham International Contest! The contest aims to improve article quality and member participation within the World War I task force. It will also be a step in preparing for Operation Great War Centennial, the project's commemorative effort for the World War I centenary.

If you would like to participate, please sign up by 11 November 2009, 00:00, when the first round is scheduled to begin! You can sign up here, read up on the rules here, and discuss the contest here!
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 18:52, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLIV (October 2009)

The October 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 18:52, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 9 November 2009

• Fundraiser: Controversial "Wikipedia Forever" fundraiser to start 10 November

• New pages experiment: Wikipedians test the water at new page patrol

• German controversy: German Wikipedia under fire from inclusionists

• Multimedia usability: Multimedia usability meeting concludes in Paris

• Election report: Arbitration Committee candidate nominations open 10 November

• Book review: Review of Connected Minds, Emerging Cultures: Cybercultures in Online Learning

• News and notes: Ant images, public outreach, and more

• In the news: Beefeater vandalism, interview, and more

• Sister projects: Meta-wiki interview

• Discussion report: Discussion Reports and Miscellaneous Articulations

• Features and admins: Approved this week

• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 01:17, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Re: Kurt

I think that it'd be wise to treat him as being in a last chance saloon. He only escaped a ban by abusing RTV, which, in retrospect, we should not have allowed him to exercise (as he was definitely not in good standing). Any trolling outside the candidacy gets him a ban. And he doesn't have carte blanche for being a candidate, either; in real life, real politicians can't escape the law by running for office. Sceptre ^(talk) 02:16, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

My edit to article : HR Macmaster

Hello,

     You deeemed my article edits to the article on HR Mcmaster inapropriate, yet what I edited was truthful.  I know HR personally, and worked under him for several years, i assure that my edits were the latest updates on this man.

thanks for your reconsiderationg,

                                    phillyeagles  —Preceding unsigned comment added by PhillyEagles4lyfe (talk • contribs) 00:50, 14 November 2009 (UTC) 

NEWT

GWH, you are one of those imbued with Clue. I am surprised you can't see why some of what NEWT is doing is a problem. I don't want to get into a long debate about it, just to encourage you to think whether it might not be better to pick genuine new articles written by genuine newbies and try to work with the newpage patrollers to up thier game based on those articles. Fake "newbies" will never look good to some people. Articles deliberately written to mimic the style of newbies - bad grammar, poor sourcing and so on - will always smack of WP:POINT and new accounts creating genuinely compliant articles will very often look like socks for obvious reason. I would suggest that CAT:CSD should provide more than sufficient material for any experiment, as well as a lot of unambiguous junk of course. Guy (Help!) 20:09, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

NEWT is not perfect. And not all good data. But stepping on it would grossly miss the point. I strongly disagree that picking real newbie articles is an acceptable approach - they are often remarkably hard to identify clearly, where it's not an obvious abuse case. NEWT is about trying both normal and envelope-expanding newbie behavior and seeing what happens. The very first few articles tried showed there's a serious problem.

Let it be. Please. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 22:21, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Help on long-term vandal

I'm looking for information on the long-term vandal Ron liebman, aka the Baseball stat vandal. I realize that the long-term vandal page has some information, but I was hoping you could provide me with more information. Perhaps any conversations via the talk pages of his sock puppets or things of that nature. Thanks! Deadkord (talk) 07:23, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 16 November 2009

• Fundraiser: "Wikipedia Forever" fundraiser begins

• Bulgarian award: Bulgarian Wikipedia gets a prestigious award

• Election report: Arbitration Committee Election: Several candidates standing

• News and notes: Kiswahili contest, new advisory board members, Foundation-l and more

• In the news: German lawsuit, Jimbo interview and more

• Sister projects: Wiktionary interview

• Discussion report: Discussion Reports and Miscellaneous Articulations

• Features and admins: Approved this week

• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 15:41, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Question

Hi, you don't know me but I have seen you around. I am impressed at how you keep a cool head and your postings seem to be neutral. I was wondering if you would be interested in signing up for the arbcom elections? There is a definite need for knowledgeable, fair minded editors. You have all that is needed to be an arbitrator and I think you would make a good one. I know I am asking a lot but I thought I would ask. Obviously you can decline. I am just trying to get editors interested in the election and as it stands now there isn't enough running that qualify. Think about it please. Thanks for your time, --CrohnieGal^Talk 19:30, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Hello

After the afd and rfm there was no consensus for it to be moved, can you please move the article back to its real name from the one that Gilbrand forced upon the article? If people want to change its name we should begin at the articles real name, not something no one has agreed to:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3APre-1967_Syrian_towns_on_the_Golan_Heights&action=historysubmit&diff=326483118&oldid=326466563

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_Syrian_towns_and_villages_destroyed_by_Israel --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 20:43, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

User: Azwethinkweizm

Again, this user was supposed to be unbanned since the account was hijacked using a computer owned on an ISD property. This editor account is a useful editor who keeps logs on certain high school pages and cannot edit due to a ban from you that is not fair. Please revert the ban and allow the user to retain editing privileges. 24.32.49.200 (talk) 23:37, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Civility block

Being the subject of the recent attacks at ANI, I noticed your block of User:Phoenix and Winslow and your comment in the thread about my IP edits. I take your advice to heart, and recognize that civility is an excellent thing to maintain throughout WP, perhaps especially over at ANI. I won't speculate on the precise degree to which your admonishment was meant for me versus other editors, but I can see relevance to my own comments.

Nonetheless, I have a feeling you haven't quite gleaned a full perspective on P&W's edit history. It's a new account, but s/he has also acknowledged editing under the IP address User:64.208.230.145 (which is fine in itself). If you take a look at the history of those two accounts, I believe you'll find that P&W's behavior on the ANI is actually some of the more civil discussion s/he has engaged in. As a rule his/her civility is far lower than that. LotLE×talk 00:34, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Don't fall for it. Any criticism of LotLE at ANI, no matter how well-grounded, attracts a certain small crowd of editors. Their behavior speaks for itself and both you and P&W have understated it. Please review these diffs. [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] This is obvious taunting and baiting. As Saul Alinsky said, ridicule is man's most effective weapon. By blocking P&W, you have tossed them a few chunks of bloody red meat. 71.57.8.103 (talk) 02:50, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

It's quite clear that this discussion has run its course. If there are still unresolved issues, please address them in a more appropriate place. GWH, you are free to unarchive this if you disagree (it's your talk) but I just don't see it going anywhere productive. --John (talk) 04:23, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Your inappropriate warnings

Please don't leave improper warnings. Impoliteness is not the same thing as incivility, and leaving warnings as you did only adds to the level of drama and tension. Please exercise better judgment in the future and attempt cordial and collegial mediation to resolve disputes rather than inflaming them by playing wikicop. I'm also a bit distressed by the way you seem to choose sides and refuse to enforce policies fairly and consistently towards all parties. ChildofMidnight (talk) 06:27, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

This would be regarding...? Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 06:30, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Your suggestion that this comment [13] violated WP:CIVIL, WP:AGF, WP:NPA. It did not. It was most certainly impolite, and I notice that two other editors quite rightly posted on that editor's talk page suggesting why it would be better to rephrase it or withdraw it. What is not needed is a bullying admin throwing around threats and misrepresenting policy. It is particularly improper given your history of ignoring clear violations from certain editors and going after others that you don't favor. This is a collaborative enterprise and you are expected to be collegial. That is really the heart and spirit of the civility policy. Please try to do better and to lead by example instead of playing robocop and causing unnecessary drama. Thanks. As I mentioned before, if you'd like to do actual work in reigning in patterns of behavior that is uncivil and problematic in other policy violating respects such as violating our core NPOV policy, please let me know and I will point you in the right direction. ChildofMidnight (talk) 06:44, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

This is not a particularly useful approach for you to take criticizing current civility policy and enforcement. I understand that you feel that it's selectively enforced, but I am not going to stop enforcing the policy just because you object to its imperfections. Abandoning it would be folly.

You need to take up seeking policy changes rather than this approach. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 07:17, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Nowhere did I criticize the civility policy. I criticized your improper, misguided, sometimes arbitrary, and other times biased enforcement of it. There's a big difference. And I'm not asking you to abandon civility, I'm asking you to start showing some. ChildofMidnight (talk) 07:34, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Here's the wp:civility page in a nutshell:

Participate in a respectful and considerate way.

Do not ignore the positions and conclusions of others.

Try to discourage others from being uncivil, and avoid upsetting other editors whenever possible.

Please try reading the policy so you understand it (and other policies) and take them to heart. Thank you. ChildofMidnight (talk) 07:44, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Please feel free to take this to ANI or a RFC. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 08:17, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

That is a singularly useless approach. Those venues are populated by people like Bali ultimate and Xenophrenic. George, did you even bother to look at the diffs I posted above from Bali ultimate, showing his taunting of User:A Nobody? It's the same tiresome cycle. Inexperienced user tries to participate at Wikipedia. The school of piranha start baiting him. He lashes out. Admins like Georgewilliamherbert carefully ignore the school of piranha, or issue a generic warning at ANI that they ignore, and issue warnings and blocks to their victim for lashing out. I saw your message on P&W's User Talk page. People like Bali ultimate will never be driven off by being called "thugs." They love it. It demonstrates that they've gotten under their victim's skin. And when admins like you block their victims, they love it even more. But people like P&W and ChildofMidnight will definitely be driven off by your selective enforcement of WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL. 71.57.8.103 (talk) 12:26, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

George, I'm not sure what point you're trying to make with your comment. Why should I take you to ANI? I hope you're not dismissing our civility policy which clearly lays out how we are expected to behave. Please try to abide by it in future. Thanks. ChildofMidnight (talk) 16:33, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

My point is this:

I understand what you've both said. You believe I am arbitrarily or abusively enforcing civility policy.

I disagree with that belief. In my opinion, I am enforcing it as evenly as possible when I become aware of violations. I have warned both sides of a debate on civility issues quite often, and I am avoiding any warnings where I have a personal stake in the outcome.

I am issuing warnings and blocks for baiting, where I see it rise to the level of problem. I have issued more warnings and blocks for baiting than any other admin that I am aware of; complaining that I am not paying attention to that aspect is, in my opinion, grossly unreasonable.

What you are largely seeing where events come out unevenly or imperfectly is largely a function of administrator time and availability. We are expected to be fair, follow policy, enforce policy, encourage and nurture the community, protect the community, and help grow the encyclopedia. I do all of those things. What I do not do is spend 24 hours a day (or 12, or 8) slavishly tracking down every thread Wikipedia-wide involving people who I care about, or people who may be abusive or need guidance. There is probably half the administrator attention/time available that we need, project wide.

IP editor - It is sometimes unfortunate that people are unable to respond with requests for calm, or mild warnings, before an abuse incident rises to the level of someone being blockable. That is what happened last night. That causes individual cases to be handled unevenly. That is regrettably the system. We have to be impartial and fair - but true fairness in an absolute sense requires constant attention to be able to give timely calm-down and mild warnings to head problems off. We don't achieve that. What we achieve in practice is typically that the user who finally goes too far gets blocked for it. Ideal practice, when an admin or user who care about civility policy can intervene early and more mildly and in more balanced manners, does happen. But not always. We know this. It's reality. We're balancing absolute fairness for everyone (which would argue for more hands off) with defending the project from rampant rude behavior. Community consensus is that we've been way too much hands off in the past, and that more intervening is necessary. But interventions are limited by available time, and are by nature imperfect. We know that - and community consensus is still to intervene, imperfectly or not.

CoM - I understand your point, that you believe my warnings are abusive, arbitrary, or capricious. I disagree. I still assume good faith regarding your beliefs. If you believe an administrator is abusive, arbitrary, or capricious, and they disagree with that, you should seek other administrators input or go to ANI or a user conduct RFC. We've gone through several rounds, of this discussion, and you've done this with other administrators. Your approach - to continue leaving pseudo-warnings for admins who are enforcing policy - is at best highly controversial, hence the ANI thread about your warnings from a few weeks ago.

The proper approach is to take it up for community review. I am open to that. If ten uninvolved people agree with you, that I'm being abusive, that carries more weight than your opinion. I value your opinion - and support your right to have it and discuss it - but I believe your approach and viewpoint for improving Wikipedia are unfortunately impractical and to some degree self-selectingly marginalized. I don't think you represent an unbiased viewpoint or one aligned well with existing community opinion writ large, or policy.

You have been told, and warned, that your approach of leaving pseudo-warnings when you have what is fundamentally a policy disagreement is disruptive and rude. I have told you, previously and earlier in this incident, that once you've stated your initial position regarding a particular incident and we've established that you and the admin involved disagree, the proper venue should be ANI or a user conduct RFC.

In your opinion, I and other admins are being abusive. However, if your approach to feedback about that abuse crosses the line into harrassment or abuse itself, then you've wrecked any point you were trying to make, and are subjecting yourself to uninvolved admin reactions to your feedback.

I am always open to community feedback. I have no objection to my actions being reviewed or discussed on ANI. If what I'm doing is contrary to policy or a mistake in judgement, it will come out in the discussion there.

I am open to private feedback, to a point. You've reached that point. I understand and acknowledge your concern, but disagree with it. I will participate in any ANI or RFC discussion regarding it that you chose to initiate. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 18:53, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't leave "pseudo-warnings", and (unlike you) rarely leave template warnings except as appropriate to maintain reciprocity, because I think it's important to make an effort to be courteous.

I don't appreciate your highly uncivil and antagonistic threats. Misrepresenting policy is highly inappropriate and it was quite right that I notify you that you were in error. I reiterate my request that you please cease violating the spirit and the letter of our guidelines and policies on civility. I posted the nutshell section just above to make reference easy for you. Thank you for your collegial cooperation. I do hope you'll turn over a new leaf and cease your antagonistic disruption of Wikipedia. Editing here should be fun. ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:33, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Let's try to find a venue more constructive than ANI

GWH, I tried e-mailing you during my block to discuss this, but you refused to respond. So let's discuss it right here on your User Talk page, now that my block has expired. I agree that my use of the word "thug" deserved a block.

I deserved it. I apologize.

I will never allow myself to be baited into a violation of WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL again.

However, you are making a WP:POINT of ignoring more blatant violations by other editors, such as Bali ultimate. The diffs posted above, and his conduct at ANI both in October and yesterday, are textbook examples of baiting. The "school of piranha" analogy is appropriate. You are a walking case of selective enforcement. Like BU, LotLE deserves to be blocked for his edit warring and does not deserve the benefit of the doubt for his sockpuppetry, due to the edit warring context in which it occurred, and his failure to immediately claim the IP puppet's edit as his own. But you won't do it.

I believe we should find the proper venue to discuss your selective enforcement of Wikipedia policy, specifically addressing your abuse of admin privileges to support editors you like and block editors you don't like (because they resist POV pushing and edit warring by editors you like). Would you be so kind as to point us in the right direction? I'll enlist people like A Nobody, JohnWBarber RGTraynor and CoM to help me gather all the diffs (since they've all had previous encounters with BU and LotLE, and know where the "bodies" are buried), and we'll examine your selective enforcement practices in detail. Very politely, of course, but firmly and thoroughly exposing your bias.

ANI and RFC, as the IP editor mentioned, are "singularly useless" because that's where the beneficiaries of your bias are waiting and salivating in anticipation of their next victim. It would be like holding the trial of a Grand Dragon of the Ku Klux Klan for civil rights violations in the headquarters of the Klan, with twelve Klansmen as jurors. The prosecutor always becomes the defendant.

Or would you prefer to go forward with an investigation of the editing patterns of people like LotLE and BU, and decide fairly on the subject of blocking them? I could go either way at this point. You decide. Skoal Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 18:56, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Lulu's IP edit - which he openly took credit for, and was credibly simply a logged in / logged out goof, has already been discussed on ANI and there was a consensus that he hadn't done anything abusive. I didn't participate but did read the discussion and I see no reason to disagree with that conclusion.

I don't know why you or CoM feel that I'm supporting people I like - I don't dislike you, I don't recall prior contact with you, and I don't particularly know Lulu or Bali Ultimate other than them having been around for a while. I don't think we tend to edit on similar areas, other than sometimes they pop up on ANI.

There seems to be a presumption that if I warned you or blocked you, I must support "the other side" somehow. In the few instances where I actively work with an editor or am friendly with them and they come up for abuse reports, I disclose my connection and recuse myself from admin action. Cf the issues with Koalorka, who got himself indefinitely blocked eventually, and who I had ended up warning and blocking by the time it was all over.

I have no presumption that Lulu or BU could not have done abusive behavior elsewhere, or a pattern on ANI that I might have missed. I didn't see it - but absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

You seem to feel that threatening me is a good way to get me to investigate them, however. That is not appropriate. As I have said many times - if you think I did something wrong, ANI is thataway, and I will not object to anyone taking it up there.

Threatening administrators is frowned upon. It's a great way to end up with a permanent block. If you are particularly looking for someone to butt heads with - perhaps your participation in Wikipedia is a mistake. That's not the way we do things around here. You can play by our rules and within our community social contract, or not play at all. Trying to throw weight around like that isn't ok.

If you believe that you can pull together good evidence on Lulu or BU being abusive, I would recommend that you take it to ANI. You are likely to get a quicker response there in any case, I do not sit on Wikipedia 24x7. I will personally read and give a fair hearing to anything you post there, and if I don't agree the other admins and community will decide.

Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 19:28, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

ANI is a waste of time. That's where the school of piranha lives. And I'm not threatening you, so please don't distort what I'm saying. I'm protecting the Wikipedia project. That is my sole purpose for this inquiry. I believe your admin practices deserve review, and I believe there is a venue other than ANI or RFC where such complaints are heard. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 19:33, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Never mind. I found it without your help. It's called WP:ADRV and you have to voluntarily submit yourself for that. What's your decision? Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 19:38, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

George, In fact you've had clear personal attacks and arbitration restriction violations pointed out to you and chose to disregard them. I've also offered to notify you of other problematic patterns of behavior and you haven't expressed any interest in following up. Instead you've continued to disruptively pursue editors you don't care for in a manner that has been highly disruptive and inconsistent with our fundamental principles and guidelines. Please consider your actions carefully and review the civility in a nutshell policies I posted above. Thank you. ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:36, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Wait a minute. You said, "If you believe that you can pull together good evidence on Lulu or BU being abusive ... I will personally read and give a fair hearing to anything you post ..." I believe that ANI is like a civil rights trial at KKK headquarters, so let's find an alternate venue for your personal review of the evidence. How about a project page branched off from your User Talk page? Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 19:57, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

I acknowledge your having stated your opinion of ANI - but that's the right venue. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 20:06, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

I see. Is there any way to prevent the usual school of piranha from interfering before you've had a chance to review the evidence? You know, all those wonderful people you describe as "ANI regulars" who decide every case in favor of LotLE? Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 20:37, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

One step you could take would be to quit inciting otherwise uninvolved editors, and quit dragging them into your drama-fests. Unwarranted accusations, misrepresentations and lies only encourage the piranha to rise to their own defense. Xenophrenic (talk) 20:57, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Nobody dragged you here, Xeno. You've just invited yourself in and started interfering. You did refactor my Talk page comments, so that wasn't a misrepresentation. I'm not responsible for what the IP editor said about you. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 21:19, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Wrong on all counts; but then correcting your misrepresentations on Wikipedia has become routine lately. I was not the first to mention myself here on George's page (see the link I provided). I moved your inappropriate article talk page comments to your personal talk page to continue the discussion — completely different from your unjustified deletions of comments from a noticeboard — but then you knew that didn't you (see the link I provided)? You may not be responsible for what the admitted puppeteer IP said about me, but then, I didn't say you were. I just advised against dragging me into these drama-fests, unless you are willing to deal with it (instead of complain about editors defending themselves against it). Advice best heeded. Xenophrenic (talk) 21:47, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

By the way, how did you find out about this inquiry, Xeno? Did you follow me here by reading my contribs page? Isn't that a violation of WP:STALK? Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 21:32, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

No, and No. You just let me know if there is anything else I can clear up for you, in your efforts to "protect the Wikipedia project." Xenophrenic (talk) 21:47, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

In my case i have a script that sends me a notification email every time my username is called a pirranah or i'm indirectly compared to members of the Klu Klux Klan. Shocking, but true.Bali ultimate (talk) 21:39, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you that it's shocking and true. Have you thought about trying a new approach? ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:00, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Please stop this. This thread is degenerating, and this is a grossly inappropriate place for you all to fight out who did what to whom. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 22:39, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

GWH, I'm sure I can pinpoint the spot where it started degenerating. It's that interference thing. So now it's even more obvious why ANI would be ridiculous. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 22:48, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

I talkpagewatch this talkpage. I don't understand why Phoenix and Winslow hasn't opened up an admin-conduct RFC on George. I'm sure lots of interesting views would be expressed - perhaps all the parties might learn something. Hipocrite (talk) 22:02, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Far better would be for GWH to stand for an RfA reconfirmation. Why waste time on an RfC? He seems very confident that the community supports his disruptive and biased policing efforts, so there should be no problem with getting his adminship affirmed by the community. Unless of course he rejects community consensus, the very foundation of of Wikipedia, as he seems to reject the letter and spirit of the civility policy...? ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:20, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

CoM, how do you feel about an RfC on BU and LotLE, with GWH serving as moderator and enforcer? We pile up all of their abusive diffs in an enormous pile, then sort them into categories (edit warring, WP:CIV violation in an edit summary, etc.) ... let GWH review them, taking as much time as he needs with his busy schedule, and see how he decides it? If he can look at all that evidence and claim that blocks aren't warranted, then an RfA reconfirmation would definitely be in order. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 22:39, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

I would also add that compiling all of the abusive diffs by BU and LotLE, just over the past six months, would be a truly monumental task: not to be taken lightly, or dismissed lightly by the school of piranha. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 22:44, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

My suggestion would be to move forward on article work in good faith. If and when disruptive and inappropriate comments are made they should be brought to the community's attention. As far as GWH, I haven't seen any evidence of his willingness or enthusiasm to be helpful or constructive in efforts limit disruption and personal attacks. On the contrary, I see him as being consistently partisan and disruptive. His one sided interventions and refusal to mediate fairly by addressing disruptions conducted by editors he favors and not just those he dosen't care for makes clear. ChildofMidnight (talk) 01:09, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree. GWH has shown no interest in applying policy even-handedly. --Malleus Fatuorum 01:29, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

But what can be done about it? And what can be done about the abusive editors he's been protecting? I suggest that we continue this talk on P&W's User Talk page. GWH has asked that we take it elsewhere, and since we're essentially discussing his potential desysopping, that would be best. Furthermore, on P&W's page certain trolling activities can be more easily curtailed. 71.57.8.103 (talk) 01:57, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

What can be done about it? Nothing. There's no policy requiring administrators to be fair and even-handed. --Malleus Fatuorum 02:12, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

That is further than I particularly want to put up with. Malleus, please stop posting to my talk page, unless you're notifying me of an ANI thread. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 02:23, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Sadly typical of your one-sided view of reality GWH. You really are not fit to be an administrator, and I look forward to taking part in your reconfirmation RfA. --Malleus Fatuorum 02:44, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

HarryAlffa

Could you reply to my question on my talk page please? HarryAlffa (talk) 18:54, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Please, could you explain your thinking for your warnings on my page? Thank you. HarryAlffa (talk) 13:28, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Hello, Georgewilliamherbert. You have new messages at Debresser's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Trulexicon

You should have noted my edit here in which I call Larry Sanger an Animal, as well I actually wanted to note to you that I did state I accepted the topic ban, because I'm not going to lie I really dislike Mr. Sanger. --Trulexicon2 (talk) 05:41, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

User:Xenos2008

Thanks for taking action on the above user's racist comments. Take care.--Anothroskon (talk) 09:01, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 23 November 2009

• Uploading tool: New tool for photo scavenger hunts

• Election report: Arbitration Committee Election: Nominations closing November 24

• Fundraiser: "Wikipedia Forever" fundraiser continues

• News and notes: Government stubs, Suriname exhibit, milestones and more

• In the news: The Decline of Wikipedia, and more

• Discussion report: Discussion Reports and Miscellaneous Articulations

• Features and admins: Approved this week

• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 12:40, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

re block rationale of HarryAllfa

It is moot, as being too much of a pain to change, but I would have preferred that the phrase "not here to build an encylopedia" were not included. HarryAllfa very much wants to build an encyclopedia, but it is unfortunately not the one the rest of the community wants written. All of HA's problems result from his inability to recognise that his perspectives on article writing can only be accommodated as part of consensus, and his failure to understand that intellect (in which HA likely shades our combined brainpower) alone is not justification for his approach. To say that HA was never interested in article writing (within his terms, regrettably, only) is to deny what can easily be discerned by checking his historical editing patterns. Just saying. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:20, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

I hope my comment on his talk page was ... less ambiguous about that. I noted there that he's had good article contributions in the past, but what he's doing now is not vaguely encyclopedia building and that he showed no sign of refocusing on articles (much less, in a way that doesn't butt heads with other editors).

Being a polymath genius is no excuse for abusing people. I got that point by junior high school. He will eventually, or he's setting a glass ceiling on his own participation in social and professional circles... Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 23:39, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Points taken. I am hoping that HA will recognise the case presented to him, and not distract himself over the wording of the rationale. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:45, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

A little appreciation

For an active and fair outlook towards the interaction of adminship, policy, and community on Wikipedia - Prodego ^talk

I consistently find myself in agreement with your actions Georgewilliamherbert, especially those that are a bit on the controversial side. But regardless of whether I agree or disagree, I certainly admire how you handle 'being wrong' - namely, much better than I do. So a little meaningless reward for your work, which I hope can represent something a bit more meaningful. Prodego ^talk 06:22, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Accusation of collusion to harrass user cirt

Hey George, I have done no such thing, I don't even understand what that thread is all about, I have not colluded with or encouraged anybody to harrass user cirt. Off2riorob (talk) 05:47, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Non-answer

In response to your query [14], the user chose to respond with a non-answer [15]. Perhaps you could ask it again more clearly to the user? Cirt (talk) 06:03, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Please assume good faith user cirt, it is a simple statement that I am not involved in anything to do with colluding to harass you. Off2riorob (talk) 06:06, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Georgewilliamherbert - please see this post by Off2riorob, followed mere hours later by this post by Redheylin. Cirt (talk) 06:11, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

And? Off2riorob (talk) 06:16, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Closure of Cirt ANI thread by non-admin?

Greetings. To be brief: is this abrupt closure of the Cirt ANI by a non-admin common practice? If so, I had no idea that anyone other than an administrator could mark an ANI thread as resolved. I feel your questions re: Redheylin and Off2riorob are nowhere near answered (no reply by Redheylin, non-answer by Off2riorob, as Cirt notes), and I submit that this affair becomes increasingly muddy. Thanks for your time on this, and Best Wishes, Jusdafax 08:47, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

I'll gladly field the issue. Since I'll do basically anything to stave off true conflict, I'll say now that I likely won't reply further since I'm confident with what I did. Right. So, the 'A' part of the ANI was over. The part of the situation that an admin was solicited for review had resolved itself. Really, I'm not trying to censor your discussion or even ask you to dial it back. It's your bit, you can talk about whatever you want as long as you want, and regardless of status or seniority I can't imagine ever caring how much you all talk about it, assuming it doesn't interrupt anyone. I don't know why anyone would mind, so long as it can be kept amongst yourselves, really. ANI is constantly full of 1-on-1 dueling of reports... The only difference is that there's a larger group of you. Bottom line-- there was nothing left of the 'A' in 'ANI', and since there are flags all over the place for disputes of what go where or talk of blah goes to blah, etc.. All of these examples of self-resolution, forked debate, switch to arguable civility issues; Those are all extremely common reasons ANIs get closed. I can make a point to make sure I don't do this again if you're involved, but I'm not sure why this would be somewhere that non-admins closes on topic resolved wouldn't be permissible like can be done anywhere else. It's not about that questions hadn't been answered, it's that they weren't at all related. It's the content and not the people, since I literally don't know any of you past maybe one accidental talk message on something? I could sit here and do the diff thing to show that... whatever... I encourage your to do whatever you want, so long as you're doing it in the correct forum under the correct topic. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 10:23, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

There was an unresolved issue posed by an admin in the thread. It was inappropriate therefore for a non-admin to close it. Cirt (talk) 10:42, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Attempt to re-open ANI thread you closed

Please see [16] and [17]. Thanks, Cirt (talk) 11:44, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

I've also been approached about the closure. Are you still of the opinion it should be closed? Dougweller (talk) 12:11, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Unsupported claims by Redheylin

Georgewilliamherbert, at the ANI thread, you advised Redheylin with regard to his inappropriate behavior of making unsupported claims saying I used "bogus" sources v- We do not consider it appropriate to accuse people of forging references without evidence.. And yet, despite your advisement, Redheylin has again made this claim, saying My objection here and at ANI concerns the addition of references by Cirt that claim to support this requirement but do not. These are bogus links clearly added, I believe, purely to carry a point on a tangentially-related page.. Could you please take some action here? Cirt (talk) 13:10, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

User:Gerbelzodude99

Is asking for you on his talk page, he seems to think only you understand him, even though you've been quite clear that you think he's a sock. Enjoy! Beeblebrox (talk) 01:30, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate your requesting a sock puppet investigation on this user. I don't for one minute believe that he thought I was stalking him by my responding to his first ever edit on wikipedia. Clearly he thought he was logged in with his primary account and slipped up with the AN/I report. --IP69.226.103.13 (talk) 01:05, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

source validity

There seem to be a lot of challenges to source validity coming up recently, where the sources are clearly compliant with Wikipedia WP:RS policy. You seem to be intimately involved in one and associated with someone doing a second, which is also apparently in an area you're personally involved in. Please clarify what you're up to here. User:Georgewilliamherbert 23:54, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi George, If you want you can follow the discussion from the BLP noticeboard to the talkpage, I don't want to have to explain it all to you, what are you actually asking me? Off2riorob (talk) 23:57, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Do you need links? Off2riorob (talk) 00:05, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

If you're referring to Talk:Lester Coleman and WP:BLPN I've been reading both for some time now (years). Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:07, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

So what do you actually want? Off2riorob (talk) 00:09, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Please answer the question on your talk page as to why you find the Lexington Herald-Leader an unreliable source. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:24, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

You really should join in the talkpage discussion if you want to add in, I haven't said that I think it is unreliable, I said this...

The primary source is not ok as per the BLP discussion at the noticeboard and supported by the subscription headers is weak indeed, there are no stronger citations because it was not widely reported and as such is not particularly notable, feel free to wait for other opinions. Personally I suggest the reliable sources noticeboard and perhaps returning to the BLP noticeboard, but those are tasks for tomorrow

[18] imo when added to the fact that this material has not been widely reported by any major publications at all, I am disputing the insertion, this is continued from the report and discussion at the BLP noticeboard. Off2riorob (talk) 00:34, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Notability applies to article subjects first, once someone is notable (and Lester Coleman seems to have made himself so) then their life is in general terms fair game. You appear to be trying to whitewash a criminal conviction for which we have sources, both secondary (the article) and primary (scans of the court documents). There is little reason to believe that the claim is false - which is the primary concern of WP:BLP. Negative information which is true is includeable, with WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE concerns duly noted. Felony confictions and oing to jail for some time is significant enough to survive scrutiny under those standards.

You can't apply "is the subject notable at all" standards to every aspect of their life. Notability is on a person by person basis. Any reliable source can then be the basis for claims in the article. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:50, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Have to say that I agree with GWH in this case, something I haven't always been able to say. BLP subjects can't pick and choose what material's covered, except to have their entire article deleted if they're not really that notable after all. Something that I'm not sure applies in this case. --Malleus Fatuorum 00:58, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Well..Fair game, is that a policy, it is not one of mine, the article is a BLP and there was a report at the BLP noticeboard, the primary citation to the court record was rejected, and imo there is not much reporting of this to warrant inclusion, as you say these things like going to jail are notable of course, where was he in jail, how long for, when I asked about this I was directed to some archive of his daughters blog, all very weak imo. There is also a apparent desire to use the court record as a citation in the article and as a primary source this was disputed at the BLP noticeboard and I dispute it still. Off2riorob (talk) 01:04, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

If this guy has really gone to prison then it will undoubtedly have been reported on in the press. If it hasn't been reported on, then that ought to raise some question marks. --Malleus Fatuorum 01:09, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

The only thing that is being presented is the link just above nu14, there are no other sources. Off2riorob (talk) 01:10, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

On your talk page and elsewhere you are claiming that the newspaper was not a reliable source for what it reported.

Whether the court record is usable in our terms or not - it exists and has been shown and is therefore "in evidence" as we consider the BLP nature of the article. It supports the newspaper claims. The newspaper is also notable enough to have its own WP article, and seems credible enough by all accounts, including a number of journalistic awards.

The newspaper article as a citation in the article should be fine. If we do not include the court case as a citation that's also fine - but we can take notice of it when looking at the situation and determining if the article is factually correct or not. The newspaper becomes the citation of record (secondary source, and backed by a known but not cited primary source).

If you feel that the newspaper is not a reliable source, or that the article and the court record are somehow wrong, then you have a burden of proof on those points. You seem to have claimed laughingly that the newspaper isn't a RS. That's not a suitable answer with reasonable burden of proof. It seems to indicate that you have a different view of how WP:RS and WP:V work than policy and precedent and how community standards work here. That concerns me.

Again - please answer the question, as to what you think is wrong with the newspaper. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:14, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

I have already answered that question, my answer now is the same as above. Off2riorob (talk) 01:15, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

The primary source is not ok as per the BLP discussion at the noticeboard and supported by the subscription headers is weak indeed, there are no stronger citations because it was not widely reported and as such is not particularly notable, feel free to wait for other opinions. I am still of this opinion, personally I have high standards as regards BLP and I think wikipedia benefits by similar standards. I don't know this guy and I don't care about him, I care about wikipedia and I don't think that...Living people are or should be fair game . We have a responsability to write BLPs in a quality way, using strong easily verifyable citations. Off2riorob (talk) 01:24, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

As regards the primary source...this is a comment regarding it posted at the BLP thread by User:Collect ...

• "A splendid use of primary sources (court documents) to be used contrary to WP:OR and WP:SYN as well as WP:V, WP:RS and lovely WP:BLP which states "Exercise great care in using material from primary sources. Do not use, for example, public records that include personal details—such as date of birth, home value, traffic citations, vehicle registrations, and home or business addresses—or trial transcripts and other court records or public documents, unless a reliable secondary source has already cited them."

This court document is still being posted as part of the desired addition. Off2riorob (talk) 01:34, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm not concerned about your concern over the court record. I'm concerned about your apparent rejection of the newspaper article as a RS. Please address that point. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:43, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I have to think that the Lexington Herald-Leader, which comparatively recently won a Pulitzer for Investigative Reporting, and has a better record as a Pulitzer finalist than any other newspaper of its size, as per that article, is a source that has to be counted as very reliable. Local news in general doesn't get a lot of coverage outside the area, but we can't use that as a basis for determining notability of material relevant to an article which otherwise passes notability. This is a newspaper with a very good record. There might be any number of reasons no one else picked up the story, but those are not necessarily relevant to notability. There was a widely publicized case some years ago about Bovine somatropin's potential negative effects, and how several news organizations refused to cover the story, specifically including Fox News which went so far as to fire two reporters who researched the story for fear of lawsuits from Monsanto when they wouldn't sign contracts to not release the story. Specifically because of cases like that, we really can't demand that specific items in a story which otherwise passes notability need to be mentioned by multiple news sources, because, as is true in that case, there might be motivations completely unrelated to the story itself which prevent others from carrying it, in addition to the sometimes obvious lack of interest in some such comparatively local news stories. John Carter (talk) 01:49, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

I have decided to remove myself from this Lester Coleman content discussion, I have not really changed my personal opinion but other editors discussed the situation with me here and there was little or no support at all for my position, I was especially swayed by User:John_Carter 's clear informative comments, I have the Wikipedia's interest as my driving force and bow down to the weight of comments regarding this, as I have said, I have a high personal standard for Biographies of living people and I think wikipedia in general has a similar position, my standpoint is more fluid than fixed and I learn and grow from each situation. This situation is perhaps better understood by editors local to the article and although I feel articles are better served by a diversity of editors from a variety of locations thereby developing a global article in preference to a local one, as per the comments in this discussion I will be re evaluating my involvement in such articles. Off2riorob (talk) 03:24, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Comments re Celestial spheres RfC

George,

Thanks for your comments on Logicus's Talk Page. I hope that they, and Durova's in the close of the RfC, will bring about some change in Logicus's behavior. I will try to be a bit less quick to respond to his edits, in hope that your comments have the desired effect. --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 04:48, 30 November 2009 (UTC)