Misplaced Pages

User talk:Georgewilliamherbert: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 19:35, 1 December 2009 editClueBot III (talk | contribs)Bots1,379,387 editsm Archiving 1 discussion to User talk:Georgewilliamherbert/Archives/2009/November. (BOT)← Previous edit Revision as of 19:22, 2 December 2009 edit undoChildofMidnight (talk | contribs)43,041 edits new sectionNext edit →
Line 278: Line 278:
<div style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;">''']''' &middot; ] &middot; ] &middot; ] (]) 13:20, 1 December 2009 (UTC)</div> <div style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;">''']''' &middot; ] &middot; ] &middot; ] (]) 13:20, 1 December 2009 (UTC)</div>
<!-- EdwardsBot 0009 --> <!-- EdwardsBot 0009 -->

==Update==
Hi George. Cirt has reinstigated the disruption with a new ANI report about the old conflict. As I mentioned you in one of the threads (calling for you to be desysoped) I thought I'd mention it to you here. Clearly if you had been fair in the original thread and reminded Cirt to be civil and to avoid disruptive behavior we could have avoided this mess. Cheers. ] (]) 19:22, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Revision as of 19:22, 2 December 2009


Archives (Index)

This page is archived by ClueBot III.

Hi, I'm George. Feel free to leave me a new message!

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 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/search/?title=Talk%3APre-1967_Syrian_towns_on_the_Golan_Heights&action=historysubmit&diff=326483118&oldid=326466563

http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_Syrian_towns_and_villages_destroyed_by_Israel --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 20:43, 18 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. 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 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 Misplaced Pages. 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 Misplaced Pages-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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages. 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages, 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.

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)

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 Misplaced Pages Signpost: 23 November 2009

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 Misplaced Pages - Prodego

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 06:22, 26 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)

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 , the user chose to respond with a non-answer . 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 and . 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)

source validity

There seem to be a lot of challenges to source validity coming up recently, where the sources are clearly compliant with Misplaced Pages 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

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 Misplaced Pages'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 to Redheylin

Please cease your intimidation and threats of an editor who is frustrated. You are not helping the situation and only causing disruption. If you can't bring yourself to mediate and alleviate the dispute, then just stay out of it. You have repeatedly made unacceptable and unconstructive accusations, and as has been noted before, your intervention has been wholly one sided. Please shape up GWH. This kind of behavior is not acceptable. ChildofMidnight (talk) 01:39, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Which where why? Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:43, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
The editor is not "frustrated", Redheylin (talk · contribs) is repeatedly violating WP:NPA. Cirt (talk) 01:44, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
Assuming that this was about Redheylin - which CoM hasn't confirmed, Cirt, then...
ChildofMidnight, you know as well as anyone that making acusations of false sources on Misplaced Pages is very serious. You also know and have been around long enough to know what sort of standards of evidence we're looking for in cases of serious claims.
You also know that making serious accusations without evidence is not acceptable behavior.
I have been trying in good faith for almost 24 hrs to get Redheylin to answer with specifics regarding these claims. You've also been largely helpful so far. It would be extremely helpful if you would attempt to convince them to provide appropriate specific evidence and claims.
I understand that they're frustrated. However - that does not absolve them of responsibility to answer the question. If they want to take time off to calm down and answer later, ok, but Redheylin's continuing to attack Cirt as in the ANI edit you deleted (thank you for that) without providing specifics is not OK.
If you're going to be trying to help mediate things, you owe Redheylin a duty to step up to them and be frank and clear about what the problem is, so that they can address it. I have tried and am not getting good response. I would encourage you and others to try as well. I am attempting to give them every reasonable opportunity to resolve this without any sanctions, and so far they keep repeating inappropriate attacks without making specific information to support them. This cannot continue forever.
You put yourself in the middle of this, please be responsible enough to help convince them that they need to do the right thing and clear this up rather than escalate it further by making more attacks. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 02:01, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
Making accusations about using sources improperly is almost as bad as making accusations about collusion.
Someone should just archive that ANI discussion already. Your asking for more input on the underlying sourcing issue doesn't seem helpful to me. If you want to help mediate and look into the actual content and ciation issues then there are other places.
As noted above, I've found you behavior to be very provacative and counterproductive. Apart from your most recent ANI board comment, you've come off as threatening and intimidating to an editor who was frustrated and trying to get assistance in resolving a situation. Some of their concerns have finally been addressed, so simply attacking them for not expressing themselves in a more constructive way wasn't useful. Try taking a more collegial approach next time maybe? People tend to be more responsive when they're met with civility, especially when they're upset.
That said, I actually came by to remove my comment. But it's been responded to, so I'll leave it. I think it's accurate, but you don't seem receptive to constructive criticism, and I don't want to heighten the dispute any further. Your refusal to point Jusdafax and Cirt in a more productive direction is disappointing. The kind of battlefield approach they've taken isn't helping any more than your antagonism towards one party in the dispute. ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:21, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
I'm not taking Cirt or Jusdafax' side; if any uninvolved administrator had just taken Cirt's side this would have ended yesterday night with a disruption block on Redheylin. Which would have been improper in not giving Redheylin a chance to address the problems and clear it up.
Any uninvolved admin is openly invited to step in on ANI, if they think they're a better more neutral party. I kept responding as Redheylin kept going, without actually addressing the problem. Anyone else could have taken over and stepped up and worked with him, but nobody did. His ongoing escalation made simply dropping it untenable, unfortunately.
You get the admins who are paying attention and care to intervene, not the ultimately most perfect uninvolved ones out there. Welcome to ANI. He's the one that went there in the first place...
The question about collaboration with Off2riorob didn't set an ideal stage for resolving things, but I have strenuously avoided even mentioning it to him after they both answered that the collaboration claim was false. I told him last night it was off the table and not an ongoing issue. He still brought it up on ANI in his latest comments. I can't help it if I say it's dropped, and he won't drop it.
I appreciate you having stepped up and tried to mediate. But you're not doing him good service if he doesn't understand what the problem is. I can't make you stay involved - but if you want to help him, help try and convince him.
I understand that the evolution of the incident has not been optimally fair to him, and that the collaboration question didn't ultimately help. But he can't keep pursuing this loudly on ANI and not face the problems he's caused in doing so. I've tried to be as clear as possible and offer him as many chances as possible to understand and respond appropriately.
I don't disagree with your conclusion that aspects of this sucked. But he won't let it go, and if he won't then some administrator needs to deal with it. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 02:41, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
I don't want to get into a back and forth with you, but I doubt that anyone would have seen fit to block an editor for trying to get admin assistance in a content dispute, especially where their concerns are reasonable. The accusations have flown in both directions. Redhylin has responded extensively, so it's not fair to say he hasn't responded to your questions. You may not be satisfied with those answers, but that's no different than his not being satisfied with Cirt's explanations. You didn't exactly drop the accusations you made, you reiterated them in a way that looked pointy, while saying you wouldn't push them further. Redhylin is far from the only one who keeps pushing the dispute. Cirt and Jusdafax have been keeping the flames alive as well. And I came upon a wikialert involving Jusdafax as well. So there's a lot to the whole thing. At some point it would be good if we actually got down to discussing the content and sourcing issues in the appropriate venues. That's what article building is about, not all this arguing. I do apologize for gettign frustrated with it all and lashing out a bit. I'm not perfect either. Only Vince Young is perfect. ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:03, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
Believe me, I was really ready to let this go. However, since my name has been brought up here by ChildofMidnight, as it was by them (in the same manner) in the ANI just before the final closure, making it impossible to respond to the comment, I feel the need to clarify CoM's possibly misleading statement both there and here regarding a wikialert involving Jusdafax, (2.11) which if left without a link looks as if I'm somehow tarnished goods. The exchange shows that I was taken to WP:WQA by Off2riorob even after I had complied with his request re: my mention elsewhere that he had previously been blocked, and that his report at was quickly closed as resolved by admisintrator Chillum when I pointed out I had already complied with the request to remove mention of his previous blocks. It may be worth noting that, unsatisified, Off2riorob attempted to reopen the notice, which was quickly again closed with a warning to him not to do so. Still unsatisified, Off2riorob argued the matter still further at substantial length on Chillum's talk page. I wonder if ChildofMidnight would call that "fanning the flames", and give Off2riorob the kind of attention he feels GWH, Cirt and I merit from them. So, to give only the information above (as at ANI) that I was 'involved' with a wikialert, but with no further information or a link, seems not only less than perfect behavior by ChildofMidnight, but open to question, as is much of the conduct by the parties GWH is in fact questioning. Georgewilliamherbert, allow me to commend you for asking hard questions when and where they need to be asked, which are inquiries that need to be made. In addition to the slanted information regarding me, I submit that CoM's opening paragraph in this thread, at least in my view, is amazingly out of line, and his apology to you is well-merited. But even in doing so, he gets his dig in at me. Jusdafax 23:02, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
You're a Matt Leinart fan? You have my sympathies. ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:17, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
Quite the opposite, I assure you. Vince did my 49ers a good turn when he nipped 'Zona yesterday, though my expectations for the post season remain slim. Jusdafax 02:45, 1 December 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)

David Shankbone

George, so far I know, you've not been involved with David Shankbone. Would you mind reviewing his six-month block? I've explained the situation here. SlimVirgin 05:29, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Sock puppet investigation

Please don't go overboard in the apology to make it seem the SPI was unreasonable. He accused me of stalking him for one edit. That's absurd: he made one edit to wikipedia and I somehow followed that? No way. He may not have been caught this time, but no one followed his one edit on wikipedia anywhere. Sure, it's good to apologize on wikipedia. But you didn't act overboard. He's the one who went overboard accusing another editor of stalking him through his first edit on wikipedia. --IP69.226.103.13 (talk) 07:54, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

The Misplaced Pages Signpost: 30 November 2009

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 13:20, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Update

Hi George. Cirt has reinstigated the disruption with a new ANI report about the old conflict. As I mentioned you in one of the threads (calling for you to be desysoped) I thought I'd mention it to you here. Clearly if you had been fair in the original thread and reminded Cirt to be civil and to avoid disruptive behavior we could have avoided this mess. Cheers. ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:22, 2 December 2009 (UTC)