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 07:15, 23 May 2010 editClueBot III (talk | contribs)Bots1,378,501 editsm Archiving 1 discussion to User talk:Georgewilliamherbert/Archives/2010/May. (BOT)← Previous edit Revision as of 20:48, 23 May 2010 edit undoPCHS Pirate Alumnus (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers17,990 edits →Keegscee ArbCom: new sectionNext edit →
Line 154: Line 154:
:::] (]) 02:53, 22 May 2010 (UTC) :::] (]) 02:53, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
::::Thanks. --] (]) 02:56, 23 May 2010 (UTC) ::::Thanks. --] (]) 02:56, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

== Keegscee ArbCom ==

Hello sir. Since you were a blocking admin in the ] dramafest, I'm listing you as an involved party in an ] seeking an official ArbCom ban for that user. Your input is desired. ] <sup>]</sup> 20:48, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Revision as of 20:48, 23 May 2010


Archives (Index)

This page is archived by ClueBot III.

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

The Misplaced Pages Signpost: 10 May 2010

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 12:27, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

boxes on ani

Hi. I just boxed-up that time-suck of a thread. As I see it, none of it was going to go anywhere. I'll be dipping an oar into those articles and will read the talk pages. See you there, Cheers, Jack Merridew 01:40, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Not a problem. Thanks for notifying me. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:42, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
No problem... except that the boxes were removed by Matt57. Cheers, Jack Merridew 01:48, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Talking of ani... if possible please would you take a look at this thread. The blpvio activity plus personal attacks and disruptive editing haven't as yet resulted in anything for the user, and so are likely to recur. Thanks. 92.30.111.99 (talk) 03:37, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Audley Harrison

Hello George William Herbert

I'm sorry for the late reply in regard to Audley Harrison, I was unaware of your response in regards to my relationship with Audley. I am not related to Audley Harrison or his team in any way. I am supporter of his and have written emails to his office about the inaccuracies I found on Misplaced Pages (email posted below), so felt the need to correct them. Audley is subjected to unfair criticism by the media and it seems only fair that the information on Misplaced Pages is fair, balanced and factual. I am sorry for implying any legal recourse, just seems someone has it in for Audley by putting Fraudly in the infobox, when you agreed it can be removed.

It was agreed in previous talks that Fraudley would be removed from Infobox and Nickname would be its own subject. This was changed, so I removed it once more from Infobox.

Audley was unbeaten in 17 fights when his deal with the BBC ended in 2004, so the information posted was factually incorrect as the BBC deal did not end due to losses to Williams and Guinn.; In fact Danny Williams contest took place on ITV in December 2005.

Audley had surgery after his contest with Sprott, so his statement made after the fight about the injury has substance. Hence, I inserted information from an article concerning his operation.

The positive press Audley received after his performance was in contrast to some of the negative press he has received in the past. One journalist, who has been very critical of Audley in the past, praised Audley and called him brave and courageous, so this was highlighted.

I believe the changes are fair and balanced and reflect correct information. I do hope you concur with my comments. I sent the below email to Audley’s Office last year, but decided to continue to monitor his page myself.

Hi guys

Just wanted to congratulate Audley for an impressive display in the Prizefighter tournament. His patience in the final to wait for that destructive knock out punch was impressive to see. Following the win I went onto wikipedia to read about what Audley had planned for the future and to read on his previous career. Unfortunately some of the information had been deleted and modified by someone on the page http://en.wikipedia.org/Audley_Harrison I just wanted to let you know so that you can edit the information so that it tells the truth.

Best of luck in the future Audley - keep the faith!!

Cheers

Stuart MacDonald

I look forward to your response, but hope my edits can remain on the page, which correct the mis-information submited by the last editor on the page.

Regards

AForceoneAforceone (talk) 04:50, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

loved ones

He should not have been unblocked, he should resign, my loved ones want to know why such an editor is allowed to edit here. He should resign, retire. I will never drop the stick for him. Off2riorob (talk) 17:37, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Admin judgement is that his mistakes were not worthy of a permanent block. You can file a User Conduct RFC or a community ban proposal at ANI if you object to that. But violating WP:HARASS is not an acceptable way to protest the decision.
Use process, don't harangue him. Asking him once to resign is one thing; again and again is not ok. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 17:40, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

ANI thread archived without action?

Not sure why the ANI thread Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive614#Pedant17_disruption.2C_after_two_RFCs was archived without action? Should I refile it? Thoughts, advice? -- Cirt (talk) 13:22, 17 May 2010 (UTC)


Your note

Thanks for your note. I disagree with you on several points, which I will enumerate below.

  • http://www.thejc.com/blogpost/ as a source: You may not have read the footnote that accompanies the policy on blogs. For future reference, it reads "Some newspapers host interactive columns that they call blogs, and these may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professionals and the blog is subject to the newspaper's full editorial control." By this, that source is acceptable. I did not use that source randomly - it is exactly the same source ChrisO used for his "sentenced 2 to death" claim - see this. I note that you did not post a similar note on Chris's talk page cautioning him on his use of the very same source. I'd like to hear your explanation for that.
  • Sources for the 28 vs. 2 claim: even if we disallow the JC as a source, the 'sentenced 28 to death' claim originates with Yediot, Israel's largest newspaper, and a reliable source. we can insert the material back into the article sourcing it to Yediot, or The Atlantic, or the Jerusalem Post, or to numerous other media outlets that picked up the story.
  • I fail to see how stating he sentenced 28 people to death, based on materiel carried by reliable sources, is "pushing the envelope". Perhaps you can elaborate. Momma's Little Helper (talk) 02:23, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
There is no sign that the blog in question was both by a professional writer and subject to full editorial review.
The actual underlying story in Yediot reaches WP:RS status. But that was not what you used as the source repeatedly. What you used as a source repeatedly was a blog.
Again - I am not making a conclusion regarding the ultimate inclusion in the article or currently available sources. What I am saying is that you edit warred to insert negative material into a biographical article using a source which didn't meet RS.
If you'd used the Yediot story as the source from the start we would not be having this discussion.
Sources matter. Going off tertiary sources, particularly ones as weak as blogs, for negative information in BLPs is a highly questionable action. It's particularly indefensible when you could easily have gone and referenced the actual underlying article at any time. He was right to revert what you were posting - the burden of proof is not on him to find out if another more reliable source supports what you were saying. The burden of proof - using clearly WP:RS reliable sources - is on those inserting the negative information.
Misplaced Pages is neither a scandal rag nor a whitewash; It's important to get it right. The process matters.
Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 02:38, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
Come on, George - you are embarrassing yourself with comments like "There is no sign that the blog in question was both by a professional writer and subject to full editorial review." One click on the author's name would have shown you that Miriam Shaviv is the Foreign Editor of the UK's Jewish Chronicle - a professional writer by any standard. And I see that despite me pointing out the footnote to you, you still have not read it in full, or you would have seen the following: "In March 2010, the Press Complaints Commission in the UK ruled that journalists' blogs hosted only on the websites of news organizations are subject to the same standards expected of that organization's print editions". And you still have not addressed the issue that this is the same source that was used by Chris for his claims. I am glad that you at least agree that Yediot as a source is acceptable - perhaps you'd like to have a word with Chris about it, as he keeps removing the material sourced to it from the article. Momma's Little Helper (talk) 03:06, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
The Press Complaints Commission is not relevant to Misplaced Pages standards. Articles on newspaper / news magazine sites are articles. Blogs are blogs. Blogs on newspaper / news magazine websites are still blogs.
As to the comments above and below - Inclusion of materials from a major newspaper's article meets the fundamental question of WP:V and WP:RS. That does not mean that we must include every negative thing said in a major newspaper's article about a person; normal editorial judgement and discussion and consensus apply to that.
The question of whether the material, even reliably sourced, is appropriate, a violation of BLP despite the sourcing, possibly libelous, and whether certain editors involved are violating the Israeli/Palestinian Arbcom case restrictions by the ongoing behavior are a wider and more complex issue, which I am not going to address at this instant.
The issue at hand is whether the initial behavior was appropriate or inappropriate. In my opinion, as an uninvolved administrator, the initial inclusion of seriously derogatory material sourced to a blog was inappropriate, and edit warring over reincluding it after removal was doubly inappropriate. In articles which fall under the Israeli/Palestinian Arbcom case discretionary sanctions it was triply inappropriate.
The only mitigating factor is that there was, in fact, upon further research, an appropriate WP:RS and WP:V compatible source for the same information.
Despite the mitigating factor, the abusive behavior noted was very nearly grounds to block or topic ban you, Mother's Little Helper. I have assumed good faith on that matter and left it at a warning. But your behavior was not OK.
If one was inclined to interpret the sequence of events as your having had malign intent, one could ascribe events to a successful attempt to bait ChrisO into misbehavior by intentionally using a lousy source for highly negative material, and then introducing the more reliable source. I don't have any specific evidence in hand for that in your case here, but I have seen exactly that tactic used by both sides of the Israeli/Palestinian conflict here on Misplaced Pages within the last few months. Again - I am AGFing here, but this is an area where misbehavior is rampant and intentional baiting is common.
The article talk page and AE are appropriate venues for wider discussion of whether the claims are suitable for Misplaced Pages or not, again with the note that we are neither a scandal rag nor a whitewash. You all can play nicely, within the rules at all times, or get sanctioned. The BLP issues ChrisO is still discussing can be discussed without admin authority intervention. Further abusive behavior or behavior against policy will be watched extremely closely and may result in sanctions. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:32, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
Possibly my last post here, as this is getting tiresome: The UK's Press Complaints Commission is highly relevant to Misplaced Pages standards, otherwise it would not be included in a wikipedia policy page. Since you seem to not understand the significance of that footnote, I'll spell it out for you: Misplaced Pages policy considers blogs by UK journalist which appear on their paper's web site as reliable sources. This is the clear and simple meaning of the footnote I have referred you to. Should you doubt that, I suggest you open a discussion thread at RSN. As to "intentionally using a lousy source" in order to bait Chris, I wonder how that would be possible, seeing as he was using that very source before I started editing that page. Could it be that he was "intentionally using a lousy source" in order to bait others? Have you left a similar notice on his page, seeing as you have seen this type of behavior "used by both sides"? Is there some previous relationship between you and Chris that you would like to disclose, before I go digging it up in Talk page histories? Momma's Little Helper (talk) 13:35, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
There's quite a bit more to it than that, George. I've added a summary of the BLP problems at Talk:Richard Goldstone#Summary of BLP issues. I'd be interested to know what you think. -- ChrisO (talk) 02:40, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

ANI

Just so you'll know, I've opened a thread at ANI that mentions you. ThinkEnemies (talk · contribs), who you warned about personal attacks on the Tea Party movement page, continues to edit war to have the collapsed section of his personal attacks called "WP:XENODONTLIKEIT." In my opinion, he's being disruptive and taunting Xenophrenic by demanding that stay up, so I took it back to ANI because you appeared to be offline. Take care! Dayewalker (talk) 06:55, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for stepping in there, one more question if you don't mind. Wiki is free just like hugs (talk · contribs) just created an account and came to the Tea Party movement page to make irrelevant comments . If this continues, do you think it's worth an SPI on the above user, or it's just a random new user trying to stir up trouble? Discussion has finally started on the page, I'd hate for random trolling to push things off the rails. Thanks again for your help. Dayewalker (talk) 23:06, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

The Misplaced Pages Signpost: 17 May 2010

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 18:47, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

ANI, again

Re . OK, I agree William M. Connolley (talk) 21:53, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Bunns

I noticed you handled a case about the identity of Bunns 1775 (talk · contribs). I would like to refer you to an old revision of Bunns USMC (talk · contribs)'s user page, using the same real name he's claiming now (and I'm willing to guess that the email sent to unblock-en-l was from his military address, confirming the name). He was blocked last year for claiming a compromised account after some aggressive vandalism to my userpages. I'm not sure if this qualifies as a violation of our sockpuppetry policies or not... could you look into the situation? To be honest, I'm willing to forgive and forget, since he has thus far not bothered me with this new account, but I would like this to be on record in case he begins harassing me again. Ironically enough, the confusion with Pops1775 (talk · contribs) is also related to harassment at myself. bahamut0013deeds 23:56, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Ahhh. Hm. Ok, that's interesting.
I shouldn't comment on the ID thing, but I'd AGF that the new account is a new account after the prior one was compromised, and that he wasn't the person behind that abuse.
If he does something unfortunate towards you let us know... Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:17, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

It's new.

I know that the micro nation of Virtexa is not very popular, yet it was only created today May 19, 2010. I hope you sincerely consider letting my edit to the list of micronations page stay there.

-mrarmadilloguy —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrarmadilloguy (talk • contribs) 22:22, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

good faith all used up

. Mine too.Malke2010 00:21, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Check email.Malke2010 03:24, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Question

Re the community ban discussion of ANobody you say (procedural note) This will be eligible to close 24 hrs after it was opened, per our policy on run durations of discussions of this type. I'm curious (this is not specifically in connection with the ANobody discussion). Is there such a policy and could you point me to where I can find a description of this policy? Regards. --RegentsPark (talk) 01:57, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, and I can't remember exactly where it is right now. Basically, this is an exception to the WP:SNOW rule we apply elsewhere. Community bans and community edit restrictions require a minimum run of 24 hrs before an uninvolved admin can close them. There was a feeling that with a topic this important, we shouldn't cut discussion off until enough time passed to ensure that the consensus is wide enough.
I will attempt to locate where we stuck the rule, but it is in there somewhere. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 02:01, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. It would be a great help if I knew where the policy was set down. --RegentsPark (talk) 02:31, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
Found it. Misplaced Pages:Banning policy#Community bans and restrictions - Sanction discussions are normally kept open for at least 24 hours to allow time for comments from a broad selection of community members.
Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 02:53, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. --RegentsPark (talk) 02:56, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Keegscee ArbCom

Hello sir. Since you were a blocking admin in the User:Keegscee dramafest, I'm listing you as an involved party in an ArbCom request seeking an official ArbCom ban for that user. Your input is desired. PCHS-NJROTC 20:48, 23 May 2010 (UTC)