User talk:Georgewilliamherbert/Archives/2010/May

This is an archive of past discussions with User:Georgewilliamherbert. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Thanks for uploading File:KnightsArmamentCompany-PDW.GIF. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

PLEASE NOTE:

• I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions.
• I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
• If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
• To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page.
• If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 00:20, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Your intention to focus on me and not MF is a ridiculous joke. Please focus your attention on someone who has broken many rules within the past few hours, and not on me. –Turian (talk) 22:33, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi, I'm sorry to bring you into more Turian related fun, but I would like your advice about this.

Turian is making accusations without any kind of proof that impugn my name and I don't see why they should be allowed to remain. My attempt to reply to the accusation was removed and he won't let me remove the accusation either. Can you advise on what I should do here? --rpeh •T•C•E• 22:01, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

And a typical Turian edit summary: [1]. --rpeh •T•C•E• 22:04, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

The April 2010 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) 19:24, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi George, I was wondering if you could semi-protect the article 7. It's been excessively vandlized over the past two or three months. I just want to know what you think. I myself I had to revert a vandal's edit just a couple of moments ago. Cheers! 173.57.184.131 (talk) 04:31, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

I just wanted to come by and say "Thank You" for unblocking my account when other admins refused.Bunns 1775 (talk) 14:51, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

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

Garanam (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
68.28.104.236 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Here's another obvious pair of socksto be laundered, if you care to. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:41, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Tonight an editor was blocked for disruption with no specific differences of that so called disruption provided. It reminded to me what you've done to me with two highly unfair blocks for so called "disruption". Not only you provided no difference of so called "disruption", but you lied in your so called block explanation when you said my block had significant administrative support, which was not even close to the real situation, and then on AN/I, when you said I removed block message from my talk page, which I never did. You've never bothered to apologize for those lies. Tonight's block of an editor reminded me of your conduct in my case. I looked at blocking policy, and found this: Administrators must supply a clear and specific block reason which indicates why a user was blocked (Highlighted by me). Please, if you are ever again to block an editor, provide "a clear and specific block reason". I guess the next editor you are going to block would be me for writing this message :) Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 05:33, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

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)

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 Wikipedia (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 Wikipedia 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/wiki/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)

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)

Not sure why the ANI thread Wikipedia: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)

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.

Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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: Wikipedia 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)

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 [2] [3]. 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)

Re [4]. OK, I agree William M. Connolley (talk) 21:53, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

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. bahamut0013^words_deeds 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)

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)

[5] [6][7][8][9]. Mine too.Malke2010 00:21, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

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

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. Wikipedia: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)

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 ^(Messages) 20:48, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

You responded to an AN3 alert concerning Richard Goldstone a week ago; the article's protection is due to expire shortly. I've been working on revising and greatly expanding the article in my userspace (see User:ChrisO/Goldstone) and will copy the new text over when protection is lifted. Hopefully it will move things forward a bit. However, I expect that a handful of editors will continue to push for the inclusion of problematic material, and this may cause further problems. I'd be grateful if you could continue to monitor the article and, where necessary, take action to resolve any problematic editing. -- ChrisO (talk) 21:26, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

By the way, User:Momma's Little Helper, whom you warned earlier, has turned out to be a sockpuppet of the indefinitely blocked User:NoCal100. [10]. -- ChrisO (talk) 21:50, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Hey there!

I want it just for your info. The first time the edits made by those involved in reverting with Divot it was that the house of reps has recognised, because that was what was in Azeri media. Even from the scanned doc it is obvious, that it's of commemoration. Now what those editors do, is bring the national and quite biased media (I can bring you assesments by international organisations that the media is totally unfree there) as a 2nd source (the document is the 1st source) as a proof. Have a look at the discussion of RS board: [11]. I didn't see the language banners on your page and cannot say if you know Russian but at least you can see my last comment on the board of RS which was not (couldn't be) opposed. Those media spread the info of "recognition" (BTW for readers in Azerbaijan it means some other recognition, than for us). Those are clearly fake claims on which we cannot base wiki. TO it agreed even the editors that are in the "process", telling "we never said it was a recognition"(though in the beginning they did) but the sources present it that way.

This is only for you to see the picture for the source and content. As for the conduct, considering these, I admit, that disruption was on all sides. Aregakn (talk) 03:45, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

I've just enacted a ban on Frei Hans from ANI as it was straightforward (and was starting to catch dust); could you update the block log to reflect the community ban? You might also want to add an extra note on the talk for anything I missed. Cheers, Ncmvocalist (talk) 07:29, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Saw that. Will verify you got the correct places and stuff, and update the block log. Thanks! Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 07:33, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Looks good. The List of Banned Users entry you did is perhaps a little abrupt but it's ok for a first draft for sure. I've updated the block message to note the ban effective today. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 07:42, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

I've just added a bit of background to the entry. Cheers again! :) Ncmvocalist (talk) 06:33, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm a novice in english Wiki. But as i understand, AGK said that I must submit to Arbitration enforcement. Divot (talk) 08:40, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Please, start the WP:AN. PCHS-NJROTC ^(Messages) 15:17, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Did you end up starting that WP:AN discussion? PCHS-NJROTC ^(Messages) 21:57, 26 May 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by PHCS-NJROTC (talk • contribs)

My apologies - been caught up in some other stuff. I will open it tonight. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 22:26, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Ok I won't communicate with him any more.

But could you guys please take a look at these two articles? 1) "BP" corporate Wikipedia Page and 2) "Deepwater Horizons" Wikipedia page--

In both cases it is impossible to place a title "Gulf of Mexico Oil Disaster" (for the whole page in the case of the "Deepwater Horizons" article, and for the section on the same topic on the "BP" corporate page).

In short-- "Gulf of Mexico Oil Disaster" gets aggressively reverted out of each article over and over again.

Instead Wikipedia readers much search for "Deepwater Horizons" in order to read anything about the current Gulf of Mexico Oil Disaster.

How do I request that those aggressive reverts be stopped?

75.166.179.110 (talk) 14:13, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

George, I notified three editors (including one new arrival) earlier today of the ARBPIA sanctions and logged them as required at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles#Log of notifications. They had not previously been notified of the ARBPIA sanctions. Breein1007 (talk · contribs), who was not one of the notified editors, has objected, deleted the notification entries from the log [12] and advised each of the notified editors that they can ignore the notifications. This is seriously not on. I'd be grateful if you could have a word with Breein1007, as he doesn't seem to be inclined to listen to me. -- ChrisO (talk) 20:54, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure pretending to be an admin is a serious issue. ARBPIA is clear: the notification is only effective if given by an admin and logged. ChrisO is not an admin. He has no right to be taking admin actions. I previously pointed this out to him a while ago, but he continued doing it today. He even asked another admin to notify the other editor, the admin didn't do it, so ChrisO decided to do it himself. He clearly isn't listening to me. I expect an admin to tell him that this is unacceptable. Breein1007 (talk) 21:05, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

I expect an admin to tell you to take a running jump. -- ChrisO (talk) 21:07, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

George, why on earth did you block Breein? Couldn't you just have said "dont do this"? This takes silliness to a new level, "interfering with arbitration warnings" is a blockable offense, actually a blockable without warning offense. nableezy - 21:12, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) (1) There is precedent of non-admins notifying editors of the ARBPIA sanctions. (2) Once a person hears something, it cannot be "unheard", so it's pointless to tell somebody she/he can ignore the ARBPIA sanctions. (3) I left messages at the three editors' Talk pages and logged the notices. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 21:15, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't know all the history, but I'm also a little surprised that Breein was blocked without warning for this. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 21:17, 26 May 2010 (UTC) Stricken after reading the block notice on Breein's Talk page

(ec - written before Malik's strikeout above, but for the record...)

Breein1007 has been warned repeatedly not to undertake administrative like actions themselves in this area, as they have demonstrated extremely poor judgement regarding what to do and when to do it, with respect to neutrality and understanding policy.

I keep telling them to take it to an uninvolved admin or a noticeboard. Apparently they aren't listening to that. On top of the long string of prior incidents, this was effectively knowing and intentional disruption. That's the reason for the block. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 21:22, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

I wasn't aware that Breein1007 had any kind of history, since I've only had dealings with him in the last few days. Thanks for sorting it out. -- ChrisO (talk) 21:27, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Do you not think it would be wise to attempt to solve such a trivial problem by saying something instead of blocking somebody? Whatever, Ill get back to laughing at this whole thing, cheers. nableezy - 21:32, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

I gather "something's been said" already but apparently didn't have the desired effect. If you've not already seen it, George's block notice is worth a read - User talk:Breein1007#Blocked for 24 hrs for interfering with AE warnings. -- ChrisO (talk) 21:36, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

I could have warned him instead. But I've already warned him about similar types of things, a bunch, and he's obviously ignored the warnings as he keeps doing them.

Breein1007 is singularly unsuitable for administrative actions as he has extremely poor neutrality and judgement regarding policy. If he keeps trying to do them he'll end up indefinitely blocked. I have told him this a bunch of times, he comes back doing them again. Anyone can notify a noticeboard or an admin; that puts the decision of whether an actual violation of policy occurred in someone else's hands. If the notifier didn't have a good case no harm is done.

I don't enjoy doing this; he contributes well a good part of the time. But he's also insanely disruptive at times, about this topic, and he's just not getting it about not doing the disruptive things. He's approaching long term blockable. I would much rather divert his course with a 24 hr block now than have to indef him tomorrow. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 21:42, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

I've opened an ANI regrading this. See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#block_of_User:Breein1007 Powder Hound 3000 (talk) 21:46, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

FYI, this looks like another NoCal100 (talk · contribs) sockpuppet. I'll raise a CU request. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:05, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Of course it is; appearing immediately after the block of MLH, to continue the battle. RolandR (talk) 01:22, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi there. We haven't interacted very much (at all?). I just wanted to tell you thanks for asking the IP to leave me alone. These dramahz have again convinced me that article space editing is what makes me happy on WP... the rest is stressful! In any case, thanks for taking the time. Awickert (talk) 03:26, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi George.

I'm a bit shocked by the results of the 3RR/N report that I posted. Whereas four different editors have reinserted the material in question (while only 2 have been attempting to remove it) you claim that there is a "clear consensus that the material doesn't belong". How in the world did you come to this conclusion? Eugene (talk) 23:21, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

I read both the article talk page and the AN3 report discussion; you seem to be the only person actively defending the material as appropriate for the article, and there are many critics.

I also, as a reasonably expert amateur, understand both the topic areas of cosmology and philosophy of science. The materials you're seeking to include clearly is philosophy of science (at best; it's fringe-ish for even that, though you're correct that it was published in those venues) and not cosmology.

This is entirely what WP:FRINGE and WP:UNDUE are for. Publication in "a scientific venue" doesn't mean that a particular publication is relevant to a particular discipline. Chemists aren't necessarily informed in any special way about population genetics; biologists not necessarily informed specially about statistics and applied mathematics, and philosophers of science aren't necessarily informed specially about cosmology. There is a steady stream of other scientists working "around the fringes" of many scientific disciplines. When this is adopted by the discipline in some useful way it's integrative or interdisciplinary. When it's ignored, it is usually because it's not useful fringeist ideas. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 23:32, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, if you've read the article's talk page I won't rehash it all. But, then again, if you've read the article's talk page why did you say that I'm the "only person actively defending the material"; Gandalf61 has also actively defended the material there. Eugene (talk) 23:40, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi Admin, Will you be so dear as to delete the latest comments that are in violation of WP:TALK? [13] Breein1007 (talk) 01:39, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

• And don't forget to leave the IP a warning on his talk page. Breein1007 (talk) 01:40, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Done. Also an ARBPIA notification for them. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 02:29, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi, the comments are back. Will you delete them and take appropriate administrative actions in regards to the IP? Breein1007 (talk) 02:34, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Funny how your censorship of criticism of the Israel-first/anti-Arab trolls on that page demonstrates PRECISELY the point my comments made. I would advise that you take a long look, first in the mirror to be sure that there is no racism inside your soul and no belief that one particular state and 'people' (so-called) are immune from criticism, and secondly at the far more inflammatory, openly racist and libellous comments littering that page. Or do you feel that when pro-Israel/Zionist individuals post, they are immune from criticism? 72.145.151.235 (talk)

To answer the edit summary meta-question first - technically yes, but under the circumstances I really don't care.

To the IP - No, you need to stop this. I will reply more on your talk page, as I just blocked you for 24 hrs. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 02:42, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Hello George,

I would like to inform you that the user Akerans performs censorship on other users' articles. That is the only way he contributes.

He also, which is IMHO the most serious issue here, PRETENDS TO BE OFFICIALLY REPRESENTING WIKIPEDIA!

>Please, see the history of my Contributions and my Talk page to assure yourself.<

Despite he, in his messages, appeals to the Wikipedia's Neutral point of view, he does not respond to allegetions of being a representative of a commercial subject on which an article on Wikipedia he censors (edits), which IMHO speaks for itself.

>Please, see the history of his Talk page to assure yourself.<

PLEASE, PROTECT WIKIPEDIA FROM POLITICAL AND BUSINESS INTERESTS!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Peter Pilz (talk • contribs) 12:51, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Editor now blocked for 31 hours, he's leaving anti-Semitic comments on Akerans' talk page and his article targets are Ronald Lauder, a Jew, and his companies. I'm sure you know Akerans has just been reverting BLP violations. Pilz posted to ANI which led to the block. I can't see any reason for the pages to remain protected. By the way, I hope you didn't mind my unblock, that was in no way a criticism of you as I made clear. Dougweller (talk) 13:31, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Mr. Pilz managed to get himself indeff'ed by the time he was done. Good job. Sigh. Some people don't get it.

No prob on the unblock. I believe the appropriate exit criteria (understood, won't do it again) were fulfilled and their subsequent actions were in line with that. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 15:46, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

—fetch·comms 21:27, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

As you're one of the three admins who responded to the earlier AN3 report concerning BLP problems on Richard Goldstone, I thought I should notify you that I have filed an arbitration enforcement request concerning ongoing repeated violations of multiple Wikipedia policies by four editors. You can read the request at WP:AE#Wikifan12345 et al. -- ChrisO (talk) 09:34, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi Admin,

I am sending you this message as a favour, rather than taking it immediately to the community for investigation.

I am interested to see what you have to say for yourself in regards to the whole situation of the involved non-admin (actually, former admin who was desysoped) ChrisO issuing notifications to users with whom he was in conflict as a form of intimidation.

As you know, you blocked me for 24 hours for "disrupting AE" and "interfering with AE warnings" and topic banned me from "administrative reversals or warnings" (whatever that is supposed to mean) because I have repeatedly done "horrible things" and "gotten policy wrong". You explained that "There is no section in the ARBPIA arbcom case decision which states that non-adminstrators may not issue notifications of the ARBPIA specific restrictions." Therefore, according to you, I was wrong to inform users that ChrisO's warning was ineffective and to undo his logging of the notifications. As you also know, the final line of the ARBPIA template reads "This notice is only effective if given by an administrator and logged here", contradicting what you said above.

I am asking you to explain yourself considering the fact that the template is perfectly clear in its wording, and considering the fact that ChrisO is clearly not an admin.

I am also requesting an explanation of this: "I have warned Breein1007 repeatedly not to take administrative actions themselves". I do not recall any warnings from you regarding taking "administrative" actions. I am not an admin, and therefore I do not take any administrative actions. This phrase of yours is particularly troubling considering the fact that this whole case started with the user ChrisO partaking in administrative actions. Is there a reason you did not take any action against him? The situation becomes even more troubling when we see that ChrisO unilaterally edited the wording of the ARBPIA template. Is this not an administrative action that warranted further punishment by you? And I can go on even further. Even after the discussion on the talk page of ARBPIA has drawn opposition to ChrisO's unilateral change, and the template has been restored to its admin-only wording, ChrisO has continued today to issue warnings and log them to users with whom he is involved as a form of intimidation.

Furthermore, I am requesting clarification of "Leaving warnings or notices is an administrative action". Can you please show me the appropriate documentation identifying this policy on Wikipedia? I was under the impression that warnings and notices are tools available to both admins and users. If I am mistaken, then there are a hell of a lot of other users partaking in administrative action, so we have a big problem.

One final thing. Can you please be so kind as to include mention of this reversion of yours on ARBPIA as well as this warning that you gave to another editor in relation to the previous reversion? What is particularly interesting is the fact that according to the history of the ARBPIA template, at the time that you made that reversion and issued the warning (November 19, 2008), there was actually no specification that the template was only effective if given by an administrator. Yet you still felt the need to enforce the (then non-existent) rule. But yesterday, when the rule was actually in place, you allowed it to be broken and in fact encouraged it to be broken by punishing me for pointing out that ChrisO was violating it. If you have an explanation for this, that would be just great.

I look forward to hearing back from you, because I think you deserve the opportunity to explain your actions before the community is given the task of investigating.

Have a wonderful afternoon, Breein1007 (talk) 17:23, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

The last line in the template was not supported by the actual Arbcom finding; it was inserted afterwards by another administrator, and does not have the force of an official arbcom decision per se. It was intended to avoid willy nilly normal editors blanketing each other with the notification.

ChrisO is not currently an administrator but he was, and his judgement is not seriously flawed. He clearly has an opinion and some bias on the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, but we aren't restricting the notification to only uninvolved administrators.

A number of other non-administrator editors have used the template before; that was widely accepted.

When I have seen ChrisO leave the notification it's been with people who deserved to be notified, based on recent edits. However, if you believe he's using it improperly as some sort of stick to hit people with based on his personal opinions on the issue, that's a valid complaint you can take to ANI for review. I don't see that, but I don't reject the possibility that it may be there. Making a report is fine; getting more independent editors and admins to review that is fine.

If others feel that ChrisO's use is improper (or if you convince me) we can ask him or tell him not to notify people anymore himself, and have him ask an uninvolved admin to do so after review.

Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 17:49, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

The Timeshifter warning was a special case - he clearly was using the warning as a club to threaten people at the time. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 17:53, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

I think it would be a good idea for notifications to be made by admins only, as it will tend to reduce drama. Failing that, I think editors should at least be in very good standing before handing out those notifications. IronDuke 17:40, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

If a solid consensus evolves that only admins should leave those warnings then I'll enforce that wrt ChrisO, as will any other admin. I know it's being actively discussed (haven't checked that conversation for a day or two). I am not aware of any warning he left that admins haven't supported on review, so I don't think he's abusing them so far (as of early yesterday, last time I checked his contribs). Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 22:27, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, there's this [14]. But I don't want to make this about ChrisO. I think it's fair to say that Breein was acting in good faith, that he saw someone acting contrary to a long-standing template, someone who had a vested interest in handing out one-sided warnings, and reverted. That is not -- absolutely not -- reason to block, let alone without warning. Indeed, it could be reasonably argued that Breein's actions were appropriate. Maybe the consensus is/would be/should be that non-admins shouldn't do what Breein did, but a block is a last resort. You, frankly, used it as a first resort. IronDuke 15:09, 30 May 2010 (UTC)