Jump to content

User talk:Georgewilliamherbert: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
ChildofMidnight (talk | contribs)
43,041 edits
comment
Line 138: Line 138:


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

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

Revision as of 23:21, 4 November 2009


Archives (Index)

This page is archived by ClueBot III.

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

Pushing the button?

Hi George~! I'm not sure if this qualifies as pushing the button but from what I can see, Koalorka wasn't even involved in the article's discussion page of F-15 Eagle or read through the relevant edit history before making his opinion heard on ANI. And even though he had read it there and then about it, he didn't even have the proper courtesy to inform me of the accusation proceeding before making such comment. Frankly, I considered that to be downright obnoxious and plain rude talking bad about someone behind their back. Thoughts? --Dave1185 talk 16:18, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

He just goes on: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Stoner_63&curid=1187397&diff=321766751&oldid=321763756 . Some guy (talk) 19:39, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

editing FAT MAN Article

Hi George, Thanks for the kind comments, I must admit to being totally new to editing Wiki, but I wanted to contribute to an obvious typo. I will sort out a user name and password.. :) Joe. UK Yacht 'Ruddles' Portugal at the mo. 85.242.16.201 (talk) 13:49, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User: Azwethinkweizm

Please revert the ban on user: Azwethinkweizm. He is an avid editor and monitor of the Mabank High School page and is unable to edit due to a ban caused by a school network issue. 24.32.49.200 (talk) 02:24, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 26 October 2009

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 01:10, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Leatherstocking

George, when there was last a discussion on AN/I about Leatherstocking (talk · contribs), [1] you said you were keeping an eye on him. He has continued to cause problems on the LaRouche pages, making or restoring material that Herschelkrustofsky favored. His edits include restoring material from non-notable Russian and Chinese sources (in Russian and Chinese), and removing material from The New York Times. It has reached the point of high farce. Technical evidence has now emerged that links Leatherstocking with LaRouche's publishing house, American System Publications. (HK was directly linked with this company.)

Leatherstocking has repeatedly denied having any connection to the LaRouche movement (e.g. [2]). He has said that, when he first started editing Wikipedia, he was "only vaguely aware" of LaRouche. [3] He has edited logged out several times, acknowledging that it was him (e.g. [4] [5]). The reason he was never blocked with the other LaRouche accounts is that his IP, 64.183.125.210 (talk · contribs), geolocated to North Carolina, [6] whereas the other LaRouche accounts were based in a LaRouche office in Los Angeles.

It now seems that this geolocation was inaccurate. Another check shows that Leatherstocking's IP belongs to American System Publications in Los Angeles. [7] [8] Here are two links that connect that company with LaRouche. [9] [10] The same IP was also used by the LaRouche Youth Movement on December 17, 2008. [11]

In light of this, I would say there's little doubt that the Leatherstocking account is operated by HK or someone connected to him. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 08:28, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

After extensive review I could find no contradictory evidence or exculpatory information. Sockpuppeteers associated with LaRouche organization IPs are not welcome here anymore. He is now indef blocked. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 22:31, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

The Wikipedia Signpost: 2 November 2009

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

A little fairness

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

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

Poking at people like that on their talk pages is a particularly odious form of interpersonal conflict on Wikipedia. And as a form of dispute resolution it's spectacularly ineffective.
"He started it" is specifically not a valid defense on civility issues.
I could leave a dozen civility warnings for the varied events of the last 72 hours - but that one stood out, to me. I don't feel like spending all night leaving warnings, and I don't feel that any of the combatants quite earned a block, so I'm planning on leaving it at that. This is not a statement or opinion that Beeblebrox was innocent of wrongdoing. But I'm not going to engage on that right now. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 06:37, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is better to get a fuller background of how events unfolded instead of just warning one side of the dispute when it is clear that the other side crying foul started the mess. Malleus is not an administrator. Beeblebrox is, and ArbCom has made it clear that such actions are unbecoming of administrators. Ottava Rima (talk) 06:41, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I believe I stated that I could leave a dozen civility warnings for the varied events of the last 72 hours. I don't know how you get from that clear statement to your "It is better to get a fuller background...". I have a plenty full background on this, thank you.
Such actions are unbecoming of all Wikipedians. If you believe that Beeblebrox' comments violated policy and that he should be examined by Arbcom, they're over on their pages. As I said - I reviewed the situation. I am not taking other actions at this time. That is not a judgement that no other wrongs were committed. If you can make a case to Arbcom that a case should be made out of this, you know where their page is. I would be happy to submit an evidence statement that a bunch of people were abusive, in my opinion.
But I don't feel like doing more myself at this point.
I need to sleep tonight, and not spend the next 8-10 hours tracking down every comment well enough to appropriately warn a dozen or more people for all the offensive things they did. That would include you, by the way, though as I have noted I'm not going to chase anyone else down and warn them at the moment. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 06:48, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Saying you could and doing it are two different things. you state "a dozen" but there is one that I haven't seen you make that is well deserved. All I ask is that you apply things per proportion, which making a statement at Malleus's page when he was provoked by an admin who should have known better but not warning that guy is only going to lead to more problems. Ottava Rima (talk) 06:55, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have left the one warning I felt I had to make, to the one person I judged to have done the single most offensive series of things, over the incident.
I appreciate that you feel that others deserved warnings more. But I disagree.
As I said - I am going to go home and sleep rather than leave the dozen plus detailed warnings I could, given the rampant misbehavior. I appreciate that you disgree with my opinion about which specific behavior was the worst. I am not saying "Don't file a RFC or Arbcom case". I am saying - I act based on my own judgement of the situation. If I felt I absolutely had to act more I would have. I don't, and I haven't.
You can spend all night trying to convince me otherwise if you like. But a RFC or an Arbcom filing would probably be more effective.
I don't disagree that you have a point about the behavior, but with a finite amount of time, there's a difference between "bad" and "actionable". They both, and you, and about 10 other people all behaved badly. I acted on the one issue that poked up out of that, in my opinion. Arbcom can act against all 12ish of you if they want, if you file on it. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 07:08, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"to the one person I judged to have done the single most offensive series of things, over the incident." thus, you create a "winner" situation, in which taunting, personal attacks, and incivility from an admin that covers many hours during the time and has far more statements than Malleus is ignored. The reason why the community no longer has respect for such warnings is because of this inappropriate standard. You want the community to think you are doing what is fair, you block the admin next time for doing such things. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:09, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • [15] This shows that he edited Malleus's post and applied Malleus's signature to an image it did not belong to. This is a direct violating of WP:TALK, as you are not allowed to apply people's signatures to what is not theirs. He was edit warring this violation in. That is an egregious offense. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:20, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for taking time to address the other side. All I ever ask for is a little fairness around so it does not seem like there is favoritism nor can a "I won" mentality exist. There are no winners at ANI (but there are great losses to the Wiki there). Ottava Rima (talk) 23:02, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Involuntary euthanasia

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

I semi'ed it for 3 days to match the other articles, that's a legit preventive measure given the IP's exuberance. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 06:54, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm. I was not editing Acion T4. But you are exposing as an unfair, arbitrary and paranoic persons. Whatever. I was discussing the thing on involuntary euthanasia, you arrived blocking. And Ratel, well Ratel: are these your arguments and sources? this is the way you do when you are lacking of arguments and sources? you Ratel even said that my edition could be added to a specific part of the article. We were discussing the thing, why do you prefer this easy and unfair way? is this a fake? do you believe yourselves? As I said you are exposing yourselves, so I didn't waste my time. 190.25.109.141 (talk) 07:05, 3 November 2009 (UTC)::[reply]
Blocking a whole range of IPs should be a good bussiness for wikimedia not? What do you think that freedom of speech means when arbitrary blocking me? 190.25.109.141 (talk) 07:07, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Freedom of speech means that governments should not be engaged in the business of interfering with what types of things people can say. It says nothing about what individual groups or persons or organizations may do to control their content, projects, and property.
Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. You do not have the right to violate our WP:NOT and WP:BATTLE policies and bring your disruptive fight about euthanasia here. You fundamentally misunderstand what Wikipedia exists for and why. We are not here to be a platform to publish your opinion or for you to wage a publicity battle. We are an encyclopedia. When you try to use Wikipedia for non-encyclopedia things, you are insulting our project and our purpose of existence.
When you do those things - you are not welcome here.
As you keep trying to do those things, you are not welcome here. Please go away and do them elsewhere. Blogs and twitter feeds and Facebook and MySpace pages were meant for this - or you could try books or articles or TV shows in the real world. Those are all entirely appropriate places to go communicate your opinions.
Wikipedia is an entirely inappropriate place for that. If you will not understand that we'll block you from editing. It's as simple as that. Learn why we're here and what our rules are, or you will be prohibited from participating here. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 07:21, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Making fun of editors you have sanctioned

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

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

Race and genetics

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

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

Civility warning

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

I am an uninvolved administrator and the message I left was entirely polite and proper.
If you have a problem with the warning you can take it up at ANI for other admins to review. Leaving me a civility warning is inappropriate and disruptive. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 22:03, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Leaving a threatening message to an editor who has had their comment refactored inappropriately multiple times by an admin is totally unacceptable. Please do not do it again. ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:35, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:119.173.81.176

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

There's a fine line in dealing with someone who is causing a minor problem - pushing hard enough to resolve the problem, but not escalating it into a headbutting contest, making it personal, etc.
I believe that you correctly read the underlying situation and were responding as needed, but you managed to let it become partly about you vs them. That's not a "You did wrong!", that's a "If you respond differently it can help de-escalate and reduce drama". Asking for help at this time was a really good move, however, one of the things that takes the headbutting out of the situation. Any form of aikido rather than hard contact responses helps.
I issued a short (3 hr) block and a hopefully constructive warning to them to help move the conversation in the right direction, i.e. talk page discussions rather than extra-bold actions that then cause a push-pull fight like this. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 06:13, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I found the above comments to be strange. Strange that 420 claims to have had those three articles on his watch list since my edits a few months ago - until less than a month ago, I had never edited either the ATV or the groping article. All this "oh they were on my watchlist but I forgot about them" stuff, seems pretty unlikely, when combined with claims of "I saw him edit them months ago, but didn't do anything" - I don't really see the point in lying about it, so it just seems strange. Why bother trying to mislead someone about how, why and when you encountered someone? 119.173.81.176 (talk) 13:35, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
but after a moments reflection, I have come to the conclusion that it does not matter. I shall go edit something and try to avoid more drama. 119.173.81.176 (talk) 14:19, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Disruptive drama mongering?

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

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Georgewilliamherbert&oldid=323984696"