User talk:Rebroad/Archive 2009

Orphaned non-free media (File:Countbaltar.jpg)
Thanks for uploading File:Countbaltar.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:05, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Mandelson
I reverted your edit and left a comment for discussion on his talk page. Regards. (Off2riorob (talk) 19:57, 7 July 2009 (UTC)) No, the citation did not support your statement. (Off2riorob (talk) 21:33, 7 July 2009 (UTC))Shall we chat on Mandelsons talk page. (Off2riorob (talk) 21:38, 7 July 2009 (UTC)) I suggest a talk about it as we are on the edge of an edit war over this rubbish. (Off2riorob (talk) 21:43, 7 July 2009 (UTC))


 * There is no evidence of current mambership. The reference you have provided refers to 1999: "June 1999, to Portugal, to attend Bilderberg Conference. Travel and accommodation paid by organisers. (Registered 2 July 1999)"

Can you find a reference to current membership? Until it is established the Bildergerg piece breaches WP:BLP and must be removed. leaky_caldron (talk) 21:55, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

User talk:Off2riorob
Users have the right to remove anything they want from their User Talk pages. For you to restore it is harrassment. Please don't do that again. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 21:57, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

3RR warning
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 21:58, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Attending a Bilderberg conference does not make one a member. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 22:01, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Please see my comments at Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring. You're the edit warrior. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 22:13, 7 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I have added recent sources (Times, Guardian) on the Mandelson talk page to support his involvement in the Bilderberg Group. With alerts in progress however, I will avoid editing the page directly until some sort of consensus is reached. Perhaps you may benefit from the wp:3O process (rather less confrontational than the 3RR process as nobody need be considered 'at fault') so that other editors can apply a cool head and independently check the sources for you? This may take a while but at least the information will eventually be added to the page.—Teahot (talk) 22:52, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

At Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills. Rebroad is apparently pushing a conspiracy theory about the Bilderberg Group against consensus. He has also repeatedly restored his own comments at Off2riorob's user talk after the latter removed them. This block is the result of a case at WP:AN3 that was filed by Rebroad. More details in the closure statement for that case. EdJohnston (talk) 23:57, 7 July 2009 (UTC) How am I "pushing a conspiracy theory"? I am merely stating that he attended a meeting, of which, he himself, admits. --Rebroad (talk) 19:41, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Any chance you can wait until is answered? leaky_caldron (talk) 19:49, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Pardon? Wait with what? And anyway, it has been answered! --Rebroad (talk) 21:11, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

re block

 * Suspicious? How so? --Rebroad (talk) 19:31, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Having checked your last edit to the Mandelson page (diff), I would back the assertion that the fact that Mandelson attended Bilderberg meetings is NPOV with the impeccable source being the register of interests published by the House of Commons as well as supported by recent published newspaper sources. I have to assume that the administrator on this occasion thought a block was appropriate due the claim and history of edit warring, rather than due to the change being POV. The discussion has continued on the Mandelson talk page and I am strongly in favour of ensuring that the discussion reaches a reasonable consensus as the facts are not in dispute. I am concerned that the end result could be seen as censorship if this well published and interesting fact is excluded from the main page. I strongly agree that the fact itself is not and cannot be considered a fringe conspiracy theory.—Teahot (talk) 11:16, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Teahot. I struggle to see how this edit by Gentleman (or not so) that followed mine can be a good faith edit. Their comments mention an issue with the pluralisation of "meeting", but rather than remove the s, they remove the entire sentence. Obvious censorship IMHO. --Rebroad (talk) 13:31, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

It's also fairly obvious that this "gentleman" user is concealing their identity. Looking at their edit history (which starts February this year), it's obvious they know their way around Wikipedia from the offset, so I suspect they probably have multiple accounts on here. It's a sad state of affairs when people do this, and can't stand by their edits. All my edits going back to 2004 are there for all to see. --Rebroad (talk) 13:33, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

What are you trying to achieve here? Editing the Secretary of State article with details about Mandelson and Clarke was bound to be reverted - correctly. That article is about the function of the office, not the current role holder and especially not about his shadow. As far as your edits to Mandelson, what do you want to achieve, a 2 sentence statement that he attended an invitation to a Bilderberg event 10 years ago? So what? How many other events do Ministers attend in their own time? If you really want to develop a story about BG surely you should concentrate on the BG article itself, rather than proving an isolated fact about a meeting he attended 10 years ago. WP:WEIGHT probably comes into it because the meeting event you are trying to make a story out of is really neither here nor there. You cannot attribute membership because BG is invitation only. Incidentally, the Ken Clarke article mentions his membership of BG and needs to be changed. I want to see the result of the request for guidance on this article before editing it. There will undoubtedly be others, Healey for example, although he did have a role in setting up BG, which may be more notable.

Can I suggest you read and consider WP:FLOG if you are intending to be a serious contributor.

Nor are you showing WP:Good Faith in your comments about Gentleman having multiple accounts and in implying an ulterior motive for his reverting your edits. I was following this 3RR stuff last night and was about to act just at the time that gentleman got involved.

leaky_caldron (talk) 14:08, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Leaky caldron, please note that I am not defending the manner of edits from Rebroad, but you may want to consider the sources more carefully. Though Mandelson declared his interest to the House of Commons due to receiving money to attend the Bilderberg Group meeting in 1999, he has also attended in the years since then (though not declaring an interest as presumably he has received no direct monies to do so) and in particular the newspaper sources confirm his attendance at this year's conference (i.e. 2009), see politico for a summary. For you to claim this news is 10 years old and an isolated event is factually incorrect. Consequently I do not consider the guidance of wp:weight a reason to exclude Mandelson's attendance at Bilderberg meetings from the article as I have already explained on the article talk page with multiple recent reliable sources to support my view.—Teahot (talk) 14:20, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * IIRC, the original and only link provided by Rebroad was the 1999 Members Interests. I have no interest in developing the subject matter content. At the time, the decisions to revert based on lack of evidence etc. were correct. If further material is now to hand, that's another debate. My comments above were aimed at Rebroad, BTW. leaky_caldron (talk) 14:54, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

undue weight
In response to this: no, of course it is not undue weight, as it is not even a "viewpoint". It is a fact. --Rebroad (talk) 10:32, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Have you read WP:WEIGHT? Fact or not is immaterial.  The undue weight that this minor aspect of his life has to do on his biography is what matters.  And you're being disingenuous when you try to claim that your attempt to tar him with the brush of the "evil" Bilderberg Group is not a viewpoint.  Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 05:36, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
 * User:Who then was a gentleman?, checking the contributions of User:Rebroad, they do not appear to have ever described the Bilderberg Group as "evil". If I have missed it, please add the relevant diff, otherwise please desist from exaggerating this matter.—Teahot (talk) 09:16, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
 * No, they haven't used such terminology, because that would have made their agenda far too obvious. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 22:51, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
 * You may find the guidance of Assume good faith genuinely helpful before accusing editors with opinions different from yours of having secret agendas. On Wikipedia you can only judge editors by the edits they make.—Teahot (talk) 23:15, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
 * AGF is not a suicide pact. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 06:41, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

ANI
I have started a thread regarding you at WP:ANI. (Off2riorob (talk) 21:36, 9 July 2009 (UTC))

Rebroad, by not taking part in the on-going discussion on talk:Peter Mandelson that was kicked-off from your original edits, you have missed an opportunity to contribute to a positive consensus on whether to include the Bilderberg Conference on the article page. Though I believe the sources justify this information being added to the page, I can also see that Off2riorob probably has a valid complaint with regard to the manner of your edits being disruptive for the very fact that you have not used the talk page before re-applying your edits. You may find the guidance available at wp:DR quite helpful with regard to the best way of managing disagreements over edits. Some of the processes may take a while (for example wp:RFC) but in the end the edits will stick and you might actually enjoy finding out why other editors have such different opinions on what is encyclopaedic. I apologise in advance if this comes over as patronizing or negative, it is not my intention.—Teahot (talk) 22:41, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi Teahot. I have taken part in the on-going discussion in other places, such as the BLPN article, and other places. If there's any input you feel I should make on the Mandleson talk page, please do let me know. I think it's such a simple case, that I don't see how I can further contribute to the already useful discussion already taking place. --Rebroad (talk) 22:47, 9 July 2009 (UTC)


 * As you can see from the BLPN and new contributions to the Mandleson talk page, other editors are appearing with fresh contributions to the discussion. After the Admin stepping in to control edit-warring, immediately re-applying your edits seems overly pre-emptive when you could have taken a break for a few days from the articles in question and the end result would probably be the same. I agree with you that it is a simple argument that the facts should be included and that's why all the new editors expressing an opinion so far have been positive for inclusion. If you don't think you can contribute anything new to the discussions, then don't, instead sit back and let other editors reach a consensus. If they seem to be floundering, you could consider raising a RFC to stimulate new contributions.—Teahot (talk) 08:58, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Ken Clarke and Bilderberg 2009
I suspect that the EcononyCollapse blog is based on the circulated list of meeting invitees rather than attendees. The Guardian had to apologise for assuming that Ken Clarke had attended, as his Constituency office say he was not travelling on those days. If you can find a reliable source rather than a blog that states he attended then it may be possible to add 2009, otherwise the sources say otherwise as so I have reverted your edits on this basis. Source: 19 May 2009, The Guardian, quote:"And one little correction: for the record, Kenneth Clarke's office has said he was 'in his constituency' at the weekend, not at the Astir Palace doing sambuca shots with the CEO of Airbus. Just in case he remembers differently when asked again."—Teahot (talk) 17:48, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Here's another useful reference that could be added to the Ken Clarke article:- here. --Rebroad (talk) 21:13, 11 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks, it is a good radio programme from the BBC, though did rather go on about conspiracy theorists. I'll see if I can find a more reliable source or a transcript (not available at bbc.co.uk unfortunately). It was specifically reviewed in the Spectator. Copied here for interest:

—Teahot (talk) 23:50, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The same sort of unease I get when Mandelson meets George Osborne on a wealthy Russian's yacht! leaky_caldron (talk) 23:54, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Ed Balls
You added him to the list of Bilderberg participants, but the source you gave doesn't mention him. Why is that? Dougweller (talk) 19:30, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
 * That's odd. You're right, it doesn't. My apologies. I thought I used the same reference as was used on the list of Bilderberg participants article. --Rebroad (talk) 19:33, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Templating regulars
You have already been warned twice about templating regulars. Knock it off. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 20:17, 11 July 2009 (UTC) Since when are "regulars" allowed to flout wikipedia policy?! --Rebroad (talk) 20:19, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

ANI warning - Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Rebroad__continues_behavior_which_got_him_blocked_just_last_week
Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 20:27, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Actually, the behaviour that got me blocked last week (as I understand it) was because I reverted more than 3 times in 24 hours. I have not done this since the last block. --Rebroad (talk) 21:25, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

I had intended to appeal on your behalf for a lesser block. However, your edits seem to be a deliberate attempt to piss people off. For example, your edits to the Sec. of State article. Adding Mandelson and Clarke for the 3rd or more time despite advice/warnings to the contrary both from me on this talk page (above) and the article's talk page, suggest that you do not read or care what what you are being advised. How else do you explain your conduct. You need to cool off and appreciate the wider community view and tolerate advice offered to you in good faith. leaky_caldron (talk) 22:02, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

July 2009
You have been blocked from editing for in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for engaging in an  edit war. Please be more careful to discuss controversial changes or seek dispute resolution rather than engaging in an edit war. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text below.

In case you didn't read my comment above I'll repeat it here where you are currently editing. This may help you to understand what you are doing "wrong". I had intended to appeal on your behalf for a lesser block. However, your edits seem to be a deliberate attempt to piss people off. For example, your edits to the Sec. of State article. Adding Mandelson and Clarke for the 3rd or more time despite advice/warnings to the contrary both from me on this talk page (above) and the article's talk page, suggest that you do not read or care what what you are being advised. How else do you explain your conduct. You need to cool off and appreciate the wider community view and tolerate advice offered to you in good faith. leaky_caldron (talk) 22:23, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

"I was totally unaware of any Wikipedia policy that enables users to be banned for one month without any warning of such, just because I reverted two deletions that were made to an article without explanation." If you'd look above, you have a 3RR warning on your talk page, so claiming ignorance of this policy is a stretch. Furthermore in your block log is this comment: ''User previously misunderstood 3RR policy and has promised not to edit war. Please see also my comments on the user's talk page'' So evidently you do know about this policy, and are trying to feign ignorance. Q T C 22:32, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

You've been blocked for repeated Disruptive Editing, you cannot claim ignorance as this has been explained to you before, you've been blocked because of it before, and there's even a warning on this page about it. Continued abuse of unblock requests will result in this page being locked for the interim. Q T C 22:55, 11 July 2009 (UTC)


 * What were you hoping to accomplish by removing my review of your unblock request? Did you really think we would not notice? Chillum  23:16, 11 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I reverted this edit where you removed my review of your block. I was not so much trying to prevent you from asking for a third block review, but rather prevent you from removing your second block review. If you get a similar answer for your third block review, are you going to ask for a fourth? Chillum  19:36, 12 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Hopefully the next person to review my unblock request will provide a more useful answer than simply "we've already explained", as was yours. I will be raising some suggestions regarding abuse of admin powers once this episode is over, as I believe admins should be accountable for their actions, and this includes making it clear under which policy they are acting. I think there also should be mechanisms in place for people to be de-admined if they can't follow these rules of conduct. --Rebroad (talk) 19:47, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
 * You were not blocked for violating 3RR. You were blocked because you were engaging in an edit war, despite many past warnings and two previous blocks for the same issue. After review of this third unblock request, if it is declined, you will not be allowed further review. Moreover, continued disruption here may result in a longer block and/or your talk page being disabled. Tan   &#124;   39  19:52, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Your past history
You know, looking back at your edit history, I am completely amazed that you have not been indefinitely blocked for the t-wording behavior you have evinced in such articles as the 9/11 attacks and the George W. Bush election. You seem to have been a tendentious editor from the time you got here, five years ago. RickK was calling you a troll back then. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 21:16, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Unless I've missed something later on in the user edit history, you appear to be referencing edits that Rebroad made in 2004... As this user has already been blocked for the time being, I'm not sure what you are trying to achieve as this is not going to edify Rebroad and will undermine the point you were trying to make. Perhaps it is time to drop the issue and do something more constructive; you are in danger of someone accusing you of unwarranted baiting.—Teahot (talk) 21:45, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Unblock request
If you do it again, I will protect this page. I don't do this lightly; you adding that template adds you to a category, and notifies other admins there is a pending request. In short, you are annoying people to no purpose, which is disruptive. You're not going to get unblocked; you've been declined now by at least three admins. If you have a question, feel free to ask it, but use that template again and I'll revert and protect. Puppy has spoken; puppy is done. KillerChihuahua ?!?Advice 21:54, 12 July 2009 (UTC)


 * You did it again. I told you to simply ask, and not abuse the unblock template. I have protected this page for one week. KillerChihuahua ?!?Advice 22:04, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Distinguish tag
It is often confused with pedophilia, rarely with pedantry. I think the tag should remain. Haiduc (talk) 12:54, 20 November 2009 (UTC)