No RfXs since 18:14, 25 March 2016 (UTC).—cyberbot ITalk to my owner:Online |
Talk page archives - Archive index |
||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
- Note: I was once known as Chillum, so perhaps you already know me. HighInBC 20:10, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
- Hello and welcome to my talk page! Click the + button at the top of the page to create a new discussion or use any of the "edit" buttons to contribute to an already existing discussion.
- Postings made in the form of haiku will be given first priority.
Contents
- 1 Just curious
- 2 The user was not blocked indefinitely, only the account
- 3 fyi
- 4 Names names names
- 5 Beat it
- 6 IP Sock you block at Ritchie333's page
- 7 New page
- 8 Here
- 9 Blocked users
- 10 A brownie for you!
- 11 Best known
- 12 Notice
- 13 Involved
- 14 To the banned user who keeps posting here
- 15 Unwelcome banned user
- 16 That's nice.
- 17 hi
- 18 More abuse by either Bondezegou or NewsAndEventsGuy
- 19 Indefinite block of User:జేమ్స్ బాండ్
- 20 Talk page Muhammad
- 21 I'm not banned but blocked
- 22 Welcome to Wikipedia: check out the Teahouse!
- 23 86.xx disruptive editing continues to go on
- 24 Thank you for supporting my RfA
- 25 Confirmation
- 26 I know exactly how
- 27 Here is one example
- 28 Closure of "Admin edits my post to deliberately change the meanin"
- 29 Thanks for your support
- 30 Thanks!
- 31 You around?
- 32 79.78.168.63
- 33 Image Licensing/Main Article Photo Change Help
- 34 Edits
- 35 My question on the humanities refdesk
- 36 Courtesy ANI notice
- 37 Advice on Ordering "Major Organizations"
- 38 79.78.168.63 again
- 39 Dum(eff)istan
- 40 LARRY JAY LEVINE Page you edited.
- 41 What do you make of this?...
- 42 Thanks for this
- 43 March 2016
- 44 Revdel request
- 45 Perhaps you would like to add something
- 46 Hi
- 47 Talk:USA Rugby
- 48 Apologies
Just curious
Hi, HighInBC,
I was following a "What links here" connection and found myself at User:HighInBC/Alternate RfA debate format. I was just curious what you might be thinking with this subpage, if it involved reforming the RfA process or just wanted to preserve this discussion for some reason. Liz Read! Talk! 18:00, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
- I was going to propose an alternate format of discussion and I was going to use your RfA to create a dummy version of what I had in mind. However the idea did not gain traction and I came to the conclusion that it is unlikely to be adopted. I chose yours because it has rather of a lot of extended discussion. HighInBC 18:06, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
The user was not blocked indefinitely, only the account
@C.Fred: This is not block evasion because the user has an unblocked account which she can edit from any time she wants. It's standard practice, when an editor has more than one account, to block all but one because she doesn't need them. Those surplus accounts are "blocked indefinitely for abusing multiple accounts", but that does not mean that the user is blocked. 31.52.139.144 (talk) 15:34, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
- We block people, not accounts. If you are blocked under any account, or IP then you are engaging in evasion. Don't plead your case here, I have lost all sympathy for you. HighInBC 15:38, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
fyi
[[1]] Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi 19:55, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
- I am familiar with this persons poetry. I find their rhyming to be a bit sloppy, and I prefer haiku. HighInBC 20:15, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
- More recently, is it worth having a CU on that latest fella. The account was only set up 50' earlier, obviously purely in order to post that...? Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi 12:16, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
-
- Nope, it is a user who was banned long ago. HighInBC 15:19, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
- Sorry, was talking about User:Miguel Cohen, who posted THIS as his first edit in a year... know you dealt with him for that; but isn't it likely to be someone much closer to the curent issue....? Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi 16:39, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
-
- Possibly worth while yes. HighInBC 17:11, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
Names names names
Hi HighInBC, I had been reported to UAA in December and it was concluded my name is not a blatant violation of policies (your edit on my talkpage here [2]). Now someone else reported me to UAA, am I to understand now that I get "checked" over and over at UAA (whereas consensus would now seem to be the right place). Anyway, I mentioned at UAA I, or rather, my name had been discussed before at UAA, so I do not understand: can any admin block my name now, as this "bringing-to-UAA" has been doen before already (and was dismissed)? Poepkop (talk) 19:08, 12 January 2016 (UTC).
- I dismissed the report, but that is not the same as determining your name is ok. If you want to put the matter to bed you can request review at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User names, until then the matter is unresolved. At RFCU a consensus can form, whereas at UAA it is just the opinion of 1 admin.
- If you create a thread at RFCN and then post at UAA next to your report that you have done so then I don't think any admin will act on it until the RFC has come to a conclusion. HighInBC 19:10, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
-
-
- It is not that uncommon for people to report themselves when others are complaining about it. I was brought there for my name once by somebody, but people were okay with it. I am not sure how the RFC will turn out, but good luck. HighInBC 19:37, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
-
Beat it
You wasted my time w/ your usual BS. Stay off my Talk page from now on. IHTS (talk) 06:52, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
- Did you seriously just come by my talk page 2 days later to say you don't want to talk to me? @Ihardlythinkso: feel free to come by again if there is something else you don't want to talk about. HighInBC 06:57, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
-
- No, read it again. (I said stay off my Talk page. Forever. As your usual bullshit, you like to add and reply to stuff never said or intended. IMO you are either extremely incompetent in reading, or disingenuous troll admin. I tend to think the latter.) Never go to my Talk page again like you did the other day. Maybe you can get that into your head if you read it a few times more. You suck. IHTS (talk) 07:22, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
-
- I will keep my interaction to you on a purely administrative basis, and as little as reasonable. Try not to start any conversations with me unless you want me to respond. I will start by saying that your are being hostile and uncivil, far below the minimum expectations of the community. HighInBC 08:00, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
-
- No, read it again. (I said stay off my Talk page. Forever. As your usual bullshit, you like to add and reply to stuff never said or intended. IMO you are either extremely incompetent in reading, or disingenuous troll admin. I tend to think the latter.) Never go to my Talk page again like you did the other day. Maybe you can get that into your head if you read it a few times more. You suck. IHTS (talk) 07:22, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
-
-
-
- @Ihardlythinkso: Amazing how you don't want to talk with me, but you are okay talking about me[3]. Also amazing how you accuse me of not responding, then in the very next sentence complain about my response.
-
-
-
-
-
- I am realizing now the part of the question that you were upset about me not answering. To answer your question, no I don't think 2 incidences 8 years apart constitute a pattern. A pattern generally involves more than 2 datapoints. HighInBC 17:18, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
-
-
Sorry about that most recent post to your page, I was reading the discussion and forgot who I was talking to. HighInBC 04:14, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
IP Sock you block at Ritchie333's page
FYI Wikipedia talk:Long-term abuse/Best known for IP#Back again has edited with multiple IP tonight. WCMemail 00:55, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
- Yes they are very recognizable. HighInBC 01:04, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
New page
Hi, can you move your this entry to new 2016 page Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions/Log/2016?--Human3015 It will rain 20:34, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
- Ack, thank you for pointing that out. Let me know if I screwed anything else up. HighInBC 20:38, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
Here
As per Wikipedia:Responding_to_threats_of_harm#Contact_administrators, could you look at this? Doubt it's serious, but- cheers, Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi 17:53, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
- I don't have time to respond to this right now, but it does deserve an urgent response. I have posted the link in the IRC admin channel, but you may want to post at WP:ANI in case IRC is idle. HighInBC 18:15, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
- Cheers! Done it. Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi 18:33, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
Blocked users
Hi, would you know the IP address or city names of the users you blocked yesterday on my request. The information will help me to open an SPI. Thanks. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 18:05, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
- Administrators do not have access to that information, only checkusers. That information is considered private information and cannot be released by any functionary. At best they will link them to another account. HighInBC 18:13, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
A brownie for you!
Thanks for deleting the attack page. :) Murph9000 (talk) 07:20, 18 January 2016 (UTC) |
- Thanks! HighInBC 04:01, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
Best known
Oh Chillum, you were this close to getting a "thank you" for your comment--swear to God, almost, until the very last half-sentence. I suppose we'll never agree on that. Happy days, Drmies (talk) 03:48, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
- You should see the last sentence I decided not to write. It involved the words "specious" and "straw man". I held my tongue. Don't worry, I am happy to disagree with you any day, reasonable people can disagree reasonably. HighInBC 03:50, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
- Haha, good one! Later, Drmies (talk) 04:04, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
- Hey, psst: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Request_for_admin_oversight_on_RT_News_article_--_civility_needs_to_return_.28just_grab_some_popcorn_and_take_a_gander_at_the_talk_page.29--I just topic banned them for six months from the article and its talk page...I read the whole talk page and it does not look good. Drmies (talk) 18:25, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
-
-
- Yes, clearly a case of attempting to outlast the opposition. Discretionary sanctions are pretty effective sometimes. HighInBC 18:48, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
-
Notice
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is An IP on a dynamic AT&T Mobility range has been engaging in persistent personal attacks over the past 24 hours. Thank you. Nathan2055talk - contribs 05:53, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
- @Nathan2055: Can I ask how I am involved? It is eluding me. HighInBC 05:59, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
-
- Yeah, sorry. You were the original banning admin for the first IP, and it's ANI so technically I need to template everyone remotely involved. --Nathan2055talk - contribs 06:00, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
-
-
- Ah, thank you. So much to remember. HighInBC 06:01, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
-
Involved
But this is not quite true, ist it? As you and I both know, it is considered extremely bad form for admins to defend themselves even in the severest of PA. IHTS knows it too, and it has been his long term strategy for years to male attacks that just stay under the radar, in order to undermine all systems of the project's management. Diffs abound, not to mention the massive WP:POLEMIC on his user page. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:50, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
- While it is a widely held belief that if a person attacks an admin that the admin is involved it is simply not true. WP:INVOLVED says One important caveat is that an administrator who has interacted with an editor or topic area purely in an administrative role, or whose prior involvements are minor or obvious edits which do not speak to bias, is not involved and is not prevented from acting in an administrative capacity in relation to that editor or topic area.
- As far as I can tell Future has only acted in an administrative capacity with the banned user Vote X for change, and nothing Mr X can do is going to make him involved. Administrators become involved because of things they do, not because of things others do. Nobody gets to decide which admins are involved with them or not by tossing out insults or accusations. I am aware that IHTS may think this is true, but if they put the theory to the test they are in for a rude awakening. HighInBC 15:50, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
To the banned user who keeps posting here
I see your posts, no need to repeat yourself. I have no interest in engaging with a banned user, or anyone who chooses to engage in harassment. Frankly I hope the foundation takes some sort of action against you. HighInBC 18:07, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
Unwelcome banned user
Hello. First I would like to see a discussion titled "Checkuser Unblock" here : https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Callanecc . I demand from you as an administrator, as you have read my request, why should I be unblocked to set the discussion in WP:AN or WP:ANI and ask for unblock my account. 109.121.27.17 (talk) 14:39, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
- No, it has already been made very clear to you that you need to go without sock puppetry for 6 months, that includes posting as IPs. Your only means of requesting unblock are through your blocked account or WP:UTRS. Asking around won't help. HighInBC 15:29, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
Why have you deleted my comment, I'm for such failure blocked. This was in response to my request UTRS. And please stop sending appeals to UTRS. This is your fourth appeal, and the third time you have been given this information. Further appeals before you have followed the terms of the standard offer may be ignored - Beeblebrox Wikipedia Administrator. In this article, I remind you of what principles operate standard offer. I would like to implement them and open discussion, and notify me so that I could write a thorough reason to unblock my account. How does it work?
- Contact a willing administrator or experienced editor (via email or IRC) (list of administrators).
- If they agree a review is appropriate, they'll open a thread at an administrative noticeboard (WP:AN or WP:ANI).
- Discussion usually takes a few days.
Apologies aren't necessary, just basic courtesy and a willingness to move forward productively. 79.175.71.176 (talk) 01:20, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
- Looks like you are not welcome here. You are pretty much invalidating[4] any chance you have of being welcome back by your continued block evasion. I seriously doubt you will ever be welcome back, I suggest you find another website. It is just a fucking website, move on. HighInBC 04:51, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
I'm not interested in your attitude already asking you to use it as an administrator Standard offer and start a discussion to unblock my account and nothing more. I personally hope to be unblocked soon. I'm just looking for a second chance and nothing more. Wikipedia is a megalomaniac internet project and it is difficult to circumvent such a megalomaniac site. It's stupid that after only one blocking user leaves the site. 109.121.29.7 (talk) 15:07, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
-
- The standard offer is not available to people who have recently engaged in block evasion. You are pretty much disqualifying yourself from the standard offer by your actions here. HighInBC 16:12, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
Ok . How, then, to be unblocked as my UTRS rejected many times , after I wrote you up. On UTRS can not rely , Talk Page 'm blocked. Standard Offer not to use it to help me . How then? I remind you that since my account was blocked after two full months. I guess you're right, I am not only de facto blocked forever but technically, in this interview it is proven. 79.175.114.248 (talk) 11:19, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
-
-
- Are you just trolling? Do you really not understand that every time you evade your block you are resetting your timer? Frankly even after you stay away for 6 months I doubt the community will let you back after this display. Stubbornness is a losing game here, the community resents it.
-
-
-
- Go away, you are not welcome here. HighInBC 17:05, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
-
Ok . I see. Would you have to do some action for my needs on Wikipedia because I have blocked or that it is not considered like a duck from sockpuppet blocked users. I remind you that the duck sockpuppet blocked users punishable by the community on this project and that such changes quickly reversed. Does my case may be an exception to the community, and that possible through you as a benevolent administrator, of course with your request let you break the rules and to allow you to do a duck from sockpuppet blocked users. I 'd ask this as a positive and effective administrator. I'm asking you to help me , and notify the community of Wikipedia and other administrators by WP:AN or WP:ANI and open debate to make an exception and allow you to do duck for sockpuppet blocked users, specifically in this case, me. I do not understand why you by someone called the proposal would not do that because it's your duty when you are already doing a function of the administrator. Of course you know I if I 'm blocked not a criminal and that is blocking account an integral and natural part of the wikipedia , so I would therefore like to call me with respect. I do not care what is my account blocked permanently already bugging me why an action that I think needs to be done to improve Wikipedia was not made. I hope you've realized during our conservation that does not interest me much medals and acknowledgments in my Wikipedia account. My mission is to make Wikipedia a couple of changes, which I believe are necessary to improve Wikipedia and dressed up in the right situation. If I made these changes and to improve Wikipedia, I'd never had the desire to be the editor Wikipedia nor to use any account on this project. I turn to you to help me and I will be forever withdrawn from wikipedia , my account was blocked or functional. I expect a positive response from you and sincere help. 79.175.114.248 (talk) 09:10, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
-
-
- I did not read the above message. You are not welcome here. You have exhausted your appeals. I will now block your ip. HighInBC 16:01, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
-
That's nice.
When you're ready to discuss their setting up a targeting page and making threats, then come back and talk. Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz (talk) 18:03, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
- @Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz: I already told you that you are welcome to politely present evidence of any wrongdoing anyone else has done. This is however a matter unrelated to your use of personal attacks. HighInBC 21:21, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
hi
Without making excuses for Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz's use of four-letter words, which is not appropriate, I did want to drop you a quick note to tell you I believe he is being block shopped by two editors at the Occupation of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge article and implore you not to take any quick decisions (not that you would). I created this article and was heavily involved in editing it for the first week, along with about half-a-dozen other regulars who frequent this type of topic. Several days after the article was created, two editors arrived who began making very strange edits (not necessarily tendentious edits, just odd - unusual grammar, OR, inappropriately BOLD massive changes, strange formatting changes, etc.). The types of edits undertaken by these editors seem to me to indicate they are most likely of a certain type of editor who have a predisposition to see things arranged in certain ways, sequences and structure. (I don't feel it would be appropriate for me to be more descriptive than that, and hope you understand the condition to which I'm referring.)
Most of the regulars, myself included, who had been holding the fort have filtered away from this article due to frustration. Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz and one other are the only ones left and are probably feeling a little overwhelmed by what appears to be the emboldened efforts of these two (I'm sure well-meaning) editors. One of them recently, albeit unsuccessfully, tried to drag me to ANI several times and then - to underscore the strangeness of it all - reported himself. [[5]]
I only just became aware a few minutes ago that they are attempting to kneecap Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz at ANI and haven't had time to sludge through the entire novel. I'm traveling at the moment and can't be more involved, I just felt it was important - when I became aware this was happening a few minutes ago - to drop someone in a position of responsibility a quick note to let them know there's more going on here than appears in hope Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz doesn't get snowballed into a sanction. I suspect Prostetnic is a new editor without a network to call on, or a high level of savvy about process in the drama boards, and I've seen how this can sometimes go. Sorry this was a little rambly. Best - LavaBaron (talk)
- As I said to Jeltz above, people are welcome to gather evidence and politely display it for review if they believe someone is behaving badly. The personal attacks are a separate matter, they are not excused by the behaviour of others. As long as it does not continue I have no intention of taking any action. HighInBC 01:30, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
Absolutely, I agree completely. I posted a comment here regarding the specific charges that were made against Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz and recommending a WP:BOOMERANG block. I can just say I understand his frustration. He was reported at ANI for making personal attacks, the report included a tidal wave of diffs that - if one actually clicked on any of them - just link to random Talk page discussions and don't mention the complaining editors at all. In fact, it appears the complaining editor simply randomly posted diffs in the assumption if he posted enough it would be impossible to defend against the tidal wave.
The editor in question similarly relentlessly harangued me on my own Talk page declaring I was personally attacking him and seems obsessed with the idea that any disagreement against him constitutes a personal attack. Being a bit more experienced than Prostetnic, I probably was equipped to handle it better (i.e. not responding to a false accusation of a personal attack by making a real personal attack in retort), but it is truly one of the strangest exhibitions I've seen on WP recently. Anyway, again, sorry to bother you, but thanks for reading. LavaBaron (talk) 01:40, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
- I read through those diffs, they did indeed contain evidence of personal attacks. Not sure what you mean by saying they are random. HighInBC 01:43, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
-
-
-
- @HighInBC: I'm not sure which diffs you meant, High. If you meant the ones that I left Lava (linked in the preceding comment) then if this becomes important, I'd like a chance to be heard, but in a proper venue, which this isn't. All involved parties should have a chance to review the charge and my reply.NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 14:18, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
-
-
-
I read the ones that were posted on my Talk page [6] and saw no evidence of personal attacks. In looking at NEGuy's various sandboxes I can see that he spends hours and, in some cases days, constructing incredibly lengthy polemics against other editors he then parachutes onto their Talk pages or ANI. In his haranguing me on my own Talk page I've been exceptionally patient with NEGuy as it's very clear - based on his edit style - what the underlying issue is and, realizing it, I'm not prepared to lay blame on him for how he interacts with others. Nonetheless, I still don't like to see functional editors frustrated to the point of self-destruction. Anyway, I have to jet. Thanks again and take care - LavaBaron (talk) 02:20, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
- Well the diffs at ANI are pretty clear. "fuck you...Fuck you, NewsAndEventsGuy, clearly all you want to do is damage this article. Well go the fuck right ahead and do it." "And since those two uncivil jackholes who think they WP:OWN the article want to play games and run people off, they can have it, it's not worth the stress of dealing with them." "The uncivil and threatening antics of "NewsAndEventsGuy" and "Bondegezou" have shown me clearly that they are just going to continue to be assholes and not make it worth trying to improve the content." "You uncivil threatening jerks get what you want" "Maybe you should have thought of that before coming off as an uncivil asshole and writing up a hit piece as a threat."
- I hope now that I placed the diffs under your nose with quotes that you can see the evidence of personal attacks. Frankly this is the sort of behaviour I would not accept from a child, and they are lucky to have gotten off with a warning. HighInBC 04:32, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
- Also, if you are going to continue accusing editors of harassment or "haranguing" you then I must ask that you provide evidence. HighInBC 04:34, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
-
-
- I am thinking I must me misunderstanding something. It seems we are are not disagreeing like I thought we were. Not sure what part I have missed. HighInBC 16:47, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
- (talk page stalker)High, a possible point of confusion is that earlier you said you read some diffs and did think there was a NPA violation(s). It's possible you were referring to the DIFFS of comments by PVJ in the underlying ANI or the DIFFS Lava posted here containing my comments on his user page. If you meant A and Lava heard B that might be where things got confused. The place I'm confused is to wonder what to make of this private side bar assailing my character, that Lava initiated while seeking a Tban and without notifying me. I've never seen anything like this, since I've tried hard not to come to ANI except when FOC discussions are being impeded. Are side bars without notice while seeking Tbans common practice? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 17:26, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
- I am thinking I must me misunderstanding something. It seems we are are not disagreeing like I thought we were. Not sure what part I have missed. HighInBC 16:47, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
- I was only referring to the diffs that I quoted showing personal attacks by PVJ. As far as I can tell you have acted reasonably, while there have been accusations make against you I have yet to see any evidence of it.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- Yes this sort of thing is very common. I have been accused of all manner of things, but generally the evidence is as lacking s the basis of the accusations. I would not lose any sleep over it, nobody is going to take any action against you without some sort of evidence that you are acting in bad faith. HighInBC 17:38, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
- Oh, baseless accusation are routine [{WP:Don't take the bait|bait]] which I try hard to ignore. My question is about the process, which to my untutored eye looks like attempting to peddle influence behind closed doors. Chronology shows
- A. At ANI
- A1. 00:54, January 24, 2016 Lava makes DIFFless claims and asks that it be closed no action
- A2. 01:26, January 24, 2016 Lava initiates unilateral stealth canvassing campaign at HighInBC;s talk page. No names at first (they come later) but he takes pains to assassinate two "certain 'type of editor'" (scare quotes in original)
- A3. 01:30, January 24, 2016 Lava adds tban request
- B At your talk
- B1. 01:40, January 24, 2016 Lava launches stealth character assassination with an involved admin without notifying the assassination target
- A. At ANI
- SO THE QUESTION IS - Setting the accusations aside, is Lava's chosen process an example of improper canvassing/campaigning? Seems like everything Lava said here could..... no make that should have been said in the ANI in support of his Tban request, and even saying it here is OK, sure seems like he should have notified me. Instead I found out by watching his contribs, after the thread had mostly run its course to this point.NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 17:55, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
- Oh, baseless accusation are routine [{WP:Don't take the bait|bait]] which I try hard to ignore. My question is about the process, which to my untutored eye looks like attempting to peddle influence behind closed doors. Chronology shows
- Yes this sort of thing is very common. I have been accused of all manner of things, but generally the evidence is as lacking s the basis of the accusations. I would not lose any sleep over it, nobody is going to take any action against you without some sort of evidence that you are acting in bad faith. HighInBC 17:38, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
-
-
-
Assassination target? How dramatic. I think everyone involved would benefit by not personalizing this dispute and by using language that de-escalates the situation rather than language that dramatises it. What I see is a back and forth where all parties are exaggerating the behaviour of the others to near fantasy levels.
Admins can't really settle personal squabbles, what we can do is require that those squabbles take place with a reasonable level of civility.
To answer your question yes it is a bit of WP:FORUMSHOPPING, though I assure you it is ineffective. HighInBC 18:22, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks for the quick reply. Whatever you want to call it, WP:Campaigning and Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/American_politics_2#Behavioral standards certainly seem to apply but I'm not going to make an issue of it now (if Lava continues like that then all bets are off). I'll focus now on the original issue in the ANI thread. I don't believe its a fantasy to say PVJ is a very well intended editor who has made many valuable contributions. His massive blindspot is that he has not yet learned how to handle opposing logic when it arises in the "discuss" part of BRD, and can't handle constructive feedback. I will post diffs that walk easily through that story when I can.... answering Lava has taken a lot of time. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:05, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
- NEGuy, just a couple days ago, Wugapoles said - in one of your previous ANIs - that you "just need a clue adjustment. I feel like an admonishment that his actions have been disruptive is enough." [7] When you start talking about "All bets are off!" and "Assassination" I feel like you didn't take to heart the counsel you received there. Just a thought. I notice you already are building several more Wall of Text complaints ready to parachute into various threads [8]. I would suggest the encyclopedia would benefit more if you put this tremendous energy of yours, as well as your very fine exceptional research skills, into content edits instead. Don't you agree? I'm sure you do. LavaBaron (talk) 22:09, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
- Wugs was speaking as though everything you had said about me was true, without me having a chance to reply in a proper venue because you first asked for a tban and then withdrew it when I said I'd be happy to reply on the merits. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 22:23, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
- NEGuy, just a couple days ago, Wugapoles said - in one of your previous ANIs - that you "just need a clue adjustment. I feel like an admonishment that his actions have been disruptive is enough." [7] When you start talking about "All bets are off!" and "Assassination" I feel like you didn't take to heart the counsel you received there. Just a thought. I notice you already are building several more Wall of Text complaints ready to parachute into various threads [8]. I would suggest the encyclopedia would benefit more if you put this tremendous energy of yours, as well as your very fine exceptional research skills, into content edits instead. Don't you agree? I'm sure you do. LavaBaron (talk) 22:09, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
More abuse by either Bondezegou or NewsAndEventsGuy
I don't know which of the two of them keeps doing things like this [9] but I'm about 80% ready to just quit wikipedia over it. This is clear bullying, harassment and gaslighting and it seems like you are just supporting their ugly behavior. Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz (talk) 18:39, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
- I hope the wizards behind the server's curtain can track down the culprit. It certainly isn't me. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:06, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
- Blaming the victim [10] is a classic tactic of an abuser, NewsAndEventsGuy. I choose to take seriously the evaluations of your conduct by LavaBaron and MurderByDeletionism. Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz (talk) 19:45, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
Jeltz just ignore that troll. Whoever it is is just trying to piss you off and you are letting them. It is pointless and unhelpful to blame people unless you have evidence. Stop being baited, and stop making accusations without evidence. HighInBC 20:04, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
- Hello HighInBC. There's now a long ANI about PVJ, and I'm concerned that mudslinging will continue indefinitely. If there was any hope the ANI would reach a compromise, perhaps it should continue. But at present it appears there is enough reason to block one of the parties. An alternative would be full protection of one or more of the Malheur pages. But if the problem is really just one or two editors, and the pages are both important and fast moving, a block of the person complained about might be a better choice. A way out could be offered: PJV could accept a voluntary ban from Malheur-related topics. What do you think? EdJohnston (talk) 21:09, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
-
- @EdJohnston: I have given a warning to PVJ about personal attacks. While the outright name calling stopped they have engaged in accusations without evidence since then. This user has already accused me of siding with the bullies(presumably the IP vandal and/or the two users they are accusing the IP of being, not sure) so perhaps a decision from you would be better than one from me. Please review their contributions after my warning, take into account the anonymous harassment on their talk page and I will trust whatever judgement you come to will be a sensible one. HighInBC 21:15, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
<edit conflict>
-
- @HighInBC: and @EdJohnston:
- A. A page ban for PVJ won't really work because PVJ is now editing closely related pages where other regulars have been and/or are likely to go
- Oath keeper contribs
- Sovereign Citizen Movement
- And fewer contribs at bio pages for the individuals involved, and at the occupation timeline article, and at assorted others.
- A. A page ban for PVJ won't really work because PVJ is now editing closely related pages where other regulars have been and/or are likely to go
- All of these pages, or sections thereof, are under DS-AP, of which PVJ has notice.
- B. After PVJ posted a "I'll just leave" (paraphrase) msg at another's talk page, I inserted a comment saying in part, "I don't want you to go. It would help, though, if you take a day or two to study the behavioral stuff about consensus, dispute resolution, assuming good faith, and so on."
C. I will still add my DIFFS about my take on PVJ unless this closes in the meantime.NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 21:41, 24 January 2016 (UTC) UPDATE.............Diffs were just added to my existing comment. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 22:20, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
- @HighInBC: and @EdJohnston: - I fully endorse your suggestion of full page protection. About a week into the page creation, on about January 10, I requested that myself. We only got semi- protection (which was still helpful, though). The major issue that is causing tension at the page are excessively BOLD edits, and people pushing through edits on questions that are the subject of active RfCs, prompting retaliatory reverts, frustration, etc. Essentially, the issue is a chaotic environment. Full page protection would slow the process of editing, to be sure, but a week of that is frankly the breather we need to get back into cooperative, discussion-based expansion and improvement. LavaBaron (talk) 22:42, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
- I see no evidence there is a problem at the page, or at the talk page. Nearly all the drama has played out in user talk and ANI. In the meantime, a lot of good work is being done at the page, with smooth BRD for the most part. Consequently, the only thing page protection would do is get in the way. In addition, full PP would punish everyone even though the main issue is PVJ's inability to handle logic and consensus going against him/her. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 23:31, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
- No, the main issue is excessively BOLD editing precipitating a chaotic work environment. Let's not personalize the underlying problem by shotgunning out elbow jabs like "[Editor]'s inability to handle logic!" It's uncalled for and comes across as WP:BLUDGEONING within the context of your voluminous posts about PVJ to this point. Let's look at creative solutions to proactively address the underlying issue, not ways we can lay waste to our enemies. Full PP would punish no one, it is not a punitive measure. Editing could continue during full PP in a more methodical environment without sweeping section rewrites occurring every few hours. LavaBaron (talk) 23:37, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
-
- Why did you de-archive a subsection 23:46 Jan 24 from the talk archives? You started the tread proposing to abort discussion of one of my proposals that wasn't very clear. Everyone (I think) including me agreed to let it die until I redrafted a more clear proposal. Is there a point to un-archiving that one? It's dead, please put it back in the ground. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 23:56, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
- I think your use of the word "everyone" as a synonym for yourself underscores a need for full PP. (To be clear, this is not just a "you" problem, there are other editors who need to slow down, too.) I have exhausted myself at the page (which is part of the reason I left), reverting BOLD archiving and closures of very active discussions when someone unilaterally decided it had run its course. This is part of the reason the rare step of protecting even the Talk page was briefly applied. LavaBaron (talk) 00:05, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
- Why did you de-archive a subsection 23:46 Jan 24 from the talk archives? You started the tread proposing to abort discussion of one of my proposals that wasn't very clear. Everyone (I think) including me agreed to let it die until I redrafted a more clear proposal. Is there a point to un-archiving that one? It's dead, please put it back in the ground. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 23:56, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
-
- No, the main issue is excessively BOLD editing precipitating a chaotic work environment. Let's not personalize the underlying problem by shotgunning out elbow jabs like "[Editor]'s inability to handle logic!" It's uncalled for and comes across as WP:BLUDGEONING within the context of your voluminous posts about PVJ to this point. Let's look at creative solutions to proactively address the underlying issue, not ways we can lay waste to our enemies. Full PP would punish no one, it is not a punitive measure. Editing could continue during full PP in a more methodical environment without sweeping section rewrites occurring every few hours. LavaBaron (talk) 23:37, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
- I see no evidence there is a problem at the page, or at the talk page. Nearly all the drama has played out in user talk and ANI. In the meantime, a lot of good work is being done at the page, with smooth BRD for the most part. Consequently, the only thing page protection would do is get in the way. In addition, full PP would punish everyone even though the main issue is PVJ's inability to handle logic and consensus going against him/her. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 23:31, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
- @HighInBC: and @EdJohnston:
I am really not sure what I can add to this stew. Perhaps this could continue on one of your talk pages? HighInBC 23:58, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
Can I remove abuse from Talk pages?
Hi. Thanks for bringing my ANI complaint to a resolution. I am unhappy about the amount of baseless vitriol that Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz has spread over a variety of pages about me. Do you think it would be appropriate if I removed edits like this from Talk:Occupation of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge? Bondegezou (talk) 16:15, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
- Since I was also named in the DIFF provided by Bondegezou, I'd like to just add that I don't care, so long as PVJ sticks to their promise to leave Wikipedia. If they want to come back, then I'd view his/her multi venue nastiness as a large problem for their renewed participation anywhere in the project. Why anywhere in the project? As Captain Picard once said, "It's easy to transfer a problem to someone else. Too easy." NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 16:27, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
-
- It has been hatted, I would just let it go. HighInBC 17:49, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
- Sure. OK. Bondegezou (talk) 21:45, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
- This is taking it's time to die down. I've just reverted this: [11] Thought you might want to know with your name being taken in vain. Bondegezou (talk) 14:46, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
- While a range block might be appropriate, another approach is to just ignore it and let them get bored, per WP:DENY. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 14:50, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
- This is taking it's time to die down. I've just reverted this: [11] Thought you might want to know with your name being taken in vain. Bondegezou (talk) 14:46, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
- Sure. OK. Bondegezou (talk) 21:45, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
- It has been hatted, I would just let it go. HighInBC 17:49, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
Indefinite block of User:జేమ్స్ బాండ్
Why did you go out of your way to indefinitely block this user after just one edit (the characters in his/her user name do not display on my browser)? The edit was clearly satirical. From my point of view, as a content builder, the edit did not seem altogether unfair or uninformed. What is it you think is so unreasonable and non-negotiable about this edit that it should be permanently suppressed in such an authoritarian manner? Is it that the editor is a sock puppet? --Epipelagic (talk) 07:50, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
- @Epipelagic: That was about the 50th sock puppet account created by a particular banned user this year alone. They always use a similar name and poetry. I would think the fact that the post mentions numerous Wikipedians would be a hint that it was a sock puppet, however I should have been more clear in the block log. I hope this explains everything to you.
- Also even if this was not a sock puppet the post in addition to being satirical was also harassment. We do not allow harassment, even if you think it is "fair" or "informed". Our vandalism only account page describes how we deal with users who both engage in disruptive behaviour and have zero history of positive contributions. If the authoritarian nature of this practice upsets you then you can propose a change on its talk page, or the talk page of the blocking policy. HighInBC 15:35, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
If it was a sock puppet with long-standing issues then there is no issue. You could have made that clear in the block log summary by referring to the sock master. Instead you justified the block on the grounds that it was a "vandalism-only account" (based on just one edit). You did not mention harassment.
You misrepresent what I said above. I said nothing that could be remotely construed as a sweeping claim that the IP's edit was fair and informed. Some of it was not fair and not informed. What I said was that it "did not seem altogether unfair or uninformed". --Epipelagic (talk) 18:27, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
- It was not my goal to misrepresent you, to me it seems like a distinction without a difference. You said "the edit did not seem altogether unfair or uninformed" which to me suggested you thought it was even a little fair. If this is not the case then I must have misunderstood. I wonder if the two of us are even talking about the same edit[12].
- To clarify my position it did seem altogether unfair, how informed it is is rather immaterial. The harassment seems self evident and did not in my mind require any sort of explanation.
- While it was a sock puppet, it was also a vandalism only account so my block reason was sufficient. Vandalism only accounts are often blocked after even just one edit, especially when that edit attacks several editors. I hope this has cleared things up for you. HighInBC 20:41, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
- Oh and just so you know this particular troll thrives off the type of attention you are giving this matter. It is pretty much why they go around getting blocked all day long. HighInBC 20:45, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
Talk page Muhammad
Thanks for the manual of style link at the end. I somehow entirely overlooked that section earlier! As for the general tone of conversation, I consider it far better to assume honest error of habit, rather than ill wishes or flaunting of rules. At least until there's a trend that continues after guidance has been given. Thanks a million for that link!Wzrd1 (talk) 17:56, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
- I assume you are referring to the use of PBUH. If you mean the discretionary sanction topic ban I issued a short while back, I assure you it was not an isolated incident. I believe the person described it more as a "obligation" than a "habit". HighInBC 20:47, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
-
-
- I chose to make it a relatively short topic ban, I sincerely hope they can mange to edit neutrally in the future. HighInBC 16:14, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
-
Hope burns eternal, albeit infrequently satisfied.Wzrd1 (talk) 14:20, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
I'm not banned but blocked
@HighInBC: Why do you allow you to another administrator interfere with the conversation? I'm not banned but blocked. 109.121.29.7 (talk) 15:22, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
- You can only appeal through your original account or though WP:UTRS, and if you are the same person as before then you are very much defacto banned. HighInBC 16:10, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia: check out the Teahouse!
- Not really a new user, but thanks anyways. HighInBC 16:12, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
-
-
- I prefer something a little stronger than tea, like beer! HighInBC 16:17, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
-
86.xx disruptive editing continues to go on
Hi there -- despite you blocking the last IP, they've moved onto another address -- 86.187.162.202 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). Probably best to take the unfortunate step of protecting the pages where these IPs are editing, no? Thanks, My name isnotdave (talk/contribs) 18:35, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
- I think it is better to just revert block and ignore at this point. However if it keeps up a temporary semi protection of the pages may be in order. HighInBC 19:20, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for supporting my RfA
Hawkeye7 RfA Appreciation award | |
Thank you for participating in and supporting my RfA. It was very much appreciated. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:21, 1 February 2016 (UTC) |
- I am not sure how it will turn out as the 'crats are still talking, but it was a pleasure to be able to support you. HighInBC 20:36, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
Confirmation
Same question like here: Is that you? Greetings, Luke081515 16:01, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
- No it is not me. The same troll did something similar on other projects but using an IP.
- How were they able to register my username there? I thought unified prevented this sort of impersonation? HighInBC 17:08, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
- Of course I have a registered PGP identity so an attempt to impersonate we would be easily recoverable from. HighInBC 17:10, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
- (Global account log); 18:34 . . Luke081515 (talk | contribs | block) changed status for global account "User:HighInBC@global": set locked; unset (none) (Abusive user name: per https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=702958049)
- The account is now locked at the whole beta-cluster.
- The problem at beta: Beta has a seperate unified login at alle beta-cluster projects, (a second CentralAuth cluster, for testing for exmaple), so everyone can create an account with a username which exists at this wiki. Greetings, Luke081515 17:36, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
-
-
- I see. That makes sense. Some people have more time than things to do it seems. I for one am rather busy. Thank you for catching this. HighInBC 17:38, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
-
I know exactly how
Crat chats work so if your parting jibe is aimed at me, forget it you're barking up the wrong tree. You've missed the point that several experienced editors made. Jo's input wasn't needed. Simple as that. Leaky Caldron 13:04, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
- My parting comment was neither a jab, nor aimed at you. I was mostly referring to those who thought that being >66% meant an automatic pass and some of the other suggestions by others that gave the impression of being new there.
- My only rebuttal to you was that your argument was not based on the facts at hand, but rather on some hypothetical absent 'crat that nobody knew asking for a week. That simply was not the case.
- I don't think anyone is suggesting the Jo's input was required. My point remains that there is no hurry and we should just let the 'crats do their job. It no skin off of your nose or ours if they go through the motions. Jo said he wanted to comment, and they wait for his comment. Since it is a discussion and not a vote it is indeed possible that Jo could have made some argument that was persuasive. I really don't see where the fire was, it not even open for that long.
- I agree there was little reason to wait, but there was not reason to hurry. HighInBC 15:30, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
The opening sentence of your reply above is not consistent with the facts. "I was mostly referring to those who thought that being >66% meant an automatic pass". But the comment you made was in the section about the closing. No where in that section is any reference made to the closing percentage nonsense which was, I agree, contributed to by newish to RfA editors. So this: "I suspect that the watchlist notice has brought some people here who don't know what to expect. They probably don't realize how normal this situation is. Don't worry though, after a few weeks of advertising RfA people will catch up" is in the wrong section, right? Leaky Caldron 16:19, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
- I will repeat again what I said before, it was not a jab and it was not aimed at you. The word "mostly" means a lot but not all. I was not really thinking in "sections", the whole page was running together. I hope that addresses your concerns about my first sentence.
- The intention of my reply was to explain why I thought there was no hurry to close. That first paragraph was just to alleviated your concerns about the comment being a jab at you. I hope now you don't take the comment personally because it was not about you specifically.
- I would be far more interested in discussing the boring topic of 'crat chat expediency than the even more boring exercise of carefully examining whatever wording I chose to use, but whatever floats your boat. HighInBC 16:44, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
Here is one example
The text was "A large number of". Now is it "Some"... This edit replaced sourced text with OR. So what does the source say? "Today, a substantial number of chiropractors are anxious to sever all remaining ties to the vitalism of innate intelligence."[13] There are a lot more. QuackGuru (talk) 18:35, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
- Perhaps I am dim and am missing something, can you point me to where the original research is in your example? It seems to be that both versions are supported by the source. HighInBC 18:42, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
Please show how both versions are supported by the source. The source does not say "some". It says "A large number of". The change contradicts the source. QuackGuru (talk) 18:46, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
- It does not say "A large number of", it says "a substantial number of". The source is very vague. What is a "substantial" number after all? I would call 8 chiropractors in my room substantial, 5 in an elevator. The definition of "some" is entirely consistent with what little information about the number of such chiropractors is given by the source.
- I think the root of the problem is that you are seeing the information in terms of certainty when in they are very much open to interpretation. HighInBC 18:42, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
- I see there is a lively debate on the talk page to demonstrate that the information is open to interpretation. It seems as though this is about consensus not going your way, not some problem with Wikipedia. HighInBC 18:50, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
The previous text in the article said "A large number of". The source says "a substantial number of". The word "some" contradicts the source. QuackGuru (talk) 18:52, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
- Repeating yourself is not going to convince anyone. Explain to me how "some" which means "an unspecified amount or number of" contradicts "substantial" which is pretty much an unspecified amount?
- I get you have an opinion on this matter, but so do other people. I see nothing that makes your opinion objectively correct or special. HighInBC 18:57, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
Two other editors during the RfC said "large number of" was the c/e. We have a specified number. It is substantial according to RS. The word "some" is not a synonym for "large" or "substantial". QuackGuru (talk) 18:59, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
- I am not going to debate the specifics of this content dispute. Nobody has suggested that the words are synonyms. My point is that your opinion that they are contradictory is an opinion and not one shared by everyone.
- Surely this one dispute over a few words is not the basis of your assertion that we don't enforce OR. This is a content dispute plain and simple.
- Do you have more? Because this single example hasn't demonstrated that there is a problem with Wikipedia's approach to OR. HighInBC
I have more but I am not interested in showing you more. Another editor added sources that do not support the claim.[14] I will be dealing with it myself since admins do not police article content. The word "some" is not a synonym of "substantial".[15] Therefore it is OR. The word "large" is a synonym for "substantial".[16] Therefore it is sourced. The reason I chose this example because it is very apparent which word is inaccurate. QuackGuru (talk) 20:11, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
- This conversations has confirmed my suspicions that this is really about you not liking people disagreeing with you, coupled with the fact that you seem to think you are so right the other peoples opinions are invalid. I am not surprised you don't want to show me more examples, I am thinking it is probably just more of the same. HighInBC 03:10, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
It has been confirmed by another editor that the current wording is OR and my new proposal is better. QuackGuru (talk) 03:12, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
- Look I have no horse in this race, I could not care less which word is used. If consensus goes your way then that is wonderful, but if it does not then that is not an indication that our OR policy is wrong. Just that consensus did not go your way. HighInBC 03:41, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
We can have super admins that want to have a horse in the race and will prevent this kind of thing from happening over and over again. Consensus does override OR because both words cannot be right. QuackGuru (talk) 03:43, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
- Administrators are not to wield authority over content. The community has made a very conscious decision to not allow admins to use their tools in a content dispute. Any admin who does as you suggest would get rightfully desysoped.
- Your ideas would make sense on another site, but this is not it. Allowing a small group to have authority over content would destroy our neutral point of view which is one of our pillars. HighInBC 03:47, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
Admins do not police article content and there is no place on Wikipedia to quickly get the OR out of mainspace when it is added to any article. I can't think of any ideas that will work in the short term. This serious problem remains unresolved. QuackGuru (talk) 03:51, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
- Once again you have only demonstrated the problem of you not getting your way. Administrators certainly can enforce the original research policy, it is just that your example is not an original research issue. The source did not give a specific amount, the word "some" means an undetermined amount.
- You repeating the mantra that those who take a contrary opinion to you are engaging in OR does not make it so.
- Actual real original research violations are dealt with on a daily basis by both administrators and diligent members of the community. If you have not done so already I suggest you spend some time with the people at WP:NORN, they are the experts around here about OR. Next time you are super sure you are right and everyone else is wrong get their opinion. Think of them as super editors instead of the super admins you wanted. HighInBC 03:58, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
I was accused of canvassing the last time I went to a noticeboard to explain there was OR in an article. QuackGuru (talk) 04:02, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
- I sincerely doubt that is the whole story. There must be more to it than that. Canvassing and posting on a noticeboard are not even related. Frankly your accounts of events have been so far from the reality I really can't make much of your statement.
- I have unwatchlisted your essay, it is fine in userspace as long as it is not used to attack people. HighInBC 04:15, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
There was editing warring between two versions. I stayed out of the edit warring. But I was accused of canvasing at a noticeboard for pointing out there was OR in the article. QuackGuru (talk) 04:20, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
- Well if the accusation was as you say it was then it seems pretty random and baseless and I would not worry about it. HighInBC 04:21, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
An admin accused me. QuackGuru (talk) 04:24, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
- If you want me to look into that you will have to provide me with links. I am not interested in being fed dribs and drabs of your version of events. HighInBC 05:09, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
It is complicated with multiple editors. There was a previous ArbCom case before this happened. It was a mess. I can have you look at it maybe this summer. It is too early. I am waiting for some of them too lose interest. My archive shows some of the mess. QuackGuru (talk) 05:14, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
- Just so it is clear, you are allowed to post at noticeboards, if an admin won't let you come tell me and I will ask them why not. HighInBC 05:15, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
This might eventually go to AN/I to reverse the decision. I will think about it what I can do. I am not interested in going to any board at the moment. I hope what happened can be overturned. I probably can't say what it is at the moment. I don't want to be accused of anything. QuackGuru (talk) 05:25, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
-
- QuackGuru I already explained to you on VP that citing a Review Article is inappropriate. You need to go get the actual article that the author based HIS article on. We call this a secondary citation in the peer-review world and is a big no-no. Mrfrobinson (talk) 12:48, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
Closure of "Admin edits my post to deliberately change the meanin"
HighInBC, you are involved and closed the thread at AN/I. When JzG was being disruptive and you did not say to him to stop before this went to AN/I. In his edit summary he said "What a chump." He was not warned about this. You should not of closed the thread. It looks very bad. QuackGuru (talk) 17:27, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
- Any user is welcome to give a warning, that is not something you need an admin for. I did not say to him to stop before this went to AN/I because I did not see it, you know because I was not involved in that dust-up. My involvement seems to be limited to participating in the MfD and is tangential involvement at best. What action do you suggest I take? HighInBC 17:37, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
- If @DrChrissy: or @JzG: or any other admin feels I am too involved they are welcome to reverse the close. Otherwise I see nothing wrong with it. HighInBC 17:40, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
It was wrong for admins to ignore the uncivil behavior at the talk page. QuackGuru (talk) 17:42, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
In the closing you wrote in part: "I am tangentially involved in this issue as I participated in the MfD, if any admin, or any person involved finds this closure to be too involved I welcome them to reverse it." I am involved, yet you disagree with reversing the close. QuackGuru (talk) 17:46, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
- You commented but it hardly involved you, I meant people that were actually involved. I am not extending you that offer because I find your judgement frequently flawed, nothing personal but that is my observation. HighInBC 17:48, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
I made complaints too. That makes me involved. You also commented on the talk page and editing the essay. It was more than the MFD. QuackGuru (talk) 17:51, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
- You always make complaints, it is your thing. Leave my closure alone. If neither JzG or DrChrissy object to the close, and no other admin does, then I see no reason to change it to satisfy your complaints. HighInBC 17:52, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
- I hope this removes the ambiguity from my position: [17]. HighInBC 17:55, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
- It's remarkable how someone with such a history of blocks and editing restrictions still seems to think that it's everybody else who is disruptive. I suspect QG will eventually end up with a siteban simply because of his obsessive approach to every trivial content dispute. As far as Ic an make out, the massive problem of OR that makes the chiropractic article an embarrassment tot he whole of Wikipedia comes down to one word: should it be many, some, most, or what. He's as bad as the chiropractic shills themselves, which is saying something (as any reader of Edzard Ernst's website will know, they have the same tolerance for constructive criticism as your average Bond villain). Guy (Help!) 17:59, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
- Your behaviour has not been a sterling example of an ideal admin either. Frankly you have been escalating things when they don't need escalating. Try to avoid commenting on the editors themselves, and if needed focus on their behaviour in a productive fashion. Otherwise just try to avoid them.
- I agree that the dispute is one of the silliest I have seen in years, and has been blown up beyond all proportions. But don't let others drag you down to their level. HighInBC 18:02, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
- All an admin can do is block. As you say a warning is appropriate, go ahead and issue one. HighInBC 17:48, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
According to you a warning is appropriate, that is not what you did. If you did give then a warning please provide a diff. QuackGuru (talk) 17:56, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
- You are the one who wants a warning to be issued, if you want one then issue it. I am not your servant and warnings are not the domain of admins. HighInBC 17:57, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
Do you think a warning is appropriate for JzG considering the recent comments at the essay talk page and this comment?[18] QuackGuru (talk) 18:06, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
- If you look very carefully you will see I already responded to that comment with some criticism and sincere advice. What exactly are you looking for here? HighInBC 18:10, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
Nothing from you. To be clear, OR is not trivial. QuackGuru (talk) 18:25, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
- Nobody suggested it was. HighInBC 18:29, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
You said "I agree that the dispute is one of the silliest I have seen in years". QuackGuru (talk) 18:34, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
- You are the one insisting it is an OR issue. In my opinion it is a content dispute. The silly part is how a simple content dispute has exploded into so much drama. This is a matter that reasonable people could have resolved reasonably. HighInBC 19:25, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
The source does not support the current text in the lede. I made another proposal. Another editor agreed with me. I understand that admins state OR is always a content dispute. We don't have expert review or super admins. I wish some super editors could review it. I won't be going to the OR board. That could cause more drama. I don't want to be accused of canvassing. QuackGuru (talk) 22:06, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
- Thank you for your opinion. I assure you I am aware of it and there is no need to repeat it over and over. I disagree with your opinion. You are no longer providing new information in this discussion and thus the productivity is rapidly dropping. Tell yourself whatever you like. HighInBC 22:36, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for your comments too. QuackGuru (talk) 22:37, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
- You're welcome. HighInBC 22:38, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
I would like to open a WP:DRR request for this Talk:Paleolithic_diet#Original_research_in_the_lede and other issues. I would like an uninvolved admin to open it. I don't want to be accused of anything. Thoughts? QuackGuru (talk) 22:46, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
- If you don't want to be accused of anything then this is the wrong website. I get accused of about 50 things a month here. Nobody is going to argue your point for you, much less someone uninvolved. If you argue your point in a non-disruptive way, and respect the opinions of others you will be fine. Any accusation can be refuted and if truly baseless and inappropriate responded to with administrative action.
- Admins handle behaviour and policy, we do not get involved in content disputes as a matter of policy. Anyone who acting as an admin got into a content dispute would get desysoped. Any admin to did involve themselves in such a dispute must not act as an admin in that area.
- I know you have been told all of this already. Admins are not going to fight your content disputes for you, and any that does will not be an admin for long. I am not such a fool. HighInBC 00:28, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
Okay. Got it. Admins do not get involved and super editors are hard to find. QuackGuru (talk) 00:34, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
- They sure are. HighInBC 01:38, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
The bright blue sig looks nice. QuackGuru (talk) 01:55, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
- Its colour depends on what page I am posting on. HighInBC 01:58, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
Gook luck. Thanks for everything. QuackGuru (talk) 02:04, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
- Peace. HighInBC 02:08, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for your support
Peacemaker67 RfA Appreciation award | |
Thank you for participating and supporting at my RfA. It was very much appreciated, and I am humbled that the community saw fit to trust me with the tools. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:03, 6 February 2016 (UTC) |
Thanks!
For sending me a welcoming message!--الكاتب السابع (talk) 07:48, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
You around?
IP you blocked for atheist scum comments now has an account, CU checked., will you do the honours? Doug Weller talk 20:06, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
- Sure, which account would that be? HighInBC 03:39, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
-
- Sorry, I should have linked. Here's the block log[19] - you'll see I hardblocked just before I went to bed. The account is [20], an account created the day before your block last night.[21] I guess some sort of explanation on the account's talk page would be a good idea, and I'll do that later on so others can get an idea of the context. If you think an unblock notice on the account's talk page would be a good idea, go ahead and add it. Doug Weller talk 09:51, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
-
-
- You just welcomed him to Wikipedia and suggested that he get an account. He got an account and you blocked it indefinitely,[22] but he's still editing from his IP as your earlier block has expired. Doug Weller talk 16:27, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
-
So hard to keep track of the sock puppet show. On which IP has the earlier block expired? HighInBC 16:35, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
- [23], his account is indefinitely blocked so this is block evasion. Doug Weller talk 17:06, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
I am a bit busy right now. Feel free to act on this yourself. HighInBC 23:00, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
- I have, thanks. Just didn't want to do something you might not have been happy about. Doug Weller talk 12:47, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
-
- I trust your discretion. Thanks for the courtesy. HighInBC 15:45, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
79.78.168.63
After my WP:ANI post, you warned this user, and now he did it again. I am so fed up with his protracted edit warring, that I would like to see him summarily blocked. The question is, do you also think so, or is there some other procedure you would recommend? Debresser (talk) 01:19, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
- Indeed. It is clearly someone trying to win through stubbornness under the anonymity of an IP. If it happens after this block let me know. HighInBC 04:01, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
- I made it a hard block so if they do have an account it should get hit to. HighInBC 04:02, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
Image Licensing/Main Article Photo Change Help
Hello,
I'm fairly new to contributing to Wikipedia. I'm trying to have the main article photo for Christina Aguilera's page changed (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Christina_Aguilera), and have been unable to do so because of "licensing" issues. I believe I've found an image covered under Creative Commons licensing by a verified ABC Press Flickr account, but am now being told "a SPER, also known as a Semi-Protected edit request, is a bit outside the scope of my request".
Any advice for how to proceed with changing the main article photo? Thank you! Fifty1Fifty (talk) 09:29, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
- Any evidence that it does indeed have a compatible license should be presented at the talk page of the article. If people are not convinced then there is little to be done. My own opinion is that we don't really know for sure that the fickr account is authorized to release those pictures. HighInBC 16:36, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
Edits
Hi HighinBC, maybe this follow-up IP [24] is an SP of your edit before? Just to let you know. Horseless Headman (talk) 16:45, 11 February 2016 (UTC).
- WP:RBI successful! Thanks. HighInBC 16:52, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
My question on the humanities refdesk
I'd like to inquire about your decision to remove my question.
Firstly, your statement of "we don't give legal advice". I thought I made it clear that my question arose due to a story I read on a website (and my curiousity regarding the legality of the writer's behaviour), NOT on any intention on my part to attempt to watch child or adolescent sexual activity. Do you disagree with the views expressed at Wikipedia:Reference desk advice? (I know it's only an essay, so you're free to disagree with it, I'm just asking). I thought my question conformed to the approach of the essay as to legal advice?
As to your assertion that my question was inappropriate, well, I can somewhat sympathize, but I do disagree. Questions on wikipedia that involve issues of pedophilia or hebephilia occasionally tend to devolve into ugly messes, from what I've seen, and my question might well have had the potential to devolve into a similar mess. But my question was an sincere and honest one, NOT an intention to s*** stir or troll. I honestly do not know the answer, and am curious. Should we ban all questions of this sort simply on the basis that they may evoke extreme emotional responses? (I want rational answers, I'm not interested in causing chaos). Note that I did not comment in any way on the morality of the actions of the actual or hypothetical individuals in my question. It was simply about the law.
(I can imagine some people responding with things along the lines of "THE GUY IS AN EVIL PEDO WHO DESERVES HIS HEAD BLOWN OFF" or "YOU'RE A PERVERT FOR ASKING SUCH A QUESTION" rather than attempting to actually answer my question).
Now, you are entitled to your opinion that my question is inappropriate for the refdesk, and I am not going to expend great energy trying to change your mind. My question to you is, given that wikipedia is a consensus-driven project, where would be the appropriate location for me to ask other editors what they think? The refdesk talk page? (I'm just an occasional editor, not a wikipedia regular, so I don't know).
As a secondary issue, if it turns out that most others agree with you, do you have any suggestions as to any other sites which may be able to offer an opinion on the issues raised in my removed question? Eliyohub (talk) 16:31, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
- Looking through your contribution history I see little contribution to the encyclopedia itself. My questions to you are:
-
- How is the question helping the encyclopedia?
- Are you here to contribute the encyclopedia?
- In regards to your last question I don't frequent the sort of site that would be interested in that question so I have no idea. HighInBC 17:04, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
- I agree with HighInBC's removal of the question. The question is quite specific and falls into the realm of legal advice. We can only answer "textbook style" questions, such as "what countries recognize common marriage?". Also, please note that the question doesn't seem best suited for Wikipedia. As our guidelines on the reference desk point out, it should be used to help refine and improve the encyclopedia. The specific instance that you've mentioned is so nuanced that it won't benefit the encyclopedia. Your question may be better suited to a question and answer website, such as Yahoo! Answers or Quora. Mike V • Talk 17:20, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
- Mike V, I respect your opinion, and will not attempt to replace the question on the desk. But may I pose a question on the refdesk's talk page asking for suggestions as to more appropriate sites to answer my question? You've suggested yahoo answers and quora (and I may try them), but I wonder if there may be others as well.
- HignInBC, I would like to make some remarks, merely with regard to future questions I may pose on the desks.
- Firstly, I believe the issue was raised in the past about people participating on the refdesks whilst making minimal contributions to article-space. As I understand it, the consensus was that it's ok.
- Also, Mike V, may I mention that whilst the initial purpose of the refdesks may have been to scout for information to improve articles (and it is sometimes still used for this purpose), common practice nowadays seems to be to allow questions which have nothing to do with potential article contributions. Eliyohub (talk) 04:19, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
It is important that you recognize that the goal of wikipedia is to produce an encyclopedia. While questions that do not help the encyclopedia are often answered, they are done so out courtesy. It is not our purpose. It is certainly not the purpose of the project to draw a line showing what is legal and what is not.
If you really want to know if it is legal to watch kids jerk off for ones own sexual gratification[25] you should hire a lawyer to tell you, not ask people on the Internet. Frankly I would rather occupy my mind with other matters. HighInBC 04:58, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
- If I had any intention of actually doing that (watching kids jerk off or have sex), than yes, I would be well-advised to speak to a lawyer, not post a wikipedia question. But in the future, would it be possible to "hat" my questions (or any questions, for that matter) if you think them inappropriate, rather than removing them? Is there a wikipedia guideline or policy on the issue of hatting-versus-removal in regards to inappropriate refdesk questions? Eliyohub (talk) 14:13, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
-
- Your intentions don't enter into it. You are asking to define if very specific behaviour is legal or not, this is legal advice. People who want legal opinions should hire a lawyer and not ask on Wikipedia. We don't give legal advice. I could think of a few more ways of saying it if that would help you understand.
-
- I removed it because it was not appropriate, I am not going to hat something that needs to be removed. I don't really want to talk about this any more, if you still disagree with my action then you are welcome to draw greater scrutiny towards it, however I am done explaining myself. HighInBC 18:17, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
Courtesy ANI notice
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is What good are WP:RS and WP:V if administrators ignore them?. Thank you. -- The Voidwalker Discuss 21:31, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
Advice on Ordering "Major Organizations"
Sorry to bother, but you helped resolve a dispute with the Uechi-ryū "Major Organization" page. I noticed that the order has been changed at least twice without a reason that I could find. Perhaps I missed it. Anyways, I suspect it has to do with disagreement over which organization is bigger or more important. I opened a Talk topic on it:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Uechi-ryū#Major_Organizations_Part-II
and would welcome your input. 98.227.140.14 (talk) 23:50, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
I took this to the Help Desk which recommended I seek a formal Dispute resolution.98.227.140.14 (talk) 22:55, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
- Hello. I am a bit busy these days. If you need urgent administrative attention you might want to consider asking somebody else. HighInBC 23:16, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
79.78.168.63 again
79.78.168.63 is at it again at Hebrew calendar. Even the recent WP:ANI discussion hasn't brought home the point that edit warring is not allowed. Debresser (talk) 16:48, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
- Your Sabbath rest doesn't seem to have done you much good. The recent ANI discussion resulted in a consensus that Marcheshvan is the name of the month. How is reverting to a consensus version edit warring? In your edit summary you say you are reverting vandalism. I don't see any vandalism there - which specific changes are you complaining about? 79.78.168.63 (talk) 16:55, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
- That was a personal attack, regarding my Shabbat rest.
- Looking at the WP:ANI discussion again, let me quote the conclusion: "The part of the discussion relevant to admin tools or actions seems resolved. The remainder is a content dispute better discussed and dealt with in the article talk page." Is it me, or am I missing the part where it says that there is "a consensus that Marcheshvan is the name of the month"? I did see "The bottom line here is not that 79...'s point of view is factually incorrect. It is that a case can be made either way factually, that the standing consensus under the circumstances is to handle it in the current way, and that consensus has not been reached to change that approach. And that is what 79... chooses to ignore." So you are either incapable of understanding the conclusion of the discussion, which would be a case of WP:INCOMPETENT, or you are deliberate misrepresenting it. Debresser (talk) 17:23, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
- If pointing out that a rest does not seem to have been beneficial is a personal attack, God help us. Allegations of incompetence and misrepresentation most definitely are personal attacks. Another personal attack is the allegation of "vandalism" when it appears all you are objecting to is the replacement of the word "Cheshvan" with "Marcheshvan", which is a tiny percentage of the edit.
-
-
- You want "sometimes abbreviated to Cheshvan" changed to "or Cheshvan". You are presenting the reader with a choice, but you don't give him the information he needs to make an intelligent choice between the alternatives presented. Why not?
-
-
-
- At the next point of disagreement again you deny information to the reader. You want to write "Marcheshvan/Cheshvan". Another multiple - choice question for the poor reader. Some people could be forgiven for thinking we are trying to write an encyclopaedia here.
-
-
-
- Finally, you present the reader with a fait accompli. You want to write
-
- Both Cheshvan and Kislev have 29 days.
- Cheshvan has 29 days while Kislev has 30 days.
- Both Cheshvan and Kislev have 30 days.
- the number of days in Cheshvan and Kislev;
No mention of Marcheshvan at all.
Then you disingenuously represent that Steven's opinion is the words of the closer. The consensus was summed up here:
... yes, the real name is Marcheshvan, not Cheshvan.
Did you somehow miss that as you were reading? 79.78.168.63 (talk) 19:15, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
I am not able to devote any time to this today. If it is urgent then you may wish to seek another administrator. HighInBC 20:05, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
- I am not in a hurry, so I can wait. Unless you want some new eyes on this IP's edits, of course. Debresser (talk) 00:50, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
Update at 16:18, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for your continued support. Question: do you know if anyone has ever done a CU on this IP as a possible sock of User:Vote (X) for Change? The line of argumentation on this issue has been quite similar to arguments of socks of that user. To be sure: I have no particular evidence of this, only suspicion. StevenJ81 (talk) 16:18, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
- That particular user changes IPs so regularly that I don't think a CU will reveal anything. The fact that the IP has been keeping the same IP for months now tells me it is likely something different. If they seem alike it may be because neither of them is particularly creative and that people like them are unfortunately fairly common. If they are the same, or if they are different people the response will be the same so I don't think it really matters. HighInBC 16:22, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Dum(eff)istan
This action
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dumbfuckistan&action=edit&redlink=1
seems to shows a lack of understanding of how widespread, and with what usages, this term is.
https://www.google.com/search?q=dumfuckistan&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8
Please reconsider. Thanks, Derntno (talk) 18:59, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
- If a consensus can be reached on the article talk page to use that redirect then it can be recreated. I don't even see the term mentioned in the article. HighInBC 22:48, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
LARRY JAY LEVINE Page you edited.
I'm trying to help you people out. No one threatened anyone. I've just seen this stuff before! — Preceding unsigned comment added by MajorViolator1961 (talk • contribs) 23:27, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
- Perhaps it is not your intent to sound intimidating, however "I know he will be in touch with you soon personally...Now he has taken a personal interest in this" give that impression. Even if you don't intend to sound threatening, if you give that perception you may be blocked.
- I have seen that you have posted similar messages in the past using IPs. This behaviour is borderline harassment. If you can get a consensus among other editors that your edits should be in the article then they can be there. Otherwise you just don't get your way. Trying to push around other editors certainly will not help you though. HighInBC 23:30, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
No one made a threat. Getting in touch with people is common. I'm trying to help you people out! Most people would be grateful! If someone saying they are going to "get in touch" makes you feel threatened, I suggest you contact Homeland Security for a referral. Nothing that was said is a Title 18 USC violation in any way. MajorViolator1961 (talk) 23:47, 4 March 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by MajorViolator1961 (talk • contribs) 23:37, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
My phones are starting to light up over this. More people are getting involved. Who started this problem to begin with??? MajorViolator1961 (talk) 23:47, 4 March 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by MajorViolator1961 (talk • contribs) 23:39, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
He said for you to reach out to him. You've been designated the point of contact on the MaterialScientist Tony Mcguiness issue! [redact]MajorViolator1961 (talk) 23:50, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
- Guidelines for talk
- Make reply tricky
- No-one cares
- About your phone
- MPS1992 (talk) 23:53, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
Are you also involved in the fraudulent deletion of references MPS1992? MajorViolator1961 (talk) 00:00, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
This out of my hands now. I tried to help you people out and got chastised. Most people would appreciate my intervention. I am making it a matter of record I tried to help and deescalate this !!!!!! MajorViolator1961 (talk) 00:16, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
- It looks like you did the opposite of de-escalating and got blocked. When people don't appreciate your intervention it tends to be time to stop. HighInBC 02:42, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
What do you make of this?...
OK, an IP editor with a just one edit history deprods a (low-traffic) article. Am I just being paranoid, or should I worry that something fishy is going on here?... TIA. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 22:29, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
- It could just be someone who found the article through google and saw the "You may remove this message if you improve the article or otherwise object to deletion for any reason" message. I can't make out what the edit summary is trying to say. Pretty much anyone can remove a prod if they disagree with it though. HighInBC 02:22, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for this
Thanks for this. Xender Lourdes (talk) 02:40, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
- No problem. HighInBC 02:41, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
March 2016
Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, talk pages are meant to be a record of a discussion; deleting or editing legitimate comments as you did at User talk:Picomtn is considered bad practice, even if you meant well. Even making spelling and grammatical corrections in others' comments is generally frowned upon, as it tends to irritate the users whose comments you are correcting. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Please restore the section and let the two parties work it out as warranted. {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk}
23:04, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
- @Checkingfax: I think you will find that removing personal attacks is considered a good practice around here. I am not sure if you are unaware of this or are trying to make a point. Perhaps if you used your words instead of dropping a template on my page I would better understand where you are coming from. HighInBC 23:40, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
Hi HighInBC. I did add my words to the template. Since this is not a highly visible or offensive personal attack I feel it would be best left for the two (actually three) parties involved to work it out and leave it up to the attacked one to request its removal (or remove it themselves) or leave it to the Talk page owner to delete. Given some time I trust the Talk page owner would neutralize the attack with their own replies or remove the thread. I have been viciously attacked on my Talk page to where the attack was oversighted before I ever saw it and I have no idea of what was said or redacted. I slept through the whole sequence. In those cases fellow editors noticed and blanked the vicious personal attacks, and then requested oversight, without my knowledge. I appreciate your concern but I feel in this case you should revert your blanking and let the parties involved request your assistance. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk}
23:56, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
- I did read "Please restore the section and let the two parties work it out as warranted.", but that is simply not how our no personal attacks policy works. Our personal attack policy is not "let them work it out", it is "no personal attacks". As an administrator it is part of my job to make sure our volunteers have a non-hostile environment to work in. I have no intention of returning the personal attacks, and anyone else doing so would be in violation of our NPA policy. HighInBC 00:10, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
Revdel request
Hello HighInBC. I'm requesting an immediate revdel on this silliness. Thanks --IJBall (contribs • talk) 23:05, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
- I reported PhlatusI (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • edit filter log • block user • block log) to AIV but there is a pretty large backlog there so any help you can provide will be appreciated. MarnetteD|Talk 23:07, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
- Update. The editor has been blocked but the material could still use RD. Cheers to you both. MarnetteD|Talk 23:08, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
- @MarnetteD: This is an SPI case, correct? I can't remember – who's the master account? --IJBall (contribs • talk) 23:13, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
- I think so IJBall because I have seen this trolling several times in the last few months. Unfortunately I can't remember who the master is either. Sorry about that. MarnetteD|Talk 23:15, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
- Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/FiveSidedFistagon. -- zzuuzz (talk) 23:16, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
- I think so IJBall because I have seen this trolling several times in the last few months. Unfortunately I can't remember who the master is either. Sorry about that. MarnetteD|Talk 23:15, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
- @MarnetteD: This is an SPI case, correct? I can't remember – who's the master account? --IJBall (contribs • talk) 23:13, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
- Update. The editor has been blocked but the material could still use RD. Cheers to you both. MarnetteD|Talk 23:08, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
Thank you zzuuzz for the RD and for the mention of the sockmaster. Much appreciated. MarnetteD|Talk 23:17, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
- This is really nasty stuff. Next time you come across something like this, please contact Oversight and do not draw attention to the material in public. I contacted the OS team and it has now been suppressed. BethNaught (talk) 23:23, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
Huh?? I seemed to have missed something... Probably for the best. HighInBC 01:05, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
Perhaps you would like to add something
Perhaps you would like to add something to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/79.78.168.63? Debresser (talk) 11:37, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
- Thank you, I have given my 2 cents there. HighInBC 14:58, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
Hi
Hi bro Konkan manus (talk) 15:48, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
- Welcome to the community. I hope the links I left on your page will help you understand our project. HighInBC 15:49, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
In the page goud saraswat brahmin I have added content with valid source reference but sitush(may be biased or don't know about him)had reverted .please sort it out or tell me how to handle. Konkan manus (talk) 15:51, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
I am asking u as your message seems like you are nice unbiased guy Konkan manus (talk) 15:52, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
- I have not bias because I don't even know what that article is. If another editor is reverting you then you need to seek a consensus on the talk page for your edit before it can be made. If you cannot find consensus on the talk page then the edit cannot be made.
- You are saying that you have been reverted, but I don't see any edits by you in your contribution history. It seems that you must have done this with another account. Please note that you should not use more than one account, doing so to edit the same page is a violation of our sock puppetry policy and is seen as dishonest. Which account did you make the previous edits under? HighInBC 16:03, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
@HighInBC Its recent konkan manus.I have given valid reference justification .Hope for the best. Thanks and regards Konkan manus (talk) 16:24, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
- I can see your edit history. I can see that the account Konkan manus has not added references or been reverted. Clearly you edited under another account. Frankly at this point I am suspecting your are the same as the blocked user User:Truth should trump. Please correct me if I am wrong and point me to were you were reverted. If you are User:Truth should trump then you need to stop editing until your block has expired. HighInBC 16:38, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
-
-
- I just turned my e-mail back on. HighInBC 17:17, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
- User:Bishonen has gotten there before I could. Based on behavioural evidence I was about to block. HighInBC 17:30, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
-
-
-
Talk:USA Rugby
Hi, I don't know if you watch the talk page at Talk:USA Rugby, so I'm just letting you know here that I've left a comment for you there. Many thanks 90.214.212.126 (talk) 16:35, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
Apologies
I closed the legal threat discussion at AN/I based on the responses and the actions you took to resolve the problem, but my close was reverted. If I closed inappropriately, please accept my apologies. Atsme📞📧 18:52, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
- I don't disagree with your close. Everyone gets their closes reverted sometimes, even long standing admins. I would not take it personally. I strongly suspect that it will be reclosed with pretty much the same result eventually. HighInBC 00:44, 28 March 2016 (UTC)