The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this page.

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Looks like you are not welcome here. You are pretty much invalidating[1] 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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. [[2]]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

I read the ones that were posted on my Talk page [3] 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Yes, as I said in the first sentence of this thread, that is "not appropriate." LavaBaron (talk) 07:32, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Of course. Pretty sure I linked to it above as it's still on my Talk page. If you need diffs, let me know. I'll probably have to wait a few days until I'm on a desktop to do that, though. LavaBaron (talk) 07:31, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

(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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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." [4] 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 [5]. 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

No, I withdrew it after Wugs suggested a warning against you would be preferable to a TBAN and I agreed. There's no conspiracy. Just chill. LavaBaron (talk) 22:38, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know which of the two of them keeps doing things like this [6] 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Blaming the victim [7] 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

<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.

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Hopefully not mine! But point taken. LavaBaron (talk) 00:05, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

It has been hatted, I would just let it go. HighInBC 17:49, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. OK. Bondegezou (talk) 21:45, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is taking it's time to die down. I've just reverted this: [8] Thought you might want to know with your name being taken in vain. Bondegezou (talk) 14:46, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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[9].

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

I was hoping that it was an isolated incident. Oh well, people try to inject their faith where it's inappropriate in other areas, as well as on Wikipedia. :/ Wzrd1 (talk) 13:02, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Hope burns eternal, albeit infrequently satisfied.Wzrd1 (talk) 14:20, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Hello! HighInBC, you are invited to the Teahouse, a forum on Wikipedia for new editors to ask questions about editing Wikipedia, and get support from peers and experienced editors. Please join us! WCMemail 15:19, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not really a new user, but thanks anyways. HighInBC 16:12, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry mate not sure how I managed to do that. WCM_email 16:16, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I prefer something a little stronger than tea, like beer! HighInBC 16:17, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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 is}not^dave (talk/contribs) 18:35, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

	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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Same question like here: Is that you? Greetings, Luke081515 16:01, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

(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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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."[10] There are a lot more. QuackGuru (talk) 18:35, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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.[11] I will be dealing with it myself since admins do not police article content. The word "some" is not a synonym of "substantial".[12] Therefore it is OR. The word "large" is a synonym for "substantial".[13] 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

An admin accused me. QuackGuru (talk) 04:24, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this page.