User talk:HighInBC/Archive 76


 * 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.

Asdisis
See. As was recommended by at the ANI, I have reverted all their recent edits without leaving an edit summary. Reported at Sockpuppet_investigations/Asdisis. Also pinging. - DVdm (talk) 17:51, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

User warnings
Regarding a certain recent edit warring warning template I posted to S, now that I have been asked to not post routine warning templates to his talk page, it looks like in the future I am going to have to either ignore such misbehavior or go straight to filing a report at the 3RR noticeboard, which I really don't want to do. I don't want him blocked or otherwise sanctioned. I want it to be clearly explained to him that he must follow basic Wikipedia behavioral standards. My goal is to convince him to turn around and choose another path before he gets blocked. I think he has potential as an editor and has expertise in areas where we as an encyclopedia are weak, so I really do want to retain him as a productive editor.

So far he has asked at least six administrators to block me, called me an anti-Semite, threatened to report me to the Jewish Anti-Defamation league, (It's hard to see that word "Defamation" without thinking legal threat...), complained to Jimbo several times and threatened to go to the press about Wikipedia's "biased treatment of Jews". None of this particularly annoys or angers me -- I stopped taking things said on the Internet seriously many years ago -- but he has been doing the same thing to other editors when he doesn't get his way, and that is a concern. Newbie editors should not have to face that kind of aggression. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:52, 18 May 2016 (UTC)


 * I think if there is a serious problem with this users behaviour that other editors will notice it. At this point I think you should aim your attention elsewhere. HighInBC 21:43, 18 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Sir Joseph did contact me but it was solely about his aggravation of you posting on his talk page. There was no mention of a block at all. He was mainly airing his frustration that his edits were being tracked, he never suggested that you should receive sanctions and there was no name-calling or threats. I can only speak of the email message I received. Liz  Read! Talk! 21:44, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

I am taking Joseph off my watch list. It seems they already have a fair number of eyes on them, they don't need me watching as well. HighInBC 14:12, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

perhaps this is of interest as a possible reason behind the strange RfA !vote?
and related comments on that page appear to indicate a belief that people are harassing the editor.

and related edits on this other talk page appear to confirm the problem. is also interesting (sigh)

and an interesting edit on my user talk page.

What is more interesting is that a vote at an RfA came after my vote at the same RfA 15:50 on 21 May. Followed by the strange vote on 22 May by an editor who, as far as I can tell, had never opined at any RfA in the past.

I suggest the items might not be totally unrelated, but leave this to your discretion, of course. Collect (talk) 01:26, 23 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Looks like their disruption got them a block. Hopefully if they come back they will smarten up, if not then an indef may be in order. HighInBC 21:34, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

WP:TPG
Please read it. Thanks, The Quixotic Potato (talk) 14:51, 24 May 2016 (UTC)


 * How about you read it first and don't ever copy my signature again. If you want to restore you own half of the conversation and talk to yourself that is fine but do not move my comments. HighInBC 14:53, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Vandalism silencer.

 * Thank you. HighInBC 13:57, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm sure many of us would quite like to know exactly what how 'vandalism' was fought on that page, and why you particularly appreciate it...? Cheers, <sub style="color:green;">Fortuna <sup style="color:red;">Imperatrix Mundi  14:02, 25 May 2016 (UTC)


 * I would qualify the behaviour as disruptive. <b style="color:Blue">HighInBC</b> 14:10, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Whose? (for clarity) <sub style="color:green;">Fortuna <sup style="color:red;">Imperatrix Mundi  14:16, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
 * SethAdam99, the user whose page we are talking about and who was blocked for being disruptive. I am not sure what exactly you are trying to figure out here. <b style="color:Blue">HighInBC</b> 14:18, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Both the language and the reason; you didn't fight vandalism- you declined (undoubtedly correctly, I'm sure) an unblock request. All in a day's work for an admin- but giving barnstars for it smacks of gravedancing. <sub style="color:green;">Fortuna <sup style="color:red;">Imperatrix Mundi  14:23, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

People have given me barnstars for my work as an admin before, never been a problem in the past. I think the message is clearly thanking me and not attacking or gloating over Seth. While the language may be a little imprecise I don't think it was meant in bad faith. <b style="color:Blue">HighInBC</b> 14:27, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

User:82.34.153.108
I restored the block notice and the recent discussion about the ANI to the IP's Talk page. Would you kindly add something to his Talk page to explain to him/her what he/she can and cannot remove from his/her Talk page per WP:Talk? Thanks for all your help with this. -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:38, 25 May 2016 (UTC)


 * The IP has had their ability to edit their talk page revoked for the duration of the block. Once the block has expired they are welcome blank their page. Thank you for bringing this to me. <b style="color:Blue">HighInBC</b> 22:57, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Mario Cerrito III
Thanks for taking a better look at this than I did. I saw that the creator of the page was vandalizing it and turning it into an attack! I did not see that it had been a legitimate article before the latest nonsense was added. It was a new one on me; I don't remember seeing something like that before. I suppose it is a reminder to always be vigilant. Donner60 (talk) 04:39, 26 May 2016 (UTC)


 * That convoluted history threw me for a loop to. I actually deleted it before I realized how many revisions it had. Glad I noticed. <b style="color:Blue">HighInBC</b> 04:41, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

LLArrow
They returned from their block to immediately resume their disruptive behavior. Surely a period longer than two-week is required at this point. They're not here to edit constructively. <small style="font-size:85%;"> livelikemusic  <small style="font-size:85%;"> talk!  23:06, 26 May 2016 (UTC)


 * I have put it in no uncertain terms that they need to stop reverting. I have placed the pages they have edited recently on my watchlist. <b style="color:Blue">HighInBC</b> 01:28, 27 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Thank you. It's concerning when multiple blocks do not seem to do the trick, and it's quite irritating when one refuses to even communicate with others, etc. <small style="font-size:85%;"> livelikemusic   <small style="font-size:85%;"> talk!  01:38, 27 May 2016 (UTC)


 * It is fairly common occurrence. 02:53, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

closure
what were the valid opinions on the keep side..the ones that were straight keep were superficial and ridiculous (this article is pretty good!)..most of the other keeps agreed the article is terrible...the count was 13 to 4 in regards to delete/terrible vs "article is pretty good"...why would you keep this article facing the public to embarrass Wikipedia? why not move it to draft? I'm going to see about stubbing it then to what can be properly sourced...68.48.241.158 (talk) 16:26, 28 May 2016 (UTC)


 * You are incorrect that thinking an article having troubles means favouring deletion. Articles can and are improved in mainspace. I read your note and I did not agree with your reasoning. I cannot attribute the meaning to those participants that you want me to.


 * Some of the valid keep reasons include the availability of sources and evidence of notability. If you strongly disagree with my close you can take it to deletion review.


 * Please be sure that your edits to the article enjoy consensus. It is okay to boldly edit but if anyone disagrees then you can work it out on the talk page with discussion. <b style="color:Blue">HighInBC</b> 17:02, 28 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Note A similar converstion is taking place, FYI. <sub style="color:green;">Fortuna <sup style="color:red;">Imperatrix Mundi  17:07, 28 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Thank you Mundi. I expect them to post about this in rather a few places if their past reactions are any guide. <b style="color:Blue">HighInBC</b> 17:10, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

FYI
Not pursuing this any further, as Diannaa pointed out possible block-evading sockpuppetry and, suspicious, I dug a little deeper and found that this person might have more than one account in the field at the same time, so I'm planning on opening an SPI, but regarding this: My concern was not so much that the questions themselves were not valid (although I don't think we should demand accounts with username violations to answer questions about WP:N before unblocking them) but that they were posted after the user requested to be unblocked and fully addressed the initial block rationale. Waiting a full week (or even one day) for an unblock when one was blocked for a username violation and filled out the template requesting another username seems pretty unreasonable. Of course, none of this is justification for block evasion. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 00:27, 29 May 2016 (UTC)


 * It was more than a username violation. The person was editing in a promotional manner. The block reasons was "Promotional username, promotional edits" and it was a hard block(we only softblock if it is only a username violation). It is normal to get assurance from such a person that they are not going to continue. <b style="color:Blue">HighInBC</b> 00:31, 29 May 2016 (UTC)


 * I agree a lot (but not all) of their edits were partly (not fully) promotional in nature, but it seems that the only reason to believe the account was created for promotional reasons was their username. It simply was not true that "[that] account [had] been used only for advertising or promotion". The articles they created were on encyclopedic, notable topics and most of the material in them was worded like a Lonely Planet guide (whose purpose is to provide accurate and easily readable information to people who already want to go somewhere on vacation); this is of course not ideal -- it should have been worded like Encyclopedia Britannica -- but it's not the same as being worded like a promotional pamphlet (whose purpose is to convince people to go somewhere on vacation and pay for it). Poorly written, possibly unencyclopedic, but not explicitly promotional material represents most of what the account wrote. It is a common newbie mistake, and we don't usually block users for it.


 * That said, I opened the SPI I said I would. Writing articles like Lonely Planet guides is one thing, but jumping between multiple named accounts is unacceptable.


 * Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 01:26, 29 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Have you made any attempt to discuss your concerns with the blocking admin? That would be the first step. <b style="color:Blue">HighInBC</b> 02:14, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
 * No, because now that the blocking admin commented on the AN thread and pointed out the sockpuppetry, I no longer think the account should be unblocked; on the contrary, I want a CU to check if this user is abusing multiple accounts on top of simply block-evading. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 02:47, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

Ok. <b style="color:Blue">HighInBC</b> 02:54, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

Help
Would you be willing to advise GBfan to lay off me...I'm trying to avoid initiating an ANI...A. his revert of comment in the AfD was inappropriate B. as an admin his refusal to justify it beyond "because I told you to" is inappropriate. C. I've asked him to leave me be and he's now reverted my collapse of an off-topic tangent discussion in a TALK thread I initiated within 30 seconds of me doing it...twice now..please see "black supremacy" talk...68.48.241.158 (talk) 13:23, 29 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Not sure why you think a discussion about what to do with the article is off topic. The article talk page is not your talk page, it is a place to discuss the article and what to do with it. You don't get to dominate the discussion by hatting the part where people tell you to drop the stick.


 * I suppose you could take this to ANI, and you would get the attention of even more admins. But really, if you don't like what the first 4 admins have to say then you are probably not going to like what the next 4 admins have to say. A far better solution would be to drop the stick. <b style="color:Blue">HighInBC</b> 14:15, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
 * drop what stick? what are you even talking about? I initiated a thread to help solve the problems that have been discovered and agreed upon by wide-consensus..what on earth are you talking about?68.48.241.158 (talk) 14:22, 29 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Consensus went against your view. Nothing in the AfD supported stubbing the article. You are seeing things as you want them to be, not as they are. Even if an admin collapses a discussion and gets reverted we are not allowed to repeatedly collapse it. What you call off topic is really people disagreeing with you.


 * Everyone understands you don't like the article, you tried to get it deleted, then when that wasn't going to happen moved to draft space, now you want to remove most of the content. This is what I and others mean by dropping the stick. I suggest you get used to the idea that you might not get what you want with this article.


 * Again, if you think there is a behavioural problem with the other users you can take it to a noticeboard but expect that the behaviour of everyone involved will be looked at including yourself. My opinion is that people are reacting reasonably to what you are doing. <b style="color:Blue">HighInBC</b> 14:25, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
 * wow, you make no sense...i'm not removing anything but collapsing discussion that has nothing to with the thread question so people don't have to wade through to potentially contribute...of course nearly everyone said in the AfD that the article needs major work and should be pared back to what can be sourced...did you read the AfD? you closed it, after all...unbelievable....and what have I done that could possibly be construed as inappropriate in regards to "black supremacy"...?? strike my request for help, you are not demonstrating WPcompetence..68.48.241.158 (talk) 14:32, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I notice that is your judgement of everyone who disagrees with you. The section you are trying to collapse is people rejecting your ideas, so it is pretty relevant. I read the AfD, and the article does need improvement. But people don't think that stubbing it is the correct solution.

If you look at the edit history of the page you will see it has been improved since the AfD closed. You asked me to observe the AfD and the article to make sure nobody was being unreasonable. That is what I am doing. I am not on your side or the side of anyone else.

I am not surprised you are now trying to dismiss me, the same thing you did to all the other admins who did not take your side. I suppose next will be accusations of harassing you. You don't get to pick an choose your admins, if you think there is an issue with my competency then take it to a noticeboard and I will happily accept whatever the community decides. <b style="color:Blue">HighInBC</b> 14:42, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm not concerned if people agree with me (though in this case consensus is that they do as far as the article needing massive change)..I only want people to behave appropriately and competently...and your characterization that people are somehow responding to my ideas in that thread, though humorous, continues to demonstrate your difficulties with WP competence...I won't be directly interacting with you anymore so I won't be responding to any additional posts here..68.48.241.158 (talk) 14:52, 29 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Rejecting your ideas is responding to them. <b style="color:Blue">HighInBC</b> 14:55, 29 May 2016 (UTC)


 * 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.