User talk:HighInBC/Archive 52

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. You posted a block message on their talk page, but it seems like you forgot to actually block them. Thomas.W ^talk 15:12, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I was so sure I had blocked that person when I saw that message I thought "Who did I just block?".

Turns out I did not block anyone. Thanks for pointing that out, block applied. Chillum 15:16, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Is it acceptable to remove a discussion from an article talk page,[1] especially when the discussion is of relevance to explaining the many recent reverts? Thank you. LRD NO (talk) 16:24, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have left a message on his talk page asking what the basis of his removal is. Chillum 16:28, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It seems this user is feeling a little crowded by you. If this users editing is a problem then be confident that other people will also notice. Chillum 16:59, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There seems to be a problem with following wikipedia policies and project consensus, which forms the basis of my edits. My advice was if the editor disagrees, they could always seek a second opinion at the policy/guideline or project pages. Thanks for clarifying the question. Top work as usual. cheers.LRD NO (talk) 17:09, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think it would be best to only deal with the editor if really needed. If their actions are problematic then another editor will talk to him, this will detract from his theory that you are picking on him. Chillum 17:14, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I'm keeping to cleaning up the articles for now since they need a bit of work to get in line with the other pages. Interaction will be to a minimal and "when necessary" basis only but I will still engage in talk page discussions to clear any questions when needed. cheers. LRD NO (talk) 17:26, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers. Chillum 17:29, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I hate to bother you again but your explanation didn't quite go through LRD NO (talk) 19:00, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps this is a compromise acceptable to both parties? Chillum 19:04, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That'd have to do since I doubt you can get further with any more reasoning. cheers. LRD NO (talk) 19:14, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Good. I hope the other editor accepts it. It is now my edit anyways. Chillum 19:18, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The editor has persisted in editing in violation of Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Biographies,[2] namey WP:SURNAME which states that After the initial mention of any name, the person should generally be referred to by surname only..., despite two previous messages advising him to stick to guideline. I'll leave it in your capable hands. Thank you. LRD NO (talk) 14:45, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It is not the place of administrators to step in on content disputes. If you think there is a greater behavioral issue please take it to one of the noticeboards. Chillum 20:03, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're reading G10 a bit too narrowly here; the "unsourced" requirement applies only to "biographical material about a living person that is entirely negative in tone and unsourced", and the article here qualifies both as libel and as intended to disparage a (presumably) living person. And the references are entirely phony; none mention the (supposed) Francisco Group or anyone named Francisco. (And the supposed Filipino gang emblem turns out to be a photo of a sculpture in a temple in Japan). I'm not quite sure what's going on here, but I see no reason to doubt that this is not a legitimate article. Could you give it another look? Thanks, The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 17:22, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Due to your concerns I will allow another admin to interpret CSD in regards to this article. What was obvious to you may be obvious to another admin. Chillum 17:29, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Chillum and Hullaballoo Wolfowitz, that page was created by a sockpuppet, so it and pretty much anything else the account created can be deleted per G5. I'll be posting CU results at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Malusia22 shortly. Cheers ​—DoRD (talk)​ 18:33, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Again you come to the rescue with your impressive knowledge of sock puppets. Thank you. Chillum 18:50, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really want to get drawn into that mess any more, but I wanted to pass on a couple thoughts from something you said. Humans are certainly and inarguably animals, but a pretty easy way to disrupt a conversation is to imply that the subject isn't actually one of the human-type of animals.

I think you're right that a certain amount of intent is what separates neutral speech from something more sinister; if I call another editor a "turtle" because they took too long to do something they promised, it would be completely drama-free. But I can also pretty easily think of scenarios where if a user repeatedly added "The subject of this article is a monkey from Africa" on certain sensitive BLPs, they could garner a block on the words alone. I can also see where if editors were calling each other snakes or pigs, there'd be no serious argument that something was at least "off". I think that talk page is a mess of juvenile behavior and weird double-standards (I mean, if I went to any celebrity BLP and started leaving comments about what I thought the BLP's genitalia was like, it would rightfully get scrubbed on sight. Same as if I repeatedly said "X-celebrity-known-as-a-man is a woman".). I think the "hate speech" claim is distracting from the actual basic disruption that's going on. Maybe I'll just leave it alone unless it gets obnoxious.__ E L A Q U E A T E 23:25, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In this particular case it was a quote to a dictionary definition of female[3].

Someone was accused of comparing a person with an animal but if you read the diff nothing of the sort was said. It quoted the dictionary to say that "A female person or animal". I have to call BS when I hear it. I agree the whole topic seems to be a messy area of dispute. Chillum 23:32, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I was also just in a discussion where the Chelsea Manning self-taken picture was linked to the monkey-selfie, and a discussion that speculated on whether the BLP was only dressing in women's clothes to get out of the army, so maybe I was seeing it as more of a campaign. All completely proper discussions about animals and unprovable criminal accusations. I don't think anyone necessarily crossed a red line of obviousness any single time, but I think there was unnecessary and too-disingenuous-to-be-believed baiting on a historically sensitive page. It didn't get all those FAQs, cautionary banners, and discretionary sanctions out of nothing. Thanks for responding though. __ E L A Q U E A T E 23:54, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

11:15 am Paris Tues. 16th Sep. 2014

To Chefallen,

Please inform me how I can send messages to you in the correct manner via Wikipedia, and also how to use the Talk page for Tekhelet. BTW, all the correspondence you have written plus edits, deletions and changes have been recorded. I keep excellent records. Jurisprudence and issues of truth and justice interest me greatly. As a litigant I won a very important court case on Feb. 2nd 1998 at the Melbourne Magistrates Court. (There was twelve months of preparation for the case ! I defeated two QC's) My grandfather was a well respected solicitor in Bendigo, Victoria, Australia.

Anyway let me go through a few things with you now...I will respond to your little asides and put downs. (Not sure who is paying you either. It would be fun to meet you face to face in a bar for a little chat nu...) Your writings begin with C : Mine are prefaced with AN :

C: Adam, you have an opinion about tekhelet

AN : Gee thanks for the condescension. I don't need or seek your validation. G-d knows what I am up to.

C : and that's fine. You might even be able to find

AN : “Even be able to find”...Wow ! You make it sound as if everyone wears the blue thread. Go to the Western Wall of the Old City on a Friday Shabbat and count the number of observant Jewish men who are wearing tzitizit. You will see maybe 2% maximum who wear the blue thread. I’ve spoken to various Rabbis and their assistants over the last six months about the issue. I visited Lederman’s Shul in Bnei Brak on the afternoons of the 28th and 29th May for five hours total. You must be aware that Rav. Chaim Kanievsky has not made a psak on this issue.

C: support for your contention that "there is no unanimous decision by all of the current leading Jewish sages that the claims of the Ptil Tekhelet organisation are true" if you were to go about adding this to the article in an encyclopaedic way

AN : What is an “encyclopaedic way”. You are trying to undermine my presentation by getting bogged down in semantics. Sabotage by pedantry and nit picking.

C : that is, adding the statement in a neutral tone of voice

AN : What is a neutral tone of voice when writing ? Your use of language is very poor. Of course when you are presenting evidence to a court you present facts. A fact is not “neutral”. It is just that. A fact !

C : and citing reliable sources, (not yourself) or your original research.

AN : In a court of law evidence is presented by witnesses, prosecutors and defenders. The evidence can be in the form of written words, witnesses, objects, DNA etc. etc. On all these counts in front of an honest judge with my claims on tekhelet I will be proven to be a “Reliable Source”.

C. However, what is not fine is the following: Disruptive editing[edit] Deleting sourced statements such as [1], [2] and adding material sourced to or referring to yourself, such as here: [3], [4] ; see WP:COS is disruptive editing and unacceptable.

AN : Any typographical errors I have made or with editing errors are a result of unfamiliarity with the Wikipedia platform. But the factual, content rich parts of my updates are correct. They are not “Disruptive Editing”.

C : Soapboxing An article is not a discussion forum or a platform for your personal views. So adding long (or even short) commentary such as [5] is unacceptable.

AN : When discussing certain complex subjects especially ones as esoteric and clouded in mystery as Tekhelet, one must present certain commentaries. A responsa in Jewish law IS a form of commentary/counsel.

C : Sockpuppetry If you edit an article using your user name, then using your IP address User:87.91.50.226 to repeatedly make the same edits that have been challenged by other users is in contravention of the Wikepedia policy on sockpuppetry.

AN : If you read the history of my edits, you will see that only in my eagerness to present my findings did I edit via an IP Address without logging in. This was a result of enthusiasm not an effort to be anonymous. FYI, over the last 14 years I have been actively presenting my counsel on a vast range of subjests on many media platforms all around the world. I am proud to say I always use my real, legal name. Unlike others I don’t snipe from afar.

C : "Ownership" Please stop assuming ownership of articles. Behavior such as this is regarded as disruptive and could lead to edit wars andpersonal attacks, and is a violation of Wikipedia policy. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. No-one owns an article. So telling me "Please desist from editing my revisions to the "Tekhelet" page" and "Desist forthwith from removing my edits/updates" is way out of line.

AN : Interestingly, the Intellectual Property for making tekhelet in the first place was private. Someone, i.e. the High Priests family, did own the Intellectual Property. When the truth comes out about Tekhelet and how it was rediscovered the Wikipedia Page willn need to reflect this. If Wikipedia is to be reputable form of media it must protect the rights of various companies and organisations to their intellectual property. You will not find various pieces of confidential information, e.g. the secret recipe for Coca Cola on Wikipedia. When you are slandered, libelled or defamed it is quite within your right to stand up to the abuse. Also, you should maybe look up the concept of lesee majeste.

C : Threatening other users. Please stop your disruptive behaviour. Your behaviour is verging on harassment. Wikipedia prides itself on providing a safe environment for its collaborators, and harassing edits potentially compromise that safe environment. If you continue behaving like this, you may be blocked from editing. It's completely unacceptable to make direct or indirect threats such as "A warning to you...Be very careful who you cast aspersions on" as here: [6] and [7] and here [8]. See above; you do not own the article and do not have the authority to tell another editor not to edit it. That behavior constitutes bullying, violates the civility principles of Wikipedia and is not tolerated.

AN : You are being disingenous. Trying to suggest that by defending myself and my findings from slander, deletion, silencing and abuse that is somehow bullying. You are trying to frame the debate and use the “rules” of Wikipedia to fix the outcome. Thus it is not a fair court hearing. See the following article for how someone, i.e. MK Litzman also tried to “set someone up”. www.timesofisrael.com/lipman-denies-making-death-threat-against-haredi-mk/ I am also a very polite and civil person, but one must react to abuse on one’s person...

C : September 2014 You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you disrupt Wikipedia. I've reverted your edits to the article based on all of the above and as noted in the edit comments. If you want to change something in the article, open a discussion on the talk page and state what you want there. If you gain consensus from other editors, we can add it in. If you simply revert to your changes again, I will take this case to the administrators with the request that you be banned from editing Wikipedia as someone who does not seem to be willing to work collaboratively and within the policies of Wikipedia. Chefallen(talk) 02:59, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

AN : I repeat...I am happy to work within the parameters of Wikipedia, if it is a fair court setting, and my findings and research can be presented, so please inform me how the Talk forum works.

How does one access it ?

Is it a “to and fro” process ?

Does one post one’s questions then they are answered ?

I await your responses to my questions here.

I repeat...I keep extensive, detailed notes of all important events and proceedings in my life. It is a habit I have developed since a young man. G-d loves truth and justice. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AdamNeira (talk • contribs) 20:17, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am not Chefallen. I think you have the wrong page. Chillum Need help? Type {{ping|Chillum}} 20:40, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that, recently you blocked Rajesh Khadka447. The IP used by him is a shared IP of a mobile company Ncell (I guess because I could not edit from Ncell network). I have also got affected by that autoblock. Can that autoblock be lifted? — Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 04:33, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Considering you were blocked in the past for sock puppetry I am inclined to think that perhaps the autoblock is working as intended. Chillum Need help? Type {{ping|Chillum}} 04:37, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am going to ask Callanecc what they think about this before I decide what to do. Chillum Need help? Type {{ping|Chillum}} 04:41, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I have noticed three issues with your edits on the talk page for Wikipedia talk:Edit warring, and I'm coming here to raise them with you in order to resolve them. If we can't resolve them, I'm afraid I'll have to escalate this matter.

1. You have twice changed/modified my comments in the noticeboard discussion in a way that makes my comments completely unintelligible. Please review the following diffs:[5][6] I will AGF and chalk this up to problems with your browser. However, I must ask that you use your preview function to prevent this from happening again.
2. You have, IMO, failed to AGF and you've made several accusations without merit on the talk page. This tends to distract from the discussion at hand and changes the subject. Please do not continue to do this in the future.
3. Your use of a changing color in your signature makes it seem like multiple editors are commenting when it is only you. This gives artificial weight to your comments and can be very confusing for other editors. In the future, please consider sticking to a single signature in policy discussion to prevent this false appearance of consensus. I will ping @Mark Miller: and @Lithistman: to see if they too share these concerns or have others to add to this discussion.

Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 04:53, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize for my posts accidentally mangling your posts, it was entirely by accident. I have used a similar signature for years and I do not think it appears to by multiple people, my username is clearly spelled out and my "ping" message is highly distinct. You pinging people who you know have been disagreeing with me only serves to vindicate my belief you were attempting to draw people into the discussion in a non-neutral fashion. I did not mention canvassing in a vacuum.

Have a nice day. Chillum Need help? Type {{ping|Chillum}} 05:00, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your quick response. I'm afraid we see the world in two, entirely different ways. I'm really not looking for an apology, nor do I require one. I'm asking you to stop editing my comments. If that means using the preview function, then great, but please do not continue doing it and then apologize for it later. I don't want apologies, I just want the behavior to stop. In regards to your sig, you have failed to heed my criticism, insisting that no problem exists. I've just told you about the problem and in response, you denied it. That's exactly why I pinged two other editors to comment. For your information, Mark Miller and I disagree more than we agree, and as far as Lithistman is concerned, I met him for the first time yesterday, and I have had a very limited discourse with him. For you to view outside input into either a policy discussion or a dispute as "canvassing" and "non-neutral" speaks to a fundamental disconnect with how we use talk pages and discuss topics. I haven't canvassed anyone on Wikipedia at any time; asking for input and sharing discussion links with interested parties is encouraged. To summarize, you see things as "us and them", "friends and enemies", and "black and white". What you need to understand is that others do not. Viriditas (talk) 05:07, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The failure of mediawiki software to catch every edit conflict is a long standing bug for many years. I told you it was an accident and it happens to the best of us.

To avoid the appearance of canvasing next time you seek to add people to a discussion go to a neutral forum and request the public to give their opinions. You did ask in a neutral manner but you cherry picked individuals.

You talk of black and white yet you want to make special policy that singles out admins when existing policy already treats them equally. You are trying to make the policy into an us/them situation with words like "especially", well it does not get more black and white than that. It is very clear you have an ax to grind with admins.

When 23skidoo blocked you the community saw it was wrong and responded by unblocking you and admonishing the admin. If the community is not seeing the bad behavior in another admin action that you are seeing then perhaps you should consider the fact that you are seeing things that are not there. Chillum Need help? Type {{ping|Chillum}} 05:18, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to correct many of your misunderstandings beginning with the first one:

1. Please do not blame your inability to use the preview button on the software. Looking at the page history, you modified my comments in two separate edits, for no reason. I assumed good faith that you pressed the wrong keyboard combination and copypasted something where it wasn't supposed to be. However, the fact that this happened twice on the same page, and only to me, made me wonder what was going on. I assume it won't happen again because you will be using the preview button in the future. As I said, I have AGF so far, but if it does happen again, I will escalate this matter.
2. I can invite anyone who is interested in a policy discussion, and I did just that. Mark Miller explained to you his interest in these matters, and Lithistman is concerned about admins edit warring as much as I am. They were invited for related reasons. Nobody was inappropriately canvassed and I will ask you now to stop making that accusation and implication. I am well aware of how to invite people to discuss on Wikipedia.
3. I have not proposed any special policy, that is your own POV, and it's one I will continue to dispute. I have proposed that the very appearance of admins in an edit war is problematic because they are the ones tasked with enforcing edit warring in the first place. Further, the community is unwilling to sanction admins for edit warring. Most editors understand this problem. You claim that existing policy treats them equally, but I just explained how it doesn't. In an edit war, an admin can threaten to use their authority or request the authority of other admins. An editor has no such authority, and cannot "wave their badge around" as Lithistman observed. Also, in an edit war, an editor is at a major disadvantage when he/she is reverted by an admin, and an admin will often threaten that editor on the article talk page and on their user page, again as observed by Lithistman. I have no axe to grind with anyone, and I've already warned you about making these kinds of accusations.
4. You seem to know very little about the 23skidoo block, so I suggest you go back and review it in the appropriate place(s). 23skidoo appeared to be using his position as an administrator to protect and defend what looked like either promotional or paid editing, particularly in terms of SEO. Because of the fluidity of this incident, it was never actually proven, but the allegation (and evidence) was pointing to some kind of involvement on the part of 23skidoo. When I was unfairly blocked for trying to put a stop to this, I was specifically asked by another admin if I wanted to pursue sanctions against 23skidoo. I explicitly made it clear that I did not, because I do not view things as black and white, or us and them as you claim, and furthermore, I had no axe to grind with him or anyone else. My goal was to solve the problem at hand, which at the time of my block was fixed with the help of the community. I would have to revisit the relevant pages to see if the problem has returned or not. In any case, the 23skidoo incident shows quite clearly that I don't have an axe to grind, as I could have pursued the removal of his tools and I chose not to do so. How you could possibly mix this incident up with the current problem under discussion is astounding. There's no possible connection between the two.
5. There is currently a problem with admins edit warring and failing to receive sanctions, and that's what's under discussion. Both Lithistman and myself have been repeatedly reverted by the same admin within a period of one week in two different articles. That's clearly indicative of a problem. When the admin was confronted, they denied edit warring. Yet, if any other editor had engaged in this kind of disruption, they would have been immediately blocked. But not admins.

That's the problem we're discussing on the policy page, and if you refuse to see it or address it, then that's your right. But your behavior there seems to be focused on distracting away from the discussion, whether it's by modifying my comments, changing the subject, or making accusations, anything but actually addressing the topic. Viriditas (talk) 05:42, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You just said that you knew Lithistman was involved in an edit war with the same admin as you. You knew they held a certain opinion on the matter when you contacted him/her. That is what I am calling canvasing. You were not getting consensus so you dropped a few messages on user talk pages of users you knew would sympathize. Don't claim it was neutral while saying yourself that you knew they had strong opinions on the subject.

You cannot invite anybody to join the discussion, that is the whole point of WP:CANVAS. I suggest you read it, if such behavior continues I will seek broader attention to your actions.

Stop fussing about my accidental change to your edits. I told you it was an accident, I explained what happened. Let it go.

The only reason I mention 23skidoo was to point out that the community does in fact act when an admin steps out of line. I repeat my suggestion that if the community is not responding to your concerns it is because you are wrong. I have asked repeatedly for evidence of the purported problem with edit warring admins and you have failed every time to give this evidence.

You are trying to change policy. You are trying to change admins being treated like any other editor to admins being "especially" cautioned for this and that. That is a new thing and it has not gained support.

You are trying to change the policy and you are failing. Don't blame me. Chillum Need help? Type {{ping|Chillum}} 05:55, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I see you just got blocked. Ping me if you want to continue this conversation, however I think we have resolved the issues here. Chillum Need help? Type {{ping|Chillum}} 06:07, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Most of your comments up above are riddled with fallacies, and once again, you haven't addressed the main points, just distracted from them. For example, your statement, "if the community is not responding to your concerns it is because you are wrong" is a good example of the problem. The accuracy (or cogency) of my arguments has no bearing on any response. Your other comments are equally problematic. You write, "I have asked repeatedly for evidence of the purported problem with edit warring admins and you have failed every time to give this evidence." I have never seen you write this before, and if you did, then I must say, you are not paying any attention. @Lithistman: and myself have documented persistent edit warring by the same admin in two different articles, and I'm sure you know this because we've discussed it and we've provided the necessary links to the discussions. You're either engaging in willful ignorance or intentional obfuscation, but either way, I just can't waste my time with someone who keeps denying the evidence that's been presented. Let's just agree to disagree and keep our distance. I'm really pressed for my time, and I only want to spend my time discussing with other editors who don't play games and are willing to acknowledge the facts as they are discussed. You've denied the problem exists, and that's fine, you're welcome to that point of view, but I'm not going to waste my time with someone who goes through life denying reality. At this point, you're wasting my time and I really can't do that anymore. Goodbye. Viriditas (talk) 00:49, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for coming by and saying you do not want to talk further, if you ever have anything else you don't want to say just pop right in.

I don't think much is being accomplished here, you are now accusing me of bad faith and deciding what I am willful and intentional about. We can talk further at the policy talk page if we need to. Chillum Need help? Type {{ping|Chillum}} 00:58, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for removing his attacks on me. Caden ^cool 22:45, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I would not have it any other way. It was clearly out of line. Chillum Need help? Type {{ping|Chillum}} 22:51, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What a hero you are Chillum! Slaps on the back all round. I have never seen such a disgustingly nauseous display of self admiration in all my life. You two clearly have shit in your eyes if you believe that these were "attacks" instead of someone pointing out facts. Cassianto^talk 19:46, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to post on my talk page please remain civil. If you don't like what you are reading then nobody is forcing you to read it. Thank you. Chillum Need help? Type {{ping|Chillum}} 20:18, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's just it, I don't want to post on your talk page, but I don't like to be talked about behind my back. Quit your backslapping antics with your pal Caden and then I will remain civil; until then, I'll be an arsehole just like you were to me. Cassianto^talk 20:28, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It was widely agreed upon at ANI that your comments were out of line and the closing of the discussion reflected that[7]. They were clearly out of line and I stick to saying so. I don't see any point in inviting you here to re-iterate what ANI already told you. Why on earth would I ping you for someone thanking me? If you don't want people talking about your behavior then behave a little better.

If there is anything specific you want from me please feel free to say what that is, but please don't come hear acting as though you were beyond criticism. Chillum Need help? Type {{ping|Chillum}} 20:41, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If I was so "out of line" then why wasn't I banned? I daren't tell you what I would want you to do...that really would be uncivil of me. Cassianto^talk 21:02, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I had a choice of revdel'n your edits and giving you a final warning, or blocking you. I chose to give you another chance. You are new user and have no history of being blocked and appeared to be editing in good faith so I figured you just needed to be informed of the rules and you would stop. You did stop so I did not block you. That is why you were not blocked/banned. Any more questions? Chillum Need help? Type {{ping|Chillum}} 21:08, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Where did you do your research? I'm not new, I've been here for five years. Cassianto^talk 21:17, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I must have been looking at the contrib history of another user. Regardless of how long you have been here I still would have given you the warning rather than a block as you had no history of blocks for personal attacks or anything else. This tells me that you are likely a reasonable person and that you may not be aware of our personal attacks policy. Chillum Need help? Type {{ping|Chillum}} 21:23, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

...and on that patronising note, I'll go. -- Cassianto^talk 05:48, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for Your unexpected but very welcommed help ! Much appriciated. I've made a (long) reply myself, thanks again. Boeing720 (talk) 07:54, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Boeing720: You are welcome. I will not pretend to understand the content dispute enough to argue one side or the other. However I find nothing disruptive about you taking an opposing view. If there is a persistent issue in this area then you may want to consider a wider venue such at WP:ANI to look into any admin action or threat of admin action that you disagree with.

Keep in mind if you do seek further scrutiny then it is likely your own behavior will be examined too. You would know better than I do if that is something you want or not. I see you have been around for many years without any blocks or major behavioral issues so I think you are acting in good faith. Chillum Need help? Type {{ping|Chillum}} 15:12, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I also thank You for these advices. I do not think I've looked to becomming examind. But I made an error of making a too long defence. (too late now) But I will keep Your advices in in mind for the future. Thanks again ! Boeing720 (talk) 03:32, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Chillum, since you are calling this a content dispute, it would really help if you tried to get a grip on the whole issue. We're not talking particle physics here, just history and regional politics and culture. You're not doing Boeing a favor by winding him up and pointing him to AN/I. You're likely just creating more work for others. So think about it at least.

Peter ^Isotalo 07:44, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and please factor in the term "very sad event" into your assessment. This is in article space, mind you. It was added despite several years of experience and thousands of words of recent discussion about the importance of neutrality.

Peter ^Isotalo 10:45, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I would not characterize telling someone where they can go for further attention to an issue and warning that it could backfire on them as "winding him up". If anything I have urged caution.

You might be right Peter, Boeing may be right. When two editors are at in a deadlock and both feel there are behavioral issues then it is the place to go when they cannot work it out between them. I have given the exact same advice I have given anybody who feels they are being treated unfairly, particularly if they have been threatened with a block where they feel it is not reasonable.

I prefer not to involve myself in the content dispute as I do not want to take off my admin hat in this matter. Doing so would make me involved to the point where using my tools would be inappropriate. Chillum Need help? Type {{ping|Chillum}} 15:35, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That you're finding edits of mine on random articles that you can revert is not surprising at all, given your previous behavior in our interactions. LHM^{ask me a question} 14:48, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What are you talking about? Chillum Need help? Type {{ping|Chillum}} 14:50, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I see you are probably talking about this. I will respond in a moment. Chillum Need help? Type {{ping|Chillum}} 14:52, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm talking about your first ever edit to that article just happening to be a (very odd) reversion of my own, well-sourced edit. Please desist in this behavior. LHM^{ask me a question} 14:53, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I see you are probably talking about this.

The page is on my watchlist because someone linked me to it in a discussion, it might have even been you - here is where I saw it: [8]. I edited it because I saw an edit summary supporting the excessive use of a neologism, I reverted it because I though it was not an encyclopedic tone and looked like poor writing.

I see you are leaping to an assumption of bad faith here, not cool. This is a collaborative editing environment, you need to get used to opposing opinions. Chillum Need help? Type {{ping|Chillum}} 14:52, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't care what you think is "not cool." That your first ever edit to the article was a nonsense reversion of a well-sourced "word" is quite suspicious. Please don't continue doing such things. LHM^{ask me a question} 14:58, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Take it to the article talk page. I am not the only one who disagrees with you and you assumptions of bad faith are inappropriate. My talk page is not place to argue about an article. As always I welcome scrutiny towards my actions if you wish to seek a greeter audience, keep in mind though that this will likely result in scrutiny of your own behavior. Chillum Need help? Type {{ping|Chillum}} 15:02, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is how the page ended up on my watchlist: [9]. Now perhaps we can go back to discussing the edit your made on the article take page instead of flinging shit at me on my talk page. Chillum Need help? Type {{ping|Chillum}} 15:03, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not discussing the article here. I'm discussing you making your first ever edit to an article a reversion of my own edit. And then two other editors (who have ALSO never previously edited the article) miraculously showing up to support your view. Looks suspicious to me, but whatever. Good luck to you. LHM^{ask me a question} 15:13, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Get real please. I have shown you where I was linked to the article and thus has it on my watchlist. I told you that I responded to your edit summary " it is actually CALLED "testilying" in the source, so it's not necessary to remove every instance of it's use but one."

Without even clicking a button I could see that someone had re-added a neologism that has little to no use in English to an article. The only reason I reverted your edit because your edit was low in quality and reduced the value of the article. The other two editors came without any comment from me. Your implication that Peter Isotalo and NeilN showed up for any reason other than the fact that they disagree with you is an assumption of bad faith and again, not cool.

Again, stop flinging shit at me to see what sticks, it is disruptive. You can discuss this on the talk page where every other editor thinks you are wrong. Chillum Need help? Type {{ping|Chillum}} 15:26, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• This particular discussion isn't about the article (where two brand-new-to-the-article editors have shown up to support you), but about your behavior. As for my own assumptions, they are guided by how I've seen you act previously, and the fact that I wasn't born yesterday. But you're free to do whatever you like, so as I said above, good luck to you. LHM^{ask me a question} 15:31, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) This discussion is nothing more than you engaging in attacks on me because I disagree with you. You are pissed off because your edit is not getting consensus. You are responding by attacking 3 editors by accusing them of conspiracy against you. Any credibility you had as acting out of serious concern was lost when you started accusing @Peter Isotalo: and @NeilN: of secretly collaborating with me. It is paranoid and baseless.

If you think there is a problem with my behavior then once again I invite you to seek greater scrutiny towards me. I think your judgment on behavioral issues is lacking and that you should seek outside opinion if you want to continue this matter further.

Until you do that I expect that you discuss the contributions and not the contributor. Note I have pinged Peter Isotalo and NeilN so that they can see that you are here making accusations against them. Chillum Need help? Type {{ping|Chillum}} 15:37, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you post about the article on different pages (e.g., this page), there's always a chance that editors watching the other pages will take an interest and chime in. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:35, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

To be quite frank, Chillum, I don't care what you "expect." And I'm not in the least "pissed off." Your behavior concerned me, so I raised the issue here. I think it's quite obvious who is actually "pissed off" here, and it's most certainly not me. LHM^{ask me a question} 15:45, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I barely care. I prefer the article not to contain silly words that don't belong in an encyclopedia but I am not emotionally invested in it. I believe you when you say you don't care what I expect, but frankly you being pissed off is the only explanation for your behavior I can think of.

Please go away, you are just repeating yourself at this point. You are welcome back if you have something new to say. Chillum Need help? Type {{ping|Chillum}} 15:48, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Please go away"? That's not very civil of you Chillum; I suggest you try and practise what you preach. Cassianto^talk 16:29, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I had asked the person to provide evidence, then I suggested they go to another venue for greater scrutiny. Then they stated repeating themselves.

I asked that user to go away because having the same thing said to me over and over is unhelpful. I then invited him/her to come back anytime there was anything new to say.

Could it be that you are still upset at my warning to you about personal attacks and that you are now here reaching for straws to somehow paint me with the same brush?

Politely asking someone to leave when they are being annoying is not uncivil, one could argue that coming to someones talk page and repeating themselves while ignoring what the other is saying may be more uncivl.

I think the possibility exists that you may still be pissed off because I would not let you engage in personal attacks and that is the reason you are here. Chillum Need help? Type {{ping|Chillum}} 16:44, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just reading through the other threads and noting the stinking hypocrisy of your posts, that's all. I have moved on, unlike you who still keeps mentioning it. Cassianto^talk 16:58, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

When you want to have a rational discussion I m happy to talk to you. At this point it just looks like you are flinging shit to see what will stick. Have a nice day. Chillum Need help? Type {{ping|Chillum}} 17:04, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Shit sticks, really? We must have a discussion about that one day when you can tell me what that feels like. Cassianto^talk 17:48, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Don't remove other people's posts from WikiProject talk pages, especially projects where you're not even a member. Nobody appointed you guardian of what notifications can be seen by members of WikiProject Medicine. The members of the project are quite capable of judging for ourselves whether we are in a position to comment usefully in an ANI thread, and I object very strongly to your assumption that you know better. Take this as a warning for your future conduct. --RexxS (talk) 01:59, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I was responding to a violation of WP:CANVAS. I have already discussed this with the user I reverted and it has been reviewed on ANI.

While projects do have members they do not own the page and it is subject to the same policies and guidelines as anywhere else. I think your warning is a bit misguided. Chillum Need help? Type {{ping|Chillum}} 02:07, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You can think whatever you like about the warning: your removal of other editors posts outside of policy is a disruptive violation of WP:TPO. Hopefully that's clear enough for you to understand. There is nothing in CANVASS that precludes a member of a project notifying the project of an issue that may affect their work for that project. If you assert otherwise, you'd better be prepared to quote the guidance that supports your claim. In addition, there is nothing in CANVASS that gives you the right to remove posts that you think are inappropriate - that would lead to anarchy. Follow the guidance at CANVASS if you are concerned. Maybe you need to diligently re-read that guidance before you commit any further faux pas? --RexxS (talk) 02:50, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It is covered by the "Spamming and excessive cross-posting" section. Canvas allows for "the talk page of one or more articles, WikiProjects, or other Wikipedia collaborations directly related to the topic under discussion". The wikiproject for medicine is not directly related to the topic of his rollback being taken away. The user was posting to several unrelated pages, your project was just one of several. I hope I have clarified this for you. Chillum Need help? Type {{ping|Chillum}} 02:58, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As someone not involved in the project how are you to decide what is excessive cross-posting? I for one found the message of high relevance to the project, and in addition to WikiProject Anatomy. -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 14:03, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yup agree with Rexx. Some of us spend most of our time working on content and do not watch the drama boards. Thus we really appreciate people posting where we actually watch. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 15:40, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The standard in CANVAS in "directly related", not "places where people might be interested". My actions in this matter were brought up on ANI and accepted, I was acting well within admin discretion when I responded to the canvasing. On ANI several people agreed with my actions and none condemned them.

The problem here is that you do not enjoy WP:CANVAS being enforced on your project pages. The problem is that you don't own those pages and they are not directly related to the topic being advertised. Project pages are subject to the same rules as any other page. If you want to keep up with the happenings on ANI then you should watchlist it.

The short story is that people are not allowed making excessive and indiscriminate messages all over the place seeking to draw people into a discussion.

Please do not insist that outsiders/non-members should not be editing your project page, it is there for everyone not just the members. Membership does not give ownership. From time to time an admin will revert vandalism, posts by blocked accounts, posts by people with topic bans, disruptive editors, and people who are engaging in canvasing.

You don't have to like it, it is just the way it is. Chillum Need help? Type {{ping|Chillum}} 16:16, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Flyers work is directly related our project. If you are willing to contribute positively at WPMED you are allowed to edit. If not you are not. As you say "You don't have to like it, it is just the way it is" Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 16:20, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

About this thread and in particular this edit by you. Please see WP:TPG and in particular the section on editing other editors' comments. Can you find any justification for your deletion there? I cannot. From my perspective and pretty much every experienced editor here, deleting someone else's comment as you did is 100% out of line. If you continue to do things like that you will get blocked and possibly banned. It is disruptive. Jytdog (talk) 17:05, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CANVAS describes that massive and indiscriminate cross posting to unrelated areas is not allowed and is disruptiuve. Flyer was adding the exact same notice at a very high rate to completely unrelated boards, ie spamming. This is simply not allowed. It is completely appropriate for me to to reverse disruptive edits.

While I appreciate your experience I have been editing since 2006 and an admin since 2006. I know the policies. Your warning is incorrect and without force or effect. No admin will block me for enforcing the canvassing rules. My reverts were already brought up on ANI and no fault was found there and several people pointed out that flyer was out of line posting in so many place. Canvassing is disruptive, disruptive edits can be reverted.

I would request that you become better familiar with policy before lobbing out block warnings to long established users. We appreciate our editors giving out warnings but when they are inappropriate it becomes a problem. Please stick to warning people in areas you are more confident in your understanding of policy

If you had bothered to ask me about it before jumping to block warnings I could have pointed you to where my actions have already been reviewed favorably which would have saved you the trouble of annoying me and walking away wrong. Chillum Need help? Type {{ping|Chillum}} 17:10, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to pile on but in light of your ANI comments on Flyer's rollback privileges, you realize that you've done a similar thing, right? This required a custom edit summary as it was not a revert of vandalism. Just shows you how easy it is to slip up. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:17, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It is acceptable to use rollback when there are many links that need to be reverted if you then go to the reverted persons talk page and explain why. The whole point is proper communication. Chillum Need help? Type {{ping|Chillum}} 17:21, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not saying using rollback was improper, I'm saying your edit summary was improper. Edit summaries are not only for the revertee, they are also for page watchers. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:27, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That is a good point. I communicated with the editor but I did not explain well to the page users. I should have mentioned WP:CANVAS in my edit summary or posted on each talk page. I will keep that in mind for the future. Chillum Need help? Type {{ping|Chillum}} 17:31, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Here is is in the "When to use rollbock" section: "To revert widespread edits (by a misguided editor or malfunctioning bot) which are judged to be unhelpful to the encyclopedia, provided that an explanation is supplied in an appropriate location, such as at the relevant talk page". It is right there in the beginning. Chillum Need help? Type {{ping|Chillum}} 17:27, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Chillum if you actually read the section in Canvass about what to do you will not find "deleting their comment" to be among the options. Your action was dead wrong - you should simply apologize and move on. We all make bad calls sometimes but at this point you are just not listening. Jytdog (talk) 17:20, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The interesting thing (to me, anyway) about admins like Chillum is that if before they got the bit they'd acted like they do after, they'd have never become administrators to begin with. I've seen many RFAs go down because the candidate doesn't adequately understand this or that policy, or is too rigid, or whatever. LHM^{ask me a question} 17:58, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This criticism is vague and nonconstructive. Not once has a consensus ever been reached that I have acted in a manner an admit should not. If you think I have then please seek greater scrutiny, I do not mind my actions being reviews. Considering not long ago you accused me of following your edits around I find it odd that you now show up here. Perhaps you don't mind the two of us talking after all? Chillum Need help? Type {{ping|Chillum}} 18:09, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It says it is disruptive. Any disruptive edit may be reverted. Do you really think that if someone is really fast and posts to 200 places that we are required to leave that there?

Once again, I have said this many times so far, this matter has already been reviewed at ANI and not fault was found and some people suggested action against flyer for canvassing. I don't support such a block because she stopped when asked to.

This conversation is getting repetitive to me. If anyone thinks I am out of line still then please take it to wider venue, I always welcome scrutiny towards my actions. Chillum Need help? Type {{ping|Chillum}} 17:24, 21 September 2014 (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.