User talk:HighInBC/Archive 90

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.

BADNAC

You closed the AN I had today regarding RandomCanadian. But I think they were empowered to continue - this seems like a WP:BADNAC#2 The outcome is a close call (especially where there are several valid outcomes) or likely to be controversial. Such closes are better left to an administrator.. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Neek the Exotic. Lightburst (talk) 03:16, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

As far as I can tell that AfD was not mentioned in the ANI thread, please correct me if I am wrong. This seems like a new issue that falls outside the original complaint and all of the responses. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 03:19, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

Also I don't view that as a close call. That is a textbook no consensus AfD. I really don't see how it could have been closed any other way. However there is always deletion review if you think the close was in error. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 03:20, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

Overwhelming delete, draftify. The AN was about a similar acting like an admin issue. But this seems like a clear BADNC. I was on the keep side, and even I can see the result based on participation was delete. Better left to an admin. I put a message on their page. Lightburst (talk) 03:24, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

I suppose if you combine two different outcomes and add up their votes then yes, but delete and draftify are two different things. No single outcome had consensus. I don't see this close as clearly wrong. Again WP:DRV is a place where you can get a wider opinion on the quality of the closure. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 03:49, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

This is so frustrating because of the clear guidance in BADNAC, not to decide such an AfD when you are not an admin. Even my keep was weak. Perhaps one of the many delete participants will notice or RC will vacate his own close. Lightburst (talk) 03:53, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

• I must say I'm surprised by LB having just come off from an AN thread where there was agreement I did nothing wrong, right back to argue I did something wrong. If anything, more proof I should consider RFA (although I'm not particularly interested) if it saves the trouble of having to deal with this occasional drama. @HighInBC - courtesy notice that they've also left me a similar complaint on my talk page - I wonder why they came there after having posted here though (if anything, it should have been in the reverse order), and without notifying me of this discussion either. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 04:23, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

Sorry to hear about your frustrated feelings. This admin is not going to find fault in that close, perhaps another will. However it is really the purview of the community. If you really think it was closed contrary to policy take your arguments to WP:DRV, and the community can decide if the closure was contrary to policy. It is silly to go back and forth like this when there is a place you can go if you are confident you are correct. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 11:49, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

About G7 vs G10

Thank you for deleting my miscreated page "T:wpref". But I found a problem: "creator request to delete his/her pages" have a different token between Chinese Wikipedia (G10) and English Wikipedia (G7). Are there any common tokens?--Wiki Emoji | Emojiwiki _Talk~~ 11:20, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

There are text based ones like {{db-self}}. I don't know if they are common the other wikis but they are less likely to result in using the wrong one. You can find them all here: Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion/Deletion templates. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 13:48, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)The interwiki links on Wikidata ("Wikidata item" on the left hand menu) are a good guide. {{db-g7}} → Template:Db-g7 (Q9634684) → zh:Template:Db-author Cabayi (talk) 18:41, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Koala Killer

Hello, the page I created was not intended to be an attack page, I added it because it is mentioned in the text and I believe merits a redirect to the page. If I'm wrong, I understand, and I should have said this when doing the edit, but it was done with good intentions. Geminin667 (talk) 07:16, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

It is worth noting that I did create a redirect page with the same title to a different article before, which I admit was an attack page that I half-justified by half-intending for it to be serious because it was a nickname for the subject of that article, and I apologise for that. One of my intentions when recreating the page was to make up for my previous error. Geminin667 (talk) 07:21, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

Ya I saw that weird singer redirect when I reviewed your contributions after removing the Koala Killer redirect. Neither were appropriate. I see you also linked the same redirect to Gladys Berejiklian. I think you should take more care going forward, it is disruptive and is becoming a pattern of disruption. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 10:46, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

Single IP6 versus rangeblock

• 2600:1702:2350:20F0:5DA9:E93B:DB52:1A8D (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))

Thank you for blocking Special:Contributions/2600:1702:2350:20F0:5DA9:E93B:DB52:1A8D. The person is evading their block by using other IPs in the same /64 range: Special:Contributions/2600:1702:2350:20F0:0:0:0:0/64. Personal attacks have been aimed at me. Binksternet (talk) 01:33, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

I have done this. I need to remember to always do the /64 range. Thank you. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 02:33, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Many thanks! Binksternet (talk) 03:51, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Bat signal and categories

Hi there, I just nominated a sock attack on myself (Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of kusma) as a G10 (should have probably just deleted it myself) and noticed that the bat signal (which I have enjoyed using for quite a while now) didn't fire. While I'm using @Barkeep49's clone of your script, I think the issue is the same: attack categories do not trigger it. Perhaps they should? —Kusma (talk) 08:33, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

I see, it is because my script only checks for files or pages. In this case it is showing up as a sub-category. This is an interesting edge case, it should be easy enough to add. I will look into later when I feel like taking on a small project. Thanks for the bug report. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 08:48, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

Actually it was much easier than I thought it would be: [1]. I am glad to see that my script is being used. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 08:52, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for the quick fix! Most of my recent G10 deletions have been triggered by use of your script, I think it has significantly reduced the response time for attack pages. —Kusma (talk) 08:59, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

I'll add my thanks and also thanks that you have the script on a subpage now so I don't have to use a clone. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:18, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

No problem. I just realized that the .size attribute combines files, pages, and subcats. I have changed it to have the same functionality with simpler code: [2]. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 05:41, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

Kathleen Stock article

How does this matter work with the "consensus required" restriction? Isn't the editor reverting the tag essentially reinstating the challenged edit without talk page consensus? Crossroads ^-talk- 21:37, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

I should have done this from the start but I have added extended-confirmed semi protection to the article. IPs and new users with less than 500 edits and 30 days will not be able to edit it. As for consensus required, form a consensus on the talk page. It does not have to be a giant RFC or anything, just a general consensus. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 23:21, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

Different question - being unfamiliar with consensus required restrictions, what is the proceess for reporting violations, etc.? The 3RRN does not seem to be the best tool for the task, but maybe it is? The edit I am thinking of is this one, which reinserts a formulation that was initially proposed here but then objected to (by me) here and by myself and another editor on Talk. But really I am raising the general question of "how to report consensus required vios" in general, since I'm confident there will be others regardless of the status of this one. Newimpartial (talk) 15:49, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Newimpartial, I didn't know you had this outreach ongoing when I filed the AE request and would likely have paused if I'd known you were seeking out the best resolution method. Apologies if you feel your toes were stepped on. HighInBC, I didn't question that AE was the appropriate venue for this, but if you have other thoughts and feel withdrawal is necessary, I would definitely accede. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 19:48, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

AE is the appropriate venue for this. I feel in circumstanced where the result is highly subjective that these violations be interpreted by admins other than the one who imposed them, except in completely objective violations where interpretation is not needed. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 22:34, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

I have given my 2 cents on the matter at AE. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 23:39, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

I see that. I also see that admin at AE are taking it upon themselves to adjudicate the scope of WP:3RRNO and related policies in ways that do not accord with what I have seen in other venues, but I live and I learn. Newimpartial (talk) 23:51, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

The BLP exemption to 3RR is commonly accepted. Perhaps you have not noticed this, but it is nonetheless a common practice and fully supported by policy. Reading your comments there tells me you may want to review our policies regarding verifiability and synthesis. Something you have a memory of reading in a book but can't find or reference anymore is not sufficient, and combining sources to create a new idea is not an acceptable practice(especially when one of those sources is Wikipedia). You may not like the response you are getting at AE but it is very much in line with policy. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 23:59, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

I have actually cited WP:3RRBLP previously and had my interpretation supported by participating admins; I am not in ignorance of that policy. What I am saying is that it does not apply to Nomoskedasticity's revert-war: the term in question (gender self-identification) is one employed by the BLP subject, as well as the reliable sources on the topic, in precisely the same sense reflected in the WP article and in its sources. That isn't SYNTH, that is a plain reading of the available evidence - it can't be a BLP vio to state, in neutral terms, facts about which all RS (and SPS, even) agree. The reality that some WP editors interpret descriptions which are undisputed in the source material as though they were problematic, or "could mean something else", is a problem with those editors, not those descriptions, and I am always disappointed when experienced editors and administrators fall for such arguments.

And once again, I am not citing Gender self-identification as an authority on the topic; I am pointing to it (an article created, and substantially written, by the editor who filed the AE against me) as a fair summary of the sources it cites - the sourcing is fairly generous for a young article, and the citations are easily checked. I have been pointing to it because editors who should know better have been suggesting that "gender self-identification" might mean something other than what it actually does mean, but if that were the case, one might expect that people whose POV incentivizes them to do so would have found some sources to back it up. As with many claims that are baselessly repeated in the Talk pages of gender-related articles, this is another one for which no sources are ever found. Meanwhile, setting aside your issues with Material Girls and its paywall, I cited Stock's use of gender self-identification in her 2018 Economist piece here. I am not relying on (s)omething (I) have a memory of reading in a book but can't find or reference anymore, which seems hurtful TBH. Newimpartial (talk) 04:02, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

There is little point in having a side debate here, let's keep this discussion to AE. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 06:29, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

The point was mostly the word limits. Newimpartial (talk) 06:34, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

While my talk page does not have word limits, the outcome cannot be decided here. I appreciate the self-revert, it does make a huge difference to me. I would like to wait and see what other admins think about the case. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 06:45, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

That does seem to be the prudent course; I appreciate your selecting it. Newimpartial (talk) 06:48, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

RFC was shut down, via successful non-confidence motion. Oh well, perhaps the 'next' one will straighten things out. GoodDay (talk) 23:30, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Please block this editor and refactor their posts

Special:Contributions/Sphnctr These posts are absolutely not acceptable - warning - NOT SAFE FOR WORK! Springee (talk) 15:11, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

Seconded. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 15:12, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

Looks like another admin got to it first. Things like that can get a quicker response at WP:AIV. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 00:03, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

Happily the account was blocked but I still think the edits need to be suppressed. VERY not safe for work. Will visit AIV in the future! Springee (talk) 02:26, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

A good point. I have revision deleted them per WP:CFRD#2. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 02:29, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

Edit summary

A living person who is not related to the Bitcointalk has been attacked in one of the edit summaries, the last one see: https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Special:Contributions/107.77.204.132

Request to blank it out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 170.51.109.52 (talk) 03:32, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

Yes thank you. That is a case of outing and BLP violation. I have redacted the edit summary and blocked the IP. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 03:37, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

Sincere apology from 70.66.59.163

There was -- honestly -- a huge reason that has resulted into that "punishment" you assigned me.
You should have seen what happened to the COVID-19 dashboard on October 25 and 26.
That technical difficulty occurrence was, absolutely, out of my expectation. I am glad that it has been fixed on Wednesday -- shorter than what I have expected (That technical difficulty could have been lasted for, pretty much, an entire week).

---

I have autism which makes me think rather uniquely from most of the people (Including the editors in this organization).
It has been the behavioural concern I have been dealing with, for all my life.
Because of that, it is rather easy for myself to get into all kinds troubles over something I really did not commit (Implies discrimination).

Anyway, I am beyond sorry for being a Kevin/Karen (I am not going to disclose my gender as an IP editor) on the edit summary. I absolutely should not have done it. 70.66.59.163 (talk) 01:35, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
P.S. I failed you as an IP editor.

KingdomHearts25 U5

Hi HighInBC. It's not a big deal, but the reason I blanked KingdomHearts25 rather than deleting it is that it has a substantive history before the spamming started and is therefore not eligible for WP:CSD#U5. – Joe (talk) 10:21, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

I agree with your interpretation of policy. I however feel it only benefits the project to have it removed as leaving it there allows the user to retain the benefits of using Wikipedia to keep notes. I offered to e-mail him the contents. I have no objection if another admin wants to undelete it, and I will even do it myself if someone feels strongly about the matter. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 10:26, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

I sincerely apologise for using my userpage to post notes. I was not aware that it constituted such a serious offence. I promise to blank the page right away and never repost any such thing ever again. If I do so, you can certainly delete the page permanently if you wish to. Please give me a second chance. Regards KingdomHearts25 (talk) 10:54, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

I have responded on your talk page. Thank you. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 11:28, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Hi, really sorry to disturb you once again, but may I please know when my page will be undeleted? As promised, I shall blank the page immediately and never engage in such activity again. Regards KingdomHearts25 (talk) 11:32, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

The content can be found here: in the history. Please do not restore the content, thank you. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 11:39, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Thank you very much, I certainly will not restore the content. KingdomHearts25 (talk) 11:42, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Idiot Driver

Regarding, your unblock decline on User talk:Idiot Driver, bear in mind there is an active SPI going on. I just thought I'd let you know. Scorpions13256 (talk) 19:40, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for the info. Do you have a link? HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 23:32, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Highschoolprodigy Meters (talk) 07:06, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Thanks I will take a look. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 07:12, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Looks like our talented CUs have taken care of the situation. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 07:13, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Yup. Sorry, should have said so and saved you the look. Meters (talk) 07:14, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

No worries, it was an interesting read. Good to know my instincts for this person were good. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 07:22, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Abraham Accords Institute for Peace

Just wondered why you deleted this as A7 (it was tagged as PROD). An organisation started by Jared Kushner and citing a US government website doesn't meet the criteria for A7. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:27, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

It was an article about an organization that did not indicate why its subject is important or significant. Being created by Jared Kushner is not an indication of importance. The A7 criteria refers to indication of importance, not referencing. It is a textbook A7.

If you want to create an article that meets our most basic of standards on the topic by all means go ahead. I doubt it would need the deleted history of the article as a basis though, considering it stated only the fact of its existence and when it was created and by who. The rest was rev-del'd copyright infringement. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 12:42, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

"Being created by Jared Kushner is not an indication of importance. The A7 criteria refers to indication of importance, not referencing. It is a textbook A7." Sorry, but that's not correct (RfC decision). A textbook A7 is "Mr Snodgrass is the science teacher at St John's On The Hill High School, Podunk, Idaho". However, I generally avoid editing on anything to do with Donald Trump like the plague, so somebody else will have to have a go. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:00, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

As an admin it is my job to enforce the policies and guidelines as written. Essays are interesting but they are just that, essays. Please note on the very same page you linked to that essay failed to be promoted to a guideline. A discussion on an out of the way essay talk page where 6 people agreed and and 3 people disagreed to something and closed by a non admin does not make a change in policy.

If Kushner has a child does that mean we have an article on that? What if he makes a painting? The standard you are proposing means that if he takes a crap in the morning that that is significant. Policy changes happen on policy pages and policy talk pages for a good reason, WP:LOCALCONSENSUS does not override the greater consensus of policy.

CSD represent the bare minimum standards. It was a garbage article, no prejudice against the subject itself. You can write an article that meets our lowest standards if you want, but please make sure it describes why the subject is significant. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 22:46, 10 November 2021 (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.