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
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?
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
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
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
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
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
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)
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 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
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
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
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
<edit conflict>
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
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
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
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
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
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
Hi there -- despite you blocking the last IP, they've moved onto another address -- 86.187.162.202 ( talk · contribs · WHOIS). Probably best to take the unfortunate step of protecting the pages where these IPs are editing, no? Thanks, My name isnotdave ( talk/ contribs) 18:35, 1 February 2016 (UTC) 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 |
Same question like here: Is that you? Greetings, Luke 081515 16:01, 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
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
The text was "A large number of". Now is it "Some"... This 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
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
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
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 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
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
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
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
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
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
An admin accused me. QuackGuru ( talk) 04:24, 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
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
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
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?
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
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
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
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
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
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)
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 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
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
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
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
<edit conflict>
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
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
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
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
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
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
Hi there -- despite you blocking the last IP, they've moved onto another address -- 86.187.162.202 ( talk · contribs · WHOIS). Probably best to take the unfortunate step of protecting the pages where these IPs are editing, no? Thanks, My name isnotdave ( talk/ contribs) 18:35, 1 February 2016 (UTC) 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 |
Same question like here: Is that you? Greetings, Luke 081515 16:01, 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
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
The text was "A large number of". Now is it "Some"... This 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
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
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
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 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
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
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
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
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
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
An admin accused me. QuackGuru ( talk) 04:24, 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
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