User talk:Anthonyhcole

To leave me a message, click the "New section" tab above, type into the box, and click "save page."

• User talk:Anthonyhcole/Archive1
• User talk:Anthonyhcole/Archive2
• User talk:Anthonyhcole/Archive3
• User talk:Anthonyhcole/Archive4
• User talk:Anthonyhcole/Archive5

ANI notice

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding me unblocking Pudeo. The thread is Bwilkins' response to my unblock of Pudeo. Thank you. -- tariqabjotu 22:40, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

I'll be offline for 8 hours. I think I've made my thoughts pretty clear on B's talk page. Feel free to link to it if you think it's relevant. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 23:04, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

The note is not necessarily a request for you to comment; it's just a notification that you were mentioned. I imagine the notification system already alerted you to that, but this is still required by the ANI instructions. -- tariqabjotu 23:12, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Cool. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 23:14, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! :)

That was so nice! Hildabast (talk) 18:42, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Seriously

Anthony, I really didn't think you were that low. Taking a situation 100% out of context, and trying to somehow make it match up with something so unrelated, AND where the situation doesn't even have similarities? After your apology yesterday, I actually began respecting you again ... now you pull this one? Seriously? (✉→BWilkins←✎) 16:21, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

My apology was for my tone. As I said in that comment, there is a problem with the way you deal with editors. If you're concerned that this case should be separated from the one involving Tariq, I'll move it to a new section. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 16:52, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

As I said on ANI, talk to me directly about the case ... I'll explain. Throwing that into ANI was just ... bizarre (✉→BWilkins←✎) 16:53, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

OK. I think this editor should be unblocked. He recognises that he may not use Wikipedia for advertising or promotion, which is the reason he was blocked. So, would you please do that, or explain why not? And would you please explain your disrespectful treatment of the editor?

Accusing an editor of sockpuppetry to avoid a block when they just edited their talk page logged out, calling him a jerk, not unblocking when he acknowledged several times that he now knows Wikipedia does not permit advertising or marketing, blocking talk page access because the person asks good-faith questions, describing yourself as one of the most patient admins on Wikipedia, implying the person is insane, saying you used "fricking" because you're too polite to use the other word ... is this your usual standard?

• 19:55, 8 July 2013, Adamsalti (talk · contribs) creates a new account and creates an article advertising his business (I think - I can't see any history of him making more than one article-space edit (to Psychic Today) but there is mention of him creating an article about himself).
• 05:52, 9 July 2013, Jimfbleak (talk · contribs) blocks Adamsalti "(account creation blocked) with an expiry time of indefinite ({{uw-spamublock}})"
• 05:52, 9 July 2013, Jimfbleak templates Adamsalti's talk page

The rest of the episode is on User talk:Adamsalti.
--Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 17:33, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

You'll quite likely want to read the entire exchange, including his deletions, blankings, etc again. I believe, considering his belligerant actions before I even became involved, that I was extremely patient with him. Yes, I reduced myself to his level as his goal was to attack others in his unblock requests, so I used "polite" but similar language to his to try and communicate in his language. Do not accuse me of calling him a jerk when I most clearly discussed his edits. He also quite clearly does not understand that any of his attacks, insults, or behaviours were incorrect - and indeed became more belligerant when I pointed them out. I remained as polite as I could while still speaking a "more polite version" of his language (✉→BWilkins←✎) 17:54, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

I read the entire exchange. I looked at every diff in the talk page history and every diff in the user's contributions history. He blanked the page once and left it when you restored it and explained the block info has to stay. Everything else he said of any significance is still on the page. The new editor was not belligerent, he was understandably annoyed, but very restrained, under the circumstances.

Can you please unblock him, since he has made it quite clear he understands Wikipedia is not to be used for promotion or advertising? I would be very happy to work with him if he needs any help or advice in editing within our norms. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 18:18, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

One of your talkpage stalkers seems to have done a pretty good job a reviewing it the same way I did. I was the third decliner - nothing there was remotely GAB-compliant, not is there at this point. He began insulting me immediately after my unblock decline (although he had been abusing other admins before I arrived), yet I continued to try and give him assistance to become unblocked - I did, of course, note to him that I would NOT be able to action his "next" unblock request, and he quickly became more belligerent. I cannot fathom how you can consider anything on his talkpage to be remotely WP:GAB-compliant when taken as a whole. Yes - you know as well as I do that a) we do not accept unblock anonymously-placed requests - they must be logged in to do so, and b) editing anonymously while your primary account is blocked is most definitely a violation of WP:EVADE/WP:SOCK - that's not even debatable. I cannot personally cannot unblock him until something GAB-compliant exists, and as his talkpage was locked, he has been given access to UTRS (✉→BWilkins←✎) 10:54, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

I think it's important to note that Adamsalti made two further requests for unblock via UTRS that were still not GAB compliant and were declined. One admin even offered to assist them through the 2nd chance process and Adamsalti outright refused. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 16:33, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi I apologise for having to write here as anon but I feel that I need to write, I am the aforementioned adam salti. I am left no choice as my IP and User were blocked. I have a right to add details to the matter. All I want to say is quoting me wiki policy pages when I am new isn't helpful. I believed the only way to flag and admin was unblock request template. I had an issue with the way it was handled and the way it is still being handled.

I am not belligerent (hostile and aggressive) my tone may be annoyed, yet, I refrained from name calling. I asked for information and got it with abuse. I do not ask for a sympathetic unblock either. If I was even given a chance to explain before the door was slammed in my face I might have done better. From sockpuppet, jerk, beligernet... I have been patient. Please remove the block.

I also don't know where to write this but the Psychic Today edits were actually relevant and I have a lot more to add. Finally I created another user and haven't yet been harassed by wilkins. Yes I know sockpuppet. Yes I know fraud. Still I have something to contribute and I will persevere! 82.132.229.130 (talk) 20:17, 18 July 2013 (UTC)