User talk:HighInBC/Archive 75

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.

107. IP

The latest incident with the 107. IP is not anything new. I have been harassed repeatedly by IPs that geolocate to NYC/Brooklyn/Bronx since July 2015. No doubt in my mind all of those IPs belong to the same person. The latest IP incarnation is just a continuation of the same thing that's been going on since last year. The individual follows me around Wikipedia, looking for a way to trip me up, get me to edit war, violate policy. They go to articles I edit frequently - in one case to an article I created. They leave harassing notices and comments on my talk page, call me names, and like the latest, leave disparaging comments about me on the talk pages of others. I've mentioned it to admins previously, no one has responded to my complaints.

Diffs of the harassment and hounding are as follows: [1], [2], [3]; [4]; [5], [6]; [7]; [8]; [9], [10]; [11], [12], [13], [14]; [15], [16], [17], [18]: [19], [20], [21], [22] (this one is an article I created).

-- WV ● ✉ ✓ 05:57, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I see. I will keep an eye out for stuff like that. HighInBC 06:06, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

UTRS Account Request

I confirm that I have requested an account on the UTRS tool. HighInBC

Deleted articles

Hi HighInBc. Years ago I remember we used to have two album articles on Cheryl Ladd (her debut released in 1978) and Dance Forever (her sophomore album released in 1979), but both articles appear to be gone. Was there a reason both were deleted? These two albums charted in the US and the first album contained a US Top 40 hit. Is it possible for you to bring both album articles back? Caden ^cool 18:01, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like Cheryl Ladd still exists. The article Dance forever seems to have been about a song and has been redirected to an unrelated band. Are you sure you have the names right? You should be able to find the deletion reasons for any article by looking at its logs at Special:Log. HighInBC 18:13, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Challenge decision on "Veganism" proper nouns

Your reason was simply "I disagree". I have greatly elaborated in edit section and on talk page. Please elaborate what special reasons that an encyclopedia should not follow the gold standard grammar rule on proper nouns being capitalized? I am open to being challenged but not with "I disagree" with no elaboration or facts presented. Qwesar (talk) 02:36, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Okay I am happy to discuss it with you there. HighInBC 02:57, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

LLArrow

User returned from an edit-warring block, to immediately resume in edit-warring on a page where he was asked to go to talk page. Refuses to go to talk page, instead continuing to revert. Surely this is unacceptable to Wikipedia? livelikemusic talk! 02:28, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please provide diffs? HighInBC 02:23, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I opened the talk page discussion on April 7, 2016, and they have ignored it, instead still insisting to add-in the information, which is in violation of the crystal-ball policy, as there is no definite date for the planned seventh season of Shameless known, especially as production has yet to happen. Here — 1 2 3 4 livelikemusic talk! 02:28, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. It appears they learned little from their last block. HighInBC 03:15, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ikhlas Private School

Hi! I just noticed that the article that I created Ikhlas Private School was deleted. And I am so dissaponted. First, you didn't inform me about deleting it. Second, You said it is not significant. Let me inform you that it's more signifcant than any private school listed in that list. Please check about the information before you delete anything, and maybe you should think of checking with the creator of the article himself first, he might give you some information. Thank you and I wish this mistake never happen again.غياث العرودكي 04:10, 8 May 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by غياث العرودكي (talk • contribs)

I recommend you use our articles for creation process, there other editors will help you review the article and point out anything lacking. The content of our articles needs to be based on verifiable information from reliable sources. In addition it needs to be a notable subject, and the article needs to show why it is notable with reliable sources. HighInBC 17:11, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Would rather not

@Cassianto: I would rather not have another one of our 3 page discussions. I am responding here because I am finished with the conversation I started on your talk page, I have said all I have to say on that matter.

I will however respond to your question "Moreover, I find it odd that I should be talking about bad administrators and then suddenly you pop up. What's the matter, worried I was going to mention you?" here.

I am a regular reader of Jimbo's talk page and that is how I noticed your comment, I did not really "pop up" because I was already around. You can look through his talk page history if you wish to assure yourself that my presence there was not in response to you.

My concern was not if you were going to mention me, I strongly encourage you to be frank with me regarding any concerns you may have. My concern was that you were using abusive language towards our editors.

I hope this satisfies your question. HighInBC 02:08, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So you're finished with the conversation on my page, so decided to start it somewhere else? I don't understand your logic. I suspect you've chosen to do this as this gives you more control over the discussion. I won't be a party to it, and won't have you pull the discussion's strings, so I will not respond further. But hear this: My views remain the same and I stand by my comments. I will say them again in a heartbeat, if prompted, and there's bugger all you can do about it. Cassianto ^Talk 02:15, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You started a new topic. I don't find your talk page a fun place to be, I really only go there in an administrative capacity. I think it only natural that concerns about me be talked about on my talk page and concerns about you on yours. That is after all the purpose of these pages.

I will leave it at that, it seems you are satisfied with my explanation. HighInBC 02:21, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Edit conflicts

Context for archives. HighInBC 21:20, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In your post on my talk page, you have misinterpreted the sequence of events. I posted nearly an hour before the discussion was closed. It was apparently caught up in an edit conflict with Ponyo. Because I had to deal with an urgent phone call, I didn't see theedit conflict until after the discussion was closed. That's quite different from actually posting after the discussion was closed. I see no relevant policy calling for exclusion of the comment under those circumstancdes. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 21:11, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Can you show me the diff to where you posted earlier? The link I posted on your talk page appears to be your first post to the page[23]. I don't think I am misunderstanding you. I think you tried to post before it was closed but failed in that attempt. Then you later realized that and posted after it was closed. HighInBC 21:13, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Trouble at Tesla talk again

Hi, in case you wouldn't have noticed, some action might be called for at Talk:Nikola Tesla. See recent history and WP:Requests_for_page_protection#Talk:Nikola_Tesla. Cheers - DVdm (talk) 21:32, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It appears another administrator has already made a call on this matter. If it carries on let me know. HighInBC 02:50, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. I assume that the talk page is on your watchlist. I made another comment at User talk:Oshwah#Nikola Tesla sources. Cheers - DVdm (talk) 08:30, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Incident closed by Dennis Brown. Not-even-denied block evasion seems to be no big deal in this case. Strange, but this probably will end up with a rope. If/when something happens, I won't take action but I'll just give a ping here. Chrs. - DVdm (talk) 19:55, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This guy goes all day for month and years on end. I could sit here and block all day long and it would not help much. So far we have not had to limit anonymous access to the primary talk page, if we have to we may but it is important that we let real new users have access as much as possible. If reverting becomes impractical then that is what we will have to do. HighInBC 20:37, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, agreed. Txh. - DVdm (talk) 21:05, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Heraldry

User:HighInBC I am getting to my wits end about Wiki procedures. You mentioned about the Talk Page which I have engaged with at length, but how now to deal with an editor who is simply fixated with objecting to my edits? L'honorable (talk) 02:29, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Also HighInBC it would be perfectly acceptable for the simple Booth family coat of arms to be displayed. Whilst this is not as precise as the image shown presently it is in accordance with the Laws of Arms. — Preceding unsigned comment added by L'honorable (talk • contribs) 02:42, 14 May 2016‎

I see that several users have reverted your edits. Consider the possibility that the problem is with your edits and not somebody being fixated on you. HighInBC 02:49, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I have considered that possibility in detail. I trust that this procedure is not a way of kicking things into the long grass? If only someone could consult another heraldry expert then all would become clear. At this stage, I feel as if Wiki doesn't want to know... Please acknowledge soonest. L'honorable (talk) 02:53, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You could introduce yourself at Wikipedia:WikiProject Heraldry and vexillology. HighInBC 02:59, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

They know me well - so how does that help! The current issue is about the continuous & unfounded reversions - perhaps you could advise about the matter in hand, or not, please?

PS. Familles catholiques de la noblesse du Royaume-Uni L'honorable (talk) 03:02, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am an administrator but we do not use our tools or position to influence a content dispute. We do respond to behaviour issues like edit warring though. HighInBC 03:16, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion of my actions

@SchroCat:, since Cassianto does not want to file an appeal I think any further discussion of my actions[24] should be made here or in a public venue. I am not going to get in an argument with you on another users talk page.

Suffice it to say if you look really hard you will see that I was approached about this edit war on this very page before I took any action. If you think I have acted wrongly then please present your evidence to me to another administrator, I will be happy to address you concerns. HighInBC 14:18, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Dr. Blofeld: I extend the same offer to you. If you have any concerns about my actions you can post here. Regarding this[25] do you have any evidence that I have interacted with this user in other than an administrative capacity? I don't think I am considered "involved" by the standards of Wikipedia policy. I also have no strong opinions on either of the users I blocked or the subject of the article.

Regarding my speed, please look at the thread directly above to see how I came to this incident.

As for an interaction ban that would be something for the community to decide, based on the facts. HighInBC 15:02, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cassianto

Hey Chillum, are you OK with a "time served/it was a sock anyway" kind of unblock? I just blocked L'honorable this morning after perusing more evidence. If it's OK with you, please go ahead and just do it; it may take me a while before I'm back on. It's Sunday and I'm busy with the kids; I know Cassianto would appreciate it. If you are not OK with it, well, then I don't know. I wish he'd just place an unblock request and let someone look at it who is neither you nor me. Gotta go--you're high in BC, maybe, but I'm a bit low in AL. Drmies (talk) 17:21, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As I said before the accusations of sock puppetry did not come about until after the blocks. I have just read again the discussion at the article talk page, L'honorable's talk page, and ANI. I have also reviewed the edit summaries in the edit war. It all indicates the at the time of the edit war they were both involved in a content dispute and reverting each other because they had a preferred version. Nothing indicates that Cassianto was reverting under the edit warring exemptions for blocked users.

Cassianto did bring up the possibility of sock puppetry, but at the same time the suggested they were not edit warring, and that they were being targeted by me because I was "obsessed" with them and "wanted my name in lights". Really I don't see an unblock doing anything other than reaffirming their erroneous belief that their behaviour was appropriate and that this whole thing was a conspiracy against them.

If they make an unblock request and an admin(yourself included of course) feels an unblock is justified I have no objection, but I am not going to do it myself as it does not seem like a good idea to me. HighInBC 17:51, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I made the unblock. I am not questioning the correctness of the block in the first place or your judgment in making it, and I am just as bored with being insulted as you are, no doubt. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 19:10, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, time will tell if my concerns were legitimate. HighInBC 19:27, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

We all know an unblock request is not needed for a block to be overturned. Chillum, it's a shame that you are unwilling to take the necessary step to reduce tension: keeping it ratcheted up does not seem a positive or constructive stance to take. – SchroCat (talk) 18:51, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe I suggested that was the case. HighInBC 18:59, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Cassianto:, how do you expect me to answer your questions if you won't let me talk to you?

Since you have made it clear you don't want me on your page I will limit my visits there to strictly administrative matters. If you want to discuss things with me you will have to post here. HighInBC 19:49, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[26], [27],[28] -- yep, that was edit warring, your block was fine. NE Ent 20:57, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your block, which you say was not personal, was turned into something even more personal when you were given the opportunity, and then refused, to unblock by Drmies. You even gave the edit summary of "nope". As you were clearly aware that no further "warring" would continue owing to the indef of the sock, that makes the 3rr block more punitive than preventative. Would you not agree? Cassianto ^Talk 21:01, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Based on the fact that you had engaged in edit warring in the past, and that you were still insisting that you did not edit war I felt that you would continue to edit war, if not with the same person then someone else. I would think it was clear by this point that I don't agree with your interpretation of things. Just don't edit war, and nobody will block you for it.

The edit summary was a summary of my post, which was me saying no. While I was willing to let another admin unblock, I felt it was an unwise thing to do and as such refused to do it myself. HighInBC 21:05, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I see you're still relying on that crystal ball of yours to justify your actions. Also, you now seem to be in the desperate position of citing a previous warring block that goes back to November 2015. What on earth makes you think that that incident as any bearing whatsoever on this incident? Oh, and for the record, the below comment was not a result of a personal request from me. CookieMonster755, as flattered as I am, I would ask that you make this your one and only comment here as HighinBC and me have some clearing up to do. I think we all need a break from this. Cassianto ^Talk 21:36, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry I won't attribute anyone showing up to defend you to some sort of back room conspiracy, I know that people have minds of their own. I think that NE Ent's quote really explains my whole position in regards to the preventative nature of the block. HighInBC 21:50, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) I am a Wikipedian-friend of Cassianto, and I want to let you know that situations such as the block of Cassianto will not fly with me, and sassy attitudes from admins will also not fly with me. I have added you to my watchlist. I believe that the block of Cassianto was an inside job. You were looking for an excuse of blocking them. So, after they were reverting vandalism (three times), you saw that as an opportunity to block Cassianto and did it, so you would look like righteousness and civility in front of the Wikipedia community. The real intention of the block is personal Wikipedian grudges, and not associated with the 3RR

Cheers, and I hope you had a good day blocking unjustly. Sincerely, a former vandal, sockpuppet, copyvio, personal attack user, and now a constructive user, CookieMonster755 ^📞 ^✉ ^✓ 21:23, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ranting against HighInBC doesn't help your friend in any way. It might make you feel better but it just makes the situation more intractable and it's wiser to either not get involved in someone else's dispute or try to deescalate conflict. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:44, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict × many)As Worm That Turned once explained: I'm not sure if you've read the blocking policy but "preventative" goes beyond "preventing immediate damage to the encyclopedia" and into "acting as a deterrent to further issues" and "encouraging a better atmosphere".NE Ent 21:45, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Without evidence? Good old Worm That Turned! Cassianto ^Talk 21:51, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence for what? There was evidence of edit warring, you posted the diffs yourself. HighInBC 22:04, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Cookie Monster. If you have any evidence of this conspiracy you speak of then please present it. I suggest you start though by looking the the thread "Heraldry" on this very page, this is how I was made aware of the situation. It is really simple, if people edit war they get blocked. You may want to read WP:NOTVANDAL to understand what isn't vandalism. I can't please everyone and if I have to choose between following Wikipedia policy and flying with you then I have to side with policy. Glad I have made your watchlist, I always welcome scrutiny.

Really the evidence is against your theory so perhaps you should consider that you are responding emotionally to this situation. What are you basing these theories on? HighInBC 21:45, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your use of a pronoun within a new paragraph is ambiguous. Who are you talking to? Why are so many people becoming involved? If you want to discuss this, as you have said many times, can you ask all and sundry to keep their nose out so we can clear the air? Failing that, and as I don't trust you on email owing to past experiences, maybe we should just let bygones be bygones. Cassianto ^Talk 21:54, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well I started the comment with "Hi Cookie Monster" so I was speaking to them. But since your theory and their theory are very similar the same response can be beneficial to you. Wikipedia is a collaborative environment so other members of the community are welcome to their opinions. HighInBC 22:03, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, your right. As you're more a policeman than a writer, I wouldn't expect to know about writing good English or layout; maybe it's a FA thing. Anyway, I think we're flogging a dead horse here, so see you next time for more of the same bullshit. Cassianto ^Talk 22:38, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

More like an administrator. It is not like I tell you what to do outside of Wikipedia. HighInBC 22:49, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In the matter of Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz

Suck logfiles, Corrupt Chillum. Straight from Freenode IRC.

[17:57] <VQuakr> Filed an edit warring notice on Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz. Need PVJ to stay gone. I don't like him, he shouldn't even be on wikipedia. He didn't take the hint after the first time I had him indef'ed. [17:58] <Chillum> Not a problem he's gone for 72 hours and he'll stay that way. Edit how you need to. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.87.120.168 (talk) 21:55, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ha, okay, like you didn't just write that yourself. clpo13_(talk) 21:59, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Take a screenshot next time, it'll last longer. clpo13_(talk) 22:01, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cool story 'bro. Make up another one. HighInBC 22:02, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Typical Chillum. Lies about the evidence, when it shows his misbehavior. It's right there in black and white. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.87.120.168 (talk • contribs) 22:03, 15 May 2016‎

Ya but I have an IRC log where you talk about planning this fake IRC log... well not really but anyone can write whatever they want and call it an IRC log. Which channel was this? I am sure we can find people who were in the channel at the time. HighInBC 22:05, 15 May 2016 (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.