User talk:The highest authority

May 2016

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a message letting you know that one or more of your recent edits to Rights has been undone by an automated computer program called ClueBot NG.

ClueBot NG makes very few mistakes, but it does happen. If you believe the change you made was constructive, please read about it, report it here, remove this message from your talk page, and then make the edit again.
For help, take a look at the introduction.
The following is the log entry regarding this message: Rights was changed by The highest authority (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.934537 on 2016-05-24T20:44:26+00:00 .

Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 20:44, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making nonconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Respect with this edit. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Repeated vandalism can result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 01:18, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of User:The highest authority

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, introducing inappropriate pages, such as User:The highest authority, is not in accordance with our policies. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Under section G3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, the page has been nominated for deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. —MRD2014 (formerly Qpalzmmzlapq) T C 01:26, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

May 2016

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 01:26, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unlock Request for Snake dude

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

The highest authority (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I am using this account because I am unable to log in to my main account snake dude and that this is the only account who's password I can remember however the reason I am writing this is because I promise not to make disruptive edits anymore and I promise to make good contributions,I from my IP sent PONYO the blocking admin a letter promising not to misbehave and even wished him a merry Christmas and New Years which he blocked my Ip for a year. The reason I'm doing this from the sock account is because I forgot the snake dude password. The sock accounts I was using were User:The highest authority, User:Snake Dude 2.0, User:Crushsex22, and User:Florida Cottonmouth- Adkistrodon Piscovorus Contani. My misbehavior is strictly for seeking attention as I do nit have a lot of friends and those friends are long distance . link to IP talk page User talk:97.103.101.202

Decline reason:

Taking into account your previous behavior, I think the only fair way to get unblocked is the WP:Standard offer. Vanjagenije (talk) 13:14, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

You have not included everything here that I asked you to. Please do so, as whoever reviews this request will need to have the full picture. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:26, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've fixed the IP link for you. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:40, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank youUser:The highest authority (talk) 19:41, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What?! I have revoked your talk page access again after that. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:42, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

OK, after your latest response at the IP talk, I have removed that accidental abuse reinstated talk page access again. Please be very careful now. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:49, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ThanksThe highest authority (talk) 01:49, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you do as Vanjagenije suggests and follow the WP:Standard offer route, you should report *all* of your previous sock accounts in your next unblock request. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:25, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I Don't know all my sock accounts I just know those few The highest authority (talk) 19:21, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

But there are more, are there? Do you have any rough idea how many there might have been? Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:47, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I believe 7 to 10 accounts I only Remember the 4 ones.The highest authority (talk) 22:12, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

even though I have made a lot of disruptive edits ( as a whole, I know this specific account was made for vandalism) a lot of my accounts and even my IP have made a lot of constructive edits that have helped a lot. In fact my main account was the one who created the article on the reptile world serpentarium which is a very good informative article, please take that into consideration. The highest authority  (talk) 22:12, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sock list

The following are the accounts that were all Checkuser blocked by the same admin, and a future reviewing admin will probably want to examine the contributions from all of them. Can you confirm or deny the correctness of the list?

Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 22:24, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Most of them although I don't know who the hell anal hair spa, hair spa shower cap, and spa lover are. They were blocked in the same day for a similar offense but I did not make them, the rest are mine The highest authority (talk) 00:48, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've asked the blocking admin, User:Ponyo, to clarify for us. Ponyo is away until Jan 12, but I think we need to wait for that. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 01:29, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well only 3 of the accounts were not mine (or I don't remember them).The highest authority (talk) 15:12, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I believe a Checkuser check will sometimes uncover two or more groups of socks where the two groups are not related to each other, and that might be what happened here - but I think your chances of unblock will be improved if we make sure of it. And please do not remove things from the list (especially as you say yourself that it might just be that you don't remember them), as editing other people's comments is not allowed - I need the full list of suspects there for Ponyo to check, and I'll strike them from the list myself if they're confirmed as not yours. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:24, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What if PONYO tried to say something that could not be true about those 3 accounts what do we do.The highest authority (talk) 16:03, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And what if the moon falls on us, or Wikipedia is stolen by aliens, or...? There's no point inventing problems before they happen. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:10, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean The highest authority (talk) 16:23, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Just wait, that's all. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:24, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I bet you 90% Wikipedia really was stolen by aliens. Also if you were to add more mass to the moon it could actually fall on us and the world would will have ended.The highest authority (talk) 16:25, 3 January 2017 (UTC

Ever watched Austin Stevens Snake masterThe highest authority (talk) 20:23, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Boing! said Zebedee:, I'm not sure where I linked the blocked "spa"-named accounts to the Snake dude sockmaster? Also, if the Standard Offer is considered (despite the December 2016 block evasion), there are some competency issues that will need to be taken into account.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 20:38, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Ponyo: No, you didn't link them, you just blocked them as Checkuser blocks at the same time as known socks - see here. That made me suspect they were from the same Checkuser run. And as Snake dude has been having problems remembering his sock accounts, I'm really just asking if you can tell us which in the above list are his and which are not. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:50, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Boing! said Zebedee: As they are only disavowing the "spa" accounts, and I don't see anything in the CU logs connecting them to Snake dude, I would take them at their word.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 21:35, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, sounds good - Snake dude is being honest about the rest, so I think we can indeed take his word for it. I've removed the "spa" ones, and I think we can treat what's left as the full list. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:40, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What are the competency issues PONYO is referring to.The highest authority (talk) 22:49, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Also I read your discussion on PONYO,s talk page and he said that I was socking in December, I actually was socking from April 2016 until June 2016 where I was caught. Does he mean when I used the IP to write the apology ?The highest authority (talk) 22:53, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Also I would like it if PONYO could read the other message at the bottom of my page about how snake dude was being constructive mostly and. Did have a good impact on Wikipedia. The highest authority (talk) 22:55, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Also when I did make a few edits with my IP I had no idea that it was banned,I thought since the Ip block expired I can edit with it. The highest authority (talk) 01:07, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Main Account Info

Also you should look at the contribs of my main account Snake dude while yes some were disruptive, most of them were good contribs, in fact snake dude created a good article about the reptile world serpentarium The highest authority (talk) 00:51, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock Request #2

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

The highest authority (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I am willing to change my behavior. However I was not all that bad. While yes I have made some pretty nasty inappropriate edits in many articles, my main account Snake dude has made a lot of positive contribs. In fact he created the reptile world serpentarium page which still stands today and is very informative. I promise to start a new attitude and stop being disruptive in Wikipedia. I will make only good contribs and be civil with other users and administrators and I will use appropriate language and no profanity. The accounts I have used as socks were Snake Dude 2.0, Florida Cottonmouth- Adkistrodon Piscovorus Contani, The highest authority, crushsex22, MatthewMachado Spongeboblover22, ,MelC22, Chef Gaston Gourmand, Science Atoms, and Porn Dick.

Decline reason:

I agree with Vanjagenije, the best way for you to get unblocked is via the standard offer. PhilKnight (talk) 01:38, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Well before being so hasty on the desicions why don't you check out the contributions of User:Snake dude Phil knight. The highest authority (talk) 02:16, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

HELP

An administrator named Dord something just revoked the talk page access in my IP talk page, even though I never did anything wrong on itThe highest authority (talk) 00:48, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Also why has no body talked to me The highest authority (talk) 01:53, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Got blocked autoblocked on WIKIHOW dang

01:04, 10 January 2017 Autoblock #161015 01:04, 11 January 2017 KommaH (Talk | contribs) account creation blocked, cannot edit own talk page Autoblocked because your IP address has been recently used by 'Referral'. The reason given for Referral's block is 'Abusive comments'

My 3rd unblock request

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

The highest authority (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Look I have made some really bad contributions but I am willing to change now, also can you please check the contributions of my main account Snake dude as I have made constructive edits before not only bad, and please don't be hasty when making a desicions whether to unblock me or not. I mean does it Serously have to be 6 MONTHS for the standard offer. Oh and one more thing my talk page access on my IP talk page has Unfortanatly been revoked by a administrator for no good reason.. The highest authority (talk) 02:00, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Since you explicitly pointed towards User:Snake dude as the high point of your editing career, I have reviewed that account's edits in some detail. Right from the very start the snake edits (which I assume are constructive) are interspersed with juvenile vandalism. In total, I do not think that account was a net benefit to the encyclopedia, and other accounts, such as this one, were far worse. Huon (talk) 04:07, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

February 2017

Your ability to edit this talk page has been revoked as an administrator has identified your talk page edits as inappropriate and/or disruptive.

(block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should read the guide to appealing blocks, then contact administrators by submitting a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System. If the block is a CheckUser or Oversight block, was made by the Arbitration Committee or to enforce an arbitration decision (arbitration enforcement), or is unsuitable for public discussion, you should appeal to the Arbitration Committee.
Please note that there could be appeals to the unblock ticket request system that have been declined leading to the post of this notice.

Vanjagenije (talk) 22:57, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]