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.

Is there any way for my topic ban to be eased so I could participate in the WP:RfA process? I feel it is a big part of Wikipedia the admin process. I tried asking User:Steven Crossin but he is for the most part inactive. [1] I don't want to feel like I have to be weighted down by this ball and chain forever, it has been over 2 months already with the scope of my topic ban vauge. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:28, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Can you point me to where your topic ban originated please? I will look into it. Chillum 03:30, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the link: [2]. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:31, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly I could care less about WP:ANI and WP:AN now but would like to participate in community discussions. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:33, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Holy vague topic ban batman! Did User:Steven Zhang give any clarification to the nature of the ban? Chillum 03:40, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

He placed me under a topic ban that covered all Wikipedia namespace pages after saying that I couldn't voluntary stay from them. Over time though I have asked for certain pages as I haven't caused a thing and don't intend to. I don't know how many more months he wants me to wait this out, my reason behind wanting more things is that I feel this is a bit of a festering wound. On his talk-page he did ask what I would do differently but I asked if I could email him instead as I didn't want other editors to use anything as an advantage. You can see more on his talk-page. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:45, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am making some assumptions here and may be wrong but this is my take. The discussion got stale and needed to be closed, it was not an easy discussion to close. While there was plenty of support for some sort of ban no clear plan became clear, and there was a fair amount of opposition to a ban at all.

The closure was unconventional, however it does seem it was accepted by the community. If you cannot abide by the ban User:Steven Zhang has imposed then you have the option of going to ANI to seek clarification.

That discussion was borderline, it could have gone either way for you. I think if you go to ANI with the request that your topic ban be clearly defined by the community you may get a better response than whatever is being offered to you by Steven. Specifically if you list specific areas you want to edit in where you can demonstrate you have not has problems in that past with you may get that.

Ultimately it is for the community to decide. I am happy to talk with User:Steven Zhang to seek clarification on his motives, however I have no horse in this race and cannot promise I will be your advocate. That being said, I have no vested interest in your ban continuing either. Chillum 03:53, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I will try ANI tomorrow its almost midnight here, thank you for your help. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:55, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I offer 2 cents worth of free advice. If you post asking for a clear definition and clearly describe what areas you want to edit and why it will not be a problem you will get a more positive response than if you post challenging the ban itself. It is a matter of perception. Chillum 03:56, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I've been busy IRL. I'll review my talk page now. Steven Crossin (was Steven Zhang) 12:42, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Steven. I hope the name-change mid-conversation is not too confusing. HighInBC 14:23, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Knowledgekid87: I am glad this worked out for you. HighInBC ^{(was Chillum)} 22:53, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I just hope I will be able to make edits on Wikipedia name-space in the future without editors jumping down my throat every-time. Just recently I closed a discussion on my talk-page that came about from me asking Montana questions on her RfA, and me mistakenly undoing another editor's edit. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:02, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@GregJackP: I am not going to get into a discussion about my editing history on an RfA page. If you want to disparage my contributions you can do it here. I have one question, how many featured pictures have you contributed to Wikipedia? I am very proud of this particular contribution, it has been used in 45 articles on 30 different language Wikipedias. It has also been featured in magazines and numerous websites.

I admit you are a prodigious contributor but I think it is a bit tacky of you to diminish my contributions. Chillum 05:05, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, it occurs to me you may not be aware of my prior account. I was User:H. Chillum 05:06, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not interested in discussing this here. I am happy to discuss it where you are disparaging a fine editor and great content creator who would be a great admin. I did not address it on your oppose statement, I addressed it when you commented on an editor noting that content creators got the short end of the stick, and you disagreed. You have never addressed the question, about how you know what content creators have to put up with, and while a featured picture is an accomplishment, it is not the same as writing content and then watching idiots try to "improve" it by crappy editing. Regards, GregJackP Boomer! 05:24, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am happy to discuss my opinion of the candidate, but you seem more interested in talking about me. The fact is that Montanabw has a history of being combative and uncivil and that is the last thing we want in an admin. This has nothing to do with content creation, this is about ability to be an administrator.

I am not disparaging Montanabw, I believe I called her "a great asset to the project". You misrepresenting my position seems to be a theme with you. If you need to misrepresent what I am saying to make your point, you may just want to reconsider your point. Chillum 05:29, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Note for archive: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive900#talk_page_vandalism

How are you? hope all good :) Please can you take care of some user who harasses me? thank you :) NotAlpArslan (talk) 12:26, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So you didn't read my link to WP:SHOPPING earlier? That's reassuring: WP:NOTHERE I think. Are you going to remove your offensive userboxes (for the fourth time of asking)? _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 12:28, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Still getting used to the name change, Chillum. I thought I was thanking someone else but HighInBC turns out was you! I still might slip up and call you by your old name. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:13, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It is actually my original name here: Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/HighInBC 2. You Liz, you can call me whatever you like. HighInBC ^{(was Chillum)} 23:34, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Does "High" indicate altitude, state of mind, or something else? NE Ent 00:47, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Officially it refers to my enjoyment of hiking. That being said, I do like to have a good time. HighInBC ^{(was Chillum)} 00:48, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I too liked and am used to the name Chillum. Does BC refer to British Columbia? A beautiful place to hike, at heights. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:15, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. If I were ever to move to Canada, it would be to BC. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 12:17, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed Beautiful British Columbia is a great place to get high... up in the mountains hiking. HighInBC ^{(was Chillum)} 15:29, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• So it's HiBC again? Seems like old times. But you changed your user page, the old one would have answered all these questions.... --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:32, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• You are right, I will dig through the ancient archives and find that tid-bit. HighInBC ^{(was Chillum)} 19:47, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I've been around long enough to remember the days of your being called "HighInBC"! :) I'm pleased you decided to move back to that title; it's a positive name - one I associate with someone who helped me a lot during my early days here. I'll never forget that. Acalamari 19:34, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I remember when you first started out, I kept imagining you as a calamari. Look how far you have come. HighInBC ^{(was Chillum)} 19:49, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks. :) I honestly didn't think I'd make it this far on here! Acalamari 20:39, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I didn't recognise you. When did that happen? Cassianto^Talk 18:53, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• It was my original name when I started here and the name I passed my RfA with. I went back to it about a week ago. I promise not to rename too often. HighInBC ^{(was Chillum)} 18:59, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome back, fellow BC'er :) -- œ^™ 14:23, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Help yourself to some of the calamari above. HighInBC ^{(was Chillum)} 14:57, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A propos of name change: is it appropriate for someone (me) to ask for help from an admin (or experienced user) on behalf of another user, for a topic broached on their talk page? By chance, you and I edited the same user talk page section about an unrelated topic, and upon reading your sig, I realized you had changed your user name. This rang a bell, as earlier I had responded to the user on that same talk page in a section concerning name changes; your input might be useful to her. If inappropriate, kindly ignore; and either way, thanks. Mathglot (talk) 03:34, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comments.

I will work with others collaboratively. However, others have not done so, often reverting without any or minimum discussion. Some of the changes are flat out wrong.

Please know that I have been patient and often stayed away from an article for a few days. But some of those other people take advantage of this. That is not good. One was even blocked twice for bad behaviour in that train article. Sandra opposed to terrorism (talk) 19:12, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have no horse in this race, I had not seen the train article before a few days ago. What does concern me is that a look at your contribution history shows a pattern of aggressive behaviour towards other editors. You seem to resort to ad-hominem comments on people when discussing editorial matters. You keep accusing people of harassment or being tricky with their pals or egging you on to a fight. You have called people "bad editors" and suggested people are "fighting a war against women". You regularly attempt to deflect blame onto others when people point these things out.

I am telling you right now that this is not compatible with being and editor here. We are a collaborative group. Be less combative or you will have to find another website. HighInBC 01:56, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Look at my statement of peace in Talk:2015 Thalys train attack despite an 8 paragraph tirade against me. I didn't respond with 8 paragraphs back. Instead, I offer a roadmap to peace over one month. Sandra opposed to terrorism (talk) 16:36, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I thought I should give you a quick warning that RealDealBillMcNeal has come off his block and his first actions were again to edit the above page with no comments, and I fear he will again engage in edit-warring, for which he was blocked before. Just a heads up in case admins patrol users who have recently come off blocks.--Shreerajtheauthor (talk) 22:57, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I try to keep my head up but I get sleepy from time to time. If you think the edit is problematic then revert it an talk about it on the talk page. HighInBC 01:38, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:HighInBC.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 11:44, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for letting me know about that. HighInBC 15:01, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What equipment you use for your photography work? — Ched :  ?  15:25, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Nevermind - think I found my answer: [3] — Ched :  ?  15:30, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I got a lot of my old work done using a Canon PowerShot S3 IS, a relatively affordable camera that can take very good pictures with a bit of effort. I have since upgraded to a Canon EOS 5D Mark III which is significantly better. I have been busy with a move but once I am properly settled I am going to start taking pictures for Wikipedia again, there should be a significant improvement. HighInBC 15:31, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

One of the best pieces of equipment available. My lady-friend just bought one about 2 month ago, so I'll get to try it in mid-Oct. when I go visit her. I started with Canon in the mid-70s, but switched to Nikon in 2007. (wish I could afford the higher end stuff) I've enjoyed your past work, so look forward to new efforts. Congrats on the move. — Ched :  ?  15:45, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It really is a great camera to work with. It is not just a good body, but a work horse. Very versatile. I got the camera about a year ago and I am glad I did because I could not afford it now! Whenever I get a pile of cash I spend it on something useful before I wastes it.

That said the S3 IS(or its modern counterpart) is a great example of how you can take high quality images with a camera that costs less than a car. HighInBC 16:02, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I was just writing a comment there when I saw your closure of the thread. Sam Sailor made two comments in teh debate, and thus could not have closed the discussion, as a question of due process. Please re-open the AN thread so I can add my comment. Kraxler (talk) 15:27, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for bringing that detail to my attention. I have re-opened it. HighInBC 15:30, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Further to the now closed discussion on AN may I asked for your opinion in order to get wiser? In Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Monica Beverly Hillz I made two edits when assessing the debate

• (a) added a ((Spa)) tag to an IP and noted their (un)-WP:POPULARITY !vote was not a valid argument (Diff),
• (b) added a comment to noms off-topic arguments about the creator, cf. WP:ATTP (Diff).

Kraxler asserted that "Sam Sailor made two comments in the discussion, showing a definite stance on the issue. That definitely bars him from closing the discussion." I disagree, I offered no opinion, let alone a definite stance on the issue. What is your opinion? -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 19:24, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello User:Sam Sailor. I will say that I do believe you were acting without bias and that you closed it pretty much the only way it could have been closed. Generally it is best to avoid any sort of comment to avoid the appearance of bias. While I don't think it the case one could argue that by commenting on the behaviour of someone in the debate you were siding against them. As an admin I take great care not to comment on anything I intend to close because people are going to try to find fault wherever they can.

Really while the close was not ideal it was fine, I pretty much reclosed it because it seemed like the fastest way for everyone to move on. I hope I have not offended you. HighInBC 20:44, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not at all, I hope nothing I wrote gave you that impression. ... Good, I take note of what you say, and will not make in-discussion comments if I intend to make a close. Thank you for your feedback, highly appreciated. -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 20:58, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am frankly disgusted and appalled by your recent conduct. And I note that I am not the first person who has told you to your face that at least some of your involvement in a current AN thread is possibly at best counterproductive. John Carter (talk) 15:13, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes you already mentioned how upset you are with me on your user page. It would help me a lot to address your concerns if you gave diffs and explain exactly what behaviour of mine is so disgusting and appalling. If possible can you do so with a minimum of dramatic and colourful language? HighInBC 15:25, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent comment to MSGJ makes me feel that you are upset and lashing out at people with very little provocation. May I suggest you take a day and then respond here? HighInBC 15:33, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@John Carter: I am not sure why you insist talking about me in off topic areas. I refuse to engage in this discussion in an off-topic area, to do so would be adding my own disruption to yours. If you want to talk about me you can do so here, but you are only discrediting yourself by making off-topic attacks against me when the topic of discussion is the closure of your proposal. HighInBC 16:09, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@John Carter: I am going to archive this since it does not appear that you want to substantiate your claims. If you want to actually present evidence of my misdeeds then you are welcome back here. HighInBC 03:04, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hey. I hope you were not offended by my querying you on your oppose vote. I meant what I said about respecting your opinion; from where I sit you're one of the Good Guys, and it doesn't sit quite right when I see you in the other column. There was an awful lot of underhanded foul play going on in the background, and that did not sit well with me, either. I never worked with the candidate or had any substantial interaction with him before the RfA started, but I hate to see any candidate be the target of a premeditated and apparently coordinated takedown. That's not how anyone, supporter or opposer, should approach an RfA, and such conduct does maximum damage to our sense of collegiality. Regards, Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 04:09, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

On the contrary I find discussion of that sort very helpful. I agree in hindsight that there was some hyperbole, though I don't know if anyone was actually acting with malice. There was a lot of heat from that discussion and I think showed a lot of character to withdraw before it got worse. While I still don't think they should be an admin I do respect how they handled themselves. HighInBC 04:36, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello HighInBC,

I have a question about policy and etiquette of addressing a user during a block.

I wanted to ask Sandra, who is currently blocked from editing, about possibly withdrawing her Rfc in order to restart one (if she wishes) that is more properly formatted. However, I'm not sure if she's able to edit her Talk page or not (does the block notice leave a clue about that?) and it would certainly seem like bad form for me to ask her a question which she's unable to respond to, especially as she may feel strongly about the issue. (Her block terminates before the Rfc month-anniversary, so there's no rush.)

Beyond that, are there any policies or essays you could point me to, regarding proper behavior towards editors during a block period more generally? (If there isn't one, I'd love to see an admin or experienced editor start one. Hint, hint.) Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 04:33, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Her talk page is not disabled, she should be able to respond. No essay comes immediately to mind, though I don't know them all. Generally discussion related to the improvement of the encyclopedia is acceptable. HighInBC 04:40, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:Mathglot I have looked around a bit, and asked some other admins on IRC. It seems there is a bit of a lacuna in the policy in this regard. I will be drafting something in the next day or two, I will be sure to invite you to any discussion that emerges. Though sometimes common sense additions can be done without discussion. HighInBC 05:04, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks both for the rapid question response, as well as considering the essay idea; I look forward to monitoring and perhaps contributing to the discussion. Mathglot (talk) 05:08, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

See User_talk:Takeaway#Your_AIV_report. Maybe you're up for the task of programming the bot to the keep the comments in line? Seems like we could use some regex to ensure they contain the proper examples, and correct it if they are wrong. Thoughts? PS – just now noticing the username change! I've seen HighInBC around a lot just didn't know it was you :) — MusikAnimal ^talk 05:29, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And actually, we should enforce the entire structure of the page. I've seen the ((Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism/TB2)) get removed and stay like that for hours — MusikAnimal ^talk 05:35, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is an option for the bot called "FixInstructions" which is currently set to off. At one point it did pretty much what you are describing. I am not sure if it is still working properly. I will do some testing in my sandbox and see if it is simple to get going again. HighInBC 06:27, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

re: blocked. Yea - I noticed once I saved my post. Given the collective Arbcom's (as a group) penchant for secrecy/privacy, I doubt we'll ever know the details. It does sadden me, because even given various past issues - I always liked and appreciated Secret's efforts here. — Ched :  ?  23:08, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Actually the details have been forthcoming on the blocking admins talk page. It is based off the fact that when the unblock request was made they were not aware of the block evasion by his alternate account. He revealed it for some reason after being unblocked and was reblocked.

While I cannot dispute the validity of the block I don't think indefinite is in the best interests of the project. I have tried to advocate for a finite block, time will tell. Perhaps arbcom will be willing to punt this to the community.

Sigh indeed. HighInBC 23:12, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm. Well, I'm not really clear on the reasons for the original block (not sure I ever knew), and I really don't have time to research it all - so I guess all I can say is that I hope there's a way for him to return soon. — Ched :  ?  23:50, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The previous block was pretty much forced on the arbitration committee. This sums it up fairly well: [4]. In my opinion this is a good editor who had a very bad week. I can't blame arbcom for either block, but I do think it is in the best interests of the project to try to have an ending where he can be productive again. HighInBC 23:52, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

TY for the link - I'll review. — Ched :  ?  02:14, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I actually moved the replies to Andrew D. to the talk page if a fuller discussion is needed. I apologize if I didn't mention this beforehand. Epic Genius (talk) 23:57, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My mistake. Good move. HighInBC 23:57, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Should I move the comments back? Epic Genius (talk) 23:59, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, please pretend I never got in your way. HighInBC 00:05, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like Liz fixed it. I thought it was an uncaught edit conflict. Sorry for the inconvenience. HighInBC 00:06, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Thanks for your understanding of this matter. Epic Genius (talk) 00:30, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Done the editing. --74.130.133.1 (talk) 21:42, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your contributions. HighInBC 22:00, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Note for archives: This conversation was moved from here: [5] HighInBC 22:33, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry but I have removed your rollback userright. You have been reverting without edit summary using automated tools where communication is needed. What is worse you are reverting valid edits that improve articles. I see you doing over 7 edits per minute and it is clear that you are just not being careful enough. HighInBC 22:09, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@HighInBC: To be honest, I truly started using Huggle today. I've used rollback before without any issues for an extended period of time. I can forgo the usage of Huggle if necessary. Please review my Twinkle rollback edits. --JustBerry (talk) 22:11, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment: I see that users appeared to be having issues with these reverts, hence I stopped using Huggle. --JustBerry (talk) 22:12, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@HighInBC: Also, I did not see any prior message regarding any concerns you had about rollbacking with Huggle here, which seems fairly concerning. --JustBerry (talk) 22:13, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I just talked to you about this 5 days ago so this is not a new problem that started because you used a new tool today. Perhaps it increased the speed at which you were making errors, but the problem has been around for a while. It is a general lack of care. Automation seems to make you even more careless. You need to slow down and look at what you are doing. HighInBC 22:15, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@HighInBC: What is the procedure for re-applying for a right? --JustBerry (talk) 22:16, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Right here: Wikipedia:Requests_for_permissions/Rollback. If you do re-apply for it be sure to mention that it was just taken away from you. Better yet, don't reapply. The request is sure to be denied. HighInBC 22:18, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@HighInBC: I wasn't planning on re-applying now; it was a mere question. And, for re-applying for the right from you? As aforementioned, I would be willing to forgo Huggle for some time and stick to my usage of Twinkle. --JustBerry (talk) 22:20, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As I said before this is not an issue with a particular tool or task you do. This is a greater pattern of careless editing. I am seeing improper CSD notices, improper warnings, improper page reviews and improper reverts. I will happily give the right back if you can demonstrate a competence in general. However if you continue to regularly make these errors I am going to compile a list and ask the community what response is required.

I get that you are acting in good faith but the sheer number of mistakes you are making is too much. When you decide to enforce the rules of Wikipedia you need to get those rules right. HighInBC 22:25, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@HighInBC: Agree --JustBerry (talk) 22:27, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment: I am requesting that this conversation remain here. --JustBerry (talk) 22:29, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose if your archives are getting too full you are welcome to store it in mine. HighInBC 22:31, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) It probably has more to do with not wanting others to see it, and not wanting it saved for posterity in his archive, but not daring delete it. Which is yet another sign of lack of maturity. Thomas.W ^talk 22:42, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Thomas.W: It seems as if you have not been able to move beyond our discussion from earlier at SPI. Please WP:Drop the stick. The reason for moving the discussion here is for future editorial review purposes. --JustBerry (talk) 22:51, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I can't really see how moving it here helps with future editorial reviews. Thomas talk page guidelines allow you to remove this sort of thing from your talk page anyways. The purpose of the message was communication, not to put some sort of mark of shame on the users page. While I can't see any good reason to move the discussion here(JustBerry is after all the topic) there is no requirement Just keep in on their talk page. HighInBC 23:39, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Asking you because it's urgent and you're showing up in Special:RecentChanges. Do you know how to find blocks by their IDs? If so, would you please check WP:ANI#Immediate unblock needed? I've apparently blocked the Wikiconference USA without knowing it, and I don't know what block is responsible, so I can't fix the situation. Nyttend (talk) 23:40, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That block ID does not seem to be currently blocked. I get "Error: Block ID #6357296 not found. It may have been unblocked already." when I try to reverse it. A search shows nothing: [6]. Perhaps someone else cleared it? HighInBC 23:48, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for helping! Nyttend (talk) 23:51, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Can you also look at User:DN-boards1/Joe Thomas and User:DN-boards1/Marie Bernátková. They look like Joe Thomas (supercentenarian) and Marie Bernátková but without the histories. Those two are also listed as AFD as well. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 03:48, 11 October 2015 (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.