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.

HighInBC, you are involved and closed the thread at AN/I. When JzG was being disruptive and you did not say to him to stop before this went to AN/I. In his edit summary he said "What a chump." He was not warned about this. You should not of closed the thread. It looks very bad. QuackGuru (talk) 17:27, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Any user is welcome to give a warning, that is not something you need an admin for. I did not say to him to stop before this went to AN/I because I did not see it, you know because I was not involved in that dust-up. My involvement seems to be limited to participating in the MfD and is tangential involvement at best. What action do you suggest I take? HighInBC 17:37, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If @DrChrissy: or @JzG: or any other admin feels I am too involved they are welcome to reverse the close. Otherwise I see nothing wrong with it. HighInBC 17:40, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It was wrong for admins to ignore the uncivil behavior at the talk page. QuackGuru (talk) 17:42, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In the closing you wrote in part: "I am tangentially involved in this issue as I participated in the MfD, if any admin, or any person involved finds this closure to be too involved I welcome them to reverse it." I am involved, yet you disagree with reversing the close. QuackGuru (talk) 17:46, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You commented but it hardly involved you, I meant people that were actually involved. I am not extending you that offer because I find your judgement frequently flawed, nothing personal but that is my observation. HighInBC 17:48, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I made complaints too. That makes me involved. You also commented on the talk page and editing the essay. It was more than the MFD. QuackGuru (talk) 17:51, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You always make complaints, it is your thing. Leave my closure alone. If neither JzG or DrChrissy object to the close, and no other admin does, then I see no reason to change it to satisfy your complaints. HighInBC 17:52, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I hope this removes the ambiguity from my position: [1]. HighInBC 17:55, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's remarkable how someone with such a history of blocks and editing restrictions still seems to think that it's everybody else who is disruptive. I suspect QG will eventually end up with a siteban simply because of his obsessive approach to every trivial content dispute. As far as Ic an make out, the massive problem of OR that makes the chiropractic article an embarrassment tot he whole of Wikipedia comes down to one word: should it be many, some, most, or what. He's as bad as the chiropractic shills themselves, which is saying something (as any reader of Edzard Ernst's website will know, they have the same tolerance for constructive criticism as your average Bond villain). Guy (Help!) 17:59, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your behaviour has not been a sterling example of an ideal admin either. Frankly you have been escalating things when they don't need escalating. Try to avoid commenting on the editors themselves, and if needed focus on their behaviour in a productive fashion. Otherwise just try to avoid them.

I agree that the dispute is one of the silliest I have seen in years, and has been blown up beyond all proportions. But don't let others drag you down to their level. HighInBC 18:02, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

---

All an admin can do is block. As you say a warning is appropriate, go ahead and issue one. HighInBC 17:48, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

According to you a warning is appropriate, that is not what you did. If you did give then a warning please provide a diff. QuackGuru (talk) 17:56, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You are the one who wants a warning to be issued, if you want one then issue it. I am not your servant and warnings are not the domain of admins. HighInBC 17:57, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Do you think a warning is appropriate for JzG considering the recent comments at the essay talk page and this comment?[2] QuackGuru (talk) 18:06, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If you look very carefully you will see I already responded to that comment with some criticism and sincere advice. What exactly are you looking for here? HighInBC 18:10, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing from you. To be clear, OR is not trivial. QuackGuru (talk) 18:25, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody suggested it was. HighInBC 18:29, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You said "I agree that the dispute is one of the silliest I have seen in years". QuackGuru (talk) 18:34, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You are the one insisting it is an OR issue. In my opinion it is a content dispute. The silly part is how a simple content dispute has exploded into so much drama. This is a matter that reasonable people could have resolved reasonably. HighInBC 19:25, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The source does not support the current text in the lede. I made another proposal. Another editor agreed with me. I understand that admins state OR is always a content dispute. We don't have expert review or super admins. I wish some super editors could review it. I won't be going to the OR board. That could cause more drama. I don't want to be accused of canvassing. QuackGuru (talk) 22:06, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your opinion. I assure you I am aware of it and there is no need to repeat it over and over. I disagree with your opinion. You are no longer providing new information in this discussion and thus the productivity is rapidly dropping. Tell yourself whatever you like. HighInBC 22:36, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments too. QuackGuru (talk) 22:37, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. HighInBC 22:38, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to open a WP:DRR request for this Talk:Paleolithic_diet#Original_research_in_the_lede and other issues. I would like an uninvolved admin to open it. I don't want to be accused of anything. Thoughts? QuackGuru (talk) 22:46, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If you don't want to be accused of anything then this is the wrong website. I get accused of about 50 things a month here. Nobody is going to argue your point for you, much less someone uninvolved. If you argue your point in a non-disruptive way, and respect the opinions of others you will be fine. Any accusation can be refuted and if truly baseless and inappropriate responded to with administrative action.

Admins handle behaviour and policy, we do not get involved in content disputes as a matter of policy. Anyone who acting as an admin got into a content dispute would get desysoped. Any admin to did involve themselves in such a dispute must not act as an admin in that area.

I know you have been told all of this already. Admins are not going to fight your content disputes for you, and any that does will not be an admin for long. I am not such a fool. HighInBC 00:28, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. Got it. Admins do not get involved and super editors are hard to find. QuackGuru (talk) 00:34, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

They sure are. HighInBC 01:38, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The bright blue sig looks nice. QuackGuru (talk) 01:55, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Its colour depends on what page I am posting on. HighInBC 01:58, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Gook luck. Thanks for everything. QuackGuru (talk) 02:04, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Peace. HighInBC 02:08, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

	Peacemaker67 RfA Appreciation award
	Thank you for participating and supporting at my RfA. It was very much appreciated, and I am humbled that the community saw fit to trust me with the tools. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:03, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

For sending me a welcoming message!--الكاتب السابع (talk) 07:48, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

IP you blocked for atheist scum comments now has an account, CU checked., will you do the honours? Doug Weller talk 20:06, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, which account would that be? HighInBC 03:39, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I should have linked. Here's the block log[3] - you'll see I hardblocked just before I went to bed. The account is [4], an account created the day before your block last night.[5] I guess some sort of explanation on the account's talk page would be a good idea, and I'll do that later on so others can get an idea of the context. If you think an unblock notice on the account's talk page would be a good idea, go ahead and add it. Doug Weller talk 09:51, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You just welcomed him to Wikipedia and suggested that he get an account. He got an account and you blocked it indefinitely,[6] but he's still editing from his IP as your earlier block has expired. Doug Weller talk 16:27, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So hard to keep track of the sock puppet show. On which IP has the earlier block expired? HighInBC 16:35, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[7], his account is indefinitely blocked so this is block evasion. Doug Weller talk 17:06, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am a bit busy right now. Feel free to act on this yourself. HighInBC 23:00, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have, thanks. Just didn't want to do something you might not have been happy about. Doug Weller talk 12:47, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I trust your discretion. Thanks for the courtesy. HighInBC 15:45, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

After my WP:ANI post, you warned this user, and now he did it again. I am so fed up with his protracted edit warring, that I would like to see him summarily blocked. The question is, do you also think so, or is there some other procedure you would recommend? Debresser (talk) 01:19, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. It is clearly someone trying to win through stubbornness under the anonymity of an IP. If it happens after this block let me know. HighInBC 04:01, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I made it a hard block so if they do have an account it should get hit to. HighInBC 04:02, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Debresser (talk) 08:22, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

I'm fairly new to contributing to Wikipedia. I'm trying to have the main article photo for Christina Aguilera's page changed (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Christina_Aguilera), and have been unable to do so because of "licensing" issues. I believe I've found an image covered under Creative Commons licensing by a verified ABC Press Flickr account, but am now being told "a SPER, also known as a Semi-Protected edit request, is a bit outside the scope of my request".

Any advice for how to proceed with changing the main article photo? Thank you! Fifty1Fifty (talk) 09:29, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Any evidence that it does indeed have a compatible license should be presented at the talk page of the article. If people are not convinced then there is little to be done. My own opinion is that we don't really know for sure that the fickr account is authorized to release those pictures. HighInBC 16:36, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi HighinBC, maybe this follow-up IP [8] is an SP of your edit before? Just to let you know. Horseless Headman (talk) 16:45, 11 February 2016 (UTC).[reply]

WP:RBI successful! Thanks. HighInBC 16:52, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to inquire about your decision to remove my question.

Firstly, your statement of "we don't give legal advice". I thought I made it clear that my question arose due to a story I read on a website (and my curiousity regarding the legality of the writer's behaviour), NOT on any intention on my part to attempt to watch child or adolescent sexual activity. Do you disagree with the views expressed at Wikipedia:Reference desk advice? (I know it's only an essay, so you're free to disagree with it, I'm just asking). I thought my question conformed to the approach of the essay as to legal advice?

As to your assertion that my question was inappropriate, well, I can somewhat sympathize, but I do disagree. Questions on wikipedia that involve issues of pedophilia or hebephilia occasionally tend to devolve into ugly messes, from what I've seen, and my question might well have had the potential to devolve into a similar mess. But my question was an sincere and honest one, NOT an intention to s*** stir or troll. I honestly do not know the answer, and am curious. Should we ban all questions of this sort simply on the basis that they may evoke extreme emotional responses? (I want rational answers, I'm not interested in causing chaos). Note that I did not comment in any way on the morality of the actions of the actual or hypothetical individuals in my question. It was simply about the law.

(I can imagine some people responding with things along the lines of "THE GUY IS AN EVIL PEDO WHO DESERVES HIS HEAD BLOWN OFF" or "YOU'RE A PERVERT FOR ASKING SUCH A QUESTION" rather than attempting to actually answer my question).

Now, you are entitled to your opinion that my question is inappropriate for the refdesk, and I am not going to expend great energy trying to change your mind. My question to you is, given that wikipedia is a consensus-driven project, where would be the appropriate location for me to ask other editors what they think? The refdesk talk page? (I'm just an occasional editor, not a wikipedia regular, so I don't know).

As a secondary issue, if it turns out that most others agree with you, do you have any suggestions as to any other sites which may be able to offer an opinion on the issues raised in my removed question? Eliyohub (talk) 16:31, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Looking through your contribution history I see little contribution to the encyclopedia itself. My questions to you are:

• How is the question helping the encyclopedia?
• Are you here to contribute the encyclopedia?

In regards to your last question I don't frequent the sort of site that would be interested in that question so I have no idea. HighInBC 17:04, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with HighInBC's removal of the question. The question is quite specific and falls into the realm of legal advice. We can only answer "textbook style" questions, such as "what countries recognize common marriage?". Also, please note that the question doesn't seem best suited for Wikipedia. As our guidelines on the reference desk point out, it should be used to help refine and improve the encyclopedia. The specific instance that you've mentioned is so nuanced that it won't benefit the encyclopedia. Your question may be better suited to a question and answer website, such as Yahoo! Answers or Quora. Mike V • Talk 17:20, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mike V, I respect your opinion, and will not attempt to replace the question on the desk. But may I pose a question on the refdesk's talk page asking for suggestions as to more appropriate sites to answer my question? You've suggested yahoo answers and quora (and I may try them), but I wonder if there may be others as well.

HignInBC, I would like to make some remarks, merely with regard to future questions I may pose on the desks.

Firstly, I believe the issue was raised in the past about people participating on the refdesks whilst making minimal contributions to article-space. As I understand it, the consensus was that it's ok.

Also, Mike V, may I mention that whilst the initial purpose of the refdesks may have been to scout for information to improve articles (and it is sometimes still used for this purpose), common practice nowadays seems to be to allow questions which have nothing to do with potential article contributions. Eliyohub (talk) 04:19, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It is important that you recognize that the goal of wikipedia is to produce an encyclopedia. While questions that do not help the encyclopedia are often answered, they are done so out courtesy. It is not our purpose. It is certainly not the purpose of the project to draw a line showing what is legal and what is not.

If you really want to know if it is legal to watch kids jerk off for ones own sexual gratification[9] you should hire a lawyer to tell you, not ask people on the Internet. Frankly I would rather occupy my mind with other matters. HighInBC 04:58, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If I had any intention of actually doing that (watching kids jerk off or have sex), than yes, I would be well-advised to speak to a lawyer, not post a wikipedia question. But in the future, would it be possible to "hat" my questions (or any questions, for that matter) if you think them inappropriate, rather than removing them? Is there a wikipedia guideline or policy on the issue of hatting-versus-removal in regards to inappropriate refdesk questions? Eliyohub (talk) 14:13, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your intentions don't enter into it. You are asking to define if very specific behaviour is legal or not, this is legal advice. People who want legal opinions should hire a lawyer and not ask on Wikipedia. We don't give legal advice. I could think of a few more ways of saying it if that would help you understand.

I removed it because it was not appropriate, I am not going to hat something that needs to be removed. I don't really want to talk about this any more, if you still disagree with my action then you are welcome to draw greater scrutiny towards it, however I am done explaining myself. HighInBC 18:17, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is What good are WP:RS and WP:V if administrators ignore them?. Thank you. -- The Voidwalker ^Discuss 21:31, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to bother, but you helped resolve a dispute with the Uechi-ryū "Major Organization" page. I noticed that the order has been changed at least twice without a reason that I could find. Perhaps I missed it. Anyways, I suspect it has to do with disagreement over which organization is bigger or more important. I opened a Talk topic on it:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Uechi-ryū#Major_Organizations_Part-II

and would welcome your input. 98.227.140.14 (talk) 23:50, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I took this to the Help Desk which recommended I seek a formal Dispute resolution.98.227.140.14 (talk) 22:55, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I am a bit busy these days. If you need urgent administrative attention you might want to consider asking somebody else. HighInBC 23:16, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

79.78.168.63 is at it again at Hebrew calendar. Even the recent WP:ANI discussion hasn't brought home the point that edit warring is not allowed. Debresser (talk) 16:48, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your Sabbath rest doesn't seem to have done you much good. The recent ANI discussion resulted in a consensus that Marcheshvan is the name of the month. How is reverting to a consensus version edit warring? In your edit summary you say you are reverting vandalism. I don't see any vandalism there - which specific changes are you complaining about? 79.78.168.63 (talk) 16:55, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That was a personal attack, regarding my Shabbat rest.

Looking at the WP:ANI discussion again, let me quote the conclusion: "The part of the discussion relevant to admin tools or actions seems resolved. The remainder is a content dispute better discussed and dealt with in the article talk page." Is it me, or am I missing the part where it says that there is "a consensus that Marcheshvan is the name of the month"? I did see "The bottom line here is not that 79...'s point of view is factually incorrect. It is that a case can be made either way factually, that the standing consensus under the circumstances is to handle it in the current way, and that consensus has not been reached to change that approach. And that is what 79... chooses to ignore." So you are either incapable of understanding the conclusion of the discussion, which would be a case of WP:INCOMPETENT, or you are deliberate misrepresenting it. Debresser (talk) 17:23, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If pointing out that a rest does not seem to have been beneficial is a personal attack, God help us. Allegations of incompetence and misrepresentation most definitely are personal attacks. Another personal attack is the allegation of "vandalism" when it appears all you are objecting to is the replacement of the word "Cheshvan" with "Marcheshvan", which is a tiny percentage of the edit.

You want "sometimes abbreviated to Cheshvan" changed to "or Cheshvan". You are presenting the reader with a choice, but you don't give him the information he needs to make an intelligent choice between the alternatives presented. Why not?

At the next point of disagreement again you deny information to the reader. You want to write "Marcheshvan/Cheshvan". Another multiple - choice question for the poor reader. Some people could be forgiven for thinking we are trying to write an encyclopaedia here.

Finally, you present the reader with a fait accompli. You want to write

• Both Cheshvan and Kislev have 29 days.
• Cheshvan has 29 days while Kislev has 30 days.
• Both Cheshvan and Kislev have 30 days.
• the number of days in Cheshvan and Kislev;

No mention of Marcheshvan at all.

Then you disingenuously represent that Steven's opinion is the words of the closer. The consensus was summed up here:

... yes, the real name is Marcheshvan, not Cheshvan.

Did you somehow miss that as you were reading? 79.78.168.63 (talk) 19:15, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am not able to devote any time to this today. If it is urgent then you may wish to seek another administrator. HighInBC 20:05, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am not in a hurry, so I can wait. Unless you want some new eyes on this IP's edits, of course. Debresser (talk) 00:50, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And again: [10] Debresser (talk) 16:43, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have semi-protected the page for two weeks. If the IP wants to argue their case they can do it on the talk page. HighInBC 17:20, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Debresser (talk) 20:56, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Update at 16:18, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[edit]

Thanks for your continued support. Question: do you know if anyone has ever done a CU on this IP as a possible sock of User:Vote (X) for Change? The line of argumentation on this issue has been quite similar to arguments of socks of that user. To be sure: I have no particular evidence of this, only suspicion. StevenJ81 (talk) 16:18, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That particular user changes IPs so regularly that I don't think a CU will reveal anything. The fact that the IP has been keeping the same IP for months now tells me it is likely something different. If they seem alike it may be because neither of them is particularly creative and that people like them are unfortunately fairly common. If they are the same, or if they are different people the response will be the same so I don't think it really matters. HighInBC 16:22, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. Thanks for your response. StevenJ81 (talk) 16:24, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This action

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dumbfuckistan&action=edit&redlink=1

seems to shows a lack of understanding of how widespread, and with what usages, this term is.

https://www.google.com/search?q=dumfuckistan&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8

Please reconsider. Thanks, Derntno (talk) 18:59, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If a consensus can be reached on the article talk page to use that redirect then it can be recreated. I don't even see the term mentioned in the article. HighInBC 22:48, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm trying to help you people out. No one threatened anyone. I've just seen this stuff before! — Preceding unsigned comment added by MajorViolator1961 (talk • contribs) 23:27, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps it is not your intent to sound intimidating, however "I know he will be in touch with you soon personally...Now he has taken a personal interest in this" give that impression. Even if you don't intend to sound threatening, if you give that perception you may be blocked.

I have seen that you have posted similar messages in the past using IPs. This behaviour is borderline harassment. If you can get a consensus among other editors that your edits should be in the article then they can be there. Otherwise you just don't get your way. Trying to push around other editors certainly will not help you though. HighInBC 23:30, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No one made a threat. Getting in touch with people is common. I'm trying to help you people out! Most people would be grateful! If someone saying they are going to "get in touch" makes you feel threatened, I suggest you contact Homeland Security for a referral. Nothing that was said is a Title 18 USC violation in any way. MajorViolator1961 (talk) 23:47, 4 March 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by MajorViolator1961 (talk • contribs) 23:37, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

My phones are starting to light up over this. More people are getting involved. Who started this problem to begin with??? MajorViolator1961 (talk) 23:47, 4 March 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by MajorViolator1961 (talk • contribs) 23:39, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

He said for you to reach out to him. You've been designated the point of contact on the MaterialScientist Tony Mcguiness issue! [redact]MajorViolator1961 (talk) 23:50, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Guidelines for talk

Make reply tricky

No-one cares

About your phone

MPS1992 (talk) 23:53, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Are you also involved in the fraudulent deletion of references MPS1992? MajorViolator1961 (talk) 00:00, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This out of my hands now. I tried to help you people out and got chastised. Most people would appreciate my intervention. I am making it a matter of record I tried to help and deescalate this !!!!!! MajorViolator1961 (talk) 00:16, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like you did the opposite of de-escalating and got blocked. When people don't appreciate your intervention it tends to be time to stop. HighInBC 02:42, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

OK, an IP editor with a just one edit history deprods a (low-traffic) article. Am I just being paranoid, or should I worry that something fishy is going on here?... TIA. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 22:29, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It could just be someone who found the article through google and saw the "You may remove this message if you improve the article or otherwise object to deletion for any reason" message. I can't make out what the edit summary is trying to say. Pretty much anyone can remove a prod if they disagree with it though. HighInBC 02:22, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for this. Xender Lourdes (talk) 02:40, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. HighInBC 02:41, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, talk pages are meant to be a record of a discussion; deleting or editing legitimate comments as you did at User talk:Picomtn is considered bad practice, even if you meant well. Even making spelling and grammatical corrections in others' comments is generally frowned upon, as it tends to irritate the users whose comments you are correcting. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Please restore the section and let the two parties work it out as warranted. ((u|Checkingfax)) {Talk} 23:04, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Checkingfax: I think you will find that removing personal attacks is considered a good practice around here. I am not sure if you are unaware of this or are trying to make a point. Perhaps if you used your words instead of dropping a template on my page I would better understand where you are coming from. HighInBC 23:40, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi HighInBC. I did add my words to the template. Since this is not a highly visible or offensive personal attack I feel it would be best left for the two (actually three) parties involved to work it out and leave it up to the attacked one to request its removal (or remove it themselves) or leave it to the Talk page owner to delete. Given some time I trust the Talk page owner would neutralize the attack with their own replies or remove the thread. I have been viciously attacked on my Talk page to where the attack was oversighted before I ever saw it and I have no idea of what was said or redacted. I slept through the whole sequence. In those cases fellow editors noticed and blanked the vicious personal attacks, and then requested oversight, without my knowledge. I appreciate your concern but I feel in this case you should revert your blanking and let the parties involved request your assistance. Cheers! ((u|Checkingfax)) {Talk} 23:56, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I did read "Please restore the section and let the two parties work it out as warranted.", but that is simply not how our no personal attacks policy works. Our personal attack policy is not "let them work it out", it is "no personal attacks". As an administrator it is part of my job to make sure our volunteers have a non-hostile environment to work in. I have no intention of returning the personal attacks, and anyone else doing so would be in violation of our NPA policy. HighInBC 00:10, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello HighInBC. I'm requesting an immediate revdel on this silliness. Thanks --IJBall (contribs • talk) 23:05, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I reported PhlatusI (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) to AIV but there is a pretty large backlog there so any help you can provide will be appreciated. MarnetteD|Talk 23:07, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Update. The editor has been blocked but the material could still use RD. Cheers to you both. MarnetteD|Talk 23:08, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@MarnetteD: This is an SPI case, correct? I can't remember – who's the master account? --IJBall (contribs • talk) 23:13, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think so IJBall because I have seen this trolling several times in the last few months. Unfortunately I can't remember who the master is either. Sorry about that. MarnetteD|Talk 23:15, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/FiveSidedFistagon. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 23:16, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you zzuuzz for the RD and for the mention of the sockmaster. Much appreciated. MarnetteD|Talk 23:17, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

+1. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 23:18, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• This is really nasty stuff. Next time you come across something like this, please contact Oversight and do not draw attention to the material in public. I contacted the OS team and it has now been suppressed. BethNaught (talk) 23:23, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Huh?? I seemed to have missed something... Probably for the best. HighInBC 01:05, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you would like to add something to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/79.78.168.63? Debresser (talk) 11:37, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I have given my 2 cents there. HighInBC 14:58, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi bro Konkan manus (talk) 15:48, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the community. I hope the links I left on your page will help you understand our project. HighInBC 15:49, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In the page goud saraswat brahmin I have added content with valid source reference but sitush(may be biased or don't know about him)had reverted .please sort it out or tell me how to handle. Konkan manus (talk) 15:51, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am asking u as your message seems like you are nice unbiased guy Konkan manus (talk) 15:52, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have not bias because I don't even know what that article is. If another editor is reverting you then you need to seek a consensus on the talk page for your edit before it can be made. If you cannot find consensus on the talk page then the edit cannot be made.

You are saying that you have been reverted, but I don't see any edits by you in your contribution history. It seems that you must have done this with another account. Please note that you should not use more than one account, doing so to edit the same page is a violation of our sock puppetry policy and is seen as dishonest. Which account did you make the previous edits under? HighInBC 16:03, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@HighInBC Its recent konkan manus.I have given valid reference justification .Hope for the best. Thanks and regards Konkan manus (talk) 16:24, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I can see your edit history. I can see that the account Konkan manus has not added references or been reverted. Clearly you edited under another account. Frankly at this point I am suspecting your are the same as the blocked user User:Truth should trump. Please correct me if I am wrong and point me to were you were reverted. If you are User:Truth should trump then you need to stop editing until your block has expired. HighInBC 16:38, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It is Truth should trump. Doesn't look like I can email you the behavioural evidence, which is considerable bro. - Sitush (talk) 17:05, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I just turned my e-mail back on. HighInBC 17:17, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sent, thanks. I could elaborate further but I'm pretty sure you'll spot it with what I've said. - Sitush (talk) 17:23, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:Bishonen has gotten there before I could. Based on behavioural evidence I was about to block. HighInBC 17:30, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've just noticed. Thanks for looking into it. - Sitush (talk) 17:31, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I don't know if you watch the talk page at Talk:USA Rugby, so I'm just letting you know here that I've left a comment for you there. Many thanks 90.214.212.126 (talk) 16:35, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I closed the legal threat discussion at AN/I based on the responses and the actions you took to resolve the problem, but my close was reverted. If I closed inappropriately, please accept my apologies. ^{Atsme📞📧} 18:52, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't disagree with your close. Everyone gets their closes reverted sometimes, even long standing admins. I would not take it personally. I strongly suspect that it will be reclosed with pretty much the same result eventually. HighInBC 00:44, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really know you, and I don't know what prompted you to leave me a photo barnstar, however, it is very kind, and much appreciated. I have been here for 5 years, never submitted any of my photos for any recognition anywhere on this site, and actually, never even got as much as a "thanks" for over 100 photos in articles until today. Thank you, whatever prompted it. Pocketthis (talk) 14:47, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am also a photographer. You can see some of my work on my user page. This is one of my favourites: File:Selasphorus rufus on Saltspring Island.jpg. Wikipedia needs photographers. HighInBC 14:52, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• You should have the barnstar. Selasphorus rufus on Saltspring Island.jpg is AMAZING!!!!! Pocketthis (talk) 00:05, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I know you closed this discussion with no action, yet we're back at ANI and these accusations continue following me around to DRV and other places. Was your original lack of admin action conclusion based on a lack of evidence and if so, can you clarify that at some point, stick dropping is required? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 23:35, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It was based on a lack of consensus either way. My closure does not side with either party, nor does it preclude further discussion. It was simply that there was no consensus for any admin action. HighInBC 02:11, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

		The Anti-Flame Barnstar
		Awarded for your conduct here. In truth, it took me a long minute to decide between this and the "civility" and "socratic" barnstar variants. But in any event, I wanted you to know that I observed your approach to the discussion to be very principled; despite numerous borderline-antagonistic comments that might have inspired other contributors to respond in a similar tone, you kept your own observations rational, measured, cogent, and rooted in the needs of our community and our processes. That is to say, I don't award this barnstar so much for your position (though I think it was sound) as for the manner in which you presented it. You are a credit to the mop! Snow let's rap 06:37, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I really appreciate it. HighInBC 08:40, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi HighInBC,

I trust you're fine. I want to let you know that I forwarded my credentials and employment document to the OTRS team. There is also a request for arbitration here (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Wikicology) Thanks. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 15:08, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not really something I am interested in, thank you though. HighInBC 15:14, 3 April 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.