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.

Can you please delete my talk page? 83.31.148.122 (talk) 17:57, 1 June 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

We don't delete talk pages. They serve as a record of the history of the IP. HighInBC 18:01, 1 June 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Can you please delete my talk page? 83.31.148.122 (talk) 17:57, 1 June 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Do you want me to repeat my previous answer? HighInBC 20:33, 1 June 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Could you not remove my comments from other people's talk pages please. It's improper..it altered the flow of comments too with comments now missing..I realize it made you look bad as your comment didn't particularly make sense and I pointed that out (and you've now changed your approach to make yourself look better)...could you also not threaten to block me in your edit summaries when I've done nothing wrong...my discussion on his talkpage is perfectly acceptable unless he tells me to stop posting on his page...note too that obviously this block would never have been exposed/reconsidered but for my actions...note too the 'black supremacy' article would have remained in its previous sorry state for years on end more but for my actions...remove your 'grain of salt' post or reinstate the rest..68.48.241.158 (talk) 14:23, 4 June 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You think too much of yourself. The block was reviewed because we have a block review queuing system. Their recent request is being considered despite your advice that they give up. Don't fool yourself into thinking you are helping this user by dragging their minor block to AN to be confirmed as correct. You certainly don't help them by encouraging them to give up or to think they are the victim of some sort of abusive admin bullying. Their response to this block has been far better than yours.

I will remove your comment if you post disruptive material again and I will block you for disruption. I have told you in no uncertain terms to not disrupt our block review process to make your point. We have shown you a lot of patience but this is the line. Leave the newbies alone. HighInBC 14:30, 4 June 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.48.241.158 (talk) 15:02, 4 June 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

And if the community says you are wrong again will you accept that? HighInBC 15:08, 4 June 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'd love to see what would happen if I erased your comments on another person's talkpage just because imo they were somehow bad (and critical of me)...one of your fellow admins came along though and ended things before your behavior could be properly examined by anyone other than people who already don't like me and/or are following me around Wikipedia..68.48.241.158 (talk) 16:33, 4 June 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If I was giving new users bad advice I would very much expect to be reverted and corrected. You took it to the admin noticeboard, of course an admin closed it. Do you really think there is some sort of conspiracy going on here?

You have had plenty of attention from uninvolved people, you just did not get the answer you want. I said before you posted to ANI that I would accept the outcome, it would be nice if you gave the community the same courtesy. HighInBC 16:53, 4 June 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

you're not allowed to erase things on another person's talkpage because in your opinion it's bad advise...you can respond to it, however...it's absurd you don't understand this as an admin..68.48.241.158 (talk) 16:57, 4 June 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Link to the rule that supports your claim. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:10, 4 June 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I see you are choosing to reject the community's interpretation of this incident. I suggest you read Wikipedia:Disruptive_editing#Failure or refusal to "get the point". Users who refuse to accept consensus tend to find this place frustrating. HighInBC 17:03, 4 June 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

consensus from a thread that was open 15 mins and only involved input from people who already don't like me/are following me around Wikipedia..get real..68.48.241.158 (talk) 17:11, 4 June 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The thread was actually open for 63 minutes, not 15. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:15, 4 June 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It did not take long to resolve because the result was clear. The people who responded are the same people that normally post on that noticeboard. I don't think you should personalize this, this isn't about anyone not liking you. It is about people not liking your behaviour. HighInBC 17:17, 4 June 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

yes, it's another example of ANI being a disaster...I was originally thinking that might be due to the involvement of so many nonadmins (as admins are theoretically competent editors)..this appears to not be the case as there are apparently 500 something admins and likely only a very small percent participate in these noticeboards...and apparently many of these aren't particularly competent...so I don't know what the solution is..Wikipedia is in big trouble based on the competence of its current admins based on my experiences...good day..68.48.241.158 (talk) 17:51, 4 June 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, I feel like I was being unfairly treated by the blocking admin, NOT because I was blocked but because Jim was NOT blocked. It is not disputed that Jim violated 3RR and when I explained on edit summary that it was not meant to be a forum discussion and that I was discussing actual content about the article, Jim continued to revert, citing the NOTFORUM policy, which is not being helpful at all. I feel that Jim was also violating TPO as my discussion is not a clear-cut gibberish or off-topic. I felt victimised when Jim was trying to prevent me from making my voice heard. The blocking admin's explanation was that he was assuming good faith of Jim but I feel this to be unfair because he did not assume good faith of me as well. Having a clean record does not give Jim a free pass to violate policy in my opinion. I actually would like to start a review (on the proper channel) on the blocking admin's handling of the matter as I do not think he was being impartial but I am afraid that I would get blocked for asking for a review on an admin's action even though I think I have the right to ask for a review based on ADMINACCT. 108.162.157.141 (talk) 21:45, 4 June 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I can't really speak for the blocking admin. You are welcome to ask for a review, the first step would be bringing this up with the blocking admin. Generally a bit of direct discussion can resolve these things. This block has already been looked at once on the noticeboard, have you seen that discussion? If you remain polite you should not get in trouble for asking about this. HighInBC 21:59, 4 June 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I tried to open a new case at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests but it is semi-protected. Does it mean only those with registered account can ask for arbitration? 108.162.157.141 (talk) 22:52, 4 June 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Arbitration? Again, the first step would be bringing this up with the blocking admin. Arbitration is a last resort and only accepted when attempts have been made to resolve the problem directly. My advice would be to let it go, as it is no harm to you that someone else did not get blocked. HighInBC 23:00, 4 June 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Then why didn't you blank it before, when we were already talking about the blockages, while I was already a new IP? And why are you afraid to answer my questions now? 75.162.244.4 (talk) 23:36, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

You can use your own talk page. That talk page is for an IP that is no longer yours, it is being blanked so the next editor does not see all that unrelated content. Please leave it blank. HighInBC 23:44, 4 June 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Then answer my question about why you weren't blanking it on the very day that my address changed and we were still talking about that blockage even though the new address I was using was obviously not blocked. 75.162.244.4 (talk) 00:01, 5 June 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.162.244.4 (talk) 00:02, 5 June 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please stop being disruptive, you are just going to end up blocked again. HighInBC 00:06, 5 June 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Then why do you figure that its "okay" for you to be disruptive by edit-war-removing my latest replies from ...151 now even though you weren't before, including giving me that bogus warning from your ip address, even though I was already writing with a new IP address on that talk page back then, and even though other people were doing so too? Why can they do so if I supposedly "can't" even though you were fine with it before? --The user whose IP address is now 75.162.244.4 (talk) because of its being dynamic; NOT because of falsely supposed "intended IP-hopping."

It's no longer your talkpage, @75.162.244.4:. Drop the stick and move on. If you want a persistent talkpage then create an account. SQL^{Query me!} 00:21, 5 June 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That doesn't answer my questions, @SQL:. It doesn't tell me why it's supposedly "not okay" for me to not write on the other IP address even though other people can, and it doesn't tell me why it's "not okay to now" even though he was still talking to me on it the other day, even while my address had already changed then. I might be willing to "drop the stick" if someone will simply give me some real answers to my questions, instead of just dodging them because they're afraid to answer. --The user whose IP address is now 75.162.244.4 (talk) because of its being dynamic; NOT because of falsely supposed "intended IP-hopping." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.162.244.4 (talk • contribs) 00:25, 5 June 2016‎

That IP is not me. I suggest you create an account if you want a permanent talk page. Until then you are just using IP talk pages which will eventually rotate out. HighInBC 00:28, 5 June 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Oh? Well who is it, supposedly, then? 75.162.244.4 (talk) 00:36, 5 June 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

(edit conflict) Whomever has that IP now is no longer the person the messages on it were intended for - as simple as that. "It didn't happen before" simply isn't a valid argument in this case. SQL^{Query me!} 00:30, 5 June 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Then why is it being enforced now even though it was not before?

And why can other people keep talking on that talk page even though that page didn't belong to me anymore? Why the double-standard?

And then why are you, High, going against your own earlier advice, where you said exactly this: ":We don't delete talk pages. They serve as a record of the history of the IP"? 75.162.244.4 (talk) 00:37, 5 June 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

(edit conflict) Who is talking on that page? I see a blank fucking page - and in the history, I see you edit-warring with an admin over a talkpage that isn't even connected to you anymore (and possibly never was - we can't really verify this). SQL^{Query me!} 00:39, 5 June 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Uh, DUHH, @SQL:, you see an empty page because highboy emptied it, even against his own advice of the rule that he told someone up above here; that is what I'm asking about. Perhaps you can go down and read the previous things that were said on there. You... do know how to access the history... don't you, SQL? All one has to do to verify that is read through the conversation. I was talking there through my old IPs, high was even after my address changed, and so was ebyabe. 75.162.244.4 (talk) 00:45, 5 June 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Blanking a page is not the same as deleting a page. When you blank a page the history is still there. When you delete it the history is removed. I hope this clears up any misunderstanding. I prefer High Man, Mr. BC or just HighInBC, but I have not been called highboy since I was a teenager. HighInBC 00:48, 5 June 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Then why don't you answer my question about why, if you were okay with my talking on my previous talk page while I had already told you that I had a new address the other day, you are trying to enforce that we don't do that now, and even when you were fine with other people (such as ebyabe) still writing on it even though it was never their page and not mine anymore?

OH! And as long as we're on that subject, then why doesn't the same thing apply to editing other pages that's done by that IP address that is then blocked, vs. one by another IP address that appears to be of the same person? It seems to me that if a person is told that they can no longer write on the talk page of an address that they used to have, they should no longer be considered blocked if they're using another IP address to edit the project. Why the double-standard?

(Remember, there are two questions here. Please answer both of them.) 75.162.244.4 (talk) 01:00, 5 June 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• @HighInBC: You might want to check out this user for sock issues. Same MO and attitude, same prose style, same formatting: [1] [2] [3] [4] --Epipelagic (talk) 01:03, 5 June 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think Too Small a Fish to Fry is actually User:Who R U? (spi here:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Who_R_U%3F). It's a long story. Sro23 (talk) 01:11, 5 June 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

LOL, what does that have to do with anything? What formatting are you talking about? Only one person ever uses bold and italics? Surely your attitude is the same as that of another person's here too, is it not? Isn't that why consenses can even exist here, because there isn't just one person on the whole site that believes something? I'm asking "high" why we shouldn't talk on my old IP talk pages even though he was already allowing it the other day. 75.162.244.4 (talk) 01:24, 5 June 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• I am like catnip to these people. HighInBC 01:24, 5 June 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

coffee / nostrils interface moment! _Muffled ^Pocketed 13:42, 5 June 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I could not help myself. HighInBC 13:47, 5 June 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I suppose you were right though: come January, he'll be able to devote himself to such major issues full time... _Muffled ^Pocketed 13:55, 5 June 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Outing here _Muffled ^Pocketed 16:19, 5 June 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It looks like it was gotten to by someone else. In the future the fastest way to get these things dealt with is using Special:EmailUser/Oversight. HighInBC 19:59, 5 June 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

		The Admin's Barnstar
		Block evaders suck, Including this one, Thanks for blocking him. Amccann421 (talk) 20:26, 8 June 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wow, in over 10 years this is my first haiku-style barnstar. Thanks! HighInBC ^{Need help? ((ping|HighInBC))} 20:30, 8 June 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

click here 95.49.102.49 (talk) 17:30, 12 June 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you. HighInBC ^{Need help? ((ping|HighInBC))} 19:14, 12 June 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

9+10=21[edit]

Did you know that 9+10=21? It's somewhere on the Internet. 95.49.102.49 (talk) 19:38, 12 June 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There... Are... Four... Lights! HighInBC ^{Need help? ((ping|HighInBC))} 19:48, 12 June 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@MSJapan: When private information is not involved I prefer to handle communication out in the open on wiki rather than through private e-mail. I am happy to discuss the topics of your e-mail if you are willing to discuss some or all of your points here. Which points if any you wish to bring to this public forum is of course entirely up to you. HighInBC ^{Need help? ((ping|HighInBC))} 23:58, 14 June 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Well, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, then.

Point 1: The ANI was due to persistent judgment issues (e.g., editorial conduct) in DEPRODs by Kvng. Seven discussions faulting Kvng's behavior were noted in the last month on his talk page, another on the Prod talk that I wasn't aware of, and no change in behavior. Whether or not it's strictly against policy or not, seven complaints is not small. Nevertheless, the ANI closes with no sanction, and this happens, where an unsourced article created as the only edit of a user, is kept "because it meets GNG since it's on Google Maps." Since when is that in line with GNG? That's the crux of it - personal ideas are being used instead of policy, regardless of timing, but I still maintain that if in a week, no one has addressed a PROD at all with sources, courtesy dictates that the article should be deleted per the template instructions. The subsequent policy discussion pretty much went nowhere, especially when Kvng attempted to rewrite the policy to specifically condone his patrolling behavior.

Point 2: Kvng keeps a list of DEPRODs - it doesn't require contrib hunting to find them. I went through a few, and found two that were questionable. Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Harry_Rosman I started because it was deprodded to redirect or merge, but the person isn't named in the target, and the article as it stood was based on one news article. "Target doesn't appear in article" is an oft-used RfD argument. I stated that redirect wasn't appropriate the target isn't in the article in my nom, and Kvng accused me of not following BEFORE.

Point 3: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Ali_Ahmad_Fayyad was deprodded. The extent of the article was that "he's dead." Notability was clearly not established. Purplebackpack89 accused me of a disruptive AfD, Kvng echoed the keep, and I decided I was not going to contribute if I was going to be followed around and tag-team voted against in bad faith. After announcing my retirement based on that, PBP posted on my talk page, basically saying that he was following me so I'd lay off Kvng, and that I could edit wherever I wanted otherwise and there'd be no problem. I'm sorry, but that's bullying, it's not appropriate, and as I said then, I'm not going to contribute here if it's permissible to have my editing arbitrarily circumscribed by threats from a user who wasn't involved until he interjected himself into the ANI. As far as the AfD goes, the one uninvolved voter (so far) agreed with my assessment.

All of the above points (save point 1) were brought up in the ANI, which was closed without action. There are actionable issues here, period. MSJapan (talk) 00:34, 15 June 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The entire point of the prod system is that an article can be deleted if nobody has an objection. Even after being deleted as prod an article an be undeleted on request. They don't have to be right, they just have to object. Prod is only for uncontroversial deletions.

If you cannot get it deleted through PROD and it is as obviously wrong as you say then it should take very little discussion at AfD to find just that.

While I may or may not agree with their judgement of the article that is okay, because we have more robust deletion mechanisms like AfD. Kvng is allowed to object to a proposed deletion for whatever reason they believe are valid. I don't think they are acting in bad faith.

Wikipedia got along fine with PROD for a long time, it was added to make it easier to deal with topics nobody cared to preserve. If you want to expand the scope of PROD then I suggest you go to the policy talk page and propose a change.

You assertion that "There are actionable issues here, period" does not hold up to me. Perhaps another admin will feel differently. HighInBC ^{Need help? ((ping|HighInBC))} 00:41, 15 June 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Fine, but let me ask you this: I did follow the process. I took the article to AfD. You yourself say that's what to do. I was then accused of a disruptive AfD, and two involved editors voted keep. Those are not good-faith votes, and in fact sabotage the AfD process. One of those editors then basically said "don't Afd this other guy's articles, and I'll leave you alone." What is not actionable about that behavior? Or is it because I was wrong that nothing else I say has merit? MSJapan (talk) 00:50, 15 June 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I would not worry about blustering, I don't think anyone with the block button is going to consider the AfD disruptive. As for someone saying "don't Afd this other guy's articles, and I'll leave you alone", I don't see anyone saying that. Can you give me a diff? HighInBC ^{Need help? ((ping|HighInBC))} 01:25, 15 June 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I provided the diff earlier in Point #3, but here it is again. [5]. MSJapan (talk) 02:19, 15 June 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes I read that. It really doesn't say what you said it says in your paraphrased in quote. HighInBC ^{Need help? ((ping|HighInBC))} 02:26, 15 June 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

OK, so if you agree that it does say that, what now? Am I free to edit as I feel policy dictates no matter whose contribs it is, or am I expected to stay away from one editor's edits because some other user (not the prodder) is going to harass me about it? That's where I have the problem.

Setting aside the ANI itself as (apparently) a matter of interpretation, and focusing down on just "good PROD or not", Kvng has no problem with people questioning his edits. We've also established that AfD is the established next step on a DEPROD if one disagrees. I don't have a problem sending something to community consensus, but whether it skews the votes or not, I don't want to see speedy keep as disruptive followed by a tag-team vote, and the subsequent garbage every time I take one of these things to AfD. That's why I want something done proactively - it makes no sense for me to willing volunteer in a hostile environment. MSJapan (talk) 03:18, 15 June 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

HighInBC, I'm sorry this MSJapan fellow's wasting your time. Apparently, since he (wrongfully) feels bullied by me, he wants to get YOU TO bully me. Yes, I consider his actions (including this very thread) disruptive, and I'm not ashamed to admit it. He carried on in that ANI far more and far longer than was necessary, continuing to demand punishment for Kvng when it should have been clear to him none was forthcoming; now he’s asking YOU to sanction Kvng.

Yes, I voted in those AfDs; I was perfectly entitled to. I voted in TWO AfDs MSJapan started; he seems to make it out like it’s a helluvalot more. I did not come to the AfDs with any preconceived notion of how to vote, but I quickly saw that one article he nominated was already sourced, and the other could be fixed rather than deleted. Instead of just taking the fact somebody disagreed with his AfD nominations in stride, MSJapan decided to retire.

When I tried to talk MSJapan out of an ill-conceived retirement on his talk page, he threw all the slings and arrows he could at me because, heaven forbid, I suggested to him that future interaction with Kvng was unwise. And now he's here; devoting his only time and effort on the project to trying to get Kvng and me punished. Basically, what he seems to be asking (in the most exaggerated and incendiary language possible) is that you block me for disagreeing with him, and maybe unilaterally issue some sanctions on Kvng while you’re at it. What a shame. pbp 03:30, 15 June 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think the one thing ANI settled is that nobody is getting sanctioned for what has already happened. Kvng is welcome to remove prods, but MSJapan is also welcome to review those removals and seek AfD is they desire. I do wish all parties would stop assuming bad faith on the part of the other though. HighInBC ^{Need help? ((ping|HighInBC))} 03:49, 15 June 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

In your ANI close, you said "does have merit and is unlikely to be acted upon"- did you mean, "does not have merit"? Just FYI! _Muffled ^Pocketed 16:42, 18 June 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes you are right, I have fixed that. Thank you. HighInBC ^{Need help? ((ping|HighInBC))} 16:44, 18 June 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

In your close of "Joseph2302" on AN/I you wrote "BerendWorst's complaint does have merit BerendWorst's complaint does have merit...". Did you mean that or did you mean "does not have merit"? Just wondering. BMK (talk) 16:46, 18 June 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Beyond My Ken: Beat you to it _Muffled ^Pocketed 16:52, 18 June 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes, you are right. I have fixed that thank you. HighInBC ^{Need help? ((ping|HighInBC))} 16:46, 18 June 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sorry for the repetition. BMK (talk) 17:23, 18 June 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Better over corrected than uncorrected. HighInBC ^{Need help? ((ping|HighInBC))} 18:25, 18 June 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

	The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
	Thank you for dealing with a vandal super fast! You and NeilN sorted the whole thing before I'd managed to figure out what was happening. II do appreciate that very much. Thank you. Rhondamerrick (talk) 03:34, 22 June 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Any time. HighInBC ^{Need help? ((ping|HighInBC))} 12:38, 22 June 2016 (UTC)Reply[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.