User talk:HighInBC/Archive 71

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.

ANI

This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. (not by me, but letting you know) Onel5969 ^{TT me} 05:57, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, I appreciate the heads up. HighInBC 08:02, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

Thanks for dealing with User:Heyilickbigtits!

TF ^{{ Contribs } { Edit Quest! }} 19:31, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Thank you that looks delicious! HighInBC 19:32, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the appreciation of the vanadalbot edits

It's mutual respect like that that makes the fun such worthwhile.

Therefore an offer, well, three offers:

a. treat you like any other editor b. make sure that you are on any vandalism lists (or at least ones I consider examples of my finest work) so that you get to see it c. leave yourself and your talk page entirely left alone.

What's it to be, buddy?

From soon to be HighInKA 86.131.23.154 (talk) 22:08, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Funny perhaps, but not unique or special, far from respect mutual or otherwise. I see stuff like that all day long. Frankly you are one of thousands and I have no interest in any of your offers. You are not yet ready young grasshopper.

Remember that the key to a successful troll is to do something new and clever, to actually fool somebody. Sheer stick–to–itiveness or determination is not enough, and a posting that has zero % chance of being taken seriously by anyone isn't going to make much of a mark.

There are trolls who I respect but it takes more than eliciting a chuckle to gain my respect. Really Wikipedia is low hanging fruit better suited for an amateur troll to practice on than make a real mark. Perhaps try a target that is not troll central and you will have a chance to stand out in the crowd. Let me know if you do something impressive. HighInBC 00:53, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Electricburst1996 deleting talk page comments after ANI

Hi and happy new year. Writing you because you previously closed this report where the editor almost got a boomerang for playing tricks with the user he was reporting by, among other things, deleting his talk page comments on Talk:Laff (TV network). Now, after the incident is gone from WP:ANI, what does he do? He just does it again. I already left a stern warning on his talk page. Do you think it would be appropriate to re-open the ANI report at this time? Multiple editors considered the behavior pretty much unacceptable the first time around... continuing it now just seems like treating other people as fools. LjL (talk) 20:50, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Look, the only reason I deleted that comment was because I thought it wasn't appropriate for an article talk page. ElectricBurst^{(Electron firings)}_(Zaps) 21:35, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

@Electricburst1996: That was the reason you originally deleted it. But you were explained by multiple people that you were wrong. So why exactly did you just delete it again? After waiting a while, until after the ANI got archived, too? LjL (talk) 02:00, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

I will certainly not be closing any future reports on this issue. HighInBC 18:05, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

I wasn't questioning your close, for the record. The issue had lingered and while there were some people wanting a boomerang, Electricburst1996 had stepped back and everything, and "stale" was the right assessment. I would merely have found it wise on Electricburst1996's part to let it remain such. LjL (talk) 20:58, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

I appreciate that. Thank you. HighInBC 21:15, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Sorry

Sorry about that. I wasn't aware I'd been on that page, or encountered that IP, or why I would make such an edit. And I haven't even been fumbling about with a hand-held device, so it's a complete mystery. A little alarming. Bishonen | talk 01:59, 5 January 2016 (UTC).

I assumed it was a misclick on a rollback button. It happens all the time, no worries. HighInBC 02:15, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

About the recent RfC at Wikipedia talk:Identifying reliable sources (medicine)

Look I've just noticed your input at the above RfC. I too was a bit unhappy about some aspects, which led to the following post [1] and then the following conversation: [2]. I was wondering: do you think there are any grounds for my concerns? A third person view would be helpful. --Jules (Mrjulesd) 17:54, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

I don't want to be dismissive about your concerns, however this is the type of close that would have resulted in people complaining about the outcome regardless of how it was closed.

While it is possible another closer may have found to to be no consensus I think the close that did happen was a reasonable interpretation of the debate. I think that if this close was challenged at AN it would be upheld, however I have been wrong about these things before. HighInBC 18:01, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

OK thanks for that. But on a more general point, are "per somebody" !votes commonly given less weight? That in the closing remark, and to me it didn't seem particularity fair or logical, and also without basis in policy/guidelines as far as I could work out. I can't see the point in everybody being made to repeat previous arguments to be properly accepted. --Jules (Mrjulesd) 18:07, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Another way of looking at the same thing is that people who introduce new information tend to get more weight. "Per Bob" essentially boosts Bob's position without introducing another position. It is not about repeating information, that would be no better, it is about what each person brings to the table. While not exactly how I would have weighted things it seems to be a reasonable interpretation of the debate. HighInBC 18:12, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

OK thanks for your views. --Jules (Mrjulesd) 18:16, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

You can't be blocked for "block evasion" if one of your accounts is unblocked

Re your message to 86.176.122.218's talk, see Special:Diff/694047903#A little ditty. 80.44.37.98 (talk) 17:12, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

You sure can if you managed to get blocked again. You are edit warring and being disruptive. There are plenty of reasons to block you. Why do you refer to your previous contributions as though they are not you? HighInBC 17:54, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Bandersnatch

What would you expect from a user named Bandersnatch? It isn't as such an offensive user name, but it has context, and you didn't block for an offensive username, but for vandalism. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:47, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

I don't know what Bandersnatch means, but the "barnstars" being given out were meant to be insulting. It is probably a long term abuse case, possibly vote X for change(see the IP post directly above). HighInBC 19:49, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

It's the frumious thing in Jabberwocky. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:53, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Ohh that Lewis Carroll, such a dirty mind. I knew it sounded familiar. Thanks for reminding me my learned colleague. HighInBC 20:22, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/FiveSidedFistagon -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 20:01, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. HighInBC 20:33, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Just curious

Hi, HighInBC,
I was following a "What links here" connection and found myself at User:HighInBC/Alternate RfA debate format. I was just curious what you might be thinking with this subpage, if it involved reforming the RfA process or just wanted to preserve this discussion for some reason. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:00, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

I was going to propose an alternate format of discussion and I was going to use your RfA to create a dummy version of what I had in mind. However the idea did not gain traction and I came to the conclusion that it is unlikely to be adopted. I chose yours because it has rather of a lot of extended discussion. HighInBC 18:06, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

The user was not blocked indefinitely, only the account

@C.Fred: This is not block evasion because the user has an unblocked account which she can edit from any time she wants. It's standard practice, when an editor has more than one account, to block all but one because she doesn't need them. Those surplus accounts are "blocked indefinitely for abusing multiple accounts", but that does not mean that the user is blocked. 31.52.139.144 (talk) 15:34, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

We block people, not accounts. If you are blocked under any account, or IP then you are engaging in evasion. Don't plead your case here, I have lost all sympathy for you. HighInBC 15:38, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

And if the person is banned rather than blocked, they can't edit at all, from any account, period. —C.Fred (talk) 15:40, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

fyi

[[3]] _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 19:55, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

I am familiar with this persons poetry. I find their rhyming to be a bit sloppy, and I prefer haiku. HighInBC 20:15, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

• More recently, is it worth having a CU on that latest fella. The account was only set up 50' earlier, obviously purely in order to post that...? _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 12:16, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

• Nope, it is a user who was banned long ago. HighInBC 15:19, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, was talking about User:Miguel Cohen, who posted THIS as his first edit in a year... know you dealt with him for that; but isn't it likely to be someone much closer to the curent issue....? _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 16:39, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Possibly worth while yes. HighInBC 17:11, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Names names names

Hi HighInBC, I had been reported to UAA in December and it was concluded my name is not a blatant violation of policies (your edit on my talkpage here [4]). Now someone else reported me to UAA, am I to understand now that I get "checked" over and over at UAA (whereas consensus would now seem to be the right place). Anyway, I mentioned at UAA I, or rather, my name had been discussed before at UAA, so I do not understand: can any admin block my name now, as this "bringing-to-UAA" has been doen before already (and was dismissed)? Poepkop (talk) 19:08, 12 January 2016 (UTC).

• I dismissed the report, but that is not the same as determining your name is ok. If you want to put the matter to bed you can request review at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User names, until then the matter is unresolved. At RFCU a consensus can form, whereas at UAA it is just the opinion of 1 admin.

• If you create a thread at RFCN and then post at UAA next to your report that you have done so then I don't think any admin will act on it until the RFC has come to a conclusion. HighInBC 19:10, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Sigh, okay, I will report myself at RFCN (guess I am (one of) the first one to do that lol). Grmbl. Poepkop (talk) 19:27, 12 January 2016 (UTC).

It is not that uncommon for people to report themselves when others are complaining about it. I was brought there for my name once by somebody, but people were okay with it. I am not sure how the RFC will turn out, but good luck. HighInBC 19:37, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Okay, done. Thanks for your advice actually. Poepkop (talk) 20:09, 12 January 2016 (UTC).

Beat it

You wasted my time w/ your usual BS. Stay off my Talk page from now on. IHTS (talk) 06:52, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Did you seriously just come by my talk page 2 days later to say you don't want to talk to me? @Ihardlythinkso: feel free to come by again if there is something else you don't want to talk about. HighInBC 06:57, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

No, read it again. (I said stay off my Talk page. Forever. As your usual bullshit, you like to add and reply to stuff never said or intended. IMO you are either extremely incompetent in reading, or disingenuous troll admin. I tend to think the latter.) Never go to my Talk page again like you did the other day. Maybe you can get that into your head if you read it a few times more. You suck. IHTS (talk) 07:22, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

I will keep my interaction to you on a purely administrative basis, and as little as reasonable. Try not to start any conversations with me unless you want me to respond. I will start by saying that your are being hostile and uncivil, far below the minimum expectations of the community. HighInBC 08:00, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

@Ihardlythinkso: Amazing how you don't want to talk with me, but you are okay talking about me[5]. Also amazing how you accuse me of not responding, then in the very next sentence complain about my response.

I am realizing now the part of the question that you were upset about me not answering. To answer your question, no I don't think 2 incidences 8 years apart constitute a pattern. A pattern generally involves more than 2 datapoints. HighInBC 17:18, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Sorry about that most recent post to your page, I was reading the discussion and forgot who I was talking to. HighInBC 04:14, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

IP Sock you block at Ritchie333's page

FYI Wikipedia talk:Long-term abuse/Best known for IP#Back again has edited with multiple IP tonight. WCM_email 00:55, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Yes they are very recognizable. HighInBC 01:04, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

New page

Hi, can you move your this entry to new 2016 page Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions/Log/2016?--Human3015 ^{It will rain}  20:34, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Ack, thank you for pointing that out. Let me know if I screwed anything else up. HighInBC 20:38, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Here

As per Wikipedia:Responding_to_threats_of_harm#Contact_administrators, could you look at this? Doubt it's serious, but- cheers, _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 17:53, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

I don't have time to respond to this right now, but it does deserve an urgent response. I have posted the link in the IRC admin channel, but you may want to post at WP:ANI in case IRC is idle. HighInBC 18:15, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Cheers! Done it. _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 18:33, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Blocked users

Hi, would you know the IP address or city names of the users you blocked yesterday on my request. The information will help me to open an SPI. Thanks. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 18:05, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Administrators do not have access to that information, only checkusers. That information is considered private information and cannot be released by any functionary. At best they will link them to another account. HighInBC 18:13, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

A brownie for you!

Thanks for deleting the attack page. :) Murph9000 (talk) 07:20, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks! HighInBC 04:01, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Best known

Oh Chillum, you were this close to getting a "thank you" for your comment--swear to God, almost, until the very last half-sentence. I suppose we'll never agree on that. Happy days, Drmies (talk) 03:48, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

You should see the last sentence I decided not to write. It involved the words "specious" and "straw man". I held my tongue. Don't worry, I am happy to disagree with you any day, reasonable people can disagree reasonably. HighInBC 03:50, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Haha, good one! Later, Drmies (talk) 04:04, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Hey, psst: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Request_for_admin_oversight_on_RT_News_article_--_civility_needs_to_return_.28just_grab_some_popcorn_and_take_a_gander_at_the_talk_page.29--I just topic banned them for six months from the article and its talk page...I read the whole talk page and it does not look good. Drmies (talk) 18:25, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Yes, clearly a case of attempting to outlast the opposition. Discretionary sanctions are pretty effective sometimes. HighInBC 18:48, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is An IP on a dynamic AT&T Mobility range has been engaging in persistent personal attacks over the past 24 hours. Thank you. Nathan2055^{talk - contribs} 05:53, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

@Nathan2055: Can I ask how I am involved? It is eluding me. HighInBC 05:59, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, sorry. You were the original banning admin for the first IP, and it's ANI so technically I need to template everyone remotely involved. --Nathan2055^{talk - contribs} 06:00, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Ah, thank you. So much to remember. HighInBC 06:01, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Involved

But this is not quite true, ist it? As you and I both know, it is considered extremely bad form for admins to defend themselves even in the severest of PA. IHTS knows it too, and it has been his long term strategy for years to male attacks that just stay under the radar, in order to undermine all systems of the project's management. Diffs abound, not to mention the massive WP:POLEMIC on his user page. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:50, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

While it is a widely held belief that if a person attacks an admin that the admin is involved it is simply not true. WP:INVOLVED says One important caveat is that an administrator who has interacted with an editor or topic area purely in an administrative role, or whose prior involvements are minor or obvious edits which do not speak to bias, is not involved and is not prevented from acting in an administrative capacity in relation to that editor or topic area.

As far as I can tell Future has only acted in an administrative capacity with the banned user Vote X for change, and nothing Mr X can do is going to make him involved. Administrators become involved because of things they do, not because of things others do. Nobody gets to decide which admins are involved with them or not by tossing out insults or accusations. I am aware that IHTS may think this is true, but if they put the theory to the test they are in for a rude awakening. HighInBC 15:50, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

To the banned user who keeps posting here

I see your posts, no need to repeat yourself. I have no interest in engaging with a banned user, or anyone who chooses to engage in harassment. Frankly I hope the foundation takes some sort of action against you. HighInBC 18:07, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

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.