User talk:HighInBC/Archive 69

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.

Nature of your concerns

@Alakzi: I see you took the time to snipe at me with a vague unsubstantiated accusation about my judgement as an admin. While you took the effort to criticize me you outright failed to provide any manner of constructive information.

If you could provide me with information about which block by me you felt was lacking in basis then I can address your concerns. As it stands I pretty much have to ignore your comment because you have pointed out no actual error on my behalf. I want to assume that you have a real concern and that this is not just sour grapes, but that is difficult to do if you don't communicate your concerns better. HighInBC 16:15, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Regarding the username, it is obvious to me that many new users who are female will see that name and see it as an indication that they may no be safe here. If you don't see how that is intimidating that is fine, but don't assume a block is bad because you don't understand the reason for it. HighInBC 16:17, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

@Alakzi: Please stop trying to argue with me at another user's talk page. It is rude and I won't be a part of it. If you think I should resign my bit then come over here and talk to me. As you can see I am open to recall. Step one is to try to convince me there is a problem, that involves presenting actual evidence of my misdeeds. HighInBC 16:20, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Blocks are a mark of Cain and you hand them out too liberally. Your blocks are informed by a certain ideal - which is basically to coerce people into submission - which I disagree with profusely. As I have argued elsewhere repeatedly, very rarely do blocks de-escalate a volatile situation; they alienate, they anger, and they make people indignant in the long-term. I don't expect you to come to appreciate this viewpoint, which is why I don't bother. Alakzi (talk) 16:31, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Once again you have failed outright to provide a clear example of me misusing my tools. Given the nature of the accusations that should have been the first thing you did. I am pretty much assuming at this point that you are pissed off because I blocked you. Your behaviour called for a block and I think you should consider taking some personal responsibility for that incident. HighInBC 17:58, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm not going to provide "evidence" for you; we're not in a court of law. As for whether my behaviour was deserving of a block, I look forward to hearing how you might rationalise that position. Actually, I don't. Alakzi (talk) 18:08, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

If I remember correctly you were engaging in block evasion with multiple accounts including a bot account while calling people names. I don't think that requires any rationalization, just a reasonable interpretation of policy and community expectations. HighInBC 19:22, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Your memory needs refreshing. You revoked my talk-page access after I'd told Salvio, who had then blocked me for a week, that he sickens me. This was after the tough men, the real men of this so-called community had badly mistreated me, and I was quite expectedly fuming. At the time when you revoked my talk-page access, I was attempting to reword something I'd written at the very top of my talk page; if I recall correctly, I was calling the functionaries "unaccountable despots". And that was when I hopped over to my bot account, which was visibly marked as my own, to edit that bit in. You - in your infinite wisdom - saw that as an opportunity to double the length of my block; which - unsurprisingly - had accomplished nothing, save for another increase in my blood pressure. So, to recap - if I might - you, with no apparent understanding of the situation and the backstory, twice punished someone who'd felt terribly wronged, frustrated, and physically sick by the whole ordeal. Do you now understand? Alakzi (talk) 20:21, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Seems like my memory is just fine. You did evade your block, you did engage in name calling. Wikipedia is not therapy, you act nasty and you will get blocked. You evade your block and you will become less welcome. My goal was not to get you to cool down, it was to prevent you from using Wikipedia as a place to vent your anger. You seem to forget that once you calmed down and started acting like an adult that I agreed to the block being reduced.

I 100% welcome you to seek further scrutiny of my behaviour in that incident, I am always happy to have the community review my actions. HighInBC 21:25, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

I do not wish to "seek further scrutiny", for a number of reasons. I'd have very much liked for you to show some empathy, but that's quite obviously not happening. It is as though your morality has been shaped by Wikipedia essays.

This is just sad. Alakzi (talk) 21:37, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

It is difficult to show empathy to a person who begins a conversation with a demand that I resign my admin bit, taking advantage of a wholly unrelated discussion to dump your sour grapes. The fact that you did not back up this demand with any sort of reasonable justification makes it even more difficult. You had a temper tantrum and I increased you block length, you later chilled out and I agreed to to a reversal of that. My response to you has been dictated by your behaviour.

Regarding empathy it is very hard to see where you are coming from. You seem intent on blaming me for the repercussions of your own behaviour. I suspect among the number of reasons that you don't want to seek further scrutiny is that you know I have not done anything that is against the expectations of the community. If I had not done it another admin would have, and they may not have wanted to reverse it later like I did.

My morality is not something that dictates my actions as an admin. I base my actions on the policies, guidelines, and expectations of the community. Wikipedia is ran by consensus and there is a consensus that personal attacks and block evasion are not acceptable behaviour. That being said I see no disparity between my personal set of moral beliefs and the reasonable expectations of this community. If there was such a disparity then I would indeed resign as you have asked me to. HighInBC 22:35, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

That being said I see no disparity between my personal set of moral beliefs and the reasonable expectations of this community. Well, that says everything. It's good that you feel at home in a community with no humanity. Alakzi (talk) 23:21, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

I see nothing immoral or inhumane about not allowing name calling. I also see no moral issue with blocking access to a private website when a person is breaking the very reasonable rules. You don't seem to see any moral issue with name calling or baseless accusations. You refuse to present evidence to support your position, you deny the offer to seek greater scrutiny from the community yet you still make your unfounded claims. You need a foundation of truth before I will take you seriously. I think you need to take a long hard look at your own behaviour and how it related to your blocks. HighInBC 23:24, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

I do see an issue with name calling. Name calling is not something people do habitually; name calling is the externalisation of feelings of anger and angst, which are all too common on Wikipedia. Please stop with the superficial analyses; it's getting tiring. Alakzi (talk) 23:41, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Okay. Have a nice day. HighInBC 23:43, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

You too. Alakzi (talk) 23:49, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks re Supdiop

You're a very good fellow. Thanks for helping out.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:24, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

No problem. Thanks for your quick response. HighInBC 23:26, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Any issue if I up your block to an indef? He hasn't got the message. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:47, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

No issue at all. HighInBC 01:05, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

According to Supdiop, she is a she, and not even a kid but a middle-aged woman, which is somewhat surprising given her style. Of course, I have no way of knowing if any of it is true, but that's the way she describes herself.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:27, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Bbb23 At this point, I wouldn't believe anything they say. Here they're male and I clearly recall them saying they're 17. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:03, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Maybe they have multiple personalities and can change gender at will. Frankly, a teenager, male or female, makes a lot more sense to me. I think I'll stick with that story.--Bbb23 (talk) 04:50, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

Haha, I have a cat! BTW, thanks for the warm welcome ^_^

4ChanX (talk) 04:44, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Any time. HighInBC 15:56, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Content Dispute, Please take a look

Hello,

Your neutral opinion on the content dispute currently on-going at Hadith and Criticism of Hadith will be appreciated. The discussion thread is at: Talk:Hadith#Recent_cleanup_of_huge_chunks. The main issue is the material sourced from Wael Hallaq's paper, sourced from JSTOR, but is also available at: http://www.globalwebpost.com/farooqm/study_res/islam/fiqh/hallaq_hadith.html

Thanks. cӨde1+6 ^LogicBomb! 15:57, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel articles 3 closed

This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:

1. All anonymous IP editors and accounts with less than 500 edits and 30 days tenure are prohibited from editing any page that could be reasonably construed as being related to the Arab-Israeli conflict. This prohibition may be enforced by reverts, page protections, blocks, the use of Pending Changes, and appropriate edit filters.
2. Uninvolved administrators are encouraged to monitor the articles covered by discretionary sanctions in the original Palestine-Israel case to ensure compliance. To assist in this, administrators are reminded that:

• Accounts with a clear shared agenda may be blocked if they violate the sockpuppetry policy or other applicable policy;
• Accounts whose primary purpose is disruption, violating the policy on biographies of living persons, or making personal attacks may be blocked indefinitely;
• There are special provisions in place to deal with editors who violate the BLP policy;
• Administrators may act on clear BLP violations with page protections, blocks, or warnings even if they have edited the article themselves or are otherwise involved;
• Discretionary sanctions permit full and semi-page protections, including use of pending changes where warranted, and – once an editor has become aware of sanctions for the topic – any other appropriate remedy may be issued without further warning.

For the Arbitration Committee, Miniapolis 16:39, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks but this case is so unrecognisable from the actual events that started it that it sort of seems like they just changed the subject. I will read it over. HighInBC 17:15, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Please don't

...patronise me and leave sarcastic comments on my talk page during heated debates. You were, of course, referring to this where you became involved over the very same thing. I thank you for advising Charlr6 over this abuse, but I could do without the sarcasm also. Cassianto^Talk 18:03, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Which part of what I said do you think was sarcastic? Not being sarcastic. When did I patronize you? I know you don't like "thank teasing" from multiple times you have mentioned it, I was taking serious note of your concerns. HighInBC 18:05, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

I found it to close to the side of coincidence that you should say "I know how much [muliple thanking] bothers you", when at the start of the year, you were involved in the very same thing, and at which time, you were equally condescending. You could of course not said it, and stuck to warning the other editor, that would've saved all this. The fact someone thanks me multiple times does not bother me, it's their frame of mind at the time of doing so that pisses me off. Cassianto^Talk 18:20, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Geez, you really look for anything at all to fault me with don't you? Try to remember that I was responding to your query: seeing as these admins have now been pinged, I wonder too what they would think of this blatant harassment towards me a few moments ago

You asked, I answered. I saw someone doing something to you that I know bothers you from past experience and I asked them to stop. You wondered out loud what I thought about it and I told you. I swear you are going to assign bad faith to me regardless of how I act.

Try not to conflate the discussion with User:Juliancolton with this situation, something that I had forgotten about. Julian was not trolling you, you just made an edit they found amusing. My position here is completely different, I recognize in this instance that they were probably trying to illicit an emotional reaction from you. They succeeded it seems. HighInBC 18:58, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

approriate, in light of the circumstances? Trying to dress up an uncivil remark in a "let's all go down the pub" kind of way doesn't wash. Cassianto^Talk 18:55, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

I have given them an ultimatum. I am happy to hear what else you would have me do. HighInBC 19:03, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

That's terribly magnanimous of you, but what happened to your enforcement of minimum level of civility on the article talk page and anywhere else those involved communicate with each other? Or had you earmarked that for SchroCat and I? Cassianto^Talk 19:22, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

I repeat my question, what else would you have me do? HighInBC 20:04, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

...don't tempt me. Cassianto^Talk 20:06, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

I have no idea what you are talking about in regards to tempting. You say what happened to your enforcement of minimum level of civility on the article talk page and anywhere else those involved communicate with each other? Or had you earmarked that for SchroCat and I? am I and trying to figure out why you don't recognize what I have already done as enforcement? I am asking what else you would have me do?

I think you will find my reaction to personal attacks to be consistent. I always prefer to use a warning when it has a reasonable chance of being effective than using a block. This is why I have warned you about personal attacks several times but have blocked you zero times. HighInBC 20:31, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

I don't really know what is so difficult to understand. You warned the user over their PA towards SchroCat earlier, then warned them again when they threw a PA in my direction when they called me "a cock". In what way was this minimal? Cassianto^Talk 21:03, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

I said I would enforce a minimum of civility, I did not say I would block for minimum of reasons. Warnings are a form of enforcement. The user has reverted themselves, apologized, and most importantly stopped. Any block now would be punitive. The warning successfully prevented further attacks. As long as Charlr6 has the sense not to resume the matter is settled.

As someone I have let slide numerous times I would think you would appreciate that I am willing to use words rather than blocks. Your opinion on the enforcement of our no personal attacks policy seems to drastically change depending on if you are the one receiving or making the insults. Frankly I have let you off with a warning for far worse. HighInBC 21:24, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

I agree that blocks do not work and that warnings are more preferred; however, when the warnings are ignored, and the same behaviour remains, then it's time to take it up a notch IMO. Calling someone "a cock" may seem like a minimal reason to you, but I found it highly offensive. And yes, you are right that a block now would now seem punitive, but if you hadn't of wedged the stable door open after the horse had bolted, then it would have been a preventative block. My opinion remains unchanged: the policy sucks, and if someone is behaving like a wanker, I will tell them so, despite what you or anyone else says. My point is that when its me making the insults, I get blocked, but when they are aimed at me, they get reassured and given a little warning. Cassianto^Talk 21:40, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

If not for the fact that you have been given a warning instead of a block for personal attacks more times than I can count on one hand you may have a point. You get away with personal attacks far more often than you are blocked for them. My advice is not to knock the concept of restraint when it comes to blocking for personal attacks. This concept of restraint is one I use and I assure you that you benefit from it. HighInBC 22:15, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Personally, I couldn't care about blocks; my enjoyment in editing here has receded so much over the years, that the thought of sitting out a block almost comes as highly anticipated as a seven day holiday in the sun. I think you'll find that if you ask about, this opinion is shared by many who have had to put up with this kind of public humiliation. Cassianto^Talk 22:39, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Barnyard puns

Whoa, I have to quote you now, you really look for anything at all to fault me with don't you?

As it seems like everybody is looking way too deep into everyone's comments, I guess I should say honestly that was meant as a joke. I thought it clearly reflected it with how I wrote it. I was not trying to antagonise you one bit with that comment Cass, I was trying to make a joke. Honestly I was not trying to dress up an uncivil remark, I was trying to make a joke. I guess you sadly do take things too much to heart. And that there isn't supposed to be an insult, just saying truths as at the moment, it seems like with BC you seem to as well. Charlr6 (talk) 19:08, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Don't treat me like I am stupid. My rooster keeps repeating 'cock' instead of the normal "cock-a-doodle-doo". Not sure if he is broken or talking about you... is clearly a not so clever way of calling him a cock. Just disengage. HighInBC 19:11, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

I am not trying to treat you as if you are stupid, I am seriously being honest here. So please don't accuse me, in telling me not to treat you as if you are stupid, that I am lying. As you'll see here Cass tagged 'dinner' with psilocybin mushroom. I found that funny, and didn't take it way personally or as an accusation of using drugs. I actually found that funny, so wanted to reply with something I had hoped, would be funny. I am being totally honest. Believe it or not, but I know what I am saying right here, right now to be true. Take it as you want; accuse me of lying or treating you as being stupid, but I know what I meant. Guess that what happens with everybody, including all of us when we are only reading words on the internet and can interpret them in anyway we like, when the reality might have meant them to have a different intention. Charlr6 (talk) 19:19, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Okay, lets assume you aren't trying to provoke him. Regardless your actions are having that effect and your actions are giving the impression that you are doing it on purpose to both me and Cassianto. Even if your intentions are pure the effect is disruptive. Please avoid Cassianto since you seem incapable of avoiding accidentally provoking him. HighInBC 19:25, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Noted.

Hey, on another note as you mentioned you've seen the Skyfall page, would you care to finalise that consensus? Been a few days since Liz said we should wait a few more days to finish it, and as you seem to be a higher admin would you care to do it? Charlr6 (talk) 19:31, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

I will take a look tomorrow if nobody else has gotten to it. HighInBC 19:49, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

And by "higher admin", it was completely not a drug reference. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:34, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

I assumed it was a reference to my enjoyment of hiking. HighInBC 22:50, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Are you two talking about the psilocybin mushroom as can't see any other 'drug' references? It is a Class A illegal drug in the United Kingdom, where I reside. I did not take offensive at obvious humorous accusation of drug taking, instead found it funny, which I said. Charlr6 (talk) 22:59, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

I don't think anyone here is concerned about drugs. HighInBC 23:01, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

...... ok I'm just gonna 'unwatch' all of these pages now.

Unless Liz was talking about something completely different, her comment about it not being a drug reference must have been about the 'dinner' tag with the magic mushrooms. If not, surely you'd be able to see my confusion here. Charlr6 (talk) 23:05, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Okay, it's painful to explain this, Charlr6. First, Wikipedia doesn't have levels of adminship, there are just admins who have less or more experience. I'm a new admin so I have less experience. But you said "higher admin" and when one takes drugs, one is said to be "high". Also, his username is HighInBC. So, it was a three-way pun (admin levels, drugs, username) on the use of higher. That's all it meant. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:10, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

And this is how easy it is over internet to misinterpret or misread or misunderstand anything anybody says, as there are simply words with no emotion. But even as a written pun, it was hardly too obvious or funny. As reading down, it literally looks like you were saying the 'dinner' was not a drug reference. And how you said 'higher admin' it seemed as if you were acknowledging that you do have slightly more power/experience/buttons/control than I do on Wikipedia. Charlr6 (talk) 23:20, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

And I'm guessing there is a triple-entende to BC Bud... Montanabw^(talk) 22:11, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

My official position is that it is a reference to my enjoyment of hiking the hills and mountains of British Columbia, though I do enjoy a good time. HighInBC 22:15, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Hm, is that a statement of plausible deniability, or are you planning to move to [Washington Initiative 502 the Seattle area]? Montanabw^(talk) 11:58, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

I will stick to Canada. HighInBC 16:06, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:42, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Comment from Thewolfchild

Wow... I can't believe how many talk pages this has spread to. This is interesting in that it is both pathetic, yet hilarious at the same time. - ^theWOLFchild 18:13, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

I don't think this is a helpful contribution to our discussion so I have moved it to its own section. HighInBC 19:16, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Vandal IP

A vandal IP that you recently blocked has posted this uncivil comment. Does this warrant a further block? All the best, -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:01, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Looking at the timestamps it appears they did all of those before I blocked them. HighInBC 16:05, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

thanks for intervention

I do have two questions though.

1. why is it called administrators noticeboard if non-administrators can interfere as they seem fit? 2. how can discussions be closed without going through this?

thanks 178.148.5.47 (talk) 03:07, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

We avoid excessive formality. As long as some closes something in a way that the community can agree with then it is fine. Subjects where that are more controversial are closed through more formal channels but not when the result is obvious. HighInBC 16:00, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

I see, so WP:BOLD and WP:IAR. O.K. Thanks. 178.148.5.47 (talk) 16:50, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Specifically non-admin closures. HighInBC 17:50, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Revdel question

Hello HighInBC. I just removed some massive BLP violating text from Talk:Michael Copon (the revision history is here), but I'm wondering if the offending material should be revdeled? So I thought I'd run this by an Admin... Thanks in advance. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 00:17, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) Absolutely. Done. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:23, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Neil. You are fast. HighInBC 01:09, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Vandal report

• Y'all please block 168.216.15.7. Thanks! 207.93.13.145 (talk) 19:01, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

•  Done HighInBC 19:03, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Ritchie333

I'm not responding on his page. He refused to say he won't continue to break the rules. An admin. And then threatened me by suggesting another admin block me for "trolling" which I certainly was not doing. How is that appropriate to you? What is wrong with Wikipedia that this shit is allowed from admins? —Мандичка^YO 😜 18:47, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

You certainly must realize that asking "Will you stop breaking the rules?" is very akin to "Will you stop beating your wife?", i.e. a loaded question, and an implied accusation. LjL (talk) 18:56, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Hmmm but it seems to have been established he broke the rules, hasn't it? He could have said "I didn't break the rules, and I don't plan to" (ie "I've never beaten my wife and never will.") —Мандичка^YO 😜 19:10, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Wikimandia people get blocked all the time for failing to let something go once the community has settled a matter. I agree you are not trolling but you are carrying on something that has been discussed and settled by the community.

There is nothing that says he has to make you a promise not to break the rules, it is enough that he just doesn't break the rules. So until there is some future incident to be concerned about then the past incident is settled. Please don't give up the higher ground by carrying on about this. HighInBC 19:12, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

I was asking him for the community. Refusing to say he won't break the rules shows he plans to break the rules. He's pretty much shown he couldn't care less, and the community doesn't do shit. This is why people have such a negative opinion of Wikipedia. There's even a Reddit thread mocking him. I'm not going to take it to arbcom because the current crew is incompetent (see Neelix drama). —Мандичка^YO 😜 19:57, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Refusing to say he won't break the rules shows he plans to break the rules. No, that is not demonstrated by his refusal to answer. All it means is that he doesn't want to answer your question. I would guess he might see it as badgering since the unblock was discussed at length at AN and the conversation was closed.

I agree with HighInBC that it is time to drop the stick. Something might occur in the future that might warrant revisiting this subject but for now, consider it resolved. And on that note, something might occur for any admin that would make a question about recall relevant so your question wasn't a bad one, you just shouldn't demand it be answered. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:17, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I'm not going to take it to arbcom or demand action against him. I disagree however with your assessment of his refusal to answer - he could have said "I already answered that" or even "I feel this is a loaded question" or something. Instead he just dodged the question. I was not trolling him. Admins should remember they are accountable to the community, of which I am a member. When they decide they won't want to be accountable to the community, that demonstrates their true attitude about being an admin. Since there is a pattern of behavior here, it's fairly disappointing that people are sticking their heads in the sand. Hopefully the new arbcom committee will show leadership in regards to bad admins. That's all I have to say on this matter. Cheers. —Мандичка^YO 😜 20:26, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Nobody here is required to respond to your interrogation. It is not reasonable to assume guilt because he does not want to answer you. He has been held accountable to the community in the community thoroughly reviewed his actions and other than plenty of admonishment decided no action need be taken. I gave my advice, take it or leave it. HighInBC 22:49, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Appreciation

Thanks for the welcome back! — ERcheck (talk) 04:32, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Regarding arbitration enforcement blocks

You wrote to SageRad: "Well if you continue to violate the topic ban then you can try to convince another admin it was wrong in your unblock request". That's not the case if the block is an arbitration enforcement block -- admins can't undo those. If you intend to impose a block that is not an AE block, I ask you to please refrain, and allow me to file an AE request instead. (I had already written one when you posted your message, but I don't want to step on your toes.) Looie496 (talk) 16:03, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

You are correct about arbcom blocks needing special appeal. I will make sure that is clear to Sage. Any block I do under the arbcom restriction will be an arbcom block. It does appear that perhaps Sage is stopping for now, we will see if any action is required at all.

As for your request, it can be put forward or be held back at your discretion. There were violations, but it also appears he may have stopped. Further violations can be handled directly by an admin without AE if any are so inclined. HighInBC 16:12, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Edit Quest!

	Edit Quest!
	Titusfox has requested that you join them for an afternoon of questing, slaying and looting at Edit Quest, the Wikipedia Based RPG! I Hope to see you there! TF { Contribs } { Edit Quest! } 19:12, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Not really what Wikipedia is for. HighInBC 23:30, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Ricky81682

The admin's a big boy. If he can't point out an single content contribution, that's on him. HughD is just asking for accountability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.176.57.202 (talk) 01:30, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

And who are you? HighInBC 02:18, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Nevermind. If you want to talk about this you can do so with your regular account. HighInBC 02:35, 18 December 2015 (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.