User talk:Highflyingkitty

== edit a thon-ing ==

<p>

“Be kind. We are all humans here.”

Anyone else get involved as a Wikipedian in response to the BLM Movement? Highflyingkitty (talk) 17:11, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, please reach out to me here for inquiries as to our work and activism on Wikipedia'.

Welcome![edit]

Welcome to Wikipedia, Highflyingkitty! Thank you for your contributions. I am Grand'mere Eugene and I have been editing Wikipedia for some time, so if you have any questions, feel free to leave me a message on my talk page. You can also check out Wikipedia:Questions or type {{help me}} at the bottom of this page. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

Introduction
The five pillars of Wikipedia
How to edit a page
Help pages
How to write a great article
The Teahouse, our help forum for new users
Discover what's going on in the Wikimedia community

Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name using four tildes (~~~~); that will automatically produce your username and the date. I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 23:21, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

DS/Alert[edit]

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

--Jorm (talk) 15:08, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Jorn, can we solve this? We are here and you do not control us.

August 2020[edit]

Wikipedia's technical logs indicate that this user account has been or may be used abusively. It has been blocked indefinitely from editing to prevent abuse.

Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted.
If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should review the guide to appealing blocks, and then appeal your block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}}. Note that anything you post in your unblock request will be public, so you may alternatively use the Unblock Ticket Request System to submit an appeal if it contains information that must be private.

Administrators: Checkusers have access to confidential system logs not accessible by the public or by administrators due to the Wikimedia Foundation's privacy policy. You must not loosen or remove this block, or issue an IP block exemption, without consulting with a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee. Administrators who undo checkuser blocks without permission from a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee may be summarily desysopped.

Drmies (talk) 16:29, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Highflyingkitty (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Editathon participant who is engaging with editors respectfully, not a crime Highflyingkitty (talk) 16:33, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Playing the race card to get an unblock never works. Also, there is no evidence of any edit-a-thon, and multiple users from the same IP would not indicate that. RickinBaltimore (talk) 16:37, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Spoken like a true oppressor uninterested in the truth, "Rick." Highflyingkitty (talk) 16:39, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is getting flat out racist. We will take to press if not unblocked. Look at how I am being talked to by these editors, please. This is a BIG problem.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Highflyingkitty (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

this is not the race card, it is real life and racism is a problem hereHighflyingkitty (talk) 16:39, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

As you are using this talk page to double down on your racism accusations, you have lost the ability to edit it. When you decide you want to treat your fellow editors collegially, you can make a request at WP:UTRS for that privilege to be restored. Racism is serious and is taken seriously here, but those throwing around the race card inappropriately are part of the racism problem, not part of the solution. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:03, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Highflyingkitty, we'll need to have a talk about the difference between an "edit-a-thon" and meatpuppetry later, but first up: please provide a list of the usernames of all editors involved in this "edit-a-thon." I also note that threatening to go to the press rarely ends well for people requesting unblocks. GeneralNotability (talk) 16:41, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well I'll be totally honest, we already notified two reporters and gave them listed emails of editors involved. That's what happens when people act racist - they get called out! Sorry but that is the only tool we have against this kind of systemic racism. I provided a list of all names who signed up to participate in our efforts to the administrators on a different page. All we wanted was ONE CHANGE admin MelanieN. said should be placed in Kevin Deutsch article, and a single user is now keeping out out of what appears to be overt racism/power trip. Not going to look good. Highflyingkitty (talk) 16:45, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm really confused as to where the racism is here but okay. If that's your play - to call me or other folk racist because you aren't getting the result you want - it's probably not going to go very far.--Jorm (talk) 16:48, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just a comment (I was going to add it to the SPI but it was already closed): Here's what makes the whole "editathon" story hard to believe: All of these accounts are confirmed by checkuser to be the same as Harringhome1977. Harringhome contributed from July 17 to July 25, when they were blocked. The accounts reported at the SPI were all created between July 25 and August 1. Highflyingkitty, who showed up at the SPI on August 3 and claimed to have been running an editathon, was created July 29. The evidence indicates that no matter what they say, these are all the same person. Yes, including Highflyingkitty. -- MelanieN (talk) 17:32, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Concur. I don't believe a single word of this hogwash.--Jorm (talk) 17:46, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm even beginning to wonder if we're simply being trolled here. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:04, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The moment I read "we already notified two reporters and gave them listed emails of editors involved" I knew this was trolling. All the bullet points were hit too "systemic racism", "racist editors", etc.... RickinBaltimore (talk) 18:07, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I notice that just before being blocked, Highflyingkitty began playing the racism card at the Kevin Deutsch article, saying things like “...based on the problematic racial dynamic here. We want an editor of color to look at this.” and “Please get another editor, preferably a POC, to look at this”. That approach has several serious flaws. First, they have no way of knowing the race of any of us; most of us don’t disclose our race or ethnicity. For them to assume that we are all white people (and prejudiced white people at that) is in itself racist. Second and more to the point, how is there a racial angle to any of this anyhow? There is nothing in the article to suggest that Deutsch himself is a person of color, and if he isn’t, how can there be a racial angle to what we put in the article about him? This is basically just name calling with no basis in logic or reality. -- MelanieN (talk) 18:41, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if it's been pointed out, but unblock requests are pointless anyhow. Most admins can't unblock here, because this is a checkuser block. Only another checkuser can unblock. -- MelanieN (talk) 18:23, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well, an admin could unblock if they got checkuser permission - but I somehow don't think we'll need to worry about it either way. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:30, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I was originally going to ask the CUs if there was enough wiggle room to support multiple people editing together as part of a project, and if so to downgrade to a normal block and let them all appeal individually. However, ST47's technical findings (lots more overlap than one would expect for an editathon) plus everything that's happened above put the kibosh on that idea. GeneralNotability (talk) 18:33, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

GeneralNotability, the evidence is rock solid, as far as I'm concerned (there's a hint for what a CU might look for in the SPI), but I'll be happy to have another CU look over my shoulder. Also, yes we are being trolled. Drmies (talk) 18:41, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And they moved to another one of the blocked socks to claim the same thing: User talk:FTIIIOhfive. RickinBaltimore (talk) 20:10, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@RickinBaltimore: Another one at User talk:BlackGirlforPresident. Eagles 24/7 (C) 21:10, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I saw that, would another admin do the honors for me if they could, I will need to step away for a bit this evening. RickinBaltimore (talk) 21:23, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

RickinBaltimore, Eagles247,

Blocked and tagged. Maybe we should take further conversation somewhere besides the sock's talkpage? :) GeneralNotability (talk) 21:28, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]