User talk:High Professor

		Cookies!
		High Professor has given you some cookies! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. You can spread the "WikiLove" by giving someone else some cookies, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. To spread the goodness of cookies, you can add {{subst:Cookies}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!

You have recently edited a page related to living or recently deceased subjects of biographical content on Wikipedia articles, a topic designated as contentious. This is a brief introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia's norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have an expanded level of powers and discretion in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

• adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
• comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
• follow editorial and behavioural best practices;
• comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
• refrain from gaming the system.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures, you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.

I would recommend a self-revert of this edit. Another editor already objected to your wording and it should now be discussed. You are aware of contentious topics and this would be a violation. See this note on BRD. I realize things can get heated when emotions are involved, but I have seen way too many new editors get blocked for these types of things. CNMall41 (talk) 03:42, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the comment. It was a misunderstanding on the source, so I added a new source and they have not raised the issue again. High Professor (talk) 08:18, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

That is not how it works. You need to self-revert or it will be reported. I would suggest continuing with the threaded discussion on the talk page. --CNMall41 (talk) 10:51, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

There is also a second editor who pointed out the need to move the source table to the discussion section. WP:CIR is needed in these types of discussions. --CNMall41 (talk) 10:53, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Not really sure how to address the issues at this point so I am just leaving them below. I want to WP:AGF since you are new editor, but also see WP:PACT as your editing has become WP:DISRUPTIVE.

Let's address the political descriptor first. You were previously notified this is a contentious topic, you have edit warred with it, and despite there already being a request for comment, you are requesting the addition of it in an unrelated thread. This has crossed into WP:BLUDGEONING territory.

You removed content from Nick Shirley that I had just restored, exactly two minutes after you removed the edit warring notice I had placed on your talk page. This is crossing into WP:POINT. I do realize that having a warning on your talk page isn't the most welcoming, but it does not give an editor a right to track down edits to disrupt the editing of the editor who left the notice.

You were asked to self-revert after you violated contentious topic guidelines by reinstating content that another editor had objected to. You did not revert.

There is also a WP:CIR issue. I realize that you are a new editor, but you are editing in a contentious topic so competency is required. In this thread you were asked by two editors to move or collapse your table as it was not the proper location for such. Your reply was basically shrugging it off and you have yet to address the issue. There is also this comment which shows you clearly do not understand MOS:INFOBOX as pointed out by yet another editor.--CNMall41 (talk) 06:47, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Everything in this comment is false (your comment on the political descriptor is entirely mistaken as that discussion is referring to the body section titled "Political Videos" while the RfC pertains to the lead). I want to assume good faith as well, but you're clearly attempting to harass an editor for having a viewpoint that you disagree with. I haven't edited warred or done anything you've mentioned.

You left an improper edit warring notice on my page even though I have not engaged in any edit warring, which is why you failed to provide a diff and still have failed to provide one.

• This is the despite the fact that you have actually edit-warred. See revert 1 restoring content removed by @Sibshops, and then revert 2 restoring that content again without any change to it.
• In this edit you included a personal attack.[1]
• In this section, "First Bio for Nick Shirley", in an attempt to prevent Nick Shirley from being described as right-wing, which is present in 15/20 reliable sources as pointed out by Sibshops[2], you bludgeoned the discussion and ignored a consensus among the four editors present there to the point that two editors told you to "drop the stick".
  • UppercutPawnch says referencing your behavior "I feel as though this argument has evolved to become one individual claiming consensus against a larger group of editors... Please WP:DTS."[3]
• Here's another example of you refusing to "drop the stick" again now with @AG202, @Hob Gadling, and Sibshops.[4]
• Uncivil behavior against Sibshops.[5]

And this is despite the fact that you're apparently already aware it is a contentious topic. I don't have an issue with you and we are allowed to disagree. High Professor (talk) 08:14, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Adding a source for a sentence that was contested as unsubstantiated is a valid part of the BRD process. The other editor did not object when the source was added. High Professor (talk) 08:24, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

No need to address your points here. If you feel like I have harassed you as stated, please report the conduct. Make sure to read WP:CLEANHANDS prior but I will be happy to face any penalty if found to have harassed you. The only thing that has actually happened is that myself and other users have attempted to guide you but you are engaging in POV-pushing and other conduct that shows you may not be able to work within a collaborative environment. Do as you will. --CNMall41 (talk) 09:01, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but I am required to notify you. Last warning about the POV pushing. This edit is for content under discussion. Not sure what else to do here other than report at ANI but wanted to give you one final opportunity to work with the community for consensus. --CNMall41 (talk) 08:03, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The edit is about the body. The RfC concerns the lead, not the body.[6] Your characterization of "POV pushing" is false. Wikipedia is based on reliable sources.[7] High Professor (talk) 08:14, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Both are being discussed. It is yet another attempt to circumvent the discussion. You don't have to agree with my assessment but based on the editing pattern I think it would be seen another way. Again, I am askign that you refrain from the conduct. Let the discussion run. If the community decides to add it, then so be it. If they don't then they don't. --CNMall41 (talk) 08:19, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

As I'm sure you know, a RfC about the lead does not prohibit something from being mentioned in the body. Here's a link to you directly acknowledging this.[8] Hope that helps. High Professor (talk) 09:30, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not mess with my talk page comments or RfC wording as you did here. Thanks. Some1 (talk) 22:16, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

HP, please stop editing the RfC statement. Please. I have reverted your edit please don't do it again. Thanks, Polygnotus (talk) 05:12, 22 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Polygnotus The sources are not apart of the question. They were added after and belong in the discussion session along with the rest of them. Please do not modify my comments. High Professor (talk) 05:14, 22 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Look, you've been asked multiple times now. Disagreeing with others is allowed. Debating them is allowed. But people are human you know? If everyone else is wrong, maybe you are driving on the wrong side of the road. Polygnotus (talk) 05:15, 22 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't it weird to ask Please do not modify my comments. in response to someone complaining you modified someone else's comment? Polygnotus (talk) 05:28, 22 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Polygnotus You removed my comment (please do not do so again), and I did not modify the question. I moved the sources, which were added after and not apart of the question, to the discussion section. Thanks. High Professor (talk) 05:33, 22 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

No, I added the comment back after reverting you, and you modified Some1's comment (please do not do so again).

Since the sources are contained in Some1's comment, it is not up to you to move them or not.

Can you show me the rule that says that sources must be moved to the discussion section? Thanks, Polygnotus (talk) 05:41, 22 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for violation of the open proxy policy..

If you believe that there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Barkeep49 (talk) 15:40, 24 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Barkeep49 Hello, I'm not on an open proxy. If it's based on some sort of database, those are often wildly inaccurate, based on guesswork, (and can become out of date in hours) and many of the readings will conflict. For example, and I do not want to publicly disclose my IP, if you put my IP into ipqualityscore.com or other lookups you will see that it does not say this. I assume that one of them may be incorrectly marking an entire large range with a lot of collateral. Is there a process for requesting an individual IP exemption? High Professor (talk) 19:20, 24 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I'll ping Guerillero who has also publicly stated they ran a check for a second opinion. Barkeep49 (talk) 19:27, 24 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't looking for proxies when I ran my check, but yeah, I see it now. -- Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 20:12, 24 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Barkeep49 @Guerillero Thanks. Can you check on ipqualityscore.com or scamalytics.com? You will see that my IP is not an open proxy and that the assessments aren't consistent. High Professor (talk) 20:53, 24 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The CU team is fortunate to have access to some paid tools (which for WP:BEANS reasons we don't publicly advertise) which I've come to trust and which give a different answer, but there were secondary factors which extended beyond those results which triggered the block. I feel solid about the reasoning. You are welcome to follow the instructions in the block notice and get a third opinion. Barkeep49 (talk) 21:07, 24 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Barkeep49 Thanks but if you mean Spur it isn't accurate. It's a heuristic and say, someone in your neighborhood downloading an app on their iPad or TV to watch videos that shares their connection, can get tens of thousands of people included as collateral damage.

Should I use the instructions in WP:GAB or WP:IPBE? High Professor (talk) 21:43, 24 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

GAB because nothing you've written here suggests you need to be given IP ban exemption. Barkeep49 (talk) 00:20, 25 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]