User talk:HighInBC/Archive 32

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.

I believe you may have missed the joke

MickMacNee‎'s response to your block seems to be a parody of Vintagekits actions when blocked, edit summary and all. O Fenian (talk) 00:45, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Choosing to mimic disruptive behavior is a poor choice. Even with you pointing this out I still don't get any joke, just a bit of wit mixed with the venom. Chillum 00:47, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am not suggesting it was funny, just trying to explain his possible motivation. O Fenian (talk) 00:48, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. This user has a long history of being abusive, this being his 6th block for personal attacks. This user also has a history of lashing out while blocked leading other admins to increase the length of his block. I don't want to see history repeat itself so I have disabled his talk page editing. Perhaps he will lash out through e-mail, perhaps he will not. Motivation really is not my prime concern, my prime concern is ensuring that Wikipedian's can edit free of attack from other users, while minimizing the action needed to be taken against the attacker. I would prefer that Mick's block not be increased. Chillum 00:51, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jesus, Chillum, have you ever heard of giving warnings before blocking? Not to condone MickMacNee‎'s response to your block, but the irony is rich. The original "offense" is no more a personal attack or harassment then than most of Vk's contributions over the last few weeks. In short, given the level of discourse that passes for communication on that page, it did not merit a block, never mind a week long block.

Telling Mick to back off would have solved the problem just as well, I'm sure. Please unprotect his page, ask him if he'll kindly refrain from poking Vk, and (when if/when he agrees) unblock him. If you don't I'll take it to ANI, as I can't imagine there will be consensus for this. Its this type of inconsistent administrative over-response - based on largely on a block log to boot - that inflames the ongoing drama with Irish editors. Rockpocket 01:31, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Leaving Jesus out of it, given that this user has had 5 blocks for personal attacks in the past I would think that warnings are redundant. Mick has received dozens of warnings from me and many other users. If you look through my contribution history you will see I use warnings when appropriate. This block is not based on the block log of Mick, but rather his long history of abuse and harassment. Now that VK is on the brink of retirement now is not the time to be permissive with those attacking him. Telling Mick to back off has done very little in the past other than result in further insults and I am not about to test that he has changed at the expense of another Wikipedian being driven off.

I am being very consistent, and I have no knowledge or interest in any Irish or other nationalist dispute. I avoid involvement in nationalist disputes like the plague. This has nothing to do with any content dispute, it is about behavior. Chillum 01:35, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I will also say that your tone is not helpful in regards to reasonable discussion. If you want to unprotect the talk page or even unblock him you have my blessing, but I will warn you that this user has a history of digging himself a bigger hole. I will not do it because I don't want to see him lash out more and get a longer block like has happened in the past. Chillum 01:36, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry if my tone is short, that is likely due to exasperation at seeing the same pattern repeat itself yet again. I'm not familiar with MickMacNee‎ (as you clearly are), but I am very familiar with Vk, and Mick's tone and language on that page is entirely consistent with Vk's tone and language all the time. Neither is acceptable, in my personal opinion, but it is inconsistent to block one person for that when ignoring the other doing almost exactly the same thing (and who has a block log three times as long). Whether one editor is "near retirement" is completely beside the point.

I'm grateful that you are amenable to me unblocking Mick, but I'll take your note of caution seriously. Since we are on a different timezone, I will not be able to keep a very close eye on him page, therefore I'll seek assurances from him by email first. Thanks for your response. Rockpocket 02:01, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was not aware that VK was participating in recent abusive behavior, I have certainly enforced the same policy against VK(see the block log) in the past so any inconsistency is certainly by accident. I have no objection to Mick being unblocked after an undertaking to cease being abusive. Don't worry about being short, it happens. Consider it forgotten. Chillum 02:07, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again. And I just wanted to clarify that I didn't mean to imply that any inconsistently was intended on your part. I appreciate it is impossible to have eyes on every editor, one can only be expected to deal with issues when one sees them. Rockpocket

Good to know. I appreciate that even the appearance of inconsistency can be a serious problem. Chillum 20:02, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks for not piling on, even if it was just an act of 'not feeding the troll' or disinterest.--Capnchicken (talk) 01:13, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I had not noticed you had conceded the point. Letting an issue go and moving on is pretty much proof of not being a troll as far as I am concerned. Peace. Chillum 01:15, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Happy HighInBC's Day!

User:HighInBC has been identified as an Awesome Wikipedian,
and therefore, I've officially declared today as HighInBC's day!
For being such a beautiful person and great Wikipedian,
enjoy being the Star of the day, dear HighInBC!

Peace,
Rlevse
00:16, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A record of your Day will always be kept here.

For a userbox you can add to your userbox page, see User:Rlevse/Today/Happy Me Day! and my own userpage for a sample of how to use it. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:16, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. I knew I was having a good day, now I know why. Thanks. Chillum 00:42, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

RE: ChildOfMidnight

I don't agree that I'm edit warring, if that's what you're asserting Chillum. I have created a talk section to discuss the issue here (no discussion of the issue existed until now). I have one single revert regarding the phrase in question (perhaps one in the entire history of the article?) so I do take the threat of "being blocked" for my "bullshit" as an empty one. If anything the1,2,3 reverts (or equivalent) between ( 09:06, 6 September 2009 and 06:35, 7 September 2009) is the WP:3RR violation. I guess the first edit was an attempt to insert the disputed information one sentence earlier in the "early life" section, so maybe it doesn't count? Does simply re-typing instead of reverting exempt ChildOfMidnight from the 3RR? MichaelLNorth (talk) 03:39, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was telling ChildOfMidnight not to edit war, I did not say anything to or about you. I hope this clears things up. Chillum 03:56, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, your subsequent comment made it clear. Thanks MichaelLNorth (talk) 04:00, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think your bot got logged out

Special:Contributions/67.23.46.40 -- Soap ^Talk/_{Contributions} 17:37, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, it has indeed. It looks like it automatically logged back in though, just not right away. I will have to adjust the code for it to be more certain it is logged in before continuing. Thankfully it is on a dedicated server and has not revealed anyone's private IP. Thank you for letting me know. Chillum 21:57, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia administrator

Hello Chillum. So how would someone go about writing a encyclopedia entry about Wikipedia's administrators? I haven't gathered enough information yet but the EssJay administrator would need to be discussed. Varks Spira (talk) 05:00, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Such a topic would likely fail the notability and verifiability criteria and as such be nominated for deletion. We are an encyclopedia and we should never create content of our own but rather reflect what reliable sources has to say on a subject. Unless there is significant coverage by reliable sources to satisfy both notability of the topic and verifiability of the contents of the article then we should not have an article on that subject. Wikipedia also tries to avoid self reference except where neutrality requires it. Chillum 05:05, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's the thing. I'm interested in hearing the truth about Wikipedia's administrators rather than the gossip. I assumed there had to be significant coverage of Wikipedia's administrators, but you seem to doubt that? Varks Spira (talk) 05:10, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You can find volumes on the subject by poking about Wikipedia's meta-pages, that is to say those pages behind the scenes that are used to manage the creation of an encyclopedia. As for coverage by independent reliable sources, well, not surprisingly our internal management is not big news. If you ignore the gossip then all you have left is a bunch of people trying to keep a project to create a free encyclopedia on track. Chillum 05:13, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WOAH. I just read in The New York Times that "for seven months beginning in November, The New York Times worked with Wikipedia administrators to suppress information about the kidnapping of David Rohde, a correspondent in Afghanistan, from the article about him." nytimes.com. I'm shocked. There should obviously be an article about Wikipedia administrators. That's surprising behavior, and I haven't formed an opinion yet on it. Varks Spira (talk) 23:26, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That is covered in the article about David Rohde. Just because someone has a minor involvement in a notable incident does not mean they are notable, it merits a mention in the article about the incident if anything. I seriously doubt an article about us simple administrators of a website would survive the nomination for deletion it is sure to get. May I ask why you are so interested in the topic of Wikipedia administrators? Our job is really rather dull and uninteresting. Chillum 23:40, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Where does it indicate that you and Skomorokh are Wikipedia administrators? I'm interested in the authority figures at Wikipedia and it seems odd that there isn't an encyclopedic entry about them. Varks Spira (talk) 00:07, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:List of administrators contains a full list of administrators. Administrators do not have special authority. Community consensus defines our policies and the enforcement of them, administrators are simply trusted with the tools to follow that consensus(boring ehh?). There is not an encyclopedic entry on them because it is not an encyclopedic topic. Encyclopedias only cover notable topics that can be verified with multiple independent reliable sources. While you have found a source or two it seems that administrators are really secondary to the true topics which we do have articles on where we do mention Wikipedia's involvement. Chillum 00:43, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Administrators do not have special authority." Clearly they do. I can't block you, but you can block me. --Malleus Fatuorum 01:05, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Like I just finished saying Mal, "Community consensus defines our policies and the enforcement of them, administrators are simply trusted with the tools to follow that consensus". So in your particular case the community came to a consensus that engaging in personal attacks(name calling) towards other users is not acceptable and that this should be a blockable offense should it be a repeated pattern. The multiple administrators that have blocked you for this offense during your time here did so based on the desire of the community.

You are mistaking ability for authority. I can't just block someone because I want to, it needs to be based on the best practices as defined by the community at large. Just as I cannot block someone against consensus, if you found consensus that I should be blocked then yes you could get me blocked, you just could not push the button yourself. I have no more authority than you do Mal, I just follow policy and don't get blocked while you often go against policy and get blocked. This distinction between ability and authority can be a little confusing to some, but administrators are expected to understand the difference. Any administrator who uses their tools based on their own perceived authority instead of consensus is not an administrator for very long. Chillum 01:15, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your misunderstanding and misrepresentation of the facts simply confirms my opinion that administrators are by and large dishonest fools who have gained their position by lying. I realise though that having been brave enough to state my opinion that I will now be blocked. So be it. --Malleus Fatuorum 02:20, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And you still seem to be engaging in personal attacks. You violate our no personal attacks policy and then suggest that if you are blocked as that policy suggests it is because of the opinion you have? Give me a break and take your baseless, vague, and widely targeted attacks elsewhere. It is of little help to this discussion. Chillum 02:23, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Are you replying to me? If so make it clear, and I'll tell you exactly what I think of your civilty crusade. --Malleus Fatuorum 02:28, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Does the community == the list of Wikipedia administrators? Varks Spira (talk) 01:22, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It seems like there is a fair amount of debate about what, in fact, a Wikipedia administrator is. Chillum, I'm curious to know how you became an administrator? How does one prove themselves worthy of the role? I'm not sure why you continue to so adamantly describe the job of Wikipedia administrator as "dull", "uninteresting", and "boring"? To the contrary, I'm realizing.Varks Spira (talk) 01:21, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The community is everyone here, not just admins. I became an admin by asking the community: Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/HighInBC 2. There is some misunderstanding as to what an admin is for some users, but when it comes time to hold admins responsible for their actions then it is very clear what they are and that is servants of the community that take action based on that communities consensus. While you may find the subject interesting that does not make it suitable for an encyclopedic article. Chillum 02:08, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for all your kind answers. You seem to be strongly advising me against writing the article, and I am wondering why? I thought all manner of articles were permitted at Wikipedia? Varks Spira (talk) 02:20, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would think since you have been participating in WP:AfD that you would know that we certainly do not allow all manner of articles. We have some rather extensive inclusion standards. WP:Notability, WP:Verifiability, WP:No original research, and WP:Reliable sources a just a few. I think I have explained why making such an article is a bad idea a few times already so I wonder why you are wondering why. If you still don't see why it is a bad idea after reading our inclusion standards then by all means create the article and have it deleted by the community. Who knows, perhaps I am wrong and you can make an article that will satisfy the community and its inclusion standards. Chillum 02:26, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I started the article, but I would like some help. It seems like a very, very important article but I'm getting a cool reception to the idea. Varks Spira (talk) 02:42, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would rather not help create an article that I don't think meets our inclusion criteria. I would more likely participate in a nomination for deletion. Nothing personal, just our editorial standards. Chillum 03:02, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

Hi Chillum, you are right, and I apologize for the misplaced comment. I do think that there are factors here that perhaps you're not aware of, and I'm sure there are also items that I'm oblivious to as well. I will follow up on this later today or this evening. At the moment, I'm a bit pressed for time, and have several clients that I have to attend to in R/L. My main concern is that all involved parties are treated equally, and that editors who are adhering to our policies and guidelines are treated fairly. Thank you for the note, and I will get back to you ASAP. — Ched : ? 13:49, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. I am sure there are factors that I am not aware of, there always are. I did check to make sure none of the edit warring exemptions(copyright vios, vandalism, libel, other illegal content) applied, which I think is enough to prevent edit warring. Beyond those factors there really is no legitimate reason for repeatedly inserted one's version without finding consensus for it first. I am sure if one searched hard enough they could find other violations to address, but I too am a busy person. I generally don't go looking for violations of policy, I just see them on my watchlist every so often and respond. Chillum 14:11, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I get the feeling this may get a little drawn out here because I've gotten a bit busier than usual, so I hope you're willing to bear with me. I had to stop back home to pick up an external hard drive, but I'll give a brief viewpoint. 1.) I don't see any continued additions to the Frank article by CoM, but rather different approaches to add verifiable and resourced information that is being removed by other editors who are displaying a sense of wp:ownership on the article cause they want to paint their hero in good light. 2.) At least one of the editors has ABF assumed things and posted to CoM's page in a very negative manner. 3.) I'm never going to be fond of people ganging up on another editor who is editing in good faith. 4.) Your block threat came some 12 hours after CoM's last post, and to be perfectly honest, it appeared to me to be an attempt at intimidation - although I'm sure that's not the way you intended it. I'll drop by here later tonight when I get done. If you want to talk this out a bit, I have no problems with that. Cheers and best. ;) — Ched : ? 19:38, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To me the whole thing is much simpler. If an attempt to make a change is challenged, then you need to get consensus for it before re-adding it. In cases where someone is edit waring slowly, ie over the course of days slow enough to avoid 3RR, then I think a warning 12 hours later is reasonable. While each edit was slightly different the basic content of the edits(his dad was in the mafia) were the same. I have no horse in this race and do not even know who Barney is, but I do know that edit warring(even slow edit warring) leads to blocking. The purpose of my warning was to prevent both the edit warring and the blocking that follows, not to intimidate.

Perhaps problem is not unfair enforcement towards CoM, but rather a lack of enforcement towards other users involved in this debate. I don't really know because I have really only looked at the debate enough to determine if the edit warring met any of the exemptions for edit warring(vandalism, libel, copyright etc). It really does not matter if CoM is right or wrong, or if the other users are acting poorly or well, edit warring is edit warring. I have no problem with discussing this matter further. Chillum 21:22, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What a day .. don't know if I got that DYK in under the wire or not. Anyway, Frank is a US political BLP; but, the who, what, or where aren't important unless we're discussing the actual content of the article. Personally, I try to avoid those things - too much work for too little gain for my tastes of a volunteer project. From what I gather in looking at the recent edits there are 2 things. 1.) Frank's father's ties to the mafia (quotes from Barney Frank himself), and sourced from a bio book. 2.) The puffery that's in the lead. Both items which should be addressed if an article were put forth at GAN or FAC. The attempts to deal with this however are met with a couple editors displaying ownership tendencies, assuming bad faith when CoM tries to discuss it, and harrassment being displayed on CoM's talk page. Now, aside from the content issues, I think you're spot on in your evaluation that perhaps there's "a lack of enforcement towards other users involved in this debate". I certainly understand why CoM would be on many watchlists; he often doesn't adhere to the typical political editing styles that are often seen here, and is also quick to push the boundaries in his responses. Chillum, I think you do great work here, and it was never my intent to question your motives or intent. I'm only asking that we look at the big picture before handing out blocks. CoM's style, (and block log) show that often "quick block actions" prove to be an error in judgment. I know that with Tan taking a break here, even more of the AN stuff that has to be dealt with will fall on your shoulders, and I don't envy you that. But I'm starting to wander in my thoughts. Yes. My concern is rather that if we block "one" for edit warring, then it's only reasonable to block the "other". I don't know if upgrading the page protection would help, or if it would inflame the whole thing. All things said, I simply wanted to bring to your attention that the issues are larger than just CoM edit warring. I don't have a perfect answer to edit warring, if I did I could probably sell it to WP and retire ... lol. I'll try to keep an eye on things as well, and judging from your second paragraph above it looks like you've been doing some research as well. Thanks for taking the time to hear me out, and for looking into things a little deeper. Cheers and best. ;) — Ched : ? 01:17, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate the productive nature of your criticism. Peace. Chillum 01:24, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring?

Offenders? --John (talk) 22:44, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your message provides little context so I am going to have to assume a few things to respond to you. No I was not attempting to accuse you specifically of edit warring. Your single revert was not inappropriate. I was referring to a hypothetical future event where one or more people may edit war. Chillum 22:50, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for clarifying. It looked to me like one person editing against consensus and three different editors reverting. I don't disagree with the protection either. --John (talk) 22:52, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That is pretty much how it looks to me too. Chillum 22:54, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's not what I saw. We have a clear issue of naming policy set against majoritarian POV. Judging by the fact that certain names were taken I'd say this isn't the first time British road warriors have been imposing their primacy. I will investigate. Sarah777 (talk) 09:49, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please investigate, just don't edit war. Chillum 14:18, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Criteria

The criteria used by RickBot is "Administrators who have not edited in at least 2 months." This seems to make it hard to figure out activity levels, since to find them for a point in time, you have to get all admins' edits and then figure out whose was at least 2 months before that date. MBisanz ^talk 16:56, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I just happen to have a mysql database with a complete list of when every admin made every edit. It saves all sorts of time. Chillum 16:57, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Though it does not include all of the ex-admins... Do you know where I can get a complete list people who were once an admin? Chillum 17:00, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah... the user rights log would be a place to start. Chillum 17:01, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just don't forget the WP:CRATLOG. MBisanz ^talk 17:09, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I will read it from the rights log with the api:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/api.php?action=query&list=logevents&letype=rights&leprop=details%7Ctitle%7Ctimestamp&lelimit=500

Once I have a full list of names I will fill in the gaps in my db and work on a data aggregater. Chillum 17:11, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The user rights log is inconsistent. I will scan every delete, protection, or block action and take all of those usernames. Admins who have never used their tools will not be included but that is fine. Chillum 18:37, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, this is a bit harder than I thought. It seems there is not consistent log of when people became or stopped being admins. I need to gather the info from 3 sources: Wikipedia:Bureaucrat log which has the early sysopings, the en.wikipedia user rights logs that shows +sysops from after then, and http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/api.php which will have -sysops as well as some rare +sysops. Once I build a full list of admins by scanning all admin actions every taken I can gather the needed info for each admin. Chillum 19:54, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I decided it would make more sense to graph the level of admin actions. Here is the raw data for the number of each action taken each day: http://s3.amazonaws.com/Wikipedia/graph.tab ( for all types of actions combined: http://s3.amazonaws.com/Wikipedia/graph2.tab )

I will try to graph this nicely sometime later, I think it will need a logarithmic scale as deletes are so much more common than other actions. Chillum 23:32, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

HBC namewatcher bot, feature request

Hey -- I've noticed a number of WP:UAA reports lately that are "homophones" that look far less concerning than the underlying rule. For instance, I had to add "security" to the whitelist because "curit" is a homophone for "cunt". I was thinking, one way to reduce this kind of thing would be for the bot to treat homophone rules as if they had WAIT_TILL_EDIT: so a username including "cunt" would get reported right away but a username with "curit" would only get reported if they edit. Mango juice^talk 17:08, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The WAIT_TILL_EDIT flag should work with HOMOGLYPH. The blacklist could be edited for patterns that should wait until an edit. I don't think the options should be tied together by default. I admit I did not put much thought to my addition of the homoglyph flags to the blacklist items. The homoglyph table itself may need some culling. I really left the configuration open ended for the community to work out, so be bold in adjusting it. Chillum 19:02, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For example I just removed the n=ri rules from the homoglyph table[1]. Chillum 06:04, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[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.