User talk:HighInBC/Archive 36

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.

Change to bot's source of this text

I was reading through a report on UAA by your awesome bot! (seriously, no lie, I like it! No sarcasm.) Anyway, I saw this text as its report:

When using the name Pentagon.gr(link) as a http URL I got a response code of 200.A response code starting in 2 means HTTP server found, succesful request.

I don't know where it got this from, but it needs:

A space between the top-level domain and (link).
A space after "code of 200."
Spelling "succesful" to "successful".

Thanks for your attention. —Mr. E. Sánchez (that's me!)^{What I Do} / _{What I Say} 03:59, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I will make these improvements before too long. Thank you. Chillum 04:37, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have finally gotten around to fixing this. Thanks. ^Chillum 19:33, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rjanag Conduct RfC

A Request for Comments has been opened concerning the conduct of Rjanag. This follows the suggestion of a number of arbitrators at the Rjanag RfA. I am contacting you because you previously discussed Rjanag's conduct with him in one the underlying referenced Simon Dodd AN/I.

The RfC can be found here.

Editors (including those who certify the RfC) can offer comments by:

(a) posting their own view; and/or

(b) endorsing one or more views of others.

You may certify or endorse the original RfC statement. You may also endorse as many views as you wish, including Rjanag's response. Anyone can endorse any views, regardless of whether they are outside parties or inside parties.

Information on the RfC process can be found at:

Thanks. --Epeefleche (talk) 10:22, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I may be quoted in what I already said, but I don't have much else to say on the matter unless the issues of incivlity continue. Chillum 04:13, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

For your comment. I was beginning to wonder if this place had civil discussions anymore :). Soxwon (talk) 03:58, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I myself have noticed that we have had a shocking decline the prevention of abuse towards our volunteers. In fact such prevention is more often than not subject to attack by those who wish to defend(or at least enable) such abuse. 2 years ago abuse towards editors would not have been tolerated. I will likely abandon this project if it does not require at least a basic level of respect towards its editors. I suppose as the population increases the standards drop, and instead of the small town friendliness you get a big city "fuck you" instead. Chillum 04:01, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On the brightside it does get rid of all those pesky newcomers, what with their damned fresh ideas and attitudes... Soxwon (talk) 04:04, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's exactly it, from a sociological point of view. Probably a lot of us who have been around here five years or more have noticed. We went from being a village to being a city; we don't all know each other any more. I remember a time when I knew almost every active editor on the project, at least by name and approximately what they did. And I think you're right, we routinely tolerate appalling abuse towards our volunteers. There are differences of opinion in just what constitutes unacceptable behavior, but -- good grief. There are limits. I think the worst problem isn't actually the abusers -- it's the damn enablers. There are people you just cannot block, because a crowd bubbles up from IRC demanding their unblock within an hour or two.

I like the idea of attempting to model a modern workplace, with a professional atmosphere of courtesy and respect, but those of us who work in such places may actually be in a minority. Dunno -- I worry about it. We have less new editors, more drama, and the trendline is disturbing. Antandrus (talk) 04:17, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

trag ilarious. Chillum 04:20, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you again for coming to my defense, but honestly, I doubt that one apology is going to change his mind. I'd advise the same thing that I advise to everyone in this type of situation: forget about it, find some good thrash/speed/heavy/folk/viking/pagan/death metal, and start headbanging. Soxwon (talk) 05:19, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How about folk? Chillum 05:30, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm down with that. Soxwon (talk) 05:34, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And if that's a little to death metal for ya Soxwon (talk) 05:36, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ottava block - AGF?

I keep wondering how the meme got started that I blocked him for failure to AGF, because various people have mentioned it. I blocked him for making 16 uncivil comments and then claiming that it would take a complete rewrite of WP:CIVIL for it to apply to any of them. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:27, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry, my mistake. I will correct this in my summary. Chillum 20:52, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think my updated summary is more reflective of your reasoning. Please let me know if I am wrong. Chillum 21:04, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good, thanks. I was wondering if I had said something in the thread that was making people think that, or if it was just something that someone made up and others repeated. I unfortunately don't always type exactly what I mean, even after proofreading. :-( --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:05, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually it was my review of Ottava's comments leading up to the block that led me to that conclusion. I reviewed all of that before declining his unblock request and that was the conclusion I came to. I must have still had my interpretation of his behavior in mind when summarizing your position and accidentally merged the two(even after proofreading). Chillum 21:09, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, ok, that makes sense. Mystery solved. :-) --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:11, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Heil HBC NameWatcher!

It seems like every time a username issue makes its way to ANI, there is a flood of throwaway accounts registered with the same problem. Like somebody out there is testing to see if they will get blocked, but they don't bother to actually edit with the name. Anyway, this week it's names with "nazi" in it. I'd like to ask for you to change the settings for this one as well in order to delay reports until the user actually makes an edit. Thanks. Beeblebrox (talk) 06:03, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know about that. I don't think it is a good idea to wait for potentially hateful names to edit as once they have edited then there is a real potential for them to drive off valued editors. While there may be a short term fad of testing the limits with this type of name, there is also the more long term problem of people trying to use Wikipedia to espouse hate. ^Chillum 02:54, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

eh, you're probably right, it'll probably die down in a day or two anyway. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:49, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just so you know, while I do run the bot I am not in charge of its behavior. That is up to consensus to determine, though in practice it is mostly determined by bold editing as there is rarely controversy. The controls are at User:HBC NameWatcherBot/Blacklist and User:HBC NameWatcherBot/Whitelist. The instructions should be clear, once those pages are changed the bot should respond immediately. ^Chillum 21:43, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am of course more than willing to respond to requests for changes for those who cannot edit the protected page, or those who find the control panels unclear(though I may not always respond quickly due to my schedule). ^Chillum 21:45, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Email

- Ottava Rima (talk) 16:46, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, apology accepted. ^Chillum 18:58, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Vintagekits' Userpage

Howdy Chillum. Wowsers, this is the first time (I recall) that an editor's Userpage status has been disputed over, where the Userpage's editor isn't involved. GoodDay (talk) 20:23, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The communities decision to ban this user is here: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive578#Block Vintagekits indefinitely. There is a bit of politicking and filibustering going on by some people, however this user is indeed banned. This is both a "de facto ban" in that the user is indefinitely blocked and no administrator is willing to unblock, and it is also a community ban in that the community has come to a consensus on this ban. I suspect that at least some of the people denying the ban are being disingenuous and that others have simply listened to the denials and not looked into the evidence.

As with any ban the community is always welcome to come to a consensus to reverse it, this has not happened yet. What you are seeing is the ugly side of Wikipedia, politicking, misrepresentation, and good faith naivety. I agree it is unusual that a ban is denied like this in spite of the communities clear position, however the view of a vocal minority does not supersede the consensus of the community.

The case of VK is a sad one. A very good content contributor that for years on end has been disruptive has finally exhausted the community's patience, far more regrettable than banning some vandal or troll. It is understandable that some feel sincere regret at the loss of such an editor despite its necessity.

I have some personal opinions on this matter that I would rather not get into as they are likely to be inflammatory regardless of how firmly based they are, I will withhold those opinions. While the community's position on this ban is clear, the facts and circumstances behind it are complex and go back more than 2 years. ^Chillum 21:23, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okie Dokie. GoodDay (talk) 22:16, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. I'm sooo glad I disengaged myself from that conversation a week ago. I can't believe it's still being discussed. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:32, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

An issue that went for for multiple years is not going to settle overnight. I am all for further discussion in a public neutral venue if some sort of headway could be made, though using the userpage is only likely to draw drama by guaranteeing a lack of uninvolved people. I am glad you managed to avoid this drama, one must choose their disputes wisely. ^Chillum 19:00, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All I did was respond to his unblock request, next thing I know, half of ANI was a discussion of banning him. I thought we were done a long time ago. While this is certainly a more complicated case than most, and the block/ban itself may be worthy of discussion, fighting over the state of his user page hardly seems worth effort. I'm slowly getting better at picking my battles on WP... Beeblebrox (talk) 19:06, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In my personal opinion, the community's excessive tolerance to disruption has created several drama landmines that unsuspecting sincere people can step on and find themselves in a blast of drama. It is certainly nothing you have done wrong. ^Chillum 19:12, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is it appropriate for an Admin (in this case yourself) to keep referring to a (very bad IMHO) block as a "ban". Are there not Wiki rules against misrepresentation? (After all, there seems to be a Wiki-rule against nearly everything). Sarah777 (talk) 13:48, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sarah, I already linked to where the community decided on the ban. Stating it is not a ban does not change the fact that it is. You are welcome to seek consensus to change the status of this ban if you like. If there was a rule against misrepresentation then I am sure you would have it pointed out to you in short order by someone. ^Chillum 23:13, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly suspect Sarah may be in danger of dressing up as a superhero and scaling a public building. Danger Will Robinson, Danger! Beeblebrox (talk) 04:58, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I really don't know what the issue is here anyway. If Vintagekits wants to contest the issue, his option at this point is to take the matter to arbitration, and I offered him that option and a means to do so after closing the discussion. If he doesn't want to do that, and simply wants to leave in peace, I see no reason not to let him and drop it. It's up to him whether this is to be appealed any further or not, and at this point, he's chosen not to do so. If he changes his mind, my offer stands. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 05:58, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

IP. 166.205.xxx.xxx

Howdy Chillum. If the little rascal can't be stopped? I'll likely be considering (in the future) getting my registered account 'deleted' & creating a new account. In doing so, I won't be able to disclose 'to anyone' my former Wiki-indentity (I hope it doesn't come to that, as my friends might be curious as to my fate). GoodDay (talk) 23:17, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(Strike the above). Wait a sec, I'm not gonna change my identity, for that little IP weasle. GoodDay (talk) 23:28, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You don't need to get rid of your current account to use another to avoid harassment. Try using another account for a month or two(if you like), the person should eventually move on and you can start using your regular account again. These people always get bored and move on eventually, especially if you deny then what they want. ^Chillum 00:58, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I shall consider it. But for now, I'm in a stubborn mood & will continue as GD, if only to spite the anon. GoodDay (talk) 14:16, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. Just be careful, spite may be what he is looking for. ^Chillum 15:25, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okie Dokie. GoodDay (talk) 15:42, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Question

[1] - would the original imply that I use all caps and excessive exclamation points? :) Ottava Rima (talk) 16:54, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose that would qualify... I changed it because I don't think anger is the issue and the original wording could imply that. ^Chillum 18:56, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

People accuse me of being angry, hateful, upset, etc, without actually knowing my state of mind quite often, so, I'm sure many people would have been accepting either way. :) I've seen someone accuse me of being angry in a post I had a smilie face before. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:04, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Email

Something that you may find interesting. Purely fun, check it when you get a chance. Sswonk (talk) 05:23, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't math neat? ^Chillum 15:33, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Close provocative, disruptive Afd

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Republic of Ireland vs France (2010 FIFA World Cup Play-Off)

This clearly has no hope of gaining consensus but it is triggering major disruption - can I close it or does one need to be an Admin to do that? Sarah777 (talk) 13:43, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, you should really not close anything but non-controversial debates. ^Chillum 15:32, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Then maybe you should give it a lash? Sarah777 (talk) 16:14, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I participated in that debate. Just wait for the 7 days to lapse and someone will close it. ^Chillum 16:41, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You did??? Small world etc. Sarah777 (talk) 16:49, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes....you did. On the side of error I note, with sadness. Sarah777 (talk) 16:51, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We have different opinions on the issue, that does not qualify as error. ^Chillum 17:04, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the proposed deletion is wrong per policy and practice, (a view apparently shared by a significant majority of editors). Thus we believe deletion would be an error. Thus we believe it is an error to support deletion. Thus supporters of deletion are on the side of error. Am I missing something? Sarah777 (talk) 17:57, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the delay in response, I am traveling and have only occasional internet access. I suppose the part that you missed it that it is not a black and white situation and both sides have valid points. This issue is subjective and regardless of consensus I would not say that neither side is in error. ^Chillum 21:40, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Either way, it looks like it is setting some sort of Afd record as we head into Day 6! Sarah777 (talk) 02:25, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth... I suggest that the whole issue is really a matter of new policy discussion. My suggestion is that for each year, or season of competition is any particular sport, that articles similar in nature be compiled into a single article, ie. Controversial Football/Soccer Matches of 2009. Then it would be roughly the equivalent of a World Book yearly compendium of those matches. Only better. I would like to add that I have never kicked a soccer ball down the length of a field, nor have I ever watched anything more than a few seconds of soccer on TV, nor have I ever played a video game that was related to soccer. Or "football," as that game is also unfortunately known... *sighs (Go Pats!)... Regards, Hamster Sandwich (talk) 04:34, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit to Talk:GNAA

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed content from Wikipedia. When removing text, please specify a reason in the edit summary and discuss edits that are likely to be controversial on the article's talk page. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the text has been restored, as you can see from the page history. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you.--Afed (talk) 23:27, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the info, my edit summary should have made it clear what I was doing. Regardless I am not going to dispute any revert. ^Chillum 07:25, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you did not mean to suggest that I leave an edit summary specifying a reason(as I did), perhaps you just left the template. ^Chillum 07:27, 24 November 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.