User talk:HighInBC/Archive 48

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.

Notification of pending suspension of administrative permissions due to inactivity

Following a community discussion in June 2011, consensus was reached to provisionally suspend the administrative permissions of users who have been inactive for one year (i.e. administrators who have not made any edits or logged actions in over one year). As a result of this discussion, your administrative permissions will be removed pending your return if you do not return to activity within the next month. If you wish to have these permissions reinstated should this occur, please post to the Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard and the userright will be restored per the re-sysopping process (i.e. as long as the attending bureaucrats are reasonably satisfied that your account has not been compromised, that your inactivity did not have the effect of evading scrutiny of any actions which might have led to sanctions, and that you have not been inactive for a three year period of time). If you remain inactive for a three year period of time, including the present year you have been inactive, you will need to request reinstatement at WP:RFA. This removal of access is procedural only, and not intended to reflect negatively upon you in any way. We wish you the best in future endeavors, and thank you for your past administrative efforts. MadmanBot (talk) 03:14, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My my, what an interesting robot. Chillum ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 03:20, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
	Thank you, Chillum, for your tireless efforts in ridding Wikipedia of vandalism. Greatly appreciated! —MelbourneStar☆^talk 08:52, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, my first barnstar in over 4 years. I really should be more active here. Thank you. Chillum ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 08:59, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Good to see you around again. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:51, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Julian; it's good that you're back, Chillum. Acalamari 07:49, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nice too see some old timers still around! Chillum ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 19:40, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Late to the show, but I have to say good to have you back, Chillum. Tiderolls 14:44, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Even later, but that's a name I'm awfully glad to see, too. Welcome back. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 03:15, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Good to see you're still at it after all these years. —Soap— 03:11, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nice to be remembered after all these years. Chillum 03:13, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bhumihar

Something odd going on here. Maybe Bhumihar brahmin isn't a sock, but the account you blocked certainly looks like one. User:Bbb23 blocked the other 2 editors. If there isn't any socking they must be communicating off-Wiki. Articles like this one are extremely hard to keep NPOV and properly sourced when this happens as there are not a lot of good editors interested. Dougweller (talk) 10:13, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are talking about User:Alexnews? I am working on the assumption that this user is a good faith editor with a poor understanding of our neutral point of view policy. I have offered an unblock if he/she agrees to seek consensus on the talk page instead of edit warring and also to not be abusive to other editors. If the user continues to be disruptive the block can be reinstated.

In my experience the best way to deal with articles that are contentious is to try to bring as many different editors to it as possible. Chillum ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 10:17, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Ashumech527. Ashumech has socked before. Dougweller (talk) 10:20, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think you have a point there. You seem to know more about the situation than me so feel free to take an alternate course of action than I have. Chillum ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 10:23, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for closing the spam MfD

I did not think that there could be a speedy deletion for such pages, sorry if I wasted your time opening a useless MfD. Many thanks for your help.--cyclopia ^speak! 12:13, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Thanks for bringing that to our attention. To save time we do not need to discuss umabigious advertsing before deleting it. Under certain circumstances we can delete certain content on sight, it is descibed in detail here: Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion.

That link shows templates that can be used to draw an administrators attention to such issues. Chillum ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 18:46, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize

I'm sorry, the guy is trying to get to me and I was very annoyed with his words. I'll remove the comments if you want off the talk page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Second Skin (talk • contribs) 02:01, 29 June 2014‎

Thank you I appreciate that. Chillum ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 02:03, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Removed the insulting comments. Second Skin (talk) 02:04, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

TYVM

Thank you very much, Chillum, for your deletions of Wikipedia:UXIVAS and Wikipedia talk:UXIVAS! – Paine Ellsworth ^CLIMAX! 02:18, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Chillum ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 02:20, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Luv your [tinc] above the stars on your user page. – Paine 02:31, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppetry

I have filed a sockpuppetry report about those two editors. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:10, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea, I was considering doing the same thing myself. I will keep an eye on Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/MasaComp. Thanks. Chillum 17:48, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Robert McClenon, given the circumstantial nature of the evidence and the

Unlikely that the CU returned I think we need to assume good faith that these are different people. While it is possible there is meat puppetry at play it does not seem to matter as RunNroll has not edited in 2 days.

The AfD will be over soon and we will see how these 2 users respond to the outcome. Chillum 18:48, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome back!

I'm not sure if you remember me — I previously edited as "Master&Expert", but changed my name in mid-2012. It's great to see you around again! Here's hoping you're in it for the long haul. :-) Kurtis ^(talk) 13:52, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. It is great to see so many old faces still working on the project. Chillum 15:03, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

This report is a different incident from the 3RR incident and subsequent 12-hr block. If you follow the discussions provided in the report (here and here), it is a far more serious issue and warrants a proper response from user. Otherwise the edits of those nature may continue in future. Kindly review the report. Thank you. LRD NO (talk) 00:51, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I have un-closed the discussion so that more admins can speak on the issue. Thank you for bringing this to my attention. Chillum 00:55, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the quick response and I look forward to you contributing your valuable opinion to the discussion. Cheers. LRD NO (talk) 01:02, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

2014 Spring, Texas shooting

Thanks for having a look. This was definitely a gruesome murder, but the article makes no attempt at presuming innocence. The suspect is never referred to as "alleged", and seems to disregard WP:BLPCRIME. I tried to tease out all mention of the alleged suspect and found there was little left of the article. Thanks for you input. Magnolia677 (talk) 04:48, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It is indeed a difficult topic to cover. Chillum 05:21, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Barnstar of Diplomacy
	Thank you for your support of me during a recent situation regarding another editor. I really appreciate it, Daniellagreen ^(talk) ^(cont) 00:19, 12 July 2014 (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.