User talk:HighInBC/Archive 49

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.

Attack Page you just Speedy'ed

I think some of the history should be redacted as well, to remove the defamatory terms from view? Electric Wombat (talk) 00:00, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Did you have any specific revisions in mind? Chillum 00:03, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Edit sum on 617111654 and a couple of later ones. Everything for 617111748 perhaps? Electric Wombat (talk) 00:10, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the offending edit summaries and deleted a bad rev. I also blocked the user that put it there. Thanks. Chillum 00:17, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ANI

Sorry but the board is having ec. You made a message right after 2 minutes when I made one, but it took 2 minutes to load. You may consider checking my last message on 13:28. Thanks. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 13:31, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That was an odd edit conflict. Sometimes edit conflicts are not caught by the software, likely some sort of race condition. Normally it results in data being removed, but this time it looked like I added stuff I did not. An old bug. Thank you for pointing that out. Chillum 13:38, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

At the page Treats!

Chillum,

First, thanks for your participation on the talk page of "Treats!". TonyTheTiger has reverted the removal of the photo in question on that page, I haven't touched it, since I removed it and noted why I didn't think it belonged, I felt like it would make me involved. I've pinged Tony from that page and asked him to remove the picture again until consensus is reached. I'm asking if you wouldn't mind keeping your eye on that page as well, just in case Tony turns difficult. Both he and I have a history with it, I will not revert him at all on that page, in order to keep any edit wars from happening! :) Kosh Vorlon 19:38, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@KoshVorlon: I have given my opinion as an editor on the matter. I cannot act as an administrator in what is essentially a content dispute. I recommend that you seek out the opinion of more editors. Chillum 19:39, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Understood! Kosh Vorlon 19:48, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus

Chillum,

I saw your note on the Treats! talkpage. I don't see a problem stating that consensus is 2/1, it really is. You and I are in agreement, that's a consensus of opinion. Now, because I'm involved, I realize I can't officially declare a consensus , nor could I attempt to close out the discussion on the talkpage, but I can at least state the fact that your and I are in agreement, and that that agreement is a consensus of opinion. Now, if you still think I'm wrong, let me know and I'll strike my post about consensus, ok ? Kosh Vorlon 11:55, 18 July 2014 (UTC) _{PS: Your current signature is really small. Would you consider enlarging it ? Kosh Vorlon 12:55, 18 July 2014 (UTC)}[reply]

I am just saying that consensus can change. Once another editor has responded to the concerns that I agreed with then it becomes a new situation. Consensus is never about counting people, it is about the strength of the argument as related to policy.

TonyTheTiger is a very good editor who understands our requirements very well. Probably one of the most prodigious content contributors we have. I think he has responded to the concerns nicely.

I had a larger signature before but the drop shadow was causing the lines to become taller than the other lines. I decided to tone it down. Chillum 13:55, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I realize consensus can change. I was reporting what consensus was, as still is, on the talk page (again, not the official consensus, but the consensus of opinion. That's all. I've opened up an RFC on that page, and if the consensus is the photo stays, it stays, I'm okay with that. Kosh Vorlon 14:45, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It is a bit hard to start calling consensus when there are 3 people there and one has left. My point is that once an editor addresses the concerns of someone who gave an opinion then that opinion needs to be renewed before it can be counted towards consensus. I see that Tony has done a lot of work on the NFCC of the image in question. Don't you think things are better now than when we started? Chillum 20:31, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by blocked editor removed[1]

Eerie

What is this business of us having the same thought at the same time? I only just met you not that long ago. I was restoring your full comment at IHTS's talk page just as you were and with, of course, a similar summary. Anyway, this time you got in first. :-) --Bbb23 (talk) 23:28, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hopefully this user will just settle down and go back to editing. Clearly we are using the same mental frequency or something like that. Chillum 23:40, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Re: e-mail

Note: For full context see here. Chillum 18:57, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, just to reiterate what I e-mailed you about - he insulted me even further in his unblock request, and never retracted any of that, nor has he apologized for anything. Getting blocked for an initial spate of attacks at ANI, and then continuing in a very combative and disingenuous manner in the unblock request - I just don't see how this can be taken seriously. If you want me to dissect all the invalid and offensive stuff he wrote in the unblock request, I can do that. (I was hoping I wouldn't have to do that.) --Joy [shallot] (talk) 07:20, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Blocks are preventive not punative. Nobody is saying he did not act incorrectly.

While an apology would be very nice it is enough that the behavior simply not continue for the block to cease to be preventative. We require change not contrition. I told him his unblock request was not acceptable and asked him to change his tune, he did.

Blocks are not a tool to get apologies out of people, they are tools to prevent future incidences. I will talk to this user and tell them you are offended. I will suggest, not require, that he apologise to you. Chillum 17:27, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have left a message to the user requesting, not requiring and apology to you: User_talk:Zvonko#Apology_to_Joy. I have worded the message as a suggestion and not a command so that any apology you get will be sincere. I agree an apology would go a long way but an apology under duress would be meaningless. Chillum 17:36, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Double redirects (in the form of a haiku)

~~User:HighInBC and User talk:HighInBC are now double redirects. I suggest fixing them to redirect to your current username. —Mr. Granger (talk · contribs) 23:25, 22 July 2014 (UTC)~~[reply]

Your old user page
HighInBC and the talk
Should be updated —Mr. Granger (talk · contribs) 23:28, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Chillum 08:26, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Question on 3RR

What would be the appropriate action, if any, when an editor resumes the same edit(s) on a page after his 3RR block expired? Thank you. LRD NO (talk) 05:15, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any edit warring by that editor after the block. The single edit does not seem to be an issue. Chillum 19:45, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ANI

Your close ihardlythinkso was a bit odd in that you closed a discussion in which you made the primary proposal and participated. There does appear to have been a consensus, so I'm not arguing against your conclusion which was in line with that consensus, but in the future you might want to let someone truly uninvolved do the close and implement the consensus. It raises questions of bias when you do that. You need to avoid closing discussions in which you are involved unless there is no sanction, the outcome is very clear, and it is being closed to stop drama or protect the accused in some way. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 20:49, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I was not imposing a community ban or asking the community for anything outside of my personal discretion. I was making an ordinary administrative block based on an already existing interaction ban. Before I took this action I checked for consensus and found it. I don't think seeking consensus for a block makes me involved in such a way that I cannot then make that block. Rather seeking consensus first makes my block more appropriate.

As for closing the disussion I suppose I could have left it open of after the fact review of the block. Nobody had posted in over 12 hours and I did say in my closing comments that any admin could re-open it.

I did not think of the closing tags as some sort of result of the discussion, rather I was just closing an issue that appeared to be resolved. In the future I will let other people close it so that my actions can be commented on. Chillum 23:57, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Over the last couple of years, the community has gotten very funny about closes. Thinking about it, doing the block wasn't as big of a deal as closing (oddly enough), although if you hadn't closed, you probably wouldn't have blocked. The community does see the close as the "result" as that is what is acted upon. We have had some big drama battles over closing too early or closing by involved people over the last couple of years, including revert wars. This case wasn't likely to get any static from the community due to the nature of, well, everything. And obviously the content of your close was spot on, but as you know, sometimes buddies will disagree and the next time might be a drama fest. Just meant as a friendly, helpful comment, not as finger pointing. I was hesitant to even say anything, I didn't want it to sound like I was being critical, just helpful from someone who patrols ANI regularly. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 00:35, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In response to "although if you hadn't closed, you probably wouldn't have blocked", yes I would have. I reviewed the text of WP:ADMIN and specifically WP:UNINVOLVED and I am satisfied that I have acted towards this editor purely in an administrative role and that my use of admin tools was legitimate. I was within my discretion and I enjoyed a consensus that I was competent to recognise.

I disagree that a the archive template is some sort of decree or that it is the basis for action. Rather it was a description of the actions that were taken. It was not an afd or a community ban, it was an admin seeking advice on an action that was within his discretion.

I understand appearance is important. I will read over Wikipedia:Closing_discussions. I am seeing it does not make a distinct between closing and archiving. Pity because sometimes you just need to describe what happened, not decree a result.

If the current community standard is that someone uninvolved in a given discussion close it then that is fine. I see the wisdom in that it allows after the fact review of the block. I have re-opened the discussion and will leave it for someone else to deal with. Chillum 00:55, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I mean that whoever closed would have done the block, usually that is how is done. Not that you wouldn't have felt the reason or didn't have the authority. That didn't enter my mind. I don't think you needed to reopen this time, it was just a friendly note of precaution based on recent experience, but I'm getting the feeling you aren't wanting the input, so I will leave it alone. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 01:03, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your input is always welcome. I may not always agree with you but that does not mean I don't want your input. I am thinking that closing discussions has a different definition of "involved" than administrative actions and this is causing the disconnect between when it is appropriate to block and when it is appropriate to close a discussion about said block.

I was not trying to be contentious. I just found it odd that by the standards of taking admin actions I was not considered involved but by the standards of closing the discussion I am. It is indeed a strange situation but one I will try to keep an eye out for.

I did not reopen it to make a point, I just wanted to see how it would be handled by someone else. Chillum 01:17, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep in mind that anyone can close/archive an ANI discussion, so this applies to NAC as well. An example: If you (or anyone) close early and voted "no action/oppose" in the same discussion, other may say you are trying to protect a buddy by shutting down discussion. Yes, I've seen several dramafests over that before. In obvious cases or just maintenance reports, no one cares, I'm talking about "sanction" cases. Most regular patrollers are very careful to draw a stark line between participation and closing in anything that resembles a contentious discussion. Many view (or demand) closing an ANI discussion that requires a "conclusion" (reading consensus) the same as closing an RFC or AFD: if you vote, you don't close. I won't make the block if I voted "block", even if it is obvious, although I can review the block or do enforcement after the fact. It is all about avoiding drama and concerns over involvement. Again, it does make sense if you think about it, even if it isn't always the most efficient. It is more about new tradition than policy; what works to prevent drama, and instill confidence in the community that we are acting in an unbiased manner.

And it is fine to disagree with me, I never take offense to that, and sometimes I discover I was wrong and learn something. I don't know you well enough to have a bead on when you are just sparring and when you are offended, and I certainly didn't want to offend or "boss" you here, just help by sharing experience. I know you took a long break, and that you are more than capable. It is just that the community has raised their expectations over the last couple of years, holding us to a higher standard on some things. Honestly, I think that is a good thing. This is one of those things that has tightened up a bit, at least in practice. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 01:47, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think there was anything wrong with you closing this even though you argued for no action to be taken in the discussion. After all if someone disagrees with your closing they can revert you. Since anyone can close a discussion I think WP:BRD applies. Chillum 02:56, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is an exception, pure WP:IAR, in order to protect Light from getting blocked themselves and stop drama, but not exactly the same as a structured proposal, but I get your point. There is zero chance of Eric getting blocked, he didn't do anything against policy, he said "cunt" within context. See the talk page of ANI, and my talk page. Technically against what I said but does fit the exception to protect and prevent unnecessary drama. If someone reverts, I won't fight over it, I agree that BRD surely applies. (I actually got some thanks notifications for it) I've been trying to get them to step away from the cliff, but they seem determined to make a WP:POINT about how Wikipedia should block for cuss words. I think you see the difference. It is a risk for me to do, but I knew that when I did it. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 03:39, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Again I do think it was a good close. You were right and there was general agreement that it was not going to require any admin tools. No need for IAR because as far as I can tell it is not a rule.

On a side note linking to those pictures on commons[2] is not going to reduce the drama so if your goal is to prevent drama then that is not the best plan. Not sure what that was even meant to prove. Chillum 03:48, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A risk, probably not the best, but this person needs to understand we really DON'T censor here, and they have 10k edits and seem shocked that we have stuff like this. I'm not sure what to make of that. I did say what that link was, if anyone looked, they knew what they were going to see. If you see my talk page, they weren't as affected by that as the word. They have a personal problem with the word, maybe someone bad said it to them, but as you know, we can't base our sanctions on how it affects someone personally, that just doesn't work. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 04:01, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It just went unclosed:[3]. Much ado about nothing. Chillum 21:03, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, HighInBC. You have new messages at Shirik's talk page.
Message added 08:39, 27 July 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 08:39, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Username

Did you just change the color of your username like five times in the past few hours? I thought I might've been going nuts (or color blind ). MrScorch6200 (talk | ctrb) 16:25, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Its color depends on what second it is: [[User talk:Chillum|<b style="vertical-align:20%;text-shadow:0px 0px 4px blue;font-size:60%;color:{{subst:#switch:{{subst:#expr:{{subst:#time:U}}mod8}}|0=red|1=Blue|2=Olive|3=DarkRed|4=Green|5=Orange|6=SteelBlue|7=Sienna}}">Chillum</b>]]

The markup is a bit much but what is rendered is nice and simple. Chillum 16:27, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"*When the morning gathers the rainbow. Want you to know I'm a rainbow too.*" - **Bob Marley**

(talk page stalker) Does that mean you understand how scripts work and other technical issues? Then I can come to you when I need help. (I didn't even notice the colors shifted. Kinda cool.) --Bbb23 (talk) 17:00, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yup. I wrote the original HBC AIV helperbot. I love little technical problems. I should really get back into bot writing, it is so fun. Chillum 17:02, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The color shift is cool. I just thought you were experimenting with different colors. MrScorch6200 (talk | ctrb) 17:30, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am a rainbow. Chillum 17:35, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File source problem with File:2oz gold Engelhard.JPG

Thank you for uploading File:2oz gold Engelhard.JPG. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the page from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of the website's terms of use of its content. If the original copyright holder is a party unaffiliated with the website, that author should also be credited. Please add this information by editing the image description page.

If the necessary information is not added within the next days, the image will be deleted. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.

Please refer to the image use policy to learn what images you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. Please also check any other files you have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is a list of your uploads. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Humatiel (talk) 03:08, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I did take the picture myself. Most of the pictures I upload are my own creations. Chillum 20:49, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:Teresa2011

You said you indef'ed her but only blocked her for a week. She has posted death threats, including one directed straight at you. I recommend blanking her talk page and blocking her with talk page disabled, but I'll leave that up to you for now in case you know something I don't. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 18:07, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for pointing that out to me. I must have selected the wrong duration. I left the talk page open to see if the original account holder would come back. Given the threats it has been made indefinite and talk page access has been revoked. Chillum 18:12, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

treats! discussion redux

In case you aren't following, the discussion has started over at Talk:Treats!#Survey.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:30, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I have it on my watchlist thank you. Chillum 20:19, 31 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.