User talk:HighInBC/Archive 61

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.

Seriously?

@The Rambling Man:. I welcomed you on my talk page while you disagreed with me for hours, not once did I even think about reverting you. Now you revert me on your talk page like a common vandal.

If you want to make statements about me like "fact that Chillum has now both apologised and added a disclaimer for his way of handling private emails is indicative that there was an issue" and then remove my response then that is fine. Just consider that you are not owning your point of view very well by removing my response. If you think your point is better made without my response then perhaps you should reconsider your point.

I would think that as two experienced admins we could disagree in a mature fashion. I am not asking you to do anything, just expressing my annoyance. Communication is important. Chillum 14:44, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Nothing productive here. I don't think you and I have much to talk about right now. Chillum 15:01, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Why don't you just drop it and move on with your life? Haven't you anything better to do? Cassianto ^Talk 14:51, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Haven't you? _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 14:54, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well and truly. I hope I don't ever have the misfortune to interact with you again. Cassianto ^Talk 14:59, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I was not talking to you Cassianto. Chillum 14:53, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And TRM wasn't talking to you. Cassianto ^Talk 14:59, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Responding From ANI

Given that the actions were in line with policy and only seem to be contradicting an essay I cannot see how this is not simply a content dispute. This is for the community to decide at DRV, not for admins to decide here. Chillum 00:36, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Chillum, I am responding to you post on ANI here, after you deleted it. Why should the community decide anything at DRV when they already have. The community decided, it's the admins who are refusing to uphold that consensus. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 00:41, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So far I have only seen essays linked to. Essays are not a reflection of consensus, they are opinion pieces. I am sure if you looked hard you could find(or just write) an essay that says all kinds of things that are not supported by policy or consensus. Is there a specific discussion where the community reached a consensus that I am unaware of?

WP:CSD has consensus and that is what the admin was upholding. Chillum 00:49, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The folks at WP:WPRS would like to NMEDIA made policy, but they two times we tried, it became a complete disaster. I think I can speak for everyone at WP:WPRS when I say we do our best to make the radio station articles use NMEDIA if it were policy in conjunction with GNG, V, N and other policies.

There isn't one specific discussion, but many discussions over time, plus the AfDs (per Common Outcomes), which should a strong and ongoing community consensus. There may very well be a specific discussion, but if it was before 2006 (when I got here) I am not aware of it.

Oh and apologizes on the blue/red goof, I just copy/pasted. :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 00:56, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If there was any doubt...

This discussion does not seem to involve me. You may use your own talk pages to have this meeting of the minds. Chillum 17:51, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

...about Cassianto's true character, check this out.[1] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:50, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bugs I am aware that we have inconsistent standards here that belie our policies and our principals. Frankly I have lowered my expectations of the community.

Perhaps one day the community will wake up and start treating people in a consistent and fair manner, but by then we will probably have world peace and have joined the galactic federation. Chillum 15:43, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

But it's ok for him to call me an "asshole" by linking to a YouTube video, eh Baseball Bugs? That is behaviour which you apparently find funny and endorse. Still, my clique and I, so you have opined on Caden's talk, are "serious" and humourless when it comes to uncivil "jokes" aimed at us, yet when we are equally "hilarious", such is the case on Caden's page, we are evil beyond belief. The image was directed at the nauseating exchange between you and Caden, and is not a reflection on you as people. But you are a selective reader who always assumes the worst in people, so believe what you want to believe. -- Cassianto ^Talk 14:44, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what was on that youtube link. If it is what you say it is, then your response on Caden's page is understandable. I'm taking Caden's word that your claim of copyvio was incorrect. But I never link to stuff that gets posted to talk pages, my own or anyone else's. You would be well-advised to adopt that same philosophy. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:36, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Who gives a fuck about copyvio, whether it was there or not. It was the video itself which was entitled "asshole" which I was pissed off about. If he can post things like that aimed at me, then he should be able to take stuff back when he gets it. FWIW, I neither watch or post YouTube stuff either and have adopted this rule thus far in my wiki-career, so your advice, how ever much appreciated, is wasted. Cassianto ^Talk 17:14, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's absolutely fine. _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 15:57, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you have concerns then I suggest you ask another administrator about them. I think you have worn out my talk page in the last few of days. Chillum 15:43, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Just so you know...

As always I welcome the scrutiny of the community at large in regards to my actions. Further localised discussion is yielding diminishing returns. Chillum 20:50, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I'm sure you'll agree, but this kind of stuff is unacceptable, especially when they are pretending to be another user [2] Cassianto ^Talk 10:20, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Chillum, After another posting (again using your name) on Cassianto's talk page, I've taken it to ANI. This is just a courtesy note to let you know you are mentioned in that thread, but are in no way blamed. – SchroCat (talk) 11:07, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Is this an appropriate use of the "thank" button, or were you trying to taunt me because of this? Is this what the feature is meant for, taunting people you don't like? Cassianto ^Talk 17:13, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I thanked you for that post because I think it reflected more on you than me. Chillum 19:32, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You keep telling yourself that. I've become accustomed to your bullshit excuses. Cassianto ^Talk 19:34, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again for your ongoing care of Wikipedia. Perhaps I should post a notice that says that "racist arseholes will be treated as racist arseholes"? Nice that you just popped by ANI to "sanction" me, but did nothing at all about the racist IPs. It seems this odd double-standard behaviour is now sadly typical of you. By "setting an example" do you mean publishing the contents of private emails without permission? The Rambling Man (talk) 18:27, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please grow up. You know very well than poor behaviour does not require name calling to deal with. Engaging in name calling because the other person was behaving poorly is not an excuse I would accept from a child, much less an admin. I was not sanctioning you, I was saying you were setting a poor example.

Do you really want to start on that whole e-mail thing again? I saw a diff where you posted information from an e-mail and unlike my case it was not information the person asked you to reveal. Please drop the stick and try to act like an adult when using your admin account. This is getting silly. Chillum 19:35, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your ANI post passively advocated the racist abuse on my talk page and you strongly advocate releasing private email details. You seem to be the one without control of your behaviour, ie the child here. Please take a long hard look at yourself and determine whether you are suitable for this project. P.s. What do you mean by "using your admin account"? Very odd..... The Rambling Man (talk) 19:44, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The concept that me criticizing you for engaging in childish name calling is tantamount to defending the person you were insulting is a false dichotomy and a straw man argument. You behaving poorly has nothing to do with the behaviour of the other user and you should know that. You also misrepresent me again by saying I advocate releasing private email details. You know very well that the locus of our disagreement is not so simple and I think you are presenting this oversimplified position because it is easier to defend.

You really need to sit down and think about what you are doing. You just accused me of advocating racism because I criticized you for name calling. Think about what you said and what you are basing that off of. That is an absurd and insulting accusation and I would like you retract it.

You seem to be viewing this as some sort of adversarial situation where if I speak against you then I must be supporting your enemy, well this is not a battleground we are each judged based on our own behaviour. Nobody disputes the IP was acting poorly, this does not give you special license. Chillum 19:50, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And when I say "using your admin account" I mean "Administrators are expected to lead by example and to behave in a respectful, civil manner in their interactions with others." If you want to carry the mop then please remain civil. Chillum 19:53, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, leading by example? That classic "email me, but I'll post it onto Wikipedia without permission" kind of leading by example? I'm sitting down. You suddenly turned up at ANI to criticise me, gave no heed to the racist abuse, did nothing about the abusive IP and sat back. It was telling that the ANI post was hastily closed with just you, you, on your own, making a point. Just after we'd had a disagreement. How curious that you'd chase me there? Think about it. You're being absurd, and insulting and I would like you to accept that hounding me is entirely inappropriate. If you really cared, you would have reacted to the racial abuse the IP gave me, rather than the simple response I gave. I won't be interacting with you again, unless you make further indiscretions (e.g. exposing personal information), you're welcome to post on my talk page, but don't expect a response. If you want to carry the mop, don't misrepresent what you do when asked for help, don't publish private information. Civility is subjective, publishing private email content is objective. You did that, without permission. Fail. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:59, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I did not suddenly show up on ANI, you will see I am very active there. How exactly is the close "telling"? I was not involved in the close.

The fact that you interpret the situation as me following you to ANI when I regularly post there and that you found the closure somehow "telling" when I had nothing to do with that tells me that you are jumping at shadows. You are connecting dots that are simply not there.

Nobody was defending the IP and it was perfectly clear to all that the IP was in the wrong, I am not somehow condoning their behaviour because I did not call them an arsehole. Oh and please stop being so hypocritical, I was told to reveal the information I revealed. Were you? Chillum 20:28, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, you stop being so hypocritical. The contents of the email was highly offensive and was not delivered in good faith. Your behaviour is and has been shameful, you know that, the dots are there, you're joining them up. Why were you the only person to show up at the ANI report to passively defend the racist IP? I never asked you to call them anything, you're making your own strawman arguments. But at least this is all good detail to let others see you for what you are, it speaks for itself. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:32, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It is clear to me that you are insisting on arguing with a fictional figure other than me. A straw man of your own devising. You can accuse me of defending racism all day long but anyone who knows me would know that you are wrong factually and morally. I was talking about your behaviour and your classic attempts to blame your behaviour on that of another users is disappointing from an administrator.

If you insist upon reading "I think that an admin can refrain from name calling regardless of the accuracy of it" as "I think it was okay what they did" then I think you need to get a dictionary.

Accusing me of defending racism is not only wrong and insulting it also unreasonable behaviour from any editor. Chillum 20:39, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You defended it inasmuch that you didn't mention it. Cassianto ^Talk 20:44, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You did not mention the war of 1812, does that mean you defend it? Chillum 20:45, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Are you drunk? Cassianto ^Talk 20:49, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Chillum, that is not a response to specific a enquiry, such as your's was to me. You "advised" me in public, contrary to my intentions to keep it private. We all knew Dreadstar was a low-life, and the confirmation from TRM that he was insulting other editors proves it. Cassianto ^Talk 20:37, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If I had done what you asked me to do then the same information would have been revealed. Don't pretend it was private when doing what you asked would have been public. Chillum 20:40, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If I'd wanted it to have been public I'd have posted it on your talk page. Are you deliberately trying to be stupid? Cassianto ^Talk 20:42, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You know as well as I do that you were blocked at the time and could not even edit your own talk page. If you really want to dispute this matter then we will have to refer to the actual text of the e-mail. If you want to handle this in private we can send it to arb-com, otherwise please drop the matter. Chillum 20:44, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's entirely unreasonable that you publicised private material. It's entirely unreasonable that you castigated me while overlooking the overt racist attack. Look more closely in the mirror Chillum. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:41, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Go away. Chillum 20:42, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed I will, until you transgress once again, then I will come back to make sure everyone knows how you operate. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:48, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Wow

Wow, Chillum, you handled yourself quite well. Don't let Cassianto bait you, he knows how thank-baiting works when he thanked me for this. Good call on TRM's false dichotomy. The ol' "if your not with me..." argument falling flat on its face once again. Keep up the good work.--v/r - T P 22:08, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The urge to take the bait is indeed strong. I certainly felt like engaging in personal attacks, I had a list as long as my arm. I was even saying the insults out loud. I did however refrain from posting them on Wikipedia with my admin account. It was not that hard, I learned similar skills in grade school. I know a logical fallacy when I see one and I will continue to name them as I see them. Thank you for your words. Chillum 22:12, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. We haven't gotten along amazingly in the past, but I was particularly impressed this time. You kept a cool head. Sorry for stirring up more drama on your page - email might be better next time I want to pay someone a compliment.--v/r - T P 23:01, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Misc

Aren't you supposed to be retired TParis? Or was that just a rather pleasant dream I was having the other night? Cassianto ^Talk 22:25, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not use my talk page to snipe at other editors. You are not in charge of enforcing retirement. Chillum 22:29, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe not, but seeing as they retired on 11 February 2015 and have since made over 60 edits, I thought they might like to familiarise themselves with this; especially the part that says "Editors should promptly remove this template from their user pages if they resume editing for any reason. If still editing on rare occasions, use semi-retired in preference." Also, would you not consider T whatsisname's comment that it was a "Good call on TRM's false dichotomy" a sniping comment? Cassianto ^Talk 22:41, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Paris was talking to me on my talk page. See the difference? Chillum 22:47, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You told me not to snipe on your talk page, so that must go for others, right? I don't see your point. Cassianto ^Talk 22:54, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tell me, did you ever disclose your previous account? Cassianto ^Talk 22:25, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Are you talking to me or TParis? Please communicate clearly. Chillum 22:31, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's under your comment, so maybe you can make the educated guess on that one? Cassianto ^Talk 22:41, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Again please communicate clearly. About half of my Wikipedia contributions are here: [3]. Chillum 22:47, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Email, talk page, it's all the same thing to Chillum. Cassianto ^Talk 23:00, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

CSD

Regarding this [4], the page was hosting a cherry picked laundry list of accusations (by now indeffed sockmaster) while he had not filed any report. I think that is considered an NPA vio unless filed at a due venue. --lTopGunl (talk) 21:12, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree Wikipedia:User_pages#POLEMIC is likely to apply and that this is a good reason for deletion. While a biased collection of evidence is probably not in the best interest of the encyclopedia and it probably should be deleted it is not something that should be decided by a single person. Speedy deletion is for unambiguous cases where no community input is needed. The wording of G10 in my opinion does not allow me to delete it unilaterally. I blanked the page myself but the removal of the history is something for the community to decide.

Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion is the proper venue for to make a policy based argument for deletion of a page that does not meet our criteria for speedy deletion. Chillum 21:24, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Understood, MFD'd: Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:CosmicEmperor/sandbox. --lTopGunl (talk) 12:20, 25 June 2015 (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.