User talk:HighInBC/Archive 64

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.

Notice

Note for archive: [1]. Chillum 23:15, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DavidMarchasis (talk • contribs) 18:34, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:JIK1975

Hi. I was pointed in your direction in regard to taking admin action on JIK1975. A few weeks back I brought this user up at WP:ANI over his disruptive editing (archive here). Basically, this user's only purpose for being here is to "fix" redirects despite being repeatedly explained that what he is doing is actually quite un-helpful. He finally seemed to get the message, writing "OK, I won't fix those redirects anymore" on his user page, but only days later went back to doing what he's been doing for months now just like nothing had happened. I think it's about time to do something more about this user. リボン・サルミネン (Ribbon Salminen) (LOLTNA) 21:13, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Can you provide me with some diffs of the disruptive behavior and the warnings given? Chillum 23:37, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I provided diffs of the notifications he had been given in my original post I linked above (Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive893#User: JIK1975):

Here's him acknowledging that he's aware that he's doing something he shouldn't do:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:JIK1975&diff=prev&oldid=672164952

He edits quite a bit, but almost completely for this one purpose so you can just check his contribution history to see that he has not even slowed down this activity despite claiming to do so. リボン・サルミネン (Ribbon Salminen) (LOLTNA) 02:02, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for providing diffs to the warnings given. You mentioned that it was continuing, please provide diffs of recent continuation of the disruptive behaviour. At another time I might feel like digging through the contrib history but my time is limited right now, I pretty much need all the information on a silver platter if I am to do anything about it right now. I hope you understand. Chillum 02:10, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's just that there are so many examples. In the past 24 hours he has made 96 edits and around 90 of those are pure redirect fixes. Here are just a few examples:

リボン・サルミネン (Ribbon Salminen) (LOLTNA) 02:33, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry but I don't see the urgency. I get that fixing things that don't need fixing can be seen as disruptive, however I think it better that the community decide if enforcement is needed. I really don't want to make my own determination here as this sort of thing really depends on the patience of the community. Chillum 15:57, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Answer

In answer to your question Why do you assume that comment applies to everyone who opposed?: Because of the context in which it was said, immediately following a "vote count" and opining that the net positive turnout was surprising given the "enemies" the candidate had made, which seems like a WP:WINNING approach to the question. That itself follows a misappraisal of the RfA as if it were an ANI, focusing on whether there was proof of policy violation instead of on the actual reasons opposers were giving as their rationales. If proof of policy violation were all that were acceptable at RfA as a rationale against a candidacy, almost every candidate would pass. I was trying to engage that Crat in a please-reassess discussion, but arrived too late. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 02:00, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with your interpretation of things. I think that it is 100% normal that consensus be interpreted through the lens of policy, that is how consensus works here. If this seems unusual to you it may be because it is not evident when RfAs are close. I think you are taking a comment that referred to a few people and have assumed its scope was much wider than intended. I do appreciate you answering here though, the discussion was brought short. Chillum 15:52, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Is DustaBot working?

Manually removing blocked users from the Wikipedia usernames with possible policy issues category is very slow. Is DustaBot working? --Djembayz (talk) 23:03, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dustabot is currently defunct. It did not use the modern API and no longer functions. As it stands it would be easier for a new bot to be made. I don't really have the time to make it now. Chillum 06:10, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Alakzi

Just bringing this to your attention. I'm not suggesting that you up Alakzi's block because of it, but is there some way to get through to him that creating sock after sock to post semi-ranting comments is really not a good idea? BMK (talk) 19:28, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm hoping that with this, another's comment here, and my similar comment to BMK, we can try an alternative approach to managing this. Thanks for the consideration.—Bagumba (talk) 20:01, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure how to help a user who seems bent on self destruction. If anyone has any great ideas I am happy to hear them, though I don't think ignoring block evasion and allowing further person attacks is any sort of solution. While the idea of allowing a user to vent may seem reasonable, if the result of that venting is other editors being attacked then it is not in my opinion reasonable. Chillum 20:19, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Bagumba: if you wish to take charge on this one I have no objection. Just let me know and I will not step on your toes and you can have my blessing to undo any of my actions. Chillum 20:33, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I do wish to point out that the initial block of Alakzi (in this round) was not by Chillum, but by Salvio, an Arb, so they might wish to be be included in any discussions. BMK (talk) 21:18, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You are of course correct. @Salvio giuliano: should be aware of this conversation. Salvio is likely to have their own opinion on the matter. Chillum 21:22, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My above comments were in regards to any further increase. Thanks.—Bagumba (talk) 22:13, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Again @Bagumba: if you are happy to take responsibility for this user then I will defer to your wisdom. Otherwise I will handle it my own way. To be clear I want to hear that you are going to handle this matter if I am to step aside. Chillum 01:43, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Chillum: My only request was to not increase any blocks based on the information that BMK brought to your attention. BMK also asked: "is there some way to get through to him that creating sock after sock to post semi-ranting comments is really not a good idea". If you have other ideas, I am not asking you to "defer". Can you clarify what you are expecting from with me with respect to your comment to "take responsibility for this user"? It also appeared that Opabinia regalis was attempting to reach out to the user.—Bagumba (talk) 06:08, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No worries Bagumba, I think I misunderstood you. I had no intention of taking action based on event already occurred. Perhaps this will be the end of it anyway. Chillum 14:40, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I did get in touch with him. Thanks for the ping Bagumba. I am very much in favor of Bagumba's instincts in this particular case. The Jack stuff is hatted, the matter is settled, the post is old, just let this one go.

Actually, I had another thing I wanted to ask you, Chillum. Can you and Cassianto argue somewhere other than on the talk page of someone who can't post to it and isn't involved in your dispute? Yes, I know he started it and is being a pest. Thanks. Opabinia regalis (talk) 07:05, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed Opabinia, he is welcome to express his disfavour with me here. Chillum 14:49, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

On the topic of double standards

I don't really understand your edit summary to me accusing me of double standards. Opabinia regalis called me "a pest", which in my mind is a PA. I ask her if it's ok to call me "a pest", then it must be ok for me to call you "a twat". She doesn't answer me, surprise surprise. Up you pop to then accuse me of calling you a twat. I can't work out if you are deliberately trying to be dumb or just trying to annoy me. Cassianto ^Talk 16:38, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

By double standard I mean that you regularly engage in personal attacks and regularly complain about personal attacks against you. It seems that they are okay when you are making them but a terrible offence when you are the target. Two different standards, hence double standard. Chillum 16:43, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not at all. I dish it out, so I expect it back, I don't have a problem with that. The difference is that when an admin commits a personal attack, such as Opabinia regalis did, I expect it to be dealt with as swiftly and diligently as it would if I had dished one out. It wasn't. This is precisely why there is such a divide between administrators like you and the normal editor. It seems as if there is one rule for admins and another for everyone else. Do you accept that calling an editor "a pest" is a personal attack, and if it is, what are you going to do about it? Cassianto ^Talk 16:52, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't act like every personal attack you have ever made got an immediate response. Often you made snide comments and it is allowed to pass without response, this is no different. While I will refrain from name calling I will say that you are engaging in the act of pestering. This could have been expressed better. Chillum 16:56, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Of course it has. Like Eric, my name only has to appear at ANI for 30 seconds and the vultures circle the air waiting for me to say something which perhaps I shouldn't. Mike V stalks my edits and has stated before that he will be ready and waiting should I "step out of line" again. I offered one comment to you which was a criticism of your attempt to make a block extension punishment for an already blocked user. We even have policy that states that this is not what a block is supposed to be used for. Why do you consider that to be "pestering"? Maybe it's because it's not what you wanted to hear? Cassianto ^Talk 17:07, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I already showed you which part of the policy deals with block evasion, you seem to be disregarding that. I think one of the main problems is that you consider those that take offence to your behaviour to be "vultures". I don't think you are taking personal responsibility for your actions. If you end up in trouble at ANI often then it is because you often act inappropriately. Your insults to other editors are ignored more often than they are not, or you would be long gone by now. In fact I would say that the community has shown an extraordinary amount of patience with you. Chillum 17:13, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say a lot of us have shown extraordinary patience with people like you too Chillum. Cassianto's right, you seem to exist here purely as a civility enforcer, which has the effect of causing more hostility and trouble than if you simply refrained from saying anything. The job of an administrator is to diffuse trouble, not cause it. We're all volunteers here Chillum, it's not your place to act as a Nazgul appointed by the God-King. Once in a while it genuinely would be lovely to see your name on a talk page in relation to content and collaboration. Do you have absolutely no interest in articles on wikipedia?♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:07, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's because I actually do things on here to improve the encyclopaedia. Unlike you who's sole existence is to piss as many people off as possible and to queer the line between a good administrator and bad one. Cassianto ^Talk 17:37, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate the hard work you do here. I think you are undervaluing my own contributions here, however I am happy for you to believe what you wish. Chillum 17:49, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Im surprised by now that there isn't some I-ban in place here, it is clear that Cassianto, and you don't get along. Might help, might not only a suggestion to avoid more arguments down the line. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:26, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, Knowledgekid, what kept you? Usually you're at a dramah thread quicker than I can say dramah thread. Cassianto ^Talk 23:40, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Be honest, you and Chillum wouldn't last 5 minutes on the same article the original argument on this thread isn't the point, why not just go your separate ways? Oh and are you calling your own thread here dramah? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:45, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Knowledgekid87 on several occasions I have used archive templates to end these visits from Cassianto. However I am tired of squelching Cassianto. If this user has a problem with me his can pursue it. Cassianto needs to "Shit or get off the pot" as my mother likes to say. If there is a real concern with my behaviour then he needs to escalate it or let it drop. If his view of my impropriety cannot find consensus from a larger population then all I can do I explain why he is wrong and not take him too seriously.

As long as the pretence of sincerity for concerns about the quality of my behaviour are kept up I intend to respond to this user in an earnest and frank manner as though the concerns were presented in good faith.

I also hope in time it will become obvious that I am simply being badgered by a user whose unblock request I declined a while back and have been pestered by since. I had zero interaction with this user for years on end and then after I decline an unblock request he is here every other week to harass me. In the 8 years that I have been an admin I have had this happened to me several times, all I can do is retain my composure and answer challenges with an assumption(however strained) of good faith. Chillum 03:28, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You talk so much shit Chillum. This recent visit has nothing to do with my unblock request from last time, despite the fact you answered my private email by publishing it on a talk page so as to humiliate me. You are a filthy piece of work and a hinderence to the project. Knowledgekid, kindly go about your business; the show's over. Cassianto ^Talk 06:06, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The show isn't over though, what is going to stop this kind of encounter from happening again? In my opinion, its another distraction you and Chillum both don't need. Anyways I will let it drop, I just hope this isn't one of those straws that broke the camel's back kind of things in progress. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:04, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So how is it Cassianto that we both work here for 5 years and we have no contact, but then after I decline your unblock request this starts? Is this just some amazing coincidence? You clearly have a chip on your shoulder, my talk page archives demonstrate that.

Knowledgekid87 I would not worry about this camel's back, I have been through this before. Eventually he will either escalate his concerns to the community or he will exhaust the patience of those watching my talk page. Either way outside attention will likely be needed to resolve this. There is little I can do about it, we sort of have to depend on each other in matters such as these. Chillum 14:47, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't ask you to unblock me. I wouldn't ask you to piss on me if I were on fire. Believe me when I say that I have a heap of good admins who I could turn to so why on earth would I approach someone like you? Cassianto ^Talk 14:51, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You used the words "Is there anyway you could unblock me". Please don't pretend you did not ask me to unblock you. Chillum 14:53, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, course I did. It's easy to say that isn't it without a link. Once again you're chatting shit. You seem to forget that The Rambling Man came along and smacked the back of your legs. Cassianto ^Talk 14:57, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you like I can forward the e-mail to arbcom and they can confirm I am not lying. I don't see the point though, we both know what you wrote. Unless you have anything productive to add do you think we can let this fade into the archives? Chillum 14:59, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Go ahead. I admit the email was to do with MikeV, and It might of been for you to remove the talk page restriction which he implemented or something, but it certainly wasn't an unblock request. I only emailed you as you were already involved at that point; it certainly wasn't a spontaneous communication. Again, I'll reiterate, I'm friendly with a number of admins on here, so why would I ask someone like you for an unblock? Cassianto ^Talk 15:10, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You used the exact words "Is there anyway you could unblock me". You were asking me to reverse Mike's block. I don't know why you would ask me instead of other admins, the way to you so keen for me to keep the e-mail a secret perhaps you did e-mail other admins. Anyway I don't honour secret requests for admin actions so next time you ask me a favour do it publicly. Chillum 15:13, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think we all know what the truth is. I find it hilarious that you think I'd ask you for anything in the future. Cassianto ^Talk 15:34, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I fully expect you to show up in a week or so to ask me not to do my job, likely with a few unkind words on the side. See you then. Chillum 15:37, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please allow me to take this opportunity to say hello to User:Cassianto too :) _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 16:26, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I looked at the comment after I read my ping, and I can confirm that it wasn't me who posted that. I assumed good faith in you FIM, by alerting me to the possibility that I might've accidentally logged out and reverted something by accident. I didn't and then saw the "asslicker " comment. I take back the AGF assumption and realise that you finger-pointed with no evidence. Cassianto ^Talk 18:51, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I wondered whether you would recognize that behaviour. _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 18:54, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm most certainly not in Arizona. Cassianto ^Talk 18:57, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A bonus, since you're less likely to get Penalty Fare'd in AZ :) _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 21:10, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Value of different forms of contribution to the project

What contributions? When was the last time you sat down and wrote a decent article?♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:09, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My contributions are here: Special:Contributions/Chillum. Chillum 18:29, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We're an encyclopedia building project, I mean actual article contributions. When was the last time you sat down for an hour or two and wrote a decent article?♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:16, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

First off we are all volunteers here. It is not for you to decide what is the best way for me to spend my time here. Contrary to your opinion Wikipedia requires more than just content creators. When is the last time you cleared an administrative blacklog? Wikipedia needs contributors of all sorts. Regardless of these facts I have made contributions to article space, you can see them in my contribution history.

I think you need to get off your high horse and stop acting like your form of contribution is the only one of value. If you think my contributions are problematic then you are welcome to draw public attention to it. If you intend to sit there and wag your finger at me because I don't contribute in the same fashion that you do then don't expect me to take you seriously.

If not for the hard work of administrators this site would fail in a matter of weeks. Chillum 19:41, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

" It is not for you to decide what is the best way for me to spend my time here. ". Yes, exactly, and it's not for you to go about the site telling people how they should behave. You need to stop it with the sanctimonious bollocks which I see most days from you. We're an encyclopedia, we should be here to write content, never forget that. And yes, we're volunteers, none of us have to be here so just drop the bullshit.♦ Dr. Blofeld 06:11, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It is not for me to decide what standards we hold, however it is very much my job as an admin to make sure the expectations set out by the community are followed. While you are clearly of the opinion that our civility policy should not be enforced this point of view of yours does not enjoy consensus. Our WP:CIVILITY policy enjoys consensus and the community wants it enforced. If you don't like that then that is too bad for you. I can't please everyone, and it seems if I am to follow the consensus of the community then I cannot please you, so be it. Chillum 14:41, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from Prasannarane61993

Misuse of Seniority on Wikipedia: Giving Unnecessary Warnings to junior Users is like Taking " Ragging of Junior Students" Which is Strictly Prohibited. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Prasannarane61993 (talk • contribs) 17:28, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but my comment to you was not "strictly prohibited". Please play well with others, it is a requirement here. Chillum 17:50, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Janson

Since you responded in the ANI thread, any chance I can get you to keep an eye on Chris Janson? Thesongfan has been reverting on and off since February, and while they haven't touched the article since threatening me last, I have a feeling they'll come back. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 17:39, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have added it to my watchlist. Chillum 17:50, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
	For your recent comment at ANI here. I know that there are sometimes questions about admins behaving badly, sometimes like in my former-admin case justified, and it can sometimes be easier to try to make an excuse for someone who is an admin. It's nice to see that you and I hope some others don't do that. John Carter (talk) 00:14, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. This means a lot. Chillum 00:21, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well that probably could not have turned out worse. Chillum 01:14, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously

Toast!! That is what you are.... and as anyone editing in the I/P area =(Israel-Palestine) for more than a year or two would know, ...we have to deal with the these charmers all the time... 95++% they are are socks, and we have to pretend they are "newbies"... frankly I´m sick to the bone of them...and you fell for it..... impressed: NOT — Preceding unsigned comment added by Huldra (talk • contribs) 00:34, 18 August 2015‎

I don't remember working in the Israel-Palestine area recently. Could you point me to what you are talking about? Chillum 00:35, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Huldra: I am pinging you in case you did not see my question. Chillum 18:35, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly; you are not editing in the area; you have *no idea* as to the abuse we endure. Just take a look at abuse names for Malik or me, or look at the (deleted) edits on my talk-page, or Maliks. It is less than two weeks since Malik deleted the latest rape-threath agains me (check that deleted edit). And provocative socks are a *huge* part of the problem; they get a free pass, it looks to me, Huldra (talk) 23:57, 18 August 2015 (UTC) (sorry for forgetting to sign last time)[reply]

To be fair, Huldra, people with POVs different than yours get abused as well. The people who can work together in this area, despite some deep-held disagreements, are rare. -- Avi (talk) 00:07, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Avi: Oh, absolutely. (I see you have a ton of over-sigted edits on your talk-page, too.) And "old-timers" in the area, from both sides of the divide, mostly can co-operate in some way. It is all the "newbies", (who are not newbies at all, but socks of cheaters and liars) who create the major havoc in the area, methinks. Btw, this was really expert baiting... Huldra (talk) 01:24, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I will take that into account. Thank you for the warning. Chillum 00:07, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Malik Shabazz

A request for arbitration has been filed relating to you. --ceradon (talk • edits) 01:26, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the notification. Chillum 01:27, 18 August 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.