User talk:HighInBC/Archive 30

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.

AN discussion needs your input.

A discussion regarding an unblock of a user you previously blocked is underway at WP:AN. Your input would be valuable here. See [1]. --Jayron32 19:23, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

I believe I blocked this person because their name was PhallicMonkey, or something similar. I made him change his name to something more appropriate. I don't have an opinion on this more recent matter. Thanks. Chillum 14:35, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Growing concern

Hi Chillum. I am growing increasingly concerned with the lack of respect and civility that User:WebHamster has towards other editors. This was his response to an editor giving what appears to be a friendly approach of offering educated advice. Don't be so bloody patronising, I have no questions to ask you, I know the rules round here having been around a lot longer than you. appears to suggest that WebHamster feels that he is entitled to degrade the comments of users who have been on Wikipedia for less time than himself and that he knows all the rules and should therefore snap at anyone who tries to be helpful by giving him advice. I'm worried, not only for users who may confront WebHamster, but for users who confront anyone who's been influenced by the way WebHamster responds to constructive comments on his talk page. I've chosen not to be speak to WebHamster because of what happened the last time, and I've chosen not to take the matter to the Administrator Noticeboards because that will be sure to cause some unwanted drama. But I do think that something should be done and because I trust that you'll treat this issue with the seriousness it requires, I have posted this concern here in hope that we will somehow be able to resolve this long-term problem.--^{The Legendary}_{Sky Attacker} 07:16, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

I have made a block on this user for engaging in personal attacks. The user has been warned several times in the past. Chillum 13:05, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

His last block was 5 days and had no noticeable effect beyond the temporary obvious one. Shouldn't this one be longer than that, at least? Friday (talk) 13:38, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

I concur with Friday (I was the admin who gave the 5 days block). If I had seen the complaint first, I would have blocked for 14 days but ultimately it's your call. Incivil behaviour and hostile language are serious barriers to entering a discussion for new contributors (and yet it tends to occur where new contributors are most needed) and I'm coming round to the opinion that the civility policy has been too weakly enforced over the last couple of years. CIreland (talk) 14:23, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

I have no objection to an increase in the block length. I felt 24 hours had the chance of preventing immediate harm, though I do see the point that shorter blocks have not been helpful in the past. Chillum 13:55, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

I do. WebHamster's reply as pointed out by Sky Attacker was rude. It wasn't a personal attack. His comment that somebody was an anonymous fuckwit was to a writer who's clearly anonymous (although perhaps related to Yiwentang) and who flamebaited like, well, a fuckwit. WH is guilty of feeding a troll. If WH makes a personal attack on somebody who isn't asking for it, block him. For mere incivility and troll-feeding, please unblock him pronto. But it's up to you: I'm going to bed within minutes. -- Hoary (talk) 14:17, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Regardless of the behavior of the IP we don't have an exception to the personal attack policy for trolls. The defense "he is a fuckwit so it is okay to call him one" does not hold water for me, that is an excuse I would not accept from a child. Considered in isolation from everything else you may have a point, but this is not an isolated issue, if you look back in his talk page you will see he is also plenty rude to established good faith users, and completely dismissive to any concern they bring to him regarding civility. Just look how this thread started. This is a reaction to a long term pattern of abuse and the disregard of numerous warnings. Chillum 14:28, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Ah, so the block was for a long term pattern of abuse and the disregard of numerous warnings. I'm still a bit baffled, as I don't see much abuse (though plenty of rudeness). It also seems rather a pity that WH can't defend an article he wrote. -- Hoary (talk) 14:46, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

AfDs last 5 days, this is a mere 24 hour block. He will be given opportunity to defend that article. Chillum 14:49, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

I am not sure if this is relevant, but he appears to be claiming admin responsibilities http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:217.44.219.116#August_2009.Slatersteven (talk) 14:54, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Anyone is allowed to warn a user they may be blocked. It is just admins that can actually do it. The authority to enforce our policies lies with everyone, admins just have the buttons. Chillum 14:55, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

True but this is not a warning he may be blocked its states he will be blocked if he vandalises again. I thought that only admins could actualy say that an ed would be blocked, forgive me if I am wrong.Slatersteven (talk) 14:59, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Like I said, anyone can post such warnings. I am not sure however that the edits in question were vandalism, possibly if it was done in bad faith, but it could be a legitimate difference of opinion. There seems to be some indication this IP is trolling though. Chillum 15:01, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi Chillum, I wish you would reconsider your block of WebHamster. If you look through the history of this Hamsters article, you'll see that he is being trolled by Yiwentang and various anon socks. It may help put WebHamster's actions into context. Also, please consider allowing another admin to deal with actions related to WebHamster, as I see that you frequently quarrel with him at his Talk page. --Andy Walsh (talk) 17:30, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Please read what I have already said on this matter in this thread. I could only echo these words in replying to you. Chillum 17:35, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Ubuntu

You may want to be aware of Talk:Ubuntu#RFC: Where should the redirect point?. Better and quantified arguments are being made in support of the philosophy. Yworo (talk) 17:51, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

It looks like most of the support if for it being a disambiguation page, and idea that I agree with. Chillum 22:27, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

RE: Personal attacks

"Calling someones ideas laughable": Read again, Chillum. It was Bruce who used the term laughable, to which I responded. Did you give him a "formal warning"? No, you didn't (and if you do it after the fact that doesn't prove anything). Again, this clearly illustrates your incredible bias. If someone who agrees with you or disagrees with me does something, it's perfectly acceptable. If I do it, it's egregious.
Are you claiming that someone's expectation that anyone can predict the future is not often seen in psychotics? If so, please justify that in detail. Note that I did not say that anyone IS psychotic. Please get your facts straight before making false accusations.
Are you threatening me as an admin? If so, you're out of line, and I'll make a note of it. If you're threatening me as just another editor, then I also am issuing you a formal warning to cease your false and very biased accusations, your history of false representation of others' opinions, and your grossly unwelcoming attitude to psychologists (and not just me; others have strongly expressed their belief that psychologists are unwelcome; I'm just the one you decided to target). There's plenty of diffs I can dig up if necessary. Ward3001 (talk) 17:22, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Oh, and by the way, as in the past I don't care to get into an endless argument with you. The facts and the diffs can speak for themselves. So message me all you want; unless you can come up with something that has substance and is accurate and not biased, don't expect me to argue back and forth with you. I'll just keep collecting my diffs. Have a good day. Ward3001 (talk) 17:23, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Just stop the personal attacks and incivility. I am warning you as a user, as any user can and should. I will not take take administrative action personally and the fact that I am an administrator is not relevant. If you continue with personal attacks and incivility then an uninvolved administrator is likely to block you. Your disruption on that article talk page has been growing worse and worse.

You are more and more attacking the people instead of debating, this needs to stop now. You are wearing away the patience of the community.

As for my own behaviour I am always open to scrutiny, seek outside investigation if you like. Chillum 18:20, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Right back at ya, Chillum. I'm not arguing. You've been warned about false accusations. Ward3001 (talk) 18:36, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Talking to you is like talking to a parrot. This is not a false accusation, you have been engaging in personal attacks. Just stop. Chillum 18:54, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Ah, now you're accusing me of acting like a parrot. Is that worse than telling someone their behavior is similar to a psychotic's. No false accusations? Who wrote "laughable", and then whom did you accuse? Who accused me of telling someone they are psychotic when I wrote that psychotics often think someone can predict the future. That's the tip of the iceberg. I've got the diffs. Ward3001 (talk) 19:01, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I said talking to you is like talking to a parrot because each time I ask you to behave you give the same response about false accusations. I did not say you told someone they were psychotic, I said you compared them to a psychotic(which you did do). This difference amounts to nothing more than wikilawyering, just stop being so insulting okay? Chillum 19:12, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

The fact the multiple people are telling you that you are crossing the line on your talk page, including an uninvolved admin, should be a strong hint that you are heading down the wrong road. Chillum 19:14, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Who described what I wrote as "laughable", and then whom did you accuse? Ward3001 (talk) 19:17, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I am talking about your behaviour. You wrote that a person's idea was laughable(it is in the diff you removed from your talk page), if another person did so as well then ask them politely not to but that does not excuse you at all. You can either believe me or simply dismiss my warnings, but you will find your eventual block harder to dismiss if you keep acting in such a manner. Chillum 19:19, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Why did you warn me about it and not the person who told me my comments were laughable? Ward3001 (talk) 19:22, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I did not notice the other person saying it for one thing. Also, you have been engaging in many such acts of incivility on a regular basis, if this were an isolated comment I would have ignored it. Other people's behaviour does not justify you also behaving that way.

In short I warned you because I felt you were heading for a block, I did not warn the other person because I did not think they were heading for a block. I did not warn you to tell you I was going to get you blocked, I warned you to let you know that you are acting in a way that will lead to a block. Chillum 19:30, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, I appreciate your concern for me, although I must say that it strains credibility that you find it easy to warn someone who disagrees with you but fail to warn someone with whom you agree. There is a pattern of that kind of behavior on your part. But for now, I think we should heed Xeno's advice below. Ward3001 (talk) 19:40, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Well if you find it difficult to assume good motives on my part then simply disregard my motives and focus on the message. In the future it will be assumed that you are fully aware of our civility policies and what is expected from you. Chillum 21:07, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Argue to your audience rather than at eachother, gents. –xeno^talk 19:20, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I have put a few diffs here, Chillum, in case you may find them useful. --LjL (talk) 21:09, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, I sincerely hope that there will be no need escalate this situation, but if there is then a collection of evidence will come in handy. Chillum 21:11, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

See [2]. As usual, you put words in my mouth, and I'm getting tired of it. This is your second warning. Ward3001 (talk) 02:18, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I am not going to try to convince you of anything at this point. Just wait and see. Chillum 02:20, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Oh, and "compare": "examine and note the similarities or differences of". Chillum 02:21, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Oh please, where were you when the other side was making comparisons to Mao's brutal comunists?Faustian (talk) 02:32, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I never noticed, that was also inappropriate. Do you think this perhaps justifies Ward's comment in some way? Chillum 02:40, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

If not directed toward a specific editor (but instead toward an idea), neither is inappropriate. That's my main point, Chillum. Apart from any other opinions you may have about my behavior, I don't think you should be telling me or anyone (on any side of any issue) that we can't comment on ideas. And that's all I did. I'm sorry if you have difficulty seeing that. I think James maybe understands. I've communicated with him on his talk page. I really think you misread this one. But if that's the case, so have I from time to time. I hope we can put this particular episode behind us. I'm willing to do that if you are. Ward3001 (talk) 02:54, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I am willing to accept that you simply made an extremely poor choice in words and that you did not indeed attempt to compare showing a smudge of ink to torturing and killing children. Please consider how your words sound to others before clicking the Save Page button in the future. Chillum 04:11, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I don't consider it a poor choice of words, just a comment on an idea, not an editor. But I accept that you intended no harm. And I would ask you to do the same with the Save Page button, especially when making accusations or warnings, or trying to represent some else's opinions. Ward3001 (talk) 04:18, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

If you don't consider it a poor choice of words then you have learned nothing, any reasonable person could see how such a comparison would be extremely offensive and hyperbole by orders of magnitude. My posting regarding this incident included a diff, people can judge for themselves. Chillum 04:19, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

First, thanks for taking action against the vandal on my talk page. Secondly, Chillum, let's move on instead of telling me I have "learned nothing"; I won't say any more about this terrible misunderstanding if you can move on. Ward3001 (talk) 15:05, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

If you never repeat such behavior fine, but if there is a repeat of a comment so crass I will help you recognize it. Chillum 15:32, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, and I'll also help you recognize any future false accusations about or mispresentations of anyone. So I hope this episode is done. Ward3001 (talk) 15:39, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

RfC

Please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Rorschach test images. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 16:24, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. Chillum 19:17, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Psychological tests on Commons

I thought you might be interested to know I've created a new category about Psychological tests on Wikimedia Commons, on which I'm trying to gather all the Commons (or other free) images I can find of or relating to psychological tests, and you might perhaps help spotting more relevant images to add. --LjL (talk) 15:39, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

FiftyDeadMenWalking

I agreed to unblock FiftyDeadMenWalking (talk · contribs) on the condition that any further disruption will result in an immediate reblock. Just FYI. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 14:31, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. I think that condition is a reasonable one. Chillum 14:33, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Block adjustment of Sarah777 and your RfA

It is unlikely that any discussion with you of your enhancement of Dr Kierans block of Sarah would be beneficial. I merely sought to understand you. I might find your RfA instructive. Can you tell me where to find it. That is all I am asking ClemMcGann (talk) 02:26, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

My RfA is here: Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/HighInBC 2.

I have changed usernames since. As for understanding me, all you need to know is that when a user engages in personal attacks on their talk page while blocked only 3 things can happen:

1. The user stops engaging in personal attacks and nothing further happens
2. The user has their block length increased due to the continued personal attacks
3. The user has their ability to edit their talk page for the duration of the block removed. They do not continue violating Wikipedia policy and their block is not increased in length.

Now, Number 1 was clearly not going to happen, this is established by the removal of the warnings I gave and continued violation of policy. Number 2 just plain sucks, the last thing I want to see is a user dig a deeper hole for themselves. Number 3 is really the only reasonable choice if you want to prevent a situation from escalating and the user is not sharing that goal.

In the future please come talk to me first and engage in baseless rhetoric only as a last resort. Chillum 02:46, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the link. There was no need to relate regulations which are applied in a partisan fashion. I have no wish to debate further with you at this stage. ClemMcGann (talk) 03:03, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't fully follow the phrase "relate regulations which are applied in a partisan fashion". I am not sure what that means. Which regulation did I relate too and what was this partisan fashion you speak of? I understand that you don't want to discuss this with me, but that is not really compatible with you making comments about me. The latter requires the former. Chillum 03:53, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Spotted you at ANI. You recycled Wiki policies while ignoring the fact that they are being administered in a politically partisan manner. Is that clear enough for you? Sarah777 (talk) 23:57, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

No it is not clear as you have left out vital information, you will have to be more specific. If you are referring to the blocking admin, then perhaps you have a case. I suggest you seek scrutiny at WP:ANI.

If you are referring to my adjustment of your block then I assure you it was not partisan. As far as I can tell I was just trying to prevent you from violating policy, I had no ulterior motive. If you think it was partisan then perhaps you could explain what you think my bias is? Chillum 23:59, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Chillum, in your case I have no reason to presume bias, so it's you judgment is the issue. I will get back to that later. In the meantime it appears there is a process to be followed in relation to DrKiernan. Despite the fact that he needed no process before blocking me. Sarah777 (talk) 00:04, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

You may indeed have a legitimate complaint with this admin. I consider the matter of the personal attacks to be an unrelated issue. If you make a posting seeking further scrutiny of the block against you please let me know so that I can give it due attention. Administrators using tools in a content dispute is a serious issue that effect our ability to be neutral. I have not personally confirmed this is the case, but if the evidence supports it then I would support some sort of action or at least a strong admonishment. What I would not support is engaging in personal attacks against the admin in retaliation. I hope you can see where I am coming from. Chillum 00:08, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Also, he seems to have gone dead quiet. You've no idea why? Sarah777 (talk) 00:06, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

No idea. Chillum 00:08, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

I only edit during Central European Time business hours [3]. There is nothing unusual in me being absent overnight. DrKiernan (talk) 09:53, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Another involved Admin

As you are into blocking incivility I think you might give me a ruling on the following by John Kenney. (I've asked Rockpocket to deal with it but the line appears to be down). In the absence of any action by the Admins who are watching me so closely I removed a personal attacks on me by Kenny and Djegan. Kenny restored the attacks and threatened blocking; it was then I discovered we had another involved Admin engaging in threats and intimidation of the poll talkpage. I have removed the personal attacks again: my question - given that the attacks on me are being ignored by the Admins (or even if they weren't: general principle) - am I entitled to remove personal attacks myself? Kenny, whose main Wiki contributions appear to be in the area of British Royalty, (surprise surprise eh?) seems to be suggesting that we'd need a poll on the poll talkpage to agree to remove his attacks. Whereas, oddly, my comments get removed periodically by various people more or less at random. Is it true that we need "consensus" to remove attacks by Admins? Or does that only apply to British Admins who are involved in a dispute? Your advise is urgently required as I believe this guy might well act on his threats. Sarah777 (talk) 09:37, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

I have included this chart for your assistance: I think you'll find that the comments by both Dj and Jk are firmly in the pink. Sarah777 (talk) 09:52, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

It is early in the morning here right now. Could you provide some example diffs? Chillum 13:23, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Not sure how to link it; it is in some kind of box in mid-page. So I've extracted the relevant comments.

Looking at Sarah's actions as a whole, it's utterly unsurprising that someone would block her. I guess she's been around long enough to be pretty careful about not saying anything that clearly would allow a ban, but, really, she skirts the edges all the time. Beyond that, it seems to me that Sarah should probably be banned from this page for making "anti-British remarks," since virtually all of her comments qualify as such. Overall, Wikipedia would almost certainly be vastly improved by banning her altogether from anything having to do with Ireland. She seems to make some useful contributions to articles about small Irish towns, but her activity very largely consists of going to articles whose titles she doesn't like and accusing people of being racist. Maybe DrKiernan made a bad call, and it's not one I would have made - I myself am always incredibly reluctant to block anyone, but I tend to view my role on wikipedia as "editor with a few extra abilities" - Rolling back vandalism and moving pages over redirects is about the only admin power I ever use. But the idea of doing all this weeping for horrible injustice done to Sarah is a bit much. john k (talk) 12:47, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

While I find the idea of admins abusing their tools a bit much.... takes all sorts I suppose. And it's absolutely another fantastic example of the sort of bullying that goes on here now that you've set your stall up. So Sarah should be perma-blocked cos she's really crap - am I interpreting that right? And she's a bad person because (shock) she has a different opinion than you? Gods! --HighKing (talk) 12:59, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Indeed HigKing. And Sarah made a point that voters in the UK are very much more likely to vote for RoI, I cannot see what is racist about saying that, and it is a position I too endorse. That is why I objected to the UK being the "only" other state to be directly informed about the poll. Some UK voters would agree with that view too, and there is nothing wrong with stating that. It's best put all issues on the table in my experience. Tfz 13:05, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't think I ever said she was racist, and I certainly ever said she was a bad person. I said she spends a lot of time accusing other people of racism. The whole thing about noting that UK voters are more likely to vote for RoI (which is apparently pretty dubious on the merits, given that Option F wins with non-British voters, too) can only be an implicit claim of racism, because Sarah is drawing from this supposed fact the conclusion that this means "Republic of Ireland" is an unacceptable title. Basically, Sarah's whole argument here has been "British people are racist against the Irish and they use 'Republic of Ireland,' therefore Wikipedia cannot use that term without supporting a racist POV." This is a poisonous claim, and it does nobody any good. She has been disruptive about this issue for years, and she is constantly violating the spirit (if perhaps not the letter) of the Arbitration ruling to which she is subject. This has nothing to do with whether she is a good or bad person. In fact, I'll stipulate that she is probably a good person - loves her family, kind to old people and animals, that sort of thing. I'll even admit that what she is doing here is probably being done in good faith - that she really thinks that this kind of behavior is aimed towards making Wikipedia a better and more neutral encyclopedia. Most POV pushers think that. But it's really beside the point. Her involvement in this subject is poisonous, and it hurts your cause more than it hurts mine. People have been banned from involvement with topics for considerably less. john k (talk) 14:08, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I think you should AGF, and address an editor's input rather than the editor. Your opinions on such should remain with you, and not be vented here. I too could accuse you of being disruptive for making such broad generalisations. Please address the issues. Tfz 14:47, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

John K: I said she spends a lot of time accusing other people of racism. As that is not a statement consistent with the facts (any diffs?) I would ask you to withdraw it. I don't assume political bias is always an expression of racism. Sarah777 (talk) 15:51, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

You have certainly argued that Wikipedia's coverage of these issues is racist. I don't think you've specifically accused any users of racism, so I'll apologize for phrasing my statement in a way that might be unfair. Let me reword - you spend what seems to be a sizeable percentage of your time on wikipedia engaging in nationalist grievance-mongering. Is that better? john k (talk) 21:00, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

No, that isn't better. And I'd apologise and withdraw that remark too or you will soon experience the joy of being blocked. Sarah777 (talk) 21:10, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm not going to further engage with you. If you want to try to find an admin to block me, go right ahead. I'm not going to apologize for saying things I believe out of fear that you're going to get me blocked for a day. john k (talk) 21:20, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

OMG -- Sarah you are living in a fantasy Ireland all of your own making. Djegan (talk) 21:31, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Being an Admin you'd have a certain confidence you can get away with what I got blocked for I guess. Sarah777 (talk) 09:20, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

End of extracts

I tried to contact some Admins but got no response, (and I know several Admins at least are watching) simply asking them to issue a warning - I didn't want anyone blocked. When nothing happened I removed the attacks myself; my edit was reversed by J Kenny who threatened to block me if I removed them again. (Hence my question to you up above). After posting on your page, above, I removed the attacks again - only to see them restored by a completely different editor.

The point of all this? I got blocked for less than this (a block you refused to lift), yet - within hours, these attacks don't even trigger a warning from any Admin. Of course after Kenny threatened another block I discovered he is a seasoned Admin; which to my mind explains his behaviour and lack of any fear of sanction.

Sarah777 (talk) 17:27, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Ongoing personal attacks

On DrKiernan's talkpage:

What a pukefest. As if Sarah wouldn't contest a block handed out to her for 'fairness' based on time passed since the incident, if a mythical uninvolved but watching admin happened to block someone else for a 'seen incident'. It's one of the first tools out of the box. She is more of the, block nobody, school of behavioural control, learnt from the best of mentors. How anybody thinks this type of unhinged reaction to, on their own, sound blocks per policy, brings better enforcement, rather than causing all uninvolved admins to steer well clear of the page for their own good, and thus being the cause of a free fire zone existing rather than preventing it, is beyond me. But, that page is devoid of logic most days. Oh yes, you can always highlight unseen incidents to ANI, and I'm sure Sarah has always taken editors who do that in good faith was well. Her statement that she 'would have settled' for a half-apology, now that you've resigned because she called you an incompetent (you really should not have taken it personally as well thought out feedback, if you even did), is contemptible. MickMacNee (talk) 18:05, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Please note that this also suggests the reason DrKiernan gave for his resignation (bad block) is disingenuous. Sarah777 (talk) 20:35, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Some guidance please

Chillum, I don't want to seem impatient but I really do urgently need some guidance in relation to my initial question above: is it OK for me to remove personal attacks on me from the poll talkpages? As you can see I am in the unfortunate position of trying to persuade Evertype to remove the attacks he restored. I feel he may be unwilling to do so for some reason so it would be much easier all round if I could remove them myself without the threat of blocking as suggested by Kenney. The longer we wait to decide what to do about these attacks on me the more they are piling up it seems. As I have repeatedly said, my own preference is to simply remove them rather than have to call for blocking of the perpetrators. Which I think tends to be an unhelpful approach. Sarah777 (talk) 21:00, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

I am at work right now, if you need an urgent response then an administrator who is not busy would perhaps be better. If the issue is still unresolved tonight after I have gotten home and relaxed for a while, I will look into it. Chillum 21:30, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

I'll wait. I encountered an editor at ANI yesterday who thought I was engaging in personal attacks and was on the verge of reporting it: that was in response to - Wisdom manifestly varies between individuals in terms of political POV never mind between cultures. This is demonstrable, not my opinion. Just 'cos the chap who said it is dead a long time doesn't mean it makes any sense. Take Hitler for example! (The debate was about the swastika, so the Hitler ref wasn't as random as it sounds). Now if that can be misunderstood by a reasonable experienced editor with whom I've had no previous contact as a personal attack - how can the remarks flowing my way on the Ireland poll and related areas be considered anything else? Surely there can't be separate standards for different editors? Sarah777 (talk) 22:29, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

It is generally considered acceptable to remove personal attacks, though there are some who disagree with that. If when you remove a personal attack you are reverted, then do not remove it again. Instead seek an outside party to investigate, preferably on some sort of public noticeboard. I really do not know the first thing about the Ireland dispute and from what little I have heard I don't want to touch it with a 10 foot poll.

No, there are not different standards for different editors. There is however a gap between the treatment of those who know how to work with the system, and those who do not grasp the intricate details. While Wikipedia claims not to be a bureaucracy does in fact share many similar traits with a bureaucracy. Knowing the correct "form", noticeboard or procedure will take you far, knowing the tone and content expected from said processes and presenting in that fashion will take you even farther. It is a bit of a shame that such an advantage is given to those who know the ins and outs but it is the way things end up working here. Chillum 01:01, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Question

Is it just me or does the color of your signature keep changing?--^{The Legendary}_{Sky Attacker} 22:07, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

I noticed that too. Sarah777 (talk) 22:10, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Roux's does the same thing. GoodDay (talk) 22:32, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

The color of my signature is based on the time of day. When it is my morning it is green and it slowly turns red as my evening approaches at which point it begins to turn green again to reach there by the next morning. I am not sure how Roux is doing it, but this is how I am doing it: [4]. Chillum 23:51, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Ahh, I see. Roux's change with each of his posts. Your setup is neat. GoodDay (talk) 23:52, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

I copied that code onto my monopage thingy and it doesn't seem to work - there is more to this than meets the eye. Sarah777 (talk) 00:43, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Did you refresh your browser's cache? Chillum 00:53, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

You,

You are "H" or HighInBC right? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.129.235.101 (talk) 07:05, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

The thing is, I don't know who you are. If you know H or HighInBC then it is likely you have an account here already. You can ask with that account. Chillum 13:17, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

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.