User talk:HighInBC/Archive 51

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.

98.196.234.202

I'm reviewing the block on User:98.196.234.202 and I have to admit, it does look like he was trying to be constructive; the recent edits by the IP were to the talk page. The user's talk page claims it was a 3RR violation but I don't agree with that assessment of the edits. I'm tempted to unblock on these grounds and just keep an eye on the user to ensure it doesn't degrade into unconstructive behavior, but it does look like he was trying to work out the issue with everyone. Thoughts? --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 21:37, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Shirik - As always discussing something does not excuse excessive reverting. 3RR is a very unambiguous policy and it was breeched. It was a violation. Discussion is not enough, one needs to not edit war while the discussion is ongoing.

While I think there was edit warring and a 3RR violation I am willing to assume good faith that the block is no longer preventative. I have undone the block on the basis of assuming good faith due to your concerns.

The accusations by this IP that this block was somehow retaliatory over something is a bit insulting and does not fill me with confidence. The IPs claim that he was "not edit warring" also gives me pause and makes me wonder if he understands the reason for the block.

Regardless I will watch the situation, I hope you do to. Chillum 21:58, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Also please note that this users contribution history indicates that they removed warnings about edit warring thus indicating an awareness of the rules.

The removal of warnings and the fact that this is a BLP issue and that contentious material(accusation of blackmail with dubiously reliable source to be specific) was being added all factored into my decision to block. Chillum 22:13, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

I now regret unblocking that IP. They have taken the unblock as an indication that they were not edit warring. I fear this confusion may result in more trouble than if we had just enforced policy as it was written. Chillum 13:25, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Just a heads up, this user was not trying to be constructive. It was a returning troll trying to force their view on the page via edit warring and contentious debate and personal attacks[1].

This seemed obvious to me but your comment about being "tempted to unblock" made me sit back and wonder what you saw that I did not. I still don't see it. You never really returned to explain yourself.

@Shirik: While it is noble to defend a user please look harder at a situation before jumping to a users defense in the future. Also when calling an admin act into question please be around for a conversation next time, the communication was lacking in this situation. Chillum 14:00, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Mail

Resolved

Oh, haiku format is preferred here, I didn't see that before:

The mail has been sent.

The inbox can be opened

And contents revealed.

Regards, —Neotarf (talk) 13:18, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Hello. Thank you for your e-mail. I will respond here because I prefer transparency over e-mail. I will be vague to respect your privacy concerns.

I have nothing but respect for the two admins mentioned and I had already read that discussion prior to making my opinion. I have not changed my mind on the issue.

Frankly I could not imagine a worse "ambassador" than the one you suggested. If we are to have an ambassador, I don't think we are, it would need to be someone who is patient and can respect the consensus of the community.

If you want to discuss this matter in more detail you are welcome too. However I would prefer that such discussions be here where it is transparent. Chillum 14:36, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

In that case, the conversation is over. —Neotarf (talk) 16:04, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Dreadstar, Vani Hari, etc.

Resolved

@Dreadstar should take his own advice and leave a message on my talk page then rather than cluttering up talk pages; he certainly has the ability. Srich32977 had already commented to my talk page and the only reason I responded at all regarding conduct was that Elaqueate had brought it up. If you're really expecting that I don't respond when people comment on MY conduct, then you ought to give them the same admonition.

Now in the event that you were trying to get a rise out of me, please be informed that I'm not going to bother giving you the satisfaction, so please either make contributions to the questions posed on the talk page regarding the article content or let me work with my fellow editors in peace. 98.196.234.202 (talk) 00:59, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Deflecting attention away from yourself by pointing at others will not stop you from getting blocked if you don't change behavior quick. Dreadstar is in fact trying to prevent you from getting blocked by giving you that advice. We expect contributors not to engage in negative comments about our editors. You can comment on their contributions if you do it in a civil manner.

If an editor is being disruptive we generally block to prevent further disruption.

It is the place of every editor to inform a new user, or an IP, when they are outside of the communities expectations. Please do not insist that Dreadstar is somehow out of place there.

I unblocked you under an assumption of good faith that you would edit without being disruptive. Chillum 01:04, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

And I have not been disruptive, nor have I made controversial edits to the article. Further I have been very careful to watch my wording despite clear attempts at provocation from several other members of the wikipedia project attempting to elicit an angry response from me. Given that the block you placed was unfair and under bad pretenses to begin with, I consider you having done your duty to undo an unjust action, nothing more, but I have done my best to follow the policies just as I did prior to the unjust block anyways. Be advised that, in the interest of keeping a level head, any further commentary or actions that I receive to my talk page that I consider uncivil will simply be removed and ignored. I'm not here to get into blood-pressure-raising arguments with people, I'm here to work on improving articles. 98.196.234.202 (talk) 05:03, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

I unblocked you on the advice of another admin who felt you would not be disruptive. You did edit war, the block was sound. The fact that you are now saying the block was improper somehow shows me that I was very wrong in reversing it. The advice to unblock seems to have been faulty and I will think harder before taking such advice in the future. Chillum 13:22, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

I see you are still focusing on adding negative material to BLP articles with undue weight. I have given a final warning regarding following consensus and seeking consensus before making controversial BLP edits. We write in a neutral point of view and you seem to only want to add negative material. This is not compatible with our project. Chillum 13:38, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Note from Mr. 202

Resolved

• Note - Apparently in direct response to this. Section and signature created by me as this was just dropped into another discussion without signature. Original post. Chillum 18:45, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
• Note - This IP was a returning long term abuse case: [2] Chillum 14:05, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Hello, I'm 98.196.234.202. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, it's important to be mindful of the feelings of your fellow editors, who may be frustrated by certain types of interaction. While you probably didn't intend any offense, please do remember that Wikipedia strives to be an inclusive atmosphere. In light of that, it would be greatly appreciated if you could moderate yourself so as not to offend. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.196.234.202 (talk • contribs) 16:39, 23 August 2014‎

As I told you before, trying to draw attention away from your behavior by pointing at other people will not be an effective protection against enforcement of our policies. The tactic of putting a warning on the page the admin who gave you a warning is a common one done by many users before you. It really does not mean much.

I have not engaged in harassment and if you think I have then take it to a noticeboard so others can tell you I have not. I am happy to be scrutinized by my peers in this matter.

My warning regarding your actions on BLP articles was appropriate and true. Despite you blanking my warning you are considered warned. Failure to seek consensus before repeatedly adding negative comments about living people will result in a block. Chillum 18:39, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Please stay off my talk page.

Resolved

Please stay off my talk page. —Neotarf (talk) 22:54, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Trouting is a long tradition here. Don't take it too seriously, just pointing out that you did something silly.

You don't really get to decide who posts on your talk page but I will respect your revert. Chillum 22:56, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

And you're an admin? If you don't want to take dispute resolution seriously, I suggest you butt out. I don't see this as a big fat joke. BTW, I don't see any anything on any of your user pages identifying you as an admin. Isn't there a policy about that? —Neotarf (talk) 23:12, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

I have been an admin since Nov 2006. If there is a policy about putting some bauble on my user page then that is news to me. Feel free to point it out. Not sure what my status as an admin has to do with anything.

I am taking this seriously. I seriously can't imagine what you expected to accomplish with that reversion.

You yourself suggested and support the snow closure right after you reverted a snow closure. Which one of us is joking around? Chillum 23:18, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

↑ Seriously, this thread and especially the title is hilarious. A trout isn't really meant to be taken seriously - it's pretty much the opposite. Also, Chillum (who's name I just learned is Ryan from the following thread ) has no obligation to declare adminship as this is his proof. MrScorch6200 (talk | ctrb) 03:34, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

User Page Protection

• Note for archive: [3] Chillum 05:11, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Resolved

As it currently stands: My essay has been removed. I have been informed that uploading the essay will result in a ban. This is clear communication.

Therefore, at this time, there is no need for there to be a user protection on my page. Further, I believe there should be no further scrutiny on my page than before this event occurred. Therefore, I request the user protection be removed and I am allowed to "Personal writings suitable within the Wikipedia community Non-article Wikipedia material such as reasonable Wikipedia humor, essays and perspectives, personal philosophy, comments on Wikipedia matters"

I claim heightened scrutiny of my page beyond the scope of my essay as referenced by the Arbitration Committee is a form of retaliation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JaysonSunshine (talk • contribs) 04:15, 28 August 2014‎

I have no intention of unprotecting your page or reducing scrutiny towards your edits. Chillum 04:17, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

I believe you. Is that intention consistent with Wikipedia policy? JaysonSunshine (talk) 04:25, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

There is no Wikipedia policy that requires that I take any action. I have already pointed out WP:NOT to you which is the policy that describes that Wikipedia is not a hosting site and not for promoting ideologies. Why don't you try out wordpress or something? Chillum 04:28, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Do you claim Rind et al controversy promotes an ideology? I see your link. Does that apply to user pages as well? It was unclear to me. I found a page/policy that supports me adding the essay from the Harvard professor (the dangerous idea) post. It appears there's a conflict in Wikipedia policy, then. How should we resolve that apparent conflict? Is one policy higher than the other? Who decides? — Preceding unsigned comment added by JaysonSunshine (talk • contribs) 04:32, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Don't put words in my mouth, I said nothing at all about that article. I have no even looked at it. WP:NOT most certainly does apply to user pages. If you continue to insist on using Wikipedia for purposes other than creating an encyclopedia the most likely resolution to the "apparent conflict" will be the blocking of your editing privileges.

You have been told my multiple administrators, including myself, and an arbcom member that Wikipedia is not for your personal essays. Nobody thinks your ideas are dangerous, we just think they are not welcome on the project. There is a difference.

I am not sure what you want from me other than what I have already declined to do. Chillum 04:37, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Very well. I guess I resign this front. There is literally a section of the user page that says it's valid use to include "Personal writings suitable within the Wikipedia community, Non-article Wikipedia material such as reasonable Wikipedia humor, essays and perspectives, personal philosophy, comments on Wikipedia matters. From what I can tell, the position that Wikipedia is not for my personal essays is neither consistent with Wikipedia policy nor argued. Rather, the clause about 'suitable within the Wikipedia community' is being referenced with the content of the essay explicitly cited. Therefore, it is precisely because they are dangerous, presumably to how Wikimedia Foundation worries the community might be perceived by parents and larger cultural/governmental forces. I appreciate that on some level, though I don't support it. But my claim wasn't that it's my viewpoint v. Wikimedia, but, rather, from Wikimedia's perspective, it's inconsistent to host Rind et al controversy while claiming essays written about that article are inappropriate for the community. *shrugs*

These things get heated, but that is not my primary purpose. I am an believer in free speech and I believe there is value, not only in this particular situation, but in future issues to development and application of policy for Wikipedia, a major source of knowledge for millions of human minds. I appreciate your time, patience, and consideration. :) And I'll try to remember to sign all my posts in the future JaysonSunshine (talk) 04:48, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Can you not see the part where it says "on Wikipedia matters"? "suitable within the Wikipedia community" means that if the Wikipedia community does not accept it then it should not be there. It has been removed and protected by the Wikipedia community, so clearly it is not suitable. It seems you are only seeing what you want to see when you are reading the policy.

Free speech means that you cannot be prevented from publishing your point of view. It does not mean that a 3rd party has to publish it for you. It is about preventing others from silencing you not requiring others to be a platform for your opinion. I would think an academic like you would understand that distinction. Chillum 04:55, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Understanding

Thanks, I appreciate you reaching out and saying that. I really didn't want to get caught up in Wikipedia politics, I just came back to contribute to help make the encyclopedia better. Also, thanks for making me a rollbacker ;) BMIComp 01:30, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

No problem. I think the hardest thing to get used to when I came back was the notification feature: @Bmicomp:. The community ban policy is new and I think for you even our WP:BLP policy is new.

The fundamentals have not changed much, we still base decisions on consensus and we still argue about everything. Chillum 05:34, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Changed block

Resolved

Hi, Chillum, I changed your block of 107.17.120.123 (talk · contribs · count) to one year. We can't indefinitely block IPs. We don't do that even with open proxies. The other IP was actually blocked for only three months by Kinu, but in deference to you, I made it a year. I also added no talk page access to the block as these IPs only get disruptive after they're blocked.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:42, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

The duration was in error, thank you for catching that. Given that this particular person rotates IPs rapidly I will reduce it. I meant for a short block. Chillum 01:46, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Heh, I wouldn't have gone that short, but we'll see if he reuses the IP. I'm actually not even aware who the banned editor is, but I saw the disruption at WP:RFPP and one thing led to another. Also, given the socking on that talk page, I semi-protected it, even though I don't like to protect talk pages.--Bbb23 (talk) 04:47, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

It appears to be User:SCIENCE_MEANS_REALITY and they are literally changing IPs every 10-20 minutes. @Dreadstar: seems to have adjusted your semi protection of the talk page to indefinite, I wonder if he saw your protection. Chillum 04:49, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Maybe he mis-clicked, too? :-) --Bbb23 (talk) 05:10, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I have a cold. Dreadstar ☥ 11:46, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Sorry to hear that, Dreadstar, but I don't think the semi-protection should be indeinite. If you want it to be longer than the two weeks I picked, I suppose that's okay, but not indefinite, not for an article talk page.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:57, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Um, you did click on that link, right? I don't actually have a cold..it's...well....all about the dead parrot. Maybe I'm just getting old.... :) Dreadstar ☥ 15:56, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

I have set the expiry of the protection back to 2 weeks. It will be easy enough to revisit/revert then if there is still a problem. Chillum 15:08, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Indef doesn't mean permanent, it just means, well, until further notice - certainly not infinite. Dreadstar ☥ 16:13, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

I hovered over the link, but when I saw it was YT, I didn't click. Now I have, and I'm glad I did. Don't we have an admin who has parrot in his user name, or am I mixing that up with an editor or a former admin? Whoever he is, does he have a cold or perhaps a relative who died? Maybe we should semi-parrot the talk page against editors who leave bird droppings, feathers, and other assorted muck.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:20, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

I don't think any of us thinks that indefinite means permanent. A definite duration makes the most sense for a talk page. Chillum 16:13, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

I agree, now it's a month. And yeah, most of what I've said above was meant to be humorous. To infinity and beyond, dead parrots....I mean really... :) Dreadstar ☥ 16:14, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

I am a bit slow sometimes when it comes to getting jokes... Chillum 16:17, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

RealDealBillMcNeal

You might wish to have anther word with him again, this time editing against consensus. Thank you. LRD NO (talk) 14:25, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps you should ask another admin to look into it this time? Chillum 14:32, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

I would ask another editor if not for the reason being you have been in the loop all this while and another editor would have plenty to catch up on. LRD NO (talk) 15:02, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

I feel if another admin handles it this time he might get past the idea that I am out to get him with my own special interpretation of policy... well maybe. I don't think I see much that is actionable anyways. Chillum 15:04, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Recent block

Resolved

Hey Chillum, I noticed that you recently blocked Getfoundonline because he is apparently a WP:Vandalism-only account. The only contribution he made was to your userpage when he added an WP:AGF CSD tag to your user page. While it wasn't the right thing to do, he should not be expected to know our policies/guidelines and should not have been blocked indefinitely. While it was possibly a single purpose account, I don't believe it was a vandalism only account. Please consider shortening the block. Best of regards, MrScorch6200 (talk | ctrb) 20:31, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

@MrScorch6200:

Hello. There are other deleted contributions that you cannot see, my deletion of the page is what preceded the attempt to delete my page. It was retaliatory. This users contributions consist entirely of promotional material and vandalism.

That being said I would certainly consider an unblock request from the user if they can demonstrate a willingness to contribute without vandalism or spam. Chillum 21:34, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

On second thought I will unblock. While it seemed like obvious vandalism to me I will defer to your judgment since it was my page. Time will most likely tell. Chillum 21:39, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the additional info regarding the deleted edits. I hope the user edits with a more upbeat and productive attitude now that he has been unblocked. The page he created wasn't horribly promotional anyways. Regards, MrScorch6200 (talk | ctrb) 22:02, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

It appears another admin came to the same conclusion I initially did. Chillum 13:53, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Deletion cleanup

Hi, thanks for removing red links after deletions.

Please consider removing the text as well for non-notable list entries such as this, and "see also" entries like this. Thanks! – Fayenatic London 06:45, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Hello. I am not really familiar with those articles. I was just unlinking a page that got deleted. Any user is welcome to remove non-notable list entries. Chillum 14:05, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

True, but unlinking a red link gives a prime opportunity to do so, especially as the exercise takes away the possibility of seeing what else links to it (the point is that links sometimes imply scope for notability to be demonstrated even after deletion of a bad article). I hope you would also agree that leaving unlinked text under "See also" is not desirable. Kind regards – Fayenatic London 18:00, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your improvements to the encyclopedia. Chillum 18:08, 1 September 2014 (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.