User talk:HighInBC/Archive 58

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.

Different IP, same user?

Hmm... I think its safe that my talkpage should be protected from anymore future vandalism of the same IP user (just with different numbers). And don't worry, I had said nothing to him. Just didn't think he'd come back and cause mischief again. 70.45.65.243 (talk) 18:54, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

If we protected or even semi-protected your user talk page then you could not use it. The only way would be if you created an account. Chillum 19:56, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Yeah. And by doing so completely conceals the same user from finding out. As I did some contributions despite my main activity of just reading articles, I guess I do need to create an account of my own. And when I do, I'll let you know. 70.45.65.243 (talk) 22:48, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Here I am, no longer an IP user. Jon the VGN3rd (talk) 22:51, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Welcome, Jon, Good decision. . Buster Seven Talk 17:22, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

JW's talkpage

My suggestion there, was about as successful as a one-legged person at a butt-kicking contest :) GoodDay (talk) 20:17, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Indeed. His page has become a less formal discussion area for controversial things. I suspect when some people post there it is to get the attention of the community rather than Jimbo. Not saying this is the case on this occasion. Chillum 21:24, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

re: Context

[1]: Much of the context you're looking for can be found here. Typically when an editor starts with rants containing: "I don't give two cents for your words after that ignorant, preposterous, country bumpkin lie of yours ..." we know that somebody is here to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS, not a good sign. Still, I allow for AGF (and unblocked), but right after that when things like: "Why is it that "incivility" is generally the accusation of people who have both hooves in the trough? I am grateful for Dreadstar's reaffirmation of that aphorism.", start showing up, it becomes pretty clear that they've come armed for a WP:BATTLE. I suspect that Dreadstar has made the right call here. — Ched :  ?  22:46, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

I agree he did make the right call. Thanks. Chillum 00:24, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

You were right

After thinking about for quite some time, I've decided that you were right on my desysopping proposal: The community has authority over admins that is not used. Perhaps the larger community is unaware that they have this ability. Do you think that adding a paragraph to that effect added to the WP:ADMIN page would be helpful? --Biblioworm 23:42, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

What did you have in mind? Chillum 00:24, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Regardless of what the paragraph says, it should be in the "Disputes or complaints" section. It could describe how a topic ban concerning the admin tools can be imposed by the community (perhaps at WP:ANI). It could then go on to say that if the admin violates the topic ban, s/he will be blocked or automatically desysopped. --Biblioworm 00:37, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Happened to see this in passing—I'll just note that the community (at least, the denizens of the noticeboards where these sorts of restrictions are generally applied and enforced) are fully aware that topic bans – and interaction bans, and revert restrictions, and all the other options for editing restrictions – are well aware that these restrictions can be placed on administrators, just as they can be applied to any Wikipedia editor. There isn't any need to list the all the specific remedies available on WP:ADMIN because they are the same as for every editor; admins really aren't special or unusual in this respect, and those among them who are e.g. topic-banned are already well aware that they can be blocked for violating the terms of their restriction. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 03:15, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

True, but it's sometimes best to just put it down on "wikiPaper", as some people will try to wikiLawyer and say that we can't do so and so because it's not documented anywhere. It just makes things a bit easier. Quite obviously, the fact that so many people still think that we need a desysopping procedure shows that either they don't know that they can impose a topic ban on the tools, or if they do know, they might not know where to do it. Has there ever been a case where an admin was topic banned from using the tools? --Biblioworm 15:07, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

I think rather than trying to explain an idea on a policy page this may be a great opportunity to start an essay. Something like Wikipedia:Being an admin is not a big deal, this title is inspired from this old post by Jimbo: [2]. Chillum 00:44, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea. I might try to start the essay soon, if I get the time. --Biblioworm 17:16, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

You have a sense of humor?

You are on Jimbo's talk page, pinging him accomplishes little.

You owe me a keyboard. :) Viriditas (talk) 11:06, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

• OMG --- I .. I ... ah hell - I don't even know what to say. Laughed my ass off. — Ched :  ?  11:55, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Elsewhere, I'm glad you didn't recommend a prostate exam. LOL. I will now proceed to Jimbo's page to see what all the giggling is about!!!! Thanks for your sharing. :~). . Buster Seven Talk 17:20, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

[3]. I have pointed out to LB that removing her comment causes your response to be non-sensical and is bad practice. It also removes any sense of humor.. Buster Seven Talk 22:25, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

HBC AIV helperbot

Hi Chillum, the bot hasn't operated at WP:UAA for a couple days. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:42, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. I rebooted and did not restart it. I am going to put it into the cloud and setup a system to it automatically restarts. Chillum 18:17, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Vcorani unblock

I decided that since there wasn't a firm consensus to keep them blocked, and that they had essentially already served out the 6 months of the SO, I should go ahead and unblock. I did say to make sure they read the issues raised in the AN discussion and to ASK if there was anything they didn't get. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:40, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. Chillum 16:28, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

@SarekOfVulcan: How the heck did I miss your RfA? I thought you were an admin for years. Congrats. Chillum 20:10, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

I was. :-) I resigned two years ago, after the arb case that decided to strongly admonish me instead of desysopping. I was going to run again after a couple of months, but gave it a year, which I didn't pass. After another year of practicing not going ballistic on the dramaboards, they let me back in. :-) --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:16, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

I knew I had seen your name on the admin logs before. I don't think I know anyone else who has passed RfA 3 times. Impressive. Chillum 20:40, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

I think the adjective you seek is "masochistic", actually. :-) --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:58, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Protect

Please protect this page. Thanks! Jim Carter 06:10, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Done Chillum 06:15, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! Jim Carter 06:16, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

An Sock puppet investigation concerning Cultural Marxism Deletion

[[4]] This investigation has been started to investigate RGloucester and suspected sock or meat puppet Jobrot. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.56.15.36 (talk) 12:58, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Let me know how that turns out for you. Being a brand new user jumping into a heated debate accusing another user of jumping into a heated debate is a bit rich, I am sure it will turn out well. Chillum 15:59, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Blocked for sock puppetry

Per our sock puppet policy undisclosed alternative accounts are not to be used in discussions internal to the project. Logging out to file a complaint against another user qualifies as such. It is clear from your knowledge of events that take place well prior to your edit history that you have prior history here. It is also clear you are using more than one IP to edit war and act disruptively at Draft talk:Cultural Marxism.

If you wish to appeal this block please log into your regular account to do so. Chillum 17:48, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Let me know how that turns out for you. Being a brand new user jumping into a heated debate accusing another user of jumping into a heated debate is a bit rich, I am sure it will turn out well. Chillum 15:59, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

• Response to above paranoid schizophrenic behavior. Not an account holder nor am I a boggy man and never made any claim to be a new user so that makes you a liar as well. It seems your paranoid behavior has led to a knee jerk paranoid action. Sorry but that is the truth that you cannot handle. Hey go ahead and range block, as it a cellular IP you will only block a few million of a major provider. It would be another ignorant but predictable move. Your online friend also salted the well laid out SPI investigation about an obvious sock or meat puppet of RGlouchester and a brand new account Jobrot. [5] Don't worry I saved it and will post elsewhere as more evidence of you get what you pay for which is not much when it is free. Interesting cultish behavior where without any evidence you make false accusation and attempt to bury well founded evidence. Keep up living in your little world of make believe. More evidence that project is failing to come close to its stated goal. Thanks for the evidence and your behavior is a bit rich. 172.56.15.217 (talk) 23:37, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

I see in addition to sock puppetry you are now engaging in block evasion and impersonating me on several user pages. You are hardly convincing me that I was wrong to block you.

There was no conspiracy to close your sock puppet investigation, it was just a shitty report. You provided no evidence while engaging in evasion of scrutiny yourself.

We don't need a range block, you are easy enough to recognize. Chillum 00:01, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Your use of the new IP for block evasion and impersonating me on several talk pages is very telling. Chillum 00:06, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

• Outsmarting a paranoid schizophrenic is quite easy and if you link my edits to other edits with a similar IP's you will see I have been editing for years so your paranoid behavior is just that. I have been fighting spam, promotional articles, COI, and unprofessional admins for years and quite successfully. Sorry I have to call out unsophisticated foolish behavior but you did it to yourself Chillum. And again no one impersonated you, they just reposted you elsewhere to highlight your paranoid behavior. I have made it very easy for you to see who I am so you will not go after anyone else due to your paranoia. 172.56.6.142 (talk) 08:48, 23 February 2015 (UTC) P.S. Keep deleting and I will keep reposting. It only takes 5 minutes to get a new IP so maybe you should reconsider that range block or just leave it up so the community knows. It automatically changes all the time as well, sorry that led you to act paranoid. I am betting you will range block and yes that is a taunt. Of course it would do little good, as I have other access, and block millions but that would be a great move on your part. You could at least block my current IP and all the other one for a least a year or permanently. That would be screwing some other unfortunate sap who just wanted to edit anomalously and highly unlikely ever affect me after tonight due to the thousands of IP the carrier randomly assigns. You could complain to the carrier but they would do nothing as they would have no idea who used to have an temp IP and unlikely to give a Rats ass. Hey a new article to create if you ever decide to do something constructive here.

There is no way User:Jobrot is not a sock or meat puppet and likely User:RGloucester's sock. The evidence is overwhelming and it is what you can expect from an avowed marxist as marxists are nothing more than sophisticated thieves and you can never trust a thief or a Talk:Cultural Marxist. And I am hiding nothing just standing up to foolish behavior and of course demonstrating the freedom of editing which is quite constrained when one registers. Well Bye Bye, Chief I said Bye Bye!!! 172.56.6.142 (talk) 09:40, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

I prefer to be open to all on this talk page but since you want to play silly buggers with a changing IPs I have semi-protected this page. I will not range block you as you are very easy to recognize. I suggest you stop block evading, wait for your existing blocks to expire and then resume. If you continue to engage in block evasion you will likely just continue to be blocked on sight. Chillum 17:01, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Antidiskriminator close

Thanks for closing that. I think it is the right close given the discussion (though, per the discussion I don't think it's the right outcome, but that's a different issue). Hobit (talk) 04:33, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

It was a difficult decision. Chillum 05:51, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Appeal of topic ban

Hi,

I noticed that you closed my ban appeal discussion (diff) as no consensus, as suggested in this comment (diff).

1. Based on this comment in which it is suggested to give "the policy-based reason is for not undoing the ban" and
2. based on the Wikipedia:Consensus policy which says that "Consensus is ascertained by the quality of the arguments given on the various sides of an issue, as viewed through the lens of Wikipedia policy."

will you please be so kind to inform me what are the policy based reasons for your decision not to undo the ban? Thanks in advance.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 10:11, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

There were several policy based reasons given. I will list a few but you will just have to read the discussion to find them all.

• One such reason given was "This user's presence in the topic area was a perennial source of disruption, and I see no signs whatsoever that he has changed". Disruption is a policy based reason to oppose, lack of evidence of change is as well.

• Another stated "He showed a great deal of interest in advocating for very specific points of view, and I don't believe that lifting the ban would be in the interests of Wikipedia." Using Wikipedia to advocate a specific point of view is a policy based reason to oppose. Being concerned that lifting the ban would not be in the best interests of the project is a policy based reason to oppose.

• Again, "the editing environment around former Yugoslavia topics has improved hugely over the last year or so, and allowing Antidiskriminator to return to this field would be a significant step backwards", see above.

I am going to stop there as I am just copying comments and explaining them to you. Your failure to recognize these policy based arguments may be relevant to your situation.

Given the large number of people who did not want you even on the talk pages it is clear that there is no consensus to reverse the ban. I suggest you try again in a few months and try taking some more personal responsibility.

Frankly I think your comment "The ban was imposed because the community reached consensus to ban me" was one of the primary reasons your appeal was not successful. Only after being prodded did you actually take any personal responsibility. I suspect it struck others as you just saying what they wanted to hear.

While I have no familiarity with the underlying dispute and have no personal opinion in the matter there was no other way I could have closed it given the state of the debate. Chillum 16:54, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

• Thanks for your reply. What you presented is more of serious accusation without serious nor any evidence than "the policy based reasons for your decision not to undo the ban".
• I don't think that your closure is a reasonable summation of the discussion. More than one editor supported unban. More than one oppose !vote came from involved editors presenting serious accusations without any evidence. More than one editor (including the admin who banned me) pointed to the fact that the number of editors and evidence they presented was suboptimal, that almost all of them had some sort of contact/dispute with me, some even stated that this group is trying to eliminate the editor opposing them in the discussions (me). More than one opposed !votes were involved in the canvassing issue. I don't think your closure explains or consider this.
• What is probably most important, I don't think you gave enough weight to my plan to avoid this kind of problems in future? I think I presented the plan to avoid this kind of problems in this topic area even if opposee group of editor is right (which I don't think, but is theoretically possible) by:
  1. strictly following wikipedia policies
  2. avoiding both content and conduct disputes with other editors
  3. and in case dispute occurs to strictly follow WP:DR and limit my talkpage comments to 1) opinion and 2) wikipedia policy or reliable source in which they are grounded
  4. to immediately report myself to WP:AN as soon as two editors who reported me accuse me for being disruptive
  5. for at least 12 months after the ban was lifted
• Taking all above written in consideration I am hereby asking you to reconsider your closure and unban me under above conditions.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 19:42, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

After reconsidering I have come to the same conclusion that I could not have interpreted the consensus any other way. The fact is that you got 20+ days worth of attention and in that time no consensus to unban you was achieved. Chillum 22:38, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. Your insisting on higher criteria for ban than for unban is incorrect and unfair (only six, almost all heavily involved, editors supported my ban after 14 days of attention). I see your advice to me to return "in a few months and demonstrates an understanding of why the ban is in place" as "demand for kowtowing" (clearly rejected as unnecessary by more than one editor in the discussion). After you failed to present the "policy based reasons for your decision not to undo the ban" I consider it deeply unfair. We both know that nothing will be different in a few months. The same group of editors will come and present their personal opinions and serious accusations about me being disruptive without any evidence. Although WP:CLOSE says such !votes should be discarded and other policies make them sanctionable, some (un)initiated administrator will probably come after two or three weeks and close the discussion as no consensus. If I am lucky. If not, I might be indeffed with advice to return in a few months/years and demonstrate an understanding why I was banned and why you decided not to unban me. All the best.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 23:52, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Did you really think that those who opposed your ban being reduced to talk page only were supporting removing the ban altogether? I invite you to read all of the comment. If you still disagree with my closing I suppose you can seek a review but I am pretty sure I closed it right. Chillum 04:30, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Of course not. I have never said anything like that. I think I gave clear reasons for my opinion that your closure was incorrect and unfair and I don't have anything to add to it now. Following your advice to seek a review in situation when canvassing and serious accusations without evidence are tolerated in discussions about my topic ban would be irrational. All the best. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 14:13, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

ANI notice for IP editor

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#I am evading a block but not a sock for which I was blocked Self Reported regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Sorry no haiku. Nil Einne (talk) 13:47, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Please Review Draft?

Please review my draft
To help me get this piece right
Thank you for guidance

Being new to Wikipedia, I'm not certain how I should get you the draft for you to review. Would I post it here? Please let me know.

Thanks!

Trigger449 (talk) 19:05, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for posting in the form of Haiku. The best way to create your first article is through Wikipedia:Articles_for_creation. Just go there and click the Click here to create an article now! button.

Keep in mind that your first revision may not pass our inclusion criteria. At the very least it needs to establish verifiability and notability in independent reliable sources. If you first draft is not accepted them you should get some advice on how to improve from other users. If you want my personal advice about the article just come here and tell me once you have created the draft, I will be glad to give notes. Chillum 19:11, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

My draft is an edit/overhaul of an existing biographical page. I believe it is in a correct format. I am trying to fix the page so it is not objectionable, meets the appropriate criteria, and the blp and conflict of interest tags are removed from it. I'm concerned that if I make the changes to the page itself before some review, it's going to make the page look even more messed up than it is right now. But if that's what I should do, I will. Please let me know.

Trigger449 (talk) 19:19, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

If the page already exists then you should probably discus the changes on the article's talk page. Chillum 20:14, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

I have raised the question of the changes on the article's talk page. It is for the Darin Pastor article. Would you mind taking a look? Thank you. Trigger449 (talk) 20:34, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

If you are worried other editors may object to your change then one thing you can do is post your version of the article to the article page and then undo that edit. Then you will have your version to link to in the history so people can see what you mean. It is a bit difficult for anyone to respond if they cannot see what changes you are proposing.

You are allowed to make bold changes to an article, but if you are reverted then it is always best to seek consensus on the talk page. Chillum 20:37, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

I have done what you suggested, and would appreciate it if you could take a look at that talk page. Thanks again. Trigger449 (talk) 20:55, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

While I am not familiar enough with the topic to judge if the changes are an improvement or not, given that nobody has responded to your talk page message then I should be acceptable to go ahead with your changes. Chillum 17:13, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

ANI

How can you roundly say my accusations are "seemingly baseless" when I provided extensive diffs and made a coherent argument? How can it honestly be said that a response like Maybe you aren't used to strong, powerful, assertive women. to someone who is complaining about personal attacks, doesn't contain a nanogram of snark? How can anyone say I'm WP:NOTHERE to build an encyclopedia, when I'm pointing out that someone's decision to remove articles from the encyclopedia might have a biased and/or political motive? Why does everyone get to summarily dismiss me without addressing any of my arguments, and generally treat me as unworthy of respect? I don't understand any of this.

And if Viriditas isn't an admin, why are they closing ANI discussions? 76.64.13.4 (talk) 19:34, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Look, if you show up anonymously and jump right into a heated debate and favor one side strongly then you can expect people to give you less credence. I suggest you create an account and gain a reputation as a reasonable person and then try controversial areas. Closing a discussion is not an admin tool. Chillum 04:24, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

On wikipedia, justice is not blind. In short, it is not enough to merely report a violation of the rules and expect something to be done, the admins have to think you are a person worthwhile to spend their time protecting and hearing your case. If someone violates the written rules of wikipdia, but the victim isn't someone who any admins sympathize with, any complaint will likely be dismissed and no action will be taken against the offender. Likewise, if the offender is someone sympathetic (like MarkBernstein who has received at least 11 "final warnings" for his bad behavior by my count) the offender can be expected to receive no major punishment. My advice to you: Get some edit history, become a more sympathetic person, list anything could give you more sympathy points on wikipedia on your profile (like if you are female, etc.), and be nice and befriend some admins. After that, you will be much more successful if someone breaks the rules on you. Lose the WP:SPA stigma by diversifying your edits and edit controversial topics only sparingly—especially if the information you add is flattering to a perspective far in the minority among active admins. As it stands right now, someone could even violate a topic ban handed down to them from ArbCom itself to hurl epithets and personal attacks at other editors, but if the person reporting it is an unsympathetic SPA, no action will be taken against the offender (like with the NorthBySouthBaranof situation). 96.245.254.115 (talk) 05:23, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Why should justice on wikipedia be based on who your friends are? Isn't this the sort of culture and attitude that has been blamed for driving women away from Wikipedia? Is the point of Wikipedia to be fair and impartial or to protect those who use their powers in favor of their friends?74.202.47.2 (talk) 16:33, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Who are you suggesting are my friends? I think you are seeing conspiracies where there are none. Your complaint was closed for lacking merit. Please don't see Wikipedia as a source of "justice", we are here to make an encyclopedia not to satisfy your sense of fairness. I suppose if you really want to you could file a complaint against me, but I really think it would be seen as lacking merit.

If you are going to continue to switch IPs then I suggest you create an account to avoid the appearance of sock puppetry if you want to keep editing in contentious areas. If you decide not to register an account take care not to participate in the same debate with two different identities. Chillum 16:36, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

I think you have me confused with the 2 other IP users in this thread. I was just giving sound, general advice for a new user trying to deal with a rule-breaker on wikipedia. There is no grand conspiracy when it comes to the double-standards of treatment towards misbehavior on wikipedia. It's accually pretty simple: an editor that admins don't have much sympathy for (say one of a flood of IP editors editing a controversial topic) is unlikely to have admins who think their complaints of other editors' rule-breaking are worth investigating——or even if investigated, to not severely punish an offender that admins have a lot of sympathy for. Additionally, friends generally like helping out other friends, and that doesn't magically change when one of the friends holds the title of "admin." A complaint by a friend of an admin is more likely to be taken seriously by that admin, etc. It's just common sense. 96.245.254.115 (talk) 23:31, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes I have been confused by the large number of IPs in this thread. I have lost track of who is saying what. It would be great if one or two of you could register accounts. Chillum 23:34, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

this is my first ever comment on Wikipedia, sorry I think I had the formatting wrong.74.202.47.2 (talk) 16:42, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

I thought based on the topic of conversation and the type of wording you used that you were the same as user:96.245.254.115? Are you a different IP with no history seeking justice? Chillum 16:44, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

If you're talking to me, I'm a completely different user.. have not commented anywhere on wikipedia before.74.202.47.2 (talk) 17:07, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

If you are a completely new user then what are you basing your comments on? What justice are you talking about, who do you think my friends are? If you are a completely new user then you have not provided the context to your comments that I need to understand them. Please link me to the area that you are concerned about. Chillum 17:09, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm referring to the above comment by "96.245.254.115." That was whom I originally intended to reply to.74.202.47.2 (talk) 17:12, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Okay I see now. I was confused because I did not see how a brand new user would find their way here and assumed you were the same person with a different IP. Thank you for clarifying. Chillum 17:14, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

I read a few articles about bias and inappropriate behavior in the "ruling class" on wikipedia. I've dealt with people like this before and I've seen them ruin many many good things. I've been learning a lot about the protocols here and how things operate. It's disappointing to say the least, but I hope I can be an influence for impartiality and to help build a more objective Wikipedia. You should probably delete this whole distracting line of comments to clean things up so it doesn't detract from the main issue here. 74.202.47.2 (talk) 17:41, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

No need to delete this discussion, it is not a distraction. I apologize if I jumped to conclusions, this particular topic has drawn a lot of negative attention. Regarding articles about our ruling class, I would suggest that journalism is not particularly concerned with accuracy and likely more interested in sales.

Thankfully Wikipedia is a completely transparent place. Our arbcom hearings and decision discussions are logged for all to see. We have taken great effort to make sure our decision making process is available to everyone, it is a pity that journalists rarely take advantage of this resource and instead report rumors from disgruntled users.

I hope to see you around. Unless your editing here is going to be minor you should consider making an account in order to give the false appearance of support for their position. The main issue with gender equality topics on Wikipedia is that we people who use more than one IP or account to pretend to be more than one person. This has been done by people on either side of the debate. As a result users without accounts and brand new users are treated with a certain level of skepticism to prevent people creating a false sense of support for one side. This can result in a less than ideal first experience on Wikipedia.

Please feel free to ask me if you have any questions about this place. It is complex. Chillum 17:50, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

To be honest, with some of the reactions I've seen to minor edits from those who feel as if they own wikipedia, I am very hesitant to do any editing at this time for fear of unwittingly offending someone connected to the administration here. I hope I can be a moderating influence on the meta-discussion, though. It's not just gender equality, it's anything involving recent events which have a political slant. I think wikipedia as a whole would benefit if people placed more emphasis on content and less emphasis on personality.74.202.47.2 (talk) 17:56, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Again, we have a lot of IPs being used to disrupt certain contentious topic areas. New users and anonymous users are going to encounter a more difficult than normal time if they choose to edit controversial areas because of this. It is not out of spite, or a sense of ownership. It is a reaction to literally hundreds of anonymous users being disruptive in the area.

Accounts are free, and they don't require any personal information. They allow you to hide your IP(and thus be more anonymous) while establishing yourself and a reasonable person who is on Wikipedia out of interest for the project and not just further a specific bias. If you have an established history of being able to be neutral and reasonable then you will see that you are more able to edit in controversial area. Chillum 18:02, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Chillum, you need to grow up. There are rules which explicitly allow anonymous editing of Wikipedia. Your attempt to force people to make themselves a named target of your abuse is not acceptable. If you have problems with those rules then I recommend that you stop editing Wikipedia. 81.132.193.65 (talk) 01:00, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

I recommend that you read what I actually wrote instead of responding to your fevered imaginings. Chillum 01:22, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Actions speak louder than words, even on Wikipedia. 81.132.193.65 (talk) 16:16, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

If you have a specific concern about something I have actually said or done I am happy to address that. As it stands I have an anonymous person making vague accusations without any sort of substantiation. I pretty much have to ignore you unless you are able to communicate in a more effective fashion. This is pretty much random trolling unless you want to present some actual facts(evidence in the form of diffs would help). Chillum 18:39, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

EChastain

While you were trying to calm things down on @EChastain:'s talkpage we have this: User talk:Anthonyhcole#Requesting feedback with intertwining timestamps. I will say I think EChastain is a good editor but maybe a voluntary interaction ban would be of best interest. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:17, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Well if they could voluntarily stay away from each other there would be no issue. When I see several people asking one person to drop the stick it is a red flag. I have given my advice to this user to be proactive in avoiding this user, if it is taken great if not then the community may have to decide. Chillum 02:26, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Well hopefully EC gets the message that she is attracting that kind of attention. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:29, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

Replying to your ping Knowledgekid87, I know you've always responded everywhere that has to do with Rationalobserver, but I've barely had any interaction with her. When she posted on my talk page recently supporting Lightbreather's accusations, I ignored her. I posted on her talk page a long time ago suggesting that Eric Corbett was a good GA editor (that was before all her bad mouthing of him on her page) meaning to be helpful, but haven't posted again until recently when I asked her what she was doing by her Donner Party related stuff, as a warning to wake her up.

I suggested on Coffee's page under "Something good can come of this", that she take up jbmurray's offer of help, after he took time to carefully answer all her comments. I thought it would look good and help her out out her current situation by doing something constructive. After my suggestion, she did seem to take up his offer which she had been ignoring before. EChastain (talk) 02:39, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Curious about bot operation at WP:UAA

Hey Chillum. Today, I ran across User:Fuckthepaganmotorcylegang which was properly reported by DeltaQuadBot to WP:UAA [6]. The account isn't blocked as of now, or at least not through the normal means. In looking at the accounts contributions [7] (there are non) I saw a highlighted notice near the top of the page that says "This account is globally locked. See global account details for more information." which links to this. I am not sure what the impact of this is? Does this mean the account is blocked from editing on a global level or blocked from account creation on any other project available under global, or ...? If it is blocked from editing, I'm curious how HBC AIV helperbot would handle that? --Hammersoft (talk) 17:55, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

I asked on IRC and it seems the globally locked means they cannot even log in on any mediawiki project. Since that is the case by bot should remove it, however it currently has no mechanism to detect off-en-wikipedia blocke/locks. Such names will have to be removed manually until I have some time to look into if this is something I can detect via the API. Chillum 18:09, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

• Must be a recently added feature, post global unified login. I'm glad they have it. I just hope there's a mechanism to detect when that happens. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:49, 4 March 2015 (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.