User talk:HighInBC/Archive 63

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.

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	Thank you for your kindness and courtesy. IntensityCR7 (talk) 04:32, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

When I saw you had gone a whole year without a welcome I had to say hello. Chillum 13:42, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

My RfA

Pavlov's RfA reward Thank for !voting at my recent RfA. You voted Oppose so you get only one cookie, but a nice one. (Better luck next time.) All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 20:00, 16 July 2015 (UTC).

I have to say the manner in which you handled yourself made me give pause to my choice. When they were considering all manner of extended logic to get you the mop despite a clear outcome you refused to have anything to do with it. If you run again in the future I will surely reconsider. Chillum 20:09, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

@Rich Farmbrough: Or perhaps I just subconsciously want more cookies. Chillum 20:11, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Admin's Barnstar
	Thank you for your help - really appreciated. Denisarona (talk) 14:22, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Minnow and whale

You do know of {{minnow}} and {{whale}}, right? Also {{chips}}. :D EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 04:38, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

I am a purist. Chillum 04:39, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

So malt vinegar only with that fish and chips? No ketchup? (now I'm hungry). EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 04:41, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Trout

• Note for archive This user appears to have just copied my message to another user[1]. The user made no real attempt to explain this so I assume it was just copy/paste trolling. Chillum 02:26, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Whack! You've been whacked with a wet trout. Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know that you did something silly.

Your admin status is so you can facilitate the building of the encyclopedia. It is not to be used as a tool of intimidation against people you disagree with. This is shockingly unbecoming behaviour for an admin and frankly this trout is letting you off a bit light. --Epipelagic (talk) 04:49, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

That would be a little bit clever if my leaving a note on Nick's page was an admin action. Since it was not then this is just mimicry. If you wish to have an intelligent discussion please try again. Chillum 04:53, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

And thank you for properly attributing your copy of my text with a link as required by the GFDL. Chillum 04:55, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Blofeld's views on Chillum

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

---

I must agree with Epipelagic here. My perception of you Chillum is that you exist on here just waiting for somebody to say anything less than savoury and that you get your kicks issuing sanctimonious remarks to people, especially some of our most respected content contributors. I suggest you seriously rethink the purpose of the project and get your priorities fixed. I've lost count how many times in the least few months I've seen you lecturing others on personal conduct. And how often does it exactly help the encyclopedia? It causes nothing bur resentment and increases the hostility on here.♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:04, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

I am very well aware your opinion Mr Blofeld. You take every opportunity to point it out to me. I think you judgement in regards to me is flawed, and I think you wait around all day looking for reasons to disagree with me. Your criticisms are vague and unhelpful. If you want to gather evidence I have done anything wrong then please do so and present it, but your unsubstantiated comments amount to little more than heckling and will be treated as such.

I think you will find that the comment was worse than "less than savoury", I think you will also find if you do your homework that I do not give out trout without a good reason. Chillum 14:07, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

I have little to do with you. If you didn't stray into Eric's and Cassianto's and several other talk pages all of the time with sanctimonious little remarks I wouldn't be commenting on you. It just looks like you're just waiting to bite at them all the time. It makes me question your existence on here. You are aware that this is an encyclopedia essentially right? How often exactly do I see your name in an article history with something constructive you've contributed? ♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:28, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

In addition to being an encyclopedia we are also a collaborative project. We have civility standards for a reason and that reason is that the community wants it. You can toss around words like "sanctimonious" all you want but the reality is that giving a warning prior to blocking for personal attacks is normal practice here. You may disagree with that all day long but the fact remains that the community wants an environment where abuse is not tolerated. Chillum 16:43, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

I agree that people should be nicer to one another. But like in the real world, people have their differences. You should know that issuing a warning to either Eric or Cassianto though is more likely to irritate them more than calmly dealing with a heated situation.♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:55, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

This was a routine warning for a routine violation of accepted behaviour, you are the one extending the drama right here and now by insisting on conflating me enforcing a policy you don't agree with and me being some sort sanctimonious power monger.

While it may irritate people to be told that they are out of line it none the less needs to be said. People also get irritated when we tell them not to edit war. This is not some isolated incident, this is part of an ongoing pattern. I will gladly look the other way if someone says something out of line once in a while but this is happening far too often to sweep under the rug. Chillum 17:04, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

The only thing that irritates me is you Chillum and your continuance in keeping this drama going. I thought you archived this bullshit below? Cassianto^Talk 17:16, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Sorry it irritates you to be told not to engage in name calling. Regardless the community has made the rules in this area very clear. I won't be issuing you any warnings for personal attacks in the future, I consider you sufficiently warned. Chillum 17:20, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

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

Tiresome dramah and endless pot-stirring

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

---

Instead of prolonging the endless dramah with needless posts like this, perhaps turning a blind eye once in a while over very, very minor comments may make things go a little more smoothly? Going to all the trouble to post on something so petty and minor doesn't help the situation, it racks up the tension, and that is something best avoided. Pot-stirring never ends well, so just let things die down next time, rather than inflaming the situation. - SchroCat (talk) 14:04, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps I will enforce the consensus of the community that personal attacks are not acceptable. You may not like that but it is the consensus of the community that they not work in a place where they can be abused. Turning a blind eye in an isolated incident is helpful but when a user regularly violated the policy and makes excuses as to why it is okay then the time for ignoring is gone.

I do not know where @Cassianto: got the idea that if you insult a group of editors then that is not a personal attack, but that is a truly flawed idea. Further personal attacks will result in a block. I look forward to your next visit, which I am sure will come next time you think our civility policy should not be enforced. Chillum 14:11, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

...here. You might think they did an admirable job of forcing Eric of the project yet again, but I happen to think differently and my opinions of them will not change dispute you throwing your toys out of your pram. Cassianto^Talk 14:18, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

@Cassianto: Nobody is accusing you of defamation. Our personal attack policy is what is relevant. The link you gave may protect you in a court of law but Wikipedia has its own standards and you know that already. Wikilawyering will not prevent the community supported NPA policy from being enforced. Please just learn how to comment on others actions without calling them names, it may be difficult but it is something most people can manage. Chillum 14:28, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

If you think that the role of an admin is to unnecessarily stoke the fires of dramah to try and bait some response, or to give yourself an excuse to bring in a block later, then I think we have very different views on how to bring things to a calm close. I would also add that such an approach would make for someone extremely unworthy of holding any admin powers at all - that looks like an utterly sub-standard approach. I'm out on this. You have a closed mind when it comes to a friendly note of suggestion, and I doubt you'll change your approach, even if it is good advice being given to you. I look forward to reading about you being desysoped if you continue to be so blinkered in your approach. – SchroCat (talk) 14:29, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

We both know if I had not given the warning you would be complaining about a block without warning. If you want to gather evidence I have done anything wrong then please do so and present it, but until you substantiate your accusations please move along. Chillum 14:49, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

We both know that if you had blocked any user for something so small and insignificant, you would currently be having your arse handed to you on a plate at ANI - and deservedly so. (And I have made no accusations, so don't try and make out I have: try and remain honest whenyou deal with me). Roll on your desysopping, at which I suspect there will be an almightly queue of people dropping in plenty of evidence, as you don't seem to have the right judgement when it comes to admin actions, as you have shown time and time again. - SchroCat (talk) 15:02, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Frankly based on my observations of you I don't think I have much faith in your ability to interpret our policies, best practices, or the consensus of the community. You are a fine content creator, but I think you have strong personal biases regarding our policies that cloud your interpretations of them. Regardless you may be interested in User:Chillum/recall. You have already exhausted steps 1 and 2 unless you have something based in evidence to present. I don't think any admin has ever been desysoped for giving a sincere personal attack warning to an editor that has engaged in recent personal attacks. Chillum 15:11, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Frankly I don't give a hoot for your opinions, given that they are dreadfully misguided, on the basis of what you've written above. You bear grudges against others, you bait others into making comments when they shouldn't and you come to a situation with a preconceived set of opinions and beliefs about others that mar your judgment of a situation. That's about as far removed from the make up of any admin I would ever like to come up against, and its why you are a second- or even third-rate administrator. As to anything beneficial to the encyclopaedia, I have no idea what you are like, but it would probably be less harmful if you tried your hand at that, rather than your constant pot-stirring and dramah mongering. By the way – and speaking of being a dramah queen and pot stirring – saying of another editor that "I don't think I have much faith in your ability to interpret our policies, best practices, or the consensus of the community": that's a personal attack on another editor, but I really couldn't care less, as insults really don't bother me – they say an awful lot more about you than about me. - SchroCat (talk) 15:20, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Deeming something as a "personal attack", such as you do most of the time Chillum, is subjective, and differs from one person to the other. If it wasn't I'd have had people come to me before now to complain. They haven't. You have, surprise of all surprises, and we all know about your axe which you try to grind with everything I do or say. Cassianto^Talk 15:24, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

In a recent scientific study of all ongoing threads in the entire English Wikipedia, this one was selected as the one least likely to yield a useful and positive outcome. Perhaps you could all agree to disagree at this point? Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:34, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

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

I am not a sock!

I had to laugh a bit when I read this. Looking at my very first contribs will tell you why. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:30, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

I should have been more specific. It is common for new users to comment in deletion discussion as there is a link from the article. What is uncommon is a brand new user knowing how to file an AfD. Chillum 21:30, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Advice needed

I've pretty much had it with the Lorge family (Robert Gerald Lorge, Gerald Lorge, William Lorge). Disruptive editing of their articles has been going on for close to a week. In fact, Runningfox34 was blocked for 31 hours for that. Now a new account, Smartvoter2006, has begun making the same types of edits to their articles. This is in addition to several IPs that appear to have been used to deflect attention from the registered accounts. It's unclear whether they're sockpuppets or meatpuppets or what, but there is certainly a concerted effort to disrupt and to ignore all WP rules. I'd like to make some sort of report, but no one ever listens to IPs. It would just get lost in the shuffle. What to do? 32.218.45.136 (talk) 00:17, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

FYI

[2] 32.218.33.216 (talk) 20:17, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. Chillum 20:19, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Signpost

We may be running an op-ed soon in favor of the RfC for BARC - a community desysoping process. Would you be interested in writing a counterpoint offering a dissenting viewpoint? Gamaliel (talk) 19:26, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

I think @Opabinia regalis: has done a better job pointing out its flaws than I here: [3]. I don't think it is more community based than our current system and I think it will be far more prone to gaming. My biggest complaint is that it is very poorly defined. Chillum 22:44, 24 July 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.