User talk:HighInBC

Tokens from other editors:

Talk page archives - Archive index

• Hello and welcome to my talk page! Click the + button at the top of the page to create a new discussion or use any of the "edit" buttons to contribute to an already existing discussion.
• Postings made in the form of haiku will be given first priority.

HBC AIV helperbot

Your bot hasn't been running for about 12 hours as of now and UAA is becoming cluttered. Command and Conquer Expert! ^{speak to me...}_{review me...} 07:21, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out, it seems I have an error:

Not a HASH reference at ./HBC AIV helperbot.pl line 330.

I will look into that when I have some time. I have started it back up again. Chillum 07:44, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

I have a fix for this but I want to add code that shows me what is causing it so I can test the solution by reproducing the cause. I will try to keep it running in the meantime. Chillum 20:41, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

• Context

Re your note on my page:

Short story is I screwed up, bot did nothing wrong, sorry for any concern. I reverted my revert once I could figure out what happened. Sorry, my fault. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 21:33, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

No worries at all. I was just trying to fix a bug and was concerned I had introduced a new one. I wanted to check with you before turning it back on so it did not edit war with you. If it ever is malfunctioning feel free to block it, you won't hurt its fealings. Chillum 21:36, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

@Cncmaster: I think I have fixed the fault, if it does not crash in the next week or so I will publish the new code and raise the required version for the UAA page. Thanks for the report. Chillum 21:39, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, HighInBC. You have new messages at IJBall's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Talkback Smack

So you deleted my article on majhost, eh?

WELL, I'M PUTTING IT BACK!--LooneyTunerIan (talk) 18:03, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

@LooneyTunerIan: If you insist on remaking an attack page without sources I will just block you. You have been here 3 years and you know how it works. Chillum 18:08, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

@Chillum: It is not an attack article, it was just for reference. Majhost.com is a real image hosting website. Just ask anyone who used it. And besides, don't you have to give the user some kind of warning stamp or something like that on their profile before you attempt to block them? --LooneyTunerIan (talk) 18:16, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

I just did warn you. You need references and you need to make it neutral. Unreferenced entirely negative articles are deleted on sight, we don't host such articles. If you do recreate it please do not do it in its prior form, take into account our WP:V verifiability requirements. Chillum 18:29, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Please delete talk page?

Seems I created it after you deleted the page. Heh, my fault. Anyway, I made it to justify the non-notable other CSD criteria since I wasn't sure of attack page covered non BLP. The website isn't notable according to alexa. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Majhost ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 18:19, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out. Chillum 18:33, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

I should be thanking you for being faster than me. :) Cheers! ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 18:33, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Just don't...

Chillum while I understand your efforts to help another editor you are doing it for nothing. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:45, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

I am well enough aware of the futility of my efforts. It was worth the try for the benefit of the project but nothing will come of it. Chillum 22:39, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Interested?

Hi Chillum,
You must be interested in Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/National Names 2000 as you had a suspicion.  - T H (here I am) 17:07, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I did find those two to be a bit quacky earlier on. Since then it appears to have become more obvious. Thank you for drawing my attention to that. Chillum 17:11, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for the extended block of 108.25.73.174

I tried to be civil to him. Really, I did. But due to his constant misdemeanor from the lack of understanding, he had to be dealt with severely. Thank you for that, he won't be causing anymore trouble for a lengthy time. 70.45.65.243 (talk) 22:17, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Try to avoid calling other editors childish, even if they are. It is best to just report, block and ignore. Chillum 22:17, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

I will do so in the near future. I see now that there are vandals that can't be reasoned with and best to report instead as you told me. Again, thank you. 70.45.65.243 (talk) 22:20, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Cheers. Chillum 22:21, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
	Thank you for reverting the vandalism done to my user page! :) JuneGloom07 Talk 02:13, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Any time. Chillum 02:14, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Majhost

You deleted the page Majhost on Feb 8. I'd like to see the deletion discussion but have so far not been able to find it. Secondly, you may have used the wrong deletion reason. You cited "Negative unsourced BLP". However, that relates to people while majhost is an internet page. And maybe a thorough rework of the article would have sufficed. I'm not fond of hasty deletions. --Maxl (talk) 19:32, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Hello. Per Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Legal_persons_and_groups companies are seen as people by our BLP policy. While I have no objection to a neutral and well sourced article what I deleted was entirely negative and without any sources. Any article on the subject would need to be fundamentally rewritten. It was deleted under WP:CSD#G10. Chillum 19:36, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your quick answer. But where is the deletion debate? --Maxl (talk) 19:43, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Speedy deletions are done at the discretion of an administrator, they are not the result of debate. It was marked as an attack page per WP:CSD#G10 by an editor and I saw it in the category and upon review decided it was an attack page and deleted it at my discretion. Chillum 19:46, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Ah, I see. A speedy deletion. No wonder I didn't find a deletion debate... ;) --Maxl (talk) 20:23, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

I hope that clears everything up. Again, you are welcome to make a neutral well sourced article on the subject. The deletion does not prevent recreation in another form. Chillum 20:26, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

An apology

Chillum, I want to apologise to you for this posting I made on my talk page a few days ago. It was unnecessarily rude and not even entirely accurate. I doubt that you and I will ever be exchanging Christmas cards, or our opinions of Gamaliel ever coinciding, but I don't despise you, and it was wrong of me to say that I did. Eric Corbett 18:26, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

I really appreciate that Eric. Thank you. Chillum 18:27, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

To be honest, I'm rather embarrassed I said that about you, which is why I came to your talk page, but what's been done can't be undone. Eric Corbett 23:13, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

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 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. I am betting you will range block and yes that is a taunt.

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)