User talk:HighInBC/Archive 28
- 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.
Help
Users Cinema, balkanfever are the two pushing the same agenda on the Kosovo page (recently user:Athenean has been employed to do some of the argumentation). The Albanian point of view which is represented by non-Albanians as well as me, is shot down as soon as it begins articulating its self.
My self, canadian bobby, spanishboy, and brutaldeluxe, have presented our views but only I have persisted, the other users have felt helplessness and given up.
Admin "dab" has contributed to some users feelings worthless on the kosovo related articles, because she represents an authorititive figure and can issue blocks. Indeed she has threatened to permenently block me on counteless occasions although I have made him aware that this will be hard, and that I will also seek action against him if he does.
On countless occasions I have explained my stance, each time I have been accused of POV pushing by the very people who display signs of being hardened nationalists. Seriously, I'm feeling overwhelmed on this page, I was thinking of going to arbitration for a number of points where a neutral user or employee of Wikipedia will be able to sort it out.
So my question is do you identify with anything I wrote above and should I go down the arbitration route?( Thanks, Interestedinfairness (talk) 11:11, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- If I am to enforce civil discourse it is important that I do not involve myself with the content aspect of the dispute in order to avoid the appearance of a conflict of interest. Arbitration is only a good idea if all other forms of dispute resolution have been tried an failed. Also know that arbitration will look into the aspects of all users behavior in this dispute, sometimes people file for a case and are surprised that they are also subject to the investigation. My advice is general advice because I am not familiar with the details of the dispute. I hope this helped some. Chillum 14:15, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Come on!
In response to your message on my talk page...
Rude? Sure. Truth? Yes. And he is a joke. Chillum, i've been here for years, I know exactly what's what. I've been on the admin boards and etc. No need for this coming from you. Beam
Any further comments, please come to my talk page. Beam 15:25, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- You come on. I have responded on your talk page. Don't call other users here "a joke". Chillum 15:30, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies
I am so sorry that my choice of edits have dragged you and your name through this. Please accept my apologies in this matter. Canterbury Tail talk 11:59, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
help with COI?
Hi Chillum. Was hoping to get another pair of uninvolved admin eyes over at Circumcision to help mediate a probable COI. Garycompugeek (talk) 17:19, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Please see WP:ANI#Request review of administrative action. -- Avi (talk) 17:53, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note, the very calling of this a COI issue, is in my opinion, an attack on the integrity of one of our editors. Conflation of POV with COI is dangerous. -- Avi (talk) 17:54, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks; you may want to see WP:COIN#Circumcision too. -- Avi (talk) 00:41, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ok thanks Chillum. Garycompugeek (talk) 14:28, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My COI thread has gotten little outside attention, mostly just bickering between the regualr editors. Would it be prudent to request comment ar village pump or ANI? Garycompugeek (talk) 21:32, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Malleus's rights
You should remove them all really, he specifically asked for removal of the ones he used to have. In any case, wrt "Where has he shown the technical knowledge needed for this?", I ask you, where have all the admins who have granted themselves this right shown the technical knowledge needed for it? Majorly talk 14:42, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree fully that admins should not have this right automatically, community trust in no way demonstrates a capacity for programming filters. I think admins should be able to grant it, but not to themselves. As for taking all of his rights away from MF, I have taken away the one that can do real damage. The others can be removed if he abuses them. I am however a bit concerned about the IP block exemption, I don't see any recent history of MF being hit by autoblocks. Chillum 14:45, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I have also remove IP block exemption, it is only needed when a person gets hit by autoblocks or must edit from a proxy. It is also very prone to abuse if given out to the wrong person. That is why we have a policy describing its best use practices. Chillum 14:58, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Law
He's being pointy. See User talk:Jennavecia, he seems determined to fan the flames of drama. I suggested he move on; he responded by dragging out the "IDCab" bullshit which a) is ancient history 2) has no bearing, making it a simple ad hom attack on me. You might have better luck talking him off the Reichstag; I give up. KillerChihuahua?!?Advice 14:44, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Not being pointy at all. As far as the IDcab, it is only 'history' because something here was actually done right. Take the rest to my talk, I don't intend to burden Chill with this. Law type! snype? 14:49, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
AGF?
Do we not? Law type! snype? 14:47, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Regarding "edit filter", it is assume good faith, not assume good programming abilities. As for the IP block exemption, we have policy that describes when it is needed. Chillum 14:52, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
How do I use...
The Public Key thing?Abce2|Aww nuts!Wribbit!(Sign here) 01:00, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I have written out instructions for another user here: User talk:Chillum/Archive 20#GPG how? Chillum 05:03, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Previous blocked user
I know you probably don't want to return to the civility issue of Vintagekits but I have been partaking recently in AfD discussions and have noticed his contributions to ones on sportsmen (particularly soccer players) to be disturbingly confrontational, among other issues. Finally, yesterday he questioned my intelligence [[1]] (rather unsubtly by an allusion to the song Bonkers) and compared 3 statements I have previously made to make it seem as though I was contradicting myself when the statements were all in agreement with one another. Other users have pointed out that he smudges the issues to unduly influence discussions [[2]] and I have been unable to discern a genuine point in several of his posts in discussions. My feeling is that this should be taken further but am not sure how would be best considering the tedious nature of the 'block' correspondence earlier this month. Thanks.--AssegaiAli (talk) 11:42, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "disturbingly confrontational". I didnt question your intelligence although considering the mish mash of allegations that you've seemed to have spewn out here I might have had good cause to. What I did question was your "reasoning" with regards the subject at hand. I find your agruements and posts pretty illogical and highlighted that with the diffs I provided and the question I posed - which you never replied to (I wonder why!). --Vintagekits (talk) 11:59, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- There is really not much I can do, any warning to VK will likely fall on deaf or apathetic ears as it has in the past. Vk already knows not to belittle people with his comments. This is not severe enough for a block, there is nothing I can do. I am sorry Wikipedia is not able to better protect you from this sort of thing, but certain users can get away with more than others and I am powerless to correct this.
- I do know that if you called a peers idea "moronic" in my work environment it would be seen as out of line. In fact in most social situations this would be seen a terribly rude. I can't really instill these basic social skills in VK, so all I can do is watch VKs contributions and take action should he go beyond the overly permissive standards of the community. Chillum 14:54, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- You almost sound dissapointed that there is no grounds to block me! Dont worry keep using your admin powers in the manner you have done in the past and I am sure I will give you an opportunity! Slan leat agus go raibh mhaith agat! xx --Vintagekits (talk) 18:56, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- My use of admin tools has always stood up to scrutiny. I am disappointed that I cannot provide an environment of mutual respect for our volunteers to work in. I really wish you would not work against that goal. I don't know what your motives are, but it really is damaging to the project. Chillum 23:23, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Maybe rank and file editors would have more respect for admin if they didnt use their admin tools as toys to amuse themselves. Self amusers I call them.--Vintagekits (talk) 15:25, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I challenge you to show me where I have used my tools in any manner other than in the best interests of the project. I have stood up to scrutiny in the past and I will do so in the future. I can't help what other admins do, and I must agree that some of them act in a manner that disgraces all administrators. I can't do anything about bad admins other than argue for equal treatment towards them. What I can do is enforce a certain standard of mutual respect, sometimes. Chillum 15:30, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- 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.