User talk:HighInBC/Archive 31

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.

DustaBot having problems with symbols

DustaBot seems to be having some issues with "special" characters (non-ASCII characters?): [1] [2]. Can you take a look? Thanks.—C45207 | Talk 05:16, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for pointing this out. When I have time I will try to resolve this issue. Chillum 13:45, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar

		The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
		To Chillum, for well-reasoned discussion regarding the article "Rorschach test". Axl ¤ [Talk] 20:00, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I have been discouraged by a few people there, it is nice to be encouraged. May reason triumph over stubbornness! Chillum 21:38, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Polynomial123

I said this was probably going to happen. Best thing to do is lock down the page, back away, and pretend he never happened. As it is, there's no telling how many more socks he may have and he clearly can't be trusted when he says 'None'. HalfShadow 02:26, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly. The page has been locked and e-mail disabled. This person is a troll plain and simple and obviously has several other accounts to use. Chillum 02:55, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Interaction

Hello! Having noticed your block of an IP I had encountered some months ago, I'd like to draw your attention to User_talk:Nihonjoe/Archive_41#Interaction where I had raised my concern that said anon, who has "chosen not to make an acct", may in fact still have one. As it seems he went anon, and then changed the IP (not the ISP) to the current one. -- Matthead Discuß 02:47, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh those vandals, they really do get about don't they? Chillum 06:15, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Back to the proposal to recodify civility

Chillum, please consider revisiting and commenting on the remaining issues. Tony (talk) 01:56, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please restore User talk: Peter Damian

The page contained:

Very valuable notes on Law of Excluded Middle;
Some relevant background information concerning WP:AEE.

Possibly there is a good policy reason for blanking the page, but your edit summary, "deny", does not hint at such. If there is, please explain; if there is not, please restore. — Charles Stewart (talk) 14:17, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This page was blanked in the spirit of denying recognition to a troll, we try to not leave their trophy pages up. The prior version of the page can be found here: [3]. Chillum 14:23, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mattisse

When you post about someone else's conduct, as you did at User Talk:Mattisse, your conduct towards that user is relevant. --Philcha (talk) 16:03, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I do not think I have done anything wrong in my conduct. I asked a single purpose account, which seemed to have the goal of having another person reveal their alternate accounts, to reveal their alternate account.

The fact that the sockpuppets page was locked means nothing, as the user could always respond to me with their actual account.

Please don't toss about words like "cowardly", or at least discuss the matter with me before sticking labels on me. I hope I have cleared this matter up for you, if I have missed some part of your point please feel free to clarify. Chillum 16:17, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, dropping this comment on that talk page when Mattisse could not directly respond was the pinnacle of bravery. Mattisse could indeed response on user talk:Mattisse, but that would still leave your comment hanging on user talk:CallMeNow and might appear unanswered to some people. If you really wanted an answer rather than to appear to be seeking the last word, you obviously should have posted the question on user talk:Mattisse. Nev1 (talk) 16:22, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Umm, I didn't know it was user Mattisse at the time, Mattisse was hiding that fact until a check user revealed it. That is sort of why I asked, not to "appear to get the last word". Thank you for judging me before getting your facts straight though. Chillum 16:37, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I got my facts straight - you posted your comments after User:CallMeNow was blocked, and after the "blocked" banner appeared on the Talk page. The banner's "block log" link shows that CallMeNow had already been prevented from editing user talk:CallMeNow. -Philcha (talk) 17:13, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The "facts straight" comment was to Nev1 who seemed to think I already knew who the SPA was when I posted that message. If you read above you will see I already pointed out that the SPAs page being locked does not prevent the user from taking credit these actions with their actual account. The page of the users SPA being protected does not prevent the user from owning up. But instead a checkuser caught him in the act and he got blocked. What exactly is your problem with me asking this SPA to reveal their true account? Chillum 18:13, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Two things:

The tone of your language. I think e.g. "Perhaps it would helpful if you disclose other user names you have used" would have been less confrontational.
Logic. Such a disclosure would be totally unreliable unless signed by the user name suspected of being a sock - otherwise any Tom, Dick or Harry could add a false "I'mn a sock of ..." to any Talk page. --Philcha (talk) 18:24, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To your first point, I think you may be having trouble interpreting tone through a textual medium, it happens often. "Since you are such a big fan of users declaring their alternate accounts, perhaps you can share with us..." is not that confrontational, it a rather lightly put request. If you imagine it being said in a snarky tone I suppose it could be seen as rude, but then so most comments, however if you assume good faith and take it at face value it is not rude at all. Secondly, he could not falsely claim to be anyone because his talk page was blocked. I was asking him to admit who he was through his regular account and talk page. Have I satisfied your concerns yet? Chillum 18:33, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the retired tag

Sorry I thought that was written by somebody else.Tintor2 (talk) 16:59, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry about it. The whole situation is less than clear to more than a few people including myself. Chillum 17:01, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

block question

Should I have indefed? I have absolutely no objections to anyone fixing something if I should have done something different. — Ched : ? 07:36, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know about indef, but I generally use longer blocks for bigotry than I would for run of the mill insults. It is not really written in stone, and I think the duration you chose was well within reason. I considered asking you about lengthening the block, but instead I will keep a close eye on the user for a little while. Chillum 07:42, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Beggars belief

How anyone could believe this is completely beyond my comprehension. --Malleus Fatuorum 15:29, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is a little known fact that everyone on Wikipedia is really just the sock puppets of 4 different people. Chillum 15:33, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But clearly, the person Chillum is a sock for is different than the person that Malleus is a sock for. That guy really dropped the ball on that one. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:36, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I get so confused, I thought that all three of us were the same person. Ohhh this is so hard to keep track of! Chillum 15:43, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If anyone figures out who I am .. please let me know. ;) — Ched : ? 16:28, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your question answered

When I returned to the AN to answer the question about Cirt's previous identity and behaviour, I found that Cirt had archived that discussion. I have posted the answer there nonetheless. Regards, DaveApter (talk) 18:53, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have responded. Chillum 22:41, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Are you serious?

How is calling someone a fag worse than several of the other comments on that page. If I'm such a horrible person for saying that, then everyone who posted an attacking comment there should be blocked. Your general dislike of me is showing.

And, for the record, I actually care about other people here, which is why I was mad that another admin was being a total jerk to the person whose talk page I was posting on. That guy quit editing here because admins were treating him badly. I'm allowed to say that I think what the admin was doing was retarded. My comments were probably a bit too profane, but they had truth behind them. AndrewEnns (talk) 04:58, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ya, I am very serious. I have also blocked you again for continuing to engage in personal attacks against Wikipedian's on this talk page and your own. If you don't see how calling someone a "fag" is not appropriate then perhaps you lack the basic social skills to meet our civility policy, repeating the attack by saying your words "had truth behind them" shows this may be the case(not to mention "jerk", "retarded" and "crybabies"). Chillum 13:33, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:AndrewEnns

Hey Chillum. He's posted an explanation of sorts. I agree with you, but didn't know if you would be open to offering him a little "wiggle room" or not. It's not really my place to step in or anything, just thought I'd bring it to your attention. I'm wondering if he might not have good intension's, but just has a poor way of expressing himself in an acceptable manner. Entirely your call, but I know you're a pretty reasonable guy as long as folks are descent about it and all. Thought you might want to have a look. Cheers and best. — Ched : ? 18:36, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am really not sure what his defence is. He seems to be saying that his insults were less insulting that I have interpreted them. What is absent is any sort of apology or recognition of wrongdoing. I think the block is still acting preventively at this point. Chillum 19:29, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yea, I know what you mean. It'd be nice if he'd just say flat out - "I was wrong, and I apologize". I admit, I am a bit of a "soft touch" on things. Hey ... I'm content to follow your lead here - you have a lot more experience here than I do. I prolly shouldn't be pleading other people's cases and all. Thanks for looking. — Ched : ? 19:47, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your input, and I can certainly see your point of view. The fact that he is still insisting that it is okay to call people "fags" because he does not mean what people think it means tells me he has not yet gained "clue". I believe this person truly believes he has been wronged, but his lack of understanding does not convince me to expose other Wikipedians to such commentary. Chillum 20:48, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:Beehold

Just a heads-up that Beehold has taken steps to comply with the mentioned policies. I'm not changing my vote at this time, but you might be interested in doing so. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:10, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the information. I will try to find time to give it consideration later. Chillum 01:01, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

After reconsidering I came to the same conclusion. Chillum 01:18, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:Off2riorob

I don't know if the accusation is true, but given your intervention, I thought you should be made aware that someone has accused him of edit warring. -Rrius (talk) 23:46, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I saw that, however I am very busy today and do not have time to investigate properly. Thank you. Chillum 23:56, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Email

- Ottava Rima (talk) 13:31, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would actually prefer to stay uninvolved in the content dispute. I have a couple of content disputes of my own on my plate and I don't want to spread myself too thin. I have also been involved in using my admin tools in this subject area and as such should also avoid getting involved in the dispute. I believe you have gotten more eyes from ANI, I am not sure what those eyes are seeing though. Chillum 14:10, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As per my email, it has nothing to do with content but behavior. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:26, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It still looks like a content dispute to me. Chillum 14:29, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I could direct you to other pages with the same type of behavior. For instance, here is Talk:Ludovico Ariosto. I cited many more pages at ANI, including an ArbCom where the same behavior happened. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:35, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you have cited this and many more pages at ANI then it is receiving the scrutiny it deserves. Chillum 14:42, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And yet you can see that such as that gets nothing in response. Funny how it is a direct fabrication. Most of my work has been involved creating major articles. Characters of Shakespear's Plays was just one example of a page I listed at DYK, at over 40k. Not really "spamming". And seeing as how I deal heavily at FAC with sourcing issues, plagiarism, and the rest, there is no way for him to make such claims. And yet he does. Definitely not a content dispute. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:50, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ottava has written some good articles on English poems. Period.

His remaining time on Wikipedia is spent on (a) milking as much social prestige out of his contributions as humanly possible and (b) one of the worst trolling campaigns I have seen in five years. It would for all in the world seem that he thinks that he has any sort of case in both the Ariosto and the Persian train wreck. Talk about self-delusion. --dab (𒁳) 14:59, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Funny, seeing as how Ariosto happens to be in my specialist area - I don't have a case simply because you appeared with Folantin. But see, I have worked on every topic here - from economics, to law, to religion, to theatre, etc. I have deal with hundreds of articles, reviewing at GAN or FAC, heavily into hunting down plagiarism and checking sources. The fact that he would call me "one of the worst trolling campaigns" even though three others came before me and told them that they were wrong is just a distracting measure and a clear case of projection. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:21, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It should be noted that another expert, Geogre, agreed with me on the Ariosto matter and basically pointed out that Folantin et al were in an area that they knew nothing about. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:22, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am not interested in this content dispute. What George has to say interests me even less, I have not found that user to be trust worthy. I am interested in you and Dab's opinion of each other even less still. I would not like for this content dispute to be rehashed on this page as it does not really involve me nor do I seek involvement. I think ANI is a good place to deal with behavioral issues and as for the content dispute try the steps in dispute resolution.

I am always open to discuss any action I have taken on this page and if you need to do not hesitate to come by and talk to me about such. Chillum 15:42, 6 September 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.