User talk:HighInBC/Archive 33

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.

removal of comments

Hi. I really don't agree but I'm not going to revert. There's too much targeting of the messenger going on, methinks, and it is hardly a case of my being alone with a view. I've seen you about a bit but don't think we've interacted much; your page has not been on my watchlist, so I guess I've never commented here. Interesting graph above; saw the others, too.

Greetings from Bali — where we had an earthquake this morning. Sincerely, Jack Merridew 04:55, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. I assume you are referring to the AfD talk page. Be be straight, I don't really have any opinion on the content of the message, I do think the venue was not appropriate though. Perhaps user talk page or one of the dispute resolution areas would be more appropriate. I hope the quake was not too damaging. Chillum 20:21, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the core issues are about AfD and that page is for that area; however, other pages are more appropriate (and some have been tried). The quake seems to have killed no one; it was 60km offshore, south of Bali. A friend's TV did crash to the floor from a wall bracket. Volcanic archipelago really should redirect to Indonesia as we've about 40% of the world's volcanoes; see List of volcanoes in Indonesia. Sincerely, Jack Merridew 04:14, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Autoblocks

Hi Chillum, CoM says he is still autoblocked and therefore unable to defend himself on the Arbcom page, could you un auto him? Off2riorob (talk) 17:05, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That user was blocked due to an arbcom sanction enforcement. Law was incorrect to unblock CoM and I have no intention of contributing to that mistake. It is not appropriate for an admin to reverse an arbcom based admin action before arbcom has had time to review the action. Chillum 17:08, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 17:37, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

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

Responded. Chillum 17:13, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Attacking again. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 17:16, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As long as he's not threatening anyone, 'tis easier to ignore the usepage. Sure wouldn't want to see a fella get barred from his homepage. GoodDay (talk) 17:20, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

GoodDay, ignoring one user attacking another is not a good idea. The victim does not deserve to be attacked, so ignoring it is really not fair to that person. Getting barred from your user space is exactly what happens when you use it for abuse. Wikipedia is not a forum for free speech and we are not a therapy session to blow off steam in. I appreciate your opinion, but it is contrary to both our policies and our best practices. I will not ignore one user being attacked by another, instead I will protect that user. Chillum 20:46, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Further disruption by User:Off2riorob

You had previously reduced a three-week block on Off2riorob (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log).

Your notice in the block log was: "User gave word not to edit war in the future, reducing block", citing this comment from Off2riorob: [1].

He has since then (recently) chosen to engage in edit-warring again. Examples:

Off2riorob has been blocked seven times in the past, six of those for disruptive editing, the most recent being the three-week block of 21 August 2009. Cirt (talk) 19:44, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have not broken the 3 revert rule and I was discussing the situation a lot, I was warned on my talkpage and did not edit the dispute after that, The discussion is over a catagory of half blind which I nominated for deletion and which is also under discussion as we speak. Off2riorob (talk) 19:59, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As regards to my previous blocks this User Cirt can in no way be seen to not be involved in my block record.

Five times I have been named at ANI, everytime I have been brought there it has been opened by User Cirt. first ever report at ani, by cirt

second visit to ani opened by Cirt

number three opened by Cirt again

number four opened by Cirt

here is the fifth,again started by User Cirt [6] . Off2riorob (talk) 20:12, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What exactly does Cirt's behaviour have to do with your edit warring? You do know that you don't need to violate the 3RR rule to be considered to be edit warring right? I am glad you have stopped.

I am considering you to be fully aware of our edit warring policy in the future Off2, and will not be considering warnings to be needed in the future. You gave me your word that you would not edit war as a condition of your last unblock, given that you have not kept this word I will not be extending that offer next time you are blocked. Chillum 20:36, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, accepted, thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 20:58, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A message to those watching my talk page

Tonight I am removing most user talk pages from my watchlist. Please let me know if you would prefer I keep you on my watchlist. Chillum 02:35, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Always useful having your good self watching my user page (and I return the favour by watching yours). Thanks, SqueakBox talk 14:20, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Consider it done. Chillum 14:27, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I welcome the learning experience anytime you see I need it, even without using your mop...Hell In A Bucket (talk) 03:02, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Consider it done. Chillum 03:08, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if you're watching my talk page or not, but your talk page is on my watchlist. I don't mind being on your watchlist if it's not too much of a burden for you, though if my talk page is not on your watchlist then feel free to disregard this. Best. Acalamari 16:34, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Consider yourself watched... Chillum 23:46, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

meh ..

I don't mind you watching my page (although I'm prolly not on your short list). I know we have agreed on some things, and we've disagreed on some things. The fact that I can always come and talk to you means a hell of a lot to me. I think you're a good guy, and I never questioned for a second that your work here is a benefit to the project. Just wanted to let you know that your ok in my book. — Ched : ? 00:30, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have always found our agreements, and disagreements to be productive. I have re-added you to my watchlist. If people did not disagree with me once in a while I would likely not give as much thought to my actions. Chillum 00:53, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Malleus Fatuorum

I won't take the trouble to tell you what I'd prefer Chillum; I'm quite certain that you can guess. --Malleus Fatuorum 05:22, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gee thanks for coming by and not telling me. If there is anything else you don't want to tell me then do not hesitate to post here. Chillum 13:52, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Let me be clear then. I think that as an administrator you have been an officious, bullying, waste of space. I hope that your break will allow you to see yourself as others do. --Malleus Fatuorum 02:51, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What is up with you? I back off and you follow me back to my page and try to pick a fight, this is exactly what I was talking about when I said you keep trying to escalate things after the issue is over. Come back when you are not looking for a fight. Chillum 02:53, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You started it Chillum, at my talk page.[7] You're a disgrace as an administrator. --Malleus Fatuorum 03:02, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not post on my talk page if you insist on making personal attacks. Chillum 03:22, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A note

I noticed that you walked away from Malleus's talk page. That is a strong move and shows integrity. Most don't have the courage to walk away from a situation in which there is no actual need to stay and yet always results in fighting. I will be working hard for Malleus to show the same mutual respect. Oil and water. I think it is the best for both sides. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:25, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for noticing. Chillum 03:26, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree you acted admirably here. I think taking a break from the tools, even for a short while is a good move. This made me fall off my seat; nice. Ceoil (talk) 11:05, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

False positive

Your bot came up with a false positive for the user name MyAssistant (string matched ass). Just to let you know. Regards -- Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) (talk) 13:35, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have added it to the whitelist. Thank you. Chillum 15:07, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Off2riorob again

Off2riorob (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is at it with the edit-warring: [8], [9], [10]

See the note from your last entry in his block log: "User gave word not to edit war in the future, reducing block"

And most recently your comment here from only 7 days ago: I am considering you to be fully aware of our edit warring policy in the future Off2, and will not be considering warnings to be needed in the future. You gave me your word that you would not edit war as a condition of your last unblock, given that you have not kept this word I will not be extending that offer next time you are blocked.

Thoughts? Cirt (talk) 18:52, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I went there in response to this request for people to take care here and fyi your links are to a removal and two reverts and the edits don't even reflect a fight never mind a war. Off2riorob (talk) 19:05, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like edit warring to me. If I was not taking a break from my admin tools currently then I would likely hold Rio to his prior promise. Perhaps another admin will feel the same way I do, but my buttons are currently not being used. Chillum 21:30, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Chillum, I posted about it to ANI, see: [11]. Cirt (talk) 22:10, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the update. Chillum 23:19, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Another Day, another Barnstar

I awarded this to myself but I now feel I don't deserve it - so I'm now awarding it to you:

		Home-Made Barnstar
		The award is the Madeleine Albright award for child-care
Sarah777 (talk) 15:21, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Chillum 15:42, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Query

Chillum, hi, I had a question about a block that you placed in mid-August... I checked the block log, and your comment to the anon's talkpage, but there was little info other than that they needed to "grow up".[12] Can you provide any other info as to why the anon was blocked? Thanks, --El on ka 04:36, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest I don't remember the exact wording, in short he said something very nasty to user Law. You can see the link[13](18:28, 16 August 2009, 1 minute befor the block) in the IPs deleted contributions, however it appears to have been oversighted or some such thing. Chillum 04:45, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. And hmm, think this might be related to the Law/Undertow mess? To be oversighted, it would have to be more than nasty, it may have had "outing" information in it? --El on ka 05:51, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't it had anything to do with Law's recent issues. I think it fell under the "potentially libelous information" umbrella, not sure as I was not involved in the oversighting. I really cannot remember the details, only that it was childish. Chillum 14:13, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do you remember how you heard about it? It just seems curious that the block was a bit out of process. There's no recent warning from you (or anyone!) to the anon's talkpage, which is the usual practice in these cases. As I'm sure you're aware, there is an ongoing debate about administrators hiding the fact that another admin was sockpuppeting. Yet here we have a case of an anon posting to Law's talkpage, you rapidly blocked the anon with minimal information, and the edit was then oversighted. And when you posted a statement in the recent ArbCom case, you said nothing about your involvement with the block.[14] Just to keep things transparent, it might be worth amending your statement? --El on ka 17:33, 3 October 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.