User talk:HighInBC/Archive 21


 * 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.

Fictional character IQs
Hello! Just to give you a heads up, the subject of intelligence of fictional characters is something covered in scholarly sources, such as Patricia M. Puccinelli's Yardsticks: retarded characters and their roles in fiction (P. Lang, 1995). Anyway, I believe the article can be dramatically revised to be about the intelligence of fictional characters as depicted in fiction and as such believe that we can use some of the verifiable information from that article for that purpose. Again, what I propose is an article based entirely on such secondary sources as Puccinelli's mentioned above and that only lists those IQs of characters also verified in other secondary sources. Please reconsider this nomination so that we use what we can from it for these purposes and as others know I do tend to follow up my ideas for such rewrites (see rescue barnstars on my userpage). Thank you for time and consideration. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 22:32, 21 March 2009 (UTC)


 * If you can create an article within our inclusion criteria then all the power too you. The article you describe sound like an entirely different article than the one at AfD. You will be able to do this regardless of the outcome of the AfD. Chillum  22:59, 21 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I would like to use the article under discussion as a framework or basis for doing so. As such, if the consensus is anything other than kept, I would appreciate if it be redirected with edit history intact to the newly proposed article or moved to my userspace where I can work on that.  I am reluctant to do any merge or retitling work while the discussion is underway, but would appreciate if this is taken under consideration.  Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 23:05, 21 March 2009 (UTC)


 * That is something you will need to talk to the closer about. As the nominator it is not really appropriate to make those decisions. Chillum  07:53, 22 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Barn star moved to sub-page.
 * Thank you very much. Chillum  07:53, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Good block Chillum
I know I said this already, but I totally endorse your decision to block the IP, thanks for clearing that situation up. What was I thinking suggesting keeping him unblocked? That's the sort of editor we don't need on Wikipedia.  Master&amp;  Expert ( Talk ) 02:20, 23 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the input. Let me know if you ever need anything. Chillum  03:51, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Excellent nomination summary at Articles for deletion/List of fictional characters by IQ (2nd nomination) as well.  Master&amp;  Expert ( Talk ) 05:02, 23 March 2009 (UTC)


 * One has to be very clear when it comes to the less well known parts of policy such as primary vs secondary source. Looking at the prior AfD for that article gives an idea of what happens when you do not make these things very clear. Chillum  23:45, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
 * It's great to see somebody who is willing to go the extra mile, outlining policy clearly and providing detail as to why the article in question does not meet standards. Much better than slapping an AfD tag and saying "listcruft".  Master&amp;  Expert ( Talk ) 04:13, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

From e-mail regarding RfA
(from WT:RfA)My take is this. Recall is a voluntary process. You should vote for admins you trust, if you don't trust them then a voluntary recall means very little and should not effect your vote. Arbcom should apply the same standards to administrators. This should not be based off of campaign promises, but rather the communities expected behavior of all admins. Chillum 16:02, 21 March 2009 (UTC)


 * (from e-mail, posted with permission)Have there been candidates where you didn't know (or at least, didn't know without taking more time than you wanted to put into it) whether you trusted them or not? If so, did you vote yes or no or otherwise?  Would you have wanted another option? - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 16:50, March 21 2009 (UTC)

I find a candidate always falls into one of 4 categories:


 * 1) Someone I feel I can trust, who I then support
 * 2) Someone I do not trust(or simply lack trust in) who I feel I cannot support, or even might oppose
 * 3) There are those who I will post a neutral comment, or ask a question. This is when I am on the fence but still seek more information which may put me in one of the two above categories
 * 4) I don't know enough about the person to give an opinion.

These four options have always been plenty. A promise made by the candidate to be open to voluntary recall means very little to me if I do not already trust the person.

If they are unclear about their recall criteria I almost never support as for all I know they could make the criteria in such a way as to compromise their ability to do their job. If they make their recall criteria clear and it is based on an administrators behavior in respect to community expectations then I may support. More often than not though recall criteria is tantamount to a vote by the masses. Chillum 23:49, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
 * My thinking has evolved (or devolved); although enforceable promises might have done some good in some recent RFAs, what would have been much better would have been if there were enough volunteers to help candidates identify and fill in their gaps (lack of article-building, deletion work or policy knowledge) before the RFA, so I'll work on that. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 19:03, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
 * P.S. Responding to your 4 criteria: that's a good summary, and I think most voters are with you there. But I also see a sizable minority who will say something like "Good candidate, but needs more work in X".  Assuming the opposer isn't being "nice" and oversimplifying their objection, assuming they really do want to support but can't because of lack of X, then theoretically, an enforceable promise to fill in the gap would let them support.  But again, it would be so much better to fill in the gap before than to argue about it during the RFA. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 19:12, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Notice
A discussion about Vandalism-only account has been started at Wikipedia_talk:Blocking_policy. -- IRP ☎ 22:06, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate it
Thanks, I appreciate it.

I have to say I'm actually a bit surprised. I had some harsh words for slakr just now, and I'm starting to think I should have toned them down. rspεεr (talk) 02:40, 28 March 2009 (UTC)


 * The wonderful thing about a wiki is you can edit things you have already done. The wonderful thing about being a human is you can recognize and correct your mistakes. Chillum  02:43, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

User:Hitler68
Did you seriously block him because of his user name? ~ Richmond 96  t  •  c   03:16, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Any username clearly containing the name "Hitler" is inappropriate, and offensive to certain groups of people. Chillum was right to block the account.  Master&amp;  Expert ( Talk ) 04:15, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, I seriously blocked him because his name was Hitler. I welcome any scrutiny this action may draw. My only regret was that I had only one opportunity to block Hitler68. Chillum  04:45, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
 * stumbled on this and had to comment..where there some complaints about his username? is this a policy that usernames that are "inappropriate, and offensive to certain groups of people" are not allowed and did he get a warning? (Off2riorob (talk) 16:35, 4 April 2009 (UTC))


 * No warning, I blocked this name on sight. My reasoning was that it is blatantly inappropriate. If you look at the block logs you will see the "Hitler" is blocked fairly often. Perhaps this is not known to everyone, but there was a kind of bad person named Hitler, and that has really tainted the name in general. Chillum  16:37, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
 * no warning ..seems a bit severe..what about other disliked figures from history ..for example lennin..pol pot from cambodia or is it just hitler ? Which other names from history do you dislike enough to give an instant ban without warning?I was looking for some guidlines on usernames ..do you know where they are? (Off2riorob (talk) 17:05, 4 April 2009 (UTC))


 * The guidelines can be found at Username policy. I would say that naming yourself after an instigator of genocide would make harmonious editing difficult or impossible. I will save you some time by telling you that I am unlikely to be convinced this block was anything but appropriate. If you wish to get an independent review of this block by other administrators I welcome you to make a polite request at the administrator's noticeboard that the block be reviewed. Chillum  18:34, 4 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Also Hitler is blocked, not banned, big difference. He can come back under a more appropriate user name any time. Chillum  18:36, 4 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I do agree it would be disruptive to edit under the name of a evil dictator.thank you for sharing that and for the links.(Off2riorob (talk) 19:30, 4 April 2009 (UTC))


 * Anytime. Chillum  19:38, 4 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Chillum, you're kinda acting like a fascist dictator of screen names, no? BTW, doesn't yours refer to a pipe used to smoke opium out of? Very gentlemanly. Niubrad (talk) 13:39, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I endorse Chillum's block. Even if the user's intent wasn't to be disruptive, the username could still be offensive. – Juliancolton  | Talk 13:48, 5 April 2009 (UTC)


 * If that was meant as a joke then I am not laughing. There is nothing "fascist" about my behavior, and I think the comment is a little tacky. The comment is both hyperbolic and abusive, fascism is a very serious topic and not to be bandied about like that. As I have already said above you can ask for a review of my block. While I am sure lots of things can be put into a chillum I assure you that opium is not one that I put into a chillum. Chillum  13:44, 5 April 2009 (UTC)


 * It was not meant as a joke. I glean from our very short conversation that the choice to unilaterally flex your authority were simply predicated by personal opinions and not wikipedia policy. But what seems most problematic are statements like, “No warning, I blocked this name on sight.” In my humble opinion, the contributive behavior of the individual should dictate their worth to Wikipedia. After all, a rose by any other name would smell as sweet. I don’t think you (and sycophants) are doing a great service to Wikipedia by trolling for names you don’t enjoy or understand and deleting them on the spot, no questions asked. WP:BITE? Oh, nota bene, you should stop using the word hyperbolic so much; you’ve used it in about half of the debates I’ve seen you in on here. I hope you don’t take this the wrong way. I enjoy my debates to be a little edgy and bold, but I’m a friend. Also, we all know who Hitler is, so it’s not completely ludicrous to be suspect of this user. It just feels a little bit like guilty until proven innocent – immediate execution. Niubrad (talk) 15:43, 5 April 2009 (UTC)


 * You ask me not to use the word 'hyperbole', then you hand me a huge steaming plate of it. Nobody was executed, it was a username block. No warning was needed because it was the account itself that was the problem, no change in the users behavior would make it acceptable to use that account. Mr. Hitler can come back under a more appropriate name. I am not going to be convinced this is an inappropriate block so once again I invite you to seek a review of this block if you want, you will just find that the community supports not allowing this type of username. Chillum  20:02, 5 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Does the community support the use of drug paraphernalia for user names? Niubrad (talk) 22:42, 5 April 2009 (UTC)


 * It has never been a problem before. And debates at WP:RFCN and WT:Username have repeatedly come to the conclusion that drug references are not a problem. Beyond Chillum there have been administrators with names like Bong Warrior and HighInBC. I don't think Wikipedia is as much a fan of the "drugs are bad, if you do drugs you are bad" theory as certain governments are. As always you are welcome to submit my username for review. Chillum  22:52, 5 April 2009 (UTC)


 * are you saying that wikipedia has a relaxed attitude to drugs? (Off2riorob (talk) 23:07, 5 April 2009 (UTC))


 * No thanks, I think you work in good faith and generally provide a good service to WP. I just hope that someone doesn't come along and block you, no questions asked, without first submitting your name for review. We're pretty much done here? Niubrad (talk) 23:07, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

User:CelticWonder
I'm sorry, but what he did was very much canvassing, given that the obvious intent of the message was to change or influence a decision to fall his way, whatever rationale he gave or 'neutral' language he used. I believ unblocking him was a mistake. --CalendarWatcher (talk) 07:44, 28 March 2009 (UTC)


 * It certainly was a borderline case. If a message is intended to improve rather than to influence a discussion then it is not canvasing. While I strongly suspect the messages were intended to influence the discussion, the message was also bringing to light new information to people involved in the discussion. Regardless, it is to late now.


 * When a case borderline I prefer to err on the side of caution and give the benefit of the doubt. Chillum  14:56, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Talkback
-- IRP ☎ 23:55, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

"Uber"
In a cesspool of hostility and discrimination against a particular ethnic group, your supposed lack of prejudice and your yucky, tendentious hype seems ueber-selective, ueber-hypocritical. Have a close look at your mirror, you ueber-hypocrite. 206.245.153.77 (talk) 15:12, 31 March 2009 (UTC)


 * You say much while conveying almost no information. You comment is uber-hyperbolic. Why not come back and talk to me with your real account instead of avoiding scrutiny by using your IP. Chillum  15:14, 31 March 2009 (UTC)


 * We also do not allow the use of open proxies here. Please use your account(or your real IP) instead of using anonymizers, they do little to lend to your uber-credibility. Chillum  15:20, 31 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Regarding this message. If you want a response from me, then make sense. Refer to specifics, not generalizations. And be a little more polite too. You really need to communicate better if you expect an informed response. Chillum  23:26, 31 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Oh, and once again we do not allow open proxies. If you expect to be taken seriously stop attempting to avoid scrutiny by concealing you identity. Chillum  23:26, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Username
Shouldn't I recommend him to apply for username change.-- '''yousaf465'  15:22, 4 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Who? The Ketchup guy? Which part of the policy do you think that violates? Chillum  15:22, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes the ketchup guy, bit of off,doesn't seems right.Might not be violating policy.-- '''yousaf465'  15:28, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Shannon Rose
Hi, thanks for your help with the user Shannon Rose. According to this edit on an article's AFD discussion, he's contacted another user to refer to the old edit. Is that okay or should I notify the blocking admin? Thanks, Spring12 (talk) 21:04, 4 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I would say that is best handled by the blocking admin. Chillum  21:11, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Notified. Gracias, Spring12 (talk) 21:17, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Consider unprotecting
I'm puzzled by your protection of her talk page. Your edit summary reads: using talk page for personal attacks while blocked for personal attack: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Shannon_Rose&curid=16435032&diff=281767417&oldid=281766706 

Certainly she's blocked for personal attacks and the like, and probably rightly so. And the edit to which you refer is questionable. However, I see no personal attack within it, other than in the edit summary, in which she addresses you as a "dickhead". Of course addressing anyone as a dickhead is a no-no, but (i) preventing somebody blocked from editing her own user page is an unusual measure, (ii) it's unsurprising (if regrettable) that somebody who is blocked from editing anywhere else and who has a long and carefully composed message deleted will call the person deleting it a "dickhead", and (iii) as the person called "dickhead" (however unfairly), you're not the best choice of person then to shut her up.

I suggest that you unprotect her page, and give her a clear warning about what she can't do. Further, her demand (however tiresome and rude) for citation of a policy page telling her that she can't do this or that is a legitimate one. As it is, I have rather often seen editors blocked for misbehavior on subject XYZ writing further on subject XYZ on their own talk pages while blocked; indeed, on occasion I have encouraged them to do just this (but of course to do it in a persuasive and inoffensive fashion). -- Hoary (talk) 01:46, 5 April 2009 (UTC)


 * This is a simple progression. This user was abusive to others, people asked that she not do that, she ignored this and continued to be abusive. The user was then blocked to prevent her from being abusive, she was still abusive on her talk page after being blocked. Now the talk page is protected to prevent her from acting abusively. At any single point she could simply stop acting abusively and the progression would have stopped. The only question I have on my mind right now is "If I unprotect that page will she continue to act abusively?"


 * I think she will, but if you think she won't I will unprotect the page on that merit, just give the word. I for one think that unprotecting the page before the block is over will get Shannon into more trouble. Let her spend some time away from Wikipedia to calm down. Your suggestion that I give her a clear warning does not seem to take into account that I did give her a warning before she was blocked, as did another person, she simply blanked them with rude edit summaries.


 * As for the other thing, users are not supposed to be editing while blocked. Asking other people to make edits for you while blocked is basically block evasion. Regardless she got her message to someone via e-mail and it was posted. Chillum  01:55, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't know what she'll do.

You posted some excellent messages on her talk page; I couldn't have done better. It's a great pity that she didn't digest them. It's also unfortunate, or worse, that she has been merrily calling people idiots, dickheads and so forth in her edit summaries. You write Since you have decided to use your talk page for personal attacks while blocked for personal attack [...]. However, I've just gone through all her edits to her talk page made after she was blocked, and I still cannot see any personal attack other than the one word uttered to you. Further, if she was wrong to write a message addressed primarily to me and to get somebody else to notify me of this, fine, she was wrong. However, the template attached to her page does not tell her that she can't comment there on anything that she wants, and it links to a long page on "blocking policy" in which such an instruction is inconspicuous if present at all. (Frankly, I can't be bothered to look for it, even though I'm experienced and unflustered.)

So I'd write a message pointing her to a policy page telling her what she may and may not do, post it, and then unprotect. If she doesn't get the message, reprotect. If you think it's likely that she'll abuse the page but you don't want to keep an eye on it -- because you're going to bed, or because (like me) you have RL things to be getting on with -- then post an alert at WP:ANI or wherever. -- Hoary (talk) 02:30, 5 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Okay, here goes... Chillum  03:53, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. Of course, unprotecting may turn out to be a mistake (and if so, the mistake is much less yours than mine); we'll see. -- Hoary (talk) 09:22, 5 April 2009 (UTC)


 * See this edit (one is an unblock request, another the "reply to Hoary" posted after the block. Both contain assumptions of bad faith): . While Shannon has a right to appeal the block, "crafty editor Spring12 is endeavoring to push is plain bollocks, and he is using every trick in the book to idiotize everyone and take advantage of the Barnstar collecting editors" makes me feel uncomfortable. Spring12 (talk) 15:46, 5 April 2009 (UTC)


 * What would you like me to do about it? Chillum  15:50, 5 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry, you're right, we'll have to wait for the blocking admin. Apologies for disturbing you again, Spring12 (talk) 15:51, 5 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Ok, no worries. Chillum  15:56, 5 April 2009 (UTC)


 * It would appear that unprotecting Shannon's talk page did indeed give her to slack she needed to get into more trouble. It was in my opinion a noble experiment regardless of the outcome. Chillum  18:34, 5 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Well said. -- Hoary (talk) 00:01, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Malleus
I think he's done with this for the time being, neh?--Tznkai (talk) 17:07, 5 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Elvis has left the building. Chillum  17:08, 5 April 2009 (UTC)


 * No, he hasn't. He's simply re-entering by another door. --Malleus Fatuorum 17:12, 5 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Wow, you ask me to go away, I do. Tznkai thinks it is time for us both to leave you alone, we both agree. Then you go to both our talk pages and start up... well I don't know what you are trying to start now. Let it go man. At this point it just looks like you are trying to stir the pot. Chillum  17:16, 5 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Not what it looks like to me "man". You stop with your crap and I'll "let it go". --Malleus Fatuorum 17:26, 5 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Stop posting here unless you have something informative to say. Chillum  17:28, 5 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Please do not feel intimadated by Malleus. (I worried that you might, in the comments on Ottava Rima's RFA.) He takes pleasure in using tactics to try to make people feel bad about themselves and show his superiority. A good way of dealing with him, and one I cannot always follow myself, is to just not respond to him. Let him have the last word. He is not a very pleasant character. I appreciate the comments you made very much, and thank you for standing up for me. Regards, &mdash; Mattisse (Talk) 01:04, 7 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I have yet to make up my mind regarding the appearance of this particular Wikipedian's motives. Appearances can be deceiving, but time always tells. I do not think Wikipedia gains much by ignoring bad behavior. While ignoring a malicious behavior(and again I have not yet decided this is the case) is very mature, it does little to protect those well mannered Wikipedian's that do great encyclopedic work but have little defense to abuse. I really would hate to see Wikipedia devolve into survival of the toughest skin. I would far rather see reason triumph. Until we all have thick skin it is essential that we protect honest Wikipedians from those who seek to abuse them. It may just be that Malleus feels he is correct and honestly believes his actions are appropriate, it is also possible that he may be acting in bad faith. I suppose after a certain point the effect of both possibilities is the same and needs to be treated as such. I don't think that time has yet come.


 * Do not worry, intimidation is not an issue for me in this case. Chillum  01:13, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

DreamGuy
Hey Chillum. You seem to be asking me to reconsider the length of the block. I'm happy to do this of course. Is there a particular reason the block length is too long. I didn't think the time I gave, when I gave it, was too long given the user's recent record. Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 18:03, 5 April 2009 (UTC)


 * If you reconsider and come to the same conclusion then that is fine by me. The block length does not seem outside the realm of reason to me, even if it is not a duration I would have picked. Thanks for responding. Chillum  18:05, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, the normal practise is to double or double and round the length of the most recent block. I doubled and rounded here, mainly because his record is so bad. And really, my thinking wasn't much more sophisticated on the point than that. 55 hours, next without rounding up is 110 (=4 days, 14 hours), I gave him a week. Not really a big deal if I reduce it from 7 to 4 days, esp. if he can be encouraged to be productive or accept a restriction of some kind. Cheers, Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 18:17, 5 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Cheers. Chillum  18:18, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Note, he has volunteered to accept restrictions, noting Requests_for_arbitration/DreamGuy_2. As I said, I'm happy to consider restrictions. Your input on the specific points would be valued. Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 18:23, 5 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I am just about to go out for lunch. I can look into this later if you like. I am also sure any decision you come to will be a good one. I don't oppose unblocking based on restrictions. Chillum  18:28, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

OMJTHEJOBROS
CHILLUM Chillum what is a troll? and thanks for unblocking me —Preceding unsigned comment added by OMJTHEJOBROS (talk • contribs) 00:25, 6 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I was mistaken to call you a troll, it turns out you were only advertising. That is why I unblocked you. We don't allow advertising either, but we like to give a warning for that. Chillum  00:28, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

But just for future reference what is a troll? —Preceding unsigned comment added by OMJTHEJOBROS (talk • contribs) 00:34, 6 April 2009 (UTC)


 * See What is a troll? Have a nice day. Chillum  00:38, 6 April 2009 (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.