User talk:HighInBC/Archive 34


 * 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.

Your secondary account
You made it rather clear that you have a secondary account. Have you notified ArbCom as to this account? I would suggest you do, as now that the knowledge is out about it, people are going to be poking about to see if you have caused problems on it that other admin have done before. You might want to head off any problems or concerns. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:19, 3 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Please respect my privacy. I have obeyed the policies of Wikipedia in my entire career here and I have no intention of sacrificing my privacy. Chillum  15:26, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

I never said -I- would look for it. I don't bother with such things. After all, I never knew that Geogre was Utgard Loki even though dozens of people said that it was obvious. However, I am telling you that you should probably protect yourself because once you make it clear that there is a secondary account, those like the people at WR with too much time on their hands will start searching. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:23, 3 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Fair enough. People(WR or anyone else) can look all they want, even if they do see an account that has been around for years improving the encyclopedia quietly they won't see any reason for concern.


 * I find the whole idea of expecting legitimate alternate accounts to suddenly "register" with an authority because other people have been using them illegitimately to be rather illogical. What George did and what Law did was already against policy. Surely those who are ignoring the current policy are not going to suddenly obey this new idea rule and announce their accounts. They will show no more respect for a stricter policy than they do the current. Since when do we punish everyone for the actions of the few anyways? Telling people for years that you can use an alternate account to work in contentious areas where harassment is common and then later saying they must link those accounts is not a fair thing to do to someone trying to protect their privacy.


 * While I have nothing but respect for our check users I also know that Wikipedia sucks at keeping secrets. I know that privacy is not given, it is achieved.


 * I am not attributing all of this to you, though I have seen you support such ideas, I am just explaining my point of view. Chillum  16:35, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

But the thing is in Geogre's case, people argued that it was not against policy and the account as used in the manner you claim you need to use one. And punishing everyone for the actions of a few happen all the time - look at protected pages. We are preventative, not punitive, so we make changes based on past actions to prevent them from the future. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:42, 3 October 2009 (UTC)


 * In George's case the same person used more than one account in the same debate in order to give the false appearance of greater support for one side than there actually was. Anyone who argues that this is not a violation of our existing policy is just plain wrong. It is a blatant violation and was responded to as such. The fact is the Wikipedia has told people for years that they can use an anonymous secondary account to protect their privacy and it is not fair to change policy so they must reveal an account that was created with that in mind after the fact. And I have no intention of doing so. Chillum  16:49, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

The policy as of now makes it rather clear that if you have an account you must tell ArbCom at least. It is hard to take people's word, and AGF does not mean "trust people no matter what" after all. Ottava Rima (talk)


 * You may be confused because people have been changing it without consensus recently. It has been recommended that you report to a checkuser to avoid possible misunderstandings. It is is not mandatory. Chillum  21:44, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

When it was revealed that Geogre was using the sock, the wording came up and ArbCom verified it. The use in such a secret manner was inappropriate. Adminship is about trust, and it is impossible to trust someone who hides part of who they are and wont allow any scrutiny. Admin should be severely scrutinized as they can do serious damage as I can definitely testify to. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:16, 3 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Don't worry. My other account is not an admin, it also does not do damage. My contributions are visible to all with both accounts and I have had no complaints. Chillum  04:07, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
 * In general I respect you. However, undisclosed alternate accounts are a serious problem. If I had my way they would be banned outright, but that's not going to happen. Disclosing the account to ArbCom is the only way for the community to ensure that your alternate is never used in an inappropriate way. Yeah, AGF, but there have been too many incidents recently with alternate accounts for admins to be able to say "No, just trust me." Please contact ArbCom and advise them of the name of your alternate account. → ROUX   ₪  19:27, 4 October 2009 (UTC)


 * No, undisclosed alternate accounts are not a serious problem, abusive use of undisclosed alternate accounts are a serious problem. There is a very big difference. It is not reasonable to tell a user they can use an alternate account to preserve their privacy for years on end and then suddenly be asked to reveal it. If there ever is such a rule then at most I will stop using alternate accounts, I will not reveal them as that may place me and my family in danger from those who seek to take Wikipedia disputes off of Wikipedia. I don't appreciate suddenly being told that anonymous editing is taboo. I don't buy your whole "prove you are innocent" theory, nor do I buy the idea that a couple of bad admins means that suddenly I have to sacrifice privacy particularly since it is unlikely those who are ignoring the current policy are going to register their abusive accounts.  Chillum  19:55, 4 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes they are, and your response--indeed your utter refusal--is both deeply disappointing and cause for concern. Oh well, integrity, who needs it? Certainly not admins. I am sorry to say I have lost a lot of the respect I had for you over this. → ROUX   ₪  20:03, 4 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Sigh, fine hold on I will dig up an old bone for you, give me 10 minutes. I don't appreciate this nosiness though. Chillum  20:04, 4 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm not being nosy, I'm looking out for the good of the project. Let me be clearer, even: I have absolutely no interest in knowing the name of your other account. As long as ArbCom knows it--and confirms that knowledge onwiki--I am content that it will never be used abusively. Not to mention could help get the ball rolling on forcing all admin alternates to be disclosed to ArbCom, which I think should be mandatory. → ROUX   ₪  20:09, 4 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I do not understand the benefit of a private disclosure requirement at all. In the last case that we saw, an editor was editing in violation of a ban, yet this did nothing to stop him or to get those who knew about it to say anything about it.  Under the rule you're seeking, rule-abiding admins who want to do productive work on an identifying topic would no longer be able without effectively identifying themselves to ArbCom.  Editors of the first variety would continue to violate policy, as they were already willing to do in the clearest possible way.  What you and others seem to be assuming is a rule-fearing admin who nevertheless bends the rules, and then manages to talk his way out of it as a non-policy-violation.  Have we ever seen such an admin, and if not, why create over-reaching rules to stop him?  The community under any scenario remains entirely in the dark, though at least currently it is not under any false impressions about what may exist. It seems bizarre.  I apologize if this comment is not wanted here, but with all due respect to those participating I also think this a poor place to try to establish consensus for a change in policy that has thus far served to protect privacy. Mackan79 (talk) 03:56, 5 October 2009 (UTC)


 * You are looking out for the good of the project by assuming "private" is some sort of problem. I have already said that I will consider a request from an arbcom member if one chooses to make such a request. Do not worry I am not going to reveal to you any secret today. User:Wordless symbol is an account I used to publish photographs here when I was being attacked by people over the phone on my primary account. As you can see I have used it to build the encyclopedia and followed the rules. I don't like how a couple of corrupt admins suddenly means that I can't be trusted to do what we have allowed all users to do for years. My contribution history speaks for itself.


 * I want to make it very clear that policy does not now, and has not ever(short of a few quickly reverted bold edits) required someone to reveal private accounts to arbcom. It has recommended for a while to report it to checkusers to avoid misunderstandings, but never required it. If you think admins should not have the right to edit anonymously while staying in line with our policies then propose a change, though I will almost certainly oppose it as a violation of our volunteers privacy. Chillum  20:14, 4 October 2009 (UTC)


 * If an arbiter makes a polite request for this information I will consider extending this confidence to that individual, thought not the committee as a whole. Chillum  19:59, 4 October 2009 (UTC)


 * The hypocrisy you're displaying here is world class. Wasn't it you you said earlier this evening that "sock puppetry is a strong message that a user has no intention of following our policies"? --Malleus Fatuorum 20:12, 4 October 2009 (UTC)


 * If you follow the sock puppetry policy, then an alternate account is not sock puppetry. Get it? I am following the policy and I have seen no consensus to change it. Hypocrisy? I just said that if arbcom wanted to know they could just ask me. Frankly I don't think they would make such a request of a volunteer unless the community had first come to a consensus to require it. So instead of trying to convince me to follow your arbitrary request, try seeking consensus for a change in policy. Chillum  20:20, 4 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Saying it's so doesn't make it so. If nobody but you knows of your sockpuppets then you're simply asking to be trusted. But why should you be any more trusted than any other sockpuppeteer? "Sock puppetry is a strong message that a user has no intention of following our policies". You appear to be demanding that you're held to a lesser standard than other editors, and that's quite simply unacceptable. --Malleus Fatuorum 23:41, 4 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I am not saying it, this is policy. You say "why should you be any more trusted than any other sockpuppeteer", but you don't seem to get it, if you follow the policy then you are not a sockpuppeteer and saying it is so does not make it so.


 * My comment regarding the other editor's actions was in reference to that user violating the sock puppet policy, the very same policy I hold myself to and follow. There is no double standard, I follow the policy and the other user did not. Why should you believe me? How about WP:AGF? How about my contribution history and work here? How about because our policies don't require me to prove my innocence to you or anyone else?


 * It is people like you that are driving me off of Wikipedia. I think you are just taking an opportunity to kick me because I have admonished you for your behavior in the past. To be frank I have no confidence in you to interpret policy correctly or to decide what is acceptable on Wikipedia. I am taking a Wikibreak and I will thank you not to post any accusations as I will not be here to defend myself. Chillum  23:55, 4 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm afraid that it's you who doesn't get it Chillum. It's people like you who are driving me off wikipedia; . --Malleus Fatuorum 00:02, 5 October 2009 (UTC)


 * No useful purpose is being served by this discussion. Ottava Rima and Malleus Fatuorum are asked not to post again on this page. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:06, 5 October 2009 (UTC)


 * OK, I agree, but under duress. Ottava must of course speak for himself. --Malleus Fatuorum 00:09, 5 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm afraid I don't agree with you Newyorkbrad. This conversation has been very fruitful. Learning that I can create an alternate account to edit contentious areas where nasty POV pushing editors engage in harassment and stalking is great news. ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:23, 5 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I guess this is sarcasm so forgive me for responding, but otherwise you should read WP:Sock, as the way you describe it would probably get you into the same trouble you'd have thought. Mackan79 (talk) 05:17, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Alternative Account
This is very interesting to me, I have been thinking about creating another account, this account is attracting vampires and users that have a grudge with me are all the time now mentioning my block record and attempting to use it against me. How many times recently could I cite you the comment, ''this user has been blocked before, I feel this is disrupting my enjoyment of editing and although I don't really want to totally leave this account, I would like to edit in other fields in a good way without the vampires following me where ever I go, could I use this account in the same way as you are chillum and stay within policy? Off2riorob (talk) 18:24, 3 October 2009 (UTC) And without the need to notify anybody? Although I would be prepared to notify if policy dictates that. Off2riorob (talk) 18:27, 3 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Considering what's been going on right now, you might be better off sticking with what you have. If things get much murkier my own little troll alter ego may go into retirement and write his memoirs.  Durova  320 18:37, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Ok Durova, i'll take your advice on that, sometimes I feel in the minority in having one account and facing up to all my edits. By the way, your alt account is real cool. Off2riorob (talk) 18:44, 3 October 2009 (UTC)


 * If you want to start over with a new name that is allowed. Just don't do so to avoid scrutiny of negative actions or any of the other things our current policy prohibits.


 * As long as you heed this part of the policy:


 * Misusing a clean start: Making a clean start with a new account, but then turning up at pages you used to edit with the old account, while denying any connection to it; this is particularly inappropriate if the article or edits are contentious. Repeatedly switching accounts is seen as a way of avoiding scrutiny and is considered a breach of this policy.


 * Then you should be fine. Chillum  04:41, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for commenting, I was looking from another angle, I was assuming two accounts going forward in a good way, that I would not be leaving my present account but that as I said this account has vampires and people with grudges against me, this fact and my well publicised block log is affecting my editing enjoyment and as I go forward with this account it is a fact that even if I go forward in a perfect manner it is compromised. I was suggesting creating another account and to use that in the specified alternative account way, in the same way that you are using another account, for annonimity, without crossover or sockpuppetry. I would be prepared to notify a checkuser as is recommended. Off2riorob (talk) 08:42, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

We're not fishing, we're editing wikipedia, if an editor has another account and uses it in a good way, to improve wikipedia then there is no problem, wikipedia AGF applies and it's all good, what I have worked out with sockpuppets of another user is that I don't treat them as socks, but rather as separate Users reflecting the many faceted personalities of the ''complex individual. Off2riorob (talk) 20:45, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

ArbCom statement
Chillum, hi, this is a followup to an earlier question, about your reverting and blocking one of the anons who was outing Law at his talkpage. I notice as I dig a bit deeper, that there was another incident, when Law granted multiple privileges to, and you rapidly reverted him. Perhaps this, too, should be added to your ArbCom statement? If nothing else, it shows another questionable use of admin tools by Law. I was thinking of including this information in my own statement, but it might look odd for me to point this out, when your own statement says nothing about it, so I wanted to bring it to your attention. Thanks, --Elonka 21:55, 5 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Is this a joke? ChildofMidnight (talk) 03:05, 7 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I would hardly call a severe lapse in judgment a joke COM. In the future please explain your point better instead of this sort of non-productive criticism which really adds nothing of value to the discussion. Perhaps if instead of asking if the comment is a joke you explained what you found incredulous about it then it would be more useful and less insulting. Alternately you could simply refrain from posting.


 * Elonka, I think this most recent issue is more about blatant corruption and intentional betrayal of the public trust. This issue with giving out rights is merely bad judgment, while the crux of this case seems to be bad faith actions. As such I think its inclusion would just muddy the waters. Chillum  23:32, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Sockpuppet investigations/SPI/Subpage - Bot reported cases
I was wondering, if you get a chance, to look at Sockpuppet investigations/SPI/Subpage - Bot reported cases. HBC NameWatcherBot hasn't been updating over there in a while, not since I cleaned out all the cases a month or so ago. I tried reverting back to before I clearing the cases out over there, but to no avail. I'm kind of stumped here. Any help over there would be appreciated. Thank you, MuZemike 17:18, 8 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I am glad you worked this out. Chillum  23:33, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Adding to watch list
Hi Chillum,

I was wondering if you could add the string "vandaI" (that's a capital "eye" instead of a lowercase "ell") to the watch list. In my reporting at UAA lately, I've noticed a lot of usernames using that string to get around the watch list for "vandal" spelled correctly. I've also noticed people using accented vowels (é, í, and Á especially) to get around the watch lists. Tckma (talk) 14:20, 9 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I will add the HOMOGLYPH flag to the word Vandal, that should cover it. Chillum  23:33, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Socks and shoes
I think we have a mutual friend. I'm not sure what it is about, but it does not feel pleasant. Perhaps a stray review er? I wouldn't know. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:04, 10 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I looked at your talk/user page history and my own and don't see who you are referring to. Chillum  23:35, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Alternative accounts
Hi, Chillum. I don't think you should let yourself be driven off Wikipedia by the alternative account nonsense. Some people seem to have trouble understanding the distinction between undisclosed alternative accounts and socks ( = abusive alternative accounts). Don't take it to heart. Bishonen | talk 00:42, 20 October 2009 (UTC).


 * Thank you for your support. I know that people can have trouble recognizing the difference between legitimate use and a violation of community trust. It is a real shame that the failure of a few admins to be trustworthy, and the failure of admins to correctly police themselves, has resulted in a general decline of confidence in all administrators. Those administrators who have engaged in the practice of abusive socking, and those enabling such behavior, have done terrible damage to this project by hurting the reputation of its caretakers.


 * As for me, I will continue to hold myself to the standards the community has decided upon and do my best not to let the dishonest folk drag me down. My wiki break helped considerably, as has my longer break from admin tools in general. Chillum  00:46, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

When will Tile join get bored?
You mentioned on the Talk:Virgin Killer page that this vandal will get tired and move on. I think you are wrong on this one. This fellow's on a Mission From God. He ain't stopping anytime soon. Auntie E. 17:12, 21 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Oh well, we will just have to keep reverting this person's mission from god. It is only a couple of edits to revert each day. I will look later to see if I can find a pattern in the sleeper accounts, sometimes a vandal will create many at once and they can be blocked before they activate. If it was happening more than a couple of times a day I would consider full protection, however it does not seem that bad. Chillum  21:41, 21 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Actually, considering the clear consensus on the talk page and the determination of this user perhaps this would be a good use case for our abuse filter. I will look into it after work. Chillum  22:05, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Barnstar
Thank you for The Original Barnstar award! I still have further work to do on the Oath Keepers article. I also wish you the best in your own endeavors to improve the project. Varks Spira (talk) 04:56, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Are you serious?
Your behavior here was wildly inappropriate. You saw me talking to the closing admin. And where was the dialogue with me before you reverted me ("very least talk to the ... admin")? Completely out-of-line. --MZMcBride (talk) 17:28, 25 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Wildly inappropriate? That seems a bit much. I did not see you talking to the closing admin as it was done off wiki and I don't always have my IRC window up. I am sorry if you were talking to the admin and I did not notice, I did look on the admin's talk page. Regardless of if you are talking to the closing admin, you need to convince him or take it to DRV, not just revert.


 * We don't challenge a closure by reverting it. If you can convince the closing admin to re-open it then fine, otherwise take it to DRV. Please try not to be so scolding when you talk to me, having an edit of yours reverted is something happens sometimes on Wikipedia. Chillum  17:40, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

"having an edit of yours reverted is something happens sometimes on Wikipedia". I believe the proper term for that is straw man. A closing admin wouldn't take their own closure to DRV. That much is painfully obvious. If they realize the closure is in error, they should simply revert it. Why Hersfold is refusing to is simply beyond me. Your behavior, though, was beyond the pale and you should be ashamed. --MZMcBride (talk) 17:47, 25 October 2009 (UTC)


 * My behavior? Do you mean me taking a contrary point of view to you and reversing your revert? I did not suggest Hersfold would talk it to DRV(communications failure?). I suggested if you could not convince Hersfold to re-open it that DRV is a venue you can pursue this matter. I have asked you once to not be so scolding on my talk page and I am asking again. There is no reason to take a simple difference of opinion and start acting like it is a behavioral issue.


 * Let me make this more clear. You have no special right or priviledge to unilaterally reverse AfD closures. Me reverting you was not a behavioral issue on my part, but simply me disagreeing with you and asking you to seek further community input if you wish to continue. We have processes to challenge a closure, hitting the revert button is not one of them.


 * I see no reason to make this personal, there is no need to talk about me or you, we can just talk about the issue. Please calm down before posting here again. Chillum  17:57, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism
Hi, since you're active admin at this time, would you care to look into this IP vandal's trolling? Since today is Sunday, AIV seems slow.. Thanks.--Caspian blue 17:28, 25 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I think AIV will likely get to this before I make time to. If it is still unresolved later I will take a look. Chillum  17:41, 25 October 2009 (UTC)


 * This appears to be a content dispute which is a bit beyond my scope. Chillum  18:49, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, the BLP vandalism with non-existent sources by the IP troll is still ongoging.--Caspian blue 11:46, 26 October 2009 (UTC)


 * It looks like this is getting attention at Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard. I really don't know enough about the subject to make a determination personally, that is why I said it is a bit beyond my scope. Chillum  13:58, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Ok
No need for this on Malleus's page. I'm here to discuss block reviews. --Joopercoopers (talk) 14:36, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

How did you hear about this one?--Joopercoopers (talk) 14:36, 27 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Watchlist. In the past I have reversed a block on Ottava because it was not a legitimate block, this time the block seemed legitimate. Chillum  14:39, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm sure Ottava's had a week's block coming to him at some point - but really? A week for that???? But really the point is Block review is supposed to be an impartial review of another admins actions. As you are self avowed hardliner of civility enforcement, does it not strike you that reviewing civility blocks might be a tad compromising for you. Not to mention unfair for the blockee? --Joopercoopers (talk) 14:44, 27 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Time is not really relevant, it is about prevention. The fact the Ottava still thinks he has done nothing wrong shows that the block is still preventative. In a perfect world the block would last until Ottava accepted the community expectations for civility and AGF.


 * No, I don't think my prior enforcement of policy compromises my ability to do it in the future. I have been no more of a hardliner on this policy than any other, I am simply enforcing what the community has decided its standards to be. I invite people to suggest changes to the policy if they disagree with it, but the community seems fairly firm about not tolerating abuse towards volunteers. If you look at my contribution history you will see I am far more likely to attempt to communicate with someone instead of blocking them.


 * This is plenty fair, websites are allowed to set their own standards and you will find that most any website will block you if you violate those standards. For this to be unfair there would need to be some sort of entitlement, there is no such entitlement. On Wikipedia you are entitled to make an encyclopedia, and entitled to leave, but beyond that there are no real entitlements. Chillum  15:07, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Clarification before response "I have been no more of a hardliner on this policy than any other" - any other policy or any other admin? --Joopercoopers (talk) 15:42, 27 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Any other policy. Admins are like snowflakes, no two are alike. Chillum  15:45, 27 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Chillum, please refrain from using your admin tools in situations where you are involved. This is highly inapprorpiate. Now that you're back, I think your use of undisclosed "alternate accounts" (more commonly known as socks) also bears scrutiny. ChildofMidnight (talk) 16:27, 27 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I am not involved in anyway to preclude any sort of admin action COM. If you are going to come here and lob accusations about then please provide evidence. You clearly misunderstand our sockpuppet policy and our volunteers expectation of privacy as well. Please don't pry in my privacy. Chillum  16:43, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Invitation
WT:Sock_puppetry.
 * P.S. Snowflakes or just flakes? - Dank (push to talk) 17:22, 27 October 2009 (UTC)


 * That would depend on which admin. Chillum  23:27, 27 October 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.