User talk:HighInBC/Archive 55

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.

Ni!

Thank you sir for welcoming me to the project. I've been active on swedish wiki for a few years now, and im glad to be greeted! --Knight of Ni (talk) 23:37, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Glad to hear it. I wonder if you have any connection to the Knights who say Ni!? Chillum 23:53, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Did you say this?

Just an FYI https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Lightbreather&diff=prev&oldid=638248785 Two kinds of pork^Makin'_Bacon 20:28, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

I am not sure what you are asking me. Can you be more specific? Chillum 21:08, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, mobile edit gone awry. Lighbreather made this comment: A 25 November 2014 discussion on IP 67.255.123.1's talk page indicates that Chillum knows or strongly suspect who the IP is. and I noted that your comment on the aforementioned talk page said nothing of the sort. It appears LB is on some sort of witch hunt, and is accumulating evidence of sorts. If it were me she was quoting, I wouldn't want my comments to be taken out of context. Just thought you might like to know.Two kinds of pork^Makin'_Bacon 03:13, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

I don't know which user that was or I would have acted further. I autoblocked the IP as it was very clear that they were avoiding scrutiny by using an IP to essentially troll an arbcom case. People don't just come to Wikipedia and find arbcom pages and start trolling. Chillum 03:28, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Some baklava for you!

Thanks so much for standing up for me. I hope to become an editor that you are proud to have helped! Rationalobserver (talk) 00:45, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. I have no way of knowing if the accusation had a basis in reality, the evidence was lacking though. Either way if you continue to contribute to the project and avoid disruption then we have made the right decision to unblock you. If it turns out otherwise then I fear I will look the fool for defending you.

While I would rather look like a fool for letting a sock puppet get unblocked than look like a fool for blocking an innocent person in a perfect world I would not look like a fool at all. Chillum 00:56, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Don't worry. I won't let you down! Rationalobserver (talk) 00:57, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

RE: "Archived discussions"

I did this before when another sock of Jazzerino's attempted to derail my FAC (Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Of_Human_Feelings/archive5#Comments_from_Flow_Ridian), and no objection was made. I do not want this sock's grudge against me to pervade my work with FAs. The previous one was ruined because of it. According to what may I not do this? Dan56 (talk) 01:20, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

First off the user in question was unblocked after several people questioned the evidence. Secondly just because you got away with modifying archives in the past does not mean it is okay.

I suggest you now seek to avoid any further interaction with this user. Failing that a formal IBAN between the two of you may be needed. Chillum 01:23, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

I didn't alter any archive. What is it exactly that you want from me? Dan56 (talk) 01:35, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

What do you call this: [1]? Please revert yourself now. Chillum 01:36, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

I altered my own comments at an FAC I opened. I didn't alter any of Rationalobserver's comments. I don't appreciate this ultimatum. Rationalobserver is a suspected sock. Just because they were unblocked doesn't change that. If you would like to explain and discuss things civilly, we can do that here or at my talk page, but please don't bully me or threaten me with a block. Dan56 (talk) 01:39, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

My first instinct was to just block you and not give you the choice. I see me offering you an out was without benefit. Chillum 01:44, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Shanekk33

Thank you much, for quickly addressing this vandalism only account. Nothing more irritable than a vandalism only account that takes a long time to address.War wizard90 (talk) 02:01, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Worse then being a mere nuisance, this person completely lacked creativity. I prefer to revert vandalism that makes me laugh. Chillum 02:02, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Dan56 is still calling me a sock

Despite repeated warnings from you and others (indeed Sergecross73 warned him that "If I find you're throwing out accusations at any more new venues, you're going to be blocked for harassment") and a short block, today Dan56 continued to tell people that I am a sock. I am more than willing to respect an informal IBAN, but he made this accusation 14 hours after you unblocked him. Rationalobserver (talk) 21:27, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

What do you think? Isn't this comment yet another baseless accusation levied at me at yet another venue? Rationalobserver (talk) 23:45, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

I thought the consensus at AN/I was that Dan56 needs to stop making accusations about me in various venues across the project. He told yet another person today that I am a sock. All I wanted was for this harassment and mudslinging to stop, so do I need to ask for a formal IBAN to achieve that? Rationalobserver (talk) 23:58, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

I agree it is not appropriate. However the edit history of the user since then shows the behavior of someone who has gone back to working on the encyclopedia. Any action at this point would not be preventative in nature and further discussion with the user is only likely to bring him away from the project and back into the same issues.

I am personally inclined to watch and see if this was one last huff and puff before going off to work or if it is going to be an ongoing issue. I will say my patience in this matter has drawn thin and I think a formal IBAN may be in order if he does not just let the whole matter go. Chillum 10:22, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm sure you're right. I'll assume that the drama is over until proven otherwise. Thanks again, and Happy Holidays! Rationalobserver (talk) 20:01, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Okay, Dan56 has once again posted baseless accusations and false evidence at a venue that is not SPI. Sergecross73 warned him that "If I find you're throwing out accusations at any more new venues, you're going to be blocked for harassment" and you told him, "At this point the only remaining acceptable location to make accusations of sock puppetry against Rationalobserver is at WP:SPI with evidence. Further accusations outside this venue or without evidence may be interpreted at a personal attack." He has now accused me twice since the SPI case. I view this as harassment and personal attacks. I'd also like to ping Ponyo and Ivanvector, as users who asked Dan56 to stop. Rationalobserver (talk) 15:27, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

I would say discussing the closure with the person who closed the SPI case is appropriate, discussing a result with the closer is sort of an extension of SPI. The new evidence presented is silly, but I am sure Mike will voice his own opinion on the matter.

This user has gotten a final warning from another user regarding backhanded comments outside of SPI. If this nonsense is kept to discussions with the SPI closer then I will let that closer use whatever patience they may have.

@Dan56: At this point if it continues elsewhere I am not even going to bother with an IBAN but go right to a block for harassment. Chillum 23:39, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

@Rationalobserver: It would help me if you could assemble a compact list of diffs from the various people who have warned Dan or asked him to stop as well as violations since my ANI closure. Ideally it will not be needed but if I do need to do a harassment block I will need to present compelling evidence. Chillum 23:50, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

• User:Ivanvector: December 2, December 4, December 4

• User:NinjaRobotPirate: December 2

• User:Ponyo: December 5

• User:Chillum: December 6, December 6

• User:Sergecross73: December 4, December 6, December 21

Violations since Chillum's closure: December 18 Rationalobserver (talk) 02:27, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm so confused

Re [2] -- it's not clear to me what you mean by "Non-admins closures are for non-ambiguous situations where admin tools are not needed? For content closures, there's no difference between an editor closure and an editor with admin user access level closure. NE Ent 22:54, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

I meant the non-admins should only close discussions here the outcome is obvious and not close cases. The section I commented in was about deletion discussions so it was not directed at content closures. Chillum 22:58, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Okay, sorry -- I've just seen too many admins not understand the content policy I'm afraid my AGF isn't up to snuff. I should probably just unwatch the page. (I've hatted the discussion but would be fine with removing both our comments). NE Ent 23:03, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

I think everything is fine. Chillum 10:17, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

@NE Ent: - I also agree with you that admins as a whole are not the most experienced group of people when it comes to content guidelines and policies. There are obviously exceptions but admin tend to get most of their experience with behavioral related issues.

I don't think this is such a bad thing as admins are supposed to avoid content disputes for anything they are going to act as an admin in. As far as content disputes where there is no policy at stake, just a matter of differing opinion, then any uninvolved editor should be able to close as long as that close sticks.

In contentious situations it is often the case that a non admin closure will get reverted by someone who does not like the answer, in such cases an admin close may be required. Chillum 23:56, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Enjoy!

		Happy Holiday Cheer
		Season's Greetings! This message celebrates the holiday season, promotes WikiLove, and hopefully makes your day a little better. Spread the seasonal good cheer by wishing another user an Awesome Holiday and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone with whom you had disagreements in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Share the good feelings! Joys! Paine

Thank you very much. Chillum 18:14, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Pleasure! – Paine 

Best wishes for a happy holiday season

		Merry Christmas and a very Happy New Year
		Season's Greetings! This message celebrates the holiday season, promotes WikiLove, and hopefully makes your day a little better. Spread the seasonal good cheer by wishing another user an Awesome Holiday and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone with whom you had disagreements in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Share the good feelings! Joys!Hafspajen (talk) 07:11, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Yo. Chillum 09:16, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

No policy justification

Future Perfect at Sunrise, Kudpung, Basalisk, Bbb23, Chillum: Let me at least attempt to relieve ya'll of this misconception: neither the block, the talk page removal, the gravedancing comments, nor the full protection are "right." None of those actions does either of:

• improves the encyclopedia
• improves the editing environment

The personal attack cherry pick of a snarky reply [3] to a snarky comment [4] of the editor in the pair who is critical of Wikipedia administration is transparently lame, especially when the "victim" clearly states "If this has anything to do with my recent interactions with IHTS: I did not feel personally attacked by this editor in any way. I have no idea what the block is about, and I hope it has nothing to do with me. " Regarding the "disruption" of the arbcom case, a) the page was managed by a capable clerk, and b) the case was essentially over by the time of the block, so there's little preventative value here. I was tempted to ask Bbb23 to link to the policy justifying talk page removal, but that would just be pointy, as I know, and he should know, there is no such policy. Finally, if justification for talk page removal is the fallacious "you can only use the talk page to discuss unblocking," there's obviously no reason for others to be commenting now.

As IHTSO wasn't pinging anyone or using the uw-unblock template, there's no disruption unless folks are watching his talk page; and if anyone finds that disruptive, the solution is to unwatch it.

Neither is the full protection -- although well intentioned -- beneficial. Many editors many not have gone through the trouble of setting up a wiki only email account and are unwilling to sacrifice their privacy; in addition research has shown:

ensuring participation and transparency is crucial for maintaining the stability of self-governing communities.
— Schroeder, Wagner, Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology(Schroeder, A., Wagner, C. (2012). Governance of open content creation: A conceptualization and analysis of control and guiding mechanisms in the open content domain. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 63(10):1947–59 DOI )

Being award the administrator WP:UAL isn't supposed to be a license to make stuff up, it's intended as a trust to responsibility use tools to enforce community policies.

Unfortunately, although this behavior certainly isn't right, it is tolerated in the dysfunctional Wikipedia:: space because the IHTSO is an unsympathetic party here. His valid criticisms are buried in unsubtle over the top rhetoric which ventures into personal attack territory, and he has some ridiculous "I won't post an unblock request" martyr thing going, which means there's no way I could get traction to get anything reversed. Please understand that's a failure of the system, not "validation" the actions taken here are correct.

The question ya'll should have been asking -- in two weeks, after the block times out -- is IHTSO more likely to more collegial, or less collegial?? The answer is less. Remember, this was the guy who was called a narcissist by an editor, had the insult repeated by one admin and then validated by a former admin. There is a reason he's over the top critical of the admin corps; I had hoped that with the case finishing we could start to unwind that to get him back in the mode of being what's actually important -- a mainspace editor. Instead there's just more ill-considered admin actions and comments. NE Ent 20:04, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

I wonder if you have fully taken advantage if Wikipedia's transparency and really looked at the edits leading up to these actions. Several people have reviewed the situation, I am wondering if you have missed something. What specifically do you object to? One thing at a time please. Chillum 20:06, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I've looked at the edits. It seems counterproductive to me to rehash what I just said item by item, but okay, first thing: the block. NE Ent 20:15, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

An editor with a history of personal attacks, and who has been given prior warnings about personal attacks, and a history of blocks for personal attacks makes a personal attack and... gets blocked for personal attacks. Seems right to me.

It seems the only argument you have made is that another editor did not get blocked for personal attacks. Other people's behavior does not justify the behavior in another, not with adults. If you have an issue with Doc, take it up with Doc.

I am also not going to go over every point you made because they do not lead me to any obvious conclusions. If there are any other concerns I am happy to hear them. Chillum 20:19, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, I did not realize there was an "obvious conclusion" ceiling on the quality of discourse you wish to engage in. That's fine, it's your talk and I've pretty much said what I have to say. Thanks at least for removing the gravedancing comments. NE Ent 20:29, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

I only mentioned obvious conclusion because it was not clear what you wanted, or if you wanted anything other than information. I asked to deal with things one at a time so I could respond clearly.

I am glad you agree with the removal of the earlier comments, it was in the interest of fairness that I protected the page rather than let one side continue while stopping the other. The user can still use e-mail I believe. Chillum 20:33, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

I want to avoid losing a 39,000 / 66% mainspace editor. I want editors with admin tools to think more, and more deeply, when using the toolset. Is FPaS going to reverse their block, or you (or anyone else) unblocking ITHSO -- assuming he continues his stupid refusal to submit an unblock request -- going to happen? Of course not. But maybe folks will think just half a second longer the next time, and think about what's the best course of action instead of settling for what's allowable. And I'd appreciate you unprotecting the page for the reasons given above, to allow editors to publicly encourage ITHSO. NE Ent 20:44, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

(ec) What that tool does not tell you is how many editors leave the project due to hostile behavior by other editors. Take a look at this users block log and you will see that this block is unlikely to change their behavior or drive them away. The purpose of the block is to prevent further abuse for the duration of the block.

This user has been given plenty of patience in the form of discussion, warnings and shorter blocks. There is a context to this situation that goes beyond edit count. Chillum 20:48, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

You just agreed with my removal of those discouraging the users behavior in a place where they cannot respond but you want me to allow encouraging? I am not going to allow one side and not the other. If you want to encourage this user then use the e-mail option, if you want to discuss the block publicly then use ANI. I am not going to remove the protection for the reasons you have given. Chillum 20:49, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

@NE Ent: since you pinged me (along with FPS, Basalisk, and Bbb23), I'll answer here. Like Ihardlythinkso, as a non-admin you appear to have a remarkable propensity for frequenting the drama fora, and like here, starting or participating in discussions of a particular nature. With only 8% of your edits being to mainspace I'm not sure that your involvment in all those other areas is actually helpful towards either resolving individual issues or in the longer term, achieving more harmony between admins and other editors.

Admin observations that do not require a response from the blocked user are not 'grave dancing', are appropriate and are for the information of the user and others who visit that page. Blocks and talk page access withdrawal are preventative (and there are sufficient recent precedents) , and that also means that they can be used when patterns of behaviour emerge. Patterns of negative behaviour (from admins or non-admins) do not 'improve the encyclopedia' or 'improve the editing environment' . Nor, however, does tarring the entire admin corps with the same brush - which seems to be a pastime of the apologists for incivility by prolific content creators.

Patterns take place over extended periods of time, and often require extended or repeated blocks to supress them. Patterns can be evidenced by diffs, somtimes numbering in the hundreds, especially if in their user space some users maintain lengthy polemic sections, or often post ostensibly negative unsolicited comments about other users. A warm and welcoming working environment on Wikipedia (and that includes what one sees on user pages) transcends the need for keeping disruptive users on board and if sanctions mean losing possible future content from an author, it is collateral damage we need to live with. -Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:57, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

• In response to NE Ent there is much that I could say. In particular, I find it bordering on absurd to suggest that an editor, who has a history of personal attacks and incivility, cannot be blocked for personal attacks. The venue and claimed offence by the subject of such attacks are irrelevant; as Kudpung explained above, the pattern of behaviour is damaging to the project and there is clear precedent for dealing with it. One would think you in particular would be familiar with this concept having recently filed an Arbitration request against a user based on a long-term pattern of conduct rather than a specific event. There is similar precedent for revoking talk page access when the page is used inappropriately by a blocked user, and since we have been using full protection on user talk pages since long before "pinging" was even a thing, I hardly see how the fact that IHTS did not go above-and-beyond to draw attention to his rant has any mitigating impact. Your suggestion that editors are free to simply unwatch a page if they don't like the abuse they read there could be used to defend any incivility, anywhere on the site. Users here are entitled to look at any of the pages on the project and shouldn't be required to get out of the kitchen if they can't stand the heat. Why you have chosen to target this specific block out of hundreds is baffling and I can't help but think it's done solely on a "political" basis. Finally, the suggestion that this block was based on a comment "cherry picked" is also frankly ridiculous, there are dozens of similar examples in IHTS's recent editing history, for many of which he has received warnings, and if you are genuinely oblivious to this then I can only conclude you haven't really looked into the background of this particular block. I agree with you that IHTS is a fantastic mainspace editor and frankly I think it would suit everyone (including him) if he stayed there. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 10:57, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Re: close

It's not exactly clear based on what you wrote, but in case you don't know, User:N-HH was being sarcastic, not serious. Viriditas (talk) 01:17, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, I am infamous for missing obvious sarcasm. Chillum 01:20, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Igor

Hi,

Hope you don't mind me answering here instead of on ANI; several reasons - partly because it's busy and hard to edit, partly drama.

Replying inline;

Igor, I see that you linked Draft:Igor Janev from your user page. Am I to take it you wrote this?

No, I did not. I saw it mentioned on Jimbo's talk page and responded as an IP; please see this edit for how it began.

If so it seems you are here to contribute and that your comments on Jimbo's page are the sincere result of your experience trying to contribute as a new user. That being said you are acting a bit pushy, putting archives on other peoples comments for one thing. You don't seem to be using the CSD templates right. I think you need to slow down and perhaps start by editing an existing article instead of trying to create or delete one.

Nope; I stand by every edit I have made. If you wish to discuss one or more, link diffs and let's talk about it.

Please look through the links I welcomed you with on your talk page. Specifically the 5 pillars. There is a bit of a learning curve here when it comes to what is for keeping and what is for deleting. Chillum 03:22, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

I am very well aware of the 5 pillars. Please, look again at that first post - I'm sorry that because it was as an IP it may have been confusing.

I have a very full understanding of Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Yes, I have edited previously under another account; I hope that you understand that that is not a cardinal sin

Best wishes to you. Igor the facetious xmas bunny (talk) 03:50, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Okay in that case good luck. Chillum 03:52, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

It has become clear now that you are a talented troll. You have really got yourself in a nice position now. Leave me out of it. Chillum 19:51, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Happy New Year 2015!

Dear Chillum, I am truly surprised that anyone discussing Draft:Igor Janev is accused as User:Operahome. [5]. Looks like middle -ages Witch hunt. Happy New Year 2015! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.46.216.73 (talk) 23:12, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

We have a tendency to hear quacking from an aquatic bird and think "DUCK!" Chillum 23:15, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Comment

Thanks for closing this AN/I report. Obviously the conclusion is hard to avoid that at present there is no consensus to topic ban the editor in question. I wonder at the wisdom of expressing an opinion at the same time; I worry that this may encourage the said editor in his agenda and forum shopping. Normally we expect someone closing a discussion to be neutral and by doing it in this way I worry that you are treading rather close to WP:INVOLVED territory. I suggest in future either close or comment but not both. Take care, --John (talk) 16:42, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

I disagree. It is proper to close a discussion based on reason. One does not merely count the opinions of the participants, but look at the legitimacy of those opinions. Just like in an AfD a closer should disregard opinions that are contrary to policy it is important when closing a discussion related to behavior that one considers if those concerns have basis. If anything I should have mentioned the lack of basis in the closure, but mentioning it after the fact does not make me involved. Anyone who says they do not have an opinion on something is fooling themselves.

That being said I had no horse in the race and I did not examine the discussion until just before I closed it. I came to my conclusions based on the evidence presented and the results of the discussion. I think it was a reasonable conclusion that these complaints against an 8 year editor with zero history of sanctions were without basis. Chillum 21:53, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

No problem with closing a discussion based on reason; I think the danger is that where you wrote "there is no basis for a topic ban" the editor may read "there is no problem with the edits". I worry then that they may continue (Have you looked at their contribs? They have done little else but agitate on this point for a month, at multiple venues) and that we will be back at AN/I in a week or two. I hope my pessimism is misplaced, it often is. Happy holidays. --John (talk) 02:53, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

I hope so too. I am not too concerned that an editor of 8 years with no history of blocks or sanctions is going to take my comment as permission to act out. Perhaps I am being overly optimistic? Chillum 02:58, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

I just want to chime here that I agree with John that the wording of "there is no basis for a topic ban" could be misconstrued by the user. Because of the inherent complexity of Wikipedia contributions, a simple rationale based on whether Hogbin has had no blocks or bans in the last eight years tends to border on several different fallacies, such as an argument from ignorance. For example, when one looks at his contribution history, one finds that he hardly ever edits article space and spends most of his time on talk pages. We would not expect, therefore, to find a history of blocks and bans for someone with this kind of approach. Second, Hogbin is far from an active editor with only 17,953 contribs in eight years. That's around seven edits a day. There are many other factors, of course, but one would not expect an editor like this to have a history of blocks and bans, which of course, does not preclude them from occurring based on the recent evidence. In any case, I'm speaking from personal experience. My interaction with Hogbin has been less than fruitful; I've discussed many different topics with him on various talk pages, and I haven't found him helpful or informative. Viriditas (talk) 21:47, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

I only suggested that it was unlikely this user would interpret my comment as permission to act out. I think this a reasonable extension of good faith given the user. 7 edits a day is 7 edits a day, I am glad to have them. I just don't think this user will confused a lack of basis for a topic ban with some sort of go ahead. There is a world of difference between "no basis for a topic ban" and "everything you are doing is okay". If it turns out I am wrong I will certainly correct that misunderstanding. Chillum 21:48, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

That IP you just blocked is backing removing RPPs again.

This IP: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/113.22.61.240 Thank you for blocking the previous IP. Nguyễn Quốc Việt (talk)

Hello. Another admin has already responded to this. Thank you. Chillum 06:38, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Thank you Nguyễn Quốc Việt (talk) Now under a 3rd IP https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/42.113.115.56 Nguyễn Quốc Việt (talk)

You should realize this person will just keep changing IPs. Chillum 06:55, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

And again, another admin has already dealt with this IP. Chillum 06:56, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

I know, same guy past few days, and is why i was filing RPPs past few days. Again, thank you. Nguyễn Quốc Việt (talk) 06:58, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/58.187.81.186 They'll just keep hopping IPs throughout Hanoi. Probably best to range block...Nguyễn Quốc Việt (talk)

And what range do you suggest? Chillum 07:04, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

All FPT Telecom IPs of the city of Hanoi. If there's such a way to determine that using Wikipedia admin tools...Nguyễn Quốc Việt (talk)

There is no discreet range to the IPs being used. I would have to block half the internet. Relax, whatever damage the vandal does will be easily reversed. Chillum 07:10, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

10000 or 100000, maybe i'm using internet from home, shop, store, company, somewhere, who know, you can guess. :DDD — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.187.81.186 (talk • contribs) 07:11, 31 December 2014‎

Hello Mr. 58. I just want you to know that you can run around getting IPs blocked and pages protected until you are bored and then we will push a button and put things back to the way they were before. You see no matter how much damage you do we can just push a button and it goes back to the way it was before you arrived.

I assume your school will let out soon or you will get sleepy and need a nap. Chillum 07:17, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Happy New Year Chillum!

Happy New Year!

Chillum,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia. Hafspajen (talk) 10:57, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year 2015}} to user talk pages.

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.