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.

You were recently listed as a party to a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel articles 3. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel articles 3/Evidence. Please add your evidence by September 8, 2015, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel articles 3/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:43, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't feel I am qualified to give an opinion at this time. I am familiarizing myself with the topic as we speak. I will be observing the case. Chillum 22:57, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Heyo. I don't want to add more threaded discussion to a discussion about threaded discussion, so I thought that I might reply to you directly, here. I think that it's clear to most people that the tenor of this particular RFA was going off the rails. I think that I drawing an unambiguous line (all threaded discussion moved to the talk page) is an effective way to address the acute problem without offending editors too much. I understand that refactoring discussion is always a sensitive topic, and that this "everybody out of the pool" approach may rub some people the wrong way.

I do stand by my edit. I think that the before and after permalinks speak for themselves, but of course will not be upset if you think it best to revert.

I also thank you for pointing out my error with the vanishing statement of support. I check and triple-check these things, and still foul it up.

Best, HiDrNick! 15:51, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the arguments about if it is reasonable to discuss people's opinions is a bit off topic. I do see the logic of clearing it all to the talk page so as to use objective criteria. Not what I would have done but a reasonable move I suppose.

However the execution leaves a bit to be desired. I see that this post was removed by your edit but does not seem represented on the talk page.

I have not checked for more missing comments but I think you need to go back over your edit and audit it to catch any other mistakes. Chillum 17:06, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@HiDrNick: I am pinging to make sure you see this reply. Chillum 17:07, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How do we go about getting a protection order for Nikola Tesla? I'd be glad to initiate it, I just don't know how. And until it is granted, can we get this new sock User:2001:41D0:8:B330:0:0:0:1 blocked? If he isn't Asdisis's sock, he's his twin brother. He is posting about nationality on the Talk page in violation of the June RfD, he just blew past 3RR, he is obviously out for payback. We don't have to launch an ANI or sockpuppet invesigation do we? Should I just ask an administrator to get involved? I understand if you can't act yourself because of conflict of interest. I'd be glad to, but I just haven't done this before, don't know how much evidence is needed. Thanks. --Chetvorno^TALK 23:01, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, it's all done. That was fast. Thanks. --Chetvorno^TALK 23:13, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think we finally got some administrative attention. Chillum 23:43, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You may find this reddit thread of interest, as it discusses the immediate recreation of a page you just deleted. 2601:645:8203:42CF:2046:D235:7011:5A45 (talk) 07:53, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I suppose you mean Mass killings in capitalist regimes, which was recreated under a different name to bypass the previous salting. I just deleted and salted. Per usual, the Reddit discussion is about personal political feelings, not Wikipedia policy. WP:REFUND is always available if someone wants to recreate a NPOV version that complies with policy. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 09:03, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia policy obviously being the deletion and "salting" of anything that offends your political sensibilities, regardless of whether or not it is historical fact that is perfectly valid as an article. You're a shameless ideologue, so there's no reason for you to stand behind "policy" for the deletion of something that has every right to exist on this site. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.241.86.79 (talk) 12:17, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you disagree with Chillum's action, you won't achieve anything by stamping your feet here. WP:REFUND is available to anyone who wants an independent review of a deletion decision. Gamaliel (talk) 12:32, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello anonymous person. The discussion that resulted in us deciding not to host this article is here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mass killings under capitalist regimes (2nd nomination). Unless you can change the community's mind about this then we are not going to host it no matter how many time you put it here. Chillum 15:55, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Boomerang, or not?

At edit war noticeboard

Bold admin needed

Jusdafax 10:27, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sun is not yet up.

Breakfast and coffee await.

Admin need sleep, too. ;)

Enough poetry for one day, I'm off to make the donuts. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 10:37, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What a nice thing to wake up to. I do try to avoid throwing curved sticks with strange trajectories before I have had my coffee. I will take a look later. Chillum 15:54, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, third from the top

Bad filing games 'pedia

Galaxy spins on

Jusdafax 17:10, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

While I appreciate the poetic form, I don't think I am going to take any action in this case. Chillum 22:52, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You're incorrect about the reason ("you just had a review") you ended our conversation. The review NeilN linked was from July, 2014. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Chillum/Archive_65. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 167.160.36.156 (talk) 21:35, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Given how adamant the community was at the time I think it is not going to go any different if done again now. Another admin may feel differently but I am not going to do anything. Chillum 22:27, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That wasn't "the community" that was mob violence at WP:AN/ANI spearheaded by my hounders like Bwilkins. If you're comfortable with that, okay, there's many administrators like that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 167.160.36.156 (talk) 22:41, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ya, that mob is the community. It is not my place to override the decision of the community, I think you will find all admins have the same mandate. Chillum 22:48, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think you might find it amusing that he added a third-person comment to the Reguyla user talk page appearing to praise Reg for his actions and basically rip the community. Just FYI. John Carter (talk) 21:32, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry John, I am under no illusions with this user. While I have certainly helped banned users come back here in the past, I have only attempted such things when I thought there was a chance in hell it might happen. Chillum 21:39, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it's User:Colton Cosmic, who's been blocked and indeffed. Not Reg. Sorry about that. I skwewed up. Again. But I'm used to that by now. John Carter (talk) 21:42, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I know who it is. Not just blocked and indeffed, but after asking the community to check on it also banned. I am going to block and revert their posts. At least I got the first complaint about my block bot out of the way. Chillum 21:45, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

IP blocked again. BTW, the previous discussion in July 2014 had some the more charitable editors saying an appeal could be made after one year of no socking. The socking hasn't stopped yet. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:59, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the community made a very generous offer but Colton has decided not to take the offer. Chillum 19:01, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Chillum, the conversation that you were in at the beggining of has been continued, could you take a glance and see the conclusions we came to, and whether it's feasible? Cheers, _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 15:19, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You have protected a page that is being used by trolls to damage the reputation of an upstanding company.

Please undo the protection.

Let the page be.

There is no sock puppetry.

There are just accounts on the same networkPharisok (talk) 16:49, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.standardmedia.co.ke/business/article/2000171683/ugandan-authorities-clear-bidco-over-land-grabbing-claims

http://www.capitalfm.co.ke/business/2015/08/ugandan-government-clears-bidco-in-land-claim/

These links prove as muchPharisok (talk) 16:51, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I see that you have started a discussion at Talk:Bidco Africa. This is a productive step. Already one of our editors is asking for details to hear out your concerns. You will have to convince others of your point of view there. I have acted in an administrative manner in this case so I will not be taking a position in the content dispute. If you gain consensus for a change on the talk page then that change can be made. Chillum 18:11, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Chillum, Thank you for protecting the Bidco Africa page. Wikipedians do a great deal of work to start and build on pages only for trolls and sock puppets to damage them. Zotezangu (talk) 16:19, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

	The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
	I protect vandalism on Wikipedia IntensityCR7 (talk) 04:49, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I appreciate it. Chillum 14:25, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry but I have several problems with your close and ask for you to revert it, or at the very least refactor it. While I agree the thread may be ready for closure (personally I'd have left it open longer but I don't think it's unreasonable to close it now) I do think the comment you used to close it is not a fair reflection of what has happened or the discussion. Yes, they had agreed to be more careful, but then promptly made three more errors that I spotted since then. The way you closed the report suggests I brought it to ANI without good reason - continuing to do what you had been doing and asked not to is a good reason. I also agree that David seems receptive to community now but the issue here was not so much being receptive as actually acting upon it. At his talk page there were a large number of comments about AWB and I agree he engaged with people but then seemingly carried on as before. I also note that although administrator action was not required AN or AN/I is the appropriate place to discuss bans. In short I don't like your close suggesting I was wrong to bring it to AN/I especially as this is against the obvious consensus in the discussion. Dpmuk (talk) 14:47, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I also note that there was on going discussion about the length of any ban with some people suggesting it should be longer than they suggested. Personally I disagree that it should be longer but also think it's wrong to close a thread before consensus has been reached. Dpmuk (talk) 14:48, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the comment about him agreeing to be more careful. It was a true comment, but I see your concerns. It was not meant as a criticism of you. There is little point in discussing a ban on a person who has expressed a willingness to voluntarily avoid the areas the ban would cover. If it turns out that they continue in the areas they said they would stop then I would say you have a strong case for a BAN.

I don't think duration is an issue as David says "I am willing to withdraw for a longer period — whatever length of time the community deems appropriate".

We try not to ban users from areas when they are willing to respond to the concerns of the community in a reasonable fashion. I really think as long as David is being receptive that you and others can just talk this issue out before resorting to the force of a community ban. Chillum 14:52, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Chillum:. That is slightly disingenuous: no-one was actually calling for a ban (yet)- and although the community deemed his response satisfactory, the question of how long the restriction should last was stil very much open. _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 14:57, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Disingenuous? I only mentioned a ban because Dpmuk said "AN or AN/I is the appropriate place to discuss bans". I assure you I am being very ingenuous. When a user volunteers to stay away from an area it is not a "restriction" and it is generally they who decide the duration. Chillum 14:59, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Help. The OIKOS Software page was deleted and we do not understand why. The content writer is no where to be found and we do not have a copy of the deleted material. Who do we turn to for help? J Leahy — Preceding unsigned comment added by JaniceLeahy (talk • contribs) 15:54, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It was deleted as promotional. I looked at the deleted content and it read like a pamphlet. It appears to have been written by someone with a strong bias in favour of the company. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and must be written from a neutral point of view. In addition it must establish notability through reliable sources.

A quick google shows that you are the CEO of this company. Wikipedia is not the place to promote your company and we have little tolerance for it. Our conflict of interest policy asks you not to edit articles where you have a conflict of interest. We hope that you are here to write an encyclopedia and will stay a long time, however in general if your company is significant enough to warrant an article then someone unconnected with the company will write it. After all our article on Microsoft was not written by Bill Gates. Chillum 16:55, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I am contacting you because my organization cannot locate the content writer. So, I do not have recourse other than speaking directly.

None of us played into the writing of this content. You stated promotional in nature, please indicate one item on that page that was deemed promotional. It appeared nothing more than factual course of events.

We are victims here and are looking for help in getting this resolved.

We do not have any copies of the page content,so it is difficult for us to understand why you have come to this conclusion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JaniceLeahy (talk • contribs) 18:20, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ps...this content writer was totally independent and not associated with OIKOS Software in any way. The content writer represented themselves as a WIKI Editor.

Please advise.

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JaniceLeahy (talk • contribs) 18:24, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I see now I was referring to a version you were involved in writing in 2014 that was deleted as promotional.

The most recent version of the article was create July 1st by a user called Nicedisks. It turns out this was one of hundreds of accounts involved in a racket where they misrepresented themselves as having authority on Wikipedia and attempted to negotiate money from people for favours they have no standing to make. We have blocked over 400 accounts related to this. The articles themselves were copyright violations lifted from previously rejected contributions by other editors and have such been deleted. I do hope that you were not one of the people victimized by this scam. Chillum 19:02, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

More information can be found here: Wikipedia:Long-term_abuse/Orangemoody, there is also an area to ask about this here: info-orangemoodywikipedia.org. Chillum 19:03, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Normally I would be willing to send you a copy by e-mail, however in this case the article content is a copyright violation. Chillum 19:10, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Upon investigation on our side, this is the editor we thought wrote the content: We have sent Catherine Munro a message too. Is this not the same person who wrote the content?

Catherine lilly <catherinewiki@outlook.com> wrote:

Hi,

To check my status on Wikipedia, you can check my Wikipedia user page; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:CatherineMunro

Some of the Wikipedia articles I have created:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archaeology_%28magazine%29 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Smith_%28columnist%29 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kate_Spade_%26_Company http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell_%28school%29 — Preceding unsigned comment added by JaniceLeahy (talk • contribs)

Let me explain again. This is a scam. The person who contacted you was part of a ring of people who impersonated real editors claiming to have authority they did not. They stole content from other sources and pretended it was their own and they accepted money for that service. Anyone contacting you claiming to represent Wikipedia and offering a service is lying to you.

User:CatherineMunro is a respected administrator and would not be contacting you to offer services on Wikipedia. Chillum 19:13, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Last question; and thanks for all your insight. You stated copyright violation...whose? Please advise. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JaniceLeahy (talk • contribs)

They stole their content from a variety of sources including rejected article submissions. Chillum 19:13, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Chillum. I hope there is criminal pursuit if Wikipedia can figure out the group that scammed us and the others involved in that huge list deletions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JaniceLeahy (talk • contribs) 19:44, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I hope so too, however I am not qualified myself to give advice on that matter. The e-mail address I gave above would be the best point of contact. Chillum 20:36, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am sending this to users involved in an arbitration case. I am not aware of too many details of the case. I also don't know how these cases work.

However I noticed that Malik Shabazz also violates Sockpuppeting rules.

He has two users: Malik Shabazz and User:MShabazz

He claims that User:MShabazz is a WP:DOPPELGANGER account.

However, not only does he use the account for editing (which violates the WP:DOPPELGANGER policy -), he also uses the account together with his Malik Shabazz account for edit warring. For example when he was harassing me and laughing at me for my mistake of editing another user's talk page he [[1]]

• First he undid my edit with user Malik Shabazz [2]

• Then He used his sockpupet user MShabazz to undo my edit the second time: [3]

(Then he harassed me and laughed at me and wrote: "PS: I'm sorry it took you half an hour to figure out why I gave VanEman a barnstar more than a year ago. I hope your reading skills improve." )

Is there anything that could be done now? Caseeart (talk) 05:37, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This happened over a month ago. I can't imagine what I would do about it now. If you really think this needs attention then perhaps a post at WP:ANI will bring the attention you seek. While the civility issues are a concern there has already been a major response since your diffs, my advice would be to let it go. Chillum 15:06, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that this administrator is repeating this behavior over and over. It is just difficult to detect between all the other edits. I also noticed dishonest and racially motivated editing and use of warnings etc. My concern is that now the user is saying the he "retired". After things calm down - the user may (cautiously) come back as an admin and continue the racially motivated use of admin tools all this behavior will be unnoticed and already forgotten. Is there a way at least to add my concerns to last discussion on the user? Caseeart (talk) 19:39, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Caseeart, since the alternate account is clearly identified as such, your "concerns" will probably get the consideration they deserve. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:43, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think @NeilN: and @Dennis Brown: have explained this fairly well for you. If you really want more attention you can post at WP:ANI and your concerns will be given attention by other administrators. I myself will not be taking any action in this case as I doubt using any of my tools in this matter will improve the encyclopedia. Chillum 20:19, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@ @NeilN: and Chullim. Ok. I believe I will have a strong caseat ANI (not about the alternate account but about Shabbaz's edit behavior and attitude towards certain editors). However, I will have to decide if it is worthwhile to put the time and effort into compiling a case, due to the fact that the administrators might anyways refrain from taking action since as you point out that the user did not edit in the last month. But thanks for your advice. Caseeart (talk) 21:31, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Caseeart, let me just give it to you straight: Nothing good can come of this. You can take it to ANI, but more than likely, you will end up with the dirty end of the stick. He is gone, lots of things have happened since then, doing anything now would not only be punitive, but it would be pointless. I'm trying to do you a favor, save you from grief and embarrassment. And keep in mind that Malik and I have never crossed paths before all the Arb stuff, so this is from an outsider's point of view: Drop the stick. You can't win because Malik has already lost everything. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 21:37, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Dennis Brown: All of you fully explained and convicted me why it would be a big waist of time - and I want to thank you for that. I will definitely not waist any time on the ANI. There is however one more concern regarding the block of bad dryer. I am writing now on the page of bad dryer. Even if I am wrong about what am writing - I just want to write my opinion for future reference. Caseeart (talk) 21:47, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

From your post at Montana's RfA: I don't know about most read user talk pages, but awhile back someone linked to these old stats from last year on number of page watchers - Eric's #14 and has gained quite a few watchers since. Suddenly I feel so unpopular! Opabinia regalis (talk) 23:02, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

#351 Wooo-hooo! Chillum 23:31, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the info. I appreciate it. Nice to know I am not too distracting to the public. Chillum 23:35, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Along the top of every history page is a row of links to tools that provide all manner of statistics. One of those is 'page view stats' which reports the monthly number of hits to the page. Caveat: since the move to Labs from the ToolServer, the performance of those who maintain the Labs server and those who maintain the tools has become somewhat capricious. Urgent help is required from anyone who has a well founded knowledge of both Python and regex. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:00, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Only #14? I thought I'd be higher than that. Eric Corbett 02:09, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Here I thought I was the high one around here, turns out I am fairly low. Chillum 02:11, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I expect that many of those watchers are just waiting to see if I'll announce a third RfA, and another opportunity to do their pseudonymous hatchet jobs. Eric Corbett 02:17, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That is something I would put on my watchlist. Chillum 02:54, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It'll never happen. I think there's an unhealthy number of watchers to Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Malleus Fatuarum 3, but they'll never get the chance to stuff me again. Eric Corbett 03:08, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

LOL. I went there to put it on my watchlist, it was already on my watchlist. I don't even remember when I did that. Chillum 03:10, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I expect you remember why you did that though. Eric Corbett 03:15, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I could guess when, probably shortly after Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Malleus Fatuarum 2. As to why, I imagine it was me regretting missing #2. So much better to watch the show live. My first RfA was a sad affair indeed, completely lacking in any entertainment value.

I am just realizing that you are one of the people I have known longest on Wikipedia, perhaps in the top 14. Chillum 03:20, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wowsers, I was ranked 266th, with 218 watchers. GoodDay (talk) 15:53, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Most watched talk pages[edit]

Hi, Chillum! I'll put this comment here rather than clutter up the RfA. Replying to Dennis about Eric Corbett's talk page, you said "Is that really one of the one of the most read user talk pages on Wikipedia? Do we keep such stats? I wonder how he compares with Jimbo." The answers are: yes, it is; yes, we do; and Eric has 20.2 WP:Centijimbos, i.e., one-fifth as many watchers as Jimbo. (For comparison, you have 10.7 centijimbos; I have 4.4.) According to this list (admittedly incomplete and out of date, hasn't been updated in more than two years), that would make Eric tied for the third most watched user talk page on Wikipedia. --MelanieN (talk) 13:54, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My attempt to move the discussion here didn't work, apparently. Well, I tried. According to a database that was posted at the RfA, a year and a half ago Eric had the thirteenth most watched user talk page. Considering how many of us there are, I would say that "one of the most watched talk pages" is an accurate description. --MelanieN (talk) 14:45, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am just happy to make #351. HighInBC ^{(was Chillum)} 14:49, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi sir, good day, but i've been insulted... one untolerable language you know... why isn't the user being dealth with?NotAlpArslan (talk) 00:09, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Our No personal attacks policy does indeed prohibit that type of discourse. You are correct to demand action. Per the policy isolated incidences of personal attacks are dealt with using a warning which I have given here: [4].

Blocks can be done for personal attacks but only when they are part of an ongoing pattern or particularly egregious. See WP:NPA#Consequences of personal attacks. Chillum 00:14, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

hope you'll be the sole admin in here, thank you so much.NotAlpArslan (talk) 00:18, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think it would be too much to hope that every other admin suddenly disappeared, even though I think that might not be a bad idea. Eric Corbett 02:12, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

	The Civility Barnstar
	bless you NotAlpArslan (talk) 00:20, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• All Wikipedians—including those without an account or not logged in ("anons")—are welcome to comment and ask questions in an RfA but numerical (#) "votes" in the Support, Oppose, and Neutral sections may only be placed by editors while logged in to their account.

I'm included in the "not logged in" category. If you think the text at WP:RFA doesn't reflect policy then I invite you to change it. Your threat seemed a bit harsh considering the page invites all user, whether logged in or not, to comment. --2602:306:C5B4:E3D0:1EF:5767:E7FB:31F9 (talk) 03:21, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You make a valid point about RfA, it does appear to be an exception. I withdraw my complaint in regards to RfA. However Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents and Wikipedia:Requests for page protection are not exceptions. If you want to participate in areas like these you need to log into your account.

Please note that there is a difference between being an anonymous editor and an editor who has an account but chooses to edit logged out. The first is an anonymous editor, the later is an alternate account and must follow the rules of an alternate account. Chillum 03:30, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that gracious reply. Considering the charges of sockpuppetry on that RFA, my comment is the least of the problems. --2602:306:C5B4:E3D0:1EF:5767:E7FB:31F9 (talk) 04:33, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I posted at a noticeboard, titled Request for page protection, because this user did not have any visible link to that unprotected talk page on his regular talk page one ofthe policy requirements. How else could I make my request? You seem very quick to judge without knowing all the facts. --2602:306:C5B4:E3D0:1EF:5767:E7FB:31F9 (talk) 05:01, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You would have a point except for the fact that this post indicates that you have an account and that you are editing logged out of that account. So you very much were able to post on the talk page of the admin directly. As I already said there is a difference between being an anonymous editor and an editor who has an account but chooses to edit logged out. Chillum 05:11, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you know my old password let me know, Mr Ominiscient. :) Anyway, asking for routine policy enforcement should be non-controversial. In my opinion, none of the admins I've encountered today have lived up to the commitments they made during their RFAs. --2602:306:C5B4:E3D0:1EF:5767:E7FB:31F9 (talk) 05:19, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is an 18% chance that your password is "password". Chillum 05:20, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And by the way, the "very polite" 108.91.78.61 was me. No easy way for you to know that, but you jumped to conclusions without asking. --2602:306:C5B4:E3D0:1EF:5767:E7FB:31F9 (talk) 05:29, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. There was no way to know that. There is still no way for me to know that. Create an account and these misunderstandings won't happen. You are welcome to edit outside of project space as an IP, but don't expect to have a persistent identity. Chillum 05:31, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be happy to edit without getting threats from people who don't know what's going on or what the policy pages actually say. :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:C5B4:E3D0:1EF:5767:E7FB:31F9 (talk) 06:01, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, have a nice day. Chillum 06:05, 21 September 2015 (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.