User talk:DangerousPanda/Archive 10

Things you probably never read on Bwilkins' talk page in the first place

Regarding close of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Craig Thomson affair

While I have no issue with your close overall, there are some now-removed edits to the article that were clear BLP problems. Would you mind hiding/deleting/whatever those versions in the edit history in addition to the close you performed? - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 01:03, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't know enough about the topic to be able to WP:REVDEL readily (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 09:24, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi - I see that you've closed the AfD for the above and moved the contents to a new page. I am not sure if you saw this when moving the content and talk pages over, as there are serious issues with regards to wp:npov , wp:blp AND wp:undue in the article and talk pages, as well as the content in this article being completely disputed by multiple editors. In order to start the "Health Services Union affair" again from scratch, is it necessary to re-list the article for deletion? Or what are the next steps? (Sorry if the answers seem obvious to you; I am a newbie at this). Best, One21dot216dot (talk) 02:31, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Why delete and re-start? Do an WP:RFC (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 09:24, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

I believe a delete and re-start is required due to the BLP problems in the article and talk pages. I don't believe that an RFC is going to fix that problem, it's only going to prolong it. Thanks for your reply. One21dot216dot (talk) 22:59, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

No consensus?

Hi, I see you closed the Afd discussion at wp:Articles for deletion/Shawn Welling (2nd nomination) as no consensus, and respectfully request a clarification. There is a single line of argument by a single editor for keep based upon the notability of awards received and the subject being world class. Numerous editors attempted to locate reliable sources to establish that claim, and none were able to. In fact, that same editor acknowledged that a large bulk of the sources he had based his initial argument on actually came from an author who has a financial interest in the subject and agreed they were suspect. The only other keep !votes at the discussion were a "me too" and "It is interesting" which are not truly valid arguments for an AfD. So may I ask how you have concluded there is no consensus? ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 14:37, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

I hope the math curriculum is stronger in BC than it appears ;-) as I see 2 real Keeps +1 additional. Remember, AFD is not a vote. The actually policy-based arguments (and that by Michael Q Schmidt is very strong) were taken into account (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 20:35, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Really? Which do you consider a 2nd real keep? The first by Laura is a me too, and the 2nd by the new oracleB user is an "it's interesting." Can you clarify? I well recognize it isn't a !vote, and considering that Michael Q Schmidt responded and acknowledged the challenges with the sources I'm unclear what you are basing your opinion on the close on exactly? I'm trying to understand your logic, and it would be helpful if you could explain your rationale as to what policy based argument you made your decision upon, as notability was not established in reliable independent sources after many editors looked for it. Can you clarify your logic please? ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 21:48, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Already did...maybe you missed it? Michael's keep was very persuasive overall. Start from there. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 23:17, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

I have attempted in good faith to request clarification so I can understand your reasoning, but since two attempts to request that clarification have not resulted in a non-snarky content based response I have brought it to delrev in the hope of getting clarification. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 02:18, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

And I replied in good faith as well. I advised you to stop counting !votes (or at least to count them properly). I advised you to read which policy-based opinions I felt made the argument that led to the close. I did it in a friendly, collegial manner with no snarkiness (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 09:26, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Deletion review for Shawn Welling

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Shawn Welling. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 02:18, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Is there an emoticon for applause? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 00:44, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Didn't work?

• [1]

Did the block expire? or did the talk page lock not work? - jc37 00:31, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Take a look at his block log -- it was a very short block, considering his loud whinging about it (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 00:43, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Ahem

I believe this mess is yours. [2] Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 01:54, 24 June 2012 (UTC) well, not yours personally, but you are aware of the situation... Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 10:22, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Commented. Cheers (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 15:06, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

BRD?

Ok, admittedly, I'm irritated by WiliamJE's attitude, does BRD apply to talk and user pages? Am I getting myself into trouble for no reason by removing the rape references from his pages? He's now said he's done for the night, because he has mass in the morning, at which time I assume he'll be back to writing you up for admin abuse (I'm sure you're worried), and ignoring my requests for him to remove the offensive material from his pages. -- Despayre  ^{tête-à-tête} 01:56, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)BRD really isn't about user pages, which are covered by WP:USERPAGE, and generally we aren't supposed to edit user pages unless the material is against a policy, which I felt this was. I had hatted it, it was reverted, I left it alone. Toddst1 went in and deleted the talk, plus much of his user page. William doesn't get it, and has gone against the conditions of his unblock, which I am hopeful BWilkins will remedy. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 02:25, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Ya, I saw that Toddst1 had now removed the content, I can live with the talk page comments, I suppose they will die an archived death at some unspecified time in the future. BRD was not nearly as good as Toddst1's reasoning, so I'm glad he did it first. I thought it might (or at least *should*) be against some policy, I just didn't know where it was. Hopefully, as Toddst1 said, William will come back with a far less adversarial attitude (and stop making silly analogies along the way). Although I see William did manage to file one more ANI report before he left tonight, meh, guess I'll sit back and watch tomorrow's events... note to self: bring popcorn for the show. -- Despayre  ^{tête-à-tête} 02:33, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

User talk:Budders6

I don't understand why you have restricted this page. Would you explain please? Britmax (talk) 12:38, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

You did read the request to do so from the "brother" in the unblock-that-is-not-an-unblock? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:40, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Ah. I understand now. Thanks. I hope your generous use of AGF is being returned with honesty. Britmax (talk) 12:47, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

I hope so too. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:50, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Fairwater RFC

I believe that that was a hasty delete. There was no consensus, there was no agreement as to what a national competition is defined (e.g. under your logic the FA cup is not a national competition), plus the club has produced an international player which is also a tick on the notability factor. FruitMonkey (talk) 12:50, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

As per my close, based on how WP:RU/N reads now, the regional team does not CURRENTLY meet the requirements. I clearly stated that such an article can be recreated well in the future once things are clarified. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:58, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Useful work growth theory deletion.

Thanks for finally closing that AfD! Please note though, that during the discussion, the article was renamed Ayres-Warr model, so it is really Ayres-Warr model that should be deleted. :-) --OpenFuture (talk) 12:54, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Got it - thanks for the heads-up on the move (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 13:00, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/GloZell Green

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Bwilkins, I don't agree with this decision. There was clearly no consensus to delete the article. It should have been closed as just that, no consensus. Three different users commented on the fact that there were independent, reliable sources of her, where-as three delete votes didn't even have much weight to the discussion, one was faulty ('nothing I can find amounts to significant coverage in independent reliable sources'; WRONG, there are), another was WP:IDONTLIKEIT (..'this person and article have no value on Wikipedia'), and the other didn't even have reasoning for their vote (..'who doesn't meet the notability standards'; WHAT notability standards?). WP:CREATIVE and WP:ENT aren't the only guidelines. There's also WP:GNG and WP:BASIC which she meets both through multiple independent and reliable sources. Calling the references very poor is quite subjective to say, especially for an administrator who is closing the debate. [3] [4] Examples of significant coverage from independent reliable sources. I empathise that this was probably a hard debate to close, but I am kindly asking you to overturn the deletion to 'no consensus', for what I and probably other editors feel, would be a fair and reasonable close. Till I Go Home ^talk 13:46, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Both BLP and ENT needed to be met. Neither were reliably. Because of that it was easier to close than one would imagine. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 13:48, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Oh really... Because one of the first things that Notability (people) states is that "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject". I have just provided that above. And WP:ENT is a guideline – it doesn't and shouldn't outweigh the WP:GNG which she passes. Till I Go Home ^talk 13:59, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

You accused me of not reading the entire arguments, I showed you that I did. Your goal was to have me change my mind - however, we do not change our minds, we make new decisions based on new information. You have provided no new information, and as such there will be no new decision. WP:DRV is thataway if you disagree. Before you do: think of the jurisprudence you will set as well: everyone who drinks milk through their nose on youtube will want an article (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 14:03, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Omg. when did I accuse you of not reading the entire arguments?!? No new information? I just linked you two sources that weren't even in the article at the time! And you didn't even address my reply, so I'm going to emphasize: "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject". Kthanksbye. Till I Go Home ^talk 14:10, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Deletion review for GloZell Green

An editor has asked for a deletion review of GloZell Green. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review.

As per your suggestion. Till I Go Home ^talk 14:46, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

I probably suggested that your DRV include actual policy-based arguments rather than personal commentary, or a re-hash of the AFD. You need to show my close violated policy clearly, but whatever. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 14:58, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Oh, and you should probably read the DRV for Shawn Welling while you're there...similar arguments/discussion, only this time they support by decision to delete :-) (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 15:05, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Central European Journal of International and Security Studies

Hi, I almost invariably agree with your closes, but must admit that I am a bit unhappy about this one. I know that there were no "delete" !votes, but none of the "keep" !votes was even remotely based on policy. As far as I can see, DGG's argument boils down to WP:ILIKEIT. In addition, DGG (whom I respect a lot, but that doesn't mean we always agree) !voted "weak keep", so then a subsequent "Keep, per DGG" sounds not like a very considered !vote to me either. Apart from the journal's homepage, there are zero sources, so there's a serious WP:V problem, too. I would appreciate if you could give this a second look. Of course, I'll understand if you would come to the same conclusion, but I just want to make sure that you considered all arguments. Thanks! --Guillaume2303 (talk) 13:07, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Just like we have to stretch to include musicians from obscure countries even though they have a) poor sourcing, b) no websites, c) numerically poor sales (although perhaps excellent by ratio), I felt the same thing with this journal. I did find a couple of small hits inside a journalism database (but cannot include the links). Besides, DGG has never made an WP:ILIKEIT argument in his life :-) ! (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 13:13, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Guillaume and I have very rarely disagreed on academic journals. A few times, I've been a little more inclusive. What Guillaume saw as ILIKEIT , I intended as an argument based on CULTURALBIAS--both in the sense of the relative bias of our sources with respect to non-Western Europe journals, and their relative bias in the humanities and soft social sciences. BWilkins, I'm glad you saw it that way also, as did SQuinn. Agreed I think all around that this particular journal is borderline, and I consequently said weak keep, not keep. As I use the terms, "weak keep" or "weak delete" mean that "this is my opinion, but I would not think anyone wrong who concluded the opposite, nor will I try very hard to persuade them." I would not have appealed a contrary decision.

More generally, there is an unresolved question in libraries and I think the academic community generally concerning the criteria for open access journals of this type. There's complete and in fact sometimes rather bitter disagreement about the extent to which academic publication ought to encompass, or even switch, to such journals. Myself, I am undecided. I observe that some of the people I trust least in my subject take extreme positions on the opposite sides, and some but not all of the people I trust most are willing to experiment with them, which leads me to think the journals might on balance be a useful supplement.

In a situation of this sort, where there really is no accepted outside criterion, it would be difficult for us at Wikipedia to adopt one. I have normally !voted delete for these in the sciences, and tended to !vote in other fields on the basis of whether a substantial amount of material has been published. The question of whether to go by cataloged holdings is a difficult one: for a library, it is a small but non-zero cost to add such a journal to the catalog (It takes about 10 or 15 minutes of staff time, plus the ongoing cost of making sure it is still active with a live site). My former university decided we would add them if and only if any of the professionals or faculty asked us to do so for a particular one, a policy I supported. I added a very few--basically the ones in my subject where I would say keep at Wikipedia. An earlier argument for adding them all to the catalog is now obsolete: few academics rely only on formal library resources for finding material.

I therefore think it is premature for us to have a formal discussion on this, but better to go case by case, accepting that we will make errors in both directions. DGG ( talk ) 20:06, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the insightful comments DGG. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 23:12, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes, they are insightful and I can find myself in them to a great extent. I should indeed have said "CULTURALBIAS" instead of "ILIKEIT". Nevertheless, I still disagree, I'm afraid. Cultural bias should be combated by putting in an extra effort to find sources and such and increase coverage. But I think it is wrong to try to correct this bias by abandoning all guidelines and lowering our criteria. I note that Czech sources have not been found, either (and would have been perfectly willing to accept those as evidence of notability). Library holdings have rarely (I cannot actually remember a single case) been an argument in AfD discussions of "classical" journals (i.e., print subscription journals), probably because listing in reputable and selective databases is strongly correlated with whether or not libraries will subscribe to a journal. For OA journals, I think this info is rather meaningless. It was unfortunate that DGGs "weak keep" was interpreted as "keep" by subsequent participants. As for OA journals in general, my position is, I think, basically identical to DGGs: I think the verdict is still out, but am willing to give them a chance. I'm actively involved in several such journals myself: I'm academic editor for PLoS ONE, and associate editor/member of the editorial board of several BioMed Central titles. But I fulfill similar roles for "classical" subscription journals (and was editor-in-chief of one until last January). Anyway, it's not that I cannot live with this article being around, it was just that I didn't think this AfD went as it should have. But that happens and WP is not really worse for it and life goes on :-). --Guillaume2303 (talk) 17:01, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Personal life of Jennifer Lopez

Hey! I noticed that Personal life of Jennifer Lopez was deleted. I just wanted to ask if you can userfy the page inside my userspace? I think that some useful information may be lost on the article and would like to bring it back to the main article. Would you do that? Regards!. —Hahc21 20:14, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Wow, are you sure you want to touch that piece of junk ... it's a BLP nightmare, and worthy of a gossip column ... (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 23:07, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Please, i'll revise it. It'll be great if you do that for me. I just want to see if anything is worthy —Hahc21 23:12, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

So, would you do that favor for me? :( —Hahc21 03:08, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

The Spindrift

Dear BWilkins, This has been quite an experience. At age 74, I'm running out of time, and the remarkable tonnage of W info is exhausting (I would rather spend my time thinking about something a little more material)

My article, The Spindrift," is in a strange state of suspense! Is it unblocked? What has been "fixed". Who is the mysterious "other" to whom I should reply? We spent our honeymoon in Victoria,BC and returned many times (50+): why do Canadians spell Theater and reverse the last two letters? Eh?

best, matts djos — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mgdjos (talk • contribs) 21:44, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

I have just nominated the article for deletion as a non-notable book. You should not be writing article about subjects that you have a conflict of interest: indeed, you agreed to it when you signed up for an account. We spell "theatre" with an "re" and "odour" with a "ur" because we were more purist with the mother English tongue. Americans intentionally chose to distance themselves from the UK spellings after a little party in Boston harbour (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 23:05, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Don't forget the other party. Many United Statesians are oblivious to that one but the Canucks seem to remember somehow. :) Toddst1 (talk) 14:38, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Someone told me that we Canucks packed up some beer and backbacon, marched to Washington, burnt down the White House, ran out of beer and came home. Apparently most of that is actually true...(the backbacon part is not true) (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 17:12, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

And the Yanks still sing about it at every ball game. Silly Yanks. I just want to know who that guy Jose is that they talk about at the beginning of the song. Toddst1 (talk) 17:15, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Heh, and for a country that soooo wanted to distance themselves from their Colonial Master, to choose the tune from a British drinking song for their National Anthem was a unique choice ... (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 17:17, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Ruderow

Courtesy note: I've just left a comment at User_talk:Ruderow#Caste_sanctions, follow your decline of an unblock request. I think that there is some confusion going on. - Sitush (talk) 16:04, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes, perhaps someone claims to have not understand very clear sanctions ;-) Got the note, cheers (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 17:20, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

User:Bwilkins/RestrictionsProject

Came across your mention of that potential project on Sarek's talk page. I have a suggestion. Would it be possible to have the block log display relevant editing restrictions as well as blocks? Obviously this would require a change or extension to mediawiki but such might be more workable and more easily identifiable than fully protected user subpages. Just a thought. I completely agree that the current editing restrictions process is haphazard at best. Alternatively, one could use a one second block and utilize the comment field to log the restriction and a permalink to the discussion, though this would not work for lengthy restrictions. N419BH 19:08, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

ANI-notice.

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is The_Un-authorized_use_of_a_Bot_in_the_Latvian_Wikipedia_by_User_in_the_Chinese_Wikipedia.2C_being_also_an_authoized_Bot-owner_in_the_English_Wikipedia.2C_or.2C_an_.28a_possibly.29_un-authorized_Global-Bot.. Thank you. — KC9TV 02:23, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Please learn to NOT copy/paste text from one discussion board to another. Please also learn when you have obtained the right answer, and simply then let it drop (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 09:59, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Afanc (Dungeons & Dragons)

Hi Bwiklins,

I wanted to ask you about this close. I have no problem with your closing rationale - redirect was just about the only reasonable way to close that one. However, I noted that the prospect of a merge was also discussed, and although you deleted the edit history, your closing rationale indicated no prejudice against a merge and even mentioned that it would be "appropriate as part of list of creatures". Unless you have a significant objection to my doing so, I would like to merge information from the article into the list, and wanted to bring this up to you before I do so. BOZ (talk) 19:40, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

IMHO, as long as it doesn't make the "List of" article overly long, then it's probably ok. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 19:58, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! That's not too cumbersome, is it? BOZ (talk) 23:22, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Seems ok, IMHO. I'd bet my whole day's admin pay that it's fine ;-) = ✉→BWilkins←✎ 21:03, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Bad Girls Club (season 9)

I would like to know if I'm acting out in WP:OWN on the article. I removed several empty sections on the article per WP:TOOSOON as they give no purpose at the moment. However, User:Junebea1 reverted it today in a edit summary of "How can it be irrelevant if the season is less than 2 weeks away?" I had asked him to go on the talk page so all the other editors can discuss if the information should be used at this time, though he ignored. Best, Jonayo! ^{Selena 4 ever} 17:54, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

The only thing I don't understand is if you wanted to talk about it then why would you delete it? Couldn't you have waited until we talked about it? Junebea1 (talk) 18:05, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

It's against WP:BOLD, I should have went to the talk page first knowing how you and I don't really see eye-to-eye. But we had this discussion last season and I thought you would understand since we had reached a consensus. My two cents, its just empty sections that gives 0.99% of encyclopedic information so why keep it? It will be needed once the season officially starts. Best, Jonayo! ^{Selena 4 ever} 18:09, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Empty section? Delete on sight for something that hasn't even started yet. Especially if this was already discussed last year. Seriously you two, smarten up both of you. Have some common sense. Now take this discussion back to the article talkpage ✉→ BWilkins ←✎ 18:13, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

User

Hi, I like your new signature! Do you think this user is FishingKing? The signature is the same as well with all of the 'Fighting vandals' combined into it. It wouldn't go past me if it was......--Chip123456 (talk) 20:51, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

I actually said on his talkpage that he is FishingKing ("monarch of anglers"...with a wikilink to his previous account). I won't tell you how easy it was to find the WP:DUCK. I verified with a CU that "very likely same; agent string matches, geographic match" = ✉→BWilkins←✎ 20:54, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Unblock on hold

There is an unblock request at User talk:Xplane-maniac. You blocked, and suggested the account is a sockpuppet of FishingKing. Having previously encountered FishingKing sockpuppets, I was immediately struck by the fact that Xplane-maniac's writing of English seems to be different from that of FishingKing's. I also can't see any obvious evidence of sockpuppetry in the editing history, and the only page they have both edited is Wikipedia:Counter-Vandalism Unit/Academy/Enroll. Also, Xplane-maniac has not edited any page in common with the sockpuppet SovietMonster. Can you let me know what the evidence is, so that I can meaningfully assess the unblock request? JamesBWatson (talk) 20:56, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

See above. Also, look at one of the earliest versions of Xplane's user page, and compare it to Fish's = ✉→BWilkins←✎ 20:57, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

I filed an SPI on FK last week. We had the old Brother story. ;)--Chip123456 (talk) 21:00, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

I hate to *label*, but this Brother makes *copies* too = ✉→BWilkins←✎ 21:05, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

What I based my decline on was the timing (the account was created shortly after FishingKing "retired"), the apparent familiarity with using Wikipedia, and the extremely similar signature (how many new users know how to modify their signature in the first place?). Now that I'm on my main account, I'll take a peek with checkuser to confirm. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 00:25, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Very  Likely as far as CU goes - also, he's exclusively using proxies and mobile connections, probably in an attempt to avoid detection (note that he asked for checkuser on his talk page). What he fails to realize is that both are still placing him firmly in the same geographic area. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 00:30, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Both the above comments and my own further investigations have persuaded me that this is indeed a sockpuppet account. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:15, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Undelete Metaxas

Actually, I'm sorry if I deleted anything. Are you sure I even did? Just responded to notification. Never touched anything on restored page. So, to answer your question: no I am not a dick, not trying, or even wanting, to be one. I do want Metaxas article deleted unless it is not just advertising, recognises that M is not a reliable source on Bonhoeffer, and that WP is written from a neutral point of view. I am bringing this forward. Also bringing forward complaint about harassment (your last message) and the administrator who simply checked "done" without recognising the fact that the major complaint against the M article was advertising/non-neutral point of view, as substantiated by M Talk. All the best. Will see you in AFD. Mfhiller (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:45, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Requested move of Côte d'Ivoire

There is currently a discussion on moving the article Côte d'Ivoire to Ivory Coast. You are being notified since you participated in a previous discussion on this topic. Please join the discussion here if you are interested. TDL (talk) 02:24, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Block evasion at SPI

Hello Bwilkins, you may want to review this case since you blocked the master. Cheers,
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 18:34, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Too obvious! Comment left; thanks for the heads up (✉→BWilkins←✎) 09:26, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Second Account

Due to the large number delsorting I've been doing over the last few months, I'm considering creating an alternative account on Maintenance grounds per WP:SOCK#LEGIT. Just wanted to get the opinion from a few administrators before proceeding, the last thing I want to happen is to be blocked. If you post a reply on your thoughts regarding the issue here I would really appreciate it. Thanks ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 00:16, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice & the name suggestions quite like the DuckIsJelly but sticking with the PeanutButter one. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 11:09, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

proliferation of the conflict

after hijacking the dhimmitude article user estlandia is now adding the discrimination bar to another article, [5]. another user from the dhimmitude conflict, shrigley, is also involved [6]. this pov-pushing and hounding is beginning to out of hand.-- altetendekrabbe  00:23, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Question for ya

At link -- Avanu (talk) 22:41, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, DangerousPanda. You have new messages at Wikipedia_talk:Blocking_policy.
Message added 20:03, 1 July 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Toddst1 (talk) 20:03, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Help with Removing Clean Up Tags

The article page Playdom was tagged as 'needing cleanup' in February 2011. I have been cleaning up the page, removing biased statements, adding references, and generally fixing grammar and syntax as needed. At this point, I think the 'needing cleanup' designation should be removed, but I'm not sure if there's a process to follow in order to do so. I'd love some guidance on whether there's a process, what that process is, or if I can just go ahead and remove the tag. Thank you! Noreenst (talk) 18:22, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

If it's a commonly-edited page, a brief discussion on the article talkpage would probably help. If you propose the de-tag, and get no replies for 5-7 days, it's probably good to go. However, if discussion does take place, remember that WP:CONSENSUS is not a vote :-) (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 18:24, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your help! Wikipedia can be a confusing place for a newcomer. :) Noreenst (talk) 22:38, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Jerusalem during the Crusader period/draft

Hi, you closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jerusalem during the Crusader period/draft

Jerusalem during the Crusader period/draft

Please restore into my user space. Sorry for confusion. The discussion in the AFD page was helpful, but I was away. Staszek Lem (talk) 15:35, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

 Done right here (✉→BWilkins←✎) 09:27, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Irvi Hyka

Yesterday Irvi Hyka restored [7] content that I had previously removed [8]. He was then reverted by another user [9], and today an IP reverted back to Irvi Hyka's version [10]. The IP is in fact Irvi Hyka editing unlogged, as can be seen from its contribs [11]. International recognition of Kosovo is arguably Irvi Hyka's favorite article [12] and the 80.78 IP reverts another IP editor [13] that had previously reverted one of Irvi Hyka's edits [14]. In both cases there are two reverts within 24 hours, thus he is editing unlogged so as to get around the 1RR restriction. Athenean (talk) 19:43, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Evidence is overly-compelling. Thanks, and sorry to have to deal with it that way (✉→BWilkins←✎) 09:36, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Nomination of Inline-twin engine for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Inline-twin engine is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Inline-twin engine until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Dennis Bratland (talk) 14:20, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Be careful with WP:CANVASS (✉→BWilkins←✎) 14:22, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

3RR

I've reported User:Evlekis on ANI regarding a recent case of 5 reverts in less than 24 hours. As I've mentioned a comment you made regarding him on a somewhat similar report I have to notify you [15] too.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 19:43, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Melungeon

Ok, wrong version, but -- is this the appropriate reward for refusing to discuss and editwarring? Since the IP won't discuss it and thinks we are saying horrible things about his family, and made those 'formal cease and desist' edits, it seems wrong in all sorts of ways to leave a version with OR, use of raw data, etc. as our official version for a month. Dougweller (talk) 20:58, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Ooops, I'm an idiot, thought it was full protection. I should have known you wouldn't do that. Dougweller (talk) 21:10, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Nice self-WP:NPA there :-) I think I also reverted to a pre-IP version (or at least the most recent one) ... which again was likely the WP:WRONGVERSION. But, as you noted ... you can fix it :-) (✉→BWilkins←✎) 21:22, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Calvin999

Avanu asked me to look at this [16] and I had a question. As to the fact that he shouldn't be trying to edit by proxy, I completely agree with that, a blocked editor shouldn't be editing, even by proxy. I also understand why that isn't obvious to the average editor but it looks like he stopped after he was warned, which is good. I see where you say that the talk page is only to be used for requesting unblocks, but I would strongly disagree, via WP:BLOCKING "A blocked user can continue to access Wikipedia, but is unable to edit any page, except (in most cases) their own user talk page." without any stated limitations, which has been my experience here for many years. I'm assuming you agree with that and were just understating the use for some reason. I saw his last comment just before the block [17] but didn't see anything I would normally associate with being talk page blockworthy there. Maybe there is something I'm missing? I don't have any background with the editor, so just have to go on what I see on the surface, compared to what I understand is the policy. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 21:22, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Don't forget this guideline (✉→BWilkins←✎) 23:56, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, Calvin999/Aaron sucks at appealing blocks. You ever think this non-bureaucracy is a bit bureaucratic? Happy 1st. -- Avanu (talk) 00:14, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

The intent of a block is to protect the project and prevent repeat offenders. Are you convinced that Calvin won't re-offend? I'm not even sure he knows why he was blocked yet. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 09:15, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

I wasn't questioning the original block, just the talk page, as I hear a buffet of different opinions on when it is and isn't appropriate to block the talk page. I have my own opinions and they are probably somewhat different than yours, but I think that the lack of clarity in the policy is the issue. I've seen this issue come up often enough that I'm wondering if an RfC might be in the future. I can follow any policy that the community agrees to, even if I disagree with it, but it would be nice if it that one element was spelled out more clearly. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 18:22, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Well, we've always used WP:AAB as a measuring stick regarding talkpage locks. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 19:12, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

That seems to reinforce my belief that the talk page can be used for more than just unblock requests. "Abuse" (via WP:BLOCK) is in the eye of the beholder and I can allow for differences there, but I have to admit that when someone says "the talk page is for unblock requests only", that is like fingernails on a chalkboard to me, as I don't see anywhere it is limited to such. I'm funny that way. I want people blocked that need it, but I want to go the extra mile to be fair as well. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 21:09, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

When his answers are all that he did nothing wrong, and his "friends" start piling on to say the same thing, it becomes admin abuse. Indeed, it would have actually been best to full-protect the entire page considering. If you had been privy to the e-mail exchange I had with Calvin/Aaron, you would have seen more of the same - and additional proof that the talkpage lock was quite justified (✉→BWilkins←✎) 14:14, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Ah, email. It doesn't require a lot of imagination to get to that point then. I trust your word on this, and hopefully you take no offense for my asking as it looked a little thin on the surface. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 18:12, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Editing policy statements

Looking at the edits to our blocking policy, I'm wondering if anywhere there is guidance as to how changes in policy statements should be made. It all seems random at the moment. Dougweller (talk) 12:25, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

You might take a look at WP:PGCHANGE for guidance on that question. In some ways it is similar to any other edit in Wikipedia, in some ways it is a little different. -- Avanu (talk) 13:40, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

The crucial bit there seems to be 'strictly'. As for 'substantive changes', I don't understand why 'Bold' is an alternative without BRD. You shouldn't need consensus to revert an undiscussed substantive change in policy. And in practice I doubt that Bold on its own happens, I'd expect BRD to be more common. Dougweller (talk) 14:50, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

User: TruPepitoM

Dear B, I would have gone to Kudpung but he's away most of the week. This is about this thread here: [18] which you commented on. Anyway, five days later, Tru commented on my talkpage; I copied it back onto his, in the relevant section. I had written out my reply and, before posting it, was checking random contributions of his (to get a fuller pic of his Eng Lang abilities) when I came across this essay he'd done, right after commenting to me: [19]. I think it can be seen Kudpung and I were only trying to help the bloke.... Anyway, I replied with what I'd written before seeing this, and then just added a little PS letting him know I've seen the little epistle. Am seriously cross and rather hurt, really. May I leave it with you to decide if anything ought to be done? ta, Plutonium27 (talk) 14:51, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Well, we can only help people as much as we can. In the long run, competence is required. Although I agree with TPM that we need some patience, there's a limit. What's best in a cooperative project is that if they edit something with some actually useful info yet really f-up the grammer - don't revert, fix. That way the editor's key point is included, we just tidy it up a little. I am a little taken aback by his belief that this is a US-English-centric project: most of my writing is in Canadian English :-) However, it's his impression and he's allowed to feel that - our role is to gently prove him wrong and bring him along on the journey (✉→BWilkins←✎) 16:09, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

I have made a mistake. I would have thought that WP:ESSAY and "Writings that violate one or more Wikipedia policies, such as spam, personal attacks, copyright violations, or what Wikipedia is not" would apply. Even a cursory glance of this user's contributions shows more than a grammar problem : [[20]] (deliberately inserting false info in a sports score) for example. I should not have bothered, because it must be your involvement in that thread that is inhibiting your willingness to do anything but offer absurd platitudes. Tis funny how you were onto this guy last week but now he's a special snowflake allowed to spread his impressions where and how he pleases. Plutonium27 (talk) 17:42, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

You come here and I provide an honest answer, now you're saying I'm giving platitudes? My pholosophy of this project is out there for everyone to see. If you want to SHOW me valid, proven violations of personal attacks in his essay, then show it to me now and I'll deal with it. I see no copyvios, nothing that violates even WP:POLEMIC. Again, show me violations ... (✉→BWilkins←✎) 17:57, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Ongoing issue

Bwilkins, I gather this remark[21] is an attempt at humour. Well it is not amusing. That section was introduced by me, I was reporting an editor for unilaterally moving Bojana (river). There is no mention of Republic of Kosovo and the 1RR anywhere in that piece, only ARBMAC cropping up here and there. I did not click the link because its main space appearance coupled with the scenario whereby I was seeking disciplinary measures against an antagonist editor meant that this was something remote from my interests. When I visit those pages, I scan down the list at what has been said and I either post a new comment or I head off. My actions were not impugned in that thread and therefore there was no requirement for me to open every link, furthermore, you were addressing two other users when you introduced the part. For what it is worth, yes I did have a quick look at ARBMAC but this is not something that sticks in one's mind. And when you do remember it, what do you think of? Macedonia - because it forms a part of the title. I know the conditions of that policy now and that is what matters, but your insistence that I am being untruthful in that I knew all about ARBMAC and its far-reaching implications as well as the 1RR also mentioned on the talk page is wholly unfounded. All you have gleaned is the occasional thread in which I was involved which alluded to a policy I violated via its hidden backstreets and dark alleys. Now imagine a scenario with you in my position, it would be like searching for a needle in a haystack. Some users edit heavily on one or two topics. I edit largely on affairs close to the Balkans (subjects relating to former Yugoslavia and Bulgaria) but I have made contributions on 9,000 articles. I take interest in some sport, comedies, music, linguistics, international affairs away from the region; so I am not a Kosovo-only editor, it has dominated the past few days but if you look at the history of the articles and my own editing past, you'll see there are huge gaps whereby I haven't visited an ARBMAC-infested article for months at the time. Please demonstrate good faith as an admin and realise that an editor is not necessarily deceitful just because he has brushed past something. Perhaps I should have known better, it doesn't mean that in stealth I really did. The main concern is, I now know about the full scenario and I know how to handle things in future. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 17:48, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Not a joke. As you read in the most recent ANI report about you, awareness of the 1RR restriction is assumed when you were involved in similar situation. You were involved. You must have read the rest of the discussion regarding ARBMAC warnings. You're one of those who got one without needing to have it formally placed on your page (✉→BWilkins←✎) 17:59, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes I know that now. But I don't get the fuss, I never used the unawareness as part of a defence; I admitted my actions, and yes, when something is implemented, it can be presumed that relevant people know it. Whatever happens, can this now be an end to it. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 18:03, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

No, you did use it: on ANI you said "I maintain that I was unaware and I have produced irrefutable evidence to support this - that being that no message of 1RR appears when you click "edit", only a message that the page is protected". You certainly have no need for a banner on an article to tell you that it is within the confines of Kosovo-related articles, broadly construed. That is purely a deceptive statement. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 19:44, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

I stated it because it was the truth, but I never said "let me off because I didn't know" - that's what I meant by not using it as a serious tool for defence. The thread was long and towards the later posts I accepted wrongdoing and that a block is possible, I was however warned and my name was added to the ARBMAC Hall of Fame and that was the outcome. Anyhow there is no point continuing this topic. I can't change people's thoughts and if you believe I was being dishonest then I am unable to change that. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 20:28, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

User:Doktorbuk

Hello. Could you please take a look again at 3RR, Doktorbuk, bearing in mind the discussion he started at User talk:Boleyn, where he has stated that he plans to go to Preston (UK Parliament constituency) and remove redlinks to MPs - undoing hours of my work? Please help me. Boleyn (talk) 18:02, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

This makes it look like he's restoring them ... is there an issue, you you're just afraid there may be one? (✉→BWilkins←✎) 19:25, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

He deleted these entries well after he'd agree with you not to do so (see User talk: Boleyn), I'm glad he's thought better of it and restored them. I do feel there is still an ongoing problem - please see my user talk page and see if you agree. If not, then that's great, I'm taking it too personally becuase I've put in so many hours of work. But I do feel I need support to ensure he doesn't keep reverting me, jusging by his comments and attitude on my talk page. Boleyn (talk) 19:36, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Both EdJohnston and I have engaged him on his talkpage ... there should be no more issues (✉→BWilkins←✎) 19:37, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your prompt response, hopefully he will respond soon. Best wishes, Boleyn (talk) 19:54, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm afraid the issues have continued, although the user has looked for consensus, he has reverted my edits again without finding consensus. He is now deleting all redlinks to pre-18th century MPs. Can you please look over User talk:Boleyn? Best wishes, Boleyn (talk) 08:24, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Since this was given a result, Doktorbuk has reverted my edits on Devizes (UK Parliament constituency), Preston (UK Parliament constituency), Radnorshire (UK Parliament constituency) and City of York (UK Parliament constituency). These have been reverted (for now) by User:Avanu, and discussion has continued at my Talk page. Can you help? I have no intention of restoring my edits if he continues to edit war, not to create more red links to MPs, but I'm very frustrated, and would appreciate some advice and help. Boleyn (talk) 16:58, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure which block to hand out first ... you, or the good doktor (✉→BWilkins←✎) 17:39, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

I think they are both agreeing to be a bit more conservative in their edits for the time being. And it seems that we have two reasonably good discussions at Village Pump and Jimbo's page, so if they can both be patient, a clear consensus will form on this. -- Avanu (talk) 18:06, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Consensus already exists - the no-longer-so-good-Doktor is going 180 degrees against it, and is indeed slow-edit-warring to get it done. The block I provided should have been longer, as I see no desire to act according to consensus, only on the WP:IDONTLIKEIT that Doktor has already expressed (✉→BWilkins←✎) 18:23, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

BWilkins, please let me know why you wonder if you should block me, so I can look at modifying my behaviour. I haven't been edit warring or reverting the Doktor's edits, so I thought I'd been doing the right things - sorry if I haven't been. I'm also sorry that in seeking to get this looked at, I added to the 3RR discussion, but also informed the 2 helpful admins who had looked into this previously. I wanted the previous discussion to be updated so the information was there, but as you and the other admin already had looked at this before, and I didn't know if you'd be following the 3RR discussion as it was kinda closed, I thought I should inform you also. If this caused you problems, I apologise, although I don't think the FFS, or any allusion to swear words, was really necessary, and this response upset me. Anyway, if you let me know why you feel that you don't know who to block first, then I can look at what I need to change, and I appreciate you taking the time to deal with these very frustrating episodes within Wikipedia. Boleyn (talk) 20:05, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

What's frustrating is you re-opening closed reports, then copying the identical text to 2 other places. Very wrong (✉→BWilkins←✎) 20:11, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry if it was wrong, but it was done in good faith - I haven't had much reason to be aware of how these things work. Boleyn (talk) 20:14, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

ANI

Just to let you know I mentioned you or rather your talk page here Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive814#Harassment from User:SarekOfVulcan Nil Einne (talk) 03:03, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Wikipoodling

I hadn't seen User:Bwilkins/Essays/Wikipoodling until you mentioned it on ANI. Great term and appropriately applied in relation to Splash, Status, and the fan club.

FYI, I commented on stuff you said on my talk page. Toddst1 (talk) 16:29, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

*grin* Feel free to help expand the Wikipoodling essay :-) I saw your comments on your talkpage ... sorry about the use of "cluelessness", but they certainly did not help diffuse that, and a WP:CLUE is required (✉→BWilkins←✎) 16:38, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

No, I certainly felt the word was applicable at the time of the conflict. The situation was pretty frustrating as there was a lot of misinformation being thrown around. It's unfortunate that the emotions within that clique are still so high.

I'll think about how to expand that. It's really a perfect term. Toddst1 (talk) 16:45, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Heh ..."Wiki-chihuahua-ing" was just too damned difficult to say/spell LOL (✉→BWilkins←✎) 16:50, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Draft

The entry proposed for WP:RESTRICT is in User:EdJohnston/Sandbox. See also a reply on my Talk. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 23:45, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Jaan and your wikilink to "TRUTH"

Unless I am mistaken, WP:MOS directs us to use the name of the sovereign country (at the time) for place names. As such, referring to Ostland or the Estonian SSR as someone's birthplace is as valid as listing "Lyon, Vichy France, 1941" as someone's encyclopedic birthplace.

So, rather than Jaan professing his personal truth = I took that as your implication per your Wikilink, he was undoing (removing the Estonian SSR) the equivalent of my example of specifying "Vichy France" as the birth country for any Frenchman/Frenchwoman born in 1941 in Lyon.

There is no subjective truth involved here over which dispute resolution is required. I hope you find the analogy helpful. While a Guberniya of Russia is valid for the 19th century, an SSR of the Soviet Union is not valid for the 20th century. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 18:05, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Bridge Boy & personal attacks

Yet another admin has to warn him about personal attacks (diff). Time to act on this disruptive and time-wasting editor? --Biker Biker (talk) 18:47, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

My mistake, he's not an admin (but perhaps he should be!). My point still stands about continued disruption though. We are consuming so many cycles chasing and cleaning up after BB. Time to call it a day IMHO. --Biker Biker (talk) 19:24, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

I can't see why he was warned about personal attacks - and indeed, he was NOT. He was told it "borders" on one, which it really does not. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 19:41, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Assume good faith

Just wanted to express my dissatisfaction with your reply to me on Rangoon11's talk page recently. You probably deal with a lot of crap as an admin, but that's no reason to disregard WP:assume good faith. Please try in future to be a little less hasty and a bit more conservative when it comes to accusations. Fleetham (talk) 14:46, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

I was completely assuming good faith: I assumed you actually care about the requirement for consensus, and that you care that all parties must be a part of any discussion to obtain consensus, and that you care about the fact that even though you might not have a good history with someone that you are indeed required to communicate with them if it's for the betterment of the encyclopedia. If none of those apply to you, then you're right, my good faith was wrongly given (✉→BWilkins←✎) 20:36, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Well it appears your comment was misconstrued, and I guess I didn't make it clear enough that my desire to cease communication with someone trumped my interest in partaking in a consensus discussion. I'm not sure if having an opinion on a matter means I am required to state it, but if so then yes, you are right that I must communicate with all comers. Fleetham (talk) 21:05, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Bridge Boy

I don't think he is getting it, nor that he is capable of getting it. I already said I screwed up the move, which wasn't the reason for the block (obviously) [22] I am really starting to believe this individual is WP:CIR material, and that he isn't trying to be malicious, but he really just is that lacking in basic reasoning. Any guidance you have would be appreciated. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 22:15, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

I have left a bit of a note on his talkpage ... let's see how he responds (✉→BWilkins←✎) 23:26, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

That was well done. I still don't hold out hope, and I've likely been more patient that I should have (or it has been said there at ANI regarding him), but CIR is a difficult thing to show definitively in these cases, and I'm not inclined to move fast where it isn't clear. That said, it is getting a bit old, and very likely much more so for those who are trying to work on the articles. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 01:54, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

If you think they're bad, how about this one? (✉→BWilkins←✎) 08:53, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Company articles

Hi, Bwilkins. I stumbled on your comments on Xceedium's talk page. You told him/her that editors who work for a company are never allowed to create an article about that company. I don't think that is true. Yes, it is highly discouraged, but I can find no policy that prohibits it. Am I mistaken? NTox · talk 22:04, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

He quoted the policy directly: edit carefully, create was not part of it (✉→BWilkins←✎) 23:33, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

True, but I'm still not sure that answers the question. Is there a policy I am not aware of that prohibits it - so that it is never allowed - as you told him? NTox · talk 23:59, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

• I've just seen the recent developments on David's talk page. I'm a bit disappointed with the way the situation has been handled. I don't believe a hard block should have been imposed on this individual, since he made zero promotional edits and requested a permissible username change. One reason is that we have no idea what kind of network he's on. It appears that you blocked him for a misunderstanding of policy, but there is no policy that does not allow him (company representative or not) to write an article about that company. Further, I think your claim that he lied is inconsistent with the spirit of giving people the benefit of the doubt (especially newcomers). Would you be willing to reconsider this? NTox · talk 18:36, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

1. He created an account that violates our username policy.
2. He was prompted to change it
3. He tried to change it to something that was still linked to the company
4. Meanwhile, he ARGUED on RFPC as to why he was not getting enhance rights - became quite belligerent about it actually
5. Because of this, the hardblock as a spammer was needed - as opposed to my usual softerblock

He unfortunately did lie, and has now admitted to it. I don't think he realizes that all of his edits are permanently tracked. I see that another admin has declined, appropriately. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 18:48, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Note

Note [23] in relation to the currently blocked user Special:Contributions/Arsenalkid700. IRWolfie- (talk) 21:39, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Acknowledged. Trying to edit by proxy now. Kid doesn't get it (✉→BWilkins←✎) 08:18, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Also, while this might be technically ok, it seems to flout the spirit of a block: [24]. IRWolfie- (talk) 20:48, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

ANI

Well, now you've been brought up in this pathetic piece of ANI drama. Toddst1 (talk) 07:08, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

It is indeed dramah. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 08:17, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

TheIrishWarden

I don't really know what the hell is going on! TheIrishWarden - Irish and proud (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:48, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Just back away, really. (Oh, and keep all conversations together - I am watching your talkpage) (Oh, and sign your posts) (✉→BWilkins←✎) 20:52, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm leaving it now, they can haggle all they like for years if they want. TheIrishWarden - Irish and proud (talk) 21:04, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

I am going to take your advice and keep out of it TheIrishWarden - Irish and proud (talk) 18:46, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

If you expect me to back off from the situation then why is EggCentric still posting messages and provoking me? Of course people talking badly me is going to provoke me. Trust me I want this to end but I think you need to have a word with EggCentric and tell him to back off and leave me alone. At the end of the day that is the only way I'll be able to carry on editing in a good manor as I have constant pressure over all my edits and therefore I've been making a LOT more mistakes since they've been watching me (feels like stalking). Thanks TheIrishWarden - Irish and proud (talk) 08:30, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

WP: PERM

Should I close this one: Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/Rollback#Krzna? Armbrust told me that as a non-admin clerk, I can close requests from users with no vandalism reverts, and I have looked through this user's contribs and found no vandalism reverts at all, plus he has zero auto edits, so he doesn't user Twinkle or STiki. Thank You, Electriccatfish2 (talk) 20:56, 13 July 2012 (UTC).

Wikipedia:Bot owners' noticeboard#Marking inactive bots so

I have closed Wikipedia:Bot owners' noticeboard#Marking inactive bots so as:

Closed per request at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure. I have read Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive754#Block Review, User talk:Rcsprinter123/Archives/10#May 2012, and this discussion.

The consensus is that Rcsprinter123 (talk · contribs) is permitted to mark bot user pages in Wikipedia:Bots/Status/inactive bots inactive with several caveats.

1. Rcsprinter123 should verify whether the bots are truly active by checking the contributions page and the log page. Some bots' revisions do not show up in the contributions page but in the logs page. Failure to do so may lead to editing restrictions or blocks. Wikipedia:Bot policy#Bot-like editing states (my bolding):

Human editors are expected to pay attention to the edits they make, and ensure that they don't sacrifice quality in the pursuit of speed or quantity. For the purpose of dispute resolution, it is irrelevant whether high-speed or large-scale edits that involve errors an attentive human would not make are actually being performed by a bot, by a human assisted by a script, or even by a human without any programmatic assistance. No matter the method, the disruptive editing must stop or the user may end up blocked.

The community rejected Rcsprinter123's position that:

As for whether or not the bot in question is active, that shouldn't be my problem because the people updating the inactive list should have weeded out the editing ones. It is hardly my fault that 7SeriesBOT was on that list, because someone else must have made the mistake of not seeing they do deleting only instead. I had, and have put my trust in that list to tell me which pages to do, and if it is checked and updated often enough, I don't see any problem with what I am doing. Rcsprinter (converse) 19:54, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

This is reflective of a poor attitude incompatible with doing this semi-automated task. Participants have found that Wikipedia:Bots/Status/inactive bots has contained errors in the past. As 28bytes (talk · contribs) notes, "Propagating wrong information across the 'pedia is indeed the problem of whoever does it, and if you're not willing to take responsibility for the edits, you shouldn't be making them."

2. To prevent friction, if an inactive bot's operator has edited within the past three months, Rcsprinter123 should ask them if their bot is inactive. He should give the operator one week to reply, after which, if there is no response, he may tag the bot as inactive. If the operator's response is to disagree with the changing, he is advised to "just pop their bot into an 'ignore' file and put a copy of the list of bots you're ignoring into a prominent place related to your monitoring activities" (from Tony Sidaway (talk · contribs)). If he would like to tag the bot as inactive over the bot operator's objections (this is inadvisable), he must gain consensus first at a community venue like Wikipedia:Bot owners' noticeboard. Cunard (talk) 23:28, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

I hope I have achieved a balance between allowing Rcsprinter123 to tag bots as inactive and ensuring no further mistakes are made and no further conflicts arise. Cunard (talk) 23:32, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Sounds perfect. Thanks for the update and wisely-thought close to the request. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 23:52, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. :) Cunard (talk) 23:53, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

User:Mla46ed

Thanks for the much necessary block! Regards ≫TheStrike Σagle≪ 09:46, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

As I hate to have to block, I really don't like to be thanked for doing them. I did try and reason with them first ... (✉→BWilkins←✎) 09:47, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Never mind then.He doesn't seem to care about talk page warnings.Lets hope this block might change his attitude.:) regards ≫TheStrike Σagle≪ 09:50, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

WT: PERM

You're right I'm getting defensive there. I was accused of and not notified of the discussion. This has gotten to me and bothered me and I'd rather be helping out with the backlogs than defending myself. I made a few mistakes and don't need to be bitten or personally attacked over them. I'm not saying you did anything wrong, I'm just saying that the purpose of that page is to find solutions, not to say how I messed up. I would like to leave that discussion and have an admin determine the next step and I'll go back to my work here, so I wanted to lay down the cases when I can close a request and also request your approval:

1. Blocked users/Blatant trolls.
2. Withdrawn requests.
3. New user who clearly doesn't know anything about the user right (I've marked a page patrolled, so I need autopatrolled; I like the rollback icon so I want to have the right; etc.).

This doesn't apply to requests to be confirmed, where I do most of my work. Also, I only make crystal-clear closures by rollback, such as User: Ekren, and JohnCD commended me for my close there. I hate being the subject of discussions here and would like to get back to work. Thanks, Electriccatfish2 (talk) 10:18, 15 July 2012 (UTC).

• I'm about to suggest that no non-admins do ANY work in RFP temporarily, thanks in part to the entire situation that has been created by not only you, but others. You claimed that I had permitted you to clerk, which was false, and wholly inappropriate. If you want to "go back to work" then remember that the goal of this project is article creation. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 11:22, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

We assumed you took ECF2 as a trainee clerk; see their response to current admin.--Chip123456 ^Talk_Contribs 13:47, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, and you have seen the discussion on RFPERM where that was declared to have been extremely false (✉→BWilkins←✎) 14:39, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Ok, that's really odd.....Electric would never usually come out with false remarks like this.--Chip123456 ^Talk_Contribs 14:43, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, well imagine my surprise. Indeed, someone seems to have accidentally removed my comment from the WT:RFPERM discussion (✉→BWilkins←✎) 14:56, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Hmmmm, thats also odd. Well, I'd love to help you look through the diffs to find out who it was, but I'll leave that fun for you to do ;). Chip123456 ^Talk_Contribs 15:12, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Which comments? I went on a bit of a nosy and couldn't find anything that had been removed in the last couple of days. Egg Centric 15:17, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

First of all, it was a misleading, not false statement and I never removed your comments. Second of all, I would like to express my sincere apologies for my mistake and I will ensure that this never happens again. However, please keep in mind that I've never made a bad closure at WP: PERM. I hope you can forgive me and we can move on from this unfortunate situation. Best, Electriccatfish2 (talk) 02:58, 16 July 2012 (UTC).

Bureaucracy

Bwilkins, have you ever thought about the possibility of becoming a bureaucrat? I only ask because over the past couple of month's I have been watching your contributions to Wikipedia and in particular, those to the AN/I board. Your blocks are always well thoughts, and your comments are always thorough in nature. You never seem to lose your cool and from what I have witnessed, you are not always quick to usher off a user to the blocked sector. Taking the time understand the contributions and intent of editors is crucial to an admin and you have shown that your skills in this area are superb. Additionally, as a bureaucrat you would be expected to uphold tighter standards and do much of the same for admins as you have for common editors. I believe you would be a great addition to the title and would be a vital tool to Wikipedia. As such, I would be willing to give you a well thought out nomination with formal regards for your aspirations and achievements on and to Wikipedia. Even if the title is too much to think about now, if I were you I would give it some serious thought. You definitely have the capabilities to handle such a position. Good day to you. Keystoneridin (speak) 18:37, 15 July 2012 (UTC) I will be retiring my account so I can no longer write this proposal.Keystoneridin (speak) 18:01, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

I second this proposal. Egg Centric 18:49, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

I storngly concur with both of the above. You are a serious, yet genuinely friendly user who manages to keep calm in situations, showing your ability to co-operatively work with others. Having you as a crat' would really benefit the project. --Chip123456 ^Talk_Contribs 20:18, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Your RfA statistics and votes can be seen here, as this is a main job of a crat' as well as the renames, bot flags etc.--Chip123456 ^Talk_Contribs 20:22, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree with you, but many established admins have failed and most don't make it until their 3rd request. Electriccatfish2 (talk) 03:04, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Not every admin wants to be a crat. Most don't, actually. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 18:22, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

• Keystone...if you're retiring because of what you considered to be some admin misconduct, I have to say it's probably not the right reasoning - there was nothing there insulting, attacking, or even uncivil ... I hope you get a chance to re-read the entire thing after a good night's rest (✉→BWilkins←✎) 19:44, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Civility Barnstar

First of all, I would like to apologize for my my misleading statements on Friday and I hope you will accept my apology. Also, I think that we should make it clear that there is no reason why you need to ask the requester if he/she uses Twinkle or is in the CVU because none of these are requirements for getting the tool and many people don't have either one of these. Also, I think common sense prevails on NOTNOW requests, but we have to separate these from SNOW requests. So again, I hope you accept my apology for my statements that caused major issues and I hope we can move on and continue to eliminate the backlogs at WP: PERM. Best, Electriccatfish2 (talk) 10:56, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

This mistake is really bothering me and I hate to feel like another editor is on "bad terms" with me. Can you please forgive me? Thanks, Electriccatfish2 (talk) 22:01, 16 July 2012 (UTC).

If you've read anything on my talkpage, you'll know I hold no grudges. Indeed, this incident will slip out of memory shortly. Remember: there really ARE no backlogs at WP:PERM ... (✉→BWilkins←✎) 22:09, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Thank you so much! I hope to only bump into you in positive situations. In the meantime before the proposal is done, I'll stick around and ask questions at Confirmed for the time being. Thank you so much, Electriccatfish2 (talk) 22:28, 16 July 2012 (UTC).

A Barnstar for you!!

		The Barnstar of Diplomacy
		For helping to control and calm down the 'troll' arguments between me and other users. I could see now end only two days ago, but your advice and good diplomacy helped to resolve the situation. Thanks! TheIrishWarden - Irish and proud (talk) 17:02, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Please give me some help.

Who are these IP's, I feel really sad that people don't want me here. It's slightly suspicious that a random IP suddenly comes out of nowhere and comments on this Closed case, although it probably is a user who forgot to login. Do you think 94.2.68.11 edits are enough to give him a warning? TheIrishWarden - Irish and proud (talk) 17:24, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

UPDATE: No worries, they have been given a final warning by another user. TheIrishWarden - Irish and proud (talk) 17:26, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Here's how to solve the problem: stop reacting (we admins say WP:RBI. They're trying to get you upset and to say you're sad ... and they're succeeding. Anonymous trolls are the wimps of the world - ignore them. As Russell Peters would say: "be a man!" (✉→BWilkins←✎) 17:56, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

ok I will, thanks for advice. TheIrishWarden - Irish and proud (talk) 19:18, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Filter

You triggered a false positive of one of the filters. I notified the filter creator to remedy it on your behalf. - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 01:03, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Respected Admin

Bwilkins, you are one of the admins that I respected and feel like I wanted to more emulate. Obviously that didn't happen and my road became clouded. Would you please do me the high honor of deleting my user page and talk page? This is Keystoneridin, signing out! Keystoneridin (speak) 04:11, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

I will delete your userpage as U1, but user talkpages cannot be deleted - I will blank it, however (if you have not already done so). (✉→BWilkins←✎) 09:50, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

RfA

Err... grats :) Kennedy ^(talk) 15:06, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

LOL ... odd way to slip from 101 to 100! And here I was just being funny (✉→BWilkins←✎) 15:35, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

What are you doing?

Can you actually read?

". Bwilkins (talk | contribs) changed block settings for Altetendekrabbe (talk | contribs) with an expiry time of Sun, 19 Aug 2012 11:32:27 GMT (account creation blocked, cannot edit own talk page) ‎(Revoking talk page access: inappropriate use of user talk page while blocked: WP:NPA while blocked)"

Did you just block the user for merely making an unblock request??????

Are you open to recall or do I take this to AN/I or ArbCom?

VolunteerMarek 11:55, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Ah, thanks for notifying me that it was you who made the NPA, not them. I have happily re-enable talkpage access for them (with sincere apologies) and unfortunately placed the required blocked for NPA where it actually belongs. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 12:09, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

I have removed my comment I was too like you thought that Altetendekrabbe made the personal attack and pointed to mareek but noticed later it was actually him, anyhow comment removed.--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 12:26, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

You would have been wise to use an edit summary such as "my apologies - I should not get involved as I do not wish to antagonize" ... it would have gone a long way IMHO (✉→BWilkins←✎) 12:28, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't think it would be smart to do it now as a null edit?--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 12:31, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

No, too late. Every single edit should have an edit-summary, so I'm not sure why you didn't kill 2 birds with one stone on that one in the first place (✉→BWilkins←✎) 12:57, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Re Grin

BW, indeed you are correct. I just returned from Wikimania and the level of anonimity within the community is amazing. If we don't self-identify in many discussions, no one else know who we are or how much experience we've had unless they want to start digging. I am of the philosophy that ever editor is equal and don't much care about them unless I am trying to figure out where they are comming in any discussion. Indeed Another admin comment Isn't this fun! --Mike Cline (talk) 13:21, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

urgent: 82.132.244.13

I request that this IP is to be blocked due to harassment towards me on EggCentric's talk page. Thanks Thєíríshwαrdєn - írísh αnd prσud (talk) 16:36, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

One childish post is harassment? Please don't make us play whack-a-mole. Again, you're just encouraging them (✉→BWilkins←✎) 17:42, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Your block of VM

Please see my proposal at [25]. Cheers, --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 17:35, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Other than the fact that you know there was nothing wrong with my block in that situation (so suggesting otherwise is not fair play), much of the rest is probably correct (✉→BWilkins←✎) 17:45, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

You were named in the comment. You shouldn't have acted yourself, as being named makes you involved. Stupid, but as far as I know, it can be seen like this. Not a major issue, and I hope VM will agree to refactor the comment. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 18:17, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Yup. Doesn't mean I need to go beg someone else to do the block, and it's bizarre to suggest that. If a 3rd party in shows up and their first response is to attack the blocking admin or anyone who dared comment, then they're wide-open because the attack first, think later way of acting. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 18:23, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

No comments about the block itself, but I want to note that Piotrus is correct. Policy states that you shouldn't block when you are involved. You shouldn't block for breaking NPA, if you are the target of the NPA breaking comment, as it makes you prima facie involved. You should self-revert based on that alone, because you shouldn't be acting when you may be seen as having a conflict of interest. LK (talk) 06:38, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm relatively sure that I've seen discussions in the past which confirm that being subject to an attack does not make one involved. The reasoning goes "Any editor could avoid blocks, by insulting the admin", etc. Having said that, I should state that I would have not blocked in this situation, simply because the (relatively minor) incivility appeared to be sounding off in the face of inconsistent blocking practises. Couple that with the fact that I rarely see that a block for incivility is the best solution. Not that I think it's a bad block, just one I wouldn't have made. Worm^TT(talk) 07:33, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm not suggesting that an admin shouldn't block just because he/she has been insulted. What I am saying is that when the only reason for a block is breaking NPA, then the person being insulted shouldn't be the one to block. The decision of whether an NPA violation is a blocking offence should be made by someone who's decision is not affected by the insult. My feeling is that others here feel that the action should not have been 'punished' by a block, and that there is prima facie reason to think that Bwilkins view on this issue may be affected by his reaction to what was written. Would Bwilkins have made the same block if he had come across a similar comment written concerning some other administrators? If the answer is not "indisputably yes", then Bwilkins shouldn't have made the block, since it has the appearance of impropriety. LK (talk) 08:16, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

I have made identical blocks in similar third-man-in situations in the past, and will do it again. There's a reason my userpage says that I will make "difficult blocks", although I make so few of them :-) (✉→BWilkins←✎) 09:13, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

There are difficult blocks and there are difficult blocks. Those where you have a potential coi due to being insulted are the ones which you should avoid making, or you'll be open to accusations of admin abuse. I believe you meant well, so I'd suggest you consider this for the future. Btw, if you agree with my solution to VM block, how about you officially propose on his talk page that you'll unblock him if he will refactor his post? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 14:55, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

You obvously have not read the rest of this thread - the basic premise behind your idea is incorrect. VM is, indeed, someone I have respected - the block is valid, and a block I am formally permitted to make, so it's not a case of WP:INVOLVED at all. As they have shown no signs of admitting their impropriety, nor requested a WP:GAB-compliant unblock of their own, there's no need to proceed. A thinking/feeling human being should not normally require prompting - especially one who has been a part of this project for so long. It's quite telling that the person whose block he was bitching about has already been unblocked from a 30 day block for acknowledging their issue, and coming up with a way forward. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 15:28, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

All admins are dicks, every one of them. Including crats and everyone with the power to block. There; that makes me pretty untouchable I would think, seeing as all admins are now 'involved'... Kennedy ^(talk) 10:51, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

LOL ... well said. Of course, seeing as every editor has the ability to either not sign on, or to scramble their password, every user therefore has the ability to block themself, which makes them... (✉→BWilkins←✎) 12:29, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Comments on Jimbo's page

I understand if you were responding to another contributor who stated that if the Facebook page was their official page, but I never said the organization I was referring to had a Facebook page as their official page, the non-profit organization I referred to does have their own webpage, I simply stated they STARTED as a Facebook group. Given that the organization has chapters through out Missouri, Iowa, Texas, California, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Hawaii and internationally in Germany, UK, Costa Rica, and Australia with over 13,600 members I think they are beyond the Facebook part, but that page does continue to be quite active.Camelbinky (talk) 19:42, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

No issues ... might have just been a too-fast read on my part (✉→BWilkins←✎) 14:29, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

expiry date

you need to fix one of the expiry dates on the template (set to jan. 2012...).-- altetendekrabbe  14:23, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Done. I appreciate your honesty with that one. I do believe it's hopefully painfully clear that overall you misjudged my attempts to explain/assist over the last 24hrs (✉→BWilkins←✎) 14:28, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Civility

Since you seem to care about it, unlike most others I can think of, can you take a look at recent comments by Imonoz (talk · contribs)? He used the word nationalistic, and I cautioned him to be careful with it ([26]). Instead of backing down, he seems to be increasingly aggressive towards Polish sources ("It's fine you have it on your own little PL:wikipedia but not on the mainstream.") and his last comment ("you should get off wikipedia") is quite offensive. Considering I did ask him to be civil earlier, I think he could use an admin warning. Also, he is revert warring and restoring a poorly formatted source reliability of which I questioned on talk; he is simply stating it is "more reliable than mine"... I don't feel like revert warring or insult slugging, so I'd appreciate it if an admin could make him see some reason. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 14:52, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

I have provided a non-templated civility/NPA "warning" with a few pointers ... hopefully it will suffice. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 15:36, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Some thoughts

We haven't interacted much directly, but you are very active, so I've seen you around a lot. Obviously, some response to the Jimbo suggestion is needed. On the one hand, it is clear that pronouncements by Jimbo no longer compel like they used to, so in theory, one can treat it as a suggestions with no more weight than it, say, I had proposed it. On the other hand, there is a perception about admins that has some fact basis, and it would be helpful to take steps to ensure the (arguably unfair) fact that admin conduct is expected to be held to a higher standard. I haven't reviewed the entire exchange, I suspect if I did I would be quite sympathetic to your frustration, but that doesn't change the fact that we are expected to do better. I thought the suggestion of six months off is a bit harsh, but Jimbo is clearly trying to send a message, one I support. While I am sympathetic to Dennis Brown's suggestion that a sysop should require a pattern of behavior, one I haven't seen, I'll distinguish a community forced desysop, which should require more than a one-off incident, and a voluntary decision, which does not. I hope never to be in this position, but if I were I would consider saying something like the following, "If anyone reads the entire exchange, they will have a fuller appreciation of the situation, and an understanding of why I was so frustrated. I honestly felt the editor was acting in a way that wasn't acceptable, and some higher level of maturity was needed. However, feeling something and expressing that thought are two different acts, and I accept that as an admin, I am expected to take the higher ground, and handle things differently. In short, my behavior, while understandable, was unacceptable. In order to reinforce this, I will request that the bureaucrats remove my bit until such time as I feel I can deal with situations such as this in a better way, and I commit that I will wait at least a month before asking for the bit back."--SPhilbrick(Talk) 15:40, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

This makes sense. Bwilkins, you had every right to be frustrated with the situation at hand. Your adminship has not been marked by a pattern of incivility, so voluntary desysopping may seem unfair. However, I think it would give you additional credibility down the road and I'd find it very hard to believe you'd encounter difficulties getting the mop back. I'd think of it has a formality, basically taking one "for the team." Turning in the kit for a short time would not be looked upon as a reflection of your adminship as a whole. --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 15:48, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

I appreciate the considerately thought-out and well-phrased comments. Just to advise, I did e-mail Jimmy about a half-hour ago. Considering that halfway down this page is a Diplomacy barnstar from Jimbo himself, the very public admonishment probably hurt even more than anyone would expect. Letting "the boss" down in the manner I clearly have is, indeed, painful. I am awaiting his response, but do not personally desire to drop a {{you've got mail}} template on his page - although it would probably be a good idea (maybe someone else can do it). (I probably should have e-mailed a copy of it to myself ... d'oh!). (✉→BWilkins←✎) 15:51, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

I wouldn't even consider resigning the bit if I were you. All that "suggestion" shows is Jimbo to be out of touch with the problems in the community. It would be attacking a symptom (if you don't mind me calling an edit of yours that ) and not a cause. Egg Centric 18:48, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Heh ... I almost said "I dare ya to post that on Jimbo's page" LOL  :-P (✉→BWilkins←✎) 19:28, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

I have a slight problem with my testicles (specifically, their size) that will prevent this... Egg Centric 23:30, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

When I was a kid, we'd call you a "wussie" LMAO. Thanks, I needed the laugh today (✉→BWilkins←✎) 23:33, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

For what little it might be worth, I generally echo Mongo's word of caution there (though, as I was actually going to leave a comment on your talk page at about 13:00 yesterday about a separate issue, I would not necessarily limit the word of caution to decorum). Having breaks isn't always a bad thing: by that I do not mean you should turn in your tools, but you could certainly take a break from acting in that role (or editing) for periods of time. Obviously the length of the period is not something one can place a concrete value in advance, but hopefully such periods would be short ones. :) Ncmvocalist (talk) 05:33, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

• Obviously I've commented a few times there, which is very rare for me. As I said in my last comment, I think that if any admin works too much in one area, it isn't healthy because they see the same old thing and when the same old thing is disruptive editors, it can make one cynical. A change of pace, and working in constructive areas more, help desk or AFC for a while might be worth thinking about, as it changes the perspective. My other opinions are there, so I won't labor them here. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 15:04, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Block reviews cant be deleted

Please enlighten me with the link to the relevant guideline or policy section as I can not seem to find it. I have been gone awhile and I suppose the consensus I helped reach was later revised.Camelbinky (talk) 17:23, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

WP:BLANKING --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:32, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

user shrike

i am trying to stay away from shrike... but see how is after me like a hound, [27]. he should also try to de-escalate rather than follow me around. i am pretty sure he will begin an edit war pretty soon (that is his modus operandi). the last time he edited there was like weeks ago... suddenly he began editing again..today... on my post. that's not a coincidence. anyway, i'm not going to be part of that discussion anymore. could you please ask him to stop stalking me?-- altetendekrabbe  18:07, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Why not make it formal - request some form of interaction ban? Being followed around to articles is WP:HOUNDING - although, they may be able to argue that they had been there before. Keep strong (it's frustrating as heck, and boy to I know it) (✉→BWilkins←✎) 18:57, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

thanks for advice. however, i rather disengage for a while now. if this continues i'll ask for rfc/u.-- altetendekrabbe  19:01, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Advice

What should I do if I have interest in Islam inter-religious topics.Should I stop editing them just because some user that I have conflict with him edit it too.If he will edit about soccer and video games I would care less.Also please pay attention for blatant admin shopping [28],[29] and personal attacks that he first makes and then removes if you want diffs can be provided.--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 19:29, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Here's my real recommendation: get along with people. Indeed, here's a better one: keep yourself to 1RR on any pages that your "nemesis" edits, knowing that they are also on 1RR too. There's how many million articles? Voluntary interaction bans or at least common sense keeping of the peace works far better than the community enforcing them (✉→BWilkins←✎) 19:35, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Would you agree that voluntary interaction bans only work when all sides to the dispute agree to the bans? ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 05:28, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Sometimes even community-imposed ones don't even work. Oddly enough, part of the problem is each of us as individuals have the deity-provided ability to ignore or at least filter our own behaviours - we can choose from the entire spectrum of "fight or flight". As I believe in the inherent goodness of all of us, my first WP:AGF step is always that we should be able to do our best to ignore. If we can do that, then most bullies get sick of trying to poke you into reactions. In those cases, only one side needs to agree to stop reacting. Sometimes, it takes both parties accepting the mutual WP:IB, and that's honestly the next best situation - admins (or the community as a whole) should not need to either enforce one. If that happens, then both parties have typically fallen so far that they're both responsible for the toxic environment they have created, and it is a shame. Please note: none of the above is taking your specific case into account - these are general principles that are always my starting point because community IB's actually shame each of the parties, whereas voluntary ones show your personal willingness to be responsible - that is the desired endstate. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 10:03, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

I do not in the least feel shamed by the IB, it protects me from abuse, and since I was not abusive in return, it is a win-win for me. Why do you assume both parties started it everytime an AN/I report is filed? How strange? What if I came onto an article you edit often and started changing the format of the subject's name. Would you revert me? Would you block me if I continued to revert you? "It takes two to tango" is cliche' and generic thinking IMO. Not all edit-wars are 50/50 Bwilkins. ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 21:37, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you would try to apply this to your specific case, when I stated quite clearly that "none of the above is taking your specific case into account". (✉→BWilkins←✎) 09:27, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Now, I'll address one of your other points: I'm fully aware that not all edit-wars are 50-50 ... my record of blocks emanating from AN/3RR quite clearly shows that "awareness".

Finally, as an editor, your responsibility is to diffuse conflict, and never to escalate it. If you do not take the path of diffusing, then you are contributing to it. We have processes such as WP:DR that help to diffuse conflict - or at least protect the content of articles so that attempts to diffuse can take place. That is the background and indeed backbone behind my sole statements at ANI - you had participated in a form of brinksmanship that forced a community-imposed sanction, when it could have been diffused much earlier, and much less painfully for everyone. Please remove WP:BATTLE from your way of thinking - after all, WP:AGF is a core pillar around here. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 09:42, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
	For all of your help defending The Irish Warden from the trolling accusations! Electriccatfish2 (talk) 20:22, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes many thanks for that and for the diplomacy meaning no hard feelings between me and any other user involved. Cheers Thєíríshwαrdєn - írísh αnd prσud (talk) 20:53, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Have the requests for your admin right to be taken away stopped? Well since I commented no-one has said anything so I think they get the story now. Plus on my signature how do I get the (talk) bit to go green and white like the rest? Regards, Thєíríshwαrdєn - írísh αnd prσud (talk) 09:19, 21 July 2012 (UTC)09:18, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Not really. See the thread User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive 111#Please weigh-in at this AN/I report - the shotgun approach is being tried, rather unsuccessfully. Considering that the thread degenerated into a talk about my voluntary desysop, some people are acting like it's going to be a forced one - and shooting themselves in the foot with some of their arguments. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 10:12, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

User: Mike Rosoft

I've come to ask you for your advice on a matter that has been troubling me for several days. About a week ago, I contacted User: Mike Rosoft about the controversial block of User: Fajita63, based off only one edit. He responded with "On the second look, the edit doesn't look like actual spamming. Unblocked.", and then immediately removed the response, without changing the block status. When I noticed this 2 days later, I responded by noting his actions and inquiring if something was wrong. He still hasn't responded (or edited at all), so I am becoming a bit worried. I just wanted to know what you thought of the situation, and how I should deal with it. Robby The Penguin (talk) (contribs) 03:47, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

I happened to notice this discussion. The edit in question suggests to me that Fajita63 is a vandalism-only account. The section added is a mock ad for the world's oldest profession. Recommend keeping the indef block. EdJohnston (talk) 04:25, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

The sole edit is either spam or vandalism ... pick either one, they don't appear to be here for a good cause (✉→BWilkins←✎) 05:26, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I know that the edit was a mock prostitution ad and therefore spam, the problem I have is that Rosoft Indef'd on the basis of 1 edit. I believe he should have at least warned Fajita63 before blocking. I also find his response odd, I didn't say the edit wasn't spamming. In fact I stated that it was clearly spamming. Robby The Penguin (talk) (contribs) 20:05, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Indefinite is not infinite. If the editor in question actually intends to edit constructively, they're welcome to submit an unblock request. The fact that they have not sometimes speaks volumes. One never knows if a dozen similar situations all occurred around the same time, or the admin had seen a similar pattern a week ago ... there's many possible valid reasons - either way, it's not permanent (✉→BWilkins←✎) 09:30, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Just FYI

I've responded specifically to your comment on the Syrian uprising article's talk page (direct link). I'm not entirely sure whatever gave you the impression that I had lost my composure, but I do admit I was growing impatient about how long it seemed to be taking for us to make some sort of a decision. Bear in mind, I have never set foot in requested moves before, so I was unaware of the 7-day convention for discussion. Master&Expert (Talk) 19:46, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

That's why we provide both the phrase "The discussion may be closed 7 days after being opened" in the box at the top of the RM, and links to the appropriate policies. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 09:33, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

thanks

i hope this beverage is relaxing. you obviously work hard and deal with a lot of shit. Happy monsoon day 16:38, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

user shrike part 2

please take a look at the last 8-9 comments of this thread [30]? shrike is misrepresenting a source again, and re-adding content that has been thrown out be other editors as well. he is clearly taking advantage of my 1-rr restriction. he does not care about the brd-cycle either. could you please ask shrike to revert? he also reverted me on another page [31], re-introducing unreliable and non-neutral sources, starting edit wars there as well. update: good news. his misrepresentation on the dhimmitude-page was removed by 2 other editors. clearly, shrike does not care about gaining consensus. his constant gaming is becoming annoying again, so i'll stay away from editing a little.-- altetendekrabbe  18:15, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm curious.

Sorry if it went a little overboard, but that's similar to how AN/I felt to me. Maybe you'll be more compassionate there moving forward. Lucky for you you had several editors rushing to your defence, even your buddy Dennis closed it for you. I'm curious though, why do you think a suggestion from you is gold, and editors who do not follow your suggestions to a tee are pathetic, yet a suggestion from Jimbo is completely optional to you? Are you gonna blank this edit as vandalism to hide the dispute? Or are you gonna allow it to be archived as a good admin should? ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 21:21, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Still can't help get digs in? Bravo. I'll give you credit that you actually read my posts on Jimbo's page...I am eagerly anticipating a reply to an email. No more will be said about that. Things got closed there because you apparently don't yet know that the community has stated clearly that the occasional use of colorful language is not considered either uncivil, or overly improper. Nobody had the heart to tell you because you were doing such a good job proving me right. Sorry about that, yet thanks. By the way, it does not matter if this post archives or not: the post is permanent. Beware that thanks to your horrific battleground behavior, further posts from you will, indeed, be removed at my leisure. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 23:03, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

User GabeMc request for comment

Hi Bwilkins, I've opened a section on GabeMc's talkpage to find out if there are editors who are interested in helping him as much as he is interested in asking them for assistance. It's at User talk:GabeMc#Request for comment. Penyulap ☏ 00:37, 23 Jul 2012 (UTC)

Sadly it's not an WP:RFC/U - I can live without his harassment (and I'm now using that in the formal Wikipedia sense of the term). (✉→BWilkins←✎) 01:03, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Syrian Civil War (2011–present)

Hey Bwilkins, I saw that you moved the Syrian uprising article to "Syrian Civil War (2011–present)". However, there was no civil war within Syria before this conflict. Is it possible to move it again to "Syrian Civil War"? Thanks. -- Luke (Talk) 14:51, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

There appears to be a discussion on that talkpage about that. In a lot of ways, it makes zero difference really EatsShootsAndLeaves (talk) 14:55, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Ah, didn't see that discussion. -- Luke (Talk) 15:00, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Secure this page ASAP

This page is having a unregistered user who has been banned already here but still able to make edits, so kindly secure this page. Thanks Clarificationgiven (talk) 10:49, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Move review for “Syrian uprising” article

I was about to start a Wikipedia:Move review relating to your close of the move request of the “Syrian uprising” article, however, I saw the following sentence on Wikipedia:Move review: “Prior to requesting a review, you should attempt to resolve any issues with the closer on their talk page.”

I think that the outcome of the discussion should have been “no consensus”. I have noticed that you were monitoring the discussion on a regular basis. The downside of this is that you might have made your mind before the discussion was completely over. On the last day of the discussion there were some strong rebuttals against the arguments of the civil war name made with fresh data about media Wikipedia:COMMONNAME for Syria. I copy/paste here two key exchanges from the discussion:

The following major news sources are now using the words "civil war" directly to describe the conflict. These are direct reports on the war, and not reportage of the ICRC announcement.

• Christian Science Monitor: [32] Quote: "Syria: Civil war engulfs Damascus"
• Associated Press: [33] Quote: "Neighboring Iraq called on its citizens living in Syria to return home, as the fighting overshadowed another round of diplomatic maneuvering to end the civil war"
• Fox News: [34] Quote: "The fierce clashes, which have raged over the past three days in at least four neighborhoods across the city, were the latest sign that Syria's civil war is moving ever closer to the heart of President Bashar Assad's regime"
• The National: [35] Quote: "A Syrian civil war threatens region"
• Foreign Policy: [36] Quote: "The Other Side of Syria's Civil War"
• CBC: [37] Quote: "Now, the conflict is a full-blown civil war,"
• Russia Today: [38] Quote: "Palestinian refugees who fled the long struggle in their own region now wearily watch the Syrian civil war unfold."
• London Evening Standard: [39] Quote: "London has influence over the civil war in Syria"
• The Daily Telegraph: [40] Quote: "While the focus of Syria's civil war is shifting towards Damascus, it is far from certain that the rebels are yet in a strong enough position to take the capital."
• gulfnews.com: [41] Quote: "The proclamation by the Free Syrian Army (FSA) came as UN-Arab League envoy Kofi Annan said the 16-month crisis now increasingly described as a civil war was at a "critical time."
• CNN: [42] Quote: "But the aftermath rings true for Syrians caught in the maelstrom of what is now called a civil war and the sight has become routine in areas where resolute residents have not buckled under to regime soldiers and their militia allies."
• Vancouver Sun: [43] Quote: "Russia ready to seek consensus in UN on new resolution aimed at ending Syria's civil war"
• Washington Post: [44] Quote: "Maj. Gen. Aviv Kochavi told a parliamentary committee that the Islamic militants have taken advantage of the chaos created by the Syrian civil war to approach the Golan area."
• Deseret News: [45] Quote: " The bodies of two Iraqi journalists killed in Syria's civil war have been handed over to Baghdad, an Iraqi official said."
• StarTribune: [46] Quotes: "Rebels pushing Syrian civil war to heart of power" ... '"The sounds of war are clear" throughout capital of Damascus.'
• Belfast Telegraph: [47] Quote: "Syria is caught up in a civil war brought about after President Bashar Assad violently cracked down on a popular uprising that began 16 months ago. Activists say the conflict has killed more than 17,000 people."

That's sixteen major WP:RS, from multiple countries, and all over the political spectrum, using the term "civil war" to describe the conflict. The combination of this, the ICRC's announcement, and the fact that there is an obvious, visible, massive, all-out civil war being reported on all over every single news outlet, should make this page-move a no-brainer, surely? -- The Anome (talk) 20:43, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Your “analysis” is wrong and misleading. All you did was to go to the newspaper websites and do a word search on the expression Syria civil war. In the case you find an article with the terms “Syria civil war”, does that mean that “the source is calling it a civil war”? No, of course not! I will give a few examples. The first example is Associated Press. You show an article there with the term “civil war”. However I can easily find an article there from just two days ago with the title: Syria uprising puts Hezbollah on defensive. In another article from yesterday (Syrian troops recapture Damascus neighborhood) they write: “…all central to directing the crackdown on the uprising against his rule.” In spite of all the violence, they continue to use the term “uprising”, because it is a good description. It is exactly an uprising “against the rule of the president” The second example is The National. Again, an article from today says: “In Syria, Kurds are sitting on the sidelines of the uprising…” Your links relating to Washington Post, Deseret News, CBC, Star Tribune and Vancouver Sun just show articles by Associated Press… Concerning Daily Telegraph you have from yesterday an Article titled: “19,000 killed in Syrian uprising: NGO”. Concerning London Evening Standard, your link shows a comment piece by Nabila Ramdani and it says nothing about London Evening Standard "official" position. CNN article from today says: “Syria, a country engulfed by a fierce government offensive against dissidents and an armed uprising against the regime.” I will stop here as I am starting to get tired of this… Tradedia (talk) 23:32, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

• Comment. I don't think the number of google hits makes any difference whatsoever. The situation is changing and is being reclassified as a civil war and google will pick up all the results from before that. What matters is what is the prevailing term right now. If the Titanic sank today, the number of google hits would suggest it's a floating ship than a wreck, but it wouldn't be correct. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 08:18, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

You are right. This is why I present here Google Search results for the past week:

• News results for "Syrian uprising": about 4,000 [48]
• News results for "Syrian civil war": about 280 [49]

So the media are calling it right now "uprising" not "civil war". Tradedia (talk) 21:56, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

I hope you will take another look at the discussion and focus on the hard data evidence. Tradedia (talk) 19:57, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Why are you re-hashing the RM discussion here? WP:CONSENSUS appears to suggest that "move" was the only option dangerouspanda 21:32, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

A move review on this matter would be totally unjustified considering there was almost entire consensus to move it to the civil war title, there is also a new RM underway anyway. The Review is to review if the closing admin did anything wrong and in this case it is beyond any doubt that consensus was followed. Please do not start a Move Review which would be pointless. BritishWatcher (talk) 10:00, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

A follow up on Krizpo

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Qwyrxian and I tried to teach Krizpo how to be a decent editor. At Talk:Religion_in_Africa#Religions_in_Africa we explained that blogs, wikis, self-published websites, personal website, etc, etc are not reliable sources and are not used in article. We explained that we do not give undue weight to topics. At User_talk:Krizpo#Appropriate_sources, I explained what sort of sources are considered reliable, and he "agreed" do to so. He then went on and cited blogs, self-published website, etc, etc anyway. At User_talk:Krizpo#Regarding_your_edits_to_Religion_in_Africa I pointed out the various problems with his edits (including his continuing problem of citing sources for claims the sources do not even begin to make). He then restored a great deal of it, making fringe claims like portraying Buddhism as having been continually present in Africa since Ashoka sent a few missionaries to Egypt, using different sources. Qwyrxian reverted most of it, and is going to revert more of it later if Krizpo does not justify his edits on the talk page. I removed some more, particularly the presentation of all Indian religions having had a notable presence in the whole Africa since Ashoka sent a few Buddhist missionaries to Egypt. Qwyrxian left a message on Krizpo's page asking him to justify his edits on the article's talk page. Krizpo simply restored the contested material without any discussion, citing sources we had already explained repeatedly are not reliable and are not to be used. I reverted and left a message asking him to take it to the talk page. He simply restored it and continues to be the useless, edit-warring, POV-pusher he was identified as being over a week ago.

He does not pay attention to WP:RS, only when other editors point to individual sources and say "do not use that one." He still refuses to listen to any editor saying "do not make claims not supported by sources." All he has to say for himself, after editors have wasted so much time explaining things and all but editing for him is "Dude, you are messing up the page. It actually looked good after my edit."

As it was your idea to see if things would improve once he started talking, rather than make an apparently difficult block, I thought you might want to know. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:44, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Your statements above include non-AGF against me, and a complete misunderstanding of the whole original ANI related to Krizpo. Unbelievable - however, I of course followed your newer ANI. dangerouspanda 00:06, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm not seeing where I made any statement about you... The original ANI ended without Krizpo being blocked on the basis that he might improve (if that possibility was not acknowledged, then there was no reason to leave Krizpo unblocked and prevent good editors from working on the articles he messed with). Now, where did I mention you? Ian.thomson (talk) 00:19, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

"As it was your idea to see if things would improve once he started talking, rather than make an apparently difficult block" - that's a poor, non-AGF statement about me. When I'm acting as an admin, I'm marked as an admin who will make difficult blocks, and make many of them. Blocking Krizpo at the time would have not been difficult - it would have been stupid. He was given some WP:ROPE, and used it well. dangerouspanda 00:22, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

So wait, a comment I directed at Bwilkins (who has the difficult blocks tag, btw), is about you? I bet you think this song is about you. Pointing out what one believes to be a mistake does not violate AGF ("assume good faith," not "assume others are incapable of mistakes and agree with all their actions"). Accusing others of bad faith does violate AGF. 00:42, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Please do spell my name correctly - Bwilkins - seeing as I my administrator account does use my real name  :-) dangerouspanda 09:28, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Ok, now I see, you are Bwilkins. Then why did you refer to yourself in third person earlier? That's only going to confuse people. And why make a point of pretending to be "away" when you really weren't? Ian.thomson (talk) 13:50, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm not pretending to be away. I am away from performing administrative functions using my admin account, so I am using my alternative account that has no admin capabilities. dangerouspanda 20:22, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

So, I updated you about Krizpo's behavior, to which you responded by referring to yourself as a completely different person, pointing out that "they're" away and "cannot" make the block (even though there was nothing stopping you from logging in), and then accuse me of bad faith for pointing out that Krizpo didn't improve and needed to be blocked... This is being responsible admin behavior, is it? Ian.thomson (talk) 20:34, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

At the time I posted on your talkpage, I was being harassed, as per the legal and Wikipedia definition. The accounts were not linked, and as a responsible admin, I advised you to take the concern to someone else for action. NO, I am not logging into the Bwilkins account, and there's very commonly-known reasons for such. Take your additional bad faith accusations elsewhere, as I'll be reverting any additional attempts at such dangerouspanda 20:40, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

AN/I

See here. Yes, yes, you're away, but I still feel it only proper to notify you. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 15:35, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

:-) dangerouspanda 00:04, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

You've been mentioned

You were mentioned on Jimbo Wales' talk page. I just thought I'd let you know. Ryan Vesey 14:55, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Ryan. The harassment is getting very tiresome. dangerouspanda 15:11, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, DangerousPanda. You have new messages at Electriccatfish2's talk page.
Message added 21:39, 6 August 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

I see you are EatsandShootsLeaves. It's a reply to that account's message. Electric Catfish 21:39, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Resilient Barnstar
	For continuing to do excellent work as an admin despite the harassment! Electric Catfish 21:47, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

There's a time to block

You were the only Admin who spoke seriously about blocking User:FerrerFour at the recent ANI, during his unceasing stream of insults levied at User:Sports. (Why didn't you go thru with it? How can Admins justify sitting and doing nothing while User:Sport is perpetually abused there? She was even blamed for calling attention to the repeated incivilities, that it "made her look bad", when no one was doing anything. A reasonable confusion on her part, and then she's reprimanded for it. Amazing.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 12:15, 10 August 2012 (UTC) p.s. There was some confusion between contributors at the ANI, whether calling another editor "incompetent" was an insult or not. One editor felt it couldn't be, since there was a "WP guideline on it". Another editor corrected him, saying said remarks are always insulting. FerrerFour seemed to use the confusion to justify going all out with insults, as though "protected" by the confusion on policy. What is your take? And don't you feel, with WP articles like WP:COMPETENCE and WP:DICK, that their very existence, encourages use, which is itself a personal attack (personal in nature, about the person, etc.)? I'm not challenging you in any way I'm looking for your take (as, you were the only one to object to the stream of insults with anything that meant anything, which got my respect).

Bwilkins has voluntarily been abstaining from his admin account. It would look fairly bad if he showed back up just to block someone. Ryan Vesey 12:17, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

It wouldn't look bad to this editor, since it was the right thing to do. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 12:20, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

There are 5529 watchers of ANI -- if a block is appropriate, I'm sure another admin will take care of it, no need to pester this account while its on hiatus. Nobody Ent 12:26, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

User:FerrerFour called User:Sports incompetent at least 17 times at the ANI. (When does it get appropriate to put an end to it? What are the rules here? What if WP:DICK was used 17 times instead of basing insults on WP:INCOMPETENCE? What if insults counted 177 instead of 17? This is confusing, and I imagine as well for User:Sports. Where does one go to get answers?) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 12:35, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

I see he was originally blocked for 24hrs, but decided to continue his NPA violations and sheer incivility, so now it's a week - both from one of the admins who does their best to not block. And, of course, they're right: I was not going to sign into my admin account just to make the block :-) dangerouspanda 20:56, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

User:Irvi Hyka

You recently imposed ARBMAC sanctions on this user, but the edit warring has continued with 1RR violations on International recognition of Kosovo, Libyan civil war, Ernesto Sabato and Rona Nishliu in the last day or so. I can't comment on the other disputes, but at International recognition of Kosovo the user's addition of non-notable text to the article has been reverted by multiple editors but they keep trying to restore it without any participation in the discussion on the talk page. I requested that the user join the discussion on the talk page and self-revert, but the only response I got was that they "don't see something that should be discussed". What is the proper route to seek enforcement of discretionary sanctions? Do I have to file a request for enforcement at arbcom, or can you take care of it? TDL (talk) 23:09, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I'm unable to help - as you can see from above, I'm voluntarily not using admin tools for a period of time. Any admin can take the action required for ArbMac violations - there are a number of admins who watch this page. I'd hate to say "take it to WP:AE" is in my mind, it doesn't need that formal of a process - ANI might do, or, approach an admin who you know tends to deal in AE blocks dangerouspanda 09:52, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Great, thanks for the info. I've left a note with User:The Blade of the Northern Lights. Feel free to chime in if you like. TDL (talk) 20:38, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Could you take a look?

I noticed you had interacted with Ricky072 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) and I thought you might be interested in this AN/I report. --John (talk) 18:53, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Notification of possible violation of 1RR

Hello. Please see here. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 13:51, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

The reverts in question are three days apart, no violation of 1RR at all. Facts, not fiction (talk) 13:52, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

See my reasoning there: he made no attempt at discussing the matter, contrary to what he promised in his unblock request. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 13:57, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Forum shopping is not cool. Toddst1 (talk) 15:36, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

No, it isn't. But Bwilkins is the admin who made the 1RR agreement, so he will know best how to interpret it. Much better than to involve other admins. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 16:28, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

• I closed the WP:AN3 report because the reverts didn't come close to breaking 1RR. But I do think there's a concern that Aletendenkrabbe isn't abiding by the second part of his unblock conditions - namely, to use the talkpage and dispute resolution in lieu of getting into exactly these sorts of fights. I don't see any evidence of engagement on Talk:Islam in Europe. I'm considering re-blocking him for violating the terms of his unblock agreement, but I lack familiarity with his case and wanted to get your viewpoint first. MastCell ^Talk 19:02, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

i do indeed use talk pages and other dispute resolution arenas. it's very easy to check, just look at my contribution list and you'll understand. almost all of my last 1000 edits or so are on talk-pages or noticeboards. you just got suckered into believing the opposite by two disingenuous editors. in addition, when i removed gunpowderma's additions from the islam-in-europe-page (especially the so-called "segregation"-section which blatantly violated npov), gunpowderma was obliged to raise the issue at the page as per wp:burden, another policy gunpowderma likes to violate. violation of wp:npov, violation of wp:burden, forum shopping (like here), filing bogus cases on noticeboards, edit warring... gunpowderma should have been blocked. btw, the second part of mye unblock conditions apply to everyone, including gunpowderma. gunpowderma is also involved in edit warring on other pages as well, as noted by other editors [50]. please also note gunpowderma's personal attack in response [51] -- altetendekrabbe  20:02, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

I would like an admin to take a look at Convivencia where altetendekrabbe has removed several times sourced and reliable material over the past days. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 12:31, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

The Olive Branch: A Dispute Resolution Newsletter (Issue #1)

Welcome to the first edition of The Olive Branch. This will be a place to semi-regularly update editors active in dispute resolution (DR) about some of the most important issues, advances, and challenges in the area. You were delivered this update because you are active in DR, but if you would prefer not to receive any future mailing, just add your name to this page.

Steven Zhang's Fellowship Slideshow

In this issue:

• Background: A brief overview of the DR ecosystem.
• Research: The most recent DR data
• Survey results: Highlights from Steven Zhang's April 2012 survey
• Activity analysis: Where DR happened, broken down by the top DR forums
• DR Noticeboard comparison: How the newest DR forum has progressed between May and August
• Discussion update: Checking up on the Wikiquette Assistance close debate
• Proposal: It's time to close the Geopolitical, ethnic, and religious conflicts noticeboard. Agree or disagree?

Read the entire first edition of The Olive Branch -->

--The Olive Branch 18:53, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Muhammad images

Please add sections to Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Muhammad images:

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Muhammad images with only the introduction and links to the questions:

• Question 1a Should there be an instructional hatnote?
• Question 1b Should there be a functional hatnote?
• Question 2 What image should appear in the infobox?
• Question 3 Where should the first figurative-art depiction of Muhammad occur?
• Question 4 Narrative Images
• Question 5 Figurative-art depictions vs. calligraphy
• Question 6 Principle of least astonishment
• Question 7 Image use in sources
• Question 9 Number of figurative images
• Question 9 Is an image quota useful?
• Alt Question 10 How should an image quota be treated?
• General discussion
• Proposal:Leave everything as they are (no change is necessary)
• Note on NOTCENSORED/AGF paradox
• Permissibility of Images of Muhammad in Islam

At over 900k it is problematic reading. I have no idea why no one did this while it was open. Apteva (talk) 21:52, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

I most certainly will not edit a closed RFC ... nor should anyone (✉→BWilkins←✎) 12:15, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Actually, everyone should - for archiving purposes, retaining every character as it appeared, but split into sections. Like I said, I have no idea why anyone tolerated it being in only one section while it was open. The suggested sections simply were created for the ease of archiving and avoiding splitting questions into separate archives. It is quite possible that some are very long and some very short, and in the extreme that all but one should be in one section, and the remaining put into five archives. Apteva (talk) 18:37, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

By that of course I meant someone should. All done, the only other things left are links to the archive, such as from the original. Apteva (talk) 22:07, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Heads up

You are being discussed (along with your alter-ego) at User talk:Horologium#the issue re multi-accounting. You may wish to drop in and comment. I'm leaving the same comment at both User talk:EatsShootsAndLeaves and User talk:Bwilkins so that you will be aware of the discussion. Horologium (talk) 00:59, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

User_talk:ISeeWhatYouDo

Can we have a talk page block on this user please? Cheers MadGuy7023 (talk) 22:03, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Humor

I thought you could use a laugh: Block Log:ClueBot NG. I was pretty close to adding my name to that list. Toddst1 (talk) 18:32, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

lol!!--dangerouspanda 21:26, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Chronicles of Young Scientists - OPUBS- COVERPAGE

Dear Sir,

You deleted our wikipedia pages: 1- Chronicles of Young Scientists (www.cysonline.org) 2- Organization of Pharmaceutical Unity with BioAllied Sciences (www.opubs.com)

Coverpages for Journal of Pharmacy and BioAllied Sciences (www.jpbsonline.org).

May we know the reason why? We can see wikipedia pages of all other journals but then why our information is deleted. See this example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Journal_of_Pharmaceutics

We are new to wikipedia. No doubt that wikipedia is tough for a scientific person like us who do not know computer coding etc.

Either you should provide help in writing information on wikipedia or if its not possible then why to delete? Make wikipedia simple, so that we can add information etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Himanshu18in (talk • contribs) 18:15, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Have a look at the General Notability Guidelines and WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. The existence of something does not grant notability enough to be included in an encylopedia dangerouspanda 19:13, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Ello

Nice to see the old you back :-) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:48, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

thanks! --(✉→BWilkins←✎) 00:50, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

My thoughts entirely :) --Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 08:22, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Concur, IRWolfie- (talk) 18:50, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Cheers

...for this User_talk:JamesBWatson#False_sock_puppet_accusation--and_I_will_not_tolerate_it old boy. You are good to assist in this.~©Djathinkimacowboy 12:01, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Well, I can only add this ref so you may see how sad and pathetic this thing has become in just a few hours. I have said to the accusing editor I am done protesting or paying attention to him--because all he wanted was to attempt to frighten me from the article Anna Anderson. Well, in the spirit of doing well as an editor, I'll keep away if he desires it. Just a note to illustrate to you the types of things I have always had to face. Again, cheers for the advice. (I hope I never remind you of someone you didn't like! :-) ~©Djathinkimacowboy 13:18, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

*sigh* If you're a sock, never ever be upset when someone suggests that you are one. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 22:10, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Thank you

For this. I was a bit unsure of what to do since this was my first RfA closure, however I wholeheartedly agree with what you said in your summary. Legoktm (talk) 16:25, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

No issues. You did the right thing in both cases :-) (✉→BWilkins←✎) 16:30, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Closing an RfA

This edit doesn't appear to have actually closed the RfA.--Rockfang (talk) 16:27, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

I closed it again. Legoktm (talk) 16:34, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Not done disrupting...

I liked this edit, but I decided that it might not be the most effective way of dealing with a user who probably needs careful handling, so I have reverted it. Actually, I had to exercise quite an effort of the will to restrain myself from making some sort of ironic comment on the user's grammar myself. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:30, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

That was the fastest 6 months I ever saw

Joefromrandb (talk) 22:59, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Sometimes 3 months are enough, based on a number of circumstances and situations (✉→BWilkins←✎) 09:30, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Of course. I remember your past post to me, when you said: "If I log in tomorrow and block someone then it was a charade and you can call me on it". I silently took note of the fact that you were careful not to say: "If I log in and block someone before the 6 months are up then it was a charade and you can call me on it". I was fairly certain at that point that it was going to be a charade. And since you said I can call you on it, ha ha, charade you are. Joefromrandb (talk) 03:42, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Do you find it fun provoking drama? Do you really see a need for it? You're constant badgering isn't constructive. Ryan Vesey 04:46, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Provoking drama? Do you have any idea of the history here? And was I talking to you? Likely no and certainly no. How about doing a little research before accusing others of "provoking drama", or better yet, mind your own fucking business and seek brownie points for RfA2 elsewhere. Joefromrandb (talk) 06:01, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

You have nothing to call me on. My statement to you was pretty literal, and 3 months != tomorrow. The desired intent was successful, and as Wikipedia does not do punishment - even self-punishment - it was time to move forward. You have also seen the gigantic load of BS that occurred because a range of people (including admins) don't understand WP:SOCK#LEGIT. Above all else, I was under the belief that you and I had built up a rather positive relationship over these past 3 months - sorry to see it go. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 10:16, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

A clue

Hello. Sorry to invade your talkpage, but I think I might've found the key to the problem with this "Seb az86556" character. I was looking at his/her userpage again and this time noticed that one of the articles they're proud to say they have "written or significantly contributed to" is Transkei, the article under question. So perhaps they have so much invested in it and/or feel they own it that they're unable to let anyone else work on it -- and also feel unable to explain why. 213.246.88.102 (talk) 23:05, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Possible. However, you really didn't follow the WP:BRD process, and your edits were clearly not as minor as you claim. Nobody is going to get blocked over it - probably should never have even been reported for such minor minor rudeness. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 23:15, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

So, looks like I didn't even get that bit right either. Well, thanks for your time. I am, after all, just numbers. 213.246.88.102 (talk) 23:31, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Oh, I agreed he was more rude than normal...but with no personal attacks, no policy violations, no edit-warring...what would you want anyone to do? By the way, it makes no difference to me if you registered or not. Except, I always wonder why people would want to be less anonymous by basically publishing where they live to the world. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 23:37, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

If Seb az86556's level of incivility and refusal to respond to queries -- going so far as deleting them -- isn't the kind of thing that raises eyebrows here (e.g. is some sort of policy violation), then I suspect I'll be moving on pretty soon anyhow. 213.246.88.102 (talk) 23:53, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't see anywhere on WP:CIVIL where choosing not to reply is a blockable violation. Besides, you actually already did have your answer. I think you need to stop beating the WP:DEADHORSE here (✉→BWilkins←✎) 00:13, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

I wasn't thinking of blocks or the like. Just basic courtesy, civility and cooperation in what's meant to be a joint project. As you have exhibited. I'll take the dead horse away now. 213.246.88.102 (talk) 00:52, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

That was what WP:WQA was for, but some brilliant people removed it without a replacement, and ANI is certainly not built for that purpose. Not much more anyone can do but ask nicely (✉→BWilkins←✎) 10:17, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Take it away? What are you going to do with it? Toddst1 (talk) 06:39, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

User:Jayven09maddie

Can you please have a look at the contributions of Jayven09maddie (talk · contribs) having received a number of warnings here, here, here, here and here the editor continues to be disruptive for example with this edit. Mtking ^(edits) 01:08, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Further to that, and despite this warning the editor has breached WP:3RR (one and two, three and four); bringing here to avoid any accusation of forum shopping feel free to advise me to take it to WP:3RR/N. Mtking ^(edits) 07:36, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Sorry

I apologize for constantly adding Tyga or others to the associated acts section of the Nicki Minaj article. I just thought he would make a good addition to that section. I'll try to understand that the associated acts section of artists means a bit more than just working together. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Captainmad (talk • contribs)

Quick note

I apologize if I seem to be barking at you at ANI. It's not personal; I'm just frustrated. I fully appreciate your concerns and understand why you're raising them, but from my POV it's all already asked and answered. Thanks for reading the posting, and for responding. JohnInDC (talk) 12:15, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

No issues - hope you noted I'm not saying you're lazy, just that blocks are reaaaaallllyyy intended to be "last resort". Cheers (✉→BWilkins←✎) 15:37, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes. Thanks. I think we're both trying to get to the same place here. Let's see how it sorts out! JohnInDC (talk) 15:46, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for pushing through your initial skepticism on this. I'm going to be on the road for a few days and probably not commenting much. You seem to have matters well in hand however; good luck with however it sorts out. JohnInDC (talk) 01:26, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

I thought adoption and then mentoring was a swell idea. You might, however, want to take a look at Dave's recent (post-conditions) contribution history. JohnInDC (talk) 18:39, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

*sigh* I kinda worked my ass off for that unblock. It's a shame to be forced to re-block. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 18:50, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

I had slender, but real, hopes for it. My sympathies - JohnInDC (talk) 18:53, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Guinsberg is now socking

Hi Bwilkins,

I noticed you recently blocked Guinsberg for BLP violations. After you did so, he started edit-warring with IPs, and I thought you'd want to know. Please see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Guinsberg now socking. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:59, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

deletion of D.V.S* (Derek VanScoten)

hello can you please explain why my creation D.V.S* Derek VanScoten was deleeted? I used references and made sure it was very objective. I'd like to get it back online asap so please let me know. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mike Zanda (talk • contribs) 16:21, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Notability for musicians is very specific ... see WP:MUSIC for further details (✉→BWilkins←✎) 16:39, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Purpose of adminship

Note: sudden, prolonged withdrawal from dialog possible / likely due to Hurricane Sandy.

The purpose of adminship is to help the editors edit by dealing performing certain technical tasks. As these tasks (blocking users, deleting pages, protecting pages) can damage Wikipedia if used inappropriately, we have ya'll go through an Rfa first. I'm reasonably confident you do most of these tasks just fine, with little notice or appreciation.

It appears from your contribution pattern that somewhere along the line you got the idea adminship is something else. It is not the purpose of adminship to teach users to fish, or how to be bureaucratically perfect. Obvious pillar is obvious. The 500th editor to post on ANI without the required notice on the users' talk page, or on AN instead of ANI, or AN instead of AIV (etc) is not the previous 499. They are not the 501th who will undoubtedly do the same thing. We plaster the top of our noticeboards with fossilized walls 'o text and steadfastly resist any efforts to improve readability. (See Wikipedia_talk:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentsHeader and the header history). I'm well paid professionally because, in large part, I'm very good at reading directions (see RTFM). But a good population of the English speaking population just isn't. But we want, we need them to edit any anyway. (When I checked last week, there are a quarter million inclusions of the "unreferenced" template). We need every editor we can get, and we need to encourage them.

A little bit of teasing or facetiousness or whatever you want to call can be effective communication if and only if you have an existing with an individual. When said to a stranger, it's being a snarky asshole. Since your return to adminship, I've observed it repeatedly, with your premature dismissal of JohninDC (did you even look at the prior incidents to realize the editor is question had been blocked 24 hours?), the smart-ass "is this an announcement" comment to the two editors who -- OMG! posted an ANI request on AN, and more recently, the editor who realizes there's a problem but lacks the nuance to know the proper nuanced different between vandalism and trolling. The distinction between trolling and vandalism is really important -- why???

Please forget all the crap at the top of boards about the exact purpose of each one, and interpret each request simply as an editor looking for help. Is it okay to point out a more appropriate board, or ask/remind them to notify an editor? Of course it is, but gently please.

Note none of the above is intended to apply to frequent fliers on AN/ANI who repeat the same behavior over and over. Hammer those dweebs as hard as you want. But if you don't recognize the account name -- lots lots AGF, okay?

I understand the frustration of seeing the same missteps day after day -- there are times I wanted to scream when I saw yet another "this editor removed my comment from my talk page!" WQA post. But I reminded myself they weren't all the other editors who had come before. And when it got really annoying, I took a month off. Or two, or three. Except for followup and explanations per WP:ADMINACCT you're never required to take action. If some dweebish misplaced post annoys you, please just ignore and let someone else deal with it rather than trying to teach angling to a user who hasn't asked for it. Nobody Ent 18:55, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Well, a couple of my most recent "teaching a man to fish ... rather than give him a fish" were both accounts that I know knew better. So, I take your point, and happily know I was correct in my statement (✉→BWilkins←✎) 15:25, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

A big thank you and a question

Hi BWilkins, thank you very much for the time and effort that you put into resolving my block issue. Am I allowed to remove the ugly sock-puppet banners on my user pages now, or will that get me into more trouble? Eff Won (talk) 18:43, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

I would say that yes you can - I believe they are "suspected" sock tags. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 19:05, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Done it. Thanks again. Eff Won (talk) 20:03, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Huh? There's no way they should be removed. This editor was found to be abusing multiple accounts and there was never any movement to the contrary. What is the point of having rules here if an editor can break as many as he/she feels like and get away with it? There is no way this person should be allowed to edit – their first wish after being unblocked was to pretend that they were never caught socking, and we're supposed to think their attitude has changed? Where was the discussion that concluded that there was no sockpuppetry? Where did it say the unblocking would include a denial of sockpuppetry? I was under the impression that the unblocking would be despite the socking, not a declaration to the whole community that the SPI conclusion was wrong. Bretonbanquet (talk) 22:57, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

You either WP:AGF or you don't. The sock tags are still in the history of his talkpage/userpage, and the SPI page still exists. Even if he had been socking, we don't keep the badge of honour around if they are not repeating the behaviour. Blocks exist to protect the project, and prevent repeat behaviour - the assumption is that a lesson has been learned until proven otherwise (✉→BWilkins←✎) 09:16, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

That no lesson was learned is patently obvious since there was no admission of any guilt until it was spelled out to him/her what was required to secure an unblocking. Even then, there was still a flat refusal to admit to socking, something which all involved editors knew was happening. He/she basically got unblocked because he/she went on and on and on moaning until he/she got what he/she wanted, not because of an argument with any merit. Bretonbanquet (talk) 18:17, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Again, start using your AGF or go away from this page. I did NOT personally unblock because of "moaning" - it never entered my mind. What you're saying above is about punishment: we don't do punishment, we do prevention, and there's a huge difference between them. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 18:19, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

AGF is apparently infinite for some, despite multiple accounts over a long period, and months if not years of disruption. You have your wish. Bretonbanquet (talk) 18:22, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

What? I've not done years of disruption, and neither have you ... AGF in this case (as is clear) was being directed at me because you were accusing me of kowtowing to whining, and AGF in you and the other editors who will step up in 2 seconds to let us know whenever EffWon screws up ... you spent a lot of time non-AGF'ing a whack of people above. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 08:31, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

That's not the case. I did not "accuse" you of anything, that's a strong word to use, and so is "kowtowing" – a word I didn't use myself. It certainly isn't a lack of good faith, more we just disagree about the unblocking – Eff Won put in several consecutive disingenuous unblock requests until he/she got what they wanted, unless there was an argument with merit that I missed. I blame Eff Won for that, not you. There's a huge difference there. Who else do you think I failed to AGF with, ignoring the multiple sockmaster for a moment? Bretonbanquet (talk) 19:51, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Bwilkins has been entrusted by the community to make certain decisions, and that includes the decision to unblock a user if he feels the editor is ready to discontinue past practices and contribute positively to the Encyclopedia. No lasting or significant harm will come to Wikipedia if he's mistaken, as the user can easily be reblocked. Bretonbanquet, per WP:ADMINACCT, is entitled to make polite inquiries into Bwilkin's reasoning; they are not entitled to make accusations or repeatedly badger him. Bretonbanquet has been asked to go away from this page; I encourage them to do so. Nobody Ent 23:24, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

I had already left this page as I said ("You have your wish"), but Bwilkins addressed me again, so I replied. I'm happy not to return. No accusations were made, as I have explained in pretty clear detail, and I do not feel that this discussion constitutes "repeated badgering". Take a look at some of Eff Won's discussions for examples of such a practice. My beef is with that editor, nobody else, and I am slightly surprised that there should be any confusion about that. I trust there will be no further confusion. Bretonbanquet (talk) 23:34, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

User:Jordanalan

Apologies - I saw earlier that this user had requested unblock, came back after breakfast and unblocked without seeing that in the meantime you had asked the COIQ questions. There's no doubt this account is here for promotional purposes, but I had earlier explained at some length what Wikipedia is not for, and a COIN entry at WP:COIN#Jordan Alan and his films has brought several others to help keep an eye on the articles, so they will not be getting away with anything. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 09:26, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

No prob - you (and others) are handling it. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 23:03, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

AN close

Can you take another look at the DC block extension discussion and maybe tweak the closing statement? I don't think anyone was arguing about the initial block, just the circumstances of the extension. Nobody Ent 22:42, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Hmm...you've seen Draco's comment, right? "The block was ridiculous to begin with"... (✉→BWilkins←✎) 22:55, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Oh, I think I overlooked that one. Fair enough. Nobody Ent 23:01, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

No issues - it was indented, and hidden in an unused lavatory the complaints department ... (✉→BWilkins←✎) 23:03, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Mr JKX

Hello there. I noticed that you declined an unblock request from User:Mr JKX. Earlier I spotted them operating a new account under User:Mr QVC. They do not appear to be trying to hide the fact seeings as they have returned to articles edited by the previous account. Plus on the user pages you get the same introduction - "This is the page of MR JKX" and "this is the page of Mr QVC".Rain the 1 19:11, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

• Looks like a duck to me. Thanks for keeping an eye on it (✉→BWilkins←✎) 09:56, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Screwball23

Was blocked by you a while back -- and has now appeared using an identifiable sock so he can be two people on each of two articles <g> I files at SPI [52] but this is so blatant, it does not require any additional evidence at all AFAICT:

[53] is by his sock on Linda McMahon at 21:09 UTC ... and at 21:10 see [54] where User:Screwball23 affixes his own sig <g> which is about as simple and direct an admission of socking as ever I have seen. The SPI was filed before this - the sock edits heavily on 2 articles - in direct accord with Screwball23's edits, and using the exact same language in the edit summaries. The one minute delay means that he can not use the "public computer" excuse, either. Cheers. Collect (talk) 22:18, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Both accounts indeffed. After reviewing the edits, timings, etc, I agree with the analysis you provide. As per Screwball's block log, future evasion/socks would lead to an indef. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 10:48, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

LlamaAl

We have had some contact with this user, who is currently blocked for one month and whose unblock request you recently declined. My problem is that he has admitted that his account is compromised; it is, however, only by his sister (it's the one who claimed to have bought the account for a dollar) and he is obviously very young. As we both know a compromised account is normally indef-blocked. I am inclined to make an exception here, but would appreciate your thoughts?--Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 22:04, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, but I don't believe a word of it. It sounds to me like one big lie ... just like the entire shambles of behaviour has been anyway. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 09:58, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

OK, I shall do nothing. Thank you for your thoughts. --Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 22:32, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

The Admin's Barnstar

		The Admin's Barnstar
		For all your hard work, contributions and administration of the Wikipedia project. Cheers. --Hu12 (talk) 01:39, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Resysop/RFA

You added the word "will". I wonder if anyone notices... The Rambling Man (talk) 17:46, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Angels and pin heads

"If you erroneously added the sysop bit to my alternate account, you would immediately remove it. You have erroneously re-added the bit back to an account because you missed the "cloud", and since the "cloud" is a valid reason for not re-implementing the bit in these situations as per policy, then you have full authority to remove it."

It's not particularly germane to the discussion at BN, which is why I came over here. Erroneously adding the bit to your alternate account isn't the same as erroneously adding the bit for a resysop. Presumably, the crat who added it to your alternate account would desysop your alternate account and then re-add it to your main account, so you would still have the bit on an account you control; there would be no actual removal of the permission. Another argument would be that there is no chance you would object to the removal of the bit from your alternate account and that therefore you have impliedly requested removal to correct the error. This is not the same as removing the bit from someone who reasonable minds would say presents a chance of not having impliedly consented to removal of the bit. MBisanz ^talk 13:51, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

My point was actually based on accidental adding of the admin bit to my alternate account even while I have the admin bit on this account (let's leave my adminbot out of the picture). Me having multiple admin accounts would be wrong, and be reversed immediately. I personally believed that Nihonjoe f'ed up badly from a couple of angles (not angels!). Firstly ad most importantly I think RamblingMan was given crap recently for immediate re-sysop's when requested - the consensus seemed to be to allow more time for other Buros/admins to come forward to ensure there had not been a cloud. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 13:58, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

I thought about that aspect of it and from my reading, three other crats (Avi, TRM, and myself) had expressed agreement in favor of restoring the bit, so I find it hard to say Nihonjoe acted without giving time for other crats to review the matter. I think the problem here is that the Crats (at Arbcom's lead) have always defined "good standing" as a term of art with a very broad meaning that most people on the street would find implausible. Also, I think part of the problem here is that the community wants people to feel comfortable taking a break from being an admin so they don't burnout and therefore makes the restoration process based on their conduct prior to removal, so they won't be deterred from requesting removal by being afraid of having restoration denied for subsequent minor infractions. MBisanz ^talk 14:03, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Xpert Tactical

Hello,

Sorry my page did not apply with guidelines, please could you userfy the page code in my user space.

I would like the opportunity to carry out further work on this page in the future. Bjs2012 (talk) 17:08, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Three A9s

I've restored three A9s you deleted - they weren't A9 as the artist had an article, and seem to have been tagged by a rogue bot. Reaper has mass rollbacked the edits on the main part of the articles, while I was trying to remember how to do it (and detagging some by hand...). The account has been blocked by Nytend as a suspected unauthorised bot. Peridon (talk) 18:00, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, although I don't think the albums were worth articles, I stopped after a few ... thanks for the fix (✉→BWilkins←✎) 18:02, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

I quite agree about the articles - I can't see the point of these track-listimg tell you b***** all articles about every album (and even worse, single). Things like House of the Rising Sun, Revolver, and so on, yes. Mind you, I feel the same about pro footballers who are entitled to an article for one game at the right level, etc etc. Peridon (talk) 18:12, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

PERM

damned good idea ;) Goodness knows why I or nobody else thought of it before. Thanks. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:08, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Probably because they were waiting for the original template creator to do it, and I was too busy off being someone else and not watching RFP/C? (✉→BWilkins←✎) 10:27, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Your page

As we have interracted on several occasions, on the whole I believe in substantial agreement, I looked at your userpage. I see that you claim to be a deontologist. So I read the article, which must qualify as one of the most obscure short articles in wikipedia! But I was left wondering; are you an absolutist deontologist or a non-absolutist deontologist?

Only kidding really; you can ignore me. --Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 17:43, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Probably an absolutist. Of course, the joke of that userbox was supposed to be the dentist part LOL (✉→BWilkins←✎) 17:49, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I did realise that. I probably should not have made the initial comment, but it seemed amusing at the time. I am easily amused.--Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 23:06, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

As an aside...

I did not consider their message about "having done research" as relating to WP:OR whatsoever, based on the context. I still think she means the type of research we actually want - now that she understands WP:RS (✉→BWilkins←✎) 17:42, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

I hope you are right; I did not read it that way, but that may simply reflect my misinterpretation of her comment. I hope so.--Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 23:16, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks...

...for setting me straight and helping out with that unblock request. I appreciate it. Drmies (talk) 15:20, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Arb

You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Resysoping of FCYTravis / Polarscribe and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—

• Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Requests for Arbitration;
• Wikipedia:Arbitration guide.

Thanks, Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 20:56, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Your request

I've reverted, but found your statement that I changed orders odd. I didn't. I often fix indents on talk pages, Afds and ANI, and your the first ever to object. My sole aim was to improve readability, as the discussion is extremely difficult to follow. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 12:46, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Evolving opinion

BTW, I think I'd like to change my comment to support here.  :) I had no memory of the !opinion. I stumbled upon it through Socksred's thing a ma gig Talk about being wrong! Toddst1 (talk) 00:58, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Ha! Turns out I got smarter after all! Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Bwilkins 2. Toddst1 (talk) 01:02, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Hmmm...I didn't even remember your oppose (see, I don't hold grudges!). Of course, I wonder what on Earth would have made you suddenly change to support today! LOL (✉→BWilkins←✎) 09:24, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

WP:ANI report

I checked the alternative account policy before posting and didn't think it conflicted with an anonymous request for independent review of everyone's actions. Which point of the policy do you think I've violated? If you want I can contact you by e-mail to disclose my identity and give a further explanation of why I felt the need to post while logged out. If in your opinion it was against policy I'm happy to log in and change the signature on my post. 149.255.57.233 (talk) 10:45, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

It appears to be your intent to avoid scrutiny of your own actions (✉→BWilkins←✎) 12:13, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Either I am involved in the dispute I reported or I am not involved in the dispute. If I am involved, then I cannot possibly avoid scrutiny of my own actions by specifically requesting that all involved parties' actions be scrutinized. If I am not involved, then there are no actions of mine to scrutinize, and thus no avoidance of such scrutiny. Do you find this argument persuasive or is it your opinion that I have posted in violation of the alternative account policy? If the latter, my offer still stands. 149.255.57.233 (talk) 12:46, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

On a related note, I have had a look at the articles in question and I can see why no one would want to dangle their feet in there with a username. Just taking NPOV - good faith attempts to bring them in line tend to get reverted by both sides. Thats not touching on the reliability of some of the sourcing involved. Without some sort of teeth, I suspect this needs to go to AE so they reiterate policy to everyone involved. As it is, its going to be a lot of work to sort out the mess. I will have a shot at untangling the more problematic sourcing issues later tonight, but I have no confidence ANYTHING will stick. They just seem too entrenched and unwilling to compromise/work together. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:16, 14 November 2012 (UTC) PS. The sig thing may be unintentional. The diff at ANI looks like its stripping all special characters. My mobile does something similar if I try and edit from it in an existing section with chars it cant recognise.

Vandalisms by IP

Hi, could you take a look at 65.254.18.70? He seems to have a very long story of vandalisms and of ignoring any warning... in recent days he is focusing on Twister (game) article, blanking sections and/or replacing them with patient non-sense. I have no experience on requesting blocks, at any rate he looks like a good candidate for it... --Cavarrone (talk) 14:19, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Usually WP:AIV is where vandalism reports go, but I've given a month break (✉→BWilkins←✎) 14:24, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll keep it in mind. Regards, Cavarrone (talk) 14:31, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Deletion of Winter Storm Season

I'd like to ask you for a further explanation of your reasoning for the deletion of 2012-13 U.S. winter storm season (AfD). Not to be a !vote counter, but the !vote counts weren't too far apart, and any concern raised by those who !voted delete I or another editor replied to with a reply that basically nullified any deletion argument. If you could further explain the reason for deletion, I'd love it. If you aren't willing to undelete it into articlespace, could you please userfy it? Thanks, and sorry for the interruption. gwickwire | Leave a message 18:33, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

I left a very detailed close, including a recommendation...did you read them? (✉→BWilkins←✎) 18:42, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes I did read the close. I'd like to refer you to the links I provided that specifically go against the "deleters" claims that it's only used by TWC. The season has started now, and the names are in use by a vast majority of news outlets. That proves notability, and saying there are authority issues goes against undue weight by saying that the NWS is above a vast majority of major news outlets. No it couldn't have been SD'd as a recreation btw, because the content actually included links to other news outlets and actual named storms, which makes it sufficiently different from the other deleted article to the point it's not just a recreation. The AfD a month ago was before news networks adopted the naming, and before storms were actually named. gwickwire | Leave a message 19:24, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

If I started calling Sandra Bullock by the name "Sandy" and a bunch of news providers started calling her "Sandy" as well, does it make her name "Sandy"? I gave what I thought was a very good recommended title for the article ... one that is not WP:UNDUE, and is actually more encyclopedic than some second rate weather broadcaster making up names for things ... just like the Enquirer makes stuff up to draw attention. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 20:07, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

You fail to take into account that the NWS is not king. Just because they don't agree with the names doesn't mean Wikipedia shoudn't. For example, do we have an article on Musca domestica? No, we have an article on Housefly because that's what people know it by. It isn't a second rate weather broadcaster making up names for things... It's a well respected organization of professional meteorologists (that have the exact same certifications as the NWS's meteorologists) that came up with a good idea that has caught on with a vast majority of news networks. Wikipedia doesn't go by what the government says, Wikipedia goes by what is most covered in reliable sources. Athena/Brutus were called those names more than "nor'easter" or whatever other name you could come up with. I clearly provided links to this in the AfD discussion. The NWS is pretty much, by now, the only organization not using TWC's names for the storms. Out of approximately 35-45 thousand meteorologists in the USA, the NWS employs about 1.5-2 thousand of them. That means that they are 4.3% of the meteorologists in the USA. So, having an article based on the NWS standpoint is rejecting the other 90% (leaving about 5% of those who either don't talk about names or haven't explicitly denied or approved them), which is very clearly undue weight. The articles in WP are based on most media coverage. Athena/Brutus have more media coverage than nor'easter of November 2012 and/or winter storm in the Rockies. Therefore, the article shouldn't have been deleted. gwickwire | Leave a message 22:47, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

If you aren't going to reverse the deletion, could you at least userfy the page so I can have another admin look review your decision? I'd much rather keep this between you and me than go to someone else or Deletion Review, but if that's what it takes to get this looked at fully then I will. gwickwire | Leave a message 20:11, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't need to userfy it in order to have another admin look at it. Admins can see the deleted article. Otherwise, WP:DRV is thataway (✉→BWilkins←✎) 23:51, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

IP NLT block

Could you take a look at the ANI thread on the IP you just blocked for legal threats? I've asked that you undo the block as I really don' think it was appropriate in this case. Qwyrxian (talk) 12:35, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Inappropriate articles being created

Then how come I see companies coming from Asia (I won't mention specific names of the country) that are hardly heard of? I mean that's biased already and subjective. BTW, I'm not arguing, I'm just pointing out my point. You have to be fair. A sound discernment is needed here. Please stop listening to what other's are saying about certain articles.OptiStar (talk) 13:26, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

See WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS (✉→BWilkins←✎) 17:28, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Point them out to us and they'll get the boot too if they don't meet the requirements. Britmax (talk) 20:14, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Mobile Tout Terrain

Almost immediately after you speedy-deleted Mobile Tout Terrain, the user recreated it. It still doesn't meet the notability criteria and I'd appreciate you getting rid of it once again (and possibly wikislapping the contributor who just doesn't seem to get the concept of reliable sources). Thanks. --Biker Biker (talk) 16:39, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Deletion review for 2012-13 U.S. winter storm season

An editor has asked for a deletion review of 2012-13 U.S. winter storm season. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. gwickwire | Leave a message 00:03, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Brilliantly done. I especially like the reasons the closer gave for closing it almost immediately (✉→BWilkins←✎) 12:07, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Don't fan the flames

There are enough incompetent admins simply hanging out to fan the flames. Don't. Really. -Fjozk (talk) 12:58, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

You're right because they keep on deleting articles simply because they dislike the author. The Wikipedia Admin has to know this. Look at your tlak page they disable it.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.144.180.188 (talk) 10:28, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Hmmm...I know that I have never deleted anything simply because of who created it. Indeed, I don't dislike anyone, nor have I held a grudge in my life. Nice try though. Oh, and don't forget WP:SOCK applies to editing anonymously (✉→BWilkins←✎) 10:33, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Arbitration request

So, in the current Arb request, you claimed "The rest of the Bureaucrat cadre disagreed" with a decision I made. Could you clarify where all the other 'crats disagreed with my action please? Thanks. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:18, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Didn't they gang up and suggest you wait longer next time...from the discussion I saw (✉→BWilkins←✎) 21:53, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

As I requested in the current Arb discussion, can you show me where the "cadre" disagreed with me please? Otherwise you're somewhat mischaracterising my contributions and what other crats think of me. Thanks. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:56, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

First, nothing I said makes you or your contributions look "bad" in any way, period. I'm sorry you seem to be misreading so badly as to think that. However, if you review this discussion, the issue of waiting a period of time was somewhat predicated on what some of your colleagues considered to be a hasty return of the tools. Yes, some supported you, others argued against. Either way, a more extended time for resysops was applied at that point - none of which makes you look bad a any point (✉→BWilkins←✎) 10:48, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

It's the part where you characterised my position as being unique, i.e. that "the rest of the Bureaucrat cadre disagreed" with my actions, which, clearly, is not true. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:58, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

I think my summary at the end of that section summarised it well. None of us crats criticised TRM as doing the wrong thing, although some of us may have chosen to act differently. --Dweller (talk) 11:31, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Well, I most certainly did NOT criticize TRM in the ArbCom case whatsoever ... to me, the wording is quite clear about that (✉→BWilkins←✎) 11:03, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Whether you're criticising me or not is neither here nor there, I can take criticism, but what I don't understand is why you would say that the rest of the 'crats disagreed with my actions when some clearly and overtly agreed with them. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:04, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Hmmm...I figured you would have acknowledged the modifications I had made, rather than leave it looking like I was unresponsive. A bit surprised by that actually (✉→BWilkins←✎) 10:36, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Deletion of Crown the Empire

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

I do not believe it was fair to delete Crown the Empire. The band is very notable. Websites that has been confirmed and are used as sources everywhere (i.e. Alternative Press, metalunderground, rocksound.tv, Lambgoat, and absolutepunk.net) has posted about the band on multiple occasions. The band has released two EPs actually, not one. They are signed to a heavily covered and established record label (Rise Records). Over 84,000 "likes" on Facebook as of today (likes is probably not a useable source of notablility, just wanted to point that out). They are set to release their debut album on Rise Records (tomorrow actually, if I can recall correctly). And has worked with Joey Sturgis and Cameron Mizell, both being established producers in the genre that the band is a part of. The band is very notable in my opinion. Not to mention you deleted it after multiple votes of keeping the page. I do agree the page was in bad grammar/formatting but I do believe it deserved a deletion. I say the page be re-added once proper sources are found and formatting be fixed.
XyphynX9 (talk) 15:35, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Also, the band is touring with bands such as Motionless In White, Chelsea Grin, Stick to You Guns, etc. All bands that have articles among Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by XyphynX9 (talk • contribs) 15:37, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Oh yes, non-Policy-based arguments to "Keep" that were easily discounted. Nothing addressing the actual requirements as per WP:BAND - obviously you still have not read those notability requirements. Press releases, social media ... nothing useable. WP:ILIKEIT and the fact that they exist is not sufficient. If their album actually ends up meeting the requirements, then someone can either create a WP:USERSPACEDRAFT and check with some seasoned editors before moving into articlespace, OR can use the WP:AFC process. However, as of now, they're unfortunately nobodies as far as this project's requirements. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 15:47, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Consensus

I'm wanting to clear up the error that Jimbo Wales was the sole founder of Wikipedia, as presented on his user page but you reverted it saying "as per consensus". I know that "Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale" so I'm wondering what sort of consensus it was that overrides WP:VER, WP:NOR and WP:NPOV which all indicate that Jimbo was the co-founder of Wikipedia with Larry Sanger?Momento (talk) 10:32, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry ... but at what point does Jimbo claim that he was the sole founder? The wording is quite correct as it is, even if he was co-founder. You know as well as anyone that the whole Jimbo/Sanger thing is inflamatory, and consensus is that the way it's phrased in Jimbo's userpage is appropriate, and that adding fuel to a long-standing fire would be stupid (✉→BWilkins←✎) 12:53, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

I'd also add that the three policies that Momento cites, apply to article space - Jimbo's userpage is not article space. The article Jimbo Wales does indeed describe him as "co-founder". Consensus is that we permit Jimbo to keep this particular aspect of his userpage the way he prefers it. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 18:37, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm not Harassing

I'm not harassing you who does?

Just to let you know that I'm not gonna visit this Wikipedia again after what you've done to my articles just because somebody here keep on reporting to you lies and telling you to do this and that. this too much. Imagine, one after the other.

I came here to contribute for the growth of this knowledge center with a sincere heart but some people here would accuse me of vandalism. The effect, I'm not gonna edit the articles here with discrepancies and leave it so that Wikipedia would become a laughing stock to many.

I'm gonna tell my friends whom I told before to donate to Wikipedia to not to go on.

Actually, there are lots of other who complain about the unreasonable deletion of the other articles which they made.

Be informed that I'm gonna be deleting all my contributions here. Do not object anyway they're all mine.

I'd rather do a research on Britannica Online even if the articles are fewer because I believe the people are not rude. OptiStar (talk) 11:52, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Deletion of my articles

Be happy because I'll do ahead of you with the deletion of my articles. Tell bikers bikers that he won and he can now celebrate.

It's a waste of time to be here. OptiStar (talk) 11:52, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

I voluntary deleted my contributions here in Wikipedia

There you have it BWilkins, I already deleted all the articles that I created here including my contributions out of my own accord.

You can now have the peace here in Wikipedia now that I leave this website and try not to visit it as much as I can. OptiStar (talk) 11:40, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

You know, people grow and mature by learning. In a community such as Wikipedia, there are literally millions of people who have the opportunity to help you to learn. You came to Wikipedia thinking that it was one thing, and many many people tried to guide you otherwise. They pointed out the policies, and tried to help you to understand. Rather than actually take 10 minutes to read and understand what they were saying, you lambasted them about hating your contributions, make childish comments about telling people not to donate to the project, and delete your contributions and go off in a huff. Nothing about the AFD's of your work is about you - it's about us wondering why you won't take a moment to read WP:CORP. Indeed, I'd be surprised if you can tell me anything about Wikipedia's general notability guidelines and what does or does not constitute a reliable source. Those simple levels of understanding are all that anyone has ever asked of you so that your hard work is directed in the right direction, and not on articles that have little chance of being a part of this project (✉→BWilkins←✎) 13:02, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Did anyone suggest the user obtain a mentor? Ihardlythinkso (talk) 13:24, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

It's a fantastic idea - but the responses I have seen this person do when someone provides even the slightest attempt at assistance suggested to me that mentoring either might not help, or they wouldn't be amenable to the situation. I would be thrilled to be proven wrong in this case, because I do they they can provide some good energy given the right direction - but they have be willing to take direction first (✉→BWilkins←✎) 13:29, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

I would think it would be a whole different dynamic, to have one-on-one counsel from a mentor, as opposed to advice from various uninvolved editors, and the user would respond differently as a result. From what I've seen, I'd recommend User:Superm401 to the rescue. (User talk:Superm401) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 14:50, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

I gently prodded Superm401 to see if they're willing (✉→BWilkins←✎) 15:03, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Good move. (The user s/ be the one to make the contact really, but me thinks you're right, 'cause situation is too far gone for that. This is best chance for positive end.) With fingers crossed, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 16:23, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Four Stroke Engine Cycle

Was it really your intention to redirect Four Stroke Engine Cycle to WP:NOTHOWTO? Seems like a strange redirect.--kelapstick^(bainuu) 14:56, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Nope ... something screwed up it appears. I originally redirected it elsewhere (✉→BWilkins←✎) 17:01, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

That's what I thought, but since the AfD said it was redirected to WP:NOTHOWTO, I was puzzled...I have taken the liberty of fixing the AfD closure for you. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 17:45, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I got an odd browser error in the middle of the close - possibly because I had already manually done the redirect. Your fix is appreciated (✉→BWilkins←✎) 17:58, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Information

I noticed your username commenting at an Arbcom discussion regarding civility. An effort is underway that would likely benifit if your views were included. I hope you will append regards at: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Civility enforcement/Questionnaire Thank you for considering this request. My76Strat (talk) 09:15, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

User:TheWesternWorld

Hi, you noted that User:TheWesternWorld abused Wikipedia's email system. The user sent me an abusive email, which said "Kill yourself you retarded piece of shit". Is their any way I could report that?--Mjs1991 (talk) 04:00, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

I received over 100 copies of a similar-reading e-mail from them. After that their access to the "e-mail this user" function was removed. Not much else to do, unless you personally feel threatened by them (✉→BWilkins←✎) 10:10, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Harrias's RfA

Would you kindly consider recasting your !vote on Harrias' RfA now that he's answered the question? I've been accused of caring too much about these things, but at the moment, your neutral !vote is the only one standing in the way of a unanimous RfA, which in these days of so much contention on the RfA pages, might be a nice thing to see. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:06, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Note, if unanimous means 100% support in the way that we currently calculate it, then it's already unanimous even with this neutral. So perhaps you do care too much about this ;) — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:45, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Happy December!

The Holidays are coming up... enjoy this lovely brownie as your first treat! Statυs (talk) 02:32, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

*munch munch munch* Thanks! (✉→BWilkins←✎) 11:09, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Request for unprotection of Usage share of web browsers

The first of the month we normally update the stats. Can be protected if needed after editors make the usual updates.   Thanks, Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 00:56, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

I already asked the question: why do we update it monthly. Wikipedia is WP:NOTNEWS (✉→BWilkins←✎) 01:09, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

The information is valued for historical context. You can see that much of the info dates back 10+ years. Monthly is considered a good level of summarization. wp:notnews is not relevant, this is not tabloid info, or info with temporal value. Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 14:00, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Although I wholly disagree with your argument, and do not personally believe that such updates add to the article, I have unprotected it as it appears that the original disagreements that led to the protection have been resolved (✉→BWilkins←✎) 14:15, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Tell me more. Do you think quarterly updates should happen or the article shouldn't exist or other? Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 15:42, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

User:7SeriesBOT

Hi Bwilkins,

Is your adminbot still running, and not finding any pages to delete? I noticed it hasn't made a deletion since September.

Thanks, Legoktm (talk) 11:45, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

It's actually down right now. I voluntarily pulled it down, but have yet to re-enable it. Perhaps that's a good project for a cold day like today (✉→BWilkins←✎) 11:54, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Guidance Barnstar
		That is an awesome, well-written piece of advice. Kudos. Anomie⚔ 17:16, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

That's very kind of you Anomie :-) Thank you (✉→BWilkins←✎) 20:00, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

		The Admin's Barnstar
		Anomie beat me to it! But I was going to give you this. Thanks for setting a great example. — Hex (❝?!❞) 11:02, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

The beautiful irony is that in that very same attempt to help, I said that "admins are rarely thanked" ... and here, wonderfully and surprisingly, I'm being thanked not once but twice for something. You both honour me (✉→BWilkins←✎) 12:39, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

User:Eff Won

Tell me this Talk:2013 Formula One season#Numbers and the team and driver table isn't disruptive. Same old story again and again and again – Eff Won / Lucy alone in a pointless debate about something which everyone else has been happy with for years. Bretonbanquet (talk) 23:51, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

I have to raise the flag on Eff Won yet again. this talk page edit which followed this revert seems to me to make it pretty clear that Eff Won's sole purpose on Wikipedia now is to go after or argue with Prisonermonkeys specifically. It is becoming utterly ridiculous to have to continue to put up with this behavior. While Eff Won was originally blocked, in part, for his edit warring to try and get his way with articles, now he seems to be butting into the editing process solely to go against any edits Prisonermonkeys makes. He himself calls Prisonermonkeys' edit edit-warring, so to involve himself in the edit war by making a revert makes him part of the edit war which seems to be treading the line of his 1RR limitation as part of his unblock. The³5₉ (Talk) 08:31, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

A little chat

I just wanted to say that my AGF button has limits. I know you don't like me, and I believe that you believe that I'm disruptive, naive, that I don't uderstand policies and that I make more harm than good, and you may have your reasons to. I wanted the restriction lifted because I don't feel comfortable with my name written at WP:RESTRICT, not because I want to go and make 1000 closures. And I can't assume good faith from a user that seems to follow me everywhere just to oppose everything I may say, and write detrimental things about me :( — ΛΧΣ21™ 01:17, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

A couple of realities: first, people are opposing the removal of the restrictions because requesting their removal right now was one of the dumbest things you could do. Accusing people of opposing it because of past issues is pretty ridiculous, really. What's more ridiculous is the suggestion that I "don't like you". You're a bit off your rocker on that one too. I'm a bit worried that you might be taking this Wikipedia thing far too seriously right now, and you could probably use a little time off in the real world (✉→BWilkins←✎) 10:22, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Well, I just felt you didn't like me. At least that's somewhat the impression I received since we met back in July when Status got blocked for edit warring by Toddst1. I am having a wikibreak now, and I have realized that yes, it was dumb to request the restriction so soon. Also, I have no issues with Dominus opposing it, my issues is with the way he writes about me, which is really inaccurate. He has the right to oppose the lifting and I respect that, as well as your oppose. I am not taking this far too seriously anymore. I realized I was when the restriction affected me and I went out of Wikipedia the whole month. I even stopped editing for about a week. Anyways, thanks for your response. — ΛΧΣ21™ 19:08, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Eff Won (again)

Hi Bwilkins,

Just thought I might let you know that there is a storm brewing over Eff Won. Again. His latest edits on the 2013 Formula One season page have not been received well, particularly in the way he is trying to force his edits to hold by threatening to go straight to an adminstrator if they are at all changed. There is a current request for page protection on the page, and I'm hoping it will be granted soon and hold long enough for a resolution to be found. I have asked him to explain himself, and while it is quite abrupt, I've just about had my fill of his behaviour.

I'm not asking that you take action yet - I just thought you might want to keep an eye on things, because based on what we've seen from him in the past, Eff Won can make things very messy, very quickly. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 09:09, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your help in dealing with Eff Won. I'm happy to see cooler heads prevailed - there have been adminstrators in the past who have bought into his attempts to talk his way out of trouble by deflecting attention onto the edit histories of the people raising objections to his behaviour. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 00:22, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Removal of "Assume Good Faith"

That was a mistake. I was adding the same phrase to my post and deleted it when I placed mine in the wrong location for my own post and I simply saw your post and didn't realise what I had done. My apologies for the mistake.--Amadscientist (talk) 10:19, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Correction, I guess I accidentally added the phrase to your post thinking I was adding it to mine. Kinda funny, but not really.--Amadscientist (talk) 10:24, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Here is where I put the wording in my opwn post but it was located badly and needed to be moved. I don't edit others words. Again, sorry. [55]--Amadscientist (talk) 10:28, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Yeah.....I am up waaaaaay past my bedtime. I had no idea how late it was. It is 2:30am. I was thinking it was like midnite. I am logging off for the night. Sorry for the mistake.--Amadscientist (talk) 10:33, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

PERM

I'm a bit concerned about this request because it is absolutely identical to one from another account that I declined just a few days ago. I can't find it in the archives because I can't remember the name. Perhaps you can help. Cheers. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:03, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

I think we have a WP:SUP thing going on, based on the userids: this is the one you're looking for (✉→BWilkins←✎) 09:42, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks :) Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:13, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

"Editing Danjel's page was vandalism"

Consider the following three points:

1. I doubt you'd like it if I or anyone reverted you as vandalism
2. If I'd taken it to ANY noticeboard (ANI, DRN, etc), one of the first questions would be, "Did you try to work it out with him on his talk page?"
3. Danjel continued to post on my talk page and interact with my in Wikipedia-space after attempting to ban me from his page. He can't have it both ways

OK, so Twinkle can't be removed. But it's still being misused. Shirt buried a "Don't misuse Twinkle" in his comments to Danjel, but I don't think it took pbp 15:40, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Jason Fowler

We have both been to some extent confused at this page, particularly in the IP unblock request we both declined. I have surveyed the page in some depth, and the vandalism edits were made over a period of a week by at least three different Ip editors. might, of course, all be the same person. I have performed radical reversion surgery and the article is now, I think, clean. Semi-protected one week. --Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 13:20, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Good plan for sure on all counts, and thanks for going more in-depth. Of course, my decline was obvious just based on that IP's edits ... ridiculous in whole and in part. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 13:23, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Do you celebrate Christmas?

My question was in the title. But, anyway, you are a very special and successful Wikipedian. If you celebrate Christmas, tell me. I got you a gift. ^*wink*. It's super nice. And it's pretty. If you don't celebrate Christmas, it's between Hanikkuah (not sure how to spell that), Christmas, or Three Kings Day. Or, none. I'll be sure to get you a gift anyways. This gift will completely stand out in your talk page. You'll love it. Anyway, feel free to leave the reply here or on my page. If you leave it here, send me a talkback template because I'll be busy in this hour. Thank you. This beautiful gift only goes to those who are working very hard. So you'll be getting one. Again, Thanks! RaidenRules!^{Talk to me!} 15:39, 9 December, 2012 (UTC)

Of course I celebrate Christmas :-) (✉→BWilkins←✎) 13:45, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Deletion review for Crown The Empire

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Crown The Empire. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Undelete so a new page can be created based off of what was in the old pageMariolennox (talk) 03:47, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Commented there. Not sure why you didn't ask for userfication the first time (✉→BWilkins←✎) 13:44, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Your comment at ANI

Hi, with regard to this comment you recently made at ANI, the inability of Yogesh to comprehend the issues is likely due to personal antipathy. See, for example, this thread on their talk page & numerous past ANI reports. It is not something that is likely to go away, although they've been quite clever on this occasion as they appear to be prepared to sacrifice Doncram to make a mark on me. I may be misreading this situation but I doubt it: there is a long-established pattern of trying to get me into trouble and a similarly lengthy pattern of failure to understand the very policies etc that they cite. I'm past caring about the opportunism, sniping etc because, alas, I am perfectly capable of getting myself into trouble without any nudging from Yogesh! I've got a bit frustrated with some recent goings-on, I know it and consequently I've been working a fair bit on some other things, eg: Stubbington House School, Eastman's Royal Naval Academy and Godfrey Herbert. A change is as good as a rest.

I notice that Salvio blocked another long-term opportunist who commented in the discussion but I don't anticipate that it will make any difference. In fact, it will probably just stoke up resentment. - Sitush (talk) 13:30, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

• Sick of religious fights? What you want to do is write about churches. See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive777#St Marys Church, Clophill. Uncle G (talk) 14:20, 10 December 2012 (UTC)