User talk:DangerousPanda/Archive 12

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

Assistance With Disruptive Editing

I may not be in the right place, so please forgive me if you are the wrong admin to seek out. I was brought to your page because of a block you imposed on User:Johnny Squeaky for disruptive editing and personal attacks. However, it is the notation on your user page about editing by consensus that encourages me to pursue this here.

The point in dispute is the IPC section in the Medgar Evers article. User:Johnny Squeaky is trying to tag the section as trivia when it is in fact a presentation of some significant works that deal with Evers' death. Two other editors and I have removed the tag, and I have pointed out to this editor that there is a functional consensus not to include the tag. I have tried to engage this editor on the Talk page (under "Edits June 2011" because that is where JohnnySqueaky posted his remarks) and asked for a response, but he keeps overriding the reverts with assertions about IPC sections that are, at the very least, neither welcoming nor collaborative.

I am not requesting a block on this editor at all but rather an intervention in the editing of the article. There is a de facto consensus against this tag, and JohnnySqueaky is ignoring it. I'm not sure that this is an area in which you could be of help, but any assistance or advice you might be able to offer would be appreciated. Sensei48 (talk) 22:02, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Have you seen

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Elvey and Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment#Clarification request: Climate change. If the SPI is confirmed.... Dougweller (talk) 06:12, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Lifting of ban

Thanks for the decision concerning my editing. This brief note is to confirm that I agree to the 1RR+restrictions for the next six months. I'll do my best from here onward. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 14:19, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

No issues. Just note that a WP:BAN is very very different than a WP:BLOCK - make sure you use the correct terminology :-) (✉→BWilkins←✎) 15:22, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Hello BWilkins. I noticed the discussion at User talk:Evlekis#March 2013. In my opinion, anything which is agreed to as an unblock condition such as a personal WP:1RR may be listed in WP:RESTRICT so the issue is not overlooked in the future. It's up to you but it could be helpful to other admins and avoid unnecessary debates. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 01:23, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

It's hard to stand by and watch

After all this leniency what we have been able to achieve are these replies:

1. DS very aggressively claims that he has never "fucking" pretended to be an admin. He has always exhibited a proclivity to defend his unsavory conducts (I mean always!). You were right that he was trying to create a chilling effect by pretending to be an admin. [1], [2], [3], [4], [5] and now he is trying to make a case that these are all just nugatory and he never (that's right never) pretended to be an admin. The truth is
   1. he could have added an additional text to explain that he was a non-admin.
   2. he had COI in doing so
   3. he could have |admin=no (The template page is clear enough about it)

   He doesn't read what people write against him, I suspect he doesn't even care.

2. DS asks me to "show" him where he was impolite. At this point in ANI his behavioral problems would be self-evident, I presumed. As usual I am the lone observer.

I am asking myself is this flat-out denial or something else which I am absolutely unable to see? Still we expect that he is going to rectify his problems? How many more blocks does he need?
Frankly, I am losing my faith on this process. We claim we are not a bureaucracy or an anarchy but we're nothing less either. Just review his general mode of working, his general demeanor towards those who oppose his edits. Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 16:20, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

The latest is his attempt to make it seem that I am the reason he is uncivil (as it seems, I didn't earn his respect, I don't deserve respect, he says). He is uncivil, rude towards others too. Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 16:41, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Damin Altizer article

Hello,

Why did you delete the article of Damin Altizer? He is a former basketball player. Many young basketball players must read about him.

Regards, Alin — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alinlish (talk • contribs) 19:36, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

you have already been told more than once. See your talkpage (✉→BWilkins←✎) 19:41, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Hello, DangerousPanda. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Thanks

I do believe you, and thanks for the comments at my talk page. I apologize again for all the mess I have caused, and I would really like to have a good relationship with you when I come back. Although you wouldn't believe me, I like you, and I worship all the work you do on the encyclopedia. I do really feel discouraged right now, but I expect to feel better soon. Have a nice day :) — ΛΧΣ²¹ 18:34, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Birthright warning

Hello,

I am unsure whether only I was tagged for being in an editing war, but I do wonder what to do about it. The last time I edited the page, it was not a reversion. Debresser said the material was vague to him and thus deleted. Thus I expanded the material to flesh out any thing that may have been unclear. However, he has just once again deleted my material and accusing me of violating Wikipedia rules. I do not see how what I did was in violation, and since you are the one who posted on my page, could you clarify. I have begun a talk section on the Birthright page, but I do not understand how Debresser has completely monopolized authority over the page in such a way that if something is unclear to Debresser then it must be removed.

Thank you Yaakov — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yaakov Birthright Franklin (talk • contribs) 18:18, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

I, of course, reject the accusation of WP:OWN. But I do apologize that I hadn't noticed that YBF's last edit was indeed better and clearer. This is because he started with undoing my edit and the editsummary said "Undid edit by Debresser". Nevertheless, his last edit is still vague. I have asked a specific question on his talkpage. Debresser (talk) 18:26, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

WP:REVERT does explain that changing another part of the same article can be considered a revert. Of course, an edit summary that states you're reverting simply draws the wrong attention to it (✉→BWilkins←✎) 23:07, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks

I gave up caffeine a week ago. Bad idea. Thanks for pointing out my error. Toddst1 (talk) 18:48, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Giving up caffeine is a bad idea LOL. My fault on that block - if I had edited the AIV report first to say what I was doing, then it would not have been an issue (✉→BWilkins←✎) 23:08, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

ObscureReality, request unblock

Hello, I have recently requested for an unblock. I wish to continue editing Wikipedia in a constructive manner, and offer my apologies towards all those affected by my foul behavior. Please consider it here (User talk:ObscureReality). Thank you, ObscureReality.194.46.226.154 (talk) 16:09, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

additional eyes please

Would you mind taking a look at this in the context of this warning about WP:POLEMIC? I'm rather involved at this point and I just don't see anything good coming of this. Thanks. Toddst1 (talk) 02:33, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

User:88.104.27.2

I ran across this IP's post at WP:AN, and in attempting to respond to some of what he was doing, I discovered that you'd blocked him. Could you explain what's going on? I'm not sure that this is a serious enough mistake that I should fix it immediately (in reference to your editnotice), but both the IP and I are quite confused why you blocked — I can't see anything that would justify a block, even with a warning, and I can't find any warnings either. Please respond at the IP's talk page, where I've left a message. Nyttend (talk) 00:27, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Just so you're aware, this IP editor was recently unblocked by Monty845. There's also an ongoing discussion about it at AN which I thought you might be interested in. Kurtis ^(talk) 04:15, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

I was going to drop you a note regarding the unblock, but it appears Kurtis beat me to it. If you would like to discuss my explanation on the unblock request, or elaboration at the AN thread, please let me know. Monty₈₄₅ 04:28, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

"Insufficient justification for block"? Even based on the discussion at AN, that most certainly was not an appropriate entry in the block log. what happened to "I can sort of see where Bwilkins was coming from"...how did that turn into "insufficient justification"? (✉→BWilkins←✎) 08:31, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

I think you've been a bit trigger-happy lately, BWilkins. I hate to bring this up since you've always been very kind to me but I've seen your name behind a few questionable blocks lately and it seems like no one's told you to slow down. I can understand that you made a mistake here ... I myself wasn't about to unblock because of the coincidence regarding the vandalism of Seb's page immediately after 88.104.27.2's block which left me unsure whether to believe his explanation ... but I think it's a mistake that could have been avoided if you'd taken a little more time before pulling the trigger. —Soap— 00:49, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

I appreciate the input, as always Soap. I would of course be interested in hearing which blocks have been "trigger happy" and unnecessary as temporary protection of the project. I've explained the 88.x one more than once, and as you can see there's not a consensus that it was a "bad block", but consensus that "if it was bad, it was at least an understandable block" (yes, I read that as a "proceed with caution" message from my colleagues) (✉→BWilkins←✎) 09:43, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

• BWilkins, I'm sorry I didn't have an opportunity to contribute to the discussion at WP:AN before it was closed. I don't necessarily agree with your block, but I could "see where [you were] coming from", and I'm surprised no one else commented on the very bizarre quality of the IP's edits. Why would anyone come out of the blue and start questioning a sock's unblock request as their first edits? And did anyone notice this phrase, "That happened with MF this week, and caused rather a fuss"? The reference is to Malleus, which, to me, indicates that the IP is really someone else, although I'm not sure who. Now socking in and of itself isn't necessarily blockable, but ... And the edit summaries (e.g., "let the dog see the rabbit"), the reference to WP:VEGAN, the use of "our" and "we", which usually only admins or very experienced editors do to refer to Wikipedia, and the list goes on. Again, none of this is disruptive per se, but it sure is fishy. And now that he's unblocked, he's citing WP:IAR. Ah, me.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:41, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
• 88 hit up my talk page pretty early on. It didn't take long for me to wonder if I was being "punked". If there wasn't a "lesson" being taught, I thought there might be at least an "example" of why people get disillusioned with the project. I could take a guess at who it is/was, but it wouldn't really serve any purpose. One example: diff - ya gotta admit, if nothing else, there is a certain "baiting" aspect to something like that. I know it comes with the territory, but it does make one ponder a bit. — Ched :  ?  11:35, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Please respond

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.

---

Hi,

You told me, "Please ask questions directly in the future so that we can avoid communication problems" [6].

So I put a 'talkback' on your page when I asked you something - [7].

You reverted it, saying, "Reverted good faith edits by 88.104.27.2 (talk): No tb's" [8].

So... I've replied again, but I'm not sure if I should tell you or not.

Make your mind up; if you want me to be direct or not. 88.104.27.2 (talk) 19:59, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

the edit notice says "no talkback templates as i'm watching any discussion i am still involved in. i see you replied on your talk. you still have shown no signs of having read my explanations, or the explanations above which i have clearly stated are correct. as you refuse to read, i am no longer required to further respond: i have fully been accountable as per admin policy. you'll find, if you try, that i'm pretty easy to get along with. i do expect the ability to read, however. again, until you show signs of reading what i have directed to to, i will consider future similar requests to simply be WP:IDHT (✉→BWilkins←✎) 21:30, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

That's fine, I understand, we've reached an impasse. You think you've answered, I do not. I'll consider whether there's any point pursuing it. 88.104.27.2 (talk) 21:50, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

What part of 3 sections above this don't you understand? What part the fact that edit-warring does not require you to break the 3 revert line, and that it was the edit-summary combined with the revert on someone's talkpage that was disruptive do you not get? This has all been shown to you and explained to you. What game are you playing? I don't often use the word "troll" because I have a higher belief in people, but when all of the evidence has been handed to you, why you consider that you have not had an explanation is very troll-like. I have fully complied with WP:ADMINACCT since the brief block occurred. You were required to come right here to my talkpage to discuss it if you had an issue, before going to AN/ANI. Other than your ill-advised talkback, this is the FIRST time you have approached me, yet you're still complaining. Take some responsibility for your failure to approach me as required, and as would be ethical (✉→BWilkins←✎) 22:07, 22 March 2013 (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.

Dude...

		The Surreal Barnstar
		Yepp, you got it... :P Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 00:37, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Y'know, "surreal" seems to be a good definition for this. Cheers! (✉→BWilkins←✎) 00:40, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Hope you don't mind...

But I went ahead and categorized the Alabama-Halle AfD. Just wanted to touch base with you and make sure I haven't done anything against your wishes.

Take care. =) Kurtis ^(talk) 11:30, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

To be honest, I rarely categorize any of my AFD's - I leave that up to smarter people than I :-) (✉→BWilkins←✎) 11:52, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Pfft, you'd be fine, it's easy! ;) Kurtis ^(talk) 11:53, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Notification of user conduct discussion

You may wish to comment on a user conduct discussion regarding Niemti, which can be found here. If you comment there you may wish to review the rules for user conduct comments first. You are receiving this notification because you were previously involved in dealing with this user. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 18:56, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Deletion review for British Rail Class 68

An editor has asked for a deletion review of British Rail Class 68. 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. Zombie Aardvark (talk) 01:56, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Possible sockpuppetry/WP:OWN issue

Hi, Bwilkins,

Hope you don't mind my bothering you, but I liked the way you handled the Eff Won saga all those months ago, and I'm hoping you can take a look at another issue for me.

User:Ground Zeroes editor has been very active on the Metal Gear Solid V: The Phantom Pain article. He has taken to behaving as if he is some kind of editor-in-chief of the page, and seems to expect that people will defer to his judgement on any issue that arises. Both I and User:ViperSnake151 have noticed this, and have tried to approach him (independently of one another) to explain that he doesn't own any of the content on the page, and that he has no special powers over the article as a whole. This was his response, which was rude, but that's not the issue.

Half an hour after later, User:Metal Gear Solid V editor registered with Wikipedia, and the message on his user page makes it fairly obvious that they are one and the same person:

I only work on the Metal Gear Solid V article. I repeat. I only work on that article, I am not the "owner" of the article. So please take your hatemail somewhere else. Otherwise discuss anything else on my talk page.

Between his aggressive responses, attempts to take on the role of lead editor, and multiple accounts, I have the feeling that he is going to spiral out of control very quickly and prove to be very disruptive in the future if he doesn't get his way. He's already making sweeping statements that shut down any potential for discussion, so I'm hoping you might be willing to take a look try and straighten him out, since prevention is always better than cure. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 09:29, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

In the light of a recent block you instituted

Please would you run as independent an eye as you are able to over Talk:Public_nudity#The_recent_edits_by_user:Ewawer and the history of the edits and the editor. I may be incorrect in my reversion, that is for others to judge, but I do not believe I am incorrect in the requirement to reach consensus. I'm not about to get into a reversion war over this. Life is too short. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 21:09, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Ducktails (band)

Hi there. Please can this page be undeleted? They clearly meet the notability guidelines.

1. Has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent from the musician or ensemble itself.[note 1]

Search the band name on Pitchfork - the biggest music website in the world - and you will see loads of content about them. Reviews, video features and interviews. I have referenced this from the wikipedia page. There is of course plenty of other content in other magazines.

2. Has released two or more albums on a major label or on one of the more important indie labels (i.e., an independent label with a history of more than a few years, and with a roster of performers, many of whom are notable).

They've released albums on Domino

3. Has become one of the most prominent representatives of a notable style or the most prominent of the local scene of a city; note that the subject must still meet all ordinary Wikipedia standards, including verifiability.

Read the article on Chillwave, they are mentioned as one of the most prominent artists of this scene.

Thanks

You're kidding, right? Am I on Candid Camera? (✉→BWilkins←✎) 21:09, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

- no... please explain what's funny? Is all the above not true? Does that not mean the band satisfy not just the one necessary criterion but three? Marcushamblett (talk) 23:43, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Please let me know if I've done something wrong. I'd like to get this page undeleted. Marcushamblett (talk) 02:46, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

I may be willing to userfy it so that it can actually be brought up to Wikipedia standards, but it will not go back into articlespace (✉→BWilkins←✎) 13:01, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. Can you let me know what is wrong with it so I know what to improve? Do you agree that all the conditions for notability are met? Marcushamblett (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 13:48, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi there, please can you userfy it like you said? Or better yet put it up for vote as to whether it should be deleted? Because I strongly believe that it shouldn't. Marcushamblett (talk) 12:14, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Hello? Should I just recreate the page? Marcushamblett (talk) 17:27, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

It is, of course, here. Still going to be deleted soon. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 18:40, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

User:Yaakov Birthright Franklin

This new editor was warned by you on his talkpage. Including the phrase "you can still be blocked for edit warring should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly". He has an attitude on the talkpage of Birthright Israel that "I am right and you are wrong, and I shall do as I please".[9] Combined with the fact that 1. he is a new editor 2. he chose the username he chose 3. he edits only that article exclusively (see Special:Contributions/Yaakov Birthright Franklin) 4. makes edits and proposes to make edits that are not neutrally worded (see e.g. my improvement of his edit here), leads to the conclusion that this editor is out here on Wikipedia to make a point. As in WP:POINT redirecting to "Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point".

I would like to ask you to do something, or, alternatively, to advise me on an appropriate course of action. Debresser (talk) 06:09, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Invitation to join WikiProject Admin Nominators

Hello. You are invited to join WikiProject Admin Nominators, a project which aims to support editors interested in nominating at Requests for Adminship. We hope that you will join and help to shape the new project. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C • Sign AAPT) 17:33, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Lea Michele

Hi! I see that you rejected my update on Lea Michele's wikipedia page because Cory Monteith "does not meet the definition of partner" but they have been dating for over a year so I think it qualifies! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shansastark (talk • contribs) 18:47, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

I've now rejected it as well. Please stop trying to reinsert it. In my view, there are two ways we can classify someone as a partner in the infobox. First, if they are a legal partner (in places where such partnerships are recognized), and, second, if the subject of the article refers to the person as their partner in reliable sources.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:30, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Stay offa my talk page, I ban you!

Colton did the same thing to me, while he was still blocked. He emailed me ordering me to not only stop commenting there but to remove it from my watchlist altogether. I was not able to get a consensus [10] on the valididty of such a request/demand from a blocked user, but in the end I doubt it matters much. Colton is sort of his own worst enemy and now there are many more eyes on the case than there already were. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:43, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

LOL ... he is indeed his own worst enemy. Especially when I just posted on his talkpage exactly how to get unblocked. Sure...ban me from it! (✉→BWilkins←✎) 18:03, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

AN

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. The thread is Unblocking Colton Cosmic. Yunshui 雲‍水 18:31, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Ducktails (band) revised

Hi there I've revised the Ducktails (band) page adding more references from mainstream media (BBC, Rolling Stone, The Guardian, Spin etc).

Can you let me know if this is okay now, and if not, what needs to be done?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Marcushamblett/Ducktails_(band)

thanks in advance

Marcushamblett (talk) 20:14, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

First, please keep discussions together - this belonged up with the rest. Second, I still don't see it - there's nothing there at all that even hints at notability, and the ref's you use do not grant that as per WP:NBAND (✉→BWilkins←✎) 20:20, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for checking over my article, and sorry for splitting the conversation. WP:NBAND specifies that the band has to meet one of the criteria listed and I believe I've demonstrated that they meet criteria 1, 5, 6 and 11. Regardless of your opinion on the band's notability, I'm sure I've proved it objectively with the refs. Since many of the refs are "multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent from the musician or ensemble itself" would you not at least agree that they meet criterion 1? And since another ref is to the Domino Records site, do they not meet criterion 5? And another to BBC Radio shows they meet criterion 11? If you still insist that you simply "don't see it", could this be put to a vote instead? Marcushamblett (talk) 20:27, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Ref 1: A review. Yeah, it's in the Guardian, but reviews are trivial

Ref 2: Oooh, an announcement about the release of a video, obviously taken mostly from a press-release. Yawn.

Ref 3: Brooklyn Vegan blog? Reliable source?

Ref 4: See number 2.

... need I continue? (✉→BWilkins←✎) 21:31, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes please, since you've only addressed the refs for criterion 1, when there are also refs showing indisputably that the band have released several albums on major or important independent labels and have had their music on rotation on major national radio networks, meeting criteria 5 and 11. I've also just inserted another reference pointing to "non-trivial coverage in independent reliable sources of a national concert tour in at least one sovereign country" in the form of a live stream on Pitchfork TV, meeting criterion 4. Again the article only needs to meet one criterion and I believe it meets at least 3. Again I'd ideally like the question of deletion put to a vote rather than judged by you, is that possible? Thanks again for your time. Marcushamblett (talk) 14:34, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

As I have said before, I'm not the be all and end all of any subject. There is a project related to music, bands, etc - I have suggested that you speak to someone who is a part of that project before - have you done that yet? They may be able to assist more. After all, I'm merely looking at this from a generic policy point of view. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 15:01, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks - I'm an inexperienced editor and would really appreciate you pointing me in the specific direction of where to go and who to talk to. Thanks again. Marcushamblett (talk) 16:23, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Sorry to post again I think my last comment was slightly confusingly worded, but I'd really appreciate you pointing me in the right direction of who to talk to or where to go with this. Thanks in advance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marcushamblett (talk • contribs) 15:12, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

You visit WP:MUSIC ... it should have a discussion page were you can ask for some assistance. It's one of the reasons I originally suggested WP:AFC for you as well. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 16:30, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 17

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Mount Irvine Bay Golf Club, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bob Murphy (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 01:21, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Removal of User:Technical 13/Userboxes/Help me responder from Category

I'm confused. I only created the userbox because I couldn't find one, and I would think that on the category page everyone visits would be the best place to list available userboxes and let people decide if they want it or not. I even went through great pains to make to formatting and display of the box no be offensive and flow with the page. If that is not the place for those to be displayed, where should it be displayed Technical 13 (talk) 20:23, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

There's already at least 3 that I have seen. Plus, they would never go on the category page .... maybe the category talkpage (✉→BWilkins←✎) 21:06, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Okay, so I've copied the userbox from the talk page to the top of the talk page and added mine (which isn't rendering properly for me atm but that is likely due to my poor Internet connect (was displaying fine at school an hour ago and nothing has been changed on it)). You said you've seen at least 3, could you point me to the other(s)? Thanks. Technical 13 (talk) 23:17, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Envita

I'm posting this here because I'm not sure you saw it on the Requests for Undeletion Page. I am not trying to annoy or SPAM you. The guidelines say "An organization is generally considered notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources." Envita fits these guidelines. They've been featured on ABC 15[2] and numerous other secondary sources. I don't understand why I wasn't even given a chance to defend my article before it was deleted. That's all I'm asking for. A chance to improve this article, make it more objective, etc. Like I said, CTCA was given that chance and still haven't improved since the warning was issued in February 2012! Tell me what I'm missing, because I'm trying to be compliant. Blatantly Evil (talk) 19:55, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

It was promotional, and you know it - and at least one of the ref's was not considered "significant coverage". If you want to start from scratch, write a new WP:USERSPACEDRAFT, but I won't restore a promotional piece of text like that to anywhere. Yes, I saw your second request - which makes no sense, and has no place there. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 20:09, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Look, I tried my best to make it objective. I included an FDA warning letter (which is not something a company would advertise and, I think, constitutes at least some notability.) If there is need for improvement, fine, I'm willing to work on that. I want the article as non-partial as possible and I still assert deletion was unnecessary. Why doesn't my second request make sense? What part specifically confuses you? Even user Toddst1 agrees it wasn't an advertisement, so I'm having trouble understanding what your issue was. Blatantly Evil (talk) 20:37, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

...and my colleague agreed that the "article" would not be undeleted. I think I've been more than patient with you, and I have provided you with a way forward: recreate as a draft, but please ensure that you consult with an experienced editor before moving it. Harassment and forum-shopping does not become you (✉→BWilkins←✎) 21:32, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Indeed. More info at User talk:Blatantly Evil. Toddst1 (talk) 23:08, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Glass

Would you mind keeping an eye on Google Glass? I think it needs semi-protection. I'm involved as an editor. Thx. Toddst1 (talk) 23:08, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

I should have noted that a) I watchlisted it and b) spoke with the IP :-) (✉→BWilkins←✎) 11:57, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

User talk:Nick.mon

I'm inclined to extend the block based on this IP. The IP geolocates to the same region of Italy as the last IP Nick used. Nick.mon has also edited the same portal edited by the IP. I've removed the IP-added section from the Bersani article, in part because of my suspicion, but also because it's poorly worded and not fully compliant with the one source. (When it was originally added by the IP, there was no source.) There are earmarks of Nick's editing style, but there are also differences. Like Nick, the IP's English is poor, but it appears to be worse than Nick's. For example, take a look at this edit by Nick about a month ago. Do you have any thoughts on whether we should take any action?--Bbb23 (talk) 11:53, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Why not semi-protect temporarily? Force someone's hand. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 11:59, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

On the face of it, there's insufficient disruption to the article to semi-protect it, meaning we would be punishing legitimate IPs from editing the article. Also, how would that force anyone's hand unless we suspected that Nick is using named accounts. Do you think that's the case?--Bbb23 (talk) 12:03, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Hmmm. Nick also tends to use wikilinks and some degree of cites, which the IP does not. It's understandable that people from the same region would edit a highly-charged article about a controversial politician (how many people from Boston have recently edited a certain article...). If you don't feel comfortable with semi, then I suppose wait and watch? If you find something clearly WP:EVADE-based, then we extend Nick ad infinitum (✉→BWilkins←✎) 12:12, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:14, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Why...

I am very sorry for inadvertently removing your comments.--File Éireann 14:09, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

That's ok ... I'm sure you're restored it by now :-) Thanks (✉→BWilkins←✎) 14:20, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Green Phantom

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Paul Bedson - a pathetic timewaster. Dougweller (talk) 15:43, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Any help with nuking his articles appreciated, I've done most of the other socks. Dougweller (talk) 15:49, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Ignore that, I found the fast way to do it! Dougweller (talk) 14:35, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

user name change request VHlab

Hello, I had requested the name change because I was trying to access material that was in the Sandbox of user VHlab. Can you please just give me access to the material that is in the sandbox? I have been trying to get access to it for some time. I thought that I needed to create the user before requesting a name change. Thank you CarpeCor (talk) 13:26, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

The sandbox was rightly deleted as pure advertising and cannot be viewed anymore. Don't forget: even though you have changed usernames, you're not absolved from WP:COI and WP:PROMO - you should never be creating or editing an article about a company/org you're related too or else it can lead to repeat blocks (✉→BWilkins←✎) 17:22, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

🙈🙉🙊

Hi. I see you've deleted 🙈🙉🙊 as R3. Note that it was created by an admin after an AN discussion. That discussion IMO tended toward no consensus (Chamal N (talk · contribs) and myself said to create the page while Boing! said Zebedee (talk · contribs) and you said not to, and no one else expressed a view); thus, unilateral deletion is improper. (See CHEAP for example.) I'd appreciate your recreating the page. Thanks! — The Great Redirector 17:07, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

I believe you misread the AN discussion - consensus was that it was not according to policy, and that deletion was proper. Remember, it's not a vote. Thanks (✉→BWilkins←✎) 17:19, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

I don't think I misread the AN discussion. I can't see deleted revisions, but I'd appreciate if you let me know the name of the page-creating admin so that I can inform him or her of this discussion and he or she can weigh in on it. Or if you let him or her know yourself. Thanks. — The Great Redirector 17:22, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

It was User:Killiondude. Why rehash the discussion when it was quite clear last time ... that can become disruptive eventually. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 17:25, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the information. As I said above, I don't think it was clear. — The Great Redirector 17:34, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Understood from the beginning. English can be a challenge at times :-) (✉→BWilkins←✎) 18:13, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Just commenting because I got a talkback template pointing here (for reasons unknown to me). I'm not really offended and don't care that it was deleted. It's obviously not an important redirect. If you'd like to contest it I think there's WP:RFD or some place you can actually get votes or whatever. I don't read the AN discussion as a vote. Killiondude (talk) 18:44, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your input. — The Great Redirector 19:23, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

For what it's worth, this seemed like a fine redirect to me. If it hadn't required an administrator to create the page, this redirect would have been quietly created without incident or acknowledgement. We have a lot of silly Unicode redirects already (e.g., this gem: 🎉). I'm not sure what makes the three monkeys glyph exceptional enough to warrant speedy deletion. --MZMcBride (talk) 03:10, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Please do it for me

You 've access to Twinkle, I nolonger do because my old computer broke and therefore my IP changed. I edited as an IP before.--Penssail (talk) 20:21, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Well, I see no policy-driven reason to AFD it, so I won't. Besides, all registered editors have access to Twinkle - it's part of the standard interface now. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 21:07, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

I followed you from my ANI complaint and thank you for your input. In regards to Twinkle, I see no way for an IP to get access to this tool. The WP:Twinkle page gives links to pages stating the opposite.[[11]]. It would be a nice tool to keep an eye on drive by edits that seem out-of-line instead of checking them each session, manually. Too many irons in my little fire. For a start I cannot find evidence of a "preferences page". Thanks for any help on this! 174.118.142.187 (talk) 15:17, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

See the important word "registered" that I had originally implied but not stated, and I have now added above. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 15:25, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

I wondered as IPs have no access to many services, even for editor clash complaints. Thanks! 174.118.142.187 (talk) 23:19, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

You should have full access to anything about clash complaints - they're all manual for a reason. Other tools are rightly reserved for registered editors. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 23:32, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Your 1RR of an editor has been mentioned at WP:AE

Hello Bwilkins. See the bottom of WP:AE#Bobrayner where User talk:Evlekis/Archive12#March 2013 has been mentioned. It appears you imposed a six-month 1RR restriction on Evlekis as an unblock condition. It doesn't sound like you considered this to be an ARBMAC restriction, but possibly an admin could make a note in WP:ARBMAC anyway just for information purposes. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 16:19, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

I did not originally note it as an ARBMAC restriction, and I usually am pretty anal about logging those things at WP:RESTRICT ... odd. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 16:24, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Advice needed

Hi, Bwilkins. I know you as fair and experienced admin and therefore I would like to ask your advice concerning this comment. Although it does not mention any names, it is in the thread about edit conflict between me and a group of editors and my name is mentioned in several postings above in the same thread, so this comment makes direct allegations that I am a corporate PR writer working undercover on the BP article. That kind of allegation about paid editors editing on that article are made before at different talk pages. So far I have tried to ignored this as also the ongoing name-calling and personal remarks (not entirely, I have posted several times request to avoid name-calling and comments about persons); however, undercover paid editing is a serious accusation. Therefore, I would like to ask your advice what to do to clean my name? I think that if there are doubts that any non-disclosed paid editor may be involved, these doubts should be investigated thoroughly but I don't knew what is the right venue to ask that kind of investigation?

As a related issue, the overall atmosphere around this article is non-constructive, so maybe it deserves more close surveillance by admins? Thank you in advance for your advice. Beagel (talk) 06:17, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

I wouldn't go anywhere BP with a 10' pole :-) The comment is inappropriate, and the editor knows better. I have made an appeal to their personal ethics - but that does not "clear anyone's name". If any person's editing appears to have WP:COI, and non-WP:NPOV, then people will always believe something, whether or not they put it in writing. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 10:56, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Thank you very much. You are right - people always believe something and therefore one should have just a thicker skin. Your remark about "wouldn't going anywhere BP with a 10' pole" is wise. A number of editors like WMC and others has learned this during editing that page and probably it would be the way to follow. Once more, thank you for your advice. Beagel (talk) 11:34, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Note

I appreciate your reply. however, not sure that I follow your point here. how does the phrase "all possible wordings" relate to this item? that is not a part of my idea. I think that the idea is fairly workable. also, please note that this is a response to the process for an RFC which Arbcomm itself set up. feel free to read the next section there, which further explains it. You can read it at:

• Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests#Mandated Jerusalem discussion appears to be a bureaucratic morass.

thanks very much. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 13:59, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

A message

WorldTraveller101 has given you some cookies! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. You can spread the "WikiLove" by giving someone else some cookies, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Thanks. ^{Chat Center}WorldTraveller101^{Wikipedia Business} 02:14, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

i did not get a responce and this was not about unprotection

why did you revert my edit, it was not really about unprotection it was about the sitionation that i described 95.195.194.139 (talk) 15:35, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Because you already had been advised that the situation WAS NOT within the remit of WP:ANI. When a thread stops receiving replies, it's because it will not obtain further action (✉→BWilkins←✎) 15:39, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

who advised me? i got a responce supporting my cause, seriosly someone needs to fix this, evryone seems to agree that the baltics were successor states in the infobox but two users edit warred without disussion 95.195.194.139 (talk) 15:48, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Discuss on the article talkpage. Period. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 15:49, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Thank you

Your block summary reminded me of why I am still here. Take care. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 15:58, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Cheers :-) (✉→BWilkins←✎) 16:00, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

File:Corfu Beer on the rocks.jpg This is for you. Cheers. :) Take care. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 16:25, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Somehow the layout was screwed up so I had to suppress the picture. But cheers regardless. :) Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 16:30, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Mmmmm....tasty! Thanks! (✉→BWilkins←✎) 17:49, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

You are very welcome. Anytime. :) Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 21:06, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Deletion of my first article

Hello Bwilkins and thank you for the welcome to wiki. I uploaded a biography of a living person yesterday but it has been deleted. The title was "Douglas Cody Fielding." Can you enlighten me as to why the page was removed? I have read a great deal of wiki help articles but would appreciate it if you could possibly point out specifics about why my first BLP was deleted. Thanks in advance! Franfinsf (talk) 17:23, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

It would appear that your first article was trying to suggest that a personal trainer is somehow notable enough (especially as per WP:ATHLETE) to warrant being included in an encyclopedia. Besides not seeing anything that meets the notability requirements, the "sources" were not reliable for use in a biography of a living person. In addition, the writing was very promotional ... like it was trying to drum up business for the guy. Most new editors should spend a few weeks (minimum) or in some cases months editing existing articles in order to understand notability and sourcing requirements before trying to tackle a brand new BLP (✉→BWilkins←✎) 17:54, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for the feedback and I will spend time now reading more guidelines before attempting to rewrite my article. I appreciate your constructive advice! Many thanksFranfinsf (talk) 18:33, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Restrictions

I was told to ask you first before going to WP:AN/I, I would like to loosen my restrictions apposed on my account. I created a topic at WP:AN/I but a user told me to first come to you so that's what I'm doing :D. Best, Jona^{talk to me} 02:12, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

My mistake; the ANI post didn't include the specific wording of the restrictions (which I just found) so I was unaware they explicitly referenced ANI was the place to go to request removal. NE Ent 02:39, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Legal threat

This contains a legal threat: [12]. Thank you. Qworty (talk) 05:08, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

No it doesn't. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 05:11, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Correct, it doesn't. Seems like a rather nasty, hate-filled repartée between the 2 of them, however (✉→BWilkins←✎) 09:39, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

User:NestleNW911

Howdy! I saw you were the blocking admin for Nestle. I strongly suspect that Nestle is a sock of User:Shutterbug, the church of scientology's sockmaster. The checkusers in past cases have proven inconclusive, S/he has been checked three times with one time actually being blocked as a sock but they filed a unblock request which was accepted as AGF. The rest have been closed as inconclusive. I think this investigation should be reopened and nestle tagged as a sock of shutterbug, but I honastly don't know exactly how to move forward. Please advise. Cheers.Coffeepusher (talk) 23:04, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Re: Head up

WikiThanks

Thanks for the heads up Bwilkins. It took me about 24 hours to decide whether to accept the nomination. When I read that this was Smtchahal's first nomination for RfA and that declining the nomination could have led to some form of embarrassment for the nominator, then I decided to accept the nomination. Many thanks for your kind words. –pjoef (talk • contribs) 07:01, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

User NaymanNoland

Hi. You reviewed and declined a block review request by this editor. As I've just explained to the blocking administrator (Toddst1), I am not convinced this was a good block based on edit-warring, nor am I convinced that it was warranted for personal attacks as you state in your rationale for declining the block review. It appears to me that this editor was acting in good faith, albeit with some intemperate language, in addressing an issue with BLP implications. As you are probably aware, there is an ongoing controversy involving public criticism of Wikipedia by Amanda Filipacchi. In seeming response to this criticism, User:Qworty has engaged in disputed editing in the past 48 hours involving removal of information from the mainspace articles on Ms. Filipacchi as well as Ms. Filipacchi's three novels, her father, her father's company, as well as her mother, Sondra Peterson. While I assume good faith with respect to Qworty's motives for these edits, and while some of the individual edits may be within policy, their overall effect has been extremely problematic and I can readily understand why NaymanNoland would have thought it in the best interest of the project to reverse them. Moreover, it was Qworty who used genuinely extreme language in his talkpage posts concerning, among others, a BLP subject (some of these posts have since been removed at SlimVirgin's request), which is the backdrop against which NaymanNoland's comments must be read. in that light, I wonder if this block was necessary or at least whether it should be shortened to "time served." You thoughts would be appreciated. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:21, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Your comments would still be welcome, but this has been addressed by the blocking admin, so it's not urgent. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:06, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

The guy doesn't help himself at all, does he. "...even in your faux amicable form..." is just getting his last digs in on someone when he's just told them they're not allowed to defend themself. Not very civil whatsoever. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 20:59, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

I agree with you that in context, that was unnecessarily confrontational. My hope is that these two editors will not cross paths again for a long time. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:27, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

• <sulk> ... NYB never talks to me ... :( .. — Ched :  ?  21:16, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi, Ched. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:27, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Good cop, bad cop

It was kinda different seeing you being the "give the guy a break", and me being the "these are the rules" type of thing. I always thought that any time you and I ended up in the same thread that we worked well together. I always got this impression where I was way to "AGF" and you were "These are the rules" type of thing, and that in the middle we found the right things. meh ... just rambling ... take care. — Ched :  ?  21:14, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

The Carolinas, Clemson University, and User ban

I was reading wikipedia articles tonight while sandboxing some sections in Word. I noticed that a ban was placed on User:GarnetAndBlack pertaining to college / university pages, namely Clemson University in South Carolina. After reading several page histories, I am suprised this hadn't happened sooner, given the amount of deleted and suppressed content I found through edit-warring and puppetry. I couldn't find any positive edits made by this user involving content. I have been reviewing some of the pages, and am in the process of compiling and re-editing some of the content that was removed, and would like to re-write and add some historical content to the articles. Would you be willing to take a look at some of it (also saw Prodego on the admin board); it may take some time for me to get it all done. Thanks. W.T.Diane (talk) 09:16, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm smelling sockpuppet all over this "new" editor to Wikipedia. First day here and you're already an expert on my posting history and canvassing editors in some sort of campaign against me? Not an auspicious beginning. GarnetAndBlack (talk) 23:54, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

So, file your WP:SPI or else accusations like that are considered uncivil/personal attacks (✉→BWilkins←✎) 09:05, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

AN mispost

Should I move the section to ANI? Gaijin42 (talk) 16:10, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Like I said, I think you should go talk it out somewhere - if admins need to get involved, we will (✉→BWilkins←✎) 16:12, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Edit credits

If I had an old account, but stopped using it because I had a history of problems with a disruptive user, can I merge my good edit history in with a new account? Point me toward the right persons? I didn't know what kind of administrator to ask that question to. 98.94.197.108 (talk) 20:46, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

No, they cannot be merged (✉→BWilkins←✎) 22:06, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

PERM/C

Hello Bwilkins; Just a FYI (I think), Am I looking at something else ? according to that page User:TA Kosice is not autoconfirmed. My apologies if I'm incorrect :P Mlpearc (powwow) 16:00, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

This? (✉→BWilkins←✎) 22:59, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Ban

Hi. Though it may seem to you that I should be experienced enough to have understood the nature of a topic ban, having never been involved in any administrative actions whatsoever, there is no logical reason that I would be. I have never had any sort of sanctions imposed on my account. I have never edited articles which admins have ever had to look at for any reason, until about a month ago. I have not actually run into an admin on wikipedia until about a month ago (don't quote me on that). I've managed to exist off in my own corner of wikipedia editing, mostly, obscure articles on italian landmarks, classical musicians, organic chemistry, and food-related articles. Do you really think that someone who understood how a topic ban worked would have demonstrated one wasn't in effect by making a minor edit to a page? Who, logically, would edit a page knowing full well that they are banned and that there is a swarm of admins now looking at their ban?

The more plausible part is: Sonicyouth has been following me around and harassing me. He has not so far accepted any apology or attempt to reconcile. That is his fault. I don't know what to do about that. I have made plenty of efforts to do so, but he continues to slap me in the face, and I frankly don't care if he doesn't like me. He contributed to an argument by repeating the same tired claims over and over again. He continues to butt in on EVERYTHING to add his little quips and opinions about me. That guy, basically, started an argument with me on ridiculous pretenses (false, I should add), and then took everything I said to be an insult (way to AGF), and then pushed as hard as he could not to RESOLVE the issue, but to get me topic banned, and now he clearly would like me permabanned. Now why might I assume I wasn't banned? Because in one place, I was told I had a 30 day ban, in another 6 months, and on top of that the page was still editable. Considering the admin spent a whole minute getting to the bottom of who was attacking who, and since I left him a note on his page about it, I was under the assumption he had reviewed his action and removed the ban. How would I know if I didn't know how to find the ban logs? How would I know if I was still banned? Keep in mind that every single other sphere of the internet, a ban is a technical block against manipulating content. Is wikipedia trying to be deliberately confusing? Rgambord (talk) 13:31, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

You were provided links to that difference between a WP:BAN, a WP:TOPICBAN and a WP:BLOCK long ago - a block is the only technical remedy, and it would have applied against the entire Wikipedia. Since you apparently typically edit "obscure topics", if you were wise, you would voluntarily stay away from the "bad" topics and go back to those obscure things for at least a month (✉→BWilkins←✎) 17:15, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
	For this message...very nicely said.... TheStrikeΣagle 14:53, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks ... I was afraid you hadn't seen that based on your original response. Cheers (✉→BWilkins←✎) 11:45, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

As I told...I couldn't guess the double meaning in it....was little hesitant..never mind.. Strike Σagle 13:28, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

User:DanielTom

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.

---

As a point of information, I thought DanielTom's comments were profoundly honest. --Epipelagic (talk) 10:17, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Which part? I haven't seen an ounce on honesty or ethics in anything he's written. His rather bizarre last screed on his talkpage is also one he seems to expect me to reply to, although he's forbidden me to respond there, so it's probably one of the worst pieces of ethical conduct I've seen - he'll simply leave it there, and consider my lack of reply as "telling" - that's the way of the weak. However, if you want to point out somewhere that he's actually been honest (diffs would be nice) or even remotely ethical, I'd love to see it (and I do mean that) (✉→BWilkins←✎) 11:07, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Well with due diligence you would have realized that DanielTom is a "she". It's always a good idea to extend some diligence and respect towards someone before you start to de-construct them. Secondly, DanielTom asked you to "stop harassing... and go away". I don't see any indication in her final comment that she will not engage with you if you in turn engage her with some respect. Otherwise, why would she continued to query your stance towards her. She has merely asked that you don't harass or bully her. Surely you can see that is an invitation for you to reconsider. There is, or should be, an onus on admins to be exemplary in the manner in which they extend good faith, and I urge you to do so in this context. --Epipelagic (talk) 11:40, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

I have reviewed all of my interactions with them - the warning for embedding snarky and insulting text in a post at AN was the original sole extent of my direct interactions with them - until, of course, they made a snarky reply to my comment at an RFA, and inserted themselves (wrongly) into a few ongoing situations where they either wholly misread my comments, or purposely twisted them. I simply requested them to stop. At no point have I ever harrassed them, nor have I ever attempted to do so - you know as well as I do that harrassment is NOT my style of interaction. I have done nothing but valid, policy-based, respectful and polite interactions with them - period. I'm sure if you have reviewed things properly you will have noticed these things (✉→BWilkins←✎) 11:59, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Is this the offending embedded text you are referring to? --Epipelagic (talk) 12:11, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Of course it is. Nobody denied it was inappropriate - one person suggested that it was perhaps not-blockable, but in the overall concept of "disruption" it was borderline. However, as DT's actions on that AN had been borderline disruptive, that action was the proverbial straw on the camel's back. By itself it would not, of course, been blockable.

It's clear that DT has now stooped so low as to attack my profession (it's well-known AND "advertised" on my userpage that I work for a newspaper - his "Penny Press" comment is therefore an attack). You cannot get much lower - although perhaps their next step will be to insult my family or ethnicity. Nice way to try and resolve issues by actually making ad hominem attacks. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 12:49, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

The only people who commented on your abusive threat did say it was inappropriate. Ridiculous warning Amazing display of abusiveness and vacant argument designed to intimidate, from Admin Bwilkins... No, I had no idea you worked for a newspaper. For your information, not everyone is that interested in you, and not everyone you abuse will actually bother to read your User page (I certainly haven't). ~ DanielTom (talk) 14:10, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

You're taking "opinion" as "truth"? Bad idea. However, now that you've made your level of wisdom and maturity clear, I will remind you that I asked you to stay off this talkpage. You are missing a clue, and your recent ani proves your level of ethics. Good luck integrating with humanity someday. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 00:29, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Well, thank you, Epipelagic, but it's best to let it go. (I am a "he", by the way... sorry for the disappointment...) As to you, BWilkins, I did tell you to go away, because I believe you behave like a deliberate troll every time you post at my Talk page, but that doesn't mean you can't write there anymore. I have never "forbidden" you to respond there. You see, even when people make baseless accusations against me, which has become rather commonplace, you will note that I never delete any such posts nor revert them. Now you accuse me of being "dishonest" and "unethical"... All I can say is that I do the best I can (e.g., I am vegan, I volunteer, donate my allowances to UNICEF, etc.), but you are certainly welcome to judge me. Happiness to you. ~ DanielTom (talk) 13:10, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry, the words "go away" mean one thing: "go away" - so when you said that, it was clear. I'm not going to push your ridiculous envelope, especially now that your ethics have stooped to ad hominem attacks. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 12:49, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

As you keep bringing up my "ethics", I will let others decide who is making ad hominem attacks ... ~ DanielTom (talk) 13:51, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

I just have to comment as I see Epipelagic saying that DanielTom's "comments were honest". In my experience, DanielTom is one of the most profoundly dishonest users found on Wikipedia, and it is people like DanielTom who turn good users away from has made some problematic comments on Wikipedia. The first time I came across DanielTom, it was when he awarded a barnstar to another user who was encouraging sockpuppetry. This is not a personal attack, I should add, as the statement that DanielTom is a dishonest person isn't a personal opinion, it's an easily documented fact found in the writings of DanielTom. If you go around misrepresenting facts, well, then you are dishonest and there's nothing wrong in others saying so. If DanielTom wants to put an end to what he calles "ad hominem attacks", he should perhaps start by considering his own behavior on Wikipedia?Jeppiz (talk) 21:25, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Which facts did I misrepresent? And why do you call me "one of the most profoundly dishonest users found on Wikipedia" just for having awarded a barnstar to someone with whom you disagree? Good heavens! ~ DanielTom (talk) 23:22, 4 May 2013 (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.

Glasshole

Would you mind taking a look at Glasshole and the fiasco over at Talk:Google_Glass#Google_Glass.23Inappropriate_use please? Two admins who are probably now involved (I sure am) have been trying to get the result of the AFD implemented. Toddst1 (talk) 14:42, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Recent Deletion Question

Hi Bwilkins,

The Laser Bond Inspection page has recently been deleted. http://www.lsptechnologies.com/ Does contain the same information, however the information is considered public domain. I am not sure how to proceed with the page creation. Does lsptechnologies have to 'donate' the information for it to be listed on wikipedia? I am an employee at lsptechnologies and was asked to share the information in accordance with wikipedias rules. If you could please assist me in the process of sharing information with wikipedia, or point me to a resource I could read over and learn for my self it would be greatly appreciated. I see the page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Donating_copyrighted_materials how ever the materials are not considered copyrighted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dzakharevski (talk • contribs) 15:19, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Well, if you're supposed to do it "in accordance with Wikipedia's rules", then you'll also have to read WP:COI and WP:PROMO. If your boss asked you to do it, then s/he doesn't understand what Wikipedia is about. Now that you're aware that you or anyone from your company cannot create it (nor can you ask someone else to do it, let's look at the other issue: the website clearly states "© 2012 LSP Technologies, Inc. All rights reserved". That's a clear copyright statement. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 15:26, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Would you tell me why you deleted Notable People section ?

Hi Bwilkins, Would you tell me why you deleted Notable People section ? You said that you want to know if "they have Wiki article", what does this mean ?

The ones I added were not spam, I had web references. Are those references not enough ? Plesae advice ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.7.162.210 (talk) 19:17, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) The coverage for those individuals was WP:ROUTINE they are not on notable encyclopedic value. Every school has many kids who win local yearly awards. To be included, the subjects should be generally of sufficient notability to qualify for their own wikipedia page. Gaijin42 (talk) 19:24, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Yup. Thanks for answering pretty much exactly what I was going to say :-) (✉→BWilkins←✎) 20:01, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

But this is just for a school district, people who won at international and national are as notable as they can get, the district may not have a similiar level of winning for yeas to come. Please reconsider. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.15.186.24 (talk) 18:12, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

This is an international encyclopedia...If the people are only notable in a district then most certainly don't belong, do they? If they warrant their own articles then they can be listed...this isn't optional. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 00:10, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Civility Barnstar
	You're a good man, Sir Wilkins. Go Phightins! 15:50, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Protection Policy

You took part in a previous discussion on the protection policy talk page about the reference to "uncontroversial" edits. A survey is now in progress on that page in response to a request for comments. You may want to visit that talk page again and provide your input to try to obtain consensus. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:55, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Ducktails (band)

You moved this to userspace (User:Marcushamblett/Ducktails (band)) on 7 May as it wasn't ready to be in mainspace. Since then I have made considerable improvements to the content and the sourcing and it is now ready to return. The original author has indicated that he is happy for to happen ([13]), as is the editor who asked me to look at it. I'm bringing this here as a courtesy rather than just restoring it myself, due to your prior involvement with the article. Thanks. --Michig (talk) 11:41, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

I still disagree ... and the "sources" are still a little weak, however, feel free to move a rather crappy and non-notable article into mainspace if you think it's at all ready (✉→BWilkins←✎) 10:18, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

TP clearing

Hi Bwilkins. Regarding this comment you made to an IP editor regarding their declined block request, you were incorrect that they were not allowed to remove that content from their own talk page. Actually, the removal of those comments was neither improper nor required for patrolling admins, as you claimed. Please see this discussion on the editor's talk page, which shows my explanation. Sorry for the interference in this matter. I've never crossed paths with that editor and their talk page seems to indicate an ongoing pattern of inappropriate behavior, but I felt it was important to contact you regarding the talk page-clearing guidelines. Thanks. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 10:39, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

It's been held by the community that an editor may not remove comments related to the block - the blocking admin has a responsibility to be accountable, and explain their block as well. As such, the IP cannot remove the comments related to the block. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 11:04, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

"It's been held by the community"? Do you have evidence to support that statement? I'm sorry, but WP:OWNTALK and WP:REMOVED are very clear on this matter and I've seen many admins who validate it, such as Orangemike did on IP 68's talk page. In fact, you're the first admin I've ever seen who's opposed it. The list of exceptions on what cannot be removed is limited and specific. If an editor removes a warning, that removal constitutes acknowledgement of its receipt. Again, I realize that IP 68 appears to be causing quite a lot of problems, but it's important that no editor is ever improperly accused of violating any rules. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 11:11, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

The only items related to a block that an editor cannot remove are block notices for a currently active block and declined unblock requests for a currently active block. But any comments outside those absolutely may be removed. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 11:41, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 03:56, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

I see that went brilliantly for you (✉→BWilkins←✎) 19:52, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

A cookie for you!

Being an administrator can be one hell of a job, but you always take out the trash and do right. Now you get a reward for it Enjoy. WorldTraveller101(Trouble?/My Work) 20:32, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

My talk page

I think it is best if you stay away from it now. My block has expired, regardless of what either of us think of how it was handled - nothing either of us say now will change that. Smurfmeister (talk) 00:22, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

You do recognize that I am actually trying to help, right? (✉→BWilkins←✎) 19:54, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Trying, yes, but I don't believe picking over the bones is doing either of us any favours. I think you are getting bogged down in your belief that you are right and I am wrong; and if there were no grey areas, my unblock request would have been quickly declined. How is it helping to continue to argue the toss now that the block has expired? Smurfmeister (talk) 10:23, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

May 2013

Please do not attack other editors. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. Edits like this one are inappropriate, particularly from an administrator. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 14:26, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Nothing wrong with being thumped like a narc at a biker rally. Toddst1 (talk) 16:33, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

It happens pretty frequently at ANI. Toddst1 (talk) 17:42, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Besides, I'm not sure where that even remotely resembles a personal attack. For someone who pretends to have some degree of a clue, there's a massive amount of cluelessness done by the IP (✉→BWilkins←✎) 22:47, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Please stop attacking other editors. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. I'll ask you again to please stop your personal insults as you did with this comment, which is a clear violation of WP:WIAPA. The policy states that "Belittling an editor's intelligence, knowledge, command of the English language, talent, or competence" is considered a personal attack. It is regrettable that you don't understand why your initial comment was insulting. As an administrator, I would hope that you would set a proper example by treating other editors in a civil manner, and deescalating any tensions that may be present, rather than increasing them. Thank you. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 23:08, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

I think 76 is just trolling at this point. Toddst1 (talk) 23:31, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Agreed wholeheartedly. WP:AGF and WP:IGNORANCE can only be taken so far. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 07:02, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Explanation

Can you tell me why you chose to ignore the point made by WaltCip in this incident? And having looked around at how others reported at ANI are treated for similar episodes, is there any reason why I shouldn't think that your treatment of my case was out of the ordinary, and seemingly designed simply to lock me up and throw away the key, on the basis that it was likely nobody would notice/care beyond that sort of single comment at ANI, and that rather than persisting with the ponderous and mentally abusive unblock process that you put me in, that I would probably just take Jehochman's advice anyway if I ever wanted to return. Gruesome Foursome (talk) 12:01, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Already explained elsewhere - please keep discussions together (✉→BWilkins←✎) 12:49, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

A beer for you!

Ok, I give up....you've beaten me again at Talk:Refund (I would have only mailed the external links), so I'll go and have a beer myself now. Cheers. Lectonar (talk) 11:15, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

LOL ... I'll save the beer until lunch-time (although ... time is an illusion; lunch-time doubly so). I suppose I was too damned lazy to simply strip out the links, and e-mailing contents didn't seem to be hurting anyone (yet). Cheers! (✉→BWilkins←✎) 11:17, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Well, it is a bit past lunch time here, so I'll go and enjoy a Westmalle triple. Lectonar (talk) 11:19, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

You're better stocked than I am currently, Lectonar. Enjoy. Drmies (talk) 16:17, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Peterzor

The guy just admitted to being a sock of a banned user here. What are you going to do about it? --Nug (talk) 10:20, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Wow. Do you realize the attitude that your post reads with? Why approach me? The post was made in the middle of WP:ANI with dozens of admins reading it ... why single me out? (✉→BWilkins←✎) 10:58, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Wow, why the apparent paranoia? You where the first admin to comment at the top of the ANI thread, so why wouldn't I approach you. Really, I didn't know there were "dozens" of admins were reading it, I had the opposite impression. Could have been an easy uncontroversial block for you, but someone else has beaten you to it. Shrug. Anyway the matter appears resolved now. --Nug (talk) 19:55, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

I don't see any paranoia from Bwilkins, but Nug, you did come across quite dickish. Most administrators would probably have a similar reaction. Toddst1 (talk) 20:01, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Nug, most people don't like being treated like a jukebox, where you can shove in a coin and demand instant gratification. Admins are no exception. Most admin enjoy helping others, but when it gets demanded, like here "What are you going to do about it?", it is a bit annoying. Any admin can refuse to take action in a case, just like any editor can refuse to edit any article they don't want to. In both cases, asking politely is more likely to get the result you are looking for. As for "but someone else has beaten you to it", we don't get paid by the block nor get extra health points for them. It isn't a game. Dennis Brown / 2¢ / © / @ / Join WER 16:22, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Blocked user editing by proxy

Hello, it seems that Darkness Shines (talk · contribs) is continually attempting (and succeeding) to edit by proxy, posting diffs on his user talk page for attention by others. Example, example, example. While I cannot find another example further in the past, it seems to me that I complained about this before, perhaps to a different admin, a few months ago. It is developing as a pattern that disturbs me. There is policy against this activity by banned users, I am not sure how it applies to blocked users, but surely it cannot be permitted either? Your feedback would be appreciated. Elizium23 (talk) 20:41, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Oh, I'm watching his talkpage - I know what he's doing alright. You're right though, there's a policy against banned editors, but formally not blocked editors that I know of. However, one could make the argument that the only reason one has access to one's talkpage while blocked is to compose unblock requests - but it's a tough argument. A discussion on the talkpage of the blocking policy might lead to some form of consensus against proxy-editing. Nevertheless, someone who tries to edit by proxy has some inflated sense of self-worth, and a belief that the project "cannot do without them" while they're blocked - if that were truly the case, then an editor would work hard to not become blocked, wouldn't they? It's pretty distasteful nonetheless, and is a slap in the face to well-behaved editors everywhere (✉→BWilkins←✎) 21:04, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

User:Jax 0677

In closing you forgot to include the XfD part of the ban... Not sure if you realize that was part of it as well. Thanks for your time. Technical 13 (talk) 13:04, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Fixed (✉→BWilkins←✎) 17:26, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. Despite my attempts to try and help people like that, apparently some are just incapable or unwilling to get it and take what they can get for help. It's sad... Anyways, happy editing! Technical 13 (talk) 16:47, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Nomination of Worlds chat for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Worlds chat 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/Worlds chat 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 notice from the top of the article. Toddst1 (talk) 17:50, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

•  Done (✉→BWilkins←✎) 12:19, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Need some advice

Hi Bwilkins..Since some time User:Sukpreet2013 has been creating pages on imaginary Punjabi movies. He makes up this movie titles and pages look bit convincing NewPagePatroler so the pages are marked as reviewed. But whenever I try to find references, I always fail to locate even a single reference. I am myself a Punjabi, so can see if the reference is available in the local language. Most of these pages have been speedy deleted as hoaxes. One I have PRODed. Plus he has created some BLP pages, some of which have been deleted or are presently nominated (due to lack of notability). In nutshell out of some 15 pages he has created, only 2-3 seems to survive. I have tried to communicated with him in every possible way, but he is not responding to talkpage messages. Can this user be blocked or reported for introducing inappropriate pages. If yes, where to report him?--Vigyani_talk^{ਯੋਗਦਾਨ} 03:07, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

DS and RP

RegentsPark unblocked Darkness Shines. RP is involved with me in multiple heated discussions and he knows that I am right now the reason for DS's block. Regentspark is, in my opinion, also involved with DS in various discussions and it seems odd, to say the least, that of all the admins RP chose to see an allusion towards the demerits of the block as an expression of "remorse", that too after multiple declines of unblock request by DS. He is as unrepentant as ever. I don't see where he regretted derogatorily labelling someone (like me). Anyways, RP should not have been the one to unblock DS from a serious block such as this. I have to look askance at this. Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 16:37, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

I hate to have to piddle on your fireworks but you were not the reason for my block, I was. Darkness Shines (talk) 17:23, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

This looks like a pretty bogus complaint. However, if you really insist, I'm quite happy to block DS again and then unblock him, though of course I would have to mention your complaint in the block log, which probably wouldn't do you any favours if there are future issues. Black Kite (talk) 17:38, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

I would also suggest that MrT is quite fortunate to not have been blocked himself, based on the overall circumstances - and the blocks likely would have matched in length. As much as I'm not 100% happy with RP's unblock, it appears to be the "lesser of 2 weevils" right now - and further provocation/similar actions by either party will not end well (✉→BWilkins←✎) 17:47, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Recidivism or what?

[14] will others still say that it's me who should thank own luck for escaping the block? Really? Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 17:21, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Someone else's incivility does not excuse your own (✉→BWilkins←✎) 17:27, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Mr. Bwilkins, pardon me if I have given away wrong impression. I don't wish to sound as a person who defends fallacious arguments, I have never said, even for a moment, that "someone else's incivility excuses my own" because that would be hypocritical. But since you said, "further provocation/similar actions by either party will not end well" I thought I'd check it with you. I, for one, do not think I have been uncivil with DS in this case. I don't like being uncivil, perhaps nobody does. Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 18:08, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

User:Technical_13

Hey, I have respect for you and your suggestions. That being said I do firmly believe that people learn by doing. I also believe that the best leaders are those that lead by example. I appreciate your answer to my question, even if I would have expected it on my talk page. I will try to ask those kinds of questions on UT: pages in the future. Thank you for your time. Technical 13 (talk) 12:49, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Learning requires not repeating the mistakes. Learning means understanding that a new thread is not appropriate because you recognize it's not a discussion forum. Learning means that you don't do more damage and know when to leave well-enough alone. You failed pretty miserably on all 3, and as such, the self-imposed topic ban is the right step - it would be quite easy to have it formalized based on how badly you messed up (✉→BWilkins←✎) 17:25, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

I have no intentions to avoid commenting my observations (although often very obvious) on other discussions on AN (although I usually try to avoid that page to begin with) where I see fit. I will however refrain from opening any new discussions unless it is a last resort. I've been told informed by Dennis Brown that "History has shown that the community is usually unwilling to consider 3rd party requests and they aren't supported in policy." I'm sure I totally understand why this is, as having a 3rd party request is the requirement for the standard offer, although I do not doubt that his words are fact. I will attempt, as I said above to be more mindful of my comments on AN (when I make them). Anyways, I hope you have a nice day and I look forward to possibly having your support on my RfA when I submit it (I'm expecting to make a first attempt in about six months, and after reading all of the documentation and historic results of said process expect to be denied the first few times). Happy editing! Technical 13 (talk) 18:06, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Standard offers are generally only accepted first party. The vast majority of blocked editors do not have talk page access revoked, so they are done via the talk page. Having an editor copy their text over to WP:AN isn't considered 3rd party, it is proxy editing, which is completely different. Editors with blocked talk page access can apply for the standard offer via WP:BASC, which can be handled there or again relayed to WP:AN and is again, not a 3rd party request, just a copy/paste service. I think this is why there are some concerns, Technical. There are a lot of nuances to policy that aren't obvious at a glance. One of those is knowing when to use the editor's talk page instead of ANI to ask a question, for example, when that question wouldn't be adding to the discussion and might serve only as a distraction. At ANI, words are the enemy, and the goal is to solve problems using the least amount you can, else the discussion goes off on tangents. I'm not saying you should avoid all interaction at AN/ANI, but it is an easy place to develop a bad reputation as it is a very public place. Mistakes don't go unnoticed there and have a way of haunting an editor at RfA. I caution you as I would any editor who shows a sudden interest in the ugly and dangerous neighborhood that is AN/ANI. Of course, you are free to ignore my advice if you like, it is just that: advice. Dennis Brown / 2¢ / © / @ 18:23, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Oh, thank you for clarifying that Dennis, based on discussions of Paramsinghantaal's conditions on either mine or Writ Keeper's talk page (IIRC) I guess I misunderstood proxy to be 3rd party. I actually try to avoid AN(I) as much as I can, although it may not seem like it. I'm a really good hearted person that has pure intentions of wanting to help others, and I know I sometimes let it get the best of me. Like I said above, I don't intend to strictly self-impose an AN(I) topic ban on myself, and if someone felt that it is really necessary to formalize the suggestion that it should exist, I wouldn't hold it against them or be overly upset about it. I am really easy to get along with once you get to know me a little, and if I say something out of line, I actually appreciate those that take the time to leave some constructive criticism on my talk page. Technical 13 (talk) 19:06, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

The real B. Wilkins?

And I only have good things to say about you and know you have the best of intentions. It is why I bothered to offer the advice. ANI is full of trolls, Wikilawyers and grumpy old men with block buttons, I wouldn't wish it on my enemy. That is why I patrol it, as I'm generally immune to the attacks and have skin as thick as leather. Like I said, there is a great deal of nuance to how things are done here and I don't claim to have half of it figured out myself. I had 18,000 edits over 5.5 years before I felt I was educated enough on policy to seek the admin bit. Maybe I'm dense, or just cautious, but rushing into these things seldom works out well. Dennis Brown / 2¢ / © / @ 19:20, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Bwilkins is the troll, I'm the wikilawyer, and Dennis is the grumpy old man, if you're wondering. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 19:25, 4 June 2013 (UTC) PS: THAT WAS A JOKE <3

I'm assuming the PS part was directed at me due to the OMS thing, and I know a joke when I smell one... You guys should get an air freshener in here. Technical 13 (talk) 19:35, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Actually, it was directed at Bwilkins, since, 'yknow, I called him a troll. (Dennis knows he's a grumpy old man at heart, despite his peacemaker-of-the-wiki exterior. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 19:37, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Did you say Dennis has a pacemaker?? *snicker* (✉→BWilkins←✎) 20:15, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

I would argue BWilkins is the grumpy old man. I'm not even 50 years old yet. That kind of grumpiness takes at least 70 years. Probably wears his pants all the way up to his armpits. ;-) He is right, however. Grumpy, but right. Dennis Brown / 2¢ / © / @ 19:42, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm likely younger than you - old man LOL (✉→BWilkins←✎) 20:14, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

You are pushing the line

Your comment at the Admin Noticeboard is worrying. You are pushing the line sunny jim, let me investigate the matter, and stop worrying over grammar. You have been warned. --AlldiRessie (talk) 20:51, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

A cup of tea for you!

Have a cuppa tea, read WP:NAM, and take a break from WP:ANI for a few moments. Bearian (talk) 20:58, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Re User:AlldiRessie

See my post at User talk:PrimeHunter#About User:AlldiRessie. Thanks Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 21:05, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi. I was just filing an ANI report when you blocked. I just reverted on their talk page and wonder if revoking talk page access might be a good idea. Rivertorch (talk) 21:06, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

I already revoked it before you posted this message :-) Thanks for the heads up! (✉→BWilkins←✎) 21:09, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

::Maybe you're telepathic, and I can just think my edits from now on. Rivertorch (talk) 21:18, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Have you noticed the reference to User:Kauffner at User:AlldiRessie? May I now clean up my talk page or should it be kept as evidence for a possible SPI? Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 21:15, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Someone already noted that reference at the existing ANI thread. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 21:16, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

User talk:Expatkiwi

Please lets keep the WP:BURO to a minimum. I was the person who the personal attacks where directed at, and who was dealing with the copyright issues, I also took this to ANI. I am asking that this block be removed because I am trying to rehabilitate the user. Worst case I ask for the block to be re-applied. I would rather not loose an editor due to bureaucracy. The personal attacks where made in the heat of the moment and Im shrugging them off, and as for the copyright issue I am working with the user to avoid further issues. Werieth (talk) 12:56, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

This isn't BURO, it's policy. HE has to make a GAB-compliant request. His "discussion" doesn't even cover all the problems (✉→BWilkins←✎) 13:31, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Neither one of the pages you linked to are policy. Wikipedia policy on blocking is done to prevent further issues. It is not a punishment, and its not a circus. I am working with the user and I think that a block is no longer needed as they are willing to change their behavior. If you think pointless hoops need to be jumped through I may just ask another admin or take this to ANI and seek an unblock there. Werieth (talk) 13:40, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Why not ask the editor to make a proper unblock request - THAT is what they'll tell you at ANI as well. Nobody gets to circumvent anything, and you're merely enabling him having others do his job. What a poor example you're showing on one hand when you're showing such a GOOD example on the other hand. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 14:09, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

This user is just about ready to talk away and stop editing due to the brick wall they ran into. They have a feeling of unwelcomeness, hostility and frustration. I am attempting to defuse that so that wikipedia does not loose an editor over this. Policy does not require that the person who is blocked ask for the unblock. I have already gotten the user to realize what they did, the importance of copyright, and that if they dont understand something to ask before they (re-)act. If you think bureaucracy is more important that keeping editors then you need to review your positions. I work a lot with frustrated people in real life, dealing with them must be done carefully. Comments such as this clearly show the editor is at the end of their rope. I have been with them in order to resolve this amicably, not an easy task. Even WP:UNBLOCK isn't policy. WP:AGF on the other hand is, even though the user isnt "new" WP:BITE is almost applies here. Werieth (talk) 14:23, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

They only ran into a brick wall because they built the damned thing brick-by-brick. I'm certain that if they composed a GAB-compliant unblock request I would personally unblock them. However, I need to see them address copyright and civility in it - it's not humanly possible for you to put words in their mouth to show that they understand those two pillars of Wikipedia. If they're not willing to show that understanding in their own words, then we don't likely need to see them on Wikipedia until they can (✉→BWilkins←✎) 14:59, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Jax

Can you take a look at this and this? I really get the idea that Jax is using Frietjes as a meatpuppet. The Banner talk 18:26, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

I see you are on top of this Banner. Meatpuppetry or canvassing, it doesn't seem right. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 20:05, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Whoops...

Thanks for the save. Yunshui 雲‍水 12:21, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

That's why they keep me around LOL (✉→BWilkins←✎) 12:27, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Nathan

Hi, I'm sending this to Bwilkins, Kww, and Spinningspark. I've just seen Nathan's explanation of why he reacted as he did. I was shocked when I saw his response to Spinningspark, but given his circumstances it's completely understandable that he'd be operating on a short fuse. Would one of you reconsider his unblock request? If editing in a coffee shop is the only time things feel normal, a week is a long time to lose that. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:27, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

User:Nathan Johnson

In light of the continued discussion on Nathan Johnson's talkpage, I have posted to ANI requesting review on the unblock request. Please feel free to comment on the thread, here. Thank you. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:06, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

User:Rahuljain2307

Do you really believe that forums on wikipedia like WP:DRN is place to decide religion of people? If someone is catholic, go to church, preach bible then he is christian. Why DRN is needed for that one sentence that 'he/she is christian'? The user is talking absolute nonsense and you want me to take this nonsense to DRN. Volunteers seldom comment in Rfc or DRN. Until DRN/Rfc decide or not decide, he will claim in the article that Chanakya was jain. If I try to leave the religion field blank until dispute resolution, he will revert my edits. If I engage in edit war, you will block me. And he will win. Article will claim that Chanakya was Jain. Now he has reverted my edit for not giving my refs in proper format. I will give it although it is not must as wikipedia policy. But he will come up with another argument. How long I should dance on his tunes?

And it will not end with Chanakya. I am damn sure he will force me to dance to his nonsense tunes on Mahāvīra.

another user gave me headache. Wikipedia is forcing me to listen written and unwritten dirty things like sh$t. neo (talk) 14:39, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

ANI

Please see this where an admin action of yours is requesting your review. [[15]] Hell In A Bucket (talk) 17:28, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

SPI

Since you had interaction related to one of the socks named here, I thought I'd bring your attention to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/DanielTom. Toddst1 (talk) 20:26, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

unblock him

unblock Nathan Johnson. i saw his activities, & one wrong activities doesn't mean ban, especial\ly, when that person is evoked & provoked & tempted to show his dis-agreement, his disagreement intensity is converted into harsh words, because of long period of iritation & frustation from made by a group of users & making situations under which he's sure to fall into trap of their rivals! i have the proof! see the history of jenova & flyer now after seeing those people 's history, again read my message, & now u'll see you can relate my words. i wasn't much into this, so i was just able to mark these 2 peoples, for now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.197.17.203 (talk) 01:29, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

He was unblocked early yesterday, from what I remember - did you not notice that? However, it most certain was not "one wrong activity" - it's his 3rd for incivility. You can also read this fantastic essay (✉→BWilkins←✎) 08:56, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Hurry, we are fading away

CSDarrow is at it again with his latest assault on the project and its editors. Time to remove his talk page access yet? I'm not sure why someone who despises Wikipidia so much is so upset by not being able to participate in it. Anyway, have a great weekend. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 23:55, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

He hasn't earned a removal of talkpage access yet. Remember, blocks are not punishment (✉→BWilkins←✎) 00:38, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

I fully understand that. I'm referring to his inappropriate use of the talk page... to repeatedly attack the project and the "quality" of all its editors, insult specific editors, and promote an anti-WP site with a direct link to it. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 01:59, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

OleOla is NOT the boss

Oleola is using multiple accounts Dudek1337 this guy is hitler and threatens us, only his point of view is good. HE makes fake accusations before deserves permanent ban for sock — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robertspierre750 (talk • contribs) 23:49, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Once you invoke Hitler, it's not even due a response (✉→BWilkins←✎) 18:33, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for the kind welcome, I was not expecting such a personal approach to users/editors so thank you. Also I appreciate the clarification of the various rules and helpful hints to editing one of which I need to clarify is any possible conflict. After briefly reading that policy I believe there should not be any conflict on that one particular page. I have volunteered there a half dozen times since I am a subject matter expert unlike the two staff memebers (executive director/manager & the caretaker) of the non-for-profit foundation that now owns the Chateau. They did share accurate facts on size and status etc upon my request to educate others interested in the Chateau. I have used and loved Wikipedia for many years especially for its educational benefits and it is often the only source of information of many historic mansions and chateaux around the world long since forgotten until now. Its really exciting now to be able to contribute toward educating others on a few more architectural masterpieces. Thank you again for the help and the introduction. A.R.Deer (talk) 19:12, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Karatsuba "petition"

I quite understand that the "petition" at Talk:Anatolii Alexeevitch Karatsuba is of no effect, but I don't see what is to be gained by removing the signatures that other users are putting there. People tend to react badly to having their comments removed, and there is no mandate at WP:TPO that says you have to do it. I suggest that on on balance it is less disruptive to let people sign away. If their signatures are in the wrong place it would be more courteous to move them than delete them. Spectral sequence (talk) 20:50, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

The article talkpage guidelines also state that article talkpages for the sole existence of improving the article. "Petition"-type comments violate the WP:NOTAFORUM provision, and should be removed - this will help to prevent others from doing the same. Clearly, all have arrived there due to WP:MEAT - and the provisions of such also fully permit deletion of WP:MEAT-posted commentary (✉→BWilkins←✎) 21:05, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

I see a variety of people who are interested in mathematics and clearly not experienced in the ways of Wikipedia recruited off-wiki and arriving to take an interest in one particular issue. If they get a reception that they perceive as rude (like deleting their comments as unwelcome) they are less likely to remain and turn into productive contributors than if they are treated politely and encouraged to learn how the encyclopedia works. But act as you see fit -- I do not propose to do anything further in the matter. Spectral sequence (talk) 21:24, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Notifying you that I have reverted your latest edit. I was also removing the "Petition" of the IPs but changed my mind reading the above post of Spectral sequence. This IPs can be good wikipedians in future and it is best that we welcome (just welcomed many previous IPs) them than annoy them by removing their comments. Thanks Solomon7968 09:37, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Although I agree that they could become positive contributors, User:Solomon7968, right now they're violating key policies - I'll recommend you read them and reverse yourself. If you wish to go around and welcome all the random IP, then do so - but do not re-add blank posts to the talkpage - I don't want to have to semi-protect the talkpage to prevent people who refuse to read from posting there - that would probably piss them off even more. Over to your immediate action (✉→BWilkins←✎) 09:43, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

I will not re-add blank posts to the talkpage but it seems this IPs are wasting time of everyone. For example try to compare the article of Saint Petersburg State University with 8 references with Harvard University. All Russian wikipedia entries are in a very bad state. It is just annoying that this IPs instead of doing positive contributions are wasting time of everyone. Solomon7968 09:49, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

They ARE wasting people's time. Someone needs to a) find out where this WP:MEAT is coming from (I'll bet someone posted to some science/math forum somewhere asking for people to come to Wikipedia) and b) put a RUSSIAN notice on the article talkpage saying "THERE IS NO PETITION - PLEASE HELP BY IMPROVING THIS ARTICLE" (✉→BWilkins←✎) 10:01, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Jimmy Carter

Hi. We would appreciate your feedback at Talk:Presidency of Jimmy Carter#Let's figure out our possible solutions. I think I've summarized all the core/pertinent points at the very end. Much thanks. –Quiddity (talk) 17:33, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anti-Muslim pogroms in India

I dispute your deletion of the article. This article obviously meets GNG, given the sources which discuss Anti-Muslim pogroms in India. It is a topic of legitimate academic inquiry as can also be seen from the references and is also widely discussed in the media, as can be seen from the sources given at the AFD. In your summary of valid reasons to delete you said "inflammatory title" This is not a justifiable reason for deletion at all per WP:POVTITLE "When the subject of an article is referred to mainly by a single common name, as evidenced through usage in a significant majority of English-language reliable sources, Wikipedia generally follows the sources and uses that name as its article title" Every source in the article, as well as those given at the AFD use "Anti-Muslim pogroms in India" therefore it is not a violation of policy to have an article with this name. Your other reason for deletion was "sources" bar one all sources in the article were from academic publishers, can you explain please how the sourcing was not up to scratch? My last issue with your decision is that you say the information in the article is covered elsewhere, it is not. Darkness Shines (talk) 17:32, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

I summarized the arguments that were the ones that weighed heaviest in the decision, and quite well I must add. I spent a significant amount of time reviewing that entire AFD and found there to be no question as to the delete decision - not even a single waffle (✉→BWilkins←✎) 17:37, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

You have not responded to a single question I have put to you, why not? Darkness Shines (talk) 17:45, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

I think if you read my answer, you'll see that I responded to all of your issues. You simply don't like the answer, and there's nothing I can do about that (✉→BWilkins←✎) 18:01, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

No, you did not. I have requested deletion review here. Darkness Shines (talk) 18:10, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm sure you'll remove your false statement: I never claimed at any point that an inflammatory title was reason for deletion. Lying won't help your process here, User:Darkness Shines (✉→BWilkins←✎) 18:12, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

That is twice now you have accused me of lying, it makes one wonder if perhaps you ought not have closed the discussion. "The result was delete. A summary of the valid arguments for deletion: inflammatory title" Retract your accusation please. Darkness Shines (talk) 18:17, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

I give you better credit for reading English than that. If you cannot read, then you cannot hope to post here further. You're either lying, or you simply cannot read. As I said before I summarized the arguments ... that was one of the arguments that was made numerous times, wasn't it? Duh. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 18:26, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Did you or did you not write the following valid arguments for deletion: inflammatory title As you obviously did in fact write that then how am I lying by saying you said that it was a valid reason for deletion? Again, retract your personal attack. Darkness Shines (talk) 18:31, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

I summarized OTHER people's arguments - therefore YOU ARE LYING when you claim that I said it - don't you understand the difference? It's a simple thing in English. So, retract your lie, OR your misunderstanding of the language. Your behaviour is really deteriorating. Do not return to this talkpage unless you have retracted your lie, ok? Thanks. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 20:06, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

• Mr. BWilkins, could the deleted talk of a deleted article be temporarily (for 12/24hrs) restored / userfied? Is that technically allowed? There are some arguments and comments by some editors/admins which I need to collect, that's all, and then you can delete it perhaps? Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 06:15, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

RegentsPark

I'm far from happy with RPs response to the feedback to this unblocking and I am considering raising an RFCU/A. If I do, would you consider certifying the RFC? Further discussion on RP's talkpage if you wish to read the interaction. Spartaz ^Humbug! 14:41, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

• The discussion has moved on sufficiently to the point where I'm going to let it rest. I don't think RP is in any doubt that they could have handled this better and that understanding was mostly what I wanted to see. We all screw up but its concerning if you don't learn from it. Sorry to orange bar you unnecessarily. Spartaz ^Humbug! 15:39, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

No problem ... didn't get a chance to reply earlier - sorry. Hopefully RP (and all of us) has learned (✉→BWilkins←✎) 15:42, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Not sure why you're getting so worked up...

... over Retrolord. As I said on the RfA page, Kudpung's posts are out of order. I'm sure I'll be chatting to him about them sooner or later, they're unfair and likely to make those who oppose an RfA feel badgered. Those people will then be more vehement in their opposes, cycling around to making the whole process more unpleasant.

What worries me is that you appear to be escalating the situation, talking about blocks, pointy behaviour and generally winding each other up. Might be a good idea to either work on diffusing things or stepping away. Worm^TT(talk) 11:29, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

There's nothing on Kudpung's post that was any form of badgering, bullying, threats, improper, or anything - I believe you're rather falsely riling Retro up even further by suggesting that there is. Is it improper for anyone to suggest that someone re-read their !vote based on the discussion below it? Have you even read Kudpung's talkpage? Kudpung did nothing wrong whatsoever - he doesn't need any speaking to, and I think you've done Retro a disservice by suggesting that they were even remotely correct in their reading of the situation. You know I typically agree with most of your assessments, but you're way off on this one, and it will now lead to further drama (✉→BWilkins←✎) 11:34, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Have you ever wanted to stand up and say something's wrong, in the face of massive support? It's a tough thing to do - and Kudpung's comments belittled his vote by stating that it was just there for disruption. He then went to the users talk page and implied that he should try again. There was no need - we don't need people to pass without opposes, we need a fair and open process. I'm following the situation as best I can, but for now I'm going to sit back for a bit and see if things improve, otherwise people will say things in haste which they may later regret. Worm^TT(talk) 11:38, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Oh, and don't worry about calling me Dave - it's right there on my userpage, I don't mind. Worm^TT(talk) 11:39, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Retro's !vote was based on neither policy, nor reality. It was based on opinion and false assumptions, and was indeed very weakly on that opinion. 3 or 4 other editors tried to discuss that opinion, in hopes that they would make a new decision. Yeah, oppose !votes that are based on false assumptions/pretenses are indeed disruptive (we've seen more than enough of those). Kudpung's comments were clearly not inappropriate, bullying, or even unfair. Retro's decision to generate drama rather than asking Kudpung to clarify was pure spite and cannot be defended by anyone. Retro's 3 later edits to the RFA were pure unadulterated pointiness that should, indeed, either be removed or lead to a block. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 11:48, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Could you point me to anywhere that it says that RfA !votes have to be based on policy, reality or X's agreement? As far as I'm aware, you can place yourself on either side, and it's recommended you explain why. You don't have to be right. Others can refute your suppositions, and future readers take into account both your suppositions and those who refute them. It's a fine line moving from refuting to badgering - generally around the point that the same statement is being repeated. Implying that someone is only !voting in a certain manner to disrupt the process, that's not on. Retro's subsequent edits may well not have happened if he had been dealt with in a more sympathetic manner in the first place. Worm^TT(talk) 11:57, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

I think you're missing the point: Kudpung didn't say that Retro's !vote was disruptive - but that in general, non-reality based !votes, and ones that the !voter is not willing to revisit based on discussion have been shown to be one of the current problems across RFA over the recent years. He was encouraged to re-read the discussion and rethink his position - not forced to or bullied into action. In short, Retro WAS treated very sympathetically (✉→BWilkins←✎) 12:04, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) :::::I have stood up and said something's wrong. It's a tough thing to do - especially when you're an admin who deeply cares about the state of RfA. Retro's !vote was based on neither policy, nor reality. It was based on opinion and false assumptions, and was indeed very weakly on that opinion, but instead of replying on the RfA page and dramamongering, I took my thoughts to his talk page, and in a manner that was deliberately neither accusing, nor patronising, nor suggesting he change his vote. If anything, it was intended to help him reflect upon his further participation at RfA. I'm also not afraid to be active enough to take a heck of a lot of flak, most particulary of the totally unprovoked kind from editors who escape sanctions from ARBCOM on the premise of being good content contributors - that's why I have stayed out of such discussions although I bitterly wanted to say something and provide some diffs there. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:07, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Bwilkins, he said that "some oppose votes, are purely disruptive in an RfA that is so obviously going to succeed." - Given he the juxtaposition of that comment with his comment on Retro's page - it is a reasonable conclusion to draw that he was implying Retro's !vote was disruptive. If I were in Retro's shoes, I'd have read it the same way.

Kudpung, it was more the comments on WT:RfA which I saw as problem. Not bullying mind you, just unfair. Worm^TT(talk) 12:13, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) People are forgetting in the heat of the moment that there was one other oppose vote. I didn't directly mention it because there would be no point, would there? The history of how it got there is however unsurprising: this, this ES, and the comment, and this ES. Good thing I'm not an Arb... Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:37, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

And now he's edit-warring on WT:RFA - well done, giving him the ammo to believe he was right. It's now becoming his martyrdom. I expect you'll take care of it Dave? (✉→BWilkins←✎) 12:39, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

And I wish you hadn't written that - it does make it look like I was goaded into this block - though I hadn't seen the comment. Worm^TT(talk) 12:58, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Sorry ... although you were goaded into the block, but not by me ... but by the blockee, unfortunately (✉→BWilkins←✎) 16:34, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Bwilkins. Martyr for Kudpungiang justice. ★★RetroLord★★ 05:09, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Consensus is that he did not bully you, so continuing to suggest otherwise - even in jest - is unbecoming. Oh, while you're here, have you had a chance to read WP:INVOLVED - I've been waiting for your apology for mis-citing it at least a dozen times when it actually had zero relationship to the discussion at hand (✉→BWilkins←✎) 08:59, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Mr. T's sig

He is using a mw:parser function, not a template in it. 86.121.18.17 (talk) 12:18, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

While posting in a lengthy discussion about a TOPIC BAN of six months imposed by arguably an involved admin — you comment not about the edit on which the ban hinges, but on a rather trifling matter, my signature, to apparently justify the ban? What is your issue with me? If you are so disinterested why bother commenting at all? Besides, like the IP said, it's a mw:parser function and not a template per se.

P.S. Really, this is unhelpful, Wilkins, this is utterly and perfectly unhelpful! BTW I am not watching your page. Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 15:09, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Did you even read my comment? I stated quite clearly that because you had begun to yell at people in bold letters, all caps, PLUS your willingness to completely act contrary to policy by having an invalid signature, you had more than used up any goodwill or sympathy of others. Because of that, almost nobody will listen to your sob stories and concerns because your own hands are nowhere clean enough. My issue with you is obviously that you whine, and want the rules to apply to others but not you ... and you are willing berate the volunteers on this project because you're not being listened to. Childish, to say the least. Whatever valid complaints you might have had have since disappeared into the blue yonder because of the way you've dealt with it. Well done. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 16:31, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Don't you think you're taking this Signature thing a tad too far? What do you assume that I am doing it intentionally?
"obviously that you whine, and want the rules to apply to others but not you" - it is your opinion and I don't share that opinion. And I sense a tone of redundant condescension. You opine a lot. You're entitled to your opinion but I reserve the right to choose what to concur with. Good day, Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 09:41, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

There's no condescending ... it's frustration that you have wholly wasted what might have been your sole opportunity by acting they way you have. When even I've given up on supporting your cause, you know you've fallen badly. "Madness is doing the same thing again and again, expecting a new result" (✉→BWilkins←✎) 10:09, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

I am genuinely touched to see how much you're concerned about me. Mr T^(Talk?) 11:08, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Ben Draiman article submission

Hi Bwilkins, I apologise in advance if this is not the correct place to contact you as I am new to Wikipedia! I would just like to address my submission for the following page on Ben Draiman being declined: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Ben_Draiman

I understand the comment in regard to Mr Draiman's brother and will edit accordingly. However, in regards to the local radio station play, he does indeed meet that criteria because he lives in Israel, thousands of miles from Canada. So not only did the radio station in question not play it because he was local, but because he wasn't anywhere near the same country. And being in the top 94 of the songs of 2011 is significant and fulfills at least one of the criteria mentioned.

Among the sources which include the Jerusalem Post Article, the Article in the British Jewish Publication along with Altsounds, these are independent sources that give plenty of in-depth information about the musician, which fulfills yet another part of the criteria. Any advice you have on how I can progress with the article in light of these points would be appreciated.Candii H (talk) 22:04, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Question for you

Hi there. I saw this discussion about a blocked user, and saw that that user is commenting in it! I wondered if you in en.wiki allow blocked users to come to the ANI and defend themselves. I ask this only in order to become more familiar with the procedures and policies in here. Thanks.,dgjdksvc;jknhg (talk) 18:02, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

No, they did not comment themselves. They are permitted to post on their own talkpage - as such, they can create a section on their usertalkpage with the text they want copied from there to ANI, then add {{helpme}} and request it be copied (✉→BWilkins←✎) 18:04, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Wow, it is really awesome and helps all the voices to be heard. So while they are blocked, can they edit regarding other stuff rather than their appeal on their talk page?--,dgjdksvc;jknhg (talk) 18:38, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

No. It's rather obvious that the ANI was about their block or their behaviour - thus, they're allowed to contribute. It's the only time editing-by-proxy is permitted (✉→BWilkins←✎) 21:10, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks.--,dgjdksvc;jknhg (talk) 21:55, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Claim at ANI

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.

---

You claimed that "Fram has time and again levelled unsubstantiated claims at/about Jimbo on his talkpage."[16] Ironically, that is a totally unsubstantiated claim. Could you provide some evidence of where I have done such things? Thanks! Fram (talk) 11:46, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Are you denying that you pushed Jimbo to the point that he specifically requested that you not post on his talkpage? (✉→BWilkins←✎) 11:53, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm denying that I levelled any unsubstantiated claims. I levelled substantiated claims, which he didn't like, and for which he tried to get rid of me. This current "outing" situation is a typical example, the "will.i.am" situation before it was similar, his incorrect copyvio deletions (and some COI deletions) were yet another, his actions on Commons (which I think are the origin of this dispute) yet another. There may have been more, but I don't think any were unsubstantiated. Fram (talk) 11:58, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

I'd politely suggest you've provided a mix of both substantiated and then went too far with both lesser but unsubstantiated claims and inappropriate "pushing" of both, including ascribing intent to them which was unsubstantiated (✉→BWilkins←✎) 12:25, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Can you provide some examples of the latter (i.e. the things following the first and in your post)? It may have happened, and it then perhaps shouldn't have happened, but it's hard to learn from your mistakes when you're not aware what those mistakes are. I usually try not to ascribe intent and to stick to the facts, but it's often tempting and natural to discuss intent as well, e.g. when people consistenly avoid answering a question or "miss" the point. Fram (talk) 12:41, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Out of respect for you, I'm not going to go and do that digging right now. I actually appreciate that you appear to have "come clean" above, and I actually think that beginning to recognize that one's own behaviour may have built some pretty big walls is huge. I also don't want to do that digging because I greatly fear that doing so would actually lead to reasons to block you - again, something I'd rather not do.

I am serious, however about one thing I said it ANI: if you post on Jimbo's talkpage again, I will personally block you. As an admin, you know that you're supposed to protect editors from harassment - and in this specific situation Jimbo is an editor first, and has more than once requested that you stop. In some ways, you need to do a 1-way voluntary interaction ban.

Do you want to get back on Jimbo's good side? Revert some vandalism to his userpage every so often. Maybe agree with him every now and then during discussions not on his talkpage. Don't attack or cast apsersion on his intent anywhere. Show that you're willing to defend yourself gently instead of aggressively.

Someday, if Jimbo (and others in the community, BTW) see that you've changed for the better, then everyone will get along better. I do understand that you're very passionate about some things - that's good. It's how you express your passion - and how you respond when someone says something contrary to your position on a passionate topic that is actually what is defining you as a bad person over the last while. There is a middle ground, but only YOU can reach it. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 13:01, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

I have reverted vandalism there, often even. I have blocked vandals and protected his pages when needed. I have started Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Sju hav/Archive#23 May 2013 about a persistent sock on his user talk page, and have since reverted and blocked further socks. I have also participated in discussions about subjects I had a direct relationship with, like this discussion; if Jimbo wants to use his page as a public discussion forum of general interest (instead of as his user talk page), then he shouldn't try to unilaterally ban some people from it. He isn't an editor first, he promotes his page as the place to be, the oasis of the Founder where normal policies (like forumshopping and canvassing) don't apply; he can't have it both ways.

I'll try to restrict myself to topics which either are directly relevant to me (like the Rich Farmbrough discussions), or where he is making a serious policy error (like in the Snowden discussion). I'll stay away from discussions of a more general or less problematic nature. And I'll continue to monitor for vandalism and "real" trolling (despite Jimbo's claims, none of my posts on his page were disingenious or trolling; they were not to his liking, they may sometimes have been rude in response to his attacks, they may have occasionally been wrong, but that doesn't make them disingenious or trolling). But that doesn't give you the right to simply block me if you don't even want to provide evidence of my previous "unsubstantiated allegations". Note that this now means that you have made a personal attack against me. If you don't want to back it up out of some attempt to protect me from myself, then you shouldn't make the accusation in the first place, or strike it. If my allegations on Jimbo's talk page are substantiated and usually correct, then there is no reason to block me (or even to warn me) for making unsubstantiated allegations; although perhaps then it may be time to take a look at Jimbo Wales' use of his admin tools and general editing. Fram (talk) 13:21, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Wow. You've gone from earning my respect to being confrontational and losing it in a whopping 15 minutes. Once again, Jimbo has requested you stay off his talkpage - period. Now that you're becoming belligerant on mine, I'll request the same from you on this talkpage. The difference is this: I will block you for posting on Jimbo's, seeing as he asked you not to post there. Someone else will have to block you on mine, because <insert deity name here> knows that I'd hate for WP:INVOLVED to be invoked. And here I thought you had made some progress. Sucks to be wrong (✉→BWilkins←✎) 13:59, 25 June 2013 (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.

RE: LordZebedee

I hope that this time they discuss the changes. If they just revert then I will fully support an indef. If that doesn't force them to communicate then nothing will. PantherLeapord (talk) 10:29, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Next time, don't simply post under the closed incident at ANI - open a new one and refer to the old one (✉→BWilkins←✎) 10:45, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Will do. Thanks! I guess it's not one for AIV huh? PantherLeapord (talk) 10:48, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

No. Edit-warring is for WP:AN/3RR (✉→BWilkins←✎) 11:08, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

sorry for the confusing discussion

I was simply replying to the message. I have deleted the request altogether since it has now been settled. Thanks for doing your job and for informing me of the change. I appreciate it.Ajmccumber (talk) 20:27, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Please do not delete the actionned/responded to request - it will be archived as a record. Thanks. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 20:58, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Declined block

Hi Bwilkins. I have raised a request at WP:AN concerning User:Retrolord's user page and talk page. I'm not sure if a block also prevents a user from responding at AN, but we may have to consider an unblock to allow him to respond there. In my opinion, this should be done under the strict proviso that he comments there, and only there, and does not edit anywhere else in any namespaces on Wikipedia. Note that I will be away from my office without Internet for at least another 12 hours.Regards, Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:55, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Courtesy notice

You may want to look at this discussion here: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#New_proposal_for_admins PumpkinSky talk 11:46, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Humourous. Thank you - I needed that. You clearly have zero understanding of what actually happened last night. There was also no such consensus at ANI. Biiiggggg stretch to go from what REALLY happened to accusations of admin impropriety. Your little accusation that Jmh is my friend will be the part that bites you in the ass on this one, as it's proof that your incorrect assumptions led, in part, to your actions. Good luck though. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 11:52, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

And your response shows you have zero understanding of the error of your ways. Thanks for proving that there are serious issues with today's admins corps. PumpkinSky talk

I'm always first in line to admit to my errors when I make them. Based on the FACTS in this case, I clearly did not make an error in this situation, and your actions since are merely serving to prove me right. Thanks for that. Now, since you're willing to stop flogging the equine, I'll ask you to not revisit this talkpage until you've taken at least 2 weeks to review my statements, your personal assumptions, and of course you'll want to thank me for saving your ass from what was likely going to be a much longer block by some other admin. Until you reach that point, do not return here. Cheers (✉→BWilkins←✎) 12:23, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Block

Hey BWilkins, I was wondering if you'd be willing to discuss and/or reconsider your block of PumpkinSky. I know I'm not one for civility-type blocks and tensions are high between you two, but I don't think a block was the appropriate course of action there, especially since it's escalated the situation. I also figured that in the name of de-escalation, coming here instead of going straight to drama central would be the right thing to do, though I do think that if there continues to be substantial conflict over this block, a community review might be helpful. Just my 2 cents. Best, Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 01:03, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

• support .. sorry BMW, but I'm with Keilana on this one. — Ched :  ?  01:17, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
• That was the 2nd block that came from that thread. It seems to be a poisonous block pit today. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | © | WER 01:21, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
• Bwilkins, please consider undoing the block. Whether PumpkinSky deserved a block or not, you should definitely not have been the one to make it (nor the one to protect the page, for that matter), as you were involved in the edit war. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 03:31, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:16, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

• In accordance with the growing consensus in that ANI thread, and on the assumption that you're away from the computer and thus unavailable to respond to the concerns about WP:INVOLVED, I've unblocked PumpkinSky. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 05:21, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Interesting - accusations of involved, and an accusation that this was a "civility block" because there was some non-existent "high tensions" between PS and I? Wow ... that's extending something well beyond belief. Some folks really didn't read the entire chain of events, and certainly don't AGF much (✉→BWilkins←✎) 10:25, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Bwilkins, as a fellow non-enemy of the lulz, fellow owner of an inexpensive automobile, and fellow loyal subject of Betty Windsor, I think you might just over-stepped a little bit in this particular matter. Pete aka --Shirt58 (talk) 11:12, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps I'm not explaining the entire sequence of events properly, or there's a poisoned well somewhere because I had the nerve to be offline and a lot of unfounded, non-AGF accusations happened while I was drinking Coronas and sleeping, but this is bizarre. I know WP:INVOLVED very very well. Just because someone claims I'm involved - and manufactures things like "you're mad because I took your friend to ArbComm" (which is the most bizarre claim about me I have ever seen on Wikipedia) doesn't make me involved - that was a pointy stunt in and of itself, and simply goes to prove that I made the right call on the block (✉→BWilkins←✎) 11:34, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

• Not that it matters, but I wouldn't have blocked PumpkinSky (big shocker, I know....) but under no circumstance do I see anything that could be seen as admin abuse. I accept that we have different thresholds and prefer to spend my time persuading admin to raise their threshold instead of demonizing them in cases like this where it seems the block was in good faith. Yesterday was a day of drama, perhaps we can work to make today different. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | © | WER 12:11, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
• Yes, we'll need to move forward - although perhaps User:Writ Keeper would be so kind as to correct his unblock statement about WP:INVOLVED ... oh wait, that cannot be easily done. Good idea not to make such unfounded block log statements in the first place as we move forward (✉→BWilkins←✎) 12:15, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
  • I would agree that I don't see how WP:involved played a role. There is entirely too much drama going on and admin are getting caught up in it. Admin are getting trigger happy on both sides of many issues (not just this), and what we need now is some calm reflection, not more drama and debates. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | © | WER 12:20, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
  • I wouldn't correct it even if I could. With respect to Dennis and yourself (the real kind, not the WP:WADR kind), I stand by my statement that this was an involved action, and I for my part am surprised that you and Dennis can't see where we're coming from. You edit-warred with PumpkinSky on the talk page and then protected the page to end the war on your revision and terms: that is never cool. I can accept that you did that in good faith to try to avoid needing a block, rather than explicitly to end the edit war in your favor, but that does not make it uninvolved, nor does it make it even remotely good idea. When you removed PS's comment a second time, your actions became edit-warring whether you meant them to be or not, and I'm surprised you can't see that. Well, you can see that, because you told him to stop edit warring. So how is your re-reversion of someone whom you consider to be edit warring not in itself further edit-warring? And then you go and block PS based at least in part for the edit war, the one that you participated in. (Yes, I'm aware there are other things that happened in between, but it doesn't really matter: you cited the edit war in your block rationale, and even if you hadn't, the edit war without any other context should bve enough to raise a red flag.) I don't think you did this maliciously or to protect your friends from their enemies or whatever. I'm perfectly willing to accept that you blocked in good faith, and that you believed that you weren't involved. But that don't make it so, Joe: it looks to me, and to others in the ANI thread, that you edit-warred with a user and then blocked them for it. And even if you wouldn't have been involved, surely you could've at least thought about avoiding the appearance of INVOLVED and left it for someone else. You're welcome to disagree, of course, but I'd be a little troubled if you can't at least see where we're coming from on this. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 13:13, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
    • Because his reverts were done in an administrative capacity, not an editorial one, that would not be covered by Involved. I guess it depends on what you think his intent was in doing the reverting. If you think it was editorial only, then you might see it as involved. I didn't see it that way. I disagreed with the block, but for different reasons. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | © | WER 13:28, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Oh bullmalarky WK. Now, if I had actually been involved in the discussion that was being edit-warred over I would 100% agree that I was involved. However, from WP:INVOLVED: "an administrator who has interacted with an editor or topic area purely in an administrative role, or whose prior involvements are minor or obvious edits which do not speak to bias, is not involved and is not prevented from acting in an administrative capacity in relation to that editor or topic area". If I was watching ANY article because of potential problems (maybe someone raised our attention at ANI) and an IP editor added something inappropriate, I'm quite welcome to remove it, and remove it again, and block if needed - that would be 100% appropriate and acceptable. What's the difference here, other than the fact that some of PS's pointiness happened on my talkpage - nothing. The trail of PS's anger spread across Wikipedia yesterday, and his disruption was apparent to anyone who reviewed any of the edits. It was just odd that it was the edit-warring on a closed thread that actually brought anyone's attention to it. The original choice was to block for much longer per WP:DISRUPT, and based on the concept of escalating blocks (I would have only looked at the real ones). Stopping PS from shooting themself in the foot any further is and was the sole goal, and there's no possible definition of the WP:INVOLVED policy that you can link my actions to, period - perhaps you haven't reviewed their edits from yesterday, and have merely drank from the poisoned well that was ANI? (✉→BWilkins←✎) 13:32, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

It takes two to do the edit-war tango. You don't get a free pass because you can say "hey, this is an admin action". A thread was closed, and PS was questioning the close. On what grounds is a questioning of a thread's close eligible for admin action? Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 13:55, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Closing is an administrative function, it just doesn't take someone with the admin bit to do it. I'm not going to argue, I will just say that I don't see that as involved and I have to respectfully disagree with that aspect. It isn't personal, but to me, "involved" means having some kind of editorial preference in the content of the words that are being "edit warred" over, which I didn't see. I still wouldn't have blocked, but WP:involved had nothing to do with why. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | © | WER 14:18, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

I understand that closing is an administrative action, but that's not particularly relevant, because that's not what Bwilkins did. Bwilkins is saying that reverting someone who was questioning the close [17][18] is also an administrative action, and I very much disagree, particularly when the edit summaries were "don't edit long-closed threads" (it was only closed for two hours; not long by any measure) and "stop edit-warring" (the edit summary of a further reversion is the absolute worst place to say such a thing). Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 14:25, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

User:Writ Keeper, what the fuck are you talking about? I quite CLEARLY stated that that "reverting someone who was questioning the close" is NOT an administrative action. Where the hell do you read anything remotely related to what you're claiming I said? I quite clearly stated that obtaining consensus to re-open the discussion was completely acceptable - but that sneaking your comments inside the archive was the problem. Holy fucking hell. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 17:33, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

I was talking to Dennis, who had said further up the page: "Because his reverts were done in an administrative capacity, not an editorial one, that would not be covered by Involved." Seriously, chill out: I'm not impugning your character or saying that you're a horrible person or even that you knowingly misused tools. I'm not building an arb case behind your back or anything of the sort. It's just that you just made, in my estimation, a poor call, and I wanted to explain why I thought it was poor. It happens to everyone. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 18:03, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Actually, your unblock log still impugns my character - and you're still claiming (based on all the evidence) that I was involved - so yeah, still impugning. If I made a poor call, it was not based on being involved. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 18:08, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Oh yeah, Writ, your notification on PS's page still says it's because I was "involved" - and you've seen the BS that incorrect statement has caused today. So, go clean up your shit, please - as those things (written by you) are indeed impugning my character (✉→BWilkins←✎) 19:02, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Please do not abuse your admin authority

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'm sure you are a fine admin and work hard to improve and protect the project, but earlier today you threatened to block me at this ANI discussion if I posted any additonal comments. I feel that was highly inappropriate and an abuse of your authority. In the future, I suggest you stop attempting to censor editors through basless and unwarranted threats like that.

I also would ask you to read the wise words of some of your great admin colleagues, like Bbb23, DGG, and Bushranger, regarding the ANI situation.

Your apparent attempt to smear admin OrangeMike's reputation by bringing up past allegations against him, which have absolutely no relevance to the current matter, was highly improper. The fact remains that ANI has a basic, primary instruction: "Before posting a grievance about a user here, please discuss the issue with them on their user talk page." Just today, another fine admin, Kim Dent-Brown, made the importance of that instruction clear, when he said in another thread, "the original complainant was wrong to come straight here without addressing the IP editor first".[19] Bbb23 said, "Demiurge should have discussed the current problem with Mike before coming here. Just because he has discussed what he believes to be a pattern doesn't justify not giving Mike a first opportunity to reply."[20] But perhaps Bushranger put it best in our ANI discussion when he said, "regardless of whether or not the block was valid, regardless of past communications (or lack thereof), and regardless of any biting, the fact that there was no communication with OM before he got dragged here is very disturbing".[21] So while you won't accept this point from an IP like me, perhaps will you will listen to some of your highly-respected admin colleagues.

Regarding the overall ANI topic, it involves a user who is a paid employee/contractor of the subject of an article; one who has admitted to creating a shared account for the sole purpose of using the article as a promotional tool. Any editor or admin who ignores or downplays policies like WP:NOPAY, WP:NOSHARE, and WP:NPOV are being disruptive - whether intentional or not - with regard to our duty to protect the project and its integrity.

In any case, I hope in the future you will never again threaten a productive, good-faith user with a block for merely participating in a discussion, unless that editor is clearly trolling or blatantly violating another policy. And falsely describing a comment like this one as "trolling", as you did here, solely to create an excuse to block someone, is, as I said, an abuse of your authority as an admin. And falsely alleging trolling can also be seen as a form of harassment. If you thought perhaps I was repeating myself too much, which I admit I sometimes am guilty of, then it certainly would've been fine to ask me to please stop doing that. However, if another editor comments to me directly regarding a past comment, then I certainly have every right to respond. But trying to completely shut out an editor from a conversation, by holding a block over their head, is on the verge of being outrageous. Fortunately, another admin (Bbb23), told you that your threat to block me was improper. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 06:21, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

I have never abused my admin authority, and your accusations are ridiculous. No - I was not told the block was improper, it was their opinion that it was perhaps not the best way forward. Nobody should have to ask you TWICE to stop being disruptive in that thread. Any intelligent editor who chooses to do about a minute of research would know that I take promotional accounts and username very seriously, and deal with them every day. The wise editor would have already figured out that I was the one who created the {{coiq}} template, and that I deal with a half-dozen unblock requests from spam accounts every day. Before YOU drop by to make bizarre accusations, please do your homework. Your lack of doing your background work, and utter AGF in your accusations are what's disturbing. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 09:55, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

"Any intelligent editor"? Very mature. It's interesting how you believe that an editor is somehow supposed to figure out in "a minute" what your philosophy is on some random aspect of editing? Right. But it's moot anyway because my comments are based on your comments and conduct in that discussion. And for the record, what Bbb said in response to your threat was, "The IP should not be blocked for his conduct here". I'm not sure how he could have been any more clear and concise with you than that. And this issue is not about your mischaracterization of my comments being "disruptive"; it's about you threatening a block if I posted anything else in the discussion. Defending that outrageous threat makes me question your judgment. I would've understood and respected you if you at least said something like... you're right, I should've just asked you not to keep repeating things, or not (whatever you think was "disruptive"). But to simply say... don't post anything again or I'll block you immediately was, frankly, total bullshit. And if you had done it, it would've been overturned in a hearteat anyway. Anyway, you didn't address the overall comments of Bbb, DGG and Bushranger, but that's okay. You got the message. And I'm sure you've read their comments. Hopefully, you'll learn something from them. In any case, that ANI report turned out to be a complete waste of time, as predicted when it was started. Btw, you're one of the last people who should be lecturing others about AGF. I've seen more than a few comments like this about your ongoing failure with AGF. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 10:31, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Ooohhh...pull a whole bunch of comments completely out of their original context and accuse me of not AGF? Very pathetic - a weak attack where no position of reality exists. Go away until you're a) able to read properly, and b) ready to increase your AGF-factor. You've just proven EXACTLY why I was right on ANI. Congratulations. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 12:16, 30 June 2013 (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.

MrT

I have just unlocked MrT's talk page to see whether we are able to move forward at all. I have still locked him out of email until its clear that he won't abuse it again. I'm minded that a longer block than the original 3 day is required as a consequence of the nastygrams and, as the other known recipient, I'd be interested to know how long you think is appropriate. Thanks Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:25, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

I think, based on the contents of the e-mail I received alone, that this should sadly be indef. I think he's trying to do right, but he certainly has a fecked-up way of reacting to things (✉→BWilkins←✎) 09:56, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

I can't argue with that. I have closed out the discussion and directed MrT to BASC or UTRS. Spartaz ^Humbug! 11:03, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Heather Morris edit

Hey Bwilkins, responding to "Not sure why you're removing an image" here, the image is identical to the profile picture higher up on the page, my feeling was that the same image is not needed twice - do you disagree? Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.97.236.159 (talk) 20:57, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

So, why didn't you put that in your edit-summary? Or perhaps a note on the article talkpage that we needed a different images since it was duplicated? (✉→BWilkins←✎) 14:05, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

AN notice

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:35, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Oh thank you; there is a deity and they reside within Bbb23 (✉→BWilkins←✎) 17:43, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Always

Your statement that "'bits' always means genitals" is wrong. A byte contains 8 bits. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 14:05, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Byte me? Toddst1 (talk) 14:21, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Are you saying that TRM has bytes? I for one didn't know that "bits" can mean genitals (is that a British thing?), but you have to admit, Kiefer, that you delight in double entendre, whether it was intended in this case or not.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:50, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Sorry

Logging back in just to say this "officially", not as an IP address: I retract the WP:DICK comments at Jimbotalk. I was severely irritated and seem to have misread your intent, which appeared to me to be directly questioning my and someone else's motives or honesty, but which I now see can be read differently; you are right that I did not assume good faith; mea culpa. While I did honestly meant a certain amount of parting incivility to people gravedancing about my leaving and the reasons for it, I don't think you were an appropriate target for that. Peace. I have nothing to say to anyone else at this point. Actually I guess I should clarify that I never said that a resigning Arb claimed specifically that he quit because of SarekOfVulcan; I was alluding to an Arb (I couldn't be bothered to go look up his name right now; I have more rewarding things to do like pet one of the cats and have a snack, and make a checklist for an upcoming trip to Europe, and anything else but Pickyweedia) who resigned in disgust, with a pointed statement about ArbCom doing what it collectively thought would cause fewer waves rather than what was right, and this resignation happening shortly on the heels of SoV getting away with blatant entrapment schemes and somehow escaping being desysoped by ArbCom for it. One can theorize that the timing was just coincidence of course. I really don't care any more. — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ɖ^⊝כ^⊙þ Contrib. 09:32, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

I will express my sincere thanks to you for this. I would also encourage you to take some time to recharge - then come back. There's a lot of BS on this site (try being an admin!) and if you let a bunch of little things OR a couple of big things annoy you too much, you get away from the real intent of what we all are trying to do here. Whether you leave permanently or come back in 6 months...a year...whenever, you'll still have my respect for a) the things you have tried to do for the project, and b) your apology above. Cheers (✉→BWilkins←✎) 10:35, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

A little help

Was disappointed by your decline request & to be honest was very offended by the uncivil editor remark. I have tried to maintain as much civility as possible with other editors. 1 guy gets on my nerves & both of us shoot off at each other. If you look at the other editor Abhishek191288,he has been having several uncivilized conversations with several others, has also engaged in edit warring, has admitted to it but gets away with a pep talk.

He has even refused to accept to Government of India notification as a reliable source of information. Take a look at Surat Railway station & Mumbai Rajdhani page main images. For sometime the exact same image was posted there & despite explaining in detail why the particular image was incorrect, he still refuses to accept it. What do you suggest i do with such a person because talking to him is of no use or there is a way to explain how the Great Eastern royale building (in the background)in Tardeo area of Mumbai got transported to Surat ?? Perhaps there is a way to explain how Mumbai Central & Surat railway station have identical layouts. Problem is i cant explain it & it is pointless asking someone who's ego is offended by superior work. If as he claims they are irrelevant then why except him is no one removing them.

He has been targeting my uploads but it puzzles me that when i undo them, i get blocked, he does it he gets a pep talk. Can you please explain it to me because i cant see any reason for it. As far as ownership of articles is concerned,i have long accepted that anyone from anywhere can edit anything but that is supposed to be based on facts not opinions. Besides i have made several offers to him to upload his work so that a impartial analysis of both our works can be done. I have yet to see a single upload in that direction but what i do see on his page is undone edits of various other people.

Fact in this case is that a building in Mumbai cannot be used to depict Surat,opinion is that lets revert the edit because i don't like the other person & he is uploading more images than me especially since i cant match him for quality & quantity. There is a small quote from a John Grisham novel If a witness is unshakeable on facts then beat him up with insignificant details which is exactly the case here. This is completely unacceptable. Help me understand why facts are superseding opinions here.

Had left a message for you on my talk page on 8th June. I do understand that that is not what you prefer but considering that i was not permitted to edit your talk page,it was the best that i could do. I have tried to be civil with everyone but i am only human. Superfast1111 (talk) 13:53, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

You may have a point, but can you comment on whether you have also edited as User:Firefighter1675? Catfish Jim and the soapdish 15:10, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

• As per your rather poorly-considered new thread below, please note that I have NOT responded to this thread earlier because I was, indeed, awaiting your reply to the question by Catfish Jim above. However, as you're being a little pushy, and are ignoring the notice that says "(if)I declined your unblock request: since it has either expired, or someone else has unblocked you, understand that I do read very carefully. Don't push your fortuitous luck", I'll be blunt. My job as the reviewer of an unblock is multi-phased - the first is to see if there is a WP:GAB-compliant request. When you submitted your first request, I commented before it was declined - and I was extremely clear about what was wrong with it - you needed to fix it, or else. Sure enough it was declined by another admin. You then submitted a new one that was just as bad, if not worse. They say that insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, expecting a new result - well, your unblock request was more of the same and was an obvious decline. Look, I was not involved in the block - and cannot or will not comment on what you perceive as "unfair" about one person getting blocked and the other not, except to say this: in most sports, the person who reacts to an original foul is usually the person who gets the foul. I have an old Wikipedia saying "someone else's incivility may explain your own, but it will never excuse it" - in other words, don't ever try to use someone's actions as an excuse for yours: you alone are responsible for clicking the "save page" button, and the intelligent person re-thinks their comments before actually making them. Civility is a pillar of Wikipedia - it's not optional - when in a disagreement, you are REQUIRED to take the high road, even when provoked. We have dispute resolution for a reason, and the reason is that we don't put up with petty bullshit such as edit-warring and personal attacks. As you now have an obvious history of personal attacks, you'll find that an administrator will not go lightly on you in the future for similar situations, and not only will disparity between the blocks given (or not given) to different parties get wider, the length of your blocks will be getting even longer. Blocks are escalating in nature in order to get you to stop performing the actions that led to them: you seem to be failing to learn those lessons. Start now. Review the 5 pillars again - remind yourself that this is a community, and review the purpose of this project (including the fact that we don't want your opinion in articles). If you want to continue to be rude to someone who you disagree with, then GO AWAY - this project is not for you. I am NOT commenting on the content your were being ridiculous over - that's not my role in this situation (✉→BWilkins←✎) 10:39, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Meta areas

It is, really, I suppose, but as I've been quasi topic banned by an Arb, there's not much I can say, other than it's clearly a case of a young user trying to be clever and get noticed. However, RfA is a free-for-all venue for drama and nobody can be disenfranchised except for the most serious of reasons. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:03, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

I think it's been worked out ... both by e-mail, and on his talkpage. They are certainly an impulsive individual with a thin skin, and an inability to easily see where/when they've caused an issue. Let's hope the dozens of eyes can lead him somewhere (✉→BWilkins←✎) 13:47, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Still waiting

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 am still waiting for your answer. Would appreciate it if you could spare a few minutes. Superfast1111 (talk) 03:59, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

An answer to what, where? (✉→BWilkins←✎) 10:45, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

An answer to a little help that i left on your talk page dated June 28. I have re-copied it here.

collapse a copy paste from an above thread
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Was disappointed by your decline request & to be honest was very offended by the uncivil editor remark. I have tried to maintain as much civility as possible with other editors. 1 guy gets on my nerves & both of us shoot off at each other. If you look at the other editor Abhishek191288,he has been having several uncivilized conversations with several others, has also engaged in edit warring, has admitted to it but gets away with a pep talk. He has even refused to accept to Government of India notification as a reliable source of information. Take a look at Surat Railway station & Mumbai Rajdhani page main images. For sometime the exact same image was posted there & despite explaining in detail why the particular image was incorrect, he still refuses to accept it. What do you suggest i do with such a person because talking to him is of no use or there is a way to explain how the Great Eastern royale building (in the background)in Tardeo area of Mumbai got transported to Surat ?? Perhaps there is a way to explain how Mumbai Central & Surat railway station have identical layouts. Problem is i cant explain it & it is pointless asking someone who's ego is offended by superior work. If as he claims they are irrelevant then why except him is no one removing them. He has been targeting my uploads but it puzzles me that when i undo them, i get blocked, he does it he gets a pep talk. Can you please explain it to me because i cant see any reason for it. As far as ownership of articles is concerned,i have long accepted that anyone from anywhere can edit anything but that is supposed to be based on facts not opinions. Besides i have made several offers to him to upload his work so that a impartial analysis of both our works can be done. I have yet to see a single upload in that direction but what i do see on his page is undone edits of various other people. Fact in this case is that a building in Mumbai cannot be used to depict Surat,opinion is that lets revert the edit because i don't like the other person & he is uploading more images than me especially since i cant match him for quality & quantity. There is a small quote from a John Grisham novel If a witness is unshakeable on facts then beat him up with insignificant details which is exactly the case here. This is completely unacceptable. Help me understand why facts are superseding opinions here. Had left a message for you on my talk page on 8th June. I do understand that that is not what you prefer but considering that i was not permitted to edit your talk page,it was the best that i could do. I have tried to be civil with everyone but i am only human. Superfast1111 (talk) 13:53, 28 June 2013 (UTC) Superfast1111 (talk) 04:42, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Please don't do that ... you simply needed to post in the original thread - do not start a new one. I will review my part of the situation, but you should review the grey box you see when you try to edit this page, specifically the part that says "(if) I declined your unblock request: since it has either expired, or someone else has unblocked you, understand that I do read very carefully. Don't push your fortuitous luck" (✉→BWilkins←✎) 10:12, 5 July 2013 (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.

I read your statement

Revenge? No. You were not venting, you were abusive. I'm a volunteer here - as are you. If you were a volunteer at the Boy Scouts and you pulled another volunteer into another room and swore at them, called them disgusting names, abused them, and verbally attacked them you would not be a volunteer there anymore. In fact, if you did that to me in person, I'd be laying charges against you - and I would win. Your actions were unwarranted, and you seem to think that they should be instantly forgiven ... even though you're not asking for forgiveness. On what planet do you believe such vitriol is appropriate? This project is an electronic workspace - the same rules for the real world apply here

I read this statement of yours. I can't think of anything appropriate to say at this time. I saw you were trying to be helpful in the mess Mr T was in. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 12:25, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

I cannot tell whether you're in agreement with the comment, shocked by the comment, or trashing me for the comment ... we all know my feelings on civility as a whole (✉→BWilkins←✎) 13:58, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Though all of us are volunteers of unknown expertise, we all imagine that we are all involved in a serious business - I believe that we should be as formal and civil as possible. There is no excuse too good to allow anyone to indulge in profanity and not express remorse and seek forgiveness. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 14:22, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Incivility is however only a part of the whole issue. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 15:28, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Your e-mail

In reply to your e-mail, I don't see anything in your discussion with the user you refer to that would cause me to change my assessment of the situation, sorry.  Sandstein  19:31, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

suggestion:

Perhaps you and I could have a talk .. maybe email or something so as to not raise the drama levels on wiki. this is very discouraging BMW. If you honestly don't understand the "why" .. I will try to explain. I have a TON of respect for you. If you remember, I did support your first RfA .. and truly admired your work at WQA. But I've been watching some things that honestly sadden me. Could we talk please? yes/no/maybe? — Ched :  ?  21:22, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Ched, you know you're always welcome to e-mail me ... I do trust/respect you (✉→BWilkins←✎) 21:25, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks BW. I'll drop you a line tomorrow. — Ched :  ?  00:14, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

I'll assume you deemed it to be unnecessary? Cheers (✉→BWilkins←✎) 13:11, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Clarification

I know the part about not pushing my luck & thats not what i am trying to do. the only reason i wrote to you was that i wish i could understand your decision a little better. It still does'nt make sense to me. I only wish i knew what that was about not to mention how the other person got away with a pep talk & i got a suspension. That hurts more than any thing.

Sorry if i offended you on any front. Superfast1111 (talk) 17:49, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

What's MORE offensive is that you keep creating new threads, instead of posting inside the one that's currently active. Stop it! Keep your conversations together in one place. As I'm not the blocking admin, I honestly did not get involved in WHO was blocked - I merely reviewed YOUR unblock (hence the WP:NOTTHEM comment. If you want to know why the blocking admin didn't block the both of you, ask them, not me - although, I'd suggest it's likely unwise (✉→BWilkins←✎) 17:53, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

But the above thread clearly mentioned that it has been archived & should not be modified. I have already asked the editor although now i regret it. He did what he felt was the right thing. My question to you was 'how should i have framed my request that would have convinced you to lift my suspension. Thats all. Once again sorry for troubling you. If you wish to reply then do so here,i have marked this page for follow up. Superfast1111 (talk) 05:57, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Are you kidding me? The above thread was archived because you already HAD an existing thread much earlier at User talk:Bwilkins#A little help...which is where everything was supposed to go. I have pointed you at WP:GAB many, many times, as well as warned you against WP:NOTTHEM and WP:EBUR. Those are links to pages, click them and follow them - that is how you should have framed your unblock request. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 09:57, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

RfA reform

I only asked a few, and I really simply forgot to ask you to chime in here. There's a bit of reading to get up to speed, but not too much - comments on the talk page. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 18:28, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Much thanks!

Hi BWilkins. Just a big thank you for your quick response to the Head East situation. I hope the band's representativ will uderstand and be satisfied with the changes made. I try to sit in my little cybercorner going about my work quietly and not get involved in the "big picture", disputes, etc. but I really felt I needed some help with this one due to possible legal ramifications. Thanks again and have a great Wiki kinda day! Sector001 (talk) 12:58, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

No problem. I don't want to get too involved in the article itself, but the wording should help, as should my note on their talkpage (✉→BWilkins←✎) 13:06, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Precaution note

Friendly note: don't you dare burning out. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 16:13, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

- especially over editors who travel the world. I know, I know, I've been slapped on the wrist by the wriggly one over this too ;) Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:08, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Those who travel the world; those whose skies are filled with gourds, and the occasional IPv4 address ... at the end of the day, they're doing me less damage than rocket shells landing outside of a compound. Although some days, the latter is actually more comfortable (✉→BWilkins←✎) 15:13, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Outstanding unblock request

Hey Bwilkins. I was trudging through the backlog of requests at WP:RFU and noticed there is a request waiting for a response from you at User talk:Petahhz. Looks like the user has agreed to your conditions....Cheers, --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 20:35, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

That must have been like ... a week ago? Maybe one of my tps'ers will take care of it :-) (✉→BWilkins←✎) 22:15, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

I've unblocked the user. It's my first. I'll keep an eye on things best I can. Please let me know if there's something I should be doing or should know, and if I got the procedure itself right. Cheers, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:57, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Account that just got blocked but has multiple accounts that are not accounted for

Hey there, got a quick question: This madman got blocked yesterday for disruptive editing and harassing me on my talkpage, in fact I don't think he has edited an article in two months.. But he has used multiple accounts, Such as: User:Hulkster2, User:Tucker2006 shouldn't they be blocked aswell? Or should I file an SPi, or should I just ignore this. Thoughts? Prabash.Akmeemana 18:00, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

• First, don't call him names ... I wouldn't want to have to block you for WP:NPA :-) Second, multiple accounts are permitted, as long as they're not used abusively and are linked properly. I note that the block is for a mere 31hrs ... we only need to block the other accounts if he tries to login to one of them in order to WP:EVADE his current block. If he does that, let me know. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 18:12, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Heh, true, I'm a bit tough on new editors, I'm more like a ruthless tyrannical warlord here. if you block me.. Yeah I would deserve it, Personal attacks are serious. The one above wasn't direct but its still a WP:NPA. By the way I just realized you are editing from Canada, well same here though I'm from Toronto, Ontario which is a much better place than Ottawa ;) . If he does evade, which I think he won't, I will ping you in. Best Prabash.Akmeemana 18:28, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Hmmm...I've lived in Toronto ... I'll have to disagree with your opinion of betterness of place LOL (✉→BWilkins←✎) 22:10, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

• PBASH607, I'm not sure why you are here asking about it since GorrillaWarfare is the one who set the block in place. Anyways, this looks like a classic case of WP:ROPE to me, and based on my previous encounters with H1, I have a suspicion that leans much further to a "that's too bad" than it does to "that's great" but only time will tell... Technical 13 (talk) 00:21, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

  Technical 13 I went to BMW, because he's reliable and the fact that GorillaWarfare told me she has work and is busy, I really don't want to disturb her, but I will ping her in anyways I guess. Prabash.Akmeemana 03:35, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

  Just a curiosity. :) Technical 13 (talk) 12:58, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

User:Technical 13, just like you have a habit of approaching admins you have a positive history with, Prabash is doing the same thing ... you should never be questionning things like that (✉→BWilkins←✎) 13:54, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Bwikins, I wouldn't consider my history with many admins as positive. Most of them are neutral in my book, and none ar negative. I personally would go to the blocking admin (and actually I did ask GW why such a short block for someone who has been trolling and disruptive and pointy and not here to build an encyclopedia in my mind). Anyways, if you consider out history as positive, that is good to know. :) Happy editing and happy administrating. Anyways, back to tending to the baby and my GF that is recovering from surgery. :D Technical 13 (talk) 15:49, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Wingard

Wingard has come back from their block and are once again making the edits they were banned for a year for! It's clear this user has not learned their lesson. 71.233.227.127 (talk) 17:49, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately,  Done For someone who says they speak good English, they certainly don't read it well (✉→BWilkins←✎) 17:57, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

A quiet "Thank you"

There is a moment around me in which no one is screaming banshee-like in my eyes and ears. You are responsible for this quietude. For this, know that I am grateful. My own patience was worn so thin.... AfD is hard enough without the needless accusations and fingerpointing. A moment of silence like a snowfall. I am grateful for this. I am one of many. KDS4444^Talk 23:17, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Contrary to the belief of some, I do not enjoy blocking. In this case, there was no choice - they should have got the hint in the early part of the ANI that they were doing the wrong thing. Hopefully the rest of the AfD goes ok ... I expect there to be some instant SPA's pop up as likely WP:SOCKs ... keep an eye out for them (✉→BWilkins←✎) 23:26, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Will do. The socks shall not overcome. I shall eat all the socks! (woah, brain still swimming!). And I understand your feelings on blocking users. I don't enjoy nominating articles for deletion, but I do it sometimes when it seems right— sometimes they are kept, sometimes deleted. I understand that the point is to proceed with caution, and to act when we have clarity, and to learn from the acting. Which all sounds very zen, but in fact is just the result of a few cups of good tea. Cheers! KDS4444^Talk 04:08, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

A necessary block, but obviously I would say that. On a more lighthearted note, are you not my friend then?! :) GiantSnowman 10:42, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

In the sense that we've never sat down and had a pint...or helped each other move (or hide a body), no :-) (✉→BWilkins←✎) 10:44, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Let's say "yet" to all of those scenarios, just in case... GiantSnowman 10:49, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Start Snuggle

responded

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.

---

Hi Bwilkins. I've responded to your "not done" comments on the request page. I don't think I was doing anything wrong, I'm not removing references, just hiding them temporarily so that the errors don't show. By the way, your signature is a bit confusing, it took me a while to work out how to get to your talk page. Flying Buttress (talk) 10:59, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Please don't use that board for discussion. I have replied there, but I should not have. If you do not understand the errors you're making, it does show that you're not quite ready for autoconfirmed status. As I have noted, I appreciate what you're trying to do, but fix rather than hide. Note also: how is my signature confusing? My name links to my User page, the envelope leads to my talkpage, and the pencil leads to my contributions ... all of those can link to my talkpage as well ... nothing remotely confusing, unless you're new :-) (✉→BWilkins←✎) 13:51, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

I've got to say, you're really giving out mixed messages. There's nothing to say "don't discuss at that page" on the page, along with the fact that you discussed the matter on the page. But ok, I won't respond there further. Also, I didn't think there was any "status" associated with autoconfirmed, I thought it was just a "stop spam" thing. I won't argue further because, to be blunt, given your actions and discussion style I don't trust your opinion on this matter. Finally, I apologise for my comments about your signature, I've been reading further and there's nothing wrong with it, it just confused me. Flying Buttress (talk) 14:23, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm trying to help you right here on my talkpage ... I'm not sure what the issue is. AutoConfirmed status is given after 4 days/10 edits as we believe that by then, the editor will have a) read up on policies, b) tried a few thigns, c) learned a few things - it has little to do with anti-spam. There's no mixed message - you seem to be completely unwilling to listen to the simple piece of advice: fix, don't remove - and hiding is considered removing. One of the awesome things you seem to be doing is closing ref tags. Please stop hiding the others, FIX them instead (✉→BWilkins←✎) 14:34, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

The reason I'm struggling to "listen" is because you're not actually telling me anything. You just keep repeating "fix" "fix" "fix". Yet, I'm following the exact same fix that other wikipedian's have done, that is to accept that the there is a reason the reference has been removed within the text, and tidying up the reference list by hiding now unused reference. By "fix" you appear suggesting that I re-add removed content or find somewhere else to use the same reference, just because it's nice to have references. That's not right, as the content shouldn't necesarily be replaced. I'm more than willing to take advice, but saying a single word ("fix") and assuming that I'll be able to work it all out from there is just unhelpful. Flying Buttress (talk) 14:45, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

You know what, just forget it. I was enjoying plodding along and fixing things but all I've done for the last few hours is read essays and documentation to try and prove one of us wrong. This isn't what I want to do with my spare time. I'm going to log off and see if I can get a bit more motivation to do useful stuff tomorrow. Flying Buttress (talk) 15:01, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Oi. I'm sorry you followed the actions of others, as all it's done is confuse and frustrate you...and you're taking it out on me (but hey, what else are admins for :-) ). Let me try to be more clear, and hopefully more helpful. First, REM'ing out references is wrong (by REM, I mean using the HTML coding of <!-- --> around it. The minor error you were seeing was cause by something simple: the first time you use a specific source in an article and you intend to use it again, you need to "define" it as a named reference. From that point forward, doing ref's is much simpler. What happens when you see that error is because nobody has yet named the ref. As per the link I gave you, it's very simple to fix. It's not your fault the error went funny ... that usually because someone removed the first instance of that ref somewhere in the article. So, instead of REMing it out, you simply needed to add name=whatever to the original <ref ...> statement. Again, my intent is not to frustrate you ... my goal is to be helpful, and I have more than once thanked you for the stuff you're trying to do ... I'm simply saying "don't follow others leads" (✉→BWilkins←✎) 16:52, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Thankyou, that was much more clear and much more helpful. It does look like we've been talking about different things here, which might have caused the whole confusion. Allow me to demonstrate with a wikitable and some nowiki tabs (thanks for showing me that!)

Why
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Situation 1 Situation 2 Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipisicing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua.<ref name='REF-A'>{{cite foo bar}}</ref> Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur.<ref name='REF-A'/> Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum ==References== {{reflist}} Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipisicing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua.<ref name='REF-B'/> Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum ==References== {{reflist|refs= <ref name='REF-B'>{{cite foo bar}}</ref> }}

You've spent your time helpfully describing Situation 1. If the first instance of REF-A gets removed, we get an error on the second REF-A. The fix there is to find what REF-A was, and place it into the second (now only) instance of REF-A. In that case, "REM"ing the reference would definitely be the wrong thing to do. However, I was dealing with Situation 2. In that situation, when you remove REF-B, there are no instances remaining within the article text. That should be fixed by REMing the reference in the reflist, surely. Flying Buttress (talk) 12:45, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

I looked at a bunch of the edits and found instances of 1 ... I did not look for instances of 2 because the 1's were significant enough, IMHO (✉→BWilkins←✎) 13:33, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Could you look again? Every edit I made with the comment "hidden unused reference" was situation 2. I only did it 5 times.

I think (if I remember rightly) the only time I looked came close to situation 1 was my comments at Talk:Angry_Birds#Edit_request_on_11_July_2013, but I didn't actually make the change. I'm sorry if it's a little extra work for you, but I'd really appreciate the vindication. Flying Buttress (talk) 13:40, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Well, if your sole goal is "vindication", you're on your own. Good luck. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 13:54, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Honestly, I'm not trying to play games, I just felt that you told me off for something I didn't do. You appear to have agreed with me above, but then mentioned that you "found instances of 1"... but I didn't do that. I'm not looking for apologies or looking to rub your face in anything, I just want to know, for my own benefit that I didn't do anything wrong... or if I did do something wrong what it was that I did wrong so that I won't do it again. I understand if you won't help, I got frustrated with you yesterday and if you just want to get rid of me, that's fine - but if that is the case, can you give me the details of someone else to ask? Flying Buttress (talk) 14:05, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

I never told you off; period. I saw something that seemed at the time to be a minor issue, and other than that saw no additional reasons or requirements to grant confirmed status early. I praised you for your work overall. Maybe I was wrong in what I thought I saw, but it was based on a cursory glance. If I was right, I was right. If I was wrong, then oops, sorry. However, the minute you use the word "vindication", I have zero time for you. Move on - if you honestly believe it's not an issue, then it's not an issue: I never posted a formal warning on your talkpage, made threats, or harassed you ... so no harm, no foul. As I said - and the reason this thread is CLOSED because the word "vindication" has connotations that I have zero desire to be a part of. I won't be following your edits, and anticipate never crossing paths again in the future. Again, GOOD LUCK, and thanks for your early work so far on this project. Based on the above, any further posts by you related to this will be immediately reverted (✉→BWilkins←✎) 14:18, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I'll keep trying and have found somewhere else to ask. I didn't realise "vindication" had such strong connotations here and won't use it again. Flying Buttress (talk) 14:29, 12 July 2013 (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.

IRC office hours for wiki-mentors and Snuggle users

Hi. We're organizing an office hours session with the Teahouse to bring in mentors from across the wiki to try out Snuggle and discuss it's potential to support mentorship broadly. The Snuggle team would appreciate it if you would come and participate in the discussion. We'll be having it in #wikimedia-office ^connect on Wed. July 17th @ 1600 UTC. See the agenda for more info. --EpochFail^{(talk • work)}, Technical 13 (talk), TheOriginalSoni (talk) 19:39, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

This message was delivered by: Prabash.Akmeemana 02:48, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Review a user?

I noticed that you'd warned User:Fandemode, previously User:Strandofsilk. The problem is this: the user had been warned about creating spam content. They claimed that they'd learned their lesson and that they wouldn't do anything of that nature. HOWEVER, yesterday User:Strandofsilk created a spam userpage. I've blocked both Strandofsilk and Fandemode, as they are the same person and they'd been warned about spamming on Wikipedia. I figured I should ask another opinion on this, just in case. The problem is that this user had the password and login info for that account, so it's pretty suspicious that all of a sudden someone else is uploading spam under the same username. ([22], [23]) If you want to show mercy and unblock them, that's fine. The other account (Fandemode) was stale, but I didn't want to run the risk of them spamming again. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 18:10, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Looks correct to me ... WP:ROPE is only so long, and a promise is a promise (✉→BWilkins←✎) 18:13, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

• Thanks! I was worried that maybe I was being a bit too strict- I tend to have little empathy for blatant spammers that show no sign of changing their ways, but even less for situations like this. I'm glad it's not just me being overly harsh. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:23, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Lots of questions I need to have answered ASAP!

Dear Bawilkins,

Sorry, I didn't know how to get this across, but I thought that this was the best way to do so. I do apologize. Anyway, here are my questions. Hopefully you can answer them. :D

1. How can I get to know the community on Wikipedia better?

2. What does it take to get blocked from editing on Wikipedia? (I hope that never happens to me).

3. How do you make an edit such as replacing principle image of an article-

   -that you put on the article that you edited removable ONLY by the person asking you permission- 
    -to replace the image that you put on the article?

4. What do people on the Wikipedia Community usually talk about? I would like to know.

5. What is auto-edit and how does it work?

6. Can I use auto-edit as well?

7. How can I become a well known user on Wikipedia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Keeby101 (talk • contribs) 19:27, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Keeby101, first thing first, WP is no social network, though you can get to know the community better, by creating articles and participating in discussions in a civil manner. Secondly, don't even get started with the block talk, getting blocked from wikipedia usually means you have done something bad (see WP:BLOCK), which I doubt you will do, If you want to know what the wikipedia community talks about, see: The Village Pump. Prabash.Akmeemana 21:42, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

• I have answered these questions as fully as possible at User talk:Keeby101 where they were originally posted, and which is the best venue for the answers. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:17, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Complete a full block on a user?

I noticed that you declined a username request for User:Speirosmusic. He's been declined several times and at this point he's just using his talk page to spout vitrol and abuse about the editors. I'd block him from editing his talk page since there's not a snowball's chance of him getting unblocked anytime soon, but I'm involved in this and it'd look bad. Can you change his block level to where he can't edit his talk page? He has nothing to contribute, doesn't appear to have understood his reasons for blocking, and is just being abusive and attacking people at this point in time. (User talk:Speirosmusic) Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:11, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

• I mean, if it was just me then I'd just shrug it off, but he's insulting other editors as well. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:15, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Done. Has he also removed his block notice and any declined unblocks? I didn't see any ... was going to go back and find where they went (✉→BWilkins←✎) 10:00, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

• Thanks! I don't see where he's removed anything from what I can see. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:30, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Pudeo's block

I didn't link your username in a comment on Pudeo's talk page (and therefore you didn't get a notification), so, in case you care to know, I unblocked Pudeo (talk · contribs), an editor whose unblock request you rejected a few days ago. As I said in my review notice, it was obvious the offending edit was a mistake -- as Pudeo stated during his first unblock request. -- tariqabjotu 02:45, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

I cannot believe you can see that as a mistake - it's very clearly not, and I've re-read that entire exchange a dozen times or so. However, in your unblock you've now trashed the blocking admin and myself - poorly done. It's one thing to accept that it might not happen again, or to give a huge amount of benefit of the doubt, but to trash my (and the blocking admin) ability to read the English language is absolutely uncalled for. You can let the editor off, but don't trash the admins who actually did their job while doing so. Disgusting. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 10:11, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Ridiculous edits with no apparent ability to read, or review the situation as a whole - instead, I'm being accused of things that clearly DID NOT happen
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Tariq explains clearly why it was an obvious erroneous block in his unblock rationale. Read it carefully. If you think he's mistaken, take it to your peers at WP:AN for their input. Calling him or his behaviour disgusting just makes you look foolish and petulant, and compounds the impression that your judgment and treatment of people disqualifies you from sanctioning or "controlling" anyone but very obvious vandals and confirmed socks. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 10:51, 15 July 2013 (UTC) Oh, I did read it carefully, and casting aspersions on one's colleagues is never kosher. Why in <insert deity>'s name would I go to AN when it's far less drama to politely bring it to tariq's attention so that in the future they may remember that their colleagues are also human, and don't appreciate being trashed for no reason. I cannot fathom why you'd suggest immediately jumping into drama - pretty sure tariq and I can work this out like adults. I expect better from you Anthony - really, I'm a bit surprised by the content and tone of the above, and the sudden desire to come here and taunt me. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 10:56, 15 July 2013 (UTC) Politely? My comment was prompted by your "disgusting" comment that you dramatically chose to trumpet in your edit summary. I know you mean well but I have a lot of problems with the way you interact with others, and am of the view that you shouldn't sanctioning others here. I'll be very interested to see if, on reflection or with the help of others, you ever come round to acknowledging that you upheld a very bad block. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 11:12, 15 July 2013 (UTC) I see your good faith isn't working today - that's a shame. I'll be interested to see if, on reflection or with the help of others, you ever get it back. I don't believe you and I have ever had negative interactions - I cannot fathom why you'd get a stick in your butt regarding me suddenly today. Whether you believe it was a bad block or not, you too have to WP:AGF, or else there's no need for anyone to take any advice from you. You randomly showed up here in attack mode when none was required - and inserted yourself into an attempt for me to politely discuss this with Tariq, while showing I was offended by his phrasing of things - brilliantly done! (✉→BWilkins←✎) 11:17, 15 July 2013 (UTC) Sorry if you feel offended by me turning up here and telling you what I think of your people skills. And you seem to have been offended by Tariq turning up at that editor's page and overriding your decision not to unblock. I can understand you being upset by that. I'd be, at least temporarily, miffed by that. Can you imagine how the blocked editor felt being blocked for an obvious error, having his explanation dismissed and having the block upheld by an admin who randomly showed up at his talk page? This isn't (only) about your feelings. It's also about your seeming to be more concerned by a perceived insult (or two) to you than for the effect of your ill-considered behaviour on a good-faith and productive editor. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 11:33, 15 July 2013 (UTC) Actually, I'm not at all "miffed" that another admin unblocked. If you actually read above I said that I beliive Tariq was wrong in their assessment, but I'm not "miffed" at an unblock. I'm "miffed" and his phrasing of the unblock which flat-out stated that the blocking admin and I are clueless and didn't read. Maybe in your hurry to attack me you failed to read it - and once again I'll emphasize got yourself involved in someone else's conversation (✉→BWilkins←✎) 12:10, 15 July 2013 (UTC) It doesn't matter what you're offended by. Can you consider for a moment the feelings of the blocked editor, please? Though Tariq would have been perfectly justified in flat-out stating that the blocking admin and you are clueless and didn't read (in this instance), he said nothing of the kind. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 12:49, 15 July 2013 (UTC) Perhaps you should admit that you did not investigate the relevant diff[24] at all before declining the unblock request. There is no way it could have been an attack of any kind. Making a mistake now and then is acceptable, but making a mistake and failing to understand something as simple as that, and berating others for making you look wrong when you did wrong, certainly creates concerns.OrangesRyellow (talk) 12:56, 15 July 2013 (UTC) If I was to state that I had not investigated the relevant diff, then I would be lying ... I reviewed the entire situation around the block, and the unblock request ... WTF are you commenting here for when you clearly have not read anything in the above. I mean Anthony hasn't read to begin with, but Oranges, you're just being clueless right now. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 14:52, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Rather than be baited into any more puerile pissing contests by people who refused to actually read and instead want to make ridiculous accusations, I'll wait for Tariq - after all, it's myself and Tariq SOLELY who should be involved in this conversation (✉→BWilkins←✎) 14:52, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

I am surprised you still think the block was warranted, even after reading Pudeo's second explanation of what happened. Again, here's an obvious possibility of what happened. Pudeo initially started typing Statement 1:

It's positive that you have a very tight scrutiny here, but I think it would be best for all of us if you assumed some good faith...

Maybe he continued by writing Statement 2:

It's patronizing, a bit offensive and discouraging.

He signs and previews the comment and at some point decides he wants to add something else between Statement 1 and Statement 2. That being said, he was going back and forth between different tabs, perhaps multi-tasking with something on or off the Internet. He may or may not have taken a break from the comment, because something else demanded his attention. Perhaps a friend from South Africa wants to Skype with him. Maybe he saw some news story on TV that briefly captivated his attention. In any event, he eventually returned to the comment he was making and continued by inserting, before the end of his comment, Statement 3a:

...didn't prejudice a group of editors as a bunch of hooligans...

Again, he's probably still multi-tasking with something on or off the Internet. Maybe he needs to attend to something on the stove, maybe his wife is calling him, or maybe someone on Facebook is having a conversation with him and tells him to go check out a hilarious cat video. Regardless, he returned to the page he was editing. He might have thought he already written something between Statement 1 and Statement 2, and obviously couldn't find it as there clearly was nothing between them. He just assumes he's mistaken -- that he never wrote anything else, or that in his hurried state, accidentally deleted it. He doesn't realize that he did write Statement 3a, but in the wrong place. So he proceeds to instead write an equivalent statement (Statement 3b):

...did not hint the editors interested in this project are a bunch of hooligans...

And, continuing with Statement 4:

...that are prone to doing every sort of abuse.

He doesn't preview and, viola, there's the offending edit.

Now, if you return to Pudeo's second explanation, you'll see my conjecture is not precisely how it went. But it's a reasonable conjecture that could have been inferred after viewing the initial edit, and certainly after Pudeo's insistence that what happened was a mistake:

Apparently my edit has text inserted in the wrong place, after Cailil's message too. The "prejudiced as..." after Cailil's message is part of my original wording which I changed for the final comment. I must have written that in the wrong place after being disoriented by switching browser tabs while writing it. I apologize for not previewing changes and not noticing it before I posted it.

Indeed, the only thing he's guilty of is not paying close enough attention. Editing mistakes are common. Someone accidentally removes another person's comment. Someone accidentally posts a comment in the wrong place. This kind of thing happens all the time, and when people make such mistakes, the proper response is to either just fix the mistake or ask them what occurred. Particularly when the editor in question is a long-time editor with no history of such behavior, such bizarre edits enjoin third-parties to assume some good faith. For some reason, that was not afforded to Pudeo, certainly by KillerChihuahua and apparently by you as well.

Instead both you and KillerChihuahua assumed that he intentionally, and maliciously, manufactured an attack by Cailil and then responded to it. This just doesn't make sense.

First, people have watchlists and can look at the edit history of a page. It is exceedingly easy for someone to just click the diff link in the watchlist and notice that someone else's comment from more than a week earlier was modified. You'll see that KillerChihuahua noticed very quickly, less than an hour later. Unless you think Pudeo is stupid, no one would do such a thing.

Second, there was no attack. You and KillerChihuahua allege that Pudeo "inserted a personal attack" into Cahill's comment. After the insertion of the mistaken text, one gets the following:

Given the history of offsite targeting of individual wikipedians who make edits that might be unpalatable to the Men's rights movement - what steps will this project take to uphold wikipedia's values and its standards for conduct towards others ... didn't prejudice a group of editors as a bunch of hooligans.

I don't know how you ascertain an attack from that. Heck, I don't understand how you ascertain anything from that, as the comment makes no sense. The portion "didn't prejudice a group of editors as a bunch of hooligans" just looks to be inserted haphazardly at the end of a complete thought. Rather than think that, I don't know, it was inserted haphazardly at the end of a complete thought, you two thought that it was meant to generate an attack. Again, what attack? I don't know. Mind-boggling.

Third, Pudeo's actual comment is not a response to the haphazard text. Putting aside, once more, the fact that the mistaken text makes the last sentence nonsensical, it is obvious from reading his comment that he felt Cailil hinted the editors interested in the project are a bunch of hooligans. How do I know that? Because those are his precise words. Yes, he said hinted. Why would he say hinted if he was (intentionally) surreptitiously putting the word "hooligans" in Cailil's comment? Pudeo's comment, whether you agree with his sentiment or not, makes perfect sense in response to Cailil's remarks. Pudeo obviously felt that Cailil was suggesting ("hinting") that those interested in a men's rights project were "prone to every sort of abuse" ("hooligans") and so we needed assurances they wouldn't act in such a manner. Pudeo felt that this sentiment (which is how he interpreted Cailil's remarks) was "patronizing, a bit offensive and discouraging".

Had either of you recognized at least one of these three points, even if you couldn't personally relate to an incident where an editing mistake was made, you might have realized the absurdity of the allegations levied against Pudeo.

What you see as "trashing" you and the blocking admin was a necessity to make it very clear that the block was unwarranted. Pudeo now has this black mark in his permanent block log -- nothing, unfortunately, can change that. I know many people (myself included, and I imagine yourself too) would be unhappy if their clean block log of many years was tarnished by a lengthy unwarranted action against them. So, should Pudeo run for adminship or some other position of responsibility, I want it to be very clear that KillerChihuahua's block should be completely disregarded; in fact, I regret not being clearer about that in my unblock statement in Pudeo's block log. I see my remark in the unblocking statement on Pudeo's talk page as quite respectful, especially considering I honestly found the actions of you and KillerChihuahua to be hasty, illogical, and inconsiderate. I never said anything about your ability to read the English language; on the contrary, I said I was at a loss as to how this was missed. I understand that, just like with Pudeo's questionable edit, mistakes are made when people don't pay attention.

I don't need to give deference to the idea that a mistake will not happen again or that, unlike two other admins, I'm not jumping to absurd conclusions. I am not letting anyone off; I am doing my best to erase the injustice generated by two admins who shot first and asked questions later didn't ask questions. If anything is "disgusting" here, it is your strident insistence that your interpretation is right -- that Pudeo's edit was "very clearly not" a mistake -- despite allegedly reading Pudeo's explanation a dozen times and despite multiple people now pointing out your mistake. Or perhaps "ironic" might be the better word, as you have criticized Anthonyhcole for not assuming good faith, when you were/are unwilling to do the same for Pudeo. Perhaps "ironic" might be better, as you explicitly called OrangesRyellow "clueless", but are offended because you think I suggested (as I most certainly did not say) that adjective applied to you. Perhaps "ironic" is appropriate here, as you said two editors have "no apparent ability to read" and then feel affronted by me allegedly implying that you can't read English.

I was just pointing out my block overturn as a courtesy, and just expected you to mentally acknowledge your mistake and move on without responding. But given the way you have treated me, Anthonyhcole, and OrangesRyellow for politely, and rightfully, challenging your judgement, absent an acknowledgement right now that the block was unwarranted and that you'll drop the matter, I am eager to bring this matter to ANI for confirmation of the impropriety of the block and admonishment of your tone here. -- tariqabjotu 18:32, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Tariq, first, I appreciate your arrival. Even reviewing your statements above, I still see a far different possibility as to what happened, and it's one that actually makes more sense overall without any conjecture. That is, of course, my point of view having reviewed the entire sequence of events a half dozen times - including 4 more times today. So, it seems that we differ on the interpretation of what happens - and you know what, that's ok.

Above all else, I am not at all averse to your unblocking - if it was indeed as you see it, then we'll never have a similar situation again from this user, and that's awesome. If I was right, we've either corrected the behaviour (which is the goal of a block), or you've given them enough WP:ROPE. I will have faith in you that it's the former (i.e. you're right, and I'm wrong).

The problem seems to be now between us - which surprises me. You see, I dislike admins trashing other admins. Your unblock was based on your belief (which I still disagree with), but you trashed me and the blocking admin in your unblock - that's 100% inappropriate. It's your belief that the block was unwarranted - I still disagree. Was it possible to phrase your unblock in such a away that you didn't trash people? Of course - an ounce of WP:AGF with something such as "although I can possibly understand the POV of X and Y, it's my belief that...". Maybe the word "disgusting" was a bit beyond, but with some of the sickening things going on across this project, I'm literally becoming disgusted.

So, I have never treated you poorly - whatsoever. Did I want you to know that I was appalled by your choice of words? Damned right. Do we disagree? Clearly, yes - but that's human nature. Have I attacked you? Nope. Have I treated you poorly? Nope. I expressed my personal feeling about what your wording did - hoping that you'd choose more neutral wording next time.

In terms of the other 2 editors you mention, they came right here to attack - there was no politeness whatsoever, and they showed zero good faith whatsoever. They had no business approaching me in the manner they did. Indeed, when I'm simply waiting for you to advise me why you used such an inflammatory unblock request, I was lambasted - not cool, not kosher.

I have no idea what you mean by "my tone here" - I felt attacked by you, and then was literally attacked by 2 editors while I was trying to understand why you did what you did to me; I'm pretty sure I'm allowed to have a bit of a "tone" after that, if you consider my original shock/disbelief as a "tone".

So yes, it's possible that a whole whack of people fucked up. However, there are two victims: the now-unblocked editor and me...and you're sitting there saying that I'm supposed to have accepted unwarranted attacks and still be a victim. Fantastic. Go ahead, take it to ANI (✉→BWilkins←✎) 19:27, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Seems to me, judging from your comments in previous incidents, that you have hardly any ability to assume good faith about non-admins and your comments about admins essentially needing to cover each other's asses even when they disagree is indicative of you having a very snobbish attitude about what it means to be an admin. I can chalk KC's initial block up to being swept up in the moment as often happens with our "civility" enforcement, but for you it seems to be a persistent problem of assuming the worst of non-admins. Tariq was indeed right to unblock and his expression of surprise at the block and your decline is well within reason.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 21:57, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

That's offensive, clearly false, clearly unproven (or unprovable), and goes 180 degrees against my philosophy and actions on this project. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 09:36, 17 July 2013 (UTC)