Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 01:01, 23 July 2012

This is DangerousPanda's talk page, where you can send him messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15Auto-archiving period: 15 days

User:Doktorbuk

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

ANI

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

Wikipoodling

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

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

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

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

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

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

Draft

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

Jaan and your wikilink to "TRUTH"

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

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

Bridge Boy & personal attacks

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

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

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

Assume good faith

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

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

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

Bridge Boy

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

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

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

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

Company articles

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

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

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

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

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

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

Note

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

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

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

ANI

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

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

TheIrishWarden

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

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

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

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

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

WP: PERM

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

Misplaced Pages:Bot owners' noticeboard#Marking inactive bots so

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

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

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

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

The community rejected Rcsprinter123's position that:

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

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

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

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

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

User:Mla46ed

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

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

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

WT: PERM

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bureaucracy

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A barnstar for you!

The Civility Barnstar

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

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

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

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

A Barnstar for you!!

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

Please give me some help.

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

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

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

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

Filter

You triggered a false positive of one of the filters. I notified the filter creator to remedy it on your behalf. - Penwhale | 01:03, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Respected Admin

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

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

RfA

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

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

What are you doing?

Can you actually read?

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

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

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

VolunteerMarek 11:55, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

Re Grin

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

urgent: 82.132.244.13

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

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

Your block of VM

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Comments on Jimbo's page

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

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

expiry date

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

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

Civility

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

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

Some thoughts

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Block reviews cant be deleted

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

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

user shrike

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

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

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

Advice

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A barnstar for you!

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

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

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

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

User: Mike Rosoft

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

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

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

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

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

Just FYI

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

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

thanks

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

user shrike part 2

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

I'm curious.

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

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

User GabeMc request for comment

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