Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by EatsShootsAndLeaves (talk | contribs) at 10:40, 23 September 2012 (→An intelligent discussion is better than a diatribe or attack: reply to your PS). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Mark your main account

Can you mark your main account on this accounts user page in a more explicit way, the use of ] is unnecessary obfuscation (I only found it after looking at the source and I knew what I was looking for). IRWolfie- (talk) 17:34, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I don't think it's confusing. Anyone who's trying to find out who ESAL is can click on the link and discover that its BMW's alternative account. Electric Catfish 20:06, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

• I agree with Electric Catfish, it is clear who EatsShootsAndLeaves is, and there has been no intention on his part of obfuscating the past. Kurtis (talk) 22:56, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

No it is not clear, and that's the way this person wants it; below he or she says he or she has intentionally distanced him or herself from his or her other account. If I have a hard time accepting the declared rationale for this (and I do), it's because when I complained about running afoul of anti-sockpuppet measures for what I feel is the entirely legitimate reason of trying to get around Chinese censorship in an entirely transparent way as far as my (single) username is concerned, this person responded to my request for assistance by coming out of supposed admin retirement to tell me that my edits had just best be left reverted! This was soon followed up by instructing me to not be a "dick".--Brian Dell (talk) 13:46, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Now hey there, lying about what was said about your edits and about instructing you do do something will not get you far. dangerouspanda 13:51, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

I asked about how to get an IP block exemption and described the content I wanted to restore and the circumstances I was in order to suggest that an exemption might be warranted in my case. You addressed the content, saying my source(s) "sounded like a blog" (which obviously implies a view that the article could do without material with such sources) and then referred me to the reliable source noticeboard (which most seven year plus Wikipedians like myself are probably already aware of). I took issue with your content view and after a back and forth you linked to WP:DICK. Now you've just claimed that this version of events constitutes "lies." Look, you could have referred me to WP:IPBE right off and avoided all of this drama. I came here to call attention to the drama in order to make the point that we might have less of this sort of drama and dubious behaviour generally if people were not so insistent on anonymity. You know where I normally live (from my Userpage), where I currently live, and my real name such that if you have any further issues with me you know where to find me.--Brian Dell (talk) 14:41, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Somehow my previous reply to this has been removed. Thanks for your lecture. This account is clearly linked to my primary account, which, as everyone knows, is my real name. You have also been shown where your version of the events in ANI do not match with what was actually said. So, with that in mind, I'm not overly sure what your point is above this. However, as you have been asked to refrain from posting here due to threats, this is not an invitation to reply. dangerouspanda 09:55, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

• I agree as well. There's no reason to change the way he marks this. I discovered the main account in half a second when I first saw EatsShootsAndLeaves. Ryan Vesey 22:59, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

If it's clear then why is Bwilkins edit warring to retain the obfuscation? Why is it an issue to reassure other editors by making it even more clear? IRWolfie- (talk) 23:09, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Why is someone edit-warring on my own userpage to re-add it? Some admins have alternate accounts that are named in such a way so that the "transference of power" to that account is obvious: everyone knows it's an admin behind it - I do not want that. My statements anywhere right now do not hold that behind them, because ANYBODY's statement should be as powerful as anyone else's without the implied threat. Indeed, I went so far in ANI to use "non-admin comment" for awhile. Once or twice, when involved in a discussion about policy, I have said "well...as an admin, I understand that". In a very recent discussion, someone has misread where I supposedly outed myself as an admin to force something, but it's obvious to all in re-reading it that it is not the case. I never said "do this or be blocked" using my main account, why would I ever do it using an alternate with no admin powers? dangerouspanda 10:21, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Basically your just confusing everyone if you refer to yourself as not an admin, and your userpage and user talk page doesn't help (you have a note about your admin account in it and admin actions) ; you can hand in your bit temporarily via a bureaucrat if you want to get a break from having it. You can then just ask a bureaucrat to put it back on again after your rest period. IRWolfie- (talk) 12:11, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

As far as I know, he can't do that because he runs 7SeriesBot. Ryan Vesey 12:46, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

@Ryan: At first, I didn't bother to question this. But when I went and looked at the contribution history of "7SeriesBot", 09:24, 14 October 2010 was the last activity of this little bot. If it is so important, why has Misplaced Pages been able to live without it for almost 2 years? As IRWolfie said, "you can hand in your bit temporarily via a bureaucrat if you want to get a break from having it. You can then just ask a bureaucrat to put it back on again after your rest period" -- Avanu (talk) 14:55, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

User:7SeriesBOT does not make edits, it deletes. See its FAQ. dangerouspanda 15:13, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

See the log to put other concerns to rest. Ryan Vesey 19:12, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

To someone with tens of thousands of edits

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.

I'm fine with the whole new name, distancing from old identity whatever it is, but you need to pick a name *and* a role and stay with it.

As I write this section, I see the following: "you want me to sign into my admin account to take care of something: odds are very good that it will not happen right now - I'm taking a break from my admin roles, and it would take some extra-special reason to go against that"

Yet, I just saw a post where you say: "Why not answer an admin here on your talkpage?"(link)

You've got a signature that makes your username appear to be "dangerouspanda", even though your username is "EatsShootsAndLeaves". On your user page, you have obfuscated your primary username, Bwilkins, with a promise to not act as a sock. In essence, you are doing several things that mix up who you are and what your intentions are. This is bad form and bad practice and unbecoming for a guy who is trusted with administrative rights and claims the status of "thousands of edits".

My two cents is that you need to either transfer the admin bit to this account or drop it. My other two cents is that you need to stop using a misleading signature that makes it appear as if you are some other editor. You claim this is all approved. I'd like you to request a review of these behaviors from your fellow admins. Thanks. -- Avanu (talk) 23:47, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

I agree - this is a misuse of multiple accounts. StAnselm (talk) 08:03, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Avanu: no, our signature policies are clear, thanks. StAnselm, no, it clearly is not socking. Intentions are obvious, and this misreading is pretty bad faith and brutal. I'll be happy to go back to Bwilkins - it's never been retired, and never intended to be retired. dangerouspanda 08:35, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Let me give my interpretation of the "issue" that's causing the ruckus here. We have an editor A who, rather than try and politely deal with another editor B directly, they went straight to complain at ANI that they "removed their post". Editor B was obviously quite confused for being "taken to ANI for your behaviour". The response at ANI was "looks like a simple edit conflict - no problem". Editor A said "oh, I'll AGF then". Editor B is still a bit pissed off. The only thing I have tried to get editor A to understand is that as Misplaced Pages is a community, they should have tried to work it out with editor B directly before calling the cops. Editor A instead became belligerent, insisting that he ONLY needs to respond to admins in ANI, rather than simply say "ok, I learned from this". It makes no difference if an editor, an admin, a buro asks the simple question - it's simple with no threat involved.

Regarding my signature: our signature policy quite clearly states that you may sign differently from your username, indeed, it's the preferred method to asking for a rename. This account is ancient, and there`s nothing illegal or improper.

Regarding the link on my userpage: it's been discussed ad nauseum, but has also been found to meet the policy.

More questions or misunderstandings? dangerouspanda 08:47, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

I appreciate that you responded so quickly, both here and at my Talk page. I don't agree with the sockpuppet case below or an AN/I for this, however, to be clear, I asked *you* to take it upon yourself to ask the admins en masse for their guidance on the issues I presented to you above. I personally feel that you are flaunting a line here, and I feel that this is unbecoming. I won't bring it up again; I dislike having to repeat myself over and over, but I believe this should make clear what my previous statement intended. -- Avanu (talk) 11:31, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Avanu, it's already been debated by numerous admins before - from the moment I temporarily abandoned my Bwilkins account. As it's already been debated and found to be fine, I'm not going to have a secondary (I think it would be fourth by now) debate. I'm AGF'd that you didn't see the first debates, a bit shocked that you of all people would edit-war on my userpage about it. I'm intentionally distanced from my admin account, and have gone out of my way to NOT claim to be an admin. At the same time, both accounts link clearly to each other through a single click dangerouspanda 11:47, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Misuse is too strong a word. IRWolfie- (talk) 12:12, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, unfortunately StAnselm's similar comment on Jason's talkpage due to his own misunderstanding of the related policies is what caused the ANI report. dangerouspanda 15:40, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

It's your deceitfulness that caused the misunderstanding when you make claims of being an admin or just a regular editor as stated in your comments to IRWolfie and Avanu.  — Jason Sosa 21:21, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Oh, for God's sake, his userpage has a direct link to his other account, and it's not like one has to dig around much to find it. When I first saw ESL's posts on AN/I, I went to his userpage, and figured out in less than 10 seconds who was the "man behind the screen". There is no deceitfulness, and you really ought to step away from the equine carcass and drop the stick. It's starting to get quite tedious at this point. If you were complaining about a potential lack of transparency from User:Bwilkins, you might be able to get a little more traction (since that userpage doesn't directly link to this userpage) but not by squawking about User:EatsShootsAndLeaves, who has had an explicit link to his other account since July 26th, which is well before your first interaction with him. It's the very first thing one encounters on the userpage, so it's not like it's something easily overlooked. The account he links to has two userboxes and a top-icon identifying him as an administrator, so that shouldn't be a big surprise, either. Horologium (talk) 23:17, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

It's not so much about the link as it is about how he communicates himself as I brought out here, but was removed by him. Thanks,   — Jason Sosa 07:03, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

You're continuing to claim something there that I did not. As we had already both clarified the case, shook hands, and backed away, your return with new taunts based on your same previous and proven-uncorrect reading of the situation meant you were not here to work collaboratively, you were hear to restart your incorrect POV. Fine, agree to disagree, but stop repeating what was your opinion and had since been proven wrong. You're entitled to your opinion: keep it to yourself, and keep extremely sincere apologies when they're offered like you originally did. dangerouspanda 07:46, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

I learned this from you. :)   — Jason Sosa 13:42, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Really? I don't see you behaving at all like me ... in fact, I see that you declined the honest and heartfelt apology I put forward so that both sides could retreat with honour. As an actual human being, I would never decline such a thing - so please, do not ever claim that you have learned your behaviours from me until you show a positive behaviour or two. dangerouspanda 17:50, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Why don't you just go back to your regular account then? Most of the behavior I've learned from you comes from WP:HORSEMEAT, however I'm just not quite an expert like you are. In fact, this is my first post outside of a closed discussion... kind of comparable to your post outside of my closed ANI discussion... but the fact that it was on ANI, made you look kind of ridiculous hanging out there at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive768#WP:RSN#Talk:Genesis creation narrative..  — Jason Sosa 17:51, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Why don't you unwatch this page? When's the last time you've made a constructive edit? Ryan Vesey 17:53, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

My last constructive edits have been on Fall of Man, Cain and Abel, and Number of the Beast from 06:26, 4 September 2012 (diff | hist) to 05:47, 13 September 2012 until this User shoved WP:HORSEMEAT in my face starting on 17:31, 15 September 2012, laced with deplorable arm-twisting to get his way. Thanks,   — Jason Sosa 18:15, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Postscript to Collector of Souls

By the time you had posted on his page, he had already reverted the decline message from another admin, so when I reverted it (to restore the block message) your comment was deleted. Don't take it personally. :) I'll keep an eye on the page and lock it down if he tries to play games with the unblock template. Horologium (talk) 14:59, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

No issues ... the decline was pretty much identical. I need to get back to my admin account and do those myself :-) dangerouspanda 15:47, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Andre Wisdom

Now that Andre Wisdom has (or will in approximately 20 minutes' time) made his professional debut, I think it is fair enough for the article to be accepted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Frailea (talk • contribs) 16:40, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you're talking about. Also, perhaps read WP:NOTNEWS? dangerouspanda 17:19, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

STiki

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.

Good morning Panda! This might be of interest. Sincerely, -- Gareth Griffith-Jones (GG-J's Talk) 10:01, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

I never said I blamed the tool, nor did I use in any sequence sentence to pertain it was the tools fault. Oh, I've seen many users contributions with WP:STiki and yes about half or few of them from the revisions I have seen have been quickly revert edits and mistakes, and yes sometimes I have heard these tools do break down. I was still waiting for Huggle version after I was allowed to use rollback for them, looking forward to it if, thanks anyway.--GoShow (...............) 13:15, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

When you are in a hole, it is best to stop digging. -- Gareth Griffith-Jones (GG-J's Talk) 16:19, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

I am stating facts Sir Gareth there's no holes about, unless you found the spring, after I have seen through your contributions as well, and mistakes.--GoShow (...............) 20:49, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Sorry about this EatsShootsAndLeaves, I don't want higher manipulative users keep warning just for the benefit of me not knowing much or just taking advantage of me to have me out, but I value alot from STiki and so do others, as well they do mistakes, I just hope you would know that is just me in stating facts and not trying to pick a fight, otherwise, have a beautiful day--GoShow (...............) 20:02, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

GoShow: simple fact is that according to the rules, YOU are responsible for the edit - the tool did not make a mistake. Don't pass the buck next time :-) dangerouspanda 20:23, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

The case has been resolved at STiki talkpage, like I said I didn't blame the tool, I am just stating the fact these tools does are not perfect as Andrew, the founder of Stiki, stated, and many users make mistakes, just stop trying to war them off and settle the dispute, the case has been resolved, but thanks for the information anyway.--GoShow (...............) 20:47, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

NO, it is not resolved there: you were told that you used a tool to edit-war against the rules; you turned around and called other editors manipulative there, and here above: that's a violation of WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. Don't do either again dangerouspanda 20:58, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

No, there are higher users who do use ordinary edits, but have multiple accounts to use on other edits for right reasons and other reasons, of course I am not blaming you for two accounts either--GoShow (...............) 21:12, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

What are you talking about now? What is the fact that I have legal multiple accounts have to do with the fact that you edit-warred (which is a breaking a rule) and used a power tool to do so (which is breaking a rule) and then referred to editors in an uncivil manner (which is against a CORE rule of Misplaced Pages)? Or are you now accusing others of having multiple accounts and using them abusively without filing an WP:SPI report, which would also be considered uncivil dangerouspanda 21:27, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

I can see why there were so many wars in the ancient and medieval world without seeing the rulers face to face.... okay look, I am not accusing YOU, I said users with multiple accounts is not vandalism, but using vandalism with multiple accounts is, that was it, zip, nada all right!--GoShow (...............) 21:29, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Ah, so you're accusing others of WP:SOCK? Don't do that without a) proof and b) being willing to put your name on an WP:SPI report. Why not tell me which users you think are related, and I'll take a peek at their contributions? dangerouspanda 21:36, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

It's been a while, I use to have them bookmarked, but they are already banned;-).--GoShow (...............) 21:40, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Ok then ... what does the fact that there are some long-time banned editors have to do with the fact that you RECENTLY were edit-warring using a tool? I'm confused here ... is that your purpose? You don't want to answer the question? dangerouspanda 21:48, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Now just hold on there, man, I've got mowing here and all other chores than just having a staring contest with my laptop;)!

Okay, other than User:Niemti, having a block indefinetly,

"This account has been blocked indefinitely from editing, because it is a sockpuppet account created in order to evade a block. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal the block on your original account, but simply ignoring the block and creating another account is not an acceptable procedure. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:54, 27 July 2012 (UTC)"

However that was 4 YEARS AGO! They eventually appealed to that user,

User:Zenkai251 was an interesting religious Wikipedian, although, the user was blocked, difference than banned(most users who secretly hacked or some administrators who used their edits to hack or multiple manipulation, not the same as good faith multiplicity, are usually banned), due to religious edits and having a multiple account, although, the purpose of what I am talking about was there was another confirmed user tried to resolve an IP however, we didn't know it was proof and it was closed, and the same IP kept deleting Islamophobia from other articles, from they were reliable on those articles, if you seen the contributions.

Now the last IP I agreed, and told them on their talk page, I was just talking about issues of vandalism about all users from IP to Administrators who were banned or blocked, and not accusations against users with multiple accounts with good edits.

Sincerely, --GoShow (...............) 22:28, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

What does any of this have to do with you breaking the rules on edit-warring? dangerouspanda 22:30, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

I wasn't finished talking, pardon me....

However that was 4 YEARS AGO! They eventually appealed to that user,

User:Zenkai251 was an interesting religious Wikipedian, although, the user was blocked, difference than banned(most users who secretly hacked or some administrators who used their edits to hack or multiple manipulation, not the same as good faith multiplicity, are usually banned), due to religious edits and having a multiple account, although, the purpose of what I am talking about was there was another confirmed user tried to resolve an IP however, we didn't know it was proof and it was closed, and the same IP kept deleting Islamophobia from other articles, from they were reliable on those articles, if you seen the contributions.

Now the last IP I agreed, and told them on their talk page, I was just talking about issues of vandalism about all users from IP to Administrators who were banned or blocked, and sometimes the bots and tools may be not perfect or grotesque, but I am not using accusations against users with multiple accounts with good edits. Hopefully, to get to no you more, thanks:).--GoShow (...............) 22:28, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

• Many confirmed users have the same edit-warring section, but still do their job, from those who keep reverting, although, it was resolved on those conflicts, and hope to have a good night--GoShow (...............) 22:34, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Interest

Apparently, of course I understand, and yes any confirmed user has the same edit-warring conflict, and some actually did for the right reasons, and yes, will petition after being warned why they reverted the IP's edit, I didn't know the soap opera had a source between rape and coerce, from the IP who keeps reverting, although, it was resolved on those conflicts. This what I was talking about, anyway, it over and closed, this is new

Would you be interested in helping me in a book series, or a document WikiProject and help in article creations, please talk on my talkpage, if your interested in book articles I am hoping you would help me into editing and allowing a project where maybe we can allow edits of famous lost notes, ballads, and constitutions, to keep them locked, and used for further notes, I know they maybe compact usually on the internet, however, for Misplaced Pages, it can keep documents such as Magna Carta, Hammurabi, Le Prophecies of Nostradamus, Ozymandias, and condense the verses and different chapters, otherwise, I am hope the articles for creation noticboard would offer it if possible.

Thanks and please comment on my page--GoShow (...............) 00:23, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Such a project is not the intent of Misplaced Pages itself as it's an encyclopedia ... I think we already have a separate project called Wikibooks or something along that line, and it's not a project that I have ever edited nor had an interest in. dangerouspanda 10:00, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Comment

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.

I think you're overthinking it and taking it all far too seriously. I saw what Jimbo posted that day toward you, and he tends to take a somewhat philosophical approach to Misplaced Pages. He's generally got good intentions and good ideas, but in practice, the community works differently. I think the thing that is more important than walking away from an account is repentance. I get the sense that you understand that already because of how much work you've put into honoring the spirit of Jimbo's remark. But I think you could have done it much more simply too. There will always be dumb mobs making over the top calls for people's heads. (I think AN/I is good at occasionally doing that.) But mobs aren't good indicators of what a thoughtful, intelligent response to a problem should be.

To my mind, this issue with your name is a rather trivial one. I had a mild concern. You gave me an answer. Among gentlemen, this should be sufficient for a matter that is trivial. If you were actually *doing* something awful, I might think differently, but you're just being an editor like everyone else. The only bit that piqued my interest originally was the impression I got from a comment that rolled by on that one editor's page where I got the impression you were telling him to talk to you because you were an admin. And I believe in transparency.

I get the impression that you are very conscientious about the things of Misplaced Pages. I get the impression that you care and that you want to do the right thing. And to me, that's the best thing. -- Avanu (talk) 14:25, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Heads up

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

An intelligent discussion is better than a diatribe or attack

You could simply change one thing and that debate with Jasonasosa would end. Work together, work with a mediator, or whatever. But don't short circuit the complaint by dragging AN/I into it. -- Avanu (talk) 10:14, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Avanu, absolutely BAD form to close that ANI. There's NOTHING illegal, improper, or even immoral about how my linkage is formed. You have closed a VALID complaint where the other editor has specifically stated that their goal is to remove me from Wikipdedia. You are not neutral, you're too WP:INVOLVED to have closed it, and you're providing both bad advice AND improperly egging on another's poor behaviour. dangerouspanda 10:21, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

You are throwing fuel on a fire. This is why the thing won't die. I left you to your own methods and said my peace, and I left this debate. You and Jason need to man up and act like adults here. This is a very tiny problem being amplified by two people who are both acting far too stubborn. The change to your User page is about as tiny as can be, and his dogged persistence is, in my opinion, unwarranted. But dragging it to AN/I is not a way to de-escalate, and is not in line with what I expected from you. To my mind, closing the AN/I before you both make things worst is the best option for both of you. However, if you'd rather beat one another up, I suppose that is your choice. -- Avanu (talk) 10:26, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

(P.S., I would ask and expect that you remove the editorializing if you wish to reopen the AN/I thread. I'm not going to edit war to keep you from punching yourselves in the nose. My closure of it was more for your sakes than for any supposed involvement that you believe I have. If you notice, I closed a thread earlier that involved Tarc, even though I think he can be a jerk, AN/I is a terrible forum for settling emotional disputes. -- Avanu (talk) 10:31, 23 September 2012 (UTC))

Avanu, your mistaken reading of WP:SOCK#NOTIFY has given the other editor expectations that I have any requirement to change it. I don't. According to the rules, policy, and morals, there's NO requirement to change anything. You're doing the equivalent of telling me that if I want to stop being pulled over by the police, I should not have bought a Lexus. There's nothing wrong with me owning a Lexus, and there's nothing wrong with the way the accounts are linked: that's your interpretation that has not ever stood up to review. I disengaged from the user over a week ago. Their stated goal is to have me off Misplaced Pages - it doesn't get clearer than that, and if anyone should "man up", it's you, who should take action on the poor behaviour that you have created due to setting up wrong expectation. dangerouspanda 10:35, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

PS: This is not an emotional dispute: I have zero against Jason. I apologized for how the issue played out, I wished him the best, and I moved on. My complaint is that he has now, contrary to WP:HARASS, stated in multiple places that he will not stop harassing me until I leave Misplaced Pages. His statements have no relevance to how my accounts are linked. dangerouspanda 10:40, 23 September 2012 (UTC)