Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Drmies (talk | contribs) at 15:20, 10 November 2012 (→Don't fan the flames: ty to Bwilkins also). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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

Quick note

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

That was the fastest 6 months I ever saw

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

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

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

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

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

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

A clue

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

User:Jayven09maddie

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

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

Sorry

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

Guinsberg is now socking

Hi Bwilkins,

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

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

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

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

Purpose of adminship

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A big thank you and a question

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

User:Jordanalan

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

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

AN close

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

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

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

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

Mr JKX

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

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

LlamaAl

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

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

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

Screwball23

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

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

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

The Admin's Barnstar

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

Resysop/RFA

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

Angels and pin heads

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

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

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

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

Xpert Tactical

Hello,

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

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

Three A9s

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

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

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

PERM

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

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

Your page

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

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

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

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

As an aside...

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

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

Don't fan the flames

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

Thanks...

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