If you care, I am an experienced accountless user who only edits from ips. My ip changes every few minutes due to the mobile phone. Veecort prob was edit warring but so was the other person Mcjeff. If you don't believe me thAt I'm not veecort, file a checkuser. If not, recant your accusations. because my ip changes so Much you won't be able to verify my history and wiki experience, so either trust me or CU —Preceding unsigned comment added by 32.155.195.251 (talk) 22:05, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's all fine then ... but continuing someone else's edit war under an IP address is not conducive to good editing, and looks fishy. It's still an edit war, and you became part of a tag team. (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 11:36, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
well, what can I say? I thought my revert was justified, otherwise I would not have done it. You call it continuing an edit war, yet you and mcjeff reverted too. I still think you all, including veecort, edit warred, but he got banned because y'all assumed I was him. Doesn't matter now, but in the future , there are mobile users who don't want accounts and whose ip change very often —Preceding unsigned comment added by 32.153.172.72 (talk) 00:41, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
...and my single edit was based on consensus, and based on the reality that one user clearly has an axe to grind. Indeed, there appears to be a conflict of interest on that article - and it's Veecort's COI. I've been ripped off in the past too, I just handled it differently. (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 09:31, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
To be honest with you, I've been emotionally drained by this user and think it's a disgrace you're expecting me to go through these lengths and find all relevant diffs. I just want to be able to positively contribute to WP's community without being constantly put on trial. Want an example? Check out the edit history for Red hair and ask yourself: was Alastairward ever involved with anything even close to the article's subject matter prior to me editing it? Another one: "If it's obvious, then tell me why" - learn to know him a bit and I'll be damned if you don't clearly see that he is playing straight out dumb. If I'll recall anything else, I'll let you know. NotAnotherAliGFan (talk) 16:36, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you're going to make accusations, you have to provide supporting diffs, else you're the one actually being disruptive ... (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 20:48, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So far, I can't see any proof you're being hounded. The important part is that although someone else's actions may explain incivility, it will never excuse your incivility. Just like sports, the retaliation generally gets penalized harder. Show admins the proof you're being actually hounded, and the other party may actually get a wrist slapped too ... if you don't, it will be you and you alone. (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 10:16, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate your welcoming message and advice in response to my Wikiquette query. I'm afraid I took Sceptre's remark to someone else, along the lines of "Well you try to summarise it concisely!", too literally. :) But I'm still curious about whether he actually has the ability to block me, or whether that was an empty threat in the guise of an official communication from Wikipedia.
Any editor on Wikipedia has the authority to remind other editors of the rules and policies of Wikipedia by using standardized Templates. They are to be used only when the specific policy has been, or may about to be broken. The standard template reminds the "offending" editor that their actions could be subject to administrative action, which includes blocks from Wikipedia. Of course, only administrators can block, but anybody can warn that you can be blocked. So, the short for is: that individual may or may not have the ability to block, but they have the right to warn that your actions could lead to blocks. (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 10:16, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your reply! tbh, I think the template is confusing: it looks like an official warning from an admin with a finger on the block button, when at least in this case it's a message from another editor. An explanation of the rules, even an angry one, would have been helpful; instead I received a threat. I have to confess it's put me off trying to make further edits: if the guy is so determined to defend "his" page, he's welcome to it! Anyway, thanks again for your help - much appreciated. And thanks for letting me grumble. :) Kateorman (talk) 11:42, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Admins also use the same templates ... of course, usually there are escalating levels of templating ... you probably got the wrong one - an editor was a little fast on the trigger finger. (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 17:45, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Can I suggest that official warning templates ("You WILL be blocked!") be reserved for admins? Surely as it stands, they're open to abuse by non-admins who want to intimidate others. Plus, if anyone can use them, that undercuts the authority of the admins. It's a bit as though I got a parking ticket from the police and left it on my neighbour's car. I can't really fine my neighbour, so it would only confuse and intimidate them; and when the police issued a genuine parking ticket, they might not take it seriously. Kateorman (talk) 21:21, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi BM, actually I have informed PBS about the WQA thread, I just did it at the article's talk page rather than his own user page. He has responded there already so he obviously knows about it. Gatoclass (talk) 09:59, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
BMW, given that I am sort of under scrutiny right now, I don't feel comfortable taking much of what's going on to a formal procedure, but please take note of this, which involves another user altogether and I am not involved. Montanabw(talk)21:38, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure how to discuss this without putting you on the defensive. I'm hoping this was all just a mistake.
You made me doubt the usefulness of WQA in your reply [1] to my request at WQA. I didn't look at your edit summary, which said, "can't see any diffs." Instead, I interpreted your comment, "I'm not seeing any incivility. Could you please provide diffs of the exact post where WP:NPA or WP:CIVIL was broken? " To mean you didn't see any incivility in the diff provided. I waited over 24 hours for replies. When yours was the only one, I gave up and haven't used WQA since, despite the need to do so on multiple occasions.
The only diff you provided leads to this post: "Multiple people argued to keep this list in 4 AfD's. A few spam fighters can't seem to let it go. Why exactly are you here? If you don't like this list or its inclusion criteria, and are not interested in this topic, then please let those who are interested continue working. You haven't contributed anything to this article. So why are you here? It seems to be just a desire for more deletion. No, seriously, why are you here? You seem to follow Ronz around. When I bump into either of you, the other soon follows. See WP:Wikihounding and WP:TE. --Timeshifter (talk) 00:20, 17 February 2009 (UTC)". Can you show me where any of that paragraph is either a violation of WP:CIVIL or WP:NPA? All I was asking for is a diff where something actually violated those, because none of us who patrol WQA could see it using that one. (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 09:15, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the reply.
That's what I was afraid of. Everything in that comment other than the first sentence is uncivil. I've seen blocks for less when the behavior is consistent. This is the problem with our behavioral guidelines. The interpretations of them are often incompatible. I'm happy to explain further, but I think the situation is utterly, completely hopeless. We're unable to enforce behavioral guidelines because we can't agree on their interpretation. --Ronz (talk) 15:43, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding this comment [2]. There will be no needling on the part of me to try to "bait" RKLawton into any sort of incident. I never did that in the first place. Had RKLawton bothered to look up the meaning of "butthurt" he would have seen that it is in no way sexual or a personal attack. My AN/I was simply to point out, and have dealt with, an administrator blatantly violating policy and making personal attacks. Indeed not the behavior expected from an admin. He tried to label me as "disruptive" for making TWO edits. Again, not 10 or 20, but TWO. You can be assured that there was no, and will be no, picking a fight. SpartanSWAT10 (talk) 17:57, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If the other person took it as an attack, and someone else agrees that it could have been one, then it's likely one. If I were you, I would be embarassed that the thread in ANI and on rklawton's talkpage have gone on for as long as they did - you stirred up more of a hornet's nest than was really deserved, IMHO. I'm not discounting that what rklawton said was improper, but you must be able to see that your comment could be taken improperly. (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 18:22, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I offered him the chance to take the high road and remove his blatant personal attack. He chose instead to follow-up with a second personal attack. HE stirred up the hornets nest. I was simply reporting a violation of policy. Saying someone got huffy and butthurt is, in my opinion, no grounds for being upset. Saying that someone has limited mental capacity is. Interestingly, you'll see a similar pattern of behavior in rklawton's edits before and since. He also personally attacked another user involved in the discussion by calling her a drama queen. If you ask me, he shouldn't be an admin if he's so easily flustered and so quick to resort to namecalling. Regardless, as I said, there will be no, and was no, provocation or needling by me. SpartanSWAT10 (talk) 19:46, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think "Drama queen" comes anywhere near being a personal attack. (Just as I don't think huffy and butthurt is one either). It's a bit rude but people need to be able to talk; I was somewhat rude to him too. One mistake does not a bad admin make, and despite his somewhat defensive stance I strongly suspect that he will take mine and others comments into consideration is will be unlikely to make similar comments in the future. The matter is over with. Theresa Knott | token threats20:15, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia can be an impersonal enterprise at times, but there is a living being behing every pseudonymous Wikipedian. I do not know whether the passing of a human being whose path once crossed yours in a small way is a matter of concern to you; but in case it is, I am bringing THIS to your attention because you once made her happy, and for that I thank you. Fenneck (talk) 21:04, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am always shocked to hear of a death of someone who I have even had a small degree of contact. I appreciated that User:Teenly took interest in an article that I was helping to work on from scratch, and really let them do some good article expansion after I created the basic format. I am glad that she found her contact with me to be happy, and wish the best to her family, and wish the best blessings of whatever beliefs they hold. (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 11:30, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You were the first person Teenly met on Wikipedia, in response to her very first edit, and she was especially delighted when you thanked her on a talk page for her contribution. It was very exciting for a six-year-old. Fenneck (talk) 12:58, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Albeit on a different page, but still. I was wondering if you would accept a nomination for adminship. I know some people like to stay "normal" for reasons of their own so I thought I'd ask. Padillah (talk) 18:42, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, if you look a few threads above ... a similar question was asked. The short form is yes, if enough of my Wikipedia colleagues feel that I am suitable, I would put myself through the stress that is WP:AFDWP:RFA. (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 18:47, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You might want to take a look at Bugs' RfA to get an idea of the amount of coals you are going to get raked over. I'm doing them one at a time so as soon as this is over with, I'll nominate you (if you've still got the guts). Please understand, I am not doing this as some sort of misguided assembly line of admins. I mentioned before and I will say it to anyone that asks I've always looked to you as an admin and see no reason why you shouldn't be one. Bugs' nomination aside. Padillah (talk) 12:43, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
One last chance. Do you really want to give everyone that hates you a reason to pick on you? Just laying it on the line. (I feel kinda bad for putting Bugs through that) But I do feel you would make a good admin. You've been very even-handed and you have appeared to be knowledgeable enough that most people think you're an admin in the first place. You not only deserve the mop, as a patroller of WQA your admonitions would carry more weight. But it's your frail ego at stake here, you tell me. Padillah (talk) 15:41, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Padillah would like to nominate you to become an administrator. Please visit Wikipedia:Requests for adminship to see what this process entails, and then contact Padillah to accept or decline the nomination. A page has been created for your nomination at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Bwilkins . If you accept the nomination, you must state and sign your acceptance. You may also choose to make a statement and/or answer the optional questions to supplement the information your nominator has given. Once you are satisfied with the page, you may post your nomination for discussion, or request that your nominator do so.
Dude, in all honesty I would never presume to tell you you had done something wrong here on WP. In point of fact I need some help getting the project talkpage to display correctly (the instructions are less than idiot-proof. But then again, I'm a much better idiot than most people plan for). Padillah (talk) 15:32, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for applying to access the account creation tool. I have approved your request. You may now access the tool here. Before you do so, please read the tool's guide to familiarize yourself with the process. You may also want to join #wikipedia-en-accounts on irc and the mailing list. Keep in mind that the ACC tool is a powerful program, and misuse may result in your access being suspended by a tool administrator. Don't hesitate to get in touch with me if you have any questions. Thank you for participating in the account creation process. FunPika18:31, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There is an article, List of longest novels, that I am convinced is complete OR. The stats are fine but to compile them into a list that, by it's very name, claims to represent the longest examples of it's kind, is OR (at least WP:SYNTH). I tried a number of months ago and was summarily ignored. What steps would you suggest? 3O? RfC? Or straight to AfD? Thanks for the help. Padillah (talk) 16:49, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I see the response as being inappropriate. It is trying to back editors into a corner saying "you can only oppose if you think the following", which is making me consider moving over to oppose. I understand the stress of RfA just fine, but "if you're ok with editors ganging up on our admins, then please continue with the OPPOSE !votes" is utter nonsense. — neuro(talk)(review)16:25, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I value your opinion quite heavily ... hopefully you concur with the fix/addition? (talk→BWilkins←track)
I feel that the very basis of the final comment is inappropriate — I see it as the candidate telling other what is and is not a legitimate oppose !vote. I do hope I'm not coming over too strongly, if so it is not intentional, but the comment just seems wrong to me. — neuro(talk)(review)17:19, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Much appreciated. The intent was really to remind people to not rely on context - every single diff provide in the "oppose" and even the neutral ones by GMW are all taken 100% out of context, and reassembled in a unique manner. I'm sure I have typed the words "go", "fuck", and "yourself" all in separate instances - put together out of context, it can be argued that I actually said "go fuck yourself". Overall, I support the concept that "everyone has something to add to Wikipedia" and that we don't go around ganging up on each other. (talk→BWilkins←track) 12:24, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fyi, I have not received related warnings in the past few days. What are you talking? My edits have been constructive. However I have allowed myself to repeatedly insist that the article receives broader sourcing, not to a commercial website, but preferably to peer reviewed neutral articles to be found by pubmed.
The Concepts of WP:MEDMOS guidelines to reliable sourcing seem to be really hard to convey. So I allowed myself to remark that the guidelines are junior college reading level, and that the editor may have difficulties with that also from the attention span. That was not nice. But please take the time to read the whole preceding unnerving dialogue, then you may have some understanding.
You really have to see it in perspective, then you understand.
My edits are constructive, see further up on the talk page the thanks for my help and support for a new editor.
70.137.153.83 (talk) 13:24, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
70.137.153.83 (talk) 13:24, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Although issues with an editor may explain the incivility, nothing ever excuses incivility towards them. I did, indeed,read the entire proceedings, and commented accordingly. Regarding the other - you do, indeed, have 4 warnings on your page from a wide range of your activities over the last few days. (talk→BWilkins←track) 14:15, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My previous concerns have been run through dispute resolution and have been confirmed. My edits were consequently not "page blanking" and "vandalism" and I want these warnings removed from my page. Also your warning for etiquette is then not a 3rd level warning, pls handle accordingly. I have done valid edits, which have been wrongly described as vandalism and page blanking. THIS is vandalism.
70.137.153.83 (talk) 14:26, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That type of insult to another editor is most certainly a 3rd level warning, and I suggest to take it as such. Your insistence that incivility is ok, would likely mean that there would be no "fourth" level. (talk→BWilkins←track) 14:28, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I want the previous 3 warnings removed. I already admitted that a reference to attention span and level was not nice. But the previous edits were all reasonable and not vandalism or page blanking. Look at it.
70.137.153.83 (talk) 14:32, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I know its not trackable, a push of a button and I have a new ID. But old senile fart I am, I get anal about content disputes immediately turning removal of challenged materials into "page blanking" and then "vandalism" and cluttering my page with warnings, such that the first look of an admin has it appear as if I am mainly involved in page blanking, vandalism and harassment.
So it is just for the principle, but not for a reasonable purpose... Somebody has also to stand up for more difficult content disputes finally coming to the point and being resolved on a scientific level without warnings and illogical allegations and admin intervention.
70.137.153.83 (talk) 14:48, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody else is supposed to remove things from a personal talkpage other than the user themself. As an IP editor, the rules are slightly different, but it is up to you to remove the things the disturb you. Although your page history will always be there, warnings fade over time ... a warning today will rarely be used against you 3 months from now (as long as nothing else happens that link them). I would, for your benefit, recomment against removing the nice Welcome stuff and related links. I would also recommend highly that you do sign up for a userid - your edits should be attributed to someone, and it is far more anonymous that using an IP address that allows anyone to track where you live. (talk→BWilkins←track) 15:52, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have read your talk on my talkpage about WP:WQA. I assume you have read my closing statement in this on WP:AN, especially on the omission of expecting good faith from the start, so I have no question. The unrelated low quality edit summary is to be seen as a carelessnes after a longer editsession, and your point is received. -DePiep (talk) 13:26, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Rule #1 on sock accusations: Put up or shut up. (i.e. file your WP:SSP or STFU)
Rule #1 on edit warring: except for clear vandalism, no excuses. (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 00:54, 4 March 2009 (UTC)"
Hi BMW, I just wanted to say that I am truly sorry that you didn't get the couple extra buttons that could have helped you with your work here. I know you may not be the "chatty" type, especially right now, but I did want you to understand how strongly I supported your bid. I greatly appreciate all that you do here - even if it may go unappreciated by others.
On an off-wiki note, I also wanted to express my appreciation for your dedication to the protection of freedom and our country. If no one else will say it, I will. Thank You!. — Ched : ? 17:31, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, just wanted to add my pat on the back on the RfA. You should be one. You WILL be one. Note User:VanTucky, who I think is an admin now but I think he also got turned down his first time around. Keep doing what you do, you'll get there! Montanabw(talk)23:33, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just read that, and ouch that looks pretty messy. Sorry I missed it or I would've piped up with moral support at least. Look, you had a bad incident, but you and the community should get over it. I had to wait for a second go around to. Keep doing the good work.--Tznkai (talk) 14:26, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
First off, sorry to hear about the RfA. It really surprised me. Anyway, I have a list that has been bothering me, I feel it needs to be deleted but how do I attract attention from a wider audience without CANVASing? I've tried RfC but all I get are responses from people that already support the list, not the wider community. Padillah (talk) 19:37, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate your nomination, and the defence. Maybe someday again, one never knows. Is the list the one about "longest books" that is above? There are often wise people often at AfD ... and if the community says it belongs, we maybe have no choice (talk→BWilkins←track) 21:43, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that's the list. It's a simple compilation of really long novels. No citation or sourcing (other than for page/word count). So you say go straight for AfD? Thanks. Padillah (talk) 11:46, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please read this and tell me they all provoked KeltieMartinFan into those reactions. Or... maybe they all provoked him into many edits that do nothing but reduce the quality of the grammar in the respective articles. 87.69.176.81 (talk) 11:12, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You have done yourself a major disservice by going to ANI first, then to WQA at the same time. Then in your WQA (which is a forum to discuss civility issues) you focus on grammar at first - this automatically weakens your overall arguement. You have put yourself now in the untenable position that few things will now end up being resolved. Process is important 'round here - you don't go to the Supreme Court first, then to District Court afterwards :-) I'm not quite sure yet how to fix this so that you can get some proper resolution ... (talk→BWilkins←track) 11:56, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you do not disrupt the process by placing irrelevant tags, the case just might get looked at... Besides, this is the first time I file a complaint of this sort (I hate doing it, but considering the heavy offense, I have been left with no choice), so please keep assuming good faith. 87.69.176.81 (talk) 12:01, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I urge you to stop placing that tag at once. I have explained my agenda more than once, this is important. Please reply as I would like to "get things straight" around here. 87.69.176.81 (talk) 12:16, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
We are trying to assist you in one forum. Edit-warring on a dispute resolution page is serving to seriously undermine your concerns. Please include the links to the offensive posts (that contravene WP:NPA ... stay away from grammar, it's not a trial) in the WP:ANI entry. (talk→BWilkins←track) 12:59, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If this is the case, then thank you first of all. However, you seem to be under complete misapprehension as for my inclusion of the grammar issues. A vast portion of Keltie's false accusations are that none of my edits appear as constructive and I am therefore a "menace" (vandal?). My point is simple: for someone who has a rich history of edits that contribute nothing but the reduction of overall article quality, their credibility is by far less than they make it appear. In other words: the pot calls the kettle black. 87.69.176.81 (talk) 13:21, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
...and there they go again! I'm sick of edit warring, but this is f@^king intolerable. This is yet another effort to make the complaint look less significant.
As for your contribution towards resolving this nonsense – I genuinely thank you for that, as I have done at the Swine Flu section. 87.69.176.81 (talk) 17:15, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So basically, you are telling me that altering other people's contributions is OK, as long as the editor interprets the other policies in a way that make it look quasi-legitimate? And I was blocked for merely striking an unjust comment aimed at me while clearly stating that it was me who struck the comment... Something is going awry in this affair, dontcha think? Seriously... 87.69.176.81 (talk) 18:03, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
ANI is a action noticeboard, and not a talkpage. You are required to do a succinct filing and back away, answering questions as needed when asked. Admins are required/permitted to trim to fit. Talkpage discussions made by someone else are untouchable. (talk→BWilkins←track) 18:28, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The comment I was striking was on the ANI board. Any explanation as for why everyone freaked out and started blocking me? I didn't even change the wording, nor did I delete anything. As for "answering questions as needed when asked," pretty much every other comment was aimed to try and find the flaw in my edits to distract from the "defendant." Therefore, I had to protect myself from being wrongfully accused; you would have done the same. 87.69.176.81 (talk) 00:06, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's been 22 hours. Threads in ANI only last 24 hours, so it was not going to last until tomorrow. Besides, if you made any additional comments in the same vein, you were likely to be blocked for 3 days or more. The other party did NOT "get away", but there was no consensus for further action (even though I did comment on their talkpage regarding the situation). At its very most, the offense is "warnable" not "blockable", and they're warned. What else is there to gain besides your own new block? (talk→BWilkins←track) 16:32, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I really have to go now so I'll be brief: what for? There is nothing that can be deemed even close to justifiable as all I have been doing for the past two days is trying to prove I'm not anyone's sockpuppet/vandal/whatever. If not for this type of "Chewbacca defense" that pretty much drowned all my valid arguments in a pile of wrongful accusations towards me (the victim in this case), my case might have been actually heard. Sadly, all I've learned so far is that Wikipedia runs on politics like any company, and whoever has the largest posse – dominates. 87.69.176.81 (talk) 16:43, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Take a close look: Bugs has no relationship with Keltie, and they have never edited the same article - you picked a fight by not responding to his simple questions, then getting aggressive when he kept asking. You've been the master of your own downfall on this one, and the comment about spousal abuse could likely have led to an indefinite ban. Your entire series of actions on ANI have been disruptive, full of quasi-wikilawyering, etc. I have to admit, at one point I almost said "fuck it, he's on his own", but I can recognize full well when someone is badly losing in ANI, an you killed any chance of it proceeding further - you cannot blame others for your actions/reactions. Keltie's been warned - nothing else will happen. Let it go. (talk→BWilkins←track) 16:51, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Bwilkins. I'm sorry about the incivility (unCIVILity?) of my edit summary. I don't have any good excuse or explanation except for generally being in a bad mood yesterday. Which of course isn't any kind of excuse, but it's the best I can do. Obviously you're a very experienced editor who knows policy perfectly well (a brief glance at your contributions is enough to demonstrate that); I let my momentary frustrations get the better of me. Here's hoping our future encounters will be on lighter notes! --Miskwito (talk) 02:35, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, that honestly has to be one of the most sincere replies I've seen on Wikipedia. Thanks, and yes, I'm sure our future interactions will be awesome! (talk→BWilkins←track) 08:41, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
While I appreciate your guidance, I disagree with your assertion that I might be attempting to disrupt Wikipedia. That is a ridiculous accusation. I posted in one location and was told to post to two other (different) locations. I've been an editor for quite some time and am quite familiar with the 5 pillars as well. This issue has nothing to do with disruption or 5 pillars. I've never had to report someone for being incivil before, and the guidance on the process is vague. Wikiwikikid (talk) 03:57, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There is a clearly stated hierarchy when incidents occur.
First, you must try and resolve it directly with the other user on their talkpage.
WQA is a good location for civility issues, and is therefore the second step. The instructions at WQA state clearly "If your specific issue is already being discussed elsewhere, please do not file a WQA. It is much easier for other users to help you when your dispute is being handled in one forum, not ten. If an issue is already serious enough to have gone to WP:ANI or WP:RFC, there's not much we can do to help."
ANI is "for reporting and discussing incidents on the English Wikipedia that require the intervention of administrators", such as bans or blocks. It is not a dispute resolution forum. The instructions on ANI say "To report impolite or uncivil communications with other editors, see wikiquette alerts". As such, in many cases it's a third location, or in others a 4th a 5th. (talk→BWilkins←track) 08:55, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree that there is a clear heirarchy (evidenced by 2 other experienced editors offering 2 different recommended forums). I did address this with the individual first, but he used that as another opportunity to insult me. So I took it to the dispute resolution board. At the dispute resolution board I was told by one editor to go to WP:ANI (the editor I'm complaining against, actually) and another editor told me to go to WP:WQA. Also, it was posted in TWO locations, not "ten." Again, I understand the process a little better now, and should I have another issue like this arise, I will try the forums one at a time, until I find an appropriate one. Thanks and happy editting. Wikiwikikid (talk) 14:18, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, since you're active on a lot of WP:WQA issues, I'm asking you here first. What's the appropriate place to bring allegations of wikihounding? It has recently come to my attention that an editor has been following and reverting the edits of another editor, and I'm not sure what the appropriate venue is to bring this to an admin's attention. I'd rather not go for the nuclear option right off the bat. Thanks! // Chris(complaints)•(contribs)03:46, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wikihounding is a difficult challenge. It is fully permissible to monitor someones contributions if they have a past history of disruptive activity, or have a high chance of performing disruption.
Wikihounding would involve the intentional reversion of normally good edits in order to specifically create disenjoyment for the other party.
As the one who might be hounded, it's often hard to prove Wikihounding - you end up needing a pretty clean closet of your own, because if Admins find one valid reason for someone to have reverted, it's de facto proof that the monitoring was required.
If a good clear case is ready, I would post it ar WP:ANI. If you're not sure, I would ask a friendly admin (via their e-mail link) to have a glance at any diff's. (talk→BWilkins←track) 08:36, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This was written about my reopened Wikiquette alerts [[3]] Per BMW. This sort of abuse of this dispute resolution mechanism is unacceptable, and the claims of disruption personal attacks and "claiming to be victim" amount to incivility in itself - the claims are unjustified. Further reopening of this thread by Nja247 should result in a block.
You wrote this, "Trying to use any of the above to show behaviours in the editor are as far of a stretch as can possibly be done. You can't corner an editor, slap 3rr and WQA filings and not expect a little bit of frustration - and frustration is all that is being shown: no attacks, no swearing, no bullying".
It's wrong for me to interfere with Wikipedia's models/ articules, etc. Sometimes I leave questions on pages, and nobody answers and since nobody cartes, I just assume what's best for the article, which is flawed. The problem is, guy, that nobody respects this undertrated site, because of people adding BS and faulty information. If you want me to stop creating redirecting articles like (Tim Wayne=Tim Drake, etc.), I'll stop, but people need to stop treating this site like it's a gospel for users of knowledge. (JoeLoeb (talk) 13:34, 9 June 2009 (UTC))[reply]
You may remember a Wikiquette alert now archived at Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts/archive64#User:William_Allen_Simpson. The issues with WAS have not ended. We regularly intersect and often disagree at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion. WAS seems uninclined to disagree with me without adding some personal attacks. He has become a bit more careful in these attacks. I'd like to show some examples from after the 3rd-level warning he received [5]:
"you were chastized at WP:ANI and elsewhere" (which I was not, rather he was) and "A foolish consistency.." (which was part of the wp:wqa discussion resulting in his 3rd-level warning) in the text and the edit summary [6]
"You were roundly excoriated at WP:ANI, WT:CFD, and elsewhere" (which I was not, rather he was) and "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds...." in the text (bold from the original and a similar edit summary [7]
"Obviously, you are having some English as a second language issues here" and "That is currently in the process of being rejected" (referring to another proposal of mine) [8]
"Your failure to understand is not the responsibility of others. Read the policies. Look at recent discussion. Pay attention" to my request "Perhaps you could specify which naming convention you are referring to and why" [9]
These remarks, when viewed each in their own right, might seem minor or even partially justified (which I assure you they are not). Taken together, they form a pattern of a personal attack aimed at making any intersection with WAS a miserable experience, with the likely purpose of removing my opposition to various of his edits and proposals.
Character witnesses against WAS as an editor with a longstanding tradition of making personal attacks I have gathered previously in this edit. Please also note a very recent block for violating the wp:3rr rule in edit warring [10].
Likewise his edits have raised concerns for pushing points in unacceptable ways (that is, without consensus), as expressed by various editors in the following edits [11], [12], [13].
The following quote might be illustrative "Just because you are technically correct does not justify your attitude. You don't own this project, we are all working together. Misunderstandings can be handled in a civilized manner, with both parties being treated respectfully. You don't seem to have much respect for anyone other than yourself." [14] Nothing has changed for the better since 2006... In general, I think this user is an unbalancing factor in Wikipedia. In short term I would like to ask for some measures ensuring WAS will stop attacking me personally with all kinds of baseless accusations and derogatory comments.
A dick move is a dick move, no doubt about it. And yes, it is a dick move to tag an article with sources, by anyone, for speedy minutes after it is created, and then somehow imply that you meant for it to be merged magically without bringing up the fact that you want it merged. The article clearly did not meet the speedy criteria, and deletion doesn't mean merger. It was a dick move. Call it disruptive, call it whatever you want. It doesn't change what it was. I acknowledged, for my part, that I went over the top, but I am not going to deal with destructive editors with kid gloves. This article was not determined by consensus to be deleted as you seem to think, I would, in fact, welcome the opportunity, but it certainly didnt qualify for speedy. And I certainly hope that any destructive editor is driven from the project. Your block ability does not worry me, or threaten me, nor will it be the impetus for me to somehow take back the things I said, which are based in my own WP philosophy about editing. So block away, I only edit occasionally anyway. The project's loss, not mine. Happy editing.--IvoShandor (talk) 10:32, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Do whatever you have to do. I don't take it personally and I don't intend to participate in your, or anyone's further escalation of what is essentially a moot point. At some point the escalation and blocks simply become nothing more than a petty attempt to be punitive. Thanks for letting me know though. What happened is still simple incivility, the harshness of the language won't change that. Good luck with whatever it is you're trying to do to me. Again, happy editing.--IvoShandor (talk) 10:48, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I expanded the article in question anyway, no skin off my nose. Wasn't really having a good night last night and I let it affect my editing. I still don't think it was the end-all-of-end-alls as some in the ANI thread implied, I have dealt with worse on here myself. Hopefully no one was scarred for life or anything and thanks for your kind words.--IvoShandor (talk) 10:15, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You have now accused me of harassing you at WQA. May I ask what your issue with my one line post was? I was attempting to help you understand the issue -- which I had looked into in detail -- and you snapped at me like I'd done something wrong. Unitanode19:13, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ever since your comment about "who made BWilkins the civility police", I have significant doubts on your ability and/or desire to truly assist. Your attempt in WQA to call me out for supposedly "not reading" is more uncivil than many of the WQA filings we get. If you really understood WQA, you would know that the original poster really had not explained himself well - it is not generally our role to judge people in WQA, it is our role to improve communications between editors. This guy may have been the cause of his own problems, but he was poorly explaining his "case", and he deserves the right to be heard and not immediately judged. We encourage multiple POV on each case in WQA, so if I wanted more information in order to help, then I damned well can ask for it. (talk→BWilkins←track) 19:32, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't "calling you out." I was trying to be helpful to you by simply pointing out what I had determined from taking a look at the thread he linked. I apologize for the "civility police" comment. Clearly you and I have different views of how to best deal with civility on the project. Equally clearly, I have offended you and I regret that. I would say, though, that your anger now is misplaced, and I would hope you would be able to move past it now, as I feel that would be best for those who make complaints to WQA. One thing I'd like you to reconsider as well, is your lecturing attitude toward me. I may not have the same experience at WQA as you do, but I watched there for some time before posting, and I no longer consider myself a newbie on Wikipedia. I particularly found your "bickering" note a bit condescending, especially since my first note to you was not intended to be "bickering" at all. To conclude, though, I apologize for my part in getting our WikiDealings off to such a poor start. Perhaps a pressing of the "reset" button is in order? Unitanode00:45, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. I just want to draw your attention to the archived article under Incidents where NRen2k5 has responded to your admin note. is this proper form? his accusation is already in his complaint. that special note/reply seems to give his claim undue weight.
By the way, thanks for your help in giving the dispute some much needed balance & insight. Fhue (talk) 05:46, 23 June 2009 (UTC) Nevermind. Fhue (talk)[reply]
On July 1, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Buffalo 461, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
You seem to know how Wikipedia works, so perhaps you could explain to me, whether it is totally acceptable to characterize the behaviour of other editors as "passive-aggressive whining"?
In my country that would be considered a great insult. Since you are a neutral party, I thought I would ask you. Thanks. --Law Lord (talk) 17:18, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"passive agressive whining" is not a violation of WP:NPA or WP:CIVIL - it's a description of how someone READS your postings...their interpretation. You really are making a mountain out of not even a molehill. You have read WP:AGF, I'm sure. Yes, I would like to know why Yopie didn't reply - but we cannot force him to. Try AGF, and let it go - you made a mistake, he made a mistake - there are no more actions ever going to be taken in this situation unless you push yourself into further problems. (talk→BWilkins←track) 17:26, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just a reminder that if you close a multiple-article AfD you still need to go through and remove the AfD templates from all the nominated articles. I'm assuming you're using the AfD-closing script - it only automatically removes the template from the first article nominated, you have to do it manually for all the others. I've cleared this one up so no problem, just something to remember for the future. Thanks :) ~ mazcatalk12:08, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yup, no problem - one of the reasons I'm generally happy with the concept of non-admin closes is that it gives people the opportunity to learn these things. ~ mazcatalk14:21, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Um, from what I can see, all of the information from the original "Operation Pomegranate" article is more fully expanded on the article to which is was redirected - which was already noted on the AfD discussion. (talk→BWilkins←track) 14:02, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I roughly agree there - you closed it as "redirect" rather than "merge", which to me seemed exactly correct given the statement made by the nominator. It doesn't hurt to emphasise this in a closing statement - something like "redirect to XXX. The page history remains if anyone wishes to merge any further content" - but that one seems a decent close to me. ~ mazcatalk14:21, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I hate wiki-hounding you, but you may want to read up on WP:NAC. NAC does not allow for no consensus closures (by non-admins), also it does not allow non-admins to interpret consensus, something which you seem to be doing. Adityaαß14:51, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I concur with all the above; I recommend you stop closing AFDs until you have familiarized yourself with how it works. WP:DPR#NAC makes it clear that non-admins should only close AFDs as unambiguous keep results. Please leave no consensus closures to an admin. Stifle (talk) 15:08, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, with the major backlog that was there, and a long history of closing AfD's, I decided to go ahead and do the right thing for the articles, and for the project. I shall keep all recommendations in mind in the future. (talk→BWilkins←track) 18:44, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've known you in the past to be a resonable person. Your threats on the AN/I and calling me a dick raises concern. I have responded there. Would you mind clarifying. Thanks!--Victor9876 (talk) 23:57, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Bwilkins, I understand and placed a question at the bottom of the page if the AN/I is over, with a little levity as to returning to normalcy or abnormalcy depending on one's own preference. I hate to assume anything thing so just a blunt yes or no will do. Thanks again! Hope you don't have to deal with me until the next time! LOL!!!--Victor9876 (talk) 00:31, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse This language is totally unacceptable. Other languages that are unacceptable include French, Esperanto, and Visual Basic. Verbalchat12:10, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, you added two templates to this page. Both left me puzzled.
Could you please specify on the articles talk page where you see facts are inaccurate and why the article does not represent a world wide view. I want to fix it. Thanks Iqinn (talk) 01:58, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You reverted my good faith entry on the etymology of the town name. I lived in Carenage (in a house owned by a Dr Pierre on the east hillside at the north end of School Street, if you're Trinidadian) for a year and that's what the residents told me at the time. But I can't prove it -- just as many hearsay place names can't be proven -- so that's why I started my entry with "It is said...". One meaning of the verb "careen" is to beach a ship for repairs, and it's logical that the place one careens a ship would be a "careenage", which would morph into "carenage".
No. Not you. I thought I had - or i should have - mentioned that I was not naming everyone. In fact, since the only people I thought were total jerks to me were nathan and some other guy, I did not think I had to name everyone else. Moreover, I am pretty sure that earlier in the discussion i single you out by name (username) as someone who didn't agree with me but was courteous.
Please tell me what you want me to do to make things right. I do not want anyone to have the wrong impression of you or my thoughts of you. If you want me to add your name in, I will.
But i had hoped that my written responses to you were always courteous, and consistent with the courtesy you showed me. if you feel I did not treat you properly, I really am sorry. it was not my intention.
I do not mind it when BWilkins and High King tell me they see no personal attack. True, I thought that they misunderstood my explanation, but I know they were giving their honest opinions.
I came here in good faith and expected a minimal amount of courtesy. Several people here, while disagreeing with my view, did respond to me with courtesy and I appreciate that. Mackan, Luna Santin, Eusibius and others don't find any merit in my original statement, but I appreciate their courtesy, and others whose names I have left out... Some however did not. And yes, that changes my view of the situation. My comments to Nathan were all responses to Nathan. Were his initial comments really in line with the spirit of WQA? If so ... if so, well, that really is pathetic, folks.
And from this you think I have attacked you? Do you want there to be some conflict between us? I really do not see where I accuse you of being discourteous. I don't know why you bring it up. Slrubenstein | Talk00:22, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, guys...my friends aren't allowed to fight. Stop. Please. Both of you are among the good guys on this site. Whatever it is, it's not worth fighting about. Guettarda (talk) 00:32, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Guettarda, I have no bone to pick with Slrubenstein...in fact, I fully appreciate his clarification above. As it was possible that I was mistaken on how I read his comments on WQA, I offered that he could bring it here ... and he did, and has clarified/expanded them here, and thanks to Slrubenstein for that... All's good :-) (talk→BWilkins←track) 08:54, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In an attempt to turn a divisive RfC into something productive I created a new page. My intention is to dissociate from anything that could be interpreted as a criticism of ArbCom, and just focus on trying to make Wikipedia better. I hope you can look at it and see if you can help make it work: Wikipedia: Areas for ReformSlrubenstein | Talk15:08, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate your observations. After reading the other guy's response, I realize that there had been some hard feelings caused by something I had written in another discussion. Perhaps it was recent, or perhaps it was when I was a bit more of a jerk than I am now. However, I can certainly relate to that. Anyway, thanks. Mandsford (talk) 17:17, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, BW and assorted talk page watchers. Could you please review this exchange and offer any advice on how to proceed? Does it need a WQA, or is it too complicated/routed in content issues. TALK, TE, IDINTHEARTHAT etc, have been explained to this user across a few talk pages, and I'm at a loss how to proceed with someone who refuses to accept an answer while being quite so rude about it. Best, Verbalchat11:54, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
For pitching in at various forums where users need feedback to resolve disputes and otherwise promote harmonious editing of the project. Thanks for donating your time. Moonriddengirl(talk)12:08, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I watch a lot of the forums that you help out in. I don't often contribute because copyright problems eat up most of my Wikipedia time, but I notice. :D --Moonriddengirl(talk)12:15, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Journalist or otherwise, if you haven't heard of Gillian Tett it must be the case that you don't read the FT. She is a prolific contributor to what is undeniably one of the top 5 English language newspapers of record worldwide. For example, even on the non-subscribers' front page, her Global Insight column from yesterday is the first article link (above the navigation ribbon) as I write this.
Hi Bwilkins, I was following this discussion and did a little research. You might want to look at this link [17] to clarify NOKESS's gender. Also, there may be a conflict of interest with NOKESS's editing of the article Malcolm Nokes when you compare the name on the file upload. Shinerunner (talk) 00:29, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Content of Malcolm Nokes article seems largely uncontroversial and NOKESS's editing doesn't seem to have added anything startling. Name on file doesn't assert gender - could be her hubby.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:35, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Bwilkins thank you for your corrections in the article on Cab Kaye.
However, I undid one correction, "June 3rd", as this is as it appears on the record cover.
In the next weeks I will add some more translated texts on the same article on Cab Kaye. I hope you find the time and check the spelling and compatibility with Wiki conventions on the new contributions as well.
Thanks in advance
--NorbertvR (talk) 17:43, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Funny, you didn't bother with a talk page warning for Revrant and his continued sarcasm towards anyone who disagreed with him or his general lack of recognition if his own bad faith accusations that led up to my comment. Honestly, I feel you had your mind made up when you started. I could be wrong, but it is my feeling (and not a personal attack, so don't bother taking that route.). Niteshift36 (talk) 23:31, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rather than acknowledge that your text was an issue (or could have been read wrong), you didn't take any responsibility for your part of the incident. The entire thing should have been closed days ago with only a minor "don't do it again" to everyone. The continued arguing about it by you led to the only possible response. Don't ever suggest I had made up my mind - you say we have actually "ran into each other" before but I have no memory of that. (talk→BWilkins←track) 09:58, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for assisting in cleaning up the article on the Cape Coral Police Dept. I haven't had time to go back and fix the refs. I had to expand it on the fly sitting at Books-a-Million when someone was trying to merge it out of existance. Niteshift36 (talk) 22:00, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Guidelines on when and how to reformat other users contributions on talk pages?
If not sure if I'm reading you correctly, but your statement on Wikiquette alerts seems to imply that I 'brought it down on myself' by wikifying the comment left by the anon editor on the AfD page. I was under the impression that editing a talk page for readability, and fixing up new editors' comments was a proper, and even polite thing to do, as long as content wasn't touched. Am I mistaken? Could you point me at so guidelines for when its proper, and when improper to edit the comments of another user on a talk page? thanks LK (talk) 14:42, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I just read through the page, and I don't believe it applies to my edit. All I did was to add some white space, a '*' and a 'Keep' in front of a new editor's comment, so that his comment (arguing for keep) did not merge with the previous comment arguing for deletion. I don't think that counts as refactoring. Is there anything about what is proper editing behavior when new editors comments are made in such a way that the whole is muddled and hard to read?
The instructions on AfD are generally fairly clear about starting with "Keep" or "Delete". Many users make a comment that are neither officially Keep or Delete, but add commentary to the discussion. Moving that type of comment to a "Keep" is generally not the correct action. Replying to the mssage saying "was this meant to have Keep at the beginning, or just a comment?" was probably best. (talk→BWilkins←track) 16:02, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I'll follow that rule in the future. I think just a '*' in front to identify it as a separate comment is acceptable? LK (talk) 16:04, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Either :* or :: (or how ever many indents are needed) works - make sure your edit summary says "fixed indent of previous editor" or "fixed previous editor's formatting" or something like that, so that it's clear. Don't combine his/her multiple posts though! Good luck! (talk→BWilkins←track) 18:13, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's the rule I will follow from now on. Thanks! I go fairly often to AfD, and regularly fix up formatting. But I will be more careful from now on. Thanks again, LK (talk) 08:56, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Will you kindly remove your closing commentary from the report I filed about Ottava Rima? It gives an inaccurate description of what happened, and seeing that you are not an administrator or clerk on that page as far as I can tell you have no special authority to close or announce the reason for a closure, nor should you be edit warring over your preferred version of closing language.
There are not "issues on both sides". It is a simple case of an editor being uncivil, apparently as a matter of wikigaming, another editor who showed up to defend that on a notice board, and a process to deal with that going nowhere. I know you are not taking his side exactly, but to summarize there are "issues on both sides" is both untrue and an inaccurate reflection of whatever conclusion the discussion may have reached. There is no fault on part of other editors. That one's modus operendi appears to be counter-accusations and mud-slinging at whomever objects to his abusive behavior. To endorse even one bit of it validates and encourages it, and would blunt any future efforts to review his behavior should it continue. I, for example, am pretty close to a neutral party in this. I have no prior issues (as far as I know) with the editor, have no ax to grind, am pretty close to neutral on his Wikipedia content and process position, and was not the main target of his insults on the AfD page where the incident arose. I was simply unwilling to cast a blind eye to what I saw was a process violation. I did what one is supposed to do - considered the various options, gave him a caution, and when he continued reported it to the notice board. For that he lashes out. I can take it - his ongoing insults were rather aimless and off target. The point is, he has to behave, and efforts to deal with misbehavior are not themselves misbehavior. Seeing two sides fighting where a single difficult editor is taking on the rest of the world is the kind of thing that allows it to persist.
You may agree or disagree, but recording your personal opinion on this as the finding of the notice board is unwarranted. If we cannot agree on suitable language, it is best to simply not comment on the closing. I'll count on doing that unless you have an objection, my other option - adding a statement to the closing comment - being messier. I withdrew my report by allowing it to expire, not because there was a finding by the community or administrators but because nothing was going to be done and the matter grew stale.
You already know that when you file at any noticeboard, or DR forum, that your own actions will also be brought forward. I'm sure you read the closing summary clearly: OR was advised to keep his eye on his civility, and there were possibly some issues on both sides. It was withdrawn. This clearly summarizes the ENTIRE discussion, and the findings of those of us who maintain WQA, and is the complete truth. You, as the complainant really have no say in the closure summary being added. You should carefully read the comments I made in the WQA filing in your support - and I highly recommend RFC/U if you need to pursue. You're right, however, that WQA was not going to achieve anything overall, as blocks cannot be issued as WQA is not run by admins. None of us who monitor WQA are in this to be in a fight with you, so don't pick one with me. I have been neutrally dealing with issues in WQA for a long time. If you can show me that there is nowhere in the WQA where your own actions may have led to some of the incivility against you, then I will change my closure. However, as it stands, and as per my viewing of a wide range of diff's, a minor "you might have had a very slight part of the overall issue" is not a bad thing - think about it. (talk→BWilkins←track) 18:10, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the reply. I'll respond in a bit more detail when I can take a bit of time to think it through. No fight intended, and your efforts are welcome. I'm just trying to find the best path to keeping peace and order on the encyclopedia. Cheers, Wikidemon (talk) 19:20, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Personally, I say either file the RFC/U, or let the whole incident drop. You've got a pretty clear idea now that if anyone has seen you possibly provoke someone, then they'll be all over you in an RFC. Honestly, I think Ottava went waaaaaay overboard, whether or not you provoked him. But that's me, and he was daring you to file the RFC/RFAR. Complaining about a WQA closure is like peeing yourself in a dark suit - nobody knows but you, and it stops feeling so warm pretty quickly. (talk→BWilkins←track) 23:53, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe I just don't understand the nature of WQA reports. I had thought it was the place to go to deal with incivility that continued after an unheeded caution. It was undeniable that incivility was occurring on the AfD page, that a number of community members were unhappy with it, that the offending editor had been cautioned but had reacted with further incivility, and that this had stirred a lot of sometimes heated discussion that was not about the AfD matter at hand. I was hoping we could keep some order so that people could continue to discuss their thoughts on deletion in a productive way without the process grinding to a halt. It should have been a simple matter to report what was going on and see what the community wanted to do about it. Ideally, a neutral administrator would have warned the editor to stop and the editor would have stopped (or if not, been subject to the usual escalating blocks). If not, a fair outcome would be that the community decided there was no incivility, or that the incivility was present but not causing enough trouble to be worth dealing with. That would take all of a few minutes, the editing environment would improve, and the encyclopedia would return to normal. I don't see any room there for retaliatory counter-accusations, or for putting the behavior of the other editors on the page under the microscope. The situation you describe, that my filing a WQA or RFC would attract a swarm of people attacking me, is pernicious and dysfunctional. I've seen that on occasion throughout the encyclopedia, where misbehavior is allowed to persist once an editor learns they can deflect scrutiny for themselves and others they favor by making unfounded accusations of bad faith against anyone who would complain. The "he provoked me" defense is a sub-species of this and, though never really accepted, does cause enough confusion to derail attempts to deal with problems. Most of the editors who did that flamed out eventually and got banned or long-term blocked; some were sockpuppets. There is no point filing an RFC/U on a specific stale incident, and I am neither familiar enough with this editor to know whether this is a more serious present problem, nor self-sacrificing enough to care. But if it turns out to be an ongoing problem someone is going to bring another report up there, or AN/I, ArbCom, etc. When that happens the editor will no doubt point to this report as grist for his accusations against whoever comments there, and will use the "issues on both sides" comment as a way to blame the messenger. If we're going to have civility standards we ought to put our foot down and simply tell people to stop behaving uncivilly, and not get away with it simply because they create a lot of noise and confusion when reported. Wikidemon (talk) 02:29, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(outdent) From the opening sentence of WP:WQA: "Wikiquette alerts are an informal streamlined way to request perspective and help with difficult communications with other editors, so it can be a good place to start if you are not sure where else to go. It is hoped that assistance from uninvolved editors can help to resolve conflicts before they escalate."
A little further down:
"What WQA can do:
Intervene as a neutral third party to talk to editors who are engaging in incivility, or who might be new or unaware of Wiki policies
Provide neutral perspective on issues of incivility
Give guidance on where on Wikipedia to take a particular problem
What WQA CANNOT do:
Give or enforce blocks, bans, or binding disciplinary measures.
Intervene in content disputes, extreme personal attacks, vandalism or 3RR incidents
Mediate longterm, ongoing conflicts between two users".
I am fully supportive of our civility standards - that's why I do so much work at WQA, and from early on I let you know that you were really in the wrong forum, as it was beyond what WQA can deal with. RFC/U is the next step. (talk→BWilkins←track) 09:06, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the feedback, and sorry if I messed things up by taking it to the wrong forum. I do think some good came out of hashing it through. Cheers, Wikidemon (talk) 19:12, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You never messed anything up ... our job is to point you in the right direction. I also agree that hashing it out was a good idea - if you ever do file that RFC/U, you'll be able to point at your attempt to resolve the issues, and also ask a few "supporters" to chime in on that RFC - that's not considered canvassing in this situation. Good luck! (talk→BWilkins←track) 21:06, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As you know, I support escalating complaints where necessary - and I'd have to literally look through every WQA to find where we disagree on more fundamental stuff like that. But, it wasn't just 1 or 2 tiny fundamental things that were missed; the handling of this is/was (potentially) horrible all-around. I trust that my underlying message, both here and there, is received? ;) Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:23, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, you were erasing block notices while you were still in fact blocked. You were pissing off the admins, and that was not going to end well...so yes, to stop you from mucking up further. (talk→BWilkins←track) 09:58, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I am new here, I am not english speaker, so many things become difficult for me... please I ask for your patience, I am still very fool with the codes and things I need to do for post, despite i am trying to read and take information how it works. I don't know how to confirm that there are reliable sources about my contribution. Can you look this video here please?. Really sorry for disturb, I begg for comprehension, I will learn with the time... I still don't know how to add an answer to a discussion :( --Bluesky84 (talk) 17:06, 12 August 2009 (UTC)MT biographer[reply]
I can't look at youtube where I am right now ... and whetever you do, do NOT try and use youtube as a reference or an external link. It is NOT a reliable source, and links to possibly-copyrighted video = BAD. (talk→BWilkins←track) 17:08, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think you made a good faith mistake (University Canada West) in giving me an edit-war warning. I was restoring a version that had been ravaged by an ongoing edit after the "edit-warrer" had been blocked for 24hours. I agree that the article does have problems, but said IP was beaching WP:CIVIL, shouting and yelling, and all that. I came to this as uninvolved during Recent Changes Patrol. The way wiki works is to discuss in a civil manner what one's grievances are and then implement changes. Insulting others, as said IP was doing to user Ingoman is not the way to go. As for the page protection you commented on, said IP can get an account. Let me know what you think. Regards Seb az86556 (talk) 21:23, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You completely violated the WP:3RR rule - vandalism is the only reason, and from my viewing of the edits, it was not vandalism, but a content dispute. Take a look at the history - your reversions and re-adding of material (which counts as a revert) was far more than 3x, when taken between both of the IP addresses. If you looked, you'll notice that I gave the IP editor the same warning. (talk→BWilkins←track) 21:36, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The warning is 100% valid, and you should pay attention - if it happens again, the 3RR noticeboard will be advised. Maybe a read through WP:COI by a few editors over there would be a wise idea as well. (talk→BWilkins←track) 21:49, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
An equally "wise idea" would be to would be to read WP:CIVIL. I am uninvolved and have no interest in the page. I am getting the creeps when rude behavior will eventually get someone to win out. That's the wrong lesson the IP has now learned. If there's something to talk about the two should have talked, which the IP was unwilling to do. After having been blocked for 24 horus, said IP reverted again. Is that the way to do it? Come back after you've already been blocked once and then get your way? Just leave it. Let's disagree. Seb az86556 (talk) 21:58, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you should read WP:CIVIL, you'll know that I'm being more-than civil, and indeed there is nothing in my official, valid warning and the discussion above that would merit even a glance at breaking civility. Indeed, read the above carefully next time - there's messages for everybody. (talk→BWilkins←track) 10:50, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I acknowledged he was being uncivil - however, that is never considered a reason or defence to break WP:3RR, and generally trying to argue so (if you did get blocked for it) merely increases the length of the original block. Reverting actual vandalism is the only defence. (talk→BWilkins←track) 11:20, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I understand that. Merely clarifying that I never attacked you, or at least did not mean to (I can imagine you've been personally attacked quite often, and probably more often than not for no valid reason). Seb az86556 (talk) 11:29, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
When you do a lot of working trying to resolve WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA issues in WP:WQA, you tend to piss a lot of people off - even when you're merely a neutral 3rd party trying to look at things from a different perspective. So, yes, I get more than my fair share of pounding. No harm, no foul in this case though - thanks for the clarification. :-) (talk→BWilkins←track) 11:39, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm running out of patience with the IP editor involved in the "Twinking" WQA (WP:Wikiquette alerts#Twinking). It seems that he's either failed to read the policies, failed to understand them, or is deliberately choosing to ignore them in favor of whatever his agenda is, and I'm pretty sure at this point that he's just continuing to troll in WQA by basically saying people who disagree with him are anarchists.
What's your opinion? I'm basically one step away from escalating it to WP:ANI. He has some valid points that deserve discussion with regard to the content dispute, but the way he's going about it is just inflaming people, and that's far beyond the scope of what's reasonable IMO. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 01:33, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I am an italian friend of user Romandrumanagh (sorry for my english). He requested me to thank you, user:BWilkins, for him. I personally believe he should calm down, get back to en.wiki and ask for an arbitration about Drumanagh. But I understand -reading the comments on 'wikiquette' of user Cavila and user Bretonbanquet (both clearly "celtic")- that it will be 'very very very' difficult to achieve it in an impartial and calm way. Finally, even I find the book of Hughes (British Chronicle) a 'Google book' worth to be included in the bibliography of the voice Drumanagh in the italian wikipedia (and should be even in the en.wiki...), because wikipedia must accept all the points of view and I don't believe 'Google Books' publishes low level books. What strikes me more is the intervention of the admin Kathryn NicDhàna, who seems to be totally on the celtic side, cancelling the posts of my friend asap. Yours. Roberto M. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.86.226.37 (talk) 21:57, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, everybody needs to calm down - including you. Let's assume good faith with the editors and admins alike, and ensure that you not attack people in a nationalistic manner either. Be careful with "friends" when it comes to Wikipedia - our main friends here are WP:RS, WP:N and WP:CIV. (talk→BWilkins←track) 21:08, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You sound like you need a vacation. Get away to sip espresso on a Florentine sidewalk, or ramble over Kinder Scout, or whatever turns your crank. All the buffoons, baboons, weasels, wankers and socks will still be here when you get back. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:12, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi BW. I see that you intend to be off WQA for a bit. Seeing you have been around WQA for a long time you have earned a vacation.
I am very new to WQA and I notice that Category:User essays on dispute resolution only has five essays, and none of them appears to be focused on the WQA process. During your vacation from WQA do you feel like using your experience and expertise to prepare an essay for new WQA contributors like me, and for established contributors?
That's a tremendous idea - probably a good use of time :-) I'll see what I can do. If you have any questions, feel free to ask the "regulars" in WQA, or even myself. Good luck, and thanks for helping! (talk→BWilkins←track) 12:26, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am curious about this edit of yours: [18]. Could you please provide the diff where the user made a personal attack? Nicknack009 has been a long-term, valuable and productive editor here. The new editor who flounced when warned about POV pushing was a WP:SPA who was making a good bit of trouble. I am concerned that you took the POV-pusher's word at face value, and lashed out at an experienced Wikipedian, rather than looking into the situation. - Kathryn NicDhàna♫♦♫05:23, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's pretty anti-WP:AGF of you. I used to have a list of how I investigated WQA's on my userpage. Why don't you actually look at the WQA yourself, and the diffs that had been provided yourself. Just because the other account may have been an SPA, never excuses any form of violation of civility - it may explain it, but not excuse it. (talk→BWilkins←track) 10:44, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So you are unable to provide a diff? I read the WQA, and participated in it. I also engaged with the problematic editor (User:Romandrumanagh) on the various talk pages, and looked at all his edits. It was clear he was not a new account, his username indicated the POV he was pushing on that article, and when editors attempted to discuss it with him, he tried to game the system by saying guidelines aren't set in stone. Since you didn't bother to read the material: he was attempting to use unreliable sources, and even random blog posts off the net, as WP:RSes. When removed and informed why they were not suitable sources, he revert-warred. Had he not flounced, he most likely would have been blocked on 3RR and incivility, as he was rapidly heading that way. Nick, on the other hand, is a valuable, long-term contributor who you treated like the villain in this, simply for reporting the other user's revert-warring, POV-pushing and incivility to multiple users. The project is better served by retaining productive, experienced editors than it is by accommodating those who are disruptive. May I suggest WP:COMPETENCE. Cheers, - Kathryn NicDhàna♫♦♫20:21, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Who I treated like a villain?? Really, after the attacks that Nick made against neutral editors in WQA - all of which are clear in that WQA, I didn't treat anyone like a villian - I merely warned them to not attack neutral, 3rd party editors again. I am going to WP:AGF here, and rather than use the course language that the above deserves, I'm going to let you actually read again, carry some AGF yourself, and keep an eye on Nick for yourself. Thanks for your visit. (talk→BWilkins←track) 20:28, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that if you're feeling agitated, a wikibreak is a good idea. While it's your right to delete questions about your actions from your talk page, it doesn't really leave
the impression that you are interested in being accountable. Also, it's rather disingenous to post that you don't want to engage anymore[19], and then email insults via Wikipedia email. Sending nasty comments to other editors in private is still a violation of WP:CIVIL, and could be
seen as another attempt to avoid transparency. Email on file if needed in future. Good luck. - Kathryn NicDhàna♫♦♫01:16, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Non-transparent and non-accountable? I sent you an e-mail that sure was not "nasty" - it was an attempt to further explain, and point out what you were missing. It was an attempt to engage you - the kangaroo court that was being held in my honour was not the place, so I politely and intelligently began to engage you - in fact, I await your reply. There was no possible way that it could be construed in any other way. Stop the threats please, I have a copy of it too. (talk→BWilkins←track) 10:11, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well then, could you please provide the diff where Nicknack made a personal attack, without mistaking disagreement for incivility? For one who accuses another user of reading between the lines, surely you're old and wise enough not to do exactly that, let alone to burst forth and issue a legal threat one-warning-only threat of a block, right? Oh, and please don't misrepresent consensus. Cavila (talk) 18:08, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What the heck are you on about with your listing of WP:NLT? If you cannot read the entire WQA yourself, let me know - no specific diff is required based on what's there, and I'm not going to say it again. Trust me, I have a better understanding of WP:CONSENSUS than 99.9999% of people on Wikipedia. If you're simply on this talkpage to poke, please travel elsewhere. (talk→BWilkins←track) 18:15, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going through and cleaning up the mess I made of Jetsunma's article. I wasn't straight with you guys, though my spin-doctoring against Jetsunma was pretty obvious to the Wiki community I'm sure. I did not have scholarly integrity in how I wrote the article about Jetsunma, cherry-picking negative information to put together as negative a picture as possible -- even more negative than the most critical materials out there. I knew what to use because I was one of the main sources on the book, The Buddha From Brooklyn, which is major conflict of interest as well (especially since I didn't admit my involvement and presented myself as an outside party and then used that book extensively for the article). In fact, my real name is Michelle Grissom, formerly known as Ani Dechen, and am actually a student who broke with Jetsunma in 1996. I was one of the main reasons the book was so slanted against Jetsunma. I was not honest in that book either, slanting information exactly the same way I did here on Wikipedia: I used things that weren't really a problem for me because I knew they would upset non-Buddhists. Describing a confrontation where -- after 8 years of my rebelling against the monastic community and my breaking my monastic vows -- she yelled at me and swatted me once, I called it a "beating," simply because the police term for any kind physical contact is battery. I swept my own behavior that led to this under the rug. Jetsunma has been divorced several times, to men who either were or later became her students, and I used that in the article to make her look like she was sleeping her way through her students. I also used the generosity of her students as a way to paint her as being very greedy, even though she's never even asked for a salary, and blamed her for the ongoing struggle to build a monastery, even though the main reason the monastery hasn't been built is that the land bought for it doesn't perk. I've taken all the spin-doctoring out of the article and I am very, very sorry I abused Wiki for my own personal vendetta. Longchenpa (talk) 23:01, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So...according to some editing tool, I have never made any minor edits? Or is that depending on recently? Because I certainly remember making minor edits since I have been here at Wikipedia and in recent weeks, though your link to that tool did not work for me.
You also stated, "Surely a little warning might not have been such a bad idea. It appears that who gave it was the real issue." I ask in what way could you not see the error in what User:Law Lord did when two other editors could? Why point out my supposed fault of not always using an edit summary for minor edits as though that is worse than the harassment I was subjected to by him last year? Several other editors clearly pointed out last year that it was harasssment, and you feel that I had no reason to believe that his recent actions on my talk page was a bit of the same? It was not simply because he "warned" me; I would have taken issue with anyone giving me a "warning" about using edit summaries during a minor edit, as would a lot of other editors. As one administrator pointed out, I am not obligated to provide edit summaries for big or even minor edits. Despite this, I am a regular edit summary person; my contributions are full of edit summaries. And, lastly, since the discussion was resolved, why did you feel it necessary to go add more to your "Flyer is the real one at fault here" stance? Flyer22 (talk) 03:10, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Flyer22, I advised you in the original WQA long ago that you should use always edit summaries in minor edits - especially in situations where some type of conflict may occur. You know you have a background with Law Lord, so if you're ever editing articles they do, common sense says "I'd better use short summaries - or else conflict will arise". The tool shows that you have not used edit summaries in any minor edits, and edit summaries in only 79% of your non-minor edits: that means that you're not always putting edit summaries in regular edits either. Most editors use 2 letter short form edit summaries in ALL of their edits as it is the right thing to do. Getting angry over a template is rather odd - after all, the article Do Template the Regulars will be illuminating. (talk→BWilkins←track) 11:10, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am not seeing why I should take your advice of always using edit summaries for minor edits. Hardly anyone here at Wikipedia does that, and I really do not see it as being needed. But contrary to how Law Lord made it seem, I do sometimes use edit summaries for minor edits; just not always. I was not worried about my background history with Law Lord when editing that article because it had been a year since our last unpleasant encounter and he had been thoroughly warned/advised to leave me alone, and because he is not a regular editor of that article (he had just latched onto it; only has one edit to it thus far, as far as I know). Always using an edit summary for a minor edit just in case "must conform to the way I want things done here" Law Lord might template me is silly. And, yes, it is all about what he might do, because no one else is going to template me over something so silly. The tool you cite is wrong; I have used edit summaries in minor edits, and always use edit summaries in regular edits; for goodness sakes, my contributions show that. If one were to go through them and try and find a point where I have not used an edit summary for a regular edit any time this year, that person will not find such a point...unless it is commenting on a talk page (where edit summaries generally are not needed, though I often do use them on talk pages) or is from my editing my user page. One would hardly find such a point for last year or 2007 either...if any at all (which, if found in 2007, would be due to a mistake or due to my being a newbie at that time). Most editors here do not use 2 letter short edit summaries in all of their minor edits. I am at various articles here at Wikipedia at any given day, and never see that. Furthermore, you know very well that I did not simply get angry over being templated this time and that it was more than that the first time as well. But even WP:Don't template the regulars clearly points out that it is not at all odd to get angry about it.
You seemed to take a side in this recent "battle" between Law Lord and myself (I am not sure about the first time with you, because I have not yet revisited your comments there)...instead of trying to see things from both my and Law Lord's points of my view. You acted as though I was the one completely in the wrong both times. You see it that way? Well, then there is obviously nothing I can do about that. But I and others clearly did/do not share that same view. Flyer22 (talk) 12:13, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't "take sides" - I provided both sides of a story. Your belief that I am is obviously fuelling the expansion of the issue between you and Law Lord, and spilling it onto others who have "no horse in the race", and is bordering on an attack on a neutral editor. Most well-respected editors use summaries for all edits, someone told you that you don't have to - fine, go ahead. Common sense says that we try to avoid conflict on Wikipedia, so it's easier to avoid it than to face it. I will continue to suggest that you use them at all times. The tool shows that you sometimes miss them on regular edits. You tell me - how do you want this resolved? There's no blocks, no additional warnings, I'm arguing a neutral position, and I gave a very valid suggestion that you don't want to take. Where exactly do you want this line of action to go? (talk→BWilkins←track) 12:21, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You state that you do not take sides. I state that it seemed you did in this most recent case. You feel that it is bordering on an attack on you, but it is simply the way I view the situation. Had you not seemed to so easily ignore my concerns, then I would feel differently on the matter. You did not give my concerns any real thought, but rather concluded that I was in the wrong simply because you prefer to use edit summaries 100% of the time. Most well-respected editors here at Wikipedia do not use summaries for all edits; they are often not using edit summaries for minor edits. I do use common sense, and it certainly does not need to be implied that I do not. I was not looking for conflict with Law Lord; it is the other way around on that front. And I should not have to use edit summaries for minor edits all the time in "fear" that he will template me. Because, as I stated, it will only be him. The reason I state that the tool you cite is wrong is because I cannot think of any time this year or the past year (or 2007, really, though I would not be surprised there if I did) that I have missed edit summaries during regular edits (unless your tool is counting talk pages), and I have a very good memory. Even just looking through my contributions the day I reported Law Lord shows that I missed no edit summaries for regular edits (unless counting talk pages). The tool is either counting my sometimes lack of edit summaries for talk pages or it is wrong.
I do not want "this line of action" to go anywhere. The matter of what went on between Law Lord and I has been resolved...until he feels he needs to confront me again, that is. I simply wanted to address you about this matter, due to the reasons I stated above. I started this discussion with you to better get a grasp on where you were/are coming from on this matter. Now that you have provided me with information on that, I see no reason to continue this discussion. Flyer22 (talk) 13:07, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hey there. Do you think you could please add a copyleft license to this image? I think you might have accidentally forgotten it while uploading. Thanks, NW(Talk)02:24, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, if you read the post on my talk page, it said "If those steps also fail, or the conduct is becoming a serious problem, then the only alternative left is to request administrator intervention (ANI), or sometimes you may need to go further than that and request intervention from ArbCom in order to resolve the dispute" [emphasis added]
I addressed the reasons why I went straight to ANI on the post itself.
"Hi, an issue about User:Otterathome was recently raised over at WQA, but was closed as stale. I commented on the talk page of the user who was involved in marking it as such, and s/he replied suggesting RfC/U or if it was becoming a serious problem, ANI or ArbComm. After reading the limitations of RfC/U and the fact that the problem is continuing to escalate, I believe the issue needs to be addressed here. Below is the copy of the WQA alert, and at the bottom I have added some recent updates."
So that is why I raised the issue at ANI.
Additionally, I have just reread through the entire post and I do not see anywhere that suggests taking the issue to RFC. So I am not sure what you are referring to there.
And finally, you said that I "unwisely unarchived something at ANI." However, I was just going by the description on the ANI page which said "Threads will be archived automatically after 24 hours of inactivity. If you see a thread that should not be archived yet, please add a comment requesting more discussion, or if it is already archived, remove it from the archive and restore it to this page, preferably with a comment." I believed the section should not be archived because there was no resolution and there was no suggestion for how to proceed (if I am missing a RFC suggestion please correct me, but as I said, I reread through it and saw no such suggestion) so I unarchived it per the directions on the page along with a comment, as directed.
You don't get it - RFCU is for dealing with a pattern of disruption, and ANI for immediate incidents. Nothing you have shown about Otterathome requires immediate action. That is why the ANI thread was archived. (talk→BWilkins←track) 11:56, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
New Item on Admin Notice Board regarding Bf20204 (now editing as Ba20204)
Hi - I put a new notice board item up regarding a user who was blocked for outing me this week. He is back editing under a new account (but signing his old user name) before his block is up, resorting to personal attacks/accusations, etc. Thought you would be interested. Bevinbell14:51, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your links clean up - I am still trying to learn little things like that. Do you think I should also cross-post on the suspected sockpuppet page? It does not really require a checkuser and he admits it in his edits (lets see, thats outing, block evasion, sockpuppet, personal attacks, harassment, bad faith accusations, editing archives, etc.). Would it be heaping or is it good practice to list both places? Bevinbell15:21, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, that makes sense. It does feel a little slow in generating interest. Am I just freaking out, or do you think that there is an issue of broader community interest? Bevinbell23:21, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, RfA is more like having a porcupine dragged backwards through your rectum than an actual discussion, but I think almost six months is enough time lapsed since the single incident people were complaining about. → ROUX₪19:13, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
To me, time is less important that quality of work. I don't want people to simply forget, I want the quality to stomp it out of existence - or at least to some small corner. (talk→BWilkins←track) 10:45, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody is certain that your behaviour has changed. It has archived as unresolved, which will be key should your behaviour ever come to ANI again. I would personally take up someone's offer of mentoring - you could use some gently, friendly guidance through Wikipedia. (talk→BWilkins←track) 09:02, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am so loathe to be seen as shopping I'm finding it hard to even ask for a second opinion. If I see evidence of policy violation but there's nothing I can prove and it's entirely possible the other party is simply vehement regarding their outlook, how should I proceed? I've started an RfC but that has not brought the issue to light. I've said as much as I dare (while trying not to accuse others without proof), and the feeling I get has not gone away. I don't think it could be considered a Wikiquette issue because the person is being moderately civil (if not completely pig-headed). I really don't want to accuse someone of something only to have a thrid-party determine that I'm the one at fault for accusing others without proof. Is there a non-public way to ask that an editors conduct on a specific page be reviewed so as not to draw attention to the editor in question? I'm looking for the most innocuous way to deal with this that damages the least amount of people. Padillah (talk) 16:09, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Smiley face murder theory. There is increasing contention regarding almost anything being added to the article. In any way, shape, or form. Several attempts at compromise have been tried, several explanations have been offered. The only response we get is the rather cryptic "it doesn't pass WP:UNDUE". That's it. No explanation or support, as if that simple statement should be enough. And my problem stems from the fact that you can only be turned down for vague, unsupportable reasons so many times. Padillah (talk) 12:47, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I wondered where another highly aggressive wikilawyer popped up from suddenly. Yes, it is shopping. The RFC you started resulted in a consensus against what you wanted to do, so you chose to ignore it. Your summary of my arguments is absurdly misleading, to the point of almost having to be intentionally so to even make such absurd claims. The reasons are very clear and detailed and supported. But of course none of that seems to matter as BWilkins' idea of giving "neutral" input is to suggest we throw policies out completely if it allows you to do what you want to do. DreamGuy (talk) 00:17, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"highly aggressive wikilawyer"? You're kidding right? There is one aggressive editor, and I welcome you to my talkpage. First, it's not shopping when someone approaches a neutral editor for help with a situation. Second, I'm not being aggressive, I'm being reasonable and polite. Third, the only wikilawyer is the one quoting policy that they obviously don't understand again and again. If you want neutrality in an article, both sides need to have appropriate (not necessarily equal) representation. (talk→BWilkins←track) 12:07, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If I wanted to shop I know plenty of users that would love to contradict you. Also, the idea that you have presented arguments is absurdly misleading. You have shouted WP:UNDUE louder and louder but have yet to present an actual argument. Or even listen to the ones being given to you. Padillah (talk) 12:26, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm forced to ask, do you think it would be appropriate to request mediation? DreamGuy doesn't look even remotly close to backing off or, not to put too fine a point on it, bothering to compromise at all. I've done the RfC, I've done the AN/I (inappropriate but I did it), He is the one that asked for help on the notice board... I don't know where else to go. Padillah (talk) 17:35, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
With the extent of new bodies all agreeing with the change, I say make the change under WP:CONSENSUS...be WP:BOLD. If he reverts, request mediation. You're right though, he's not likely to back down, and I don't know why at this point - it makes zero sense from a logic point of view. (talk→BWilkins←track) 18:04, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate that you like the original question - I would have had no problem with including your follow-up with my own! Looks like your own RfA is going well, congrats (pretty sure I'm not jinxing it by saying that)! (talk→BWilkins←track) 12:46, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My first reaction on seeing your question was: wonder why no one has asked me this before; seems like relevant information that reviewers would need to evaluate the candidate. I also think that being upfront about these issues at the RFA is likely to prevent lessen future revelations and drama. Just hope that reviewers don't judge a candidate harshly if (s)he chooses to reveal alternate accounts to a bureaucrat instead of listing them openly, since there can be legitimate reasons for doing so. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 13:02, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't know whether I should include "past" accounts in the question - perhaps it might make a good add-on if there are concerns about their activity. As you note, alternative accounts have some valid reasonings, and good reasons to keep them close to the chest as per policy. People who vote in RfA should know that. (talk→BWilkins←track) 13:12, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think asking about past account is relevant since, (1) one cannot otherwise evaluate a candidates complete editing history, (2) asking about only current alternate accounts leaves a huge loophole for wikilawyers, who can later claim that they didn't reveal an account since they had stopped using it (say) one week ago. Of course, it is always possible to lie and escape detection if one is canny and motivated enough, but that's true for any process. After all we judge a candidates on the quality of their answers to RFA questions, which can (in theory) be written by a team of experienced supporters! That said, as you say, having an alternate account is not synonymous with having an abusive alternate account, and reviewers should not jump to bad faith assumptions either. Abecedare (talk) 13:35, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Greetings. I would appreciate it if you please could inform me as to what rule or policy I've violated by which I'm being restricted from editing the articles in question. Thank you. --Ludvikus (talk) 21:15, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You were disruptive. The restriction is an extension of the block in order to prevent it from happening again. They're very commonly used together when someone shows promise, and therefore may actually do good work when unblocked. (talk→BWilkins←track) 09:56, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
18:44, 13 May 2008 El C (talk | contribs) blocked Ludvikus (talk | contribs) (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 2 years (Disruptive editing: a re-occuring problem)
02:21, 23 October 2007 Future Perfect at Sunrise (talk | contribs) blocked Ludvikus (talk | contribs) (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 2 months (General disruption, as discussed in multiple places. Last straw: Creation of abusive WP:BLP for WP:POINT purposes.)
In other words, you were blocked for disruption. People don't get blocked for mere content disputes, it's how people handle disputes that gets them blocked. If you handle any form of content or personal dispute disruptively, then it's a block - such as you already received. (talk→BWilkins←track) 19:23, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
But that's my Past! I learned my lesson.
So you agree. I've Not been disruptive since my reinstatement. So why am I now Restricted?
Now I was only in a Content dispute.
I don't know why you are discussing my Past now.
The issue is my restriction to four (4) articles: [20].
You were let off the block EARLY under the RESTRICTION that you stay away from those articles. If it was not for the restriction, you would still be blocked. Arguing otherwise is not getting you very far. (talk→BWilkins←track) 08:43, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think you're factually mistaken. My Ban was removed without any Restrictions. The Restrictions were imposed recently. I'm now primary interested in knowing that you understand what I'm saying. I certainly wish to observe your determination as an administrator. But I want to know that you understand what I'm saying. There were NO Restrictions imposed on my return from the Ban. The Restrictions are a NEW thing imposed only because of my activity at Wikipedia when I had NO restrictions. If that has no relevance as far as your concerned - well so be it. But at least let me know if you understand me. If I were optimist about Wikipedia - I would hope you would come to my rescue like a Knight in shining armor. But, unfortunately, my experiences at Wikipedia has made me pessimistic - and leaves me with a very bad taste in my mouth. --Ludvikus (talk) 21:12, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have carefully read what you're saying. Whether there's 3 seconds or 3 days in between when you got unblocked and the valid editing restrictions were placed, I don't care. You were unblocked - you went right back to the same articles that got you blocked in the first place. In order to prevent disruption like the first time, you have been given restrictions. You have the ability to eventually lose those restrictions once you understand them. Acceptance is step 1 of any 12-step program. I am one of the people that believe blocks are final options - restrictions are a positive step towards your return. Look at them as the benefit that they ARE, and not the negative you seem to be seeing them as. Would you rather be blocked again? Not likely. Live with them for now, show you're a positive contributor - one who works well with others, and works within the rules and policies. In no time, you'll be a valued editor, and all will be forgotten/forgiven. (talk→BWilkins←track) 21:21, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the clarification. But now I see another factual issue you seem to overlook. The reason I was Blocked was not because of my work on historical revisionism related articles as far as I know. It involved Disruption related primarily to one editor - User:Boodlesthecat- who is now himself blocked for One Year: [21]. I was Blocked by Adm. User:El_C for his view that I was guilty of "general disruption." I never learned who, exactly, I had disrupted - but I did learn to be extremely cautious - precisely because of my "Wiki Conviction" record. And of course, if that reason too makes no difference to you - so be it. It seems to me that the situation you say I must accept is that if a single User wishes to Restrict me - I must accept that. Is that not so? It really makes no difference to you why I'm Restricted. I should just accept that, right? I also cannot find the Administrator's Noticeboard Page where the issue was discussed. Has there already been a consensus, and has the page been archived? And do I have a right to participate in the discussion on that page? I believe that my current Restriction is based on a Content dispute with just one editor, the Restricting editor, PBS. And if that makes no difference to you - so be it. --Ludvikus (talk) 21:55, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It was archived after 24 hrs of not being touched, which means that by default, the administrative decision seems to be that the restriction (for now) was validated. You had your chance to discuss, and you raised the ire of additional admins by your statements. Live with the restrictions for a month. After a few hundred good edits elsewhere, ask the restricting admin to review your behaviour, and whether or not he would be willing to lift the restriction. If he won't ask at ANI. Just be a good editor, that's the basic point. (talk→BWilkins←track) 22:19, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the clarification. It helps me understand you, and how Wikipedia works much better. I don't think I'll need to bother you on this anymore. --Ludvikus (talk) 22:41, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hello again. I appreciate your counsel very much. And the Administrator who un-Banned me (Phil) has informed me previously that you're a respected editor for a long time at Wikipedia. Therefore, your opinion will carry great weight with me. The above rule has recently been brought to my attention. I certainly want to comply with it 100%. I understand what it says one must NOT do. But I don't know if I'm clear as to what I May do, or what I'm encouraged to do - there is the policy: WP:Bold. Could you clarify how this policy applies to me in any particular way because of my Restriction? I'm restricted from editing four (4) pages. I accept the Adm. consensus on that. But how does this WP "meat puppet" Rule apply o me as to what I can do? Thanks. --Ludvikus (talk) 22:10, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Basically, meatpuppetry is when you ask someone else to make the edits for you, and is a bad bad thing. I would confirm if you are allowed to edit the TALKPAGE of the articles. If you are, then you might be able to discuss your proposed changes. If they meet consensus, then ask someone to implement them. However, as I said, ask the admin who placed the restrictions first if you may at least discuss on the talkpage. (talk→BWilkins←track) 22:09, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I certainly would like to do what you suggest. And I can assure you that if the discussion were to get "heated" on my Talk page - it would not be because of me. I can guarantee that 100%.
However, I'd like to let you know that Phil is the kind administrator who "commuted" my two-year WP "sentence" to time-served (1 1/2 years maybe).
But he is NOT the one who is currently Restricting me from discussions regarding historical revisionism. In order not to inflame any possible Confrontation - I will not mention his name. But is it significant for you to know exactly who does not want me to discuss this subject? Thanks. --Ludvikus (talk) 14:31, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks even more. I've just noticed that you've suggest (only to Phil) that I be permitted to make comments on the four (4) historical revisionism Talk pages (I though it was only here). So I'm even more appreciative. I think I can be extremely civil on those Talk pages - I can assure you of that. And I understand - again I repeat it - that it's Consensus, not Truth, which guides us at WP. Perhaps we should call "truth by majority vote." I'm certainly willing to live by that. So can I get my WP "non-voting rights" back at least - as you are proposing? --Ludvikus (talk) 15:07, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Bad news for me! Have done exactly as you advised and recommended. But AdministratorUser:Philip Baird Shearer, a.k.a. PBS, has added three (3) more restrictions to the list. He says he so informed me previously, but I have no recollection of that.
Of course I'll obey him - until he changes his mind, or the NEW Restrictions are lifted.
Ludvikus, I am glad that you opened that dialogue with PBS. Indeed, Wikipedia runs on open, polite, respectful communication that eventually leads to consensus. Although you are currently under some restrictions from some articles, I hope that PBS has been able to advise you what you need to do in order to eventually have those restrictions lifted. Feel free to watch the discussions on the pages that you have restrictions, and see how the conversation takes place - model your own interactions after the good discussions. Work on a few other articles using those good interaction styles. Show the Wikipedia community that you're a valuable and then valued contributor. Show everyone that you follow the core policies. After a period of time, check with PBS to see if you're doing better ... indeed, editor review is not a bad thing for you a couple of months from now. Actions always speak louder than words - show us how good of an editor - both by quality of edits AND quality of interactions - you can be. (talk→BWilkins←track) 13:18, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks so much for your constructive advice - particularly this: editor review. I never heard of it 'till you mentioned it now. I'm going to think about your advice for a bit - to make sure I understand it fully. --Ludvikus (talk) 14:28, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
LOL ... I knew you were in the "centre of the universe" long ago! I took some journalism courses at Ryerson awhile ago, so I know TO...and "hey from O-Town" (talk→BWilkins←track) 13:41, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Heh ... there are some good-looking (and well-off) people in Orillia - some even have all of their own teeth. I've been there, done them that once or twice. (talk→BWilkins←track) 13:45, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Bwahahah. I prefer the eye-candy in my neighbourhood. It's breathtaking, no matter what your gender preference. → ROUX₪13:49, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, having gone to Ryerson, I know the neighbourhood around there and can agree, depending on your preferences. Hey, did you see my last additions to your questions a few threads above ^ ? (talk→BWilkins←track) 13:54, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Heh, I'm in Rosedale. Gorgeous people everywhere. And yes. I think it's silly that you might not pass this time--the project is broken. → ROUX₪13:57, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In appreciation of the time you said I could use your name to have my Restriction lifted with respect to Talk pages related to Historical revisionism.
I shall not forget your fairness towards me, in spite of my poor WP "reputation." You stood up for me (and therefor Wikipedia). Much Thanks! Ludvikus (talk) 03:23, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
Thanks for your remarks on ANI, but the following comment by you leads me to think you've misunderstood the situation: "It was not removed because of the arguement, it was removed because the continued use." This isn't what happened. I'm wondering if everyone else is missing this point, too. Robert K S (talk) 12:45, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, but please take the logical step backwards: did anyone actually have to warn you before removing it? No. Your arguing of the warning was proof that you failed to understand the purpose of rollback, and therefore temporary removal was appropriate. (talk→BWilkins←track) 13:26, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Your arguing of the warning was proof that you failed to understand the purpose of rollback". I understood fully the purpose of the rollback and disputed that it was contrary to policy. What you're saying here is that arguing one's innocence is proof of one's guilt. I realize Wikipedia isn't the U.S. justice system, but it's shouldn't be this insanoland, either, where opening your mouth to argue a point in your defense is what gets you in trouble. This statement of yours, it's a crazy statement to me: arguing the warning was proof of failure to understand. How can one even begin to argue if one doesn't understand what one is arguing? How can one effect justice in a system if one cannot even state one's case? The statement has this total presumption that the administrator's position was right without even a consideration that my position was the correct one. Robert K S (talk) 17:16, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I looked at your edits. Rollback was used for a purpose they should not have been. Most admins remove rollback right away. Look, it's not a big deal - wait a month, ask for it back - you've generally done good work with it. The more you argue this no big deal, the bigger deal it becomes, really, it's not worth it. (talk→BWilkins←track) 18:06, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I noticed that you were involved in dispute resolution with the captioned editor. If it is inappropriate to write to you, please just disregard this; I am not willing to put more time into understanding the complexities of WP protocol.
I started editing, (and thus was a newbie editor), Polanski about a week ago. My motives were to clean up the article so that the references actually supported the text, and to facilitate balance so that the Tate murders and his career were not completely overshadowed. I was also very concerned that the then 13-year-old victim be treated in a conscientious manner. Many of the recently added references came from op-ed pieces. There were factual problems (for example, he was photographing for Vogue Hommes, not Vogue). I pointed out that the text related to the sex assault, which intermixed incomprehensibly material from a 2003 interview (which did not have her testimony) with verbatim testimony lifted from the grand jury transcript was connected to an article which was incorrect as well in its sourcing. I was called numerous things by other editors, and allegations included tarring the victim by discussing her hymen (did not!), supporting pedophilia (am a victim, how absurd!), etc., which were completely erroneous. After a week of this, I resigned from the article and in disgust (and in this I was wrong), removed all of my edits from the Talk page. Of the editors responsible for the disharmony and lack of progress, Urban XII was the primary culprit, continuously banging the pedophilia drum, with an unregistered IP 99.141/142/? coming in a close second.
I have no interest in working on Wikipedia again, but I would urge someone to follow up with Urban XII because he is abrasive to many members of the community, and careful and intelligent writers will be turned off from contributing when they could be working for pay, or tutoring at a local college where their efforts might be appreciated.
I would very much appreciate your advice on whether my WK editing on a particular article is within the guidelines of WP. I have a particular interest in editing Controversial subjects. You must know that editors of such articles ought not to be evaluated by the same standards as editors who edit neutral subjects - for reasons obvious to me. Nevertheless, one is much more likely to get into WP trouble than if one were to edit some relatively obscures subject which was of little interest to anyone else. With that in mind, I'd like to ask you to visit the Talk page of New World Order (conspiracy theory) and advise as to the propriety of my discourse there, and inform me of your opinion as to my abiding by Wikipedia policy, rules, and customs. I would not want to be surprised again as I was when that Restriction was imposed. Whatever you say to me about how I've conducted myself their will carry great wait, not only because your a long standing ADM, but also because I myself have respect for your opinion. I want to make sure I'm doing the right thing. It's extremely difficult at times to tell if all that's happening is a mere difference of opinion. But I've learned that Consensus is probably the number one principle at Wikipedia. However, it's not always clear what the Consensus is - especially when the topic is a hot one because of the content of the subject matter.
I look forward to your frank evaluation and, as I said above, I shall give it great weight in execution on Wikipedia.
PS: I want to make sure I'm an excellent editor, even if the discourse is heated. I worry still as to what "disruption" and "confrontation" really mean. Anyway, I have confidence that if I only hear your observation, I'll instantly respond appropriately. I must also inform you that I'm seriously considering just leaving Wikipedia because I find it distasteful to have accept abuse and at the same time not to respond in kind. But most of all, I really do not know if I deserve an "A" or an "F" regarding my performance at the above article. And I'm also curious what you think. --Ludvikus (talk) 04:45, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, where do I start:
It's good that you didn't bite the hook: you were effectively called "well-intentioned but clueless" on Oct 8, but didn't argue. It appears that you then did more reading behind the scenes.
Remember, Wikipedia is not a vote. I have trouble calling 2-1 "consensus" as you did on Oct 8.
Loremaster does seem to be undermining your intentions, but again, you're not taking the hook; that said, you do need to read up on the freemasonry aspet of things
At 6:46 on Oct 10 (my time), your commentary about why the logo commentary was "bad" unfortunately shows a lack of understanding about the topic. To me, the caption was clear and concise, and made sense. The later allusion to "rape" is just ... well ... jaw-dropping. It's not a point worth taking in that direction
On October 11, you stopped assuming good faith completely, and starting going on about Wikipedia becoming a "comic book". This appears to be where you became as stubborn as Loremaster and others - you drew a line inthe sand over something very minor. Later interactions by both sides are clouded by this.
I am going to stop at the 18:32 October 12 (my time) edit that starts with "My proposal now is that we stop all this bickering" ... even that was a lot of anti-WP:AGF-ish. Saying, let's try again, but accusing the other of certain actions rings as hollow from my point of view.
Thanks a million!!! I'm going to see if I can put your observations into practice. But you cannot be serious about that 2-1 one thing? When with may so-called "drptv" record? How can you possibly advise me to ignore the majority? To be disruptive is when you ignore the majority. The instant one does that, one is is labeled disruptive and threatened with being Blocked. Don't you realize that. Anyone, particularly an Administrator, who's editing an article with me, if he doesn't agree with my edits, can say simply, I'm going to get you blocked because you're being again disruptive. What do I do in such a scenario? --Ludvikus (talk) 12:53, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That said, you've been extremely helpful in pointing out some of thye things I should look out for. Like analogies that you tell me effectively that they might be ineffective. I'll do my best to remember that! --Ludvikus (talk) 12:53, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Also, it's extremely difficult to tell if one has "bitten the hook." But also, why should I be subjected to that? I do find it provocative, confrontational, and disruptive. And from the above, it appears I have "bitten the hook" so to speak. Otherwise, I think I would have had a better impression on you. Why must I endure such provocations? --Ludvikus (talk) 12:58, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry to butt in but I figured I'd give this a shot. I read the page in question and first I'd like to point out: I'm here to help. The allusion to "bitten the hook" is a complement. For example, if I know a person likes WWF wrestling and I want to get them in trouble, I can start an argument rather easily by simply suggesting that WWF is fake. The key being I know I'm going to irritate them and I bring up the topic on purpose to do just that; give me an opportunity to poke at the other persons ideals without having to mention them. Now, if a third-party comes looking they'll see me as innocent (I was only talking about WWF, not the other editor), and the other editor as being belligerent. It's like fishing, you put out something you think is irresistible (worm on hook or sideways insult to editor), and then see if the "fish" bites. Get it? :) As for the "consensus" it's not that cut-and-dry. Consensus is not "an overriding vote", because if people vote out of ignorance then that shouldn't really count, right? That's why consensus isn't found by voting, it's found by summarizing the arguments, if there are better (not more) arguments for keeping it in, it should stay. If there are better (or, sometimes overriding) arguments for leaving it out, it should go. A good example is WP:BLP, when a fact about a living person doesn't have Exposure through multiple outlets, it'll probably fail BLP. That doesn't mean it's false, just that it's not sufficiently dependable and wide-spread to risk the problems of libel. Consensus is a tricky thing that doesn't always follow a standard path. Padillah (talk) 17:07, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
One, I can't also be an admin because BWilkins isn't an admin. and Two, no, I'm not an admin. But that shouldn't have any impact on whether I'm right or not. There is no special standing for being an admin. Padillah (talk) 17:44, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. This one remains very much contentious. There is a proposed compromise at the link above. If you still have any interest in the topic, your additional 3O (or perhaps 4O :D) could be very helpful. If not, please forgive the note. :) Thanks. --Moonriddengirl(talk)18:50, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just so you're aware, I believe the same person who caused a lot of grief earlier this year over the addition of one, "Mike Flaherty," to the Smiley face murder theory seems to be back based on the location of the IP and the content trying to be added. Last time the IP not only refused to listen to any WP policies/guidelines, but they went one step further to WP:OUT Padilla and I out of revenge. Angryapathy (talk) 13:11, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You commented on this topic Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Misuse_of_talk_page a couple of days ago. While nothing seems to have been resolved, I cannot find the topic any more. I tried to look in the archives but cannot figure out how to find anything. Can you tell me how to find it again? Riverpa (talk) 23:29, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Some errors occurred with the Archiving ... I think it has been fixed. Go back to WP:ANI and search for the topic from the search box at the top - hopefully you have no problem this time. (talk→BWilkins←track) 11:05, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
DangerousPanda ,Thank you for participating in my RfA, which passed nearly unanimously with 174 in support, 2 in opposition and 1 neutral votes. Special thanks goes to RegentsPark, Samir and John Carter for their kind nomination and support. I am truly honored by the trust and confidence that the community has placed in me. I thank you for your kind inputs and I will be sincerely looking at the reasons that people opposed me so I can improve in those areas ( including my english ;) ). If you ever need anything please feel free to ask me and I would be happy to help you :). Have a great day ! -- TinuCherian - 06:02, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You are involved in a recently-filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Skipsievert and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—
Acknowledged - however, see my recent addition: the IP was advised to read BRD very early, and rethink his anger - they don't appear to have ever done so. Even saying "whoa, I didn't know that" or even acknowledging its existence after it was pointed out would have been beneficial for them, IMHO. (talk→BWilkins←track) 13:41, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Eusebeus, I'm confused about your comment. Are you saying that I encouraged misuse of WQA? I would read the case a little more clearly, read my post on WQA this morning, and specifically read WP:NPA, if that's what you're suggesting. (talk→BWilkins←track) 12:32, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, I was focusing on the request for review of ANI comments and missed the trivial WT stuff for which a WQA might be warranted. (I doubt I'll read NPA, though thanks for the suggestion.) Eusebeus (talk) 13:45, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
When an editor goes to WQA for assistance, it's pretty obvious that they feel wronged, and that means the issue is not trivial. There has been, in their belief, a violation of either WP:CIVIL and/or WP:NPA. It is vital for anyone who is assisting in WP:WQA to know both of those policies like the back of their hand, and to respect the emotions that a user is feeling. Give them the benefit of the doubt and read the entire posting clearly - they deserve that as a minimum. Yes, some will be trivial and some will be bad faith postings, but how you handle the situation AND how you handle the complainant can have long-lasting repercussions on Wikipedia. (talk→BWilkins←track) 13:50, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Spot me a place for the night in your idyll, BW. As we have discussed before and as you are aware, well over half the complaints at WQA are forum-shopping, or passive-aggressive attempts to make a point by other means, or gaming the system. You know this perfectly well, just as you know very well that it is itself a gross violation of our 5pp/civility policy. In fact, remediable civility violations (whether of the NPA or Kettle variety) are almost always immediately obvious, making it straightforward to distinguish the brand of "mediation as remedy for my problem" prevalent at WQA (in this case signalled by the dishonest ANI filing and subsequent wikilawyering). Or so I think, but I am willing to accept that others will differ. BUT, if you think telling an editor of many years standing simply to go read NPA (as if she were simply unaware of the page) is reasonable, I will certainly not quibble. But allow me, as riposte, the gentle suggestion of a modest dose of WP:DTTR. Eusebeus (talk) 15:31, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Your WP:AGF readings are off the chart. Your replies in WQA show a lack of compassion for other editors, and truly a lack of understanding of anything that was written in either the WP:ANI or the WP:WQA filing - you jumped to conclusions based on partial readings, and failed to see the root cause. I will, however, take some hope from SRQ's post below this, and will consider the situation resolved unless otherwise notified. (talk→BWilkins←track) 16:27, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your assistance, Bwilkins. I did read what was placed on the other user's talk page, and have hope that will resolve issues between her and I. I just want to edit Wikipedia in peace. Have a great weekend. SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 15:12, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I too Thank You and wish to edit in peace. The above note should read "between her and myself." At this juncture, I must add, SHE feels wronged? From past experience, I sincerely doubt any issues have been resolved but will continue on in Good Faith. JoyDiamond (talk) 03:27, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
RE: Addressing the issues, Joy & Kelly (in alphabetical order)
Thank you for your impartial comments. In attempting to respond, I went to the alleged complete archive of the "The Karel and JoyDiamond Chronicles" (Kelly's talk page) and find that large sections have not been included including a discussion of "outing" in which Kelly disclosed my own personal information by referring to the internet, a fact she acknowledged. If, by being specific in mentioning "Google" is a violation, for that I apologise. As for further discussion regarding the egregious attacks made on my person, my education and my knowledge, I will stop here and send myself to my room for an hour.;-) JoyDiamond (talk) 22:08, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Regardless of whether or not you agree with what or how someone edits, it is an egregious offense in Wikipedia to tell others to "refrain from editing", as you did with Regisfugit. No one owns articles in Wikipedia and no editor has a right to tell another to cease editing. Telling someone to *not* edit an article is considered harassment and a violation of the Wikipedia standard concerning civility. Please see the following articles to help you better understand appropriate and inappropriate Wikipedia conduct: WP:DBF, WP:HAR, WP:CIV, WP:NOTHERE, WP:SPA. SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 03:15, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
Wikihounding See also: Wikipedia:Etiquette Wiki-hounding is the singling out of one or more editors, and joining discussions on pages or topics they may edit or debates where they contribute, in order to repeatedly confront or inhibit their work, with an apparent aim of creating irritation, annoyance or distress to the other editor. "Wikistalking", an older term, is discouraged because it can confuse minor online annoyance with a real world crime.
I have a fairly good correspondence with Regisfugit and just repeated succinctly what he has been asked before by previous editors and admins. NONE of this is Skag's concern. JoyDiamond (talk) 04:04, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
ADDENDUM Bicker better? Nice alliteration, but the bickering on the other editors part needs to stop. My only concern is to upgrade all of the Wiki articles in which I have an interest.JoyDiamond (talk) 04:22, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I notice that some of these are merely re-posted from elsewhere. Conversations must be kept together. The first thing that I will be doing is to remove any of these on my page that are a second (or third) posting from somewhere else. Second, "moving forward" means stop needling people - in fact, regardless of what I said above, from this I recommend the two of you stay off of each other's talkpages so as to neither provoke or poke. Today promises to be a busy off-Wikipedia day for me, so be patient with me and with each other. (talk→BWilkins←track) 11:32, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate your input and constructive criticism. I have removed the "refactor". I have a lot to learn and appreciate your instruction, anytime! JoyDiamond (talk) 22:48, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't want to get into the middle of this, but I have noticed that Skagitriver does quickly jump down other people's throats, participates in personal attacks, and VERY quickly labels other people'd edits as "vandalism" whenever their POV differs from her's. Additionally, she whines about these issues as opposed to ever getting them resolved. Regisfugit (talk)
I removed the text you copied/pasted: always use WP:DIFFs to show your point because copy/paste is "modifiable". On top of that, the issue in this thread was refactoring - the issue in the thread above (where I think you intended your post to be) is resolved IMHO. Stirring up the hornet's nest when both offending editors were told to "cut it out" probably isn't a good idea. (talk→BWilkins←track) 10:43, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Invitation to participate in SecurePoll feedback and workshop
If you don't know what Queens Crossings is, you could have contacted me. It is not a corporation or company, and it is a shopping center located in Flushing, NY on the block between 38th Ave. + 39th Ave. and Main Street + 138th St. I recommend you google it and double check infromation before requesting Speedy Deletion... Thanks, CCTV 11-01-2009... —Preceding unsigned comment added by CircuitCityTeleVision (talk • contribs) 02:03, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I checked what it was alright. Could not find anything that made it meet Wikipedia's guidelines on notability. Wikipedia isn't a shopping directory, it's an encyclopedia. I'm also a little concerned about your username ... (talk→BWilkins←track) 10:13, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I know it is not a shopping directory, but I submitted it for future changes, I wish you could recover the written article. I would want to let people know this center, so they could know the history of it. It is not intended for 'shopping purposes'.
One more question. is it possible to change my username? If possible, I would request ForestHillsGardens (community where I live). Thanks, The CCTV 06:37, 15 November 2009 (UTC). —Preceding unsigned comment added by CircuitCityTeleVision (talk • contribs)
Howdy. I noticed that here you made a comment stating that "Edit summaries are required for all edits." Unless I'm mistaken, they are only highly suggested, and not actually required.--Rockfang (talk) 21:58, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, based on WP:Edit summary there are a number of times when they are required - and he's hitting them. I was going to use the standard template that advises editors to use summaries, but as I was already helping with something else, I figured I'd do it in a more personal, friendly manner. (talk→BWilkins←track) 11:11, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That page isn't a policy, or a guideline. So that page can't require anyone to do anything. I do agree edit summaries should be used, but I suggest against telling people something is required when it is not.--Rockfang (talk) 11:24, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. There may be a consensus that editors "should" use them, not required though. If you can show me a case of someone getting blocked or banned only for not using edit summaries, then I'll concede defeat. ;) And I feel your pain about the early morning. :) It is 5:53am here.--Rockfang (talk) 11:54, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There are some times (for example edits that might cause conflict) that they are more than recommended - in those cases (because reversion is more likely) I would call them required. Meh, probaly arguing some semantics there. (talk→BWilkins←track) 13:58, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, you placed a notice on my Talk page. I followed the linky, but can't find anything related to me or anything I'm involved with. But I may have missed it. Maybe it has cycled off the current page? Can you tell me more? =//= Proxy User (talk) 01:49, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. I think I was writing my comment at the same time you were, but it didn't give me an edit conflict. Or I was blind, but for whatever reason, I didn't see yours until too late. After ANI archives, I'm going to leave one more message for the IP, encouraging them to participate at the article talk page, without any reference to the editor in question, and then I hope that will be the end of it. ~YellowFives18:06, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think mine at the bottom of the thread was earlier - I always try to leave editors a way "out"; people are more dangerous when backed into a corner aggressively :-) (talk→BWilkins←track) 11:41, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
Bwilkins, I was wondering if you could explain to me why you believe Paul's claim that I outed someone. To the best of my understanding, this claim is false, and other editors familiar with the matter agree. CarolineWH (talk) 20:08, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That case has nothing to do with me. I want to understand what you're thinking about my actions so I'm asking you politely and directly. Others, including those who are more familiar with the details, have not concluded that my actions were any form of outing. If you disagree, I would appreciate it if you explained why. To remind you, at no point did I reveal any private information, and my only motivation was to determine whether a sockpuppet claim was true. By my understanding, this is not outing. If your understanding differs, please explain. CarolineWH (talk) 16:24, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There is a benefit of an editor such as myself being detached from the situation - those too close to it might not realize/wish to realize the potential issues. The case is very similar to yours. Wikipedia has processes to investigate sockpuppet accusations, and frontier-style justice is not permitted. You intentionally and knowingly contacted the workplace of an editor, having traced public information (an IP address). The potential repercussions are identical to the Ecoleetage case. You crossed a line. I'm hoping you realize the ethical and moral implications of what you did. (talk→BWilkins←track) 16:39, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
We have one editor who openly used an IP directly associated with a company, and another who openly uses his real name. I've taken care never to mention the company name, nor did I reveal where the one who uses his real name works. There was research on my part, but no outing. My motive was to confirm that CheckUser was wrong, not to intimidate or harass. It doesn't get any simpler than that. CarolineWH (talk) 17:05, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You called someone's place of work - it doesn't get any simpler than that. If you read WP:NPA as I linked to, you will have read "...actions which deliberately expose other Wikipedia editors to political, religious or other persecution by government, their employer or any others. Violations of this sort may result in a block for an extended period of time, which may be applied immediately by any administrator upon discovery". It is not, nor shall it be your job to put people's jobs at risk in that manner, nor is it your job to "disprove" checkuser. (talk→BWilkins←track) 17:09, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I made no mention of Wikipedia and did nothing which might expose them to any sort of risk.
As for it not being my job to second-guess CheckUser, you couldn't be more wrong. The reason I did this research in the first place is that, like both the IP and the named editor, I was falsely accused of being SpotFixer. The CheckUser process is flawed and needs all the oversight it can get. CarolineWH (talk) 17:34, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you cannot see that intent or not, someone could have lost their job by your actions, then I'm sorry, this discussion needs to go no further on my talkpage. It would have been far easier to admit that calling someone's place of work was probably wrong, than to attempt to justify it - it is NEVER justified. Wikipedia is a community, and that's not a community action. (talk→BWilkins←track) 17:44, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
CarolineWH (talk) has given you a bubble tea! Bubble teas promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a bubble tea, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy drinking!
Spread the awesomeness of bubble teas by adding {{subst:User:Download/Bubble tea}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message!
Saw your comment at ANI and, call me sensitive, I think it sucked. I'm no expert at ANI-etiquette, and I hope to never be, but I don't think my edit there deserved the lashing commentary you delivered. You totally misread my intent — and then you posted that I think admins are idiots and I'm playing petty "last-word" games. (Yes, that is how your comment reads.)
The editor in my report has already wasted an enormous amount of my time, and has now escalated the situation to a new level by indicating that he is no longer open to reason, and won't be acknowledging the input of others. That shoots down the BLPN submission I've been working on as a solution. The situation is frustrating enough without having to deal with unwarranted personal attacks from editors. Your observation that "dozens of admins are already watching" may hold true of the ANI board in general, but not of my particular incident report once it has scrolled to the top of the page. As another editor of that thread previously advised me, "Eyes seem to be in other places at the moment. I think you should repost the above in the ANI thread", dozens of admins are not always watching every new development in those reports. The situation changed, so I requested additional review; if you come up with actual constructive comments on how I should have handled it, you let me know. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 01:50, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Look, you know that my own posts throughout the thread have been understanding of your position. In all my experience at ANI, even though you have a strong case - and even the right case, the louder you "complain", the less that will be done towards it. As such, I believe you did yourself a major disservice my offering your "closing argument"...it wasn't a tongue-lashing, it was a frustrated response to what had come so close to getting some form of resolution.
Another major error in ANI is unarchiving a thread, even though you may feel it had not be dealt with. The best way to deal with a "stale" thread is this: let it fade. Collect a few days of new, strong evidence. Create a brand new thread, with a link to the one in the archives, and basically say "look - even though we were patient, and the user knew his actions were wrong, look what they continue to do as disruption to the project." Ensure your post is succinct, short, and that the policies you quote can actually lead to the action you want. (talk→BWilkins←track) 10:13, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. Most of what you have said here rings true, and makes sense. I still don't understand how you could confuse my attempt to renew the case with a new focus (the editor's tendentiousness) with an attempt to close the case with a "last word" or "closing argument". Those are opposite intentions, and I believe my intent was clear. Even so, your feeling that I wasn't helping matters was still likely correct - moreso than I wanted to admit when I first read your comments. Thanks for taking the time. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 17:42, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed over at AfD/Dancing with the Stars(season 10) that one of the editors summarily decided to redirect the article and declared that discussion can stop now. I thought this was a bit heavy-handed but I see no real problem with the outcome. Am I just getting uptight about the "righteousness" of the edit or is there something left to discuss? It's not the ends, it's the means that bothers me. Padillah (talk) 14:15, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
With a 50/50 split between delete and redirect, a WP:NAC was probably out of line. Edits are allowed to edit during an AfD, but usually turning it into a redirect during that is not recommended. That said, based on WP:IAR, I think the right overall decision was made. (talk→BWilkins←track) 13:27, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, just wanted to let you know that I have granted autoreviewer rights on your account, as you have created numerous valid articles. This will have little or no effect on your editing, and is intended mainly to reduce the workload on new page patrollers. For more information see Wikipedia:Autoreviewer, and feel free to ask if you have any questions. Arbitrarily0(talk)13:42, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just a note that Gregaga has continued to make edits pretty much exclusively to the charts on their userpage after the warning you gave them. I'm not sure what the next would be for this type of situation. Ridernyc (talk) 22:41, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You're right, actually, about my edit. I was quite a bit hasty in my edit and it gave it a different flavour than the true meaning. It's hard to imagine being so hasty as to not read the end of the paragraph but I did it. Keep up the good work, --Noopinonada (talk) 04:46, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You don't see me spouting alphabet soup. lol I don't do Wikilawyering. I do TV-lawyering. :) (Boston Legal etc fiction drama lights camera action etc) Proofreader77 (talk)
I've seen the work you do at WP:WQA, and I think it is on the whole quite good. Get out of the scrum at ANI re: WikiGreekBasketball, though. Anyone with half a brain can see what he is up to; there is no need to goad him into further displays of ridiculousness. Let an uninvolved admin handle it – you've done all you can, and he'll either shape up fast or be whacked with the banhammer real soon now. — ækTalk12:10, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
For this. It takes some guts to really assume good faith and offer help to an editor who's pretty much scorned by most of the community now. Even if WGB ends up being a hopeless cause, we could use more editors who make the effort like you did. rʨanaɢtalk/contribs12:38, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome! And by the way... I notice you said to WGB that you had an RFA before and it didn't pass; if you're ever interested in doing one again, let me know! I don't believe I participated in your first one and I don't know what was discussed there, but based on how you handled yourself with WGB I'm almost certain I'd support you. rʨanaɢtalk/contribs17:42, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry I didn't respond right away...got a bit sidetracked for a couple days. Anyway, I did read through some of the RfA (not the whole thing), and to be honest I wasn't really concerned by anything there. It seems a lot of people opposed over some recent comments you had made, but by now they are certainly not recent anymore, and I definitely wouldn't have qualms about nominating or supporting you in a future RfA. Of course, if you have someone else in mind that's fine—I've only nominated one other person, WP:Requests for adminship/Shubinator, so if you want a nominator who's more of an RfA regular I totally understand. But if you don't have anyone else lined up and you get interested in doing an RfA, just let me know! rʨanaɢtalk/contribs18:54, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I understand all of that. I was wrong before and I deserved that ban. But they banned me for a week. I come back and do nothing wrong, break no rules, didn't do anything bad and immediately the same group of users wants me banned permanent this time. That's just so wrong. Besides, even though everything you say is true, I didn't have a problem with the RFA except for one person and that was the admin guy Coffee. He was so overboard and out of line with his comments. But I ignored it and I let it go. Then he began following behind me and deleting and removing my edits. I reverted my edits and he threatened to ban me with a personal message that if I ever reverted any of his edits again he would ban me for a month.
I reported this because it was so out of line. I reported him on the notice board and then attacks against me just poured in and it's the same people attacking me now, only now I have not done anything wrong. So I know for a fact that Coffee is out of line and about 7 different editors including about 3 admin have told me that he is way out of line and constantly breaks civility rules. Yet, when I reported him the response was that the other admins decided to ban me. I admit I got really extremely mad and frustrated and I did deserve the ban for all the insults I made. But understand that was after they banned me for a day and then even after that the people kept attacking me at my talk page. I got really mad and I told them off at my talk page and then they banned me for a week and banned me from my talk page.
That whole thing is just so wrong. I know I was wrong too but actually I was the least wrong and Coffee caused it all. This time I just came back and did nothing wrong and they request a permanent ban against me right away. And the thing that really gets me is how everyone attacked me for "temperament" and "civility" on my RFA but Coffee is already an admin and he is just insulting people left and right and breaking rules all the time. I don't understand how one person can RESPOND to someone's insults and that excludes them from being an admin, but another person (Coffee) can actually START insults to people over and over and he's an admin? And I know that what Coffee is doing is unacceptable. I also know that the same people keep defending him and attacking me if I bring up his attacks, so there is a cabal. I also know that despite all the attacks and harassing from Coffee every time I report it, not only is it ignored, but the admin then threaten me for reporting it. There is something seriously wrong with this site that such crap like this is allowed to go on here. If you know how I can report Coffee and have it actually looked at and not get in trouble for reporting him then I would really appreciate that help. It's really bad that if you are an admin you can just harass people and never pay any consequence for it. I am positive he does this to bunches of people and has probably gotten many good editors unfairly and improperly banned from the site. In sports we call people like Coffee cancers. They eventually ruin whatever team they are on. In this case it is cancers like him that ruin this site.Wiki Greek Basketball (talk) 12:50, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You can drop the discussion page now. I can't talk about it if it gets used against me negatively. Sorry. Thanks for all your help though. You don't have to spend any more of your time on it.Wiki Greek Basketball (talk) 16:06, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
At no point are there any attacks, and I dislike the suggestion that there is. I'm giving you honest, open interpretation. The idea was to in part vet your concerns so that you could file your RFC/U if needed. (talk→BWilkins←track) 16:15, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I did not say there was an "attack". I said you posted negative about me on the noticeboard over this after you told me it would not be mentioned there. Again, thanks for your help but I can no longer be as trusting as I once was here after what I feel is a great deal of unfair treatment and harassment against me by many editors. I am not saying you are trying to trick me, I am just saying I have to consider that possibility for my own protection and this is not being paranoid, it is based on how I have been treated by others here.Wiki Greek Basketball (talk) 16:21, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I initiated a process, and as you know, no discussion is secret on Wikipedia, nor did I say it could be. My goal was to clarify your issues and advise you if you should proceed. It was honest and forthright. As I had announced that I was going to try to help on ANI, I updated them as to my challenges so that nobody mistakenly believed it was over. Unfortunately, I believe that you continue to fail to grasp the meanings of policies - and those policies are key to Wikipedia's functioning. I'm sorry that you took honest attempts at assistance in any other way. (talk→BWilkins←track) 16:44, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Reading is one thing, understanding is only shown by correctly interpreting them. Having read your replies as I tried to help you - and I clearly showed them according to policy - you continued to disagree. You unfortunately have very little understanding of those policies. I am also wondering why you still want to participate in RFA - it will be literally YEARS before the community will trust you after the last two RFA's of your own, and your response in someone else's RFA. Wikipedia is not a game. The 1-month "ban" from RFA does not prevent you from reading: you will learn exactly what it takes to become an admin someday. (talk→BWilkins←track) 17:09, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the heads-up, but I honestly don't know what could have happened that would make it different. And, honestly, don't know where to look or what to do to remedy the situation. Any suggestions? --SkagitRiverQueen 16:43, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
Okay...I went to my preferences and unchecked a box that I don't think was checked before - I was in there the other day and must have checked the signature preference box not thinking it would make such a drastic change. Sorry for any confusion and thanks again for bringing it to my attention. :-D --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 17:24, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delighted to see your addition on User talk: Jimbo Wales. (I remember your beautifully designed signature having appeared on my talk previously, I think. ^;^)
As I noted on the ANI, "generally avoid" and "forbidden" are two different things. Calling for sanctions because of a "generally avoid" is not going to be successful. (talk→BWilkins←track) 17:44, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't know how the voting procedure operated. I assumed I only had one vote and that it was understood what my vote was without me having to actually voice it on the voting page. I'm only practicing how to do this page programming stuff and I don't know how most of it works, so I bet I'll be making lots of mistakes. I'll probably keep making the same mistakes too, unless other users are helpful toward me. For instance, can you please direct me to something that explains the deletion procedure including the time frame and allowable input on the deletion discussion page, rules for voting, etc. (Just in case I ever have to deal with that again. I won't be voting on others' proposed deletions since that is just troll feeding.) Thank you. --Neptunerover (talk) 00:17, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The decision was that there was no punishment and I was NOT banned from it. I will be extremely angry if you try any more proceedings against me and i will fight it extremely hard as I will be fully justified in filing a grievance against you at that point.Wiki Greek Basketball (talk) 13:02, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am NOT banned from RFA. There is NO BAN from it. It was accepted that I did nothing wrong and did not deserve any punishment or sanctions. Now if you push me again I will report you.Wiki Greek Basketball (talk) 13:06, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As I already have advised you, the ANI thread was opened based on a clear community decision - I have nothing personally against you. No further interactions between us should be required here. If you feel that you must create some form of grievance, RFC/U is the place. (talk→BWilkins←track) 13:36, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You weren't even tempted were you? Well, I tried anyway. In case no one else thought to mention it, I always thought you did a damn good job of keeping a cool head over there, and now I see you are using those same skills to try and keep the peace at ANI, which is even more difficult and will likely result in even more shit being shoveled in your direction. You must be a glutton for punishment! Beeblebrox (talk) 03:45, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to thank you for coming to my defense in that rather ugly but brief matter over at the ANI board. All that over a three-sentence subtub, for heaven's sake. Anyway, I just wanted to let you know how much I appreciated your help. It meant more than I can express. Gratefully, --PMDrive1061 (talk) 17:31, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
But it is impractical to label someone as Glee Actress, and Heather Morris has done much more voicing, which distinguishes her. Her name could be simplified similar to the 2 will smiths. There are many musicians/actors/preformers who just have one of the labels whichever they are most known for. Feel free to change it back.--Tikopowii (talk) 21:11, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I was already in the middle of doing that. This Heather Morris has been around a lot longer...I fully agree that "Glee actress" is an improper DAB. The other key point about leaving this one as "Heather Morris" alone is the issue surrounding the accidental use of this full name in the Silent Hill game foreign release (talk→BWilkins←track) 21:13, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
[24] made me laugh, it's always nice to have some fun from Wikipedia amongst all the "serious business". Just thought I would share my amusement with you, happy editing. --Taelus (talk) 18:36, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I would be happy to nominate you! I've had limited computer access for the last week or so, but tomorrow or Monday I should be back to normal and have time to work on the nom statement. In the meantime, you could e-mail me your Q1-3 answers to give me a better idea what angle to approach the statement from. Best, rʨanaɢtalk/contribs22:56, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not a lot of useful advice. I think you've done well since the last one. I'd be happy to co-nom, fwiw. Wonder if anyone who knows who I am still visits RFA. Guettarda (talk) 14:36, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I initially intended to land to the "neutral section" for the said reason (I don't appreciate people saying/joking about such things), but Decltype's concern including your temper persuades me. However you see the "weak" and "sorry" comment as well as compliments in my vote, all of which I don't usually say when opposing. Regardless, you will safely pass the campaign, so in hopes that my vote would be a little reminder when you communicate with people since your specialty is lied in ANI/WQA where "angry" reporters, and "angry" accused people thirst for "help" from civil adminis. You're a big man, so I thought you would not have a big deal about my vote. Anyway, good luck for your campaign.--Caspian blue19:55, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Id like to offer an alternative view on this incident due to it being showcased as an example of your good work on the RFA and as for me it resulted in a good editor being excluded for no good reason. I hope this doesnt sound too critical as i dont think many would have handled the situation much better and there may be things Im missing. It was great that you took the time to intervene initially with good advice. What you didnt seem to understand is that for the more passionate person who isnt as detached or reflective as most it takes a while for them to change no matter how good and tactful any advise is. Even more so when theres language issues in the mix. WGB did seem to have taken much of the advice on board, and there wasnt really any need for him to be reported for making a couple of support votes, especially as he hadnt been formally banned from RfA. A lighter touch could have avoided the drama and retained a quality editor for the project. I doubt you will agree, but at least you might take this into consideration once you have the tools. FeydHuxtable (talk) 11:55, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry? He participated in the ANI discussion, and was 110% fully aware that the had been community banned from WP:RFA. When I politely advised him of this (at which point, if he had merely removed his !votes as accidental, there would not have been any problems) he attacked me and other editors. I remain considerate of this editor - indeed, his actions have been exasperating - it is not fun to watch a meltdown. (talk→BWilkins←track) 11:59, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I asked you a question at your RfA. It's certainly optional, but I'd really like to know why someone who wants to be an administrator is making comments like this:
"Maybe he should have used the word "fuckface" - after all, as Russell Peters says, "it cannot be an insult: it's simply the face you make when you fuck"
on AN/I. AN/I is supposed to be one thing, a place where editors can get help from an administrator about a wikipedia incident that requires the assistance of an administrator. I'm tired of the drive-by idiotic posts there, and I'm tired of how it makes wikipedia look to the world. --IP69.226.103.13 | Talk about me.16:42, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have already responded. I am actually quite surprised in how you responded - using it as an oppose, rather than simply ask me in the first place - I think the clarification earlier would have been far more beneficial. (talk→BWilkins←track) 17:16, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Let's see if I got this. We're writing an encyclopedia here. There's a problem at AN/I. It's been escalating. Someone brings up that Guy called someone a fuckwit on their talk page. Guy defends it because that someone called him a vandal a couple of times. It eventually escalates into a discussion of Guy's calling someone a fuckwit, and a couple of editors express the concern that calling someone a fuckwit is never appropriate. You add a remark about your facial expressions while having intercourse. That's not what I thought the remark was, but that's your claim here. I thought it was just grossly inappropriate; you now seem to be proudly claiming it's far worse than that. So, just before your nomination for adminship you add a comment about your face during intercourse to an already heated situation that was cooling down. You want to be an administrator. We're writing an encyclopedia. How did your remark about your personal life have anything to do with what was going on at AN/I. I ask a question about what I think is an inappropriate comment by you, and you turn it into something far more inappropriate, claiming that you were discussing yourself during the act of intercourse. Was that SMART?
Why would you think it would be appropriate for the encyclopedia-writing community at wikipedia for you to bring up anything about you during intercourse, at AN/I, or at your RfA? --IP69.226.103.13 | Talk about me.17:28, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As I have always considered our working in the same areas to be fairly cooperative, you are welcome to vent here as well, just as you are. Your unfortunate misreading is just that: unfortunate, but please, go ahead. My response on ANI was quite clear, and quite truthful. The original situation clearly did not need "enhancement", but you asked, so I was open and honest with you. (talk→BWilkins←track) 17:43, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, so I had. In fact, I think I read yours last of the three, because I assumed it would be a quick glance through your edit history and a rapid no-brainer support. You seem to do a lot of work, edit with your brains, and work with other editors. One of the worst things on wikipedia, imo, is the drive-by gratuitous commentaries, mostly by administrators, at AN/I that turn it into a hate fest. (Mostly, as one long time editor pointed out, directed at other administrators.)
I don't think wikipedia needs talk like yours. It does not contribute to what our mission at wikipedia is: writing an encyclopedia. It makes us look unprofessional, and it turns users off. If things are cooling off at AN/I, administrators should learn to shut up instead of adding a drive-by, pointless, useless, idiotic comment that has the potential to inflame the situation and make wikipedia look like it's run by a bunch of idiots. If your language is so bad, that I get reverted and called a vandal for posting it, then wikipedia ought to be looking elsewhere for administrators, in my opinion. --IP69.226.103.13 | Talk about me.19:21, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to ask for clarification: Do you think editing Wikipedia is a profession? Are you advocating that the sole purpose for logging on to the site be editing article space and all experiences here be joyless trudges through bland factoids? I would like to assert that you misstated yourself above: We are writing a Community Encyclopedia. I don't think Community can be left out of the discussion. As inappropriate as BMW's specific statement may have been, I hope and plead that we don't reduce our interaction to the lifeless, joyless, hopeless interaction it appears you are advocating above. Heaven help us when we get so serious we can't make fun of ourselves. Why do we need to appear professional? We're not. (Unless, of course, you are actually a professional encyclopedia editor. I don't know) I am not, nor shall I ever lay claim to being a professional editor. I'm willing to bet most of the people on here are not professional. I don't want to cast aspersions but I wonder how many people expect Wikipedia to be edited by professionals? Was the specific comment by BMW out-of-line? Yes, I don't think that's up for debate. Should we castigate the guy and cast him upon the stones? I don't think so. Padillah (talk) 19:44, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So, the two choices now are: 1. you can call people fuckwits on wikipedia or 2. if you can't it's a "joyless trudge through bland factoids?" and wikipedia is a worthless piece of drivel? Interesting. Not really. --IP69.226.103.13 | Talk about me.23:14, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If that's how you wish to view the situation then, yeah. If keeping the atmosphere around here congenial means allowing the occasional "fuckwit" through then those that oppose will have to understand that's the price we pay (hey, I don't want Glenn Beck to have a TV show but I'm just gonna have to suck it up). In point of fact, and you can read what actually I said if you want, I said twice that what BMW said was out-of-line. But that's because of it's context, not it's phraseology or relevance. There is no need for any of us to be held to the metric of "professionalism" because none of us are... (professional editors, that is). Padillah (talk) 19:35, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In other words, I'm being opposed because I'm the most recent in a line of 2,000 admins to have cursed. Rather than say try to convince me to rally the troops to be curse-free, I get to be the first in line for a "Never" vote on RfA to set a poorly-considered example - or more likely a martyr. Apparently, based on the fact that people do occasionally swear, IP69 will never be able to provide a single "yes" vote - which will, of course, make sure that he goes the way of editors such as DougsTech. Wise thinking. (talk→BWilkins←track) 20:03, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Bwilkins, I started up the RfA: Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Bwilkins 2. This is only my second time, so I can't guarantee that I didn't mess anything up. anyway, feel free to take your time filling out the answers and waiting for co-noms if you like; transclude whenever you're ready, I've got in on my watchlist! Good luck, rʨanaɢtalk/contribs23:55, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, I thought your answer was good. Thought that discussion complemented what you had said pretty nicely. It's always nice to know that there are other people out there on the limb with you :) Guettarda (talk) 01:25, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
*starts singing "Rudolph, the Brown-nosed Reindeer"*. I guess it probably would not have been appropriate if I had used my work on the disambig page Wilkins as one of the pages I was most proud of. Why don't we have "Featured Disabig Pages"?? *LMAO* (talk→BWilkins←track) 13:18, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Re, your message, oh, I am, trust me.. The same situation happened to me during the Frei Hans incident.. don't know if you were there or not, but he filed a sock case against Tan, that listed every single person who interacted with him as a sock. ... His reasons? They all have barnstars... You get my drift, heh. Also c.c I've looked it up, I've read the wiki article, but I still don't understand why they're called copy-edits.— DædαlusContribs12:20, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I admit to being slightly intoxicated at the time of writing on your RfA. Nonetheless, I hope readers there appreciate my point (that some people, in good faith, seem to be missing the point of RfA somewhat), and that it hasn't been looked upon as a WP:POINT (I don't believe I have disrupted wikipedia, and if I have, I apologise profusely).
It is a few days after the comments were made. As a follow-up to this, I wanted to remind you that both making racist comments, AND accusations of racism can both be considered to be severe violations of WP:NPA. I'm going to assume that tempers have calmed down, and I would hope that we will not see repeated violations. (talk→BWilkins←track) 12:21, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately this article is under attack yet again by the anti-British Isles POV army. This user, Þjóðólfr, insists on removing the relevant and obvious fact that Bert Trautmann was the first player outside the British Isles to win the award. I've explained above why this is the case, but to no avail, apparently. As with other members of the anti-British Isles group, this user is gaming the system by insisting on a reference to an obvious fact - and not any old reference, but one that specifically states, word-for-word, the contested sentence. I'll fix up the article for now, but we could be into edit war territory yet again. Mister Flash (talk) 21:34, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hello DangerousPanda. You are receiving this notice because you have either supported or posted constructive suggestions during my recent self-nominated RFA, submitted on 18-01-2010. Please do spend a few minutes to read my comments on the nomination, and feel free to respond on the relevant talkpage for any further comments or questions. Thank you for participating. Regards. Rehman(+)15:24, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Congratulations, I have just closed your RFA as successful and made you an administrator. Don't hesitate to ask me if you ever have any questions. Useight (talk) 22:34, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hope it's your size, cuz I threw away the receipt Congratulations! Here's your t-shirt, check in with the leader of your cabal for the secret handshake. Keys to the executive washroom now require checkuser status. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:03, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Congratulations. I didn't want to state it at the RfA since it is so cliche, but I always just presumed you were an administrator all along! Now you won't be fooling anyone else! Happy editing to you, --Taelus (talk) 00:19, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Congrats! I (back when I was TravisTX) remember being impressed with your work at ANI ages ago so I gladly welcome you to the ranks! —DoRD (?) (talk) 02:21, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hurrah! I popped back to RPP and found that there's another admin doing some protection after I'd been holding the fort all day (again!), and it's the newbie! Congrats, and if you need any mopping advice, give me a shout! GedUK14:55, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
They let you into the admin for life cabal? Jeesh. Next thing you know even Everyking will make it into the club. It seems Obama's parties aren't the only ones where gatecrashers are a problem. ;) Oh well. Congratulations and enjoy yourself, but not too much. ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:33, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
It seems I'm late to the party and Everyking is already in. Now we need to get someone to nominate Giano. ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:37, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it did seem to take a while to get you across the finish line. By "yikes" you mean to say it wasn't "that" hard and you're not really that outspoken on controversial subjects? Might want to clarify. I know you agree with me that he's one of our best and very worthy of the utmost respect. Congratulations. Your good faith efforts here give a good indication that you will be a worthy admin. If so, that would make 3. :) ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:38, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Giano has a different level of passion than I do ... I enjoy a good battle, but will back away if it helps me win the war. I hold passion at its own level of respect accordingly. I will do my best to do the best I can do ... if that makes sense. I will never please everybody, but I will always try to act according to my philosophy, and hopefully that works out ok. (talk→BWilkins←track) 21:24, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
With respect to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Politicalchronology, although you deleted the redirect of the article that was the primary subject of the AfD it remains as Chronology of world political changes because the author moved it (twice, in fact). There are also various related articles and redirects remaining, at least one of which was specifically mentioned in the AfD discussion. Please consult the original author's contribs for the comprehensive list. Can you delete all of these, or will I need to create a separate multi-article AfD and go through the process again? -- Scjessey (talk) 15:48, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I caught 2 additional ones that included "Politicalchronology" which was the key basis for the deletion... I'll go through the list again and remove any that include that title. (talk→BWilkins←track) 15:53, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It wasn't just the problem of the neologism, but also the original research and apparent content forking. In my opinion (and this seems to be in broad agreement with the consensus at the AfD discussion), all related articles should be deleted. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:58, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for protecting St Cyrus. At least that piece of church promotion shouldn't bounce back for a while. I've just removed similar information from Johnshaven — the two villages share a minister and are part of the same parish, so I suspect the same editors may be at work. There's also an article on Mearns Costal Parish Church, which looks to me to be of dubious notability. In fact both village articles seem to contain a lot of non-encyclopedic stuff too, but that's another story...! --Deskford (talk) 23:43, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
An IP editor has now reverted my edit to Johnshaven, without any explanation. I have removed the time of the church service and the name of the minister again, but I really don't want to get into an edit war with an IP editor, particularly one who seems to change his IP address on a daily basis. Any advice? --Deskford (talk) 17:22, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry - we appear to have a disagreement about our interpretation of the guidlines. The page for Mearns Coastal Parish Church has been deleted. If I recreated that page and left little more than a link on the St Cyrus and Johnshaven pages would that solve our problem? Hope we can sort this out.--Uvghifds (talk) 17:10, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
One of the main issues is that Wikipedia is not a directory. Most articles on individual churches, schools, etc are quickly removed, or blended into one larger school board article. Individual schools and churches are simply not notable. Please keep this in mind when you are creating articles - it is a shame to see such work continually deleted, and it's more harsh on the creator of the articles. (talk→BWilkins←track) 17:18, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the advice. However I still feel pn the St Cyrus page the fact that there is a church deserves a mention. Maybe you could write this in an encyclopedia friendly way?--Uvghifds (talk) 17:46, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not trying to be facetious, but doesn't every town have a church or two? If the church is a significant tourist attraction, or has the "highest steeple in lower Scotland", or "the first Prime Minister of Canada was baptized there"...and you have sources to prove it, then that's the only way the church becomes notable. (talk→BWilkins←track) 17:51, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Based on that apparent understanding of the nature of OR at the end of the discussion, I unblocked with the usual proviso that any reversion to the previous behavior will result in a permanent block. Daniel Case (talk) 18:13, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
{{rfpp|s|3 days}} will produce Semi-protected for a period of 3 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected.,
thus avoiding the necessity of typing in the duration long hand. You can then explain rationale where necessary after the }}s. GedUK13:14, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, cool, thanks ... I should have further read the template usage, rather than just getting right to work LOL. Other than that, everything look good so far with what I'm doing? (talk→BWilkins←track) 13:15, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There was nothing wrong with your way, it just involves more effort! I haven't checked over any of your protections, I'm sure they're fine. If you come across one you're not sure of, leave it for someone else! GedUK13:21, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there. You might wanna take a look at this article. It appears as if the creator of the article is on a mission to use wikipedia as a promotional platform for his company. Amsaim (talk) 13:26, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to write my first text after unblocking to thank you for tap my back and encourage me to continue in WP. You are a good guy Bwilkins. I guess as an admin you will never need my help so have my wishes for good luck. --Factuarius (talk) 21:58, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Took me a while to find some evidence, but AfD doesn't preclude a speedy deletion if there's a clear contravention. In this case an article called Islam Diaa created by an editor called User:Islam diaa seems a pretty clear and blatant self-publicity move. Please reconsider. Bazj (talk) 12:14, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
...or if you feel you can't since you've already voted for a delete, restore the speedy for another admin to consider. Regards, Bazj (talk) 12:19, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No need for the ref, I know it can be done. Some of the original versions of the article had references, which have been removed as not necessarily appropriate. I have also left the editor a nice note suggesting that he voluntarily withdraw the article under G7 ... to be CSD'd once, then PROD'd, and now AFD's is a little WP:BITEy, and I'm trying to gently poke him into realizing that he is not yet notable. (talk→BWilkins←track) 12:26, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Fair 'nuff. I just read your edit summary that you wouldn't speedy because of the AfD as... yeah, well. I like your subtle approach, but just don't think he'll get it. Bazj (talk) 12:36, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It appears the procedural requirements are well in hand. Baring sudden changes, I expect the green light in a few days.
Have you warmed up the hosting environment for 7SeriesBOT? Got a python interpreter, downloaded pywikipedia, etc? How much hand-holding would you like? Josh Parris12:42, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am warming it up ... I'm having to throw a new NIC into the PC that it will be running on (my wife won't accidentally shut it down :-) ). I will need a little handholding - but I'm reasonably technical. (talk→BWilkins←track) 12:46, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Admin, I would like to confirm that Iaaassi was editing Mures Template in good faith. There was a dispute on the deletion of a template created by me, in which we exposed seriously opposing views.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2010_January_26
After we received the admin's decision, we tried to work out a compromise, and as I see from the edits, Iaaassi wanted to implement a compromise that I proposed to him on my talkpage and I expressed my thank on his talkpage for the good intention. I think he may have simply edited more times than was good. This is not the Romanian-Hungarian edit war, but Romanian-Hungarian co-operation, so let us be happy with it. The template is good as is now.
As I was the author both of the deleted Maros (Mures) county template and the new version this template, and had a main part in the discussion, I think I can impartially judge on this issue. It would be ironic that Iaassi is blocked when seeking compromise and undestanding. Rokarudi--Rokarudi 14:25, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate your closing the Human Instrumentality Project DRV in my favor, but is it really necessary to full-protect the redirect? Obviously that makes it more difficult for me to make a full article in the future, and in the short-term makes it more difficult for the redirect to be updated. (Some editors like BreadNinja or Dandy Sephy are constantly agitating for various page moves & renames; it is not implausible that in the next year or three the redirect will need editing.) --Gwern (contribs) 15:31 6 February 2010 (GMT)
I didn't do anything "in your favour" :-) I made the logical decision based on the information at hand. If you want to make an article, that's why you have a WP:SANDBOX. Any admin can then move a completed article over, if it's written correctly, and likewise, you can make a request on the talkpage of the redirect to have an edit done to a protected page. Someday, you might make a request to have the entire page unprotected at WP:RFPP, however, I 110% agreed with the suggestions in the DRV to protect it for now. (talk→BWilkins←track) 19:10, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Bah - if it was really so logical based on the information at hand, we'd turn over all DRV closes to an AWB or Pywikipedia script!
While I will admit that I am disappointed that you didn't include any restriction on GoRight's participation in dispute resolution in the terms of your parole (as was suggested by 2over0 in his original terms), I trust that you will be extremely vigilant once GoRight starts to involve himself in other editors' disputes again. I fear that his insertion of himself into other editors' fights was perhaps the most inflammatory and unconstructive aspect of his conduct, and seemed to be a major concern of both admins who previously indef-blocked him. That your unblock terms appear to gloss over any direct mention of these problems is worrying, but I hope that you are prepared to deal with this problem when it resumes. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:15, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Acknowledged - there's enough rope in what he already has, and I expect he may violate sooner than later. Inserting himself into other's fights will lead him into the realm of incivility, and that's covered. (talk→BWilkins←track) 19:07, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I intend to try and find something else to do for a while and let things just cool down. After that, if I feel that I want to express an opinion in such a venue I will try to limit myself to a single civil paragraph and voting in any polls that crop up, and possibly responses to any questions which are directed specifically at me. Would this be considered out of line or disruptive in your opinion (I understand that content has a lot to do with it, but in general)? --GoRight (talk) 19:17, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Content and context will be important. Stay out of fights, and edit. When push comes to shove, click "logout" and go and spend time with family/friends instead. There's nothing on this site worth getting hot and bothered over, and nothing that cannot wait until cooler heads are prevailing. Cheers. (talk→BWilkins←track) 19:36, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Isn't being an admin fun? Are you enjoying all the crap you have to take if you actually try and do the job? Seriously though, I was about to step in here myself just to put and end to what is probably the longest unblock conversation I've ever seen, I'm glad you stepped up and made a decision nobody else seemed to want to make. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:48, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
For someone who hasn't had the mop for more than a few moments, unblocking GoRight was a bold move to make. It is very good to see a new administrator that isn't afraid to get things done. Good job. Trusilver21:07, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You referred to a "mentor" for GoRight. Who would that be? A search for the word "mentor" on his Talk didn't see any explicit offers of mentorship. Perhaps it was implicit in other parts of the discussion, but I'd be grateful for clarification. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 23:38, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I had the same question but even without a formal answer I was planning to seek guidance from Bwilkins, Trusilver, and Lar should the need arise and I invite any of the three to be pro-active in keeping me on the straight and narrow. On a separate point, even though it is a bit of a formality you might want to consider recording a final set of the language for my editing restrictions at WP:RESTRICT. I have argued that this is an important step in the past and I don't want myself to be any exception in that respect. --GoRight (talk) 00:57, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Good idea. I think such a statement is more than a "formality" given that the unblock statement as it stands is ambiguous and incomplete (except that you are in fact unblocked). As well as the lack of clarity in the mentorship provision it's also unclear what the "accepted topic ban" refers to, what is the "specified period," and so on. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:07, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I assume, and correct me if I am wrong, that his references to an accepted civility parole and an accepted article ban were regarding my acceptance of Trusilver's proposed framework. I just want a clear articulation of the final wording that is going to be applied and at WP:RESTRICT seems a logical place. My reference to such a recording being a "formality" was because in past discussions it has been pointed out that there is no requirement that these restrictions be recorded anywhere to make them "official", which by WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY is obviously true but it seems a good idea in any case. --GoRight (talk) 01:27, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's all good, Boris. I am going to focus on other things for a while, Trusilver's framework is my operating assumption unless I hear otherwise, and so these i's can be dotted and the t's can be crossed in due order. --GoRight (talk) 01:46, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi BW. I got this bizarre automated notice on my talk: diff to which I replied diff, but got no answer as yet, regarding the speedy deletion nomination of Fort Mason, Texas. As you were the deleting admin recently, could you please try to educate the editor who posted this on my talk that I have no involvement whatsoever with the deleted article? Thank you and sorry for the inconvenience. Dr.K.λogosπraxis18:43, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I replied there also. Thank you very much for the clarification and the speedy response. Take care. Congratulations on becoming an admin by the way. Dr.K.λogosπraxis20:15, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This User:inuit18 is valdalisme the article Jamal-al-Din Afghani, but not with his account but only with ip-address and talks bad and he is scolding in his own language and you didn't understand it. Ask it to User:Ketabtoon to translate it for you. look here [27] and here [28]. If he can't talk like a gentlemen, than he has no rights to talk bad and scolding, and hide his face by editing this post without his account (he did it also in the past, look and read my talk page User talk:Abasin). I think is not right and wikipedia most do something against it. If you (User:VirtualSteve) are the one who has blocked me 2 times. I will see what you are doing with this. I will see your justice and of wikipedia. May justice triumph.Abasin-اباسین (Tofaan-توفان) 16:49, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
He may not work for Ritech, but, he may sell products developed by them, OR he may be responsible for selling raw materials (chips, etc) to the company ... (talk→BWilkins←track) 13:44, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please help. What do I have to change to publish the rather nice history of Tycobrahe Sound Co. page, which you deleted for "lack of notability." What exactly does that mean?
Tycobrahe Sound Co. is no longer active, however it is of some historical interest to those in the music business, having developed the first portable studio-quality concert sound system (for The Beach Boys) and creating the most powerful concert sound system ever in 1974, with over 50,000 watts RMS, for the ABC-television production called "California Jam."
Of course I neglected to save a copy of the page, so I hope you did.
Included was a referenced link to another site with historical data, including a published article.
Hey, I was wondering if you will help me with a title correction on a page.
I uploaded a media file and when I typed the headline, I typed "INVALID" and it should say "VALID" instead, also in all caps in that part of the title.
I want to leave the Title IDENTICAL as it currently is as a .jpg file as it is.
My move tab is there, but it doesn't work in the media section yet, but does in the wikipedia section.
Please keep the title and attached all the info the same, just change that one word (IN CAPS) from INVALID to VALID.
Hello Bwilkins. Did you ever find out where the WP:MEAT charges come from? I see you asked Seddon about this, and you declined a previous unblock request from Copyedeye on 3 February. I notice that Alison makes this guy a 'likely' sockpuppet in the Mantanmoreland sock case, but I see you arguing (in the unblock dialog) that it's a meat not a sock problem. Thanks for any clarification, EdJohnston (talk) 06:29, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Ed, I supposed I'm emphasizing Seddon's original description on the block for Meat - indeed, him arguing that he's not a sock almost raises alarms of Plaxicoism. Honestly, if the guy simply addressed Meat, I would probably support an unblock, but arguing sock tells me "methinks thou do'est protest too much". (talk→BWilkins←track) 10:10, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
7SeriesBOT has been approved for a 7-day trial, but instead of actually deleting the trial is to log intended deletes. I've changed the sources and uploaded; I'd encourage you to do the trial to shake out any problems with your hosting environment and to get a feel for what's required from you as operator - but if that isn't doable right now, I can take the reins. Rather than have it log locally, I've made it log live to the desired page (skipping a step and increasing transparency). You know how to acquire the sources, right? Josh Parris06:44, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
i notice you have deleted the Alumet page? can I ask why? the page has been there for four years with no problem, i simply updated it to be more relevant. could you explain please so I know where I went wrong?
I'd like to know why the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Signtronix article was removed? Please let me know what elements of the article you felt that has violated the policy guidelines.
Signtronix has over 50 years of participation in an industry and I believe it should have a place in Wikipedia. Besides, we modeled the article after the one published about Hewlett Packard.
Actually, you'll note that someone else was wise enough to catch that the article was 100% promotional, and that the company is non-notable. The article actually had pictures of signs in it. It was nowhere close to being modelled after HP. I merely checked someone else's tagging of it, and found it 100% non-qualifying for inclusion. (talk→BWilkins←track) 19:10, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I know Haiduc edited it, but there's no indication he did that after he was banned, so it's not in "violation of their ban or block", which is not retroactive. Wikipedia:CSD#G5 does not seem to indicate that articles created while in good standing can be speedily deleted. And G8 is technically incorrect, so please undo. The guy even contributed to FAs, so not all his work is crap. Those articles I've redirected do have problems, mostly direct use of ancient sources, but also have some salvageable material cited from secondary sources, so they should not be speedily deleted. The salvageable material should be merged to the main article, but non-admins cannot do that if you delete the history.
Done Although I don't think this needs to exist as a redirect, I have undeleted to preserve the significant history - this could likely have been achieved with a history merge instead. (talk→BWilkins←track) 14:43, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Bwilkins-
Thanks for your comments about my "Pizzeria Bianco" entry. First, I should say that I do not have any conflict of interest with the entry. I'm just a pizza fanatic / graduate student in Baltimore who thinks this Phoenix, Az pizzeria meets the notability criteria to warrant an entry. That said, I understand that the page may look biased, and I'm happy to change it to fit the system.
I am fine moving the page over to a draft page for the time being. However, I understand that doing so by cuting and pasting is frowned upon, that I should move it instead. But my account is not old enough to be allowed to move yet, so if you want to / can move it over to here, that would be great:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Apizzaiolo/pizzeriabianco
When you suggest that I have another editor revise it, do you mean editor in the general sense as in anyone, or do you mean a formal wikipedia editor?
Thanks, I look forward to making this article work, and then doing more with Wikipedia after this.
Hi, don't mean to bug you, but if you could just let me know if you mean editor in the general sense as in anyone or if you mean a formal wikpedia editor for revising my entry, that would be great and I can get this underway. thanks.
JB Apizzaiolo (talk) 04:16, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the reminder on the article. I'll try and lessen it's ad-likenes. I've just asked some wiki people who edited similar articles to take a look at it.Apizzaiolo (talk) 23:08, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You must reconsider replacing csd tag on this article because
1. Does not cite secondry sources. Personal website is no relible source (anyone can make it).Wikipedia has strong emphasis on this aspect of article.
2. The whole strucure is like an advertisement. One can see that it has been clearly made with sole purpose of publicity.
3. It seems to be made by the subject himself and maintained by himself throughout...
You should replace tag and invite others to consider what do to with it.
Bwilkins: "Actually it was 8. The source that you claim to be a reliable academic source is not. Besides, Wikipedia is not a WP:LINKFARM." I am sorry for wrong information (5 instead of 8). Please tell me how do you know that "the source that (I) claim to be a reliable academic source is not." I have strong reasons to believe that the source I offered links to is a reliable (academic writers, editorial boards, review process, citations in scientific and professional publications). I would be thankful for additional information for revising my belief. Berislav (talk) 13:18, 15 February 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Berislav (talk • contribs) 13:14, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed that you deleted Bruce Momjian without looking at the {{hangon}}, which pointed out that BLPs that assert significance, as mine did, do not qualify for deletion under CSD A7, which is what you deleted the article as.
(A7: No indication that the article may meet the guidelines for inclusion (CSDH))
Oh, I looked at the article alright. There was clearly no indication that the person met any sign of notability on Wikipedia. I don't even think based on the way the article was written - and its references that they would be notable for even a local newspaper. Thanks for your WP:AGF on this one. (talk→BWilkins←track) 21:51, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The person has been written up in the newspaper numerous times. The article specified that the person in question was part of the PostgreSQL core team, had been mentioned with import in other articles, and numerous references and interviews. If you have a problem with the written style of the article, that can be addressed - not through a CSD. -Zeus-u|c21:53, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
An article about a real person, individual animal(s), an organization (e.g. band, club, company, etc., except schools), or web content that does not indicate why its subject is important or significant. This is distinct from verifiability and reliability of sources, and is a lower standard than notability.
It needs to reliably indicate significance. From my reading of the related references (which is how one determines reliably), the person clearly did not meet WP:AUTHOR, nor any other notability guidelines for people. WP:BLP is pretty picky - especially these days. (talk→BWilkins←track) 21:59, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
CSD A7
The criterion does not apply to any article that makes any credible claim of significance or importance even if the claim is not supported by a reliable source.
I'm pretty sure that the article made a credible claim of importance (author, core team member of an important database, etc). I apologize for my initial tone. -Zeus-u|c22:02, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I write regularly for hi-tech newspapers and various related articles. The person clearly was not being credibly claimed as notable, based on the writing, and my knowledge of the industry. Yes, your tone was wrong, but that never interferes with my judgement. (talk→BWilkins←track) 22:06, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Very well. My apology was not intended to disparage your judgement but merely to acknowledge a mistake of mine. With this in mind, could you talk a little bit about what the exact requirements are for significance or importance? (By the way, you said that the person was "clearly not being credibly claimed as notable", which is a non-issue here, as A7 disregards notability. But I take your point). -Zeus-u|c22:10, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Apparantly you don't need this; you're digging your own hole just fine on your own :-) (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 13:10, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
Here, Have a Wiki-beer! The Thing Vandalize me 05:21, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
![[17]](https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=File:Grimentz,_Arms_of.jpg&oldid=303178854){kind=link}
Semi-protected for a period of 3 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected.,
Done It's been userfied - see your talkpage for caveats. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:49, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
