Things you probably never read on Bwilkins' talk page in the first place
While I have no issue with your close overall, there are some now-removed edits to the article that were clear BLP problems. Would you mind hiding/deleting/whatever those versions in the edit history in addition to the close you performed? - Jorgath ( talk) ( contribs) 01:03, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
Hi - I see that you've closed the AfD for the above and moved the contents to a new page. I am not sure if you saw this when moving the content and talk pages over, as there are serious issues with regards to wp:npov , wp:blp AND wp:undue in the article and talk pages, as well as the content in this article being completely disputed by multiple editors. In order to start the "Health Services Union affair" again from scratch, is it necessary to re-list the article for deletion? Or what are the next steps? (Sorry if the answers seem obvious to you; I am a newbie at this). Best, One21dot216dot ( talk) 02:31, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
Hi, I see you closed the Afd discussion at wp:Articles for deletion/Shawn Welling (2nd nomination) as no consensus, and respectfully request a clarification. There is a single line of argument by a single editor for keep based upon the notability of awards received and the subject being world class. Numerous editors attempted to locate reliable sources to establish that claim, and none were able to. In fact, that same editor acknowledged that a large bulk of the sources he had based his initial argument on actually came from an author who has a financial interest in the subject and agreed they were suspect. The only other keep !votes at the discussion were a "me too" and "It is interesting" which are not truly valid arguments for an AfD. So may I ask how you have concluded there is no consensus? ConcernedVancouverite ( talk) 14:37, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Shawn Welling. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. ConcernedVancouverite ( talk) 02:18, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
Did the block expire? or did the talk page lock not work? - jc37 00:31, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
I believe this mess is yours. [2] Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 01:54, 24 June 2012 (UTC) well, not yours personally, but you are aware of the situation... Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 10:22, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
Ok, admittedly, I'm irritated by WiliamJE's attitude, does BRD apply to talk and user pages? Am I getting myself into trouble for no reason by removing the rape references from his pages? He's now said he's done for the night, because he has mass in the morning, at which time I assume he'll be back to writing you up for admin abuse (I'm sure you're worried), and ignoring my requests for him to remove the offensive material from his pages. -- Despayre tête-à-tête 01:56, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
I don't understand why you have restricted this page. Would you explain please? Britmax ( talk) 12:38, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
I believe that that was a hasty delete. There was no consensus, there was no agreement as to what a national competition is defined (e.g. under your logic the FA cup is not a national competition), plus the club has produced an international player which is also a tick on the notability factor. FruitMonkey ( talk) 12:50, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for finally closing that AfD! Please note though, that during the discussion, the article was renamed Ayres-Warr model, so it is really Ayres-Warr model that should be deleted. :-) -- OpenFuture ( talk) 12:54, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Bwilkins, I don't agree with this decision. There was clearly no consensus to delete the article. It should have been closed as just that, no consensus. Three different users commented on the fact that there were independent, reliable sources of her, where-as three delete votes didn't even have much weight to the discussion, one was faulty ('nothing I can find amounts to significant coverage in independent reliable sources'; WRONG, there are), another was
WP:IDONTLIKEIT (..'this person and article have no value on Wikipedia'), and the other didn't even have reasoning for their vote (..'who doesn't meet the notability standards'; WHAT notability standards?).
WP:CREATIVE and
WP:ENT aren't the only guidelines. There's also
WP:GNG and
WP:BASIC which she meets both through multiple independent and reliable sources. Calling the references very poor is quite subjective to say, especially for an administrator who is closing the debate.
[3]
[4] Examples of significant coverage from independent reliable sources. I empathise that this was probably a hard debate to close, but I am kindly asking you to overturn the deletion to 'no consensus', for what I and probably other editors feel, would be a fair and reasonable close.
Till I Go Home
talk
13:46, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a deletion review of GloZell Green. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review.
Hi, I almost invariably agree with your closes, but must admit that I am a bit unhappy about this one. I know that there were no "delete" !votes, but none of the "keep" !votes was even remotely based on policy. As far as I can see, DGG's argument boils down to WP:ILIKEIT. In addition, DGG (whom I respect a lot, but that doesn't mean we always agree) !voted "weak keep", so then a subsequent "Keep, per DGG" sounds not like a very considered !vote to me either. Apart from the journal's homepage, there are zero sources, so there's a serious WP:V problem, too. I would appreciate if you could give this a second look. Of course, I'll understand if you would come to the same conclusion, but I just want to make sure that you considered all arguments. Thanks! -- Guillaume2303 ( talk) 13:07, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
Hey! I noticed that Personal life of Jennifer Lopez was deleted. I just wanted to ask if you can userfy the page inside my userspace? I think that some useful information may be lost on the article and would like to bring it back to the main article. Would you do that? Regards!. — Hahc 21 20:14, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
Dear BWilkins, This has been quite an experience. At age 74, I'm running out of time, and the remarkable tonnage of W info is exhausting (I would rather spend my time thinking about something a little more material)
My article, The Spindrift," is in a strange state of suspense! Is it unblocked? What has been "fixed". Who is the mysterious "other" to whom I should reply? We spent our honeymoon in Victoria,BC and returned many times (50+): why do Canadians spell Theater and reverse the last two letters? Eh?
best, matts djos — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mgdjos ( talk • contribs) 21:44, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
Courtesy note: I've just left a comment at User_talk:Ruderow#Caste_sanctions, follow your decline of an unblock request. I think that there is some confusion going on. - Sitush ( talk) 16:04, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
Came across your mention of that potential project on Sarek's talk page. I have a suggestion. Would it be possible to have the block log display relevant editing restrictions as well as blocks? Obviously this would require a change or extension to mediawiki but such might be more workable and more easily identifiable than fully protected user subpages. Just a thought. I completely agree that the current editing restrictions process is haphazard at best. Alternatively, one could use a one second block and utilize the comment field to log the restriction and a permalink to the discussion, though this would not work for lengthy restrictions. N419 BH 19:08, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is The_Un-authorized_use_of_a_Bot_in_the_Latvian_Wikipedia_by_User_in_the_Chinese_Wikipedia.2C_being_also_an_authoized_Bot-owner_in_the_English_Wikipedia.2C_or.2C_an_.28a_possibly.29_un-authorized_Global-Bot.. Thank you. — KC9TV 02:23, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
Hi Bwiklins,
I wanted to ask you about this close. I have no problem with your closing rationale - redirect was just about the only reasonable way to close that one. However, I noted that the prospect of a merge was also discussed, and although you deleted the edit history, your closing rationale indicated no prejudice against a merge and even mentioned that it would be "appropriate as part of list of creatures". Unless you have a significant objection to my doing so, I would like to merge information from the article into the list, and wanted to bring this up to you before I do so. BOZ ( talk) 19:40, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
I would like to know if I'm acting out in WP:OWN on the article. I removed several empty sections on the article per WP:TOOSOON as they give no purpose at the moment. However, User:Junebea1 reverted it today in a edit summary of "How can it be irrelevant if the season is less than 2 weeks away?" I had asked him to go on the talk page so all the other editors can discuss if the information should be used at this time, though he ignored. Best, Jona yo! Selena 4 ever 17:54, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
Hi, I like your new signature! Do you think this user is FishingKing? The signature is the same as well with all of the 'Fighting vandals' combined into it. It wouldn't go past me if it was......-- Chip123456 ( talk) 20:51, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
There is an unblock request at User talk:Xplane-maniac. You blocked, and suggested the account is a sockpuppet of FishingKing. Having previously encountered FishingKing sockpuppets, I was immediately struck by the fact that Xplane-maniac's writing of English seems to be different from that of FishingKing's. I also can't see any obvious evidence of sockpuppetry in the editing history, and the only page they have both edited is Wikipedia:Counter-Vandalism Unit/Academy/Enroll. Also, Xplane-maniac has not edited any page in common with the sockpuppet SovietMonster. Can you let me know what the evidence is, so that I can meaningfully assess the unblock request? JamesBWatson ( talk) 20:56, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
Thanks. Both the above comments and my own further investigations have persuaded me that this is indeed a sockpuppet account. JamesBWatson ( talk) 08:15, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
Actually, I'm sorry if I deleted anything. Are you sure I even did? Just responded to notification. Never touched anything on restored page. So, to answer your question: no I am not a dick, not trying, or even wanting, to be one. I do want Metaxas article deleted unless it is not just advertising, recognises that M is not a reliable source on Bonhoeffer, and that WP is written from a neutral point of view. I am bringing this forward. Also bringing forward complaint about harassment (your last message) and the administrator who simply checked "done" without recognising the fact that the major complaint against the M article was advertising/non-neutral point of view, as substantiated by M Talk. All the best. Will see you in AFD. Mfhiller ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:45, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion on moving the article Côte d'Ivoire to Ivory Coast. You are being notified since you participated in a previous discussion on this topic. Please join the discussion here if you are interested. TDL ( talk) 02:24, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
Hello Bwilkins, you may want to review
this case since you blocked the master. Cheers,
⋙–Berean–Hunter—►
18:34, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
Due to the large number delsorting I've been doing over the last few months, I'm considering creating an alternative account on Maintenance grounds per WP:SOCK#LEGIT. Just wanted to get the opinion from a few administrators before proceeding, the last thing I want to happen is to be blocked. If you post a reply on your thoughts regarding the issue here I would really appreciate it. Thanks ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 00:16, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
after hijacking the dhimmitude article user estlandia is now adding the discrimination bar to another article, [5]. another user from the dhimmitude conflict, shrigley, is also involved [6]. this pov-pushing and hounding is beginning to out of hand.-- altetendekrabbe 00:23, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
At link -- Avanu ( talk) 22:41, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
Toddst1 ( talk) 20:03, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
The article page Playdom was tagged as 'needing cleanup' in February 2011. I have been cleaning up the page, removing biased statements, adding references, and generally fixing grammar and syntax as needed. At this point, I think the 'needing cleanup' designation should be removed, but I'm not sure if there's a process to follow in order to do so. I'd love some guidance on whether there's a process, what that process is, or if I can just go ahead and remove the tag. Thank you! Noreenst ( talk) 18:22, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for your help! Wikipedia can be a confusing place for a newcomer. :) Noreenst ( talk) 22:38, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
Hi, you closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jerusalem during the Crusader period/draft
Jerusalem during the Crusader period/draft
Please restore into my user space. Sorry for confusion. The discussion in the AFD page was helpful, but I was away. Staszek Lem ( talk) 15:35, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
Yesterday Irvi Hyka restored [7] content that I had previously removed [8]. He was then reverted by another user [9], and today an IP reverted back to Irvi Hyka's version [10]. The IP is in fact Irvi Hyka editing unlogged, as can be seen from its contribs [11]. International recognition of Kosovo is arguably Irvi Hyka's favorite article [12] and the 80.78 IP reverts another IP editor [13] that had previously reverted one of Irvi Hyka's edits [14]. In both cases there are two reverts within 24 hours, thus he is editing unlogged so as to get around the 1RR restriction. Athenean ( talk) 19:43, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Inline-twin engine is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Inline-twin engine until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Dennis Bratland ( talk) 14:20, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
I've reported User:Evlekis on ANI regarding a recent case of 5 reverts in less than 24 hours. As I've mentioned a comment you made regarding him on a somewhat similar report I have to notify you [15] too.-- — ZjarriRrethues — talk 19:43, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
Ok, wrong version, but -- is this the appropriate reward for refusing to discuss and editwarring? Since the IP won't discuss it and thinks we are saying horrible things about his family, and made those 'formal cease and desist' edits, it seems wrong in all sorts of ways to leave a version with OR, use of raw data, etc. as our official version for a month. Dougweller ( talk) 20:58, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
Avanu asked me to look at this [16] and I had a question. As to the fact that he shouldn't be trying to edit by proxy, I completely agree with that, a blocked editor shouldn't be editing, even by proxy. I also understand why that isn't obvious to the average editor but it looks like he stopped after he was warned, which is good. I see where you say that the talk page is only to be used for requesting unblocks, but I would strongly disagree, via WP:BLOCKING "A blocked user can continue to access Wikipedia, but is unable to edit any page, except (in most cases) their own user talk page." without any stated limitations, which has been my experience here for many years. I'm assuming you agree with that and were just understating the use for some reason. I saw his last comment just before the block [17] but didn't see anything I would normally associate with being talk page blockworthy there. Maybe there is something I'm missing? I don't have any background with the editor, so just have to go on what I see on the surface, compared to what I understand is the policy. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 21:22, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
Looking at the edits to our blocking policy, I'm wondering if anywhere there is guidance as to how changes in policy statements should be made. It all seems random at the moment. Dougweller ( talk) 12:25, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
Dear B, I would have gone to Kudpung but he's away most of the week. This is about this thread here: [18] which you commented on. Anyway, five days later, Tru commented on my talkpage; I copied it back onto his, in the relevant section. I had written out my reply and, before posting it, was checking random contributions of his (to get a fuller pic of his Eng Lang abilities) when I came across this essay he'd done, right after commenting to me: [19]. I think it can be seen Kudpung and I were only trying to help the bloke.... Anyway, I replied with what I'd written before seeing this, and then just added a little PS letting him know I've seen the little epistle. Am seriously cross and rather hurt, really. May I leave it with you to decide if anything ought to be done? ta, Plutonium27 ( talk) 14:51, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
Bwilkins, I gather this remark [21] is an attempt at humour. Well it is not amusing. That section was introduced by me, I was reporting an editor for unilaterally moving Bojana (river). There is no mention of Republic of Kosovo and the 1RR anywhere in that piece, only ARBMAC cropping up here and there. I did not click the link because its main space appearance coupled with the scenario whereby I was seeking disciplinary measures against an antagonist editor meant that this was something remote from my interests. When I visit those pages, I scan down the list at what has been said and I either post a new comment or I head off. My actions were not impugned in that thread and therefore there was no requirement for me to open every link, furthermore, you were addressing two other users when you introduced the part. For what it is worth, yes I did have a quick look at ARBMAC but this is not something that sticks in one's mind. And when you do remember it, what do you think of? Macedonia - because it forms a part of the title. I know the conditions of that policy now and that is what matters, but your insistence that I am being untruthful in that I knew all about ARBMAC and its far-reaching implications as well as the 1RR also mentioned on the talk page is wholly unfounded. All you have gleaned is the occasional thread in which I was involved which alluded to a policy I violated via its hidden backstreets and dark alleys. Now imagine a scenario with you in my position, it would be like searching for a needle in a haystack. Some users edit heavily on one or two topics. I edit largely on affairs close to the Balkans (subjects relating to former Yugoslavia and Bulgaria) but I have made contributions on 9,000 articles. I take interest in some sport, comedies, music, linguistics, international affairs away from the region; so I am not a Kosovo-only editor, it has dominated the past few days but if you look at the history of the articles and my own editing past, you'll see there are huge gaps whereby I haven't visited an ARBMAC-infested article for months at the time. Please demonstrate good faith as an admin and realise that an editor is not necessarily deceitful just because he has brushed past something. Perhaps I should have known better, it doesn't mean that in stealth I really did. The main concern is, I now know about the full scenario and I know how to handle things in future. Evlekis (Евлекис) ( argue) 17:48, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
Hello. Could you please take a look again at 3RR, Doktorbuk, bearing in mind the discussion he started at User talk:Boleyn, where he has stated that he plans to go to Preston (UK Parliament constituency) and remove redlinks to MPs - undoing hours of my work? Please help me. Boleyn ( talk) 18:02, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
He deleted these entries well after he'd agree with you not to do so (see User talk: Boleyn), I'm glad he's thought better of it and restored them. I do feel there is still an ongoing problem - please see my user talk page and see if you agree. If not, then that's great, I'm taking it too personally becuase I've put in so many hours of work. But I do feel I need support to ensure he doesn't keep reverting me, jusging by his comments and attitude on my talk page. Boleyn ( talk) 19:36, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for your prompt response, hopefully he will respond soon. Best wishes, Boleyn ( talk) 19:54, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
I'm afraid the issues have continued, although the user has looked for consensus, he has reverted my edits again without finding consensus. He is now deleting all redlinks to pre-18th century MPs. Can you please look over User talk:Boleyn? Best wishes, Boleyn ( talk) 08:24, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
Since this was given a result, Doktorbuk has reverted my edits on Devizes (UK Parliament constituency), Preston (UK Parliament constituency), Radnorshire (UK Parliament constituency) and City of York (UK Parliament constituency). These have been reverted (for now) by User:Avanu, and discussion has continued at my Talk page. Can you help? I have no intention of restoring my edits if he continues to edit war, not to create more red links to MPs, but I'm very frustrated, and would appreciate some advice and help. Boleyn ( talk) 16:58, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
BWilkins, please let me know why you wonder if you should block me, so I can look at modifying my behaviour. I haven't been edit warring or reverting the Doktor's edits, so I thought I'd been doing the right things - sorry if I haven't been. I'm also sorry that in seeking to get this looked at, I added to the 3RR discussion, but also informed the 2 helpful admins who had looked into this previously. I wanted the previous discussion to be updated so the information was there, but as you and the other admin already had looked at this before, and I didn't know if you'd be following the 3RR discussion as it was kinda closed, I thought I should inform you also. If this caused you problems, I apologise, although I don't think the FFS, or any allusion to swear words, was really necessary, and this response upset me. Anyway, if you let me know why you feel that you don't know who to block first, then I can look at what I need to change, and I appreciate you taking the time to deal with these very frustrating episodes within Wikipedia. Boleyn ( talk) 20:05, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
I'm sorry if it was wrong, but it was done in good faith - I haven't had much reason to be aware of how these things work. Boleyn ( talk) 20:14, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
Just to let you know I mentioned you or rather your talk page here Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive814#Harassment from User:SarekOfVulcan Nil Einne ( talk) 03:03, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
I hadn't seen User:Bwilkins/Essays/Wikipoodling until you mentioned it on ANI. Great term and appropriately applied in relation to Splash, Status, and the fan club.
FYI, I commented on stuff you said on my talk page. Toddst1 ( talk) 16:29, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
The entry proposed for WP:RESTRICT is in User:EdJohnston/Sandbox. See also a reply on my Talk. Thanks, EdJohnston ( talk) 23:45, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
Unless I am mistaken, WP:MOS directs us to use the name of the sovereign country (at the time) for place names. As such, referring to Ostland or the Estonian SSR as someone's birthplace is as valid as listing "Lyon, Vichy France, 1941" as someone's encyclopedic birthplace.
So, rather than Jaan professing his personal truth = I took that as your implication per your Wikilink, he was undoing (removing the Estonian SSR) the equivalent of my example of specifying "Vichy France" as the birth country for any Frenchman/Frenchwoman born in 1941 in Lyon.
There is no subjective truth involved here over which dispute resolution is required. I hope you find the analogy helpful. While a Guberniya of Russia is valid for the 19th century, an SSR of the Soviet Union is not valid for the 20th century. VєсrumЬа ► TALK 18:05, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
Yet another admin has to warn him about personal attacks ( diff). Time to act on this disruptive and time-wasting editor? -- Biker Biker ( talk) 18:47, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
Just wanted to express my dissatisfaction with your reply to me on Rangoon11's talk page recently. You probably deal with a lot of crap as an admin, but that's no reason to disregard WP:assume good faith. Please try in future to be a little less hasty and a bit more conservative when it comes to accusations. Fleetham ( talk) 14:46, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
I don't think he is getting it, nor that he is capable of getting it. I already said I screwed up the move, which wasn't the reason for the block (obviously) [22] I am really starting to believe this individual is WP:CIR material, and that he isn't trying to be malicious, but he really just is that lacking in basic reasoning. Any guidance you have would be appreciated. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 22:15, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
Hi, Bwilkins. I stumbled on your comments on Xceedium's talk page. You told him/her that editors who work for a company are never allowed to create an article about that company. I don't think that is true. Yes, it is highly discouraged, but I can find no policy that prohibits it. Am I mistaken? NTox · talk 22:04, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
Note [23] in relation to the currently blocked user Special:Contributions/Arsenalkid700. IRWolfie- ( talk) 21:39, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
Well, now you've been brought up in this pathetic piece of ANI drama. Toddst1 ( talk) 07:08, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
I don't really know what the hell is going on! TheIrishWarden - Irish and proud ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:48, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
I am going to take your advice and keep out of it TheIrishWarden - Irish and proud ( talk) 18:46, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
Should I close this one: Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/Rollback#Krzna? Armbrust told me that as a non-admin clerk, I can close requests from users with no vandalism reverts, and I have looked through this user's contribs and found no vandalism reverts at all, plus he has zero auto edits, so he doesn't user Twinkle or STiki. Thank You, Electriccatfish2 ( talk) 20:56, 13 July 2012 (UTC).
I have closed Wikipedia:Bot owners' noticeboard#Marking inactive bots so as:
Closed per request at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure. I have read Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive754#Block Review, User talk:Rcsprinter123/Archives/10#May 2012, and this discussion.
The consensus is that Rcsprinter123 ( talk · contribs) is permitted to mark bot user pages in Wikipedia:Bots/Status/inactive bots inactive with several caveats.
1. Rcsprinter123 should verify whether the bots are truly active by checking the contributions page and the log page. Some bots' revisions do not show up in the contributions page but in the logs page. Failure to do so may lead to editing restrictions or blocks. Wikipedia:Bot policy#Bot-like editing states (my bolding):
Human editors are expected to pay attention to the edits they make, and ensure that they don't sacrifice quality in the pursuit of speed or quantity. For the purpose of dispute resolution, it is irrelevant whether high-speed or large-scale edits that involve errors an attentive human would not make are actually being performed by a bot, by a human assisted by a script, or even by a human without any programmatic assistance. No matter the method, the disruptive editing must stop or the user may end up blocked.
The community rejected Rcsprinter123's position that:
As for whether or not the bot in question is active, that shouldn't be my problem because the people updating the inactive list should have weeded out the editing ones. It is hardly my fault that 7SeriesBOT was on that list, because someone else must have made the mistake of not seeing they do deleting only instead. I had, and have put my trust in that list to tell me which pages to do, and if it is checked and updated often enough, I don't see any problem with what I am doing. Rcsprinter (converse) 19:54, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
This is reflective of a poor attitude incompatible with doing this semi-automated task. Participants have found that Wikipedia:Bots/Status/inactive bots has contained errors in the past. As 28bytes ( talk · contribs) notes, "Propagating wrong information across the 'pedia is indeed the problem of whoever does it, and if you're not willing to take responsibility for the edits, you shouldn't be making them."
2. To prevent friction, if an inactive bot's operator has edited within the past three months, Rcsprinter123 should ask them if their bot is inactive. He should give the operator one week to reply, after which, if there is no response, he may tag the bot as inactive. If the operator's response is to disagree with the changing, he is advised to "just pop their bot into an 'ignore' file and put a copy of the list of bots you're ignoring into a prominent place related to your monitoring activities" (from Tony Sidaway ( talk · contribs)). If he would like to tag the bot as inactive over the bot operator's objections (this is inadvisable), he must gain consensus first at a community venue like Wikipedia:Bot owners' noticeboard. Cunard ( talk) 23:28, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
I hope I have achieved a balance between allowing Rcsprinter123 to tag bots as inactive and ensuring no further mistakes are made and no further conflicts arise. Cunard ( talk) 23:32, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the much necessary block! Regards ≫TheStrike Σagle≪ 09:46, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
You're right I'm getting defensive there. I was accused of and not notified of the discussion. This has gotten to me and bothered me and I'd rather be helping out with the backlogs than defending myself. I made a few mistakes and don't need to be bitten or personally attacked over them. I'm not saying you did anything wrong, I'm just saying that the purpose of that page is to find solutions, not to say how I messed up. I would like to leave that discussion and have an admin determine the next step and I'll go back to my work here, so I wanted to lay down the cases when I can close a request and also request your approval:
This doesn't apply to requests to be confirmed, where I do most of my work. Also, I only make crystal-clear closures by rollback, such as User: Ekren, and JohnCD commended me for my close there. I hate being the subject of discussions here and would like to get back to work. Thanks, Electriccatfish2 ( talk) 10:18, 15 July 2012 (UTC).
First of all, it was a misleading, not false statement and I never removed your comments. Second of all, I would like to express my sincere apologies for my mistake and I will ensure that this never happens again. However, please keep in mind that I've never made a bad closure at WP: PERM. I hope you can forgive me and we can move on from this unfortunate situation. Best, Electriccatfish2 ( talk) 02:58, 16 July 2012 (UTC).
Bwilkins, have you ever thought about the possibility of becoming a bureaucrat? I only ask because over the past couple of month's I have been watching your contributions to Wikipedia and in particular, those to the AN/I board. Your blocks are always well thoughts, and your comments are always thorough in nature. You never seem to lose your cool and from what I have witnessed, you are not always quick to usher off a user to the blocked sector. Taking the time understand the contributions and intent of editors is crucial to an admin and you have shown that your skills in this area are superb. Additionally, as a bureaucrat you would be expected to uphold tighter standards and do much of the same for admins as you have for common editors. I believe you would be a great addition to the title and would be a vital tool to Wikipedia. As such, I would be willing to give you a well thought out nomination with formal regards for your aspirations and achievements on and to Wikipedia. Even if the title is too much to think about now, if I were you I would give it some serious thought. You definitely have the capabilities to handle such a position. Good day to you.
Keystoner
idin (speak) 18:37, 15 July 2012 (UTC) I will be retiring my account so I can no longer write this proposal.
Keystoner
idin (speak)
18:01, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
The Civility Barnstar | |
First of all, I would like to apologize for my my misleading statements on Friday and I hope you will accept my apology. Also, I think that we should make it clear that there is no reason why you need to ask the requester if he/she uses Twinkle or is in the CVU because none of these are requirements for getting the tool and many people don't have either one of these. Also, I think common sense prevails on NOTNOW requests, but we have to separate these from SNOW requests. So again, I hope you accept my apology for my statements that caused major issues and I hope we can move on and continue to eliminate the backlogs at WP: PERM. Best, Electriccatfish2 ( talk) 10:56, 16 July 2012 (UTC) |
The Barnstar of Diplomacy | ||
For helping to control and calm down the 'troll' arguments between me and other users. I could see now end only two days ago, but your advice and good diplomacy helped to resolve the situation. Thanks! TheIrishWarden - Irish and proud ( talk) 17:02, 16 July 2012 (UTC) |
Who are these IP's, I feel really sad that people don't want me here. It's slightly suspicious that a random IP suddenly comes out of nowhere and comments on this Closed case, although it probably is a user who forgot to login. Do you think 94.2.68.11 edits are enough to give him a warning? TheIrishWarden - Irish and proud ( talk) 17:24, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
You triggered a false positive of one of the filters. I notified the filter creator to remedy it on your behalf. - Penwhale | dance in the air and follow his steps 01:03, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
Bwilkins, you are one of the admins that I respected and feel like I wanted to more emulate. Obviously that didn't happen and my road became clouded. Would you please do me the high honor of deleting my user page and talk page? This is Keystoneridin, signing out! Keystoner idin (speak) 04:11, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
Err... grats :) Kennedy ( talk) 15:06, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
Can you actually read?
". Bwilkins (talk | contribs) changed block settings for Altetendekrabbe (talk | contribs) with an expiry time of Sun, 19 Aug 2012 11:32:27 GMT (account creation blocked, cannot edit own talk page) (Revoking talk page access: inappropriate use of user talk page while blocked: WP:NPA while blocked)"
Did you just block the user for merely making an unblock request??????
Are you open to recall or do I take this to AN/I or ArbCom?
VolunteerMarek 11:55, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
BW, indeed you are correct. I just returned from Wikimania and the level of anonimity within the community is amazing. If we don't self-identify in many discussions, no one else know who we are or how much experience we've had unless they want to start digging. I am of the philosophy that ever editor is equal and don't much care about them unless I am trying to figure out where they are comming in any discussion. Indeed Another admin comment Isn't this fun! -- Mike Cline ( talk) 13:21, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
I request that this IP is to be blocked due to harassment towards me on EggCentric's talk page. Thanks Thєíríshwαrdєn - írísh αnd prσud ( talk) 16:36, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
Please see my proposal at [25]. Cheers, -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 17:35, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
No comments about the block itself, but I want to note that Piotrus is correct. Policy states that you shouldn't block when you are involved. You shouldn't block for breaking NPA, if you are the target of the NPA breaking comment, as it makes you prima facie involved. You should self-revert based on that alone, because you shouldn't be acting when you may be seen as having a conflict of interest. LK ( talk) 06:38, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
All admins are dicks, every one of them. Including crats and everyone with the power to block. There; that makes me pretty untouchable I would think, seeing as all admins are now 'involved'... Kennedy ( talk) 10:51, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
I understand if you were responding to another contributor who stated that if the Facebook page was their official page, but I never said the organization I was referring to had a Facebook page as their official page, the non-profit organization I referred to does have their own webpage, I simply stated they STARTED as a Facebook group. Given that the organization has chapters through out Missouri, Iowa, Texas, California, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Hawaii and internationally in Germany, UK, Costa Rica, and Australia with over 13,600 members I think they are beyond the Facebook part, but that page does continue to be quite active. Camelbinky ( talk) 19:42, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
you need to fix one of the expiry dates on the template (set to jan. 2012...).-- altetendekrabbe 14:23, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
Since you seem to care about it, unlike most others I can think of, can you take a look at recent comments by Imonoz ( talk · contribs)? He used the word nationalistic, and I cautioned him to be careful with it ( [26]). Instead of backing down, he seems to be increasingly aggressive towards Polish sources (" It's fine you have it on your own little PL:wikipedia but not on the mainstream.") and his last comment (" you should get off wikipedia") is quite offensive. Considering I did ask him to be civil earlier, I think he could use an admin warning. Also, he is revert warring and restoring a poorly formatted source reliability of which I questioned on talk; he is simply stating it is "more reliable than mine"... I don't feel like revert warring or insult slugging, so I'd appreciate it if an admin could make him see some reason. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 14:52, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
We haven't interacted much directly, but you are very active, so I've seen you around a lot. Obviously, some response to the Jimbo suggestion is needed. On the one hand, it is clear that pronouncements by Jimbo no longer compel like they used to, so in theory, one can treat it as a suggestions with no more weight than it, say, I had proposed it. On the other hand, there is a perception about admins that has some fact basis, and it would be helpful to take steps to ensure the (arguably unfair) fact that admin conduct is expected to be held to a higher standard. I haven't reviewed the entire exchange, I suspect if I did I would be quite sympathetic to your frustration, but that doesn't change the fact that we are expected to do better. I thought the suggestion of six months off is a bit harsh, but Jimbo is clearly trying to send a message, one I support. While I am sympathetic to Dennis Brown's suggestion that a sysop should require a pattern of behavior, one I haven't seen, I'll distinguish a community forced desysop, which should require more than a one-off incident, and a voluntary decision, which does not. I hope never to be in this position, but if I were I would consider saying something like the following, "If anyone reads the entire exchange, they will have a fuller appreciation of the situation, and an understanding of why I was so frustrated. I honestly felt the editor was acting in a way that wasn't acceptable, and some higher level of maturity was needed. However, feeling something and expressing that thought are two different acts, and I accept that as an admin, I am expected to take the higher ground, and handle things differently. In short, my behavior, while understandable, was unacceptable. In order to reinforce this, I will request that the bureaucrats remove my bit until such time as I feel I can deal with situations such as this in a better way, and I commit that I will wait at least a month before asking for the bit back."-- SPhilbrick (Talk) 15:40, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
For what little it might be worth, I generally echo Mongo's word of caution there (though, as I was actually going to leave a comment on your talk page at about 13:00 yesterday about a separate issue, I would not necessarily limit the word of caution to decorum). Having breaks isn't always a bad thing: by that I do not mean you should turn in your tools, but you could certainly take a break from acting in that role (or editing) for periods of time. Obviously the length of the period is not something one can place a concrete value in advance, but hopefully such periods would be short ones. :) Ncmvocalist ( talk) 05:33, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
Please enlighten me with the link to the relevant guideline or policy section as I can not seem to find it. I have been gone awhile and I suppose the consensus I helped reach was later revised. Camelbinky ( talk) 17:23, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
i am trying to stay away from shrike... but see how is after me like a hound, [27]. he should also try to de-escalate rather than follow me around. i am pretty sure he will begin an edit war pretty soon (that is his modus operandi). the last time he edited there was like weeks ago... suddenly he began editing again..today... on my post. that's not a coincidence. anyway, i'm not going to be part of that discussion anymore. could you please ask him to stop stalking me?-- altetendekrabbe 18:07, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
What should I do if I have interest in Islam inter-religious topics.Should I stop editing them just because some user that I have conflict with him edit it too.If he will edit about soccer and video games I would care less.Also please pay attention for blatant admin shopping [28], [29] and personal attacks that he first makes and then removes if you want diffs can be provided.-- Shrike ( talk)/ WP:RX 19:29, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar | |
For all of your help defending The Irish Warden from the trolling accusations! Electriccatfish2 ( talk) 20:22, 20 July 2012 (UTC) |
Yes many thanks for that and for the diplomacy meaning no hard feelings between me and any other user involved. Cheers Thєíríshwαrdєn - írísh αnd prσud ( talk) 20:53, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
I've come to ask you for your advice on a matter that has been troubling me for several days. About a week ago, I contacted User: Mike Rosoft about the controversial block of User: Fajita63, based off only one edit. He responded with "On the second look, the edit doesn't look like actual spamming. Unblocked.", and then immediately removed the response, without changing the block status. When I noticed this 2 days later, I responded by noting his actions and inquiring if something was wrong. He still hasn't responded (or edited at all), so I am becoming a bit worried. I just wanted to know what you thought of the situation, and how I should deal with it. Robby The Penguin (talk) (contribs) 03:47, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
I've responded specifically to your comment on the Syrian uprising article's talk page ( direct link). I'm not entirely sure whatever gave you the impression that I had lost my composure, but I do admit I was growing impatient about how long it seemed to be taking for us to make some sort of a decision. Bear in mind, I have never set foot in requested moves before, so I was unaware of the 7-day convention for discussion. Master&Expert ( Talk) 19:46, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
i hope this beverage is relaxing. you obviously work hard and deal with a lot of shit. Happy monsoon day 16:38, 22 July 2012 (UTC) |
please take a look at the last 8-9 comments of this thread [30]? shrike is misrepresenting a source again, and re-adding content that has been thrown out be other editors as well. he is clearly taking advantage of my 1-rr restriction. he does not care about the brd-cycle either. could you please ask shrike to revert? he also reverted me on another page [31], re-introducing unreliable and non-neutral sources, starting edit wars there as well. update: good news. his misrepresentation on the dhimmitude-page was removed by 2 other editors. clearly, shrike does not care about gaining consensus. his constant gaming is becoming annoying again, so i'll stay away from editing a little.-- altetendekrabbe 18:15, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
Sorry if it went a little overboard, but that's similar to how AN/I felt to me. Maybe you'll be more compassionate there moving forward. Lucky for you you had several editors rushing to your defence, even your buddy Dennis closed it for you. I'm curious though, why do you think a suggestion from you is gold, and editors who do not follow your suggestions to a tee are pathetic, yet a suggestion from Jimbo is completely optional to you? Are you gonna blank this edit as vandalism to hide the dispute? Or are you gonna allow it to be archived as a good admin should? ~ GabeMc ( talk| contribs) 21:21, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
Hi Bwilkins, I've opened a section on GabeMc's talkpage to find out if there are editors who are interested in helping him as much as he is interested in asking them for assistance. It's at User talk:GabeMc#Request for comment. Penyulap ☏ 00:37, 23 Jul 2012 (UTC)
Hey Bwilkins, I saw that you moved the Syrian uprising article to "Syrian Civil War (2011–present)". However, there was no civil war within Syria before this conflict. Is it possible to move it again to "Syrian Civil War"? Thanks. -- Luke (Talk) 14:51, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
This page is having a unregistered user who has been banned already here but still able to make edits, so kindly secure this page. Thanks Clarificationgiven ( talk) 10:49, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
I was about to start a Wikipedia:Move review relating to your close of the move request of the “Syrian uprising” article, however, I saw the following sentence on Wikipedia:Move review: “Prior to requesting a review, you should attempt to resolve any issues with the closer on their talk page.”
I think that the outcome of the discussion should have been “no consensus”. I have noticed that you were monitoring the discussion on a regular basis. The downside of this is that you might have made your mind before the discussion was completely over. On the last day of the discussion there were some strong rebuttals against the arguments of the civil war name made with fresh data about media Wikipedia:COMMONNAME for Syria. I copy/paste here two key exchanges from the discussion:
The following major news sources are now using the words "civil war" directly to describe the conflict. These are direct reports on the war, and not reportage of the ICRC announcement.
That's sixteen major WP:RS, from multiple countries, and all over the political spectrum, using the term "civil war" to describe the conflict. The combination of this, the ICRC's announcement, and the fact that there is an obvious, visible, massive, all-out civil war being reported on all over every single news outlet, should make this page-move a no-brainer, surely? -- The Anome ( talk) 20:43, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
I hope you will take another look at the discussion and focus on the hard data evidence.
Tradedia (
talk)
19:57, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Qwyrxian and I tried to teach Krizpo how to be a decent editor. At Talk:Religion_in_Africa#Religions_in_Africa we explained that blogs, wikis, self-published websites, personal website, etc, etc are not reliable sources and are not used in article. We explained that we do not give undue weight to topics. At User_talk:Krizpo#Appropriate_sources, I explained what sort of sources are considered reliable, and he "agreed" do to so. He then went on and cited blogs, self-published website, etc, etc anyway. At User_talk:Krizpo#Regarding_your_edits_to_Religion_in_Africa I pointed out the various problems with his edits (including his continuing problem of citing sources for claims the sources do not even begin to make). He then restored a great deal of it, making fringe claims like portraying Buddhism as having been continually present in Africa since Ashoka sent a few missionaries to Egypt, using different sources. Qwyrxian reverted most of it, and is going to revert more of it later if Krizpo does not justify his edits on the talk page. I removed some more, particularly the presentation of all Indian religions having had a notable presence in the whole Africa since Ashoka sent a few Buddhist missionaries to Egypt. Qwyrxian left a message on Krizpo's page asking him to justify his edits on the article's talk page. Krizpo simply restored the contested material without any discussion, citing sources we had already explained repeatedly are not reliable and are not to be used. I reverted and left a message asking him to take it to the talk page. He simply restored it and continues to be the useless, edit-warring, POV-pusher he was identified as being over a week ago.
He does not pay attention to WP:RS, only when other editors point to individual sources and say "do not use that one." He still refuses to listen to any editor saying "do not make claims not supported by sources." All he has to say for himself, after editors have wasted so much time explaining things and all but editing for him is "Dude, you are messing up the page. It actually looked good after my edit."
As it was your idea to see if things would improve once he started talking, rather than make an apparently difficult block, I thought you might want to know. Ian.thomson ( talk) 00:44, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
See here. Yes, yes, you're away, but I still feel it only proper to notify you. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen ( talk) 15:35, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
You were mentioned on Jimbo Wales' talk page. I just thought I'd let you know. Ryan Vesey 14:55, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
I see you are EatsandShootsLeaves. It's a reply to that account's message. Electric Catfish 21:39, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
The Resilient Barnstar | |
For continuing to do excellent work as an admin despite the harassment! Electric Catfish 21:47, 6 August 2012 (UTC) |
You were the only Admin who spoke seriously about blocking User:FerrerFour at the recent ANI, during his unceasing stream of insults levied at User:Sports. (Why didn't you go thru with it? How can Admins justify sitting and doing nothing while User:Sport is perpetually abused there? She was even blamed for calling attention to the repeated incivilities, that it "made her look bad", when no one was doing anything. A reasonable confusion on her part, and then she's reprimanded for it. Amazing.) Ihardlythinkso ( talk) 12:15, 10 August 2012 (UTC) p.s. There was some confusion between contributors at the ANI, whether calling another editor "incompetent" was an insult or not. One editor felt it couldn't be, since there was a "WP guideline on it". Another editor corrected him, saying said remarks are always insulting. FerrerFour seemed to use the confusion to justify going all out with insults, as though "protected" by the confusion on policy. What is your take? And don't you feel, with WP articles like WP:COMPETENCE and WP:DICK, that their very existence, encourages use, which is itself a personal attack (personal in nature, about the person, etc.)? I'm not challenging you in any way I'm looking for your take (as, you were the only one to object to the stream of insults with anything that meant anything, which got my respect).
You recently imposed ARBMAC sanctions on this user, but the edit warring has continued with 1RR violations on International recognition of Kosovo, Libyan civil war, Ernesto Sabato and Rona Nishliu in the last day or so. I can't comment on the other disputes, but at International recognition of Kosovo the user's addition of non-notable text to the article has been reverted by multiple editors but they keep trying to restore it without any participation in the discussion on the talk page. I requested that the user join the discussion on the talk page and self-revert, but the only response I got was that they "don't see something that should be discussed". What is the proper route to seek enforcement of discretionary sanctions? Do I have to file a request for enforcement at arbcom, or can you take care of it? TDL ( talk) 23:09, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
I noticed you had interacted with Ricky072 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) and I thought you might be interested in this AN/I report. -- John ( talk) 18:53, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
Hello. Please see here. Gun Powder Ma ( talk) 13:51, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
Welcome to the first edition of The Olive Branch. This will be a place to semi-regularly update editors active in dispute resolution (DR) about some of the most important issues, advances, and challenges in the area. You were delivered this update because you are active in DR, but if you would prefer not to receive any future mailing, just add your name to this page.
In this issue:
--The Olive Branch 18:53, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
Please add sections to Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Muhammad images:
Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Muhammad images with only the introduction and links to the questions:
At over 900k it is problematic reading. I have no idea why no one did this while it was open. Apteva ( talk) 21:52, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
You are being discussed (along with your alter-ego) at User talk:Horologium#the issue re multi-accounting. You may wish to drop in and comment. I'm leaving the same comment at both User talk:EatsShootsAndLeaves and User talk:Bwilkins so that you will be aware of the discussion. Horologium (talk) 00:59, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
Can we have a talk page block on this user please? Cheers MadGuy7023 ( talk) 22:03, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
I thought you could use a laugh: Block Log:ClueBot NG. I was pretty close to adding my name to that list. Toddst1 ( talk) 18:32, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
Dear Sir,
You deleted our wikipedia pages: 1- Chronicles of Young Scientists (www.cysonline.org) 2- Organization of Pharmaceutical Unity with BioAllied Sciences (www.opubs.com)
Coverpages for Journal of Pharmacy and BioAllied Sciences (www.jpbsonline.org).
May we know the reason why? We can see wikipedia pages of all other journals but then why our information is deleted. See this example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Journal_of_Pharmaceutics
We are new to wikipedia. No doubt that wikipedia is tough for a scientific person like us who do not know computer coding etc.
Either you should provide help in writing information on wikipedia or if its not possible then why to delete? Make wikipedia simple, so that we can add information etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Himanshu18in ( talk • contribs) 18:15, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
Nice to see the old you back :-) -- Boing! said Zebedee ( talk) 19:48, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
My thoughts entirely :) -- Gilderien Chat| List of good deeds 08:22, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
...for this User_talk:JamesBWatson#False_sock_puppet_accusation--and_I_will_not_tolerate_it old boy. You are good to assist in this.~© Djathink imacowboy 12:01, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
For this. I was a bit unsure of what to do since this was my first RfA closure, however I wholeheartedly agree with what you said in your summary. Legoktm ( talk) 16:25, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
This edit doesn't appear to have actually closed the RfA.-- Rockfang ( talk) 16:27, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
I liked this edit, but I decided that it might not be the most effective way of dealing with a user who probably needs careful handling, so I have reverted it. Actually, I had to exercise quite an effort of the will to restrain myself from making some sort of ironic comment on the user's grammar myself. JamesBWatson ( talk) 12:30, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
Joefromrandb ( talk) 22:59, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
Hello. Sorry to invade your talkpage, but I think I might've found the key to the problem with this "Seb az86556" character. I was looking at his/her userpage again and this time noticed that one of the articles they're proud to say they have "written or significantly contributed to" is Transkei, the article under question. So perhaps they have so much invested in it and/or feel they own it that they're unable to let anyone else work on it -- and also feel unable to explain why. 213.246.88.102 ( talk) 23:05, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
Can you please have a look at the contributions of Jayven09maddie ( talk · contribs) having received a number of warnings here, here, here, here and here the editor continues to be disruptive for example with this edit. Mt king (edits) 01:08, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
I apologize for constantly adding Tyga or others to the associated acts section of the Nicki Minaj article. I just thought he would make a good addition to that section. I'll try to understand that the associated acts section of artists means a bit more than just working together. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Captainmad ( talk • contribs)
I apologize if I seem to be barking at you at ANI. It's not personal; I'm just frustrated. I fully appreciate your concerns and understand why you're raising them, but from my POV it's all already asked and answered. Thanks for reading the posting, and for responding. JohnInDC ( talk) 12:15, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for pushing through your initial skepticism on this. I'm going to be on the road for a few days and probably not commenting much. You seem to have matters well in hand however; good luck with however it sorts out. JohnInDC ( talk) 01:26, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
Hi Bwilkins,
I noticed you recently blocked Guinsberg for BLP violations. After you did so, he started edit-warring with IPs, and I thought you'd want to know. Please see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Guinsberg now socking. Jayjg (talk) 22:59, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
hello can you please explain why my creation D.V.S* Derek VanScoten was deleeted? I used references and made sure it was very objective. I'd like to get it back online asap so please let me know. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mike Zanda ( talk • contribs) 16:21, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
Note: sudden, prolonged withdrawal from dialog possible / likely due to Hurricane Sandy.
The purpose of adminship is to help the editors edit by dealing performing certain technical tasks. As these tasks (blocking users, deleting pages, protecting pages) can damage Wikipedia if used inappropriately, we have ya'll go through an Rfa first. I'm reasonably confident you do most of these tasks just fine, with little notice or appreciation.
It appears from your contribution pattern that somewhere along the line you got the idea adminship is something else. It is not the purpose of adminship to teach users to fish, or how to be bureaucratically perfect. Obvious pillar is obvious. The 500th editor to post on ANI without the required notice on the users' talk page, or on AN instead of ANI, or AN instead of AIV (etc) is not the previous 499. They are not the 501th who will undoubtedly do the same thing. We plaster the top of our noticeboards with fossilized walls 'o text and steadfastly resist any efforts to improve readability. (See Wikipedia_talk:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentsHeader and the header history). I'm well paid professionally because, in large part, I'm very good at reading directions (see RTFM). But a good population of the English speaking population just isn't. But we want, we need them to edit any anyway. (When I checked last week, there are a quarter million inclusions of the "unreferenced" template). We need every editor we can get, and we need to encourage them.
A little bit of teasing or facetiousness or whatever you want to call can be effective communication if and only if you have an existing with an individual. When said to a stranger, it's being a snarky asshole. Since your return to adminship, I've observed it repeatedly, with your premature dismissal of JohninDC (did you even look at the prior incidents to realize the editor is question had been blocked 24 hours?), the smart-ass "is this an announcement" comment to the two editors who -- OMG! posted an ANI request on AN, and more recently, the editor who realizes there's a problem but lacks the nuance to know the proper nuanced different between vandalism and trolling. The distinction between trolling and vandalism is really important -- why???
Please forget all the crap at the top of boards about the exact purpose of each one, and interpret each request simply as an editor looking for help. Is it okay to point out a more appropriate board, or ask/remind them to notify an editor? Of course it is, but gently please.
Note none of the above is intended to apply to frequent fliers on AN/ANI who repeat the same behavior over and over. Hammer those dweebs as hard as you want. But if you don't recognize the account name -- lots lots AGF, okay?
I understand the frustration of seeing the same missteps day after day -- there are times I wanted to scream when I saw yet another "this editor removed my comment from my talk page!" WQA post. But I reminded myself they weren't all the other editors who had come before. And when it got really annoying, I took a month off. Or two, or three. Except for followup and explanations per WP:ADMINACCT you're never required to take action. If some dweebish misplaced post annoys you, please just ignore and let someone else deal with it rather than trying to teach angling to a user who hasn't asked for it. Nobody Ent 18:55, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
Hi BWilkins, thank you very much for the time and effort that you put into resolving my block issue. Am I allowed to remove the ugly sock-puppet banners on my user pages now, or will that get me into more trouble? Eff Won ( talk) 18:43, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
Bwilkins has been entrusted by the community to make certain decisions, and that includes the decision to unblock a user if he feels the editor is ready to discontinue past practices and contribute positively to the Encyclopedia. No lasting or significant harm will come to Wikipedia if he's mistaken, as the user can easily be reblocked. Bretonbanquet, per WP:ADMINACCT, is entitled to make polite inquiries into Bwilkin's reasoning; they are not entitled to make accusations or repeatedly badger him. Bretonbanquet has been asked to go away from this page; I encourage them to do so. Nobody Ent 23:24, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
Apologies - I saw earlier that this user had requested unblock, came back after breakfast and unblocked without seeing that in the meantime you had asked the COIQ questions. There's no doubt this account is here for promotional purposes, but I had earlier explained at some length what Wikipedia is not for, and a COIN entry at WP:COIN#Jordan Alan and his films has brought several others to help keep an eye on the articles, so they will not be getting away with anything. Regards, JohnCD ( talk) 09:26, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
Can you take another look at the DC block extension discussion and maybe tweak the closing statement? I don't think anyone was arguing about the initial block, just the circumstances of the extension. Nobody Ent 22:42, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
Hello there. I noticed that you declined an unblock request from User:Mr JKX. Earlier I spotted them operating a new account under User:Mr QVC. They do not appear to be trying to hide the fact seeings as they have returned to articles edited by the previous account. Plus on the user pages you get the same introduction - "This is the page of MR JKX" and "this is the page of Mr QVC". Rain the 1 19:11, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
Was blocked by you a while back -- and has now appeared using an identifiable sock so he can be two people on each of two articles <g> I files at SPI [52] but this is so blatant, it does not require any additional evidence at all AFAICT:
[53] is by his sock on Linda McMahon at 21:09 UTC ... and at 21:10 see [54] where User:Screwball23 affixes his own sig <g> which is about as simple and direct an admission of socking as ever I have seen. The SPI was filed before this - the sock edits heavily on 2 articles - in direct accord with Screwball23's edits, and using the exact same language in the edit summaries. The one minute delay means that he can not use the "public computer" excuse, either. Cheers. Collect ( talk) 22:18, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
We have had some contact with this user, who is currently blocked for one month and whose unblock request you recently declined. My problem is that he has admitted that his account is compromised; it is, however, only by his sister (it's the one who claimed to have bought the account for a dollar) and he is obviously very young. As we both know a compromised account is normally indef-blocked. I am inclined to make an exception here, but would appreciate your thoughts?-- Anthony Bradbury "talk" 22:04, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
The Admin's Barnstar | ||
For all your hard work, contributions and administration of the Wikipedia project. Cheers. -- Hu12 ( talk) 01:39, 7 November 2012 (UTC) |
You added the word "will". I wonder if anyone notices... The Rambling Man ( talk) 17:46, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
"If you erroneously added the sysop bit to my alternate account, you would immediately remove it. You have erroneously re-added the bit back to an account because you missed the "cloud", and since the "cloud" is a valid reason for not re-implementing the bit in these situations as per policy, then you have full authority to remove it."
It's not particularly germane to the discussion at BN, which is why I came over here. Erroneously adding the bit to your alternate account isn't the same as erroneously adding the bit for a resysop. Presumably, the crat who added it to your alternate account would desysop your alternate account and then re-add it to your main account, so you would still have the bit on an account you control; there would be no actual removal of the permission. Another argument would be that there is no chance you would object to the removal of the bit from your alternate account and that therefore you have impliedly requested removal to correct the error. This is not the same as removing the bit from someone who reasonable minds would say presents a chance of not having impliedly consented to removal of the bit. MBisanz talk 13:51, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
Hello,
Sorry my page did not apply with guidelines, please could you userfy the page code in my user space.
I would like the opportunity to carry out further work on this page in the future. Bjs2012 ( talk) 17:08, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
I've restored three A9s you deleted - they weren't A9 as the artist had an article, and seem to have been tagged by a rogue bot. Reaper has mass rollbacked the edits on the main part of the articles, while I was trying to remember how to do it (and detagging some by hand...). The account has been blocked by Nytend as a suspected unauthorised bot. Peridon ( talk) 18:00, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
damned good idea ;) Goodness knows why I or nobody else thought of it before. Thanks. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 08:08, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
As we have interracted on several occasions, on the whole I believe in substantial agreement, I looked at your userpage. I see that you claim to be a deontologist. So I read the article, which must qualify as one of the most obscure short articles in wikipedia! But I was left wondering; are you an absolutist deontologist or a non-absolutist deontologist?
Only kidding really; you can ignore me. -- Anthony Bradbury "talk" 17:43, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
I did not consider their message about "having done research" as relating to WP:OR whatsoever, based on the context. I still think she means the type of research we actually want - now that she understands WP:RS ( ✉→ BWilkins ←✎) 17:42, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
...for setting me straight and helping out with that unblock request. I appreciate it. Drmies ( talk) 15:20, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Resysoping of FCYTravis / Polarscribe 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—
Thanks, Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 20:56, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
I've reverted, but found your statement that I changed orders odd. I didn't. I often fix indents on talk pages, Afds and ANI, and your the first ever to object. My sole aim was to improve readability, as the discussion is extremely difficult to follow. Dominus Vobisdu ( talk) 12:46, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
BTW, I think I'd like to change my comment to support here. :) I had no memory of the !opinion. I stumbled upon it through Socksred's thing a ma gig Talk about being wrong! Toddst1 ( talk) 00:58, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
I checked the alternative account policy before posting and didn't think it conflicted with an anonymous request for independent review of everyone's actions. Which point of the policy do you think I've violated? If you want I can contact you by e-mail to disclose my identity and give a further explanation of why I felt the need to post while logged out. If in your opinion it was against policy I'm happy to log in and change the signature on my post. 149.255.57.233 ( talk) 10:45, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
On a related note, I have had a look at the articles in question and I can see why no one would want to dangle their feet in there with a username. Just taking NPOV - good faith attempts to bring them in line tend to get reverted by both sides. Thats not touching on the reliability of some of the sourcing involved. Without some sort of teeth, I suspect this needs to go to AE so they reiterate policy to everyone involved. As it is, its going to be a lot of work to sort out the mess. I will have a shot at untangling the more problematic sourcing issues later tonight, but I have no confidence ANYTHING will stick. They just seem too entrenched and unwilling to compromise/work together. Only in death does duty end ( talk) 15:16, 14 November 2012 (UTC) PS. The sig thing may be unintentional. The diff at ANI looks like its stripping all special characters. My mobile does something similar if I try and edit from it in an existing section with chars it cant recognise.
Hi, could you take a look at 65.254.18.70? He seems to have a very long story of vandalisms and of ignoring any warning... in recent days he is focusing on Twister (game) article, blanking sections and/or replacing them with patient non-sense. I have no experience on requesting blocks, at any rate he looks like a good candidate for it... -- Cavarrone ( talk) 14:19, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
I'd like to ask you for a further explanation of your reasoning for the deletion of 2012-13 U.S. winter storm season ( AfD). Not to be a !vote counter, but the !vote counts weren't too far apart, and any concern raised by those who !voted delete I or another editor replied to with a reply that basically nullified any deletion argument. If you could further explain the reason for deletion, I'd love it. If you aren't willing to undelete it into articlespace, could you please userfy it? Thanks, and sorry for the interruption. gwickwire | Leave a message 18:33, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
Could you take a look at the ANI thread on the IP you just blocked for legal threats? I've asked that you undo the block as I really don' think it was appropriate in this case. Qwyrxian ( talk) 12:35, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
Then how come I see companies coming from Asia (I won't mention specific names of the country) that are hardly heard of? I mean that's biased already and subjective. BTW, I'm not arguing, I'm just pointing out my point. You have to be fair. A sound discernment is needed here. Please stop listening to what other's are saying about certain articles. OptiStar ( talk) 13:26, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
Almost immediately after you speedy-deleted Mobile Tout Terrain, the user recreated it. It still doesn't meet the notability criteria and I'd appreciate you getting rid of it once again (and possibly wikislapping the contributor who just doesn't seem to get the concept of reliable sources). Thanks. -- Biker Biker ( talk) 16:39, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a deletion review of 2012-13 U.S. winter storm season. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. gwickwire | Leave a message 00:03, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
There are enough incompetent admins simply hanging out to fan the flames. Don't. Really. - Fjozk ( talk) 12:58, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.144.180.188 ( talk) 10:28, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
So, in the current Arb request, you claimed "The rest of the Bureaucrat cadre disagreed" with a decision I made. Could you clarify where all the other 'crats disagreed with my action please? Thanks. The Rambling Man ( talk) 20:18, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
I think my summary at the end of that section summarised it well. None of us crats criticised TRM as doing the wrong thing, although some of us may have chosen to act differently. -- Dweller ( talk) 11:31, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
I do not believe it was fair to delete Crown the Empire. The band is very notable. Websites that has been confirmed and are used as sources everywhere (i.e. Alternative Press, metalunderground, rocksound.tv, Lambgoat, and absolutepunk.net) has posted about the band on multiple occasions. The band has released two EPs actually, not one. They are signed to a heavily covered and established record label (Rise Records). Over 84,000 "likes" on Facebook as of today (likes is probably not a useable source of notablility, just wanted to point that out). They are set to release their debut album on Rise Records (tomorrow actually, if I can recall correctly). And has worked with Joey Sturgis and Cameron Mizell, both being established producers in the genre that the band is a part of. The band is very notable in my opinion. Not to mention you deleted it after multiple votes of keeping the page. I do agree the page was in bad grammar/formatting but I do believe it deserved a deletion. I say the page be re-added once proper sources are found and formatting be fixed.
XyphynX9 (
talk)
15:35, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
I'm wanting to clear up the error that Jimbo Wales was the sole founder of Wikipedia, as presented on his user page but you reverted it saying "as per consensus". I know that "Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale" so I'm wondering what sort of consensus it was that overrides WP:VER, WP:NOR and WP:NPOV which all indicate that Jimbo was the co-founder of Wikipedia with Larry Sanger? Momento ( talk) 10:32, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
I'm not harassing you who does?
Just to let you know that I'm not gonna visit this Wikipedia again after what you've done to my articles just because somebody here keep on reporting to you lies and telling you to do this and that. this too much. Imagine, one after the other.
I came here to contribute for the growth of this knowledge center with a sincere heart but some people here would accuse me of vandalism. The effect, I'm not gonna edit the articles here with discrepancies and leave it so that Wikipedia would become a laughing stock to many.
I'm gonna tell my friends whom I told before to donate to Wikipedia to not to go on.
Actually, there are lots of other who complain about the unreasonable deletion of the other articles which they made.
Be informed that I'm gonna be deleting all my contributions here. Do not object anyway they're all mine.
I'd rather do a research on Britannica Online even if the articles are fewer because I believe the people are not rude. OptiStar ( talk) 11:52, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
Be happy because I'll do ahead of you with the deletion of my articles. Tell bikers bikers that he won and he can now celebrate.
It's a waste of time to be here. OptiStar ( talk) 11:52, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
There you have it BWilkins, I already deleted all the articles that I created here including my contributions out of my own accord.
You can now have the peace here in Wikipedia now that I leave this website and try not to visit it as much as I can. OptiStar ( talk) 11:40, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
Was it really your intention to redirect Four Stroke Engine Cycle to WP:NOTHOWTO? Seems like a strange redirect.-- kelapstick( bainuu) 14:56, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
I noticed your username commenting at an Arbcom discussion regarding civility. An effort is underway that would likely benifit if your views were included. I hope you will append regards at: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Civility enforcement/Questionnaire Thank you for considering this request. My76Strat ( talk) 09:15, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
Hi, you noted that User:TheWesternWorld abused Wikipedia's email system. The user sent me an abusive email, which said "Kill yourself you retarded piece of shit". Is their any way I could report that?-- Mjs1991 ( talk) 04:00, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
Would you kindly consider recasting your !vote on Harrias' RfA now that he's answered the question? I've been accused of caring too much about these things, but at the moment, your neutral !vote is the only one standing in the way of a unanimous RfA, which in these days of so much contention on the RfA pages, might be a nice thing to see. Regards, Newyorkbrad ( talk) 16:06, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
The Holidays are coming up... enjoy this lovely brownie as your first treat! Statυs ( talk) 02:32, 1 December 2012 (UTC) |
The first of the month we normally update the stats. Can be protected if needed after editors make the usual updates. Thanks, Daniel.Cardenas ( talk) 00:56, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
Hi Bwilkins,
Is your adminbot still running, and not finding any pages to delete? I noticed it hasn't made a deletion since September.
Thanks, Legoktm ( talk) 11:45, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
The Guidance Barnstar | ||
That is an awesome, well-written piece of advice. Kudos. Anomie ⚔ 17:16, 2 December 2012 (UTC) |
The Admin's Barnstar | ||
Anomie beat me to it! But I was going to give you this. Thanks for setting a great example. — Hex (❝?!❞) 11:02, 3 December 2012 (UTC) |
Tell me this Talk:2013 Formula One season#Numbers and the team and driver table isn't disruptive. Same old story again and again and again – Eff Won / Lucy alone in a pointless debate about something which everyone else has been happy with for years. Bretonbanquet ( talk) 23:51, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
I just wanted to say that my AGF button has limits. I know you don't like me, and I believe that you believe that I'm disruptive, naive, that I don't uderstand policies and that I make more harm than good, and you may have your reasons to. I wanted the restriction lifted because I don't feel comfortable with my name written at WP:RESTRICT, not because I want to go and make 1000 closures. And I can't assume good faith from a user that seems to follow me everywhere just to oppose everything I may say, and write detrimental things about me :( — ΛΧΣ 21™ 01:17, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
Hi Bwilkins,
Just thought I might let you know that there is a storm brewing over Eff Won. Again. His latest edits on the 2013 Formula One season page have not been received well, particularly in the way he is trying to force his edits to hold by threatening to go straight to an adminstrator if they are at all changed. There is a current request for page protection on the page, and I'm hoping it will be granted soon and hold long enough for a resolution to be found. I have asked him to explain himself, and while it is quite abrupt, I've just about had my fill of his behaviour.
I'm not asking that you take action yet - I just thought you might want to keep an eye on things, because based on what we've seen from him in the past, Eff Won can make things very messy, very quickly. Prisonermonkeys ( talk) 09:09, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
That was a mistake. I was adding the same phrase to my post and deleted it when I placed mine in the wrong location for my own post and I simply saw your post and didn't realise what I had done. My apologies for the mistake.-- Amadscientist ( talk) 10:19, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
Yeah.....I am up waaaaaay past my bedtime. I had no idea how late it was. It is 2:30am. I was thinking it was like midnite. I am logging off for the night. Sorry for the mistake.-- Amadscientist ( talk) 10:33, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
I'm a bit concerned about this request because it is absolutely identical to one from another account that I declined just a few days ago. I can't find it in the archives because I can't remember the name. Perhaps you can help. Cheers. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 23:03, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
Consider the following three points:
OK, so Twinkle can't be removed. But it's still being misused. Shirt buried a "Don't misuse Twinkle" in his comments to Danjel, but I don't think it took p b p 15:40, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
We have both been to some extent confused at this page, particularly in the IP unblock request we both declined. I have surveyed the page in some depth, and the vandalism edits were made over a period of a week by at least three different Ip editors. might, of course, all be the same person. I have performed radical reversion surgery and the article is now, I think, clean. Semi-protected one week. -- Anthony Bradbury "talk" 13:20, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
My question was in the title. But, anyway, you are a very special and successful Wikipedian. If you celebrate Christmas, tell me. I got you a gift. *wink*. It's super nice. And it's pretty. If you don't celebrate Christmas, it's between Hanikkuah (not sure how to spell that), Christmas, or Three Kings Day. Or, none. I'll be sure to get you a gift anyways. This gift will completely stand out in your talk page. You'll love it. Anyway, feel free to leave the reply here or on my page. If you leave it here, send me a talkback template because I'll be busy in this hour. Thank you. This beautiful gift only goes to those who are working very hard. So you'll be getting one. Again, Thanks! RaidenRules! Talk to me! 15:39, 9 December, 2012 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Crown The Empire. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Undelete so a new page can be created based off of what was in the old page Mariolennox ( talk) 03:47, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
Hi, with regard to this comment you recently made at ANI, the inability of Yogesh to comprehend the issues is likely due to personal antipathy. See, for example, this thread on their talk page & numerous past ANI reports. It is not something that is likely to go away, although they've been quite clever on this occasion as they appear to be prepared to sacrifice Doncram to make a mark on me. I may be misreading this situation but I doubt it: there is a long-established pattern of trying to get me into trouble and a similarly lengthy pattern of failure to understand the very policies etc that they cite. I'm past caring about the opportunism, sniping etc because, alas, I am perfectly capable of getting myself into trouble without any nudging from Yogesh! I've got a bit frustrated with some recent goings-on, I know it and consequently I've been working a fair bit on some other things, eg: Stubbington House School, Eastman's Royal Naval Academy and Godfrey Herbert. A change is as good as a rest.
I notice that Salvio blocked another long-term opportunist who commented in the discussion but I don't anticipate that it will make any difference. In fact, it will probably just stoke up resentment. - Sitush ( talk) 13:30, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
Things you probably never read on Bwilkins' talk page in the first place
While I have no issue with your close overall, there are some now-removed edits to the article that were clear BLP problems. Would you mind hiding/deleting/whatever those versions in the edit history in addition to the close you performed? - Jorgath ( talk) ( contribs) 01:03, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
Hi - I see that you've closed the AfD for the above and moved the contents to a new page. I am not sure if you saw this when moving the content and talk pages over, as there are serious issues with regards to wp:npov , wp:blp AND wp:undue in the article and talk pages, as well as the content in this article being completely disputed by multiple editors. In order to start the "Health Services Union affair" again from scratch, is it necessary to re-list the article for deletion? Or what are the next steps? (Sorry if the answers seem obvious to you; I am a newbie at this). Best, One21dot216dot ( talk) 02:31, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
Hi, I see you closed the Afd discussion at wp:Articles for deletion/Shawn Welling (2nd nomination) as no consensus, and respectfully request a clarification. There is a single line of argument by a single editor for keep based upon the notability of awards received and the subject being world class. Numerous editors attempted to locate reliable sources to establish that claim, and none were able to. In fact, that same editor acknowledged that a large bulk of the sources he had based his initial argument on actually came from an author who has a financial interest in the subject and agreed they were suspect. The only other keep !votes at the discussion were a "me too" and "It is interesting" which are not truly valid arguments for an AfD. So may I ask how you have concluded there is no consensus? ConcernedVancouverite ( talk) 14:37, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Shawn Welling. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. ConcernedVancouverite ( talk) 02:18, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
Did the block expire? or did the talk page lock not work? - jc37 00:31, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
I believe this mess is yours. [2] Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 01:54, 24 June 2012 (UTC) well, not yours personally, but you are aware of the situation... Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 10:22, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
Ok, admittedly, I'm irritated by WiliamJE's attitude, does BRD apply to talk and user pages? Am I getting myself into trouble for no reason by removing the rape references from his pages? He's now said he's done for the night, because he has mass in the morning, at which time I assume he'll be back to writing you up for admin abuse (I'm sure you're worried), and ignoring my requests for him to remove the offensive material from his pages. -- Despayre tête-à-tête 01:56, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
I don't understand why you have restricted this page. Would you explain please? Britmax ( talk) 12:38, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
I believe that that was a hasty delete. There was no consensus, there was no agreement as to what a national competition is defined (e.g. under your logic the FA cup is not a national competition), plus the club has produced an international player which is also a tick on the notability factor. FruitMonkey ( talk) 12:50, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for finally closing that AfD! Please note though, that during the discussion, the article was renamed Ayres-Warr model, so it is really Ayres-Warr model that should be deleted. :-) -- OpenFuture ( talk) 12:54, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Bwilkins, I don't agree with this decision. There was clearly no consensus to delete the article. It should have been closed as just that, no consensus. Three different users commented on the fact that there were independent, reliable sources of her, where-as three delete votes didn't even have much weight to the discussion, one was faulty ('nothing I can find amounts to significant coverage in independent reliable sources'; WRONG, there are), another was
WP:IDONTLIKEIT (..'this person and article have no value on Wikipedia'), and the other didn't even have reasoning for their vote (..'who doesn't meet the notability standards'; WHAT notability standards?).
WP:CREATIVE and
WP:ENT aren't the only guidelines. There's also
WP:GNG and
WP:BASIC which she meets both through multiple independent and reliable sources. Calling the references very poor is quite subjective to say, especially for an administrator who is closing the debate.
[3]
[4] Examples of significant coverage from independent reliable sources. I empathise that this was probably a hard debate to close, but I am kindly asking you to overturn the deletion to 'no consensus', for what I and probably other editors feel, would be a fair and reasonable close.
Till I Go Home
talk
13:46, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a deletion review of GloZell Green. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review.
Hi, I almost invariably agree with your closes, but must admit that I am a bit unhappy about this one. I know that there were no "delete" !votes, but none of the "keep" !votes was even remotely based on policy. As far as I can see, DGG's argument boils down to WP:ILIKEIT. In addition, DGG (whom I respect a lot, but that doesn't mean we always agree) !voted "weak keep", so then a subsequent "Keep, per DGG" sounds not like a very considered !vote to me either. Apart from the journal's homepage, there are zero sources, so there's a serious WP:V problem, too. I would appreciate if you could give this a second look. Of course, I'll understand if you would come to the same conclusion, but I just want to make sure that you considered all arguments. Thanks! -- Guillaume2303 ( talk) 13:07, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
Hey! I noticed that Personal life of Jennifer Lopez was deleted. I just wanted to ask if you can userfy the page inside my userspace? I think that some useful information may be lost on the article and would like to bring it back to the main article. Would you do that? Regards!. — Hahc 21 20:14, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
Dear BWilkins, This has been quite an experience. At age 74, I'm running out of time, and the remarkable tonnage of W info is exhausting (I would rather spend my time thinking about something a little more material)
My article, The Spindrift," is in a strange state of suspense! Is it unblocked? What has been "fixed". Who is the mysterious "other" to whom I should reply? We spent our honeymoon in Victoria,BC and returned many times (50+): why do Canadians spell Theater and reverse the last two letters? Eh?
best, matts djos — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mgdjos ( talk • contribs) 21:44, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
Courtesy note: I've just left a comment at User_talk:Ruderow#Caste_sanctions, follow your decline of an unblock request. I think that there is some confusion going on. - Sitush ( talk) 16:04, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
Came across your mention of that potential project on Sarek's talk page. I have a suggestion. Would it be possible to have the block log display relevant editing restrictions as well as blocks? Obviously this would require a change or extension to mediawiki but such might be more workable and more easily identifiable than fully protected user subpages. Just a thought. I completely agree that the current editing restrictions process is haphazard at best. Alternatively, one could use a one second block and utilize the comment field to log the restriction and a permalink to the discussion, though this would not work for lengthy restrictions. N419 BH 19:08, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is The_Un-authorized_use_of_a_Bot_in_the_Latvian_Wikipedia_by_User_in_the_Chinese_Wikipedia.2C_being_also_an_authoized_Bot-owner_in_the_English_Wikipedia.2C_or.2C_an_.28a_possibly.29_un-authorized_Global-Bot.. Thank you. — KC9TV 02:23, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
Hi Bwiklins,
I wanted to ask you about this close. I have no problem with your closing rationale - redirect was just about the only reasonable way to close that one. However, I noted that the prospect of a merge was also discussed, and although you deleted the edit history, your closing rationale indicated no prejudice against a merge and even mentioned that it would be "appropriate as part of list of creatures". Unless you have a significant objection to my doing so, I would like to merge information from the article into the list, and wanted to bring this up to you before I do so. BOZ ( talk) 19:40, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
I would like to know if I'm acting out in WP:OWN on the article. I removed several empty sections on the article per WP:TOOSOON as they give no purpose at the moment. However, User:Junebea1 reverted it today in a edit summary of "How can it be irrelevant if the season is less than 2 weeks away?" I had asked him to go on the talk page so all the other editors can discuss if the information should be used at this time, though he ignored. Best, Jona yo! Selena 4 ever 17:54, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
Hi, I like your new signature! Do you think this user is FishingKing? The signature is the same as well with all of the 'Fighting vandals' combined into it. It wouldn't go past me if it was......-- Chip123456 ( talk) 20:51, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
There is an unblock request at User talk:Xplane-maniac. You blocked, and suggested the account is a sockpuppet of FishingKing. Having previously encountered FishingKing sockpuppets, I was immediately struck by the fact that Xplane-maniac's writing of English seems to be different from that of FishingKing's. I also can't see any obvious evidence of sockpuppetry in the editing history, and the only page they have both edited is Wikipedia:Counter-Vandalism Unit/Academy/Enroll. Also, Xplane-maniac has not edited any page in common with the sockpuppet SovietMonster. Can you let me know what the evidence is, so that I can meaningfully assess the unblock request? JamesBWatson ( talk) 20:56, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
Thanks. Both the above comments and my own further investigations have persuaded me that this is indeed a sockpuppet account. JamesBWatson ( talk) 08:15, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
Actually, I'm sorry if I deleted anything. Are you sure I even did? Just responded to notification. Never touched anything on restored page. So, to answer your question: no I am not a dick, not trying, or even wanting, to be one. I do want Metaxas article deleted unless it is not just advertising, recognises that M is not a reliable source on Bonhoeffer, and that WP is written from a neutral point of view. I am bringing this forward. Also bringing forward complaint about harassment (your last message) and the administrator who simply checked "done" without recognising the fact that the major complaint against the M article was advertising/non-neutral point of view, as substantiated by M Talk. All the best. Will see you in AFD. Mfhiller ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:45, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion on moving the article Côte d'Ivoire to Ivory Coast. You are being notified since you participated in a previous discussion on this topic. Please join the discussion here if you are interested. TDL ( talk) 02:24, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
Hello Bwilkins, you may want to review
this case since you blocked the master. Cheers,
⋙–Berean–Hunter—►
18:34, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
Due to the large number delsorting I've been doing over the last few months, I'm considering creating an alternative account on Maintenance grounds per WP:SOCK#LEGIT. Just wanted to get the opinion from a few administrators before proceeding, the last thing I want to happen is to be blocked. If you post a reply on your thoughts regarding the issue here I would really appreciate it. Thanks ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 00:16, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
after hijacking the dhimmitude article user estlandia is now adding the discrimination bar to another article, [5]. another user from the dhimmitude conflict, shrigley, is also involved [6]. this pov-pushing and hounding is beginning to out of hand.-- altetendekrabbe 00:23, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
At link -- Avanu ( talk) 22:41, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
Toddst1 ( talk) 20:03, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
The article page Playdom was tagged as 'needing cleanup' in February 2011. I have been cleaning up the page, removing biased statements, adding references, and generally fixing grammar and syntax as needed. At this point, I think the 'needing cleanup' designation should be removed, but I'm not sure if there's a process to follow in order to do so. I'd love some guidance on whether there's a process, what that process is, or if I can just go ahead and remove the tag. Thank you! Noreenst ( talk) 18:22, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for your help! Wikipedia can be a confusing place for a newcomer. :) Noreenst ( talk) 22:38, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
Hi, you closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jerusalem during the Crusader period/draft
Jerusalem during the Crusader period/draft
Please restore into my user space. Sorry for confusion. The discussion in the AFD page was helpful, but I was away. Staszek Lem ( talk) 15:35, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
Yesterday Irvi Hyka restored [7] content that I had previously removed [8]. He was then reverted by another user [9], and today an IP reverted back to Irvi Hyka's version [10]. The IP is in fact Irvi Hyka editing unlogged, as can be seen from its contribs [11]. International recognition of Kosovo is arguably Irvi Hyka's favorite article [12] and the 80.78 IP reverts another IP editor [13] that had previously reverted one of Irvi Hyka's edits [14]. In both cases there are two reverts within 24 hours, thus he is editing unlogged so as to get around the 1RR restriction. Athenean ( talk) 19:43, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Inline-twin engine is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Inline-twin engine until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Dennis Bratland ( talk) 14:20, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
I've reported User:Evlekis on ANI regarding a recent case of 5 reverts in less than 24 hours. As I've mentioned a comment you made regarding him on a somewhat similar report I have to notify you [15] too.-- — ZjarriRrethues — talk 19:43, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
Ok, wrong version, but -- is this the appropriate reward for refusing to discuss and editwarring? Since the IP won't discuss it and thinks we are saying horrible things about his family, and made those 'formal cease and desist' edits, it seems wrong in all sorts of ways to leave a version with OR, use of raw data, etc. as our official version for a month. Dougweller ( talk) 20:58, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
Avanu asked me to look at this [16] and I had a question. As to the fact that he shouldn't be trying to edit by proxy, I completely agree with that, a blocked editor shouldn't be editing, even by proxy. I also understand why that isn't obvious to the average editor but it looks like he stopped after he was warned, which is good. I see where you say that the talk page is only to be used for requesting unblocks, but I would strongly disagree, via WP:BLOCKING "A blocked user can continue to access Wikipedia, but is unable to edit any page, except (in most cases) their own user talk page." without any stated limitations, which has been my experience here for many years. I'm assuming you agree with that and were just understating the use for some reason. I saw his last comment just before the block [17] but didn't see anything I would normally associate with being talk page blockworthy there. Maybe there is something I'm missing? I don't have any background with the editor, so just have to go on what I see on the surface, compared to what I understand is the policy. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 21:22, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
Looking at the edits to our blocking policy, I'm wondering if anywhere there is guidance as to how changes in policy statements should be made. It all seems random at the moment. Dougweller ( talk) 12:25, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
Dear B, I would have gone to Kudpung but he's away most of the week. This is about this thread here: [18] which you commented on. Anyway, five days later, Tru commented on my talkpage; I copied it back onto his, in the relevant section. I had written out my reply and, before posting it, was checking random contributions of his (to get a fuller pic of his Eng Lang abilities) when I came across this essay he'd done, right after commenting to me: [19]. I think it can be seen Kudpung and I were only trying to help the bloke.... Anyway, I replied with what I'd written before seeing this, and then just added a little PS letting him know I've seen the little epistle. Am seriously cross and rather hurt, really. May I leave it with you to decide if anything ought to be done? ta, Plutonium27 ( talk) 14:51, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
Bwilkins, I gather this remark [21] is an attempt at humour. Well it is not amusing. That section was introduced by me, I was reporting an editor for unilaterally moving Bojana (river). There is no mention of Republic of Kosovo and the 1RR anywhere in that piece, only ARBMAC cropping up here and there. I did not click the link because its main space appearance coupled with the scenario whereby I was seeking disciplinary measures against an antagonist editor meant that this was something remote from my interests. When I visit those pages, I scan down the list at what has been said and I either post a new comment or I head off. My actions were not impugned in that thread and therefore there was no requirement for me to open every link, furthermore, you were addressing two other users when you introduced the part. For what it is worth, yes I did have a quick look at ARBMAC but this is not something that sticks in one's mind. And when you do remember it, what do you think of? Macedonia - because it forms a part of the title. I know the conditions of that policy now and that is what matters, but your insistence that I am being untruthful in that I knew all about ARBMAC and its far-reaching implications as well as the 1RR also mentioned on the talk page is wholly unfounded. All you have gleaned is the occasional thread in which I was involved which alluded to a policy I violated via its hidden backstreets and dark alleys. Now imagine a scenario with you in my position, it would be like searching for a needle in a haystack. Some users edit heavily on one or two topics. I edit largely on affairs close to the Balkans (subjects relating to former Yugoslavia and Bulgaria) but I have made contributions on 9,000 articles. I take interest in some sport, comedies, music, linguistics, international affairs away from the region; so I am not a Kosovo-only editor, it has dominated the past few days but if you look at the history of the articles and my own editing past, you'll see there are huge gaps whereby I haven't visited an ARBMAC-infested article for months at the time. Please demonstrate good faith as an admin and realise that an editor is not necessarily deceitful just because he has brushed past something. Perhaps I should have known better, it doesn't mean that in stealth I really did. The main concern is, I now know about the full scenario and I know how to handle things in future. Evlekis (Евлекис) ( argue) 17:48, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
Hello. Could you please take a look again at 3RR, Doktorbuk, bearing in mind the discussion he started at User talk:Boleyn, where he has stated that he plans to go to Preston (UK Parliament constituency) and remove redlinks to MPs - undoing hours of my work? Please help me. Boleyn ( talk) 18:02, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
He deleted these entries well after he'd agree with you not to do so (see User talk: Boleyn), I'm glad he's thought better of it and restored them. I do feel there is still an ongoing problem - please see my user talk page and see if you agree. If not, then that's great, I'm taking it too personally becuase I've put in so many hours of work. But I do feel I need support to ensure he doesn't keep reverting me, jusging by his comments and attitude on my talk page. Boleyn ( talk) 19:36, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for your prompt response, hopefully he will respond soon. Best wishes, Boleyn ( talk) 19:54, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
I'm afraid the issues have continued, although the user has looked for consensus, he has reverted my edits again without finding consensus. He is now deleting all redlinks to pre-18th century MPs. Can you please look over User talk:Boleyn? Best wishes, Boleyn ( talk) 08:24, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
Since this was given a result, Doktorbuk has reverted my edits on Devizes (UK Parliament constituency), Preston (UK Parliament constituency), Radnorshire (UK Parliament constituency) and City of York (UK Parliament constituency). These have been reverted (for now) by User:Avanu, and discussion has continued at my Talk page. Can you help? I have no intention of restoring my edits if he continues to edit war, not to create more red links to MPs, but I'm very frustrated, and would appreciate some advice and help. Boleyn ( talk) 16:58, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
BWilkins, please let me know why you wonder if you should block me, so I can look at modifying my behaviour. I haven't been edit warring or reverting the Doktor's edits, so I thought I'd been doing the right things - sorry if I haven't been. I'm also sorry that in seeking to get this looked at, I added to the 3RR discussion, but also informed the 2 helpful admins who had looked into this previously. I wanted the previous discussion to be updated so the information was there, but as you and the other admin already had looked at this before, and I didn't know if you'd be following the 3RR discussion as it was kinda closed, I thought I should inform you also. If this caused you problems, I apologise, although I don't think the FFS, or any allusion to swear words, was really necessary, and this response upset me. Anyway, if you let me know why you feel that you don't know who to block first, then I can look at what I need to change, and I appreciate you taking the time to deal with these very frustrating episodes within Wikipedia. Boleyn ( talk) 20:05, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
I'm sorry if it was wrong, but it was done in good faith - I haven't had much reason to be aware of how these things work. Boleyn ( talk) 20:14, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
Just to let you know I mentioned you or rather your talk page here Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive814#Harassment from User:SarekOfVulcan Nil Einne ( talk) 03:03, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
I hadn't seen User:Bwilkins/Essays/Wikipoodling until you mentioned it on ANI. Great term and appropriately applied in relation to Splash, Status, and the fan club.
FYI, I commented on stuff you said on my talk page. Toddst1 ( talk) 16:29, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
The entry proposed for WP:RESTRICT is in User:EdJohnston/Sandbox. See also a reply on my Talk. Thanks, EdJohnston ( talk) 23:45, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
Unless I am mistaken, WP:MOS directs us to use the name of the sovereign country (at the time) for place names. As such, referring to Ostland or the Estonian SSR as someone's birthplace is as valid as listing "Lyon, Vichy France, 1941" as someone's encyclopedic birthplace.
So, rather than Jaan professing his personal truth = I took that as your implication per your Wikilink, he was undoing (removing the Estonian SSR) the equivalent of my example of specifying "Vichy France" as the birth country for any Frenchman/Frenchwoman born in 1941 in Lyon.
There is no subjective truth involved here over which dispute resolution is required. I hope you find the analogy helpful. While a Guberniya of Russia is valid for the 19th century, an SSR of the Soviet Union is not valid for the 20th century. VєсrumЬа ► TALK 18:05, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
Yet another admin has to warn him about personal attacks ( diff). Time to act on this disruptive and time-wasting editor? -- Biker Biker ( talk) 18:47, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
Just wanted to express my dissatisfaction with your reply to me on Rangoon11's talk page recently. You probably deal with a lot of crap as an admin, but that's no reason to disregard WP:assume good faith. Please try in future to be a little less hasty and a bit more conservative when it comes to accusations. Fleetham ( talk) 14:46, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
I don't think he is getting it, nor that he is capable of getting it. I already said I screwed up the move, which wasn't the reason for the block (obviously) [22] I am really starting to believe this individual is WP:CIR material, and that he isn't trying to be malicious, but he really just is that lacking in basic reasoning. Any guidance you have would be appreciated. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 22:15, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
Hi, Bwilkins. I stumbled on your comments on Xceedium's talk page. You told him/her that editors who work for a company are never allowed to create an article about that company. I don't think that is true. Yes, it is highly discouraged, but I can find no policy that prohibits it. Am I mistaken? NTox · talk 22:04, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
Note [23] in relation to the currently blocked user Special:Contributions/Arsenalkid700. IRWolfie- ( talk) 21:39, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
Well, now you've been brought up in this pathetic piece of ANI drama. Toddst1 ( talk) 07:08, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
I don't really know what the hell is going on! TheIrishWarden - Irish and proud ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:48, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
I am going to take your advice and keep out of it TheIrishWarden - Irish and proud ( talk) 18:46, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
Should I close this one: Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/Rollback#Krzna? Armbrust told me that as a non-admin clerk, I can close requests from users with no vandalism reverts, and I have looked through this user's contribs and found no vandalism reverts at all, plus he has zero auto edits, so he doesn't user Twinkle or STiki. Thank You, Electriccatfish2 ( talk) 20:56, 13 July 2012 (UTC).
I have closed Wikipedia:Bot owners' noticeboard#Marking inactive bots so as:
Closed per request at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure. I have read Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive754#Block Review, User talk:Rcsprinter123/Archives/10#May 2012, and this discussion.
The consensus is that Rcsprinter123 ( talk · contribs) is permitted to mark bot user pages in Wikipedia:Bots/Status/inactive bots inactive with several caveats.
1. Rcsprinter123 should verify whether the bots are truly active by checking the contributions page and the log page. Some bots' revisions do not show up in the contributions page but in the logs page. Failure to do so may lead to editing restrictions or blocks. Wikipedia:Bot policy#Bot-like editing states (my bolding):
Human editors are expected to pay attention to the edits they make, and ensure that they don't sacrifice quality in the pursuit of speed or quantity. For the purpose of dispute resolution, it is irrelevant whether high-speed or large-scale edits that involve errors an attentive human would not make are actually being performed by a bot, by a human assisted by a script, or even by a human without any programmatic assistance. No matter the method, the disruptive editing must stop or the user may end up blocked.
The community rejected Rcsprinter123's position that:
As for whether or not the bot in question is active, that shouldn't be my problem because the people updating the inactive list should have weeded out the editing ones. It is hardly my fault that 7SeriesBOT was on that list, because someone else must have made the mistake of not seeing they do deleting only instead. I had, and have put my trust in that list to tell me which pages to do, and if it is checked and updated often enough, I don't see any problem with what I am doing. Rcsprinter (converse) 19:54, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
This is reflective of a poor attitude incompatible with doing this semi-automated task. Participants have found that Wikipedia:Bots/Status/inactive bots has contained errors in the past. As 28bytes ( talk · contribs) notes, "Propagating wrong information across the 'pedia is indeed the problem of whoever does it, and if you're not willing to take responsibility for the edits, you shouldn't be making them."
2. To prevent friction, if an inactive bot's operator has edited within the past three months, Rcsprinter123 should ask them if their bot is inactive. He should give the operator one week to reply, after which, if there is no response, he may tag the bot as inactive. If the operator's response is to disagree with the changing, he is advised to "just pop their bot into an 'ignore' file and put a copy of the list of bots you're ignoring into a prominent place related to your monitoring activities" (from Tony Sidaway ( talk · contribs)). If he would like to tag the bot as inactive over the bot operator's objections (this is inadvisable), he must gain consensus first at a community venue like Wikipedia:Bot owners' noticeboard. Cunard ( talk) 23:28, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
I hope I have achieved a balance between allowing Rcsprinter123 to tag bots as inactive and ensuring no further mistakes are made and no further conflicts arise. Cunard ( talk) 23:32, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the much necessary block! Regards ≫TheStrike Σagle≪ 09:46, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
You're right I'm getting defensive there. I was accused of and not notified of the discussion. This has gotten to me and bothered me and I'd rather be helping out with the backlogs than defending myself. I made a few mistakes and don't need to be bitten or personally attacked over them. I'm not saying you did anything wrong, I'm just saying that the purpose of that page is to find solutions, not to say how I messed up. I would like to leave that discussion and have an admin determine the next step and I'll go back to my work here, so I wanted to lay down the cases when I can close a request and also request your approval:
This doesn't apply to requests to be confirmed, where I do most of my work. Also, I only make crystal-clear closures by rollback, such as User: Ekren, and JohnCD commended me for my close there. I hate being the subject of discussions here and would like to get back to work. Thanks, Electriccatfish2 ( talk) 10:18, 15 July 2012 (UTC).
First of all, it was a misleading, not false statement and I never removed your comments. Second of all, I would like to express my sincere apologies for my mistake and I will ensure that this never happens again. However, please keep in mind that I've never made a bad closure at WP: PERM. I hope you can forgive me and we can move on from this unfortunate situation. Best, Electriccatfish2 ( talk) 02:58, 16 July 2012 (UTC).
Bwilkins, have you ever thought about the possibility of becoming a bureaucrat? I only ask because over the past couple of month's I have been watching your contributions to Wikipedia and in particular, those to the AN/I board. Your blocks are always well thoughts, and your comments are always thorough in nature. You never seem to lose your cool and from what I have witnessed, you are not always quick to usher off a user to the blocked sector. Taking the time understand the contributions and intent of editors is crucial to an admin and you have shown that your skills in this area are superb. Additionally, as a bureaucrat you would be expected to uphold tighter standards and do much of the same for admins as you have for common editors. I believe you would be a great addition to the title and would be a vital tool to Wikipedia. As such, I would be willing to give you a well thought out nomination with formal regards for your aspirations and achievements on and to Wikipedia. Even if the title is too much to think about now, if I were you I would give it some serious thought. You definitely have the capabilities to handle such a position. Good day to you.
Keystoner
idin (speak) 18:37, 15 July 2012 (UTC) I will be retiring my account so I can no longer write this proposal.
Keystoner
idin (speak)
18:01, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
The Civility Barnstar | |
First of all, I would like to apologize for my my misleading statements on Friday and I hope you will accept my apology. Also, I think that we should make it clear that there is no reason why you need to ask the requester if he/she uses Twinkle or is in the CVU because none of these are requirements for getting the tool and many people don't have either one of these. Also, I think common sense prevails on NOTNOW requests, but we have to separate these from SNOW requests. So again, I hope you accept my apology for my statements that caused major issues and I hope we can move on and continue to eliminate the backlogs at WP: PERM. Best, Electriccatfish2 ( talk) 10:56, 16 July 2012 (UTC) |
The Barnstar of Diplomacy | ||
For helping to control and calm down the 'troll' arguments between me and other users. I could see now end only two days ago, but your advice and good diplomacy helped to resolve the situation. Thanks! TheIrishWarden - Irish and proud ( talk) 17:02, 16 July 2012 (UTC) |
Who are these IP's, I feel really sad that people don't want me here. It's slightly suspicious that a random IP suddenly comes out of nowhere and comments on this Closed case, although it probably is a user who forgot to login. Do you think 94.2.68.11 edits are enough to give him a warning? TheIrishWarden - Irish and proud ( talk) 17:24, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
You triggered a false positive of one of the filters. I notified the filter creator to remedy it on your behalf. - Penwhale | dance in the air and follow his steps 01:03, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
Bwilkins, you are one of the admins that I respected and feel like I wanted to more emulate. Obviously that didn't happen and my road became clouded. Would you please do me the high honor of deleting my user page and talk page? This is Keystoneridin, signing out! Keystoner idin (speak) 04:11, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
Err... grats :) Kennedy ( talk) 15:06, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
Can you actually read?
". Bwilkins (talk | contribs) changed block settings for Altetendekrabbe (talk | contribs) with an expiry time of Sun, 19 Aug 2012 11:32:27 GMT (account creation blocked, cannot edit own talk page) (Revoking talk page access: inappropriate use of user talk page while blocked: WP:NPA while blocked)"
Did you just block the user for merely making an unblock request??????
Are you open to recall or do I take this to AN/I or ArbCom?
VolunteerMarek 11:55, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
BW, indeed you are correct. I just returned from Wikimania and the level of anonimity within the community is amazing. If we don't self-identify in many discussions, no one else know who we are or how much experience we've had unless they want to start digging. I am of the philosophy that ever editor is equal and don't much care about them unless I am trying to figure out where they are comming in any discussion. Indeed Another admin comment Isn't this fun! -- Mike Cline ( talk) 13:21, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
I request that this IP is to be blocked due to harassment towards me on EggCentric's talk page. Thanks Thєíríshwαrdєn - írísh αnd prσud ( talk) 16:36, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
Please see my proposal at [25]. Cheers, -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 17:35, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
No comments about the block itself, but I want to note that Piotrus is correct. Policy states that you shouldn't block when you are involved. You shouldn't block for breaking NPA, if you are the target of the NPA breaking comment, as it makes you prima facie involved. You should self-revert based on that alone, because you shouldn't be acting when you may be seen as having a conflict of interest. LK ( talk) 06:38, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
All admins are dicks, every one of them. Including crats and everyone with the power to block. There; that makes me pretty untouchable I would think, seeing as all admins are now 'involved'... Kennedy ( talk) 10:51, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
I understand if you were responding to another contributor who stated that if the Facebook page was their official page, but I never said the organization I was referring to had a Facebook page as their official page, the non-profit organization I referred to does have their own webpage, I simply stated they STARTED as a Facebook group. Given that the organization has chapters through out Missouri, Iowa, Texas, California, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Hawaii and internationally in Germany, UK, Costa Rica, and Australia with over 13,600 members I think they are beyond the Facebook part, but that page does continue to be quite active. Camelbinky ( talk) 19:42, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
you need to fix one of the expiry dates on the template (set to jan. 2012...).-- altetendekrabbe 14:23, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
Since you seem to care about it, unlike most others I can think of, can you take a look at recent comments by Imonoz ( talk · contribs)? He used the word nationalistic, and I cautioned him to be careful with it ( [26]). Instead of backing down, he seems to be increasingly aggressive towards Polish sources (" It's fine you have it on your own little PL:wikipedia but not on the mainstream.") and his last comment (" you should get off wikipedia") is quite offensive. Considering I did ask him to be civil earlier, I think he could use an admin warning. Also, he is revert warring and restoring a poorly formatted source reliability of which I questioned on talk; he is simply stating it is "more reliable than mine"... I don't feel like revert warring or insult slugging, so I'd appreciate it if an admin could make him see some reason. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 14:52, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
We haven't interacted much directly, but you are very active, so I've seen you around a lot. Obviously, some response to the Jimbo suggestion is needed. On the one hand, it is clear that pronouncements by Jimbo no longer compel like they used to, so in theory, one can treat it as a suggestions with no more weight than it, say, I had proposed it. On the other hand, there is a perception about admins that has some fact basis, and it would be helpful to take steps to ensure the (arguably unfair) fact that admin conduct is expected to be held to a higher standard. I haven't reviewed the entire exchange, I suspect if I did I would be quite sympathetic to your frustration, but that doesn't change the fact that we are expected to do better. I thought the suggestion of six months off is a bit harsh, but Jimbo is clearly trying to send a message, one I support. While I am sympathetic to Dennis Brown's suggestion that a sysop should require a pattern of behavior, one I haven't seen, I'll distinguish a community forced desysop, which should require more than a one-off incident, and a voluntary decision, which does not. I hope never to be in this position, but if I were I would consider saying something like the following, "If anyone reads the entire exchange, they will have a fuller appreciation of the situation, and an understanding of why I was so frustrated. I honestly felt the editor was acting in a way that wasn't acceptable, and some higher level of maturity was needed. However, feeling something and expressing that thought are two different acts, and I accept that as an admin, I am expected to take the higher ground, and handle things differently. In short, my behavior, while understandable, was unacceptable. In order to reinforce this, I will request that the bureaucrats remove my bit until such time as I feel I can deal with situations such as this in a better way, and I commit that I will wait at least a month before asking for the bit back."-- SPhilbrick (Talk) 15:40, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
For what little it might be worth, I generally echo Mongo's word of caution there (though, as I was actually going to leave a comment on your talk page at about 13:00 yesterday about a separate issue, I would not necessarily limit the word of caution to decorum). Having breaks isn't always a bad thing: by that I do not mean you should turn in your tools, but you could certainly take a break from acting in that role (or editing) for periods of time. Obviously the length of the period is not something one can place a concrete value in advance, but hopefully such periods would be short ones. :) Ncmvocalist ( talk) 05:33, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
Please enlighten me with the link to the relevant guideline or policy section as I can not seem to find it. I have been gone awhile and I suppose the consensus I helped reach was later revised. Camelbinky ( talk) 17:23, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
i am trying to stay away from shrike... but see how is after me like a hound, [27]. he should also try to de-escalate rather than follow me around. i am pretty sure he will begin an edit war pretty soon (that is his modus operandi). the last time he edited there was like weeks ago... suddenly he began editing again..today... on my post. that's not a coincidence. anyway, i'm not going to be part of that discussion anymore. could you please ask him to stop stalking me?-- altetendekrabbe 18:07, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
What should I do if I have interest in Islam inter-religious topics.Should I stop editing them just because some user that I have conflict with him edit it too.If he will edit about soccer and video games I would care less.Also please pay attention for blatant admin shopping [28], [29] and personal attacks that he first makes and then removes if you want diffs can be provided.-- Shrike ( talk)/ WP:RX 19:29, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar | |
For all of your help defending The Irish Warden from the trolling accusations! Electriccatfish2 ( talk) 20:22, 20 July 2012 (UTC) |
Yes many thanks for that and for the diplomacy meaning no hard feelings between me and any other user involved. Cheers Thєíríshwαrdєn - írísh αnd prσud ( talk) 20:53, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
I've come to ask you for your advice on a matter that has been troubling me for several days. About a week ago, I contacted User: Mike Rosoft about the controversial block of User: Fajita63, based off only one edit. He responded with "On the second look, the edit doesn't look like actual spamming. Unblocked.", and then immediately removed the response, without changing the block status. When I noticed this 2 days later, I responded by noting his actions and inquiring if something was wrong. He still hasn't responded (or edited at all), so I am becoming a bit worried. I just wanted to know what you thought of the situation, and how I should deal with it. Robby The Penguin (talk) (contribs) 03:47, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
I've responded specifically to your comment on the Syrian uprising article's talk page ( direct link). I'm not entirely sure whatever gave you the impression that I had lost my composure, but I do admit I was growing impatient about how long it seemed to be taking for us to make some sort of a decision. Bear in mind, I have never set foot in requested moves before, so I was unaware of the 7-day convention for discussion. Master&Expert ( Talk) 19:46, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
i hope this beverage is relaxing. you obviously work hard and deal with a lot of shit. Happy monsoon day 16:38, 22 July 2012 (UTC) |
please take a look at the last 8-9 comments of this thread [30]? shrike is misrepresenting a source again, and re-adding content that has been thrown out be other editors as well. he is clearly taking advantage of my 1-rr restriction. he does not care about the brd-cycle either. could you please ask shrike to revert? he also reverted me on another page [31], re-introducing unreliable and non-neutral sources, starting edit wars there as well. update: good news. his misrepresentation on the dhimmitude-page was removed by 2 other editors. clearly, shrike does not care about gaining consensus. his constant gaming is becoming annoying again, so i'll stay away from editing a little.-- altetendekrabbe 18:15, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
Sorry if it went a little overboard, but that's similar to how AN/I felt to me. Maybe you'll be more compassionate there moving forward. Lucky for you you had several editors rushing to your defence, even your buddy Dennis closed it for you. I'm curious though, why do you think a suggestion from you is gold, and editors who do not follow your suggestions to a tee are pathetic, yet a suggestion from Jimbo is completely optional to you? Are you gonna blank this edit as vandalism to hide the dispute? Or are you gonna allow it to be archived as a good admin should? ~ GabeMc ( talk| contribs) 21:21, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
Hi Bwilkins, I've opened a section on GabeMc's talkpage to find out if there are editors who are interested in helping him as much as he is interested in asking them for assistance. It's at User talk:GabeMc#Request for comment. Penyulap ☏ 00:37, 23 Jul 2012 (UTC)
Hey Bwilkins, I saw that you moved the Syrian uprising article to "Syrian Civil War (2011–present)". However, there was no civil war within Syria before this conflict. Is it possible to move it again to "Syrian Civil War"? Thanks. -- Luke (Talk) 14:51, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
This page is having a unregistered user who has been banned already here but still able to make edits, so kindly secure this page. Thanks Clarificationgiven ( talk) 10:49, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
I was about to start a Wikipedia:Move review relating to your close of the move request of the “Syrian uprising” article, however, I saw the following sentence on Wikipedia:Move review: “Prior to requesting a review, you should attempt to resolve any issues with the closer on their talk page.”
I think that the outcome of the discussion should have been “no consensus”. I have noticed that you were monitoring the discussion on a regular basis. The downside of this is that you might have made your mind before the discussion was completely over. On the last day of the discussion there were some strong rebuttals against the arguments of the civil war name made with fresh data about media Wikipedia:COMMONNAME for Syria. I copy/paste here two key exchanges from the discussion:
The following major news sources are now using the words "civil war" directly to describe the conflict. These are direct reports on the war, and not reportage of the ICRC announcement.
That's sixteen major WP:RS, from multiple countries, and all over the political spectrum, using the term "civil war" to describe the conflict. The combination of this, the ICRC's announcement, and the fact that there is an obvious, visible, massive, all-out civil war being reported on all over every single news outlet, should make this page-move a no-brainer, surely? -- The Anome ( talk) 20:43, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
I hope you will take another look at the discussion and focus on the hard data evidence.
Tradedia (
talk)
19:57, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Qwyrxian and I tried to teach Krizpo how to be a decent editor. At Talk:Religion_in_Africa#Religions_in_Africa we explained that blogs, wikis, self-published websites, personal website, etc, etc are not reliable sources and are not used in article. We explained that we do not give undue weight to topics. At User_talk:Krizpo#Appropriate_sources, I explained what sort of sources are considered reliable, and he "agreed" do to so. He then went on and cited blogs, self-published website, etc, etc anyway. At User_talk:Krizpo#Regarding_your_edits_to_Religion_in_Africa I pointed out the various problems with his edits (including his continuing problem of citing sources for claims the sources do not even begin to make). He then restored a great deal of it, making fringe claims like portraying Buddhism as having been continually present in Africa since Ashoka sent a few missionaries to Egypt, using different sources. Qwyrxian reverted most of it, and is going to revert more of it later if Krizpo does not justify his edits on the talk page. I removed some more, particularly the presentation of all Indian religions having had a notable presence in the whole Africa since Ashoka sent a few Buddhist missionaries to Egypt. Qwyrxian left a message on Krizpo's page asking him to justify his edits on the article's talk page. Krizpo simply restored the contested material without any discussion, citing sources we had already explained repeatedly are not reliable and are not to be used. I reverted and left a message asking him to take it to the talk page. He simply restored it and continues to be the useless, edit-warring, POV-pusher he was identified as being over a week ago.
He does not pay attention to WP:RS, only when other editors point to individual sources and say "do not use that one." He still refuses to listen to any editor saying "do not make claims not supported by sources." All he has to say for himself, after editors have wasted so much time explaining things and all but editing for him is "Dude, you are messing up the page. It actually looked good after my edit."
As it was your idea to see if things would improve once he started talking, rather than make an apparently difficult block, I thought you might want to know. Ian.thomson ( talk) 00:44, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
See here. Yes, yes, you're away, but I still feel it only proper to notify you. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen ( talk) 15:35, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
You were mentioned on Jimbo Wales' talk page. I just thought I'd let you know. Ryan Vesey 14:55, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
I see you are EatsandShootsLeaves. It's a reply to that account's message. Electric Catfish 21:39, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
The Resilient Barnstar | |
For continuing to do excellent work as an admin despite the harassment! Electric Catfish 21:47, 6 August 2012 (UTC) |
You were the only Admin who spoke seriously about blocking User:FerrerFour at the recent ANI, during his unceasing stream of insults levied at User:Sports. (Why didn't you go thru with it? How can Admins justify sitting and doing nothing while User:Sport is perpetually abused there? She was even blamed for calling attention to the repeated incivilities, that it "made her look bad", when no one was doing anything. A reasonable confusion on her part, and then she's reprimanded for it. Amazing.) Ihardlythinkso ( talk) 12:15, 10 August 2012 (UTC) p.s. There was some confusion between contributors at the ANI, whether calling another editor "incompetent" was an insult or not. One editor felt it couldn't be, since there was a "WP guideline on it". Another editor corrected him, saying said remarks are always insulting. FerrerFour seemed to use the confusion to justify going all out with insults, as though "protected" by the confusion on policy. What is your take? And don't you feel, with WP articles like WP:COMPETENCE and WP:DICK, that their very existence, encourages use, which is itself a personal attack (personal in nature, about the person, etc.)? I'm not challenging you in any way I'm looking for your take (as, you were the only one to object to the stream of insults with anything that meant anything, which got my respect).
You recently imposed ARBMAC sanctions on this user, but the edit warring has continued with 1RR violations on International recognition of Kosovo, Libyan civil war, Ernesto Sabato and Rona Nishliu in the last day or so. I can't comment on the other disputes, but at International recognition of Kosovo the user's addition of non-notable text to the article has been reverted by multiple editors but they keep trying to restore it without any participation in the discussion on the talk page. I requested that the user join the discussion on the talk page and self-revert, but the only response I got was that they "don't see something that should be discussed". What is the proper route to seek enforcement of discretionary sanctions? Do I have to file a request for enforcement at arbcom, or can you take care of it? TDL ( talk) 23:09, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
I noticed you had interacted with Ricky072 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) and I thought you might be interested in this AN/I report. -- John ( talk) 18:53, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
Hello. Please see here. Gun Powder Ma ( talk) 13:51, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
Welcome to the first edition of The Olive Branch. This will be a place to semi-regularly update editors active in dispute resolution (DR) about some of the most important issues, advances, and challenges in the area. You were delivered this update because you are active in DR, but if you would prefer not to receive any future mailing, just add your name to this page.
In this issue:
--The Olive Branch 18:53, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
Please add sections to Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Muhammad images:
Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Muhammad images with only the introduction and links to the questions:
At over 900k it is problematic reading. I have no idea why no one did this while it was open. Apteva ( talk) 21:52, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
You are being discussed (along with your alter-ego) at User talk:Horologium#the issue re multi-accounting. You may wish to drop in and comment. I'm leaving the same comment at both User talk:EatsShootsAndLeaves and User talk:Bwilkins so that you will be aware of the discussion. Horologium (talk) 00:59, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
Can we have a talk page block on this user please? Cheers MadGuy7023 ( talk) 22:03, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
I thought you could use a laugh: Block Log:ClueBot NG. I was pretty close to adding my name to that list. Toddst1 ( talk) 18:32, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
Dear Sir,
You deleted our wikipedia pages: 1- Chronicles of Young Scientists (www.cysonline.org) 2- Organization of Pharmaceutical Unity with BioAllied Sciences (www.opubs.com)
Coverpages for Journal of Pharmacy and BioAllied Sciences (www.jpbsonline.org).
May we know the reason why? We can see wikipedia pages of all other journals but then why our information is deleted. See this example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Journal_of_Pharmaceutics
We are new to wikipedia. No doubt that wikipedia is tough for a scientific person like us who do not know computer coding etc.
Either you should provide help in writing information on wikipedia or if its not possible then why to delete? Make wikipedia simple, so that we can add information etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Himanshu18in ( talk • contribs) 18:15, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
Nice to see the old you back :-) -- Boing! said Zebedee ( talk) 19:48, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
My thoughts entirely :) -- Gilderien Chat| List of good deeds 08:22, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
...for this User_talk:JamesBWatson#False_sock_puppet_accusation--and_I_will_not_tolerate_it old boy. You are good to assist in this.~© Djathink imacowboy 12:01, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
For this. I was a bit unsure of what to do since this was my first RfA closure, however I wholeheartedly agree with what you said in your summary. Legoktm ( talk) 16:25, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
This edit doesn't appear to have actually closed the RfA.-- Rockfang ( talk) 16:27, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
I liked this edit, but I decided that it might not be the most effective way of dealing with a user who probably needs careful handling, so I have reverted it. Actually, I had to exercise quite an effort of the will to restrain myself from making some sort of ironic comment on the user's grammar myself. JamesBWatson ( talk) 12:30, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
Joefromrandb ( talk) 22:59, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
Hello. Sorry to invade your talkpage, but I think I might've found the key to the problem with this "Seb az86556" character. I was looking at his/her userpage again and this time noticed that one of the articles they're proud to say they have "written or significantly contributed to" is Transkei, the article under question. So perhaps they have so much invested in it and/or feel they own it that they're unable to let anyone else work on it -- and also feel unable to explain why. 213.246.88.102 ( talk) 23:05, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
Can you please have a look at the contributions of Jayven09maddie ( talk · contribs) having received a number of warnings here, here, here, here and here the editor continues to be disruptive for example with this edit. Mt king (edits) 01:08, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
I apologize for constantly adding Tyga or others to the associated acts section of the Nicki Minaj article. I just thought he would make a good addition to that section. I'll try to understand that the associated acts section of artists means a bit more than just working together. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Captainmad ( talk • contribs)
I apologize if I seem to be barking at you at ANI. It's not personal; I'm just frustrated. I fully appreciate your concerns and understand why you're raising them, but from my POV it's all already asked and answered. Thanks for reading the posting, and for responding. JohnInDC ( talk) 12:15, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for pushing through your initial skepticism on this. I'm going to be on the road for a few days and probably not commenting much. You seem to have matters well in hand however; good luck with however it sorts out. JohnInDC ( talk) 01:26, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
Hi Bwilkins,
I noticed you recently blocked Guinsberg for BLP violations. After you did so, he started edit-warring with IPs, and I thought you'd want to know. Please see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Guinsberg now socking. Jayjg (talk) 22:59, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
hello can you please explain why my creation D.V.S* Derek VanScoten was deleeted? I used references and made sure it was very objective. I'd like to get it back online asap so please let me know. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mike Zanda ( talk • contribs) 16:21, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
Note: sudden, prolonged withdrawal from dialog possible / likely due to Hurricane Sandy.
The purpose of adminship is to help the editors edit by dealing performing certain technical tasks. As these tasks (blocking users, deleting pages, protecting pages) can damage Wikipedia if used inappropriately, we have ya'll go through an Rfa first. I'm reasonably confident you do most of these tasks just fine, with little notice or appreciation.
It appears from your contribution pattern that somewhere along the line you got the idea adminship is something else. It is not the purpose of adminship to teach users to fish, or how to be bureaucratically perfect. Obvious pillar is obvious. The 500th editor to post on ANI without the required notice on the users' talk page, or on AN instead of ANI, or AN instead of AIV (etc) is not the previous 499. They are not the 501th who will undoubtedly do the same thing. We plaster the top of our noticeboards with fossilized walls 'o text and steadfastly resist any efforts to improve readability. (See Wikipedia_talk:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentsHeader and the header history). I'm well paid professionally because, in large part, I'm very good at reading directions (see RTFM). But a good population of the English speaking population just isn't. But we want, we need them to edit any anyway. (When I checked last week, there are a quarter million inclusions of the "unreferenced" template). We need every editor we can get, and we need to encourage them.
A little bit of teasing or facetiousness or whatever you want to call can be effective communication if and only if you have an existing with an individual. When said to a stranger, it's being a snarky asshole. Since your return to adminship, I've observed it repeatedly, with your premature dismissal of JohninDC (did you even look at the prior incidents to realize the editor is question had been blocked 24 hours?), the smart-ass "is this an announcement" comment to the two editors who -- OMG! posted an ANI request on AN, and more recently, the editor who realizes there's a problem but lacks the nuance to know the proper nuanced different between vandalism and trolling. The distinction between trolling and vandalism is really important -- why???
Please forget all the crap at the top of boards about the exact purpose of each one, and interpret each request simply as an editor looking for help. Is it okay to point out a more appropriate board, or ask/remind them to notify an editor? Of course it is, but gently please.
Note none of the above is intended to apply to frequent fliers on AN/ANI who repeat the same behavior over and over. Hammer those dweebs as hard as you want. But if you don't recognize the account name -- lots lots AGF, okay?
I understand the frustration of seeing the same missteps day after day -- there are times I wanted to scream when I saw yet another "this editor removed my comment from my talk page!" WQA post. But I reminded myself they weren't all the other editors who had come before. And when it got really annoying, I took a month off. Or two, or three. Except for followup and explanations per WP:ADMINACCT you're never required to take action. If some dweebish misplaced post annoys you, please just ignore and let someone else deal with it rather than trying to teach angling to a user who hasn't asked for it. Nobody Ent 18:55, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
Hi BWilkins, thank you very much for the time and effort that you put into resolving my block issue. Am I allowed to remove the ugly sock-puppet banners on my user pages now, or will that get me into more trouble? Eff Won ( talk) 18:43, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
Bwilkins has been entrusted by the community to make certain decisions, and that includes the decision to unblock a user if he feels the editor is ready to discontinue past practices and contribute positively to the Encyclopedia. No lasting or significant harm will come to Wikipedia if he's mistaken, as the user can easily be reblocked. Bretonbanquet, per WP:ADMINACCT, is entitled to make polite inquiries into Bwilkin's reasoning; they are not entitled to make accusations or repeatedly badger him. Bretonbanquet has been asked to go away from this page; I encourage them to do so. Nobody Ent 23:24, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
Apologies - I saw earlier that this user had requested unblock, came back after breakfast and unblocked without seeing that in the meantime you had asked the COIQ questions. There's no doubt this account is here for promotional purposes, but I had earlier explained at some length what Wikipedia is not for, and a COIN entry at WP:COIN#Jordan Alan and his films has brought several others to help keep an eye on the articles, so they will not be getting away with anything. Regards, JohnCD ( talk) 09:26, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
Can you take another look at the DC block extension discussion and maybe tweak the closing statement? I don't think anyone was arguing about the initial block, just the circumstances of the extension. Nobody Ent 22:42, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
Hello there. I noticed that you declined an unblock request from User:Mr JKX. Earlier I spotted them operating a new account under User:Mr QVC. They do not appear to be trying to hide the fact seeings as they have returned to articles edited by the previous account. Plus on the user pages you get the same introduction - "This is the page of MR JKX" and "this is the page of Mr QVC". Rain the 1 19:11, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
Was blocked by you a while back -- and has now appeared using an identifiable sock so he can be two people on each of two articles <g> I files at SPI [52] but this is so blatant, it does not require any additional evidence at all AFAICT:
[53] is by his sock on Linda McMahon at 21:09 UTC ... and at 21:10 see [54] where User:Screwball23 affixes his own sig <g> which is about as simple and direct an admission of socking as ever I have seen. The SPI was filed before this - the sock edits heavily on 2 articles - in direct accord with Screwball23's edits, and using the exact same language in the edit summaries. The one minute delay means that he can not use the "public computer" excuse, either. Cheers. Collect ( talk) 22:18, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
We have had some contact with this user, who is currently blocked for one month and whose unblock request you recently declined. My problem is that he has admitted that his account is compromised; it is, however, only by his sister (it's the one who claimed to have bought the account for a dollar) and he is obviously very young. As we both know a compromised account is normally indef-blocked. I am inclined to make an exception here, but would appreciate your thoughts?-- Anthony Bradbury "talk" 22:04, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
The Admin's Barnstar | ||
For all your hard work, contributions and administration of the Wikipedia project. Cheers. -- Hu12 ( talk) 01:39, 7 November 2012 (UTC) |
You added the word "will". I wonder if anyone notices... The Rambling Man ( talk) 17:46, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
"If you erroneously added the sysop bit to my alternate account, you would immediately remove it. You have erroneously re-added the bit back to an account because you missed the "cloud", and since the "cloud" is a valid reason for not re-implementing the bit in these situations as per policy, then you have full authority to remove it."
It's not particularly germane to the discussion at BN, which is why I came over here. Erroneously adding the bit to your alternate account isn't the same as erroneously adding the bit for a resysop. Presumably, the crat who added it to your alternate account would desysop your alternate account and then re-add it to your main account, so you would still have the bit on an account you control; there would be no actual removal of the permission. Another argument would be that there is no chance you would object to the removal of the bit from your alternate account and that therefore you have impliedly requested removal to correct the error. This is not the same as removing the bit from someone who reasonable minds would say presents a chance of not having impliedly consented to removal of the bit. MBisanz talk 13:51, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
Hello,
Sorry my page did not apply with guidelines, please could you userfy the page code in my user space.
I would like the opportunity to carry out further work on this page in the future. Bjs2012 ( talk) 17:08, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
I've restored three A9s you deleted - they weren't A9 as the artist had an article, and seem to have been tagged by a rogue bot. Reaper has mass rollbacked the edits on the main part of the articles, while I was trying to remember how to do it (and detagging some by hand...). The account has been blocked by Nytend as a suspected unauthorised bot. Peridon ( talk) 18:00, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
damned good idea ;) Goodness knows why I or nobody else thought of it before. Thanks. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 08:08, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
As we have interracted on several occasions, on the whole I believe in substantial agreement, I looked at your userpage. I see that you claim to be a deontologist. So I read the article, which must qualify as one of the most obscure short articles in wikipedia! But I was left wondering; are you an absolutist deontologist or a non-absolutist deontologist?
Only kidding really; you can ignore me. -- Anthony Bradbury "talk" 17:43, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
I did not consider their message about "having done research" as relating to WP:OR whatsoever, based on the context. I still think she means the type of research we actually want - now that she understands WP:RS ( ✉→ BWilkins ←✎) 17:42, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
...for setting me straight and helping out with that unblock request. I appreciate it. Drmies ( talk) 15:20, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Resysoping of FCYTravis / Polarscribe 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—
Thanks, Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 20:56, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
I've reverted, but found your statement that I changed orders odd. I didn't. I often fix indents on talk pages, Afds and ANI, and your the first ever to object. My sole aim was to improve readability, as the discussion is extremely difficult to follow. Dominus Vobisdu ( talk) 12:46, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
BTW, I think I'd like to change my comment to support here. :) I had no memory of the !opinion. I stumbled upon it through Socksred's thing a ma gig Talk about being wrong! Toddst1 ( talk) 00:58, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
I checked the alternative account policy before posting and didn't think it conflicted with an anonymous request for independent review of everyone's actions. Which point of the policy do you think I've violated? If you want I can contact you by e-mail to disclose my identity and give a further explanation of why I felt the need to post while logged out. If in your opinion it was against policy I'm happy to log in and change the signature on my post. 149.255.57.233 ( talk) 10:45, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
On a related note, I have had a look at the articles in question and I can see why no one would want to dangle their feet in there with a username. Just taking NPOV - good faith attempts to bring them in line tend to get reverted by both sides. Thats not touching on the reliability of some of the sourcing involved. Without some sort of teeth, I suspect this needs to go to AE so they reiterate policy to everyone involved. As it is, its going to be a lot of work to sort out the mess. I will have a shot at untangling the more problematic sourcing issues later tonight, but I have no confidence ANYTHING will stick. They just seem too entrenched and unwilling to compromise/work together. Only in death does duty end ( talk) 15:16, 14 November 2012 (UTC) PS. The sig thing may be unintentional. The diff at ANI looks like its stripping all special characters. My mobile does something similar if I try and edit from it in an existing section with chars it cant recognise.
Hi, could you take a look at 65.254.18.70? He seems to have a very long story of vandalisms and of ignoring any warning... in recent days he is focusing on Twister (game) article, blanking sections and/or replacing them with patient non-sense. I have no experience on requesting blocks, at any rate he looks like a good candidate for it... -- Cavarrone ( talk) 14:19, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
I'd like to ask you for a further explanation of your reasoning for the deletion of 2012-13 U.S. winter storm season ( AfD). Not to be a !vote counter, but the !vote counts weren't too far apart, and any concern raised by those who !voted delete I or another editor replied to with a reply that basically nullified any deletion argument. If you could further explain the reason for deletion, I'd love it. If you aren't willing to undelete it into articlespace, could you please userfy it? Thanks, and sorry for the interruption. gwickwire | Leave a message 18:33, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
Could you take a look at the ANI thread on the IP you just blocked for legal threats? I've asked that you undo the block as I really don' think it was appropriate in this case. Qwyrxian ( talk) 12:35, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
Then how come I see companies coming from Asia (I won't mention specific names of the country) that are hardly heard of? I mean that's biased already and subjective. BTW, I'm not arguing, I'm just pointing out my point. You have to be fair. A sound discernment is needed here. Please stop listening to what other's are saying about certain articles. OptiStar ( talk) 13:26, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
Almost immediately after you speedy-deleted Mobile Tout Terrain, the user recreated it. It still doesn't meet the notability criteria and I'd appreciate you getting rid of it once again (and possibly wikislapping the contributor who just doesn't seem to get the concept of reliable sources). Thanks. -- Biker Biker ( talk) 16:39, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a deletion review of 2012-13 U.S. winter storm season. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. gwickwire | Leave a message 00:03, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
There are enough incompetent admins simply hanging out to fan the flames. Don't. Really. - Fjozk ( talk) 12:58, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.144.180.188 ( talk) 10:28, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
So, in the current Arb request, you claimed "The rest of the Bureaucrat cadre disagreed" with a decision I made. Could you clarify where all the other 'crats disagreed with my action please? Thanks. The Rambling Man ( talk) 20:18, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
I think my summary at the end of that section summarised it well. None of us crats criticised TRM as doing the wrong thing, although some of us may have chosen to act differently. -- Dweller ( talk) 11:31, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
I do not believe it was fair to delete Crown the Empire. The band is very notable. Websites that has been confirmed and are used as sources everywhere (i.e. Alternative Press, metalunderground, rocksound.tv, Lambgoat, and absolutepunk.net) has posted about the band on multiple occasions. The band has released two EPs actually, not one. They are signed to a heavily covered and established record label (Rise Records). Over 84,000 "likes" on Facebook as of today (likes is probably not a useable source of notablility, just wanted to point that out). They are set to release their debut album on Rise Records (tomorrow actually, if I can recall correctly). And has worked with Joey Sturgis and Cameron Mizell, both being established producers in the genre that the band is a part of. The band is very notable in my opinion. Not to mention you deleted it after multiple votes of keeping the page. I do agree the page was in bad grammar/formatting but I do believe it deserved a deletion. I say the page be re-added once proper sources are found and formatting be fixed.
XyphynX9 (
talk)
15:35, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
I'm wanting to clear up the error that Jimbo Wales was the sole founder of Wikipedia, as presented on his user page but you reverted it saying "as per consensus". I know that "Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale" so I'm wondering what sort of consensus it was that overrides WP:VER, WP:NOR and WP:NPOV which all indicate that Jimbo was the co-founder of Wikipedia with Larry Sanger? Momento ( talk) 10:32, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
I'm not harassing you who does?
Just to let you know that I'm not gonna visit this Wikipedia again after what you've done to my articles just because somebody here keep on reporting to you lies and telling you to do this and that. this too much. Imagine, one after the other.
I came here to contribute for the growth of this knowledge center with a sincere heart but some people here would accuse me of vandalism. The effect, I'm not gonna edit the articles here with discrepancies and leave it so that Wikipedia would become a laughing stock to many.
I'm gonna tell my friends whom I told before to donate to Wikipedia to not to go on.
Actually, there are lots of other who complain about the unreasonable deletion of the other articles which they made.
Be informed that I'm gonna be deleting all my contributions here. Do not object anyway they're all mine.
I'd rather do a research on Britannica Online even if the articles are fewer because I believe the people are not rude. OptiStar ( talk) 11:52, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
Be happy because I'll do ahead of you with the deletion of my articles. Tell bikers bikers that he won and he can now celebrate.
It's a waste of time to be here. OptiStar ( talk) 11:52, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
There you have it BWilkins, I already deleted all the articles that I created here including my contributions out of my own accord.
You can now have the peace here in Wikipedia now that I leave this website and try not to visit it as much as I can. OptiStar ( talk) 11:40, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
Was it really your intention to redirect Four Stroke Engine Cycle to WP:NOTHOWTO? Seems like a strange redirect.-- kelapstick( bainuu) 14:56, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
I noticed your username commenting at an Arbcom discussion regarding civility. An effort is underway that would likely benifit if your views were included. I hope you will append regards at: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Civility enforcement/Questionnaire Thank you for considering this request. My76Strat ( talk) 09:15, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
Hi, you noted that User:TheWesternWorld abused Wikipedia's email system. The user sent me an abusive email, which said "Kill yourself you retarded piece of shit". Is their any way I could report that?-- Mjs1991 ( talk) 04:00, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
Would you kindly consider recasting your !vote on Harrias' RfA now that he's answered the question? I've been accused of caring too much about these things, but at the moment, your neutral !vote is the only one standing in the way of a unanimous RfA, which in these days of so much contention on the RfA pages, might be a nice thing to see. Regards, Newyorkbrad ( talk) 16:06, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
The Holidays are coming up... enjoy this lovely brownie as your first treat! Statυs ( talk) 02:32, 1 December 2012 (UTC) |
The first of the month we normally update the stats. Can be protected if needed after editors make the usual updates. Thanks, Daniel.Cardenas ( talk) 00:56, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
Hi Bwilkins,
Is your adminbot still running, and not finding any pages to delete? I noticed it hasn't made a deletion since September.
Thanks, Legoktm ( talk) 11:45, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
The Guidance Barnstar | ||
That is an awesome, well-written piece of advice. Kudos. Anomie ⚔ 17:16, 2 December 2012 (UTC) |
The Admin's Barnstar | ||
Anomie beat me to it! But I was going to give you this. Thanks for setting a great example. — Hex (❝?!❞) 11:02, 3 December 2012 (UTC) |
Tell me this Talk:2013 Formula One season#Numbers and the team and driver table isn't disruptive. Same old story again and again and again – Eff Won / Lucy alone in a pointless debate about something which everyone else has been happy with for years. Bretonbanquet ( talk) 23:51, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
I just wanted to say that my AGF button has limits. I know you don't like me, and I believe that you believe that I'm disruptive, naive, that I don't uderstand policies and that I make more harm than good, and you may have your reasons to. I wanted the restriction lifted because I don't feel comfortable with my name written at WP:RESTRICT, not because I want to go and make 1000 closures. And I can't assume good faith from a user that seems to follow me everywhere just to oppose everything I may say, and write detrimental things about me :( — ΛΧΣ 21™ 01:17, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
Hi Bwilkins,
Just thought I might let you know that there is a storm brewing over Eff Won. Again. His latest edits on the 2013 Formula One season page have not been received well, particularly in the way he is trying to force his edits to hold by threatening to go straight to an adminstrator if they are at all changed. There is a current request for page protection on the page, and I'm hoping it will be granted soon and hold long enough for a resolution to be found. I have asked him to explain himself, and while it is quite abrupt, I've just about had my fill of his behaviour.
I'm not asking that you take action yet - I just thought you might want to keep an eye on things, because based on what we've seen from him in the past, Eff Won can make things very messy, very quickly. Prisonermonkeys ( talk) 09:09, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
That was a mistake. I was adding the same phrase to my post and deleted it when I placed mine in the wrong location for my own post and I simply saw your post and didn't realise what I had done. My apologies for the mistake.-- Amadscientist ( talk) 10:19, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
Yeah.....I am up waaaaaay past my bedtime. I had no idea how late it was. It is 2:30am. I was thinking it was like midnite. I am logging off for the night. Sorry for the mistake.-- Amadscientist ( talk) 10:33, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
I'm a bit concerned about this request because it is absolutely identical to one from another account that I declined just a few days ago. I can't find it in the archives because I can't remember the name. Perhaps you can help. Cheers. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 23:03, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
Consider the following three points:
OK, so Twinkle can't be removed. But it's still being misused. Shirt buried a "Don't misuse Twinkle" in his comments to Danjel, but I don't think it took p b p 15:40, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
We have both been to some extent confused at this page, particularly in the IP unblock request we both declined. I have surveyed the page in some depth, and the vandalism edits were made over a period of a week by at least three different Ip editors. might, of course, all be the same person. I have performed radical reversion surgery and the article is now, I think, clean. Semi-protected one week. -- Anthony Bradbury "talk" 13:20, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
My question was in the title. But, anyway, you are a very special and successful Wikipedian. If you celebrate Christmas, tell me. I got you a gift. *wink*. It's super nice. And it's pretty. If you don't celebrate Christmas, it's between Hanikkuah (not sure how to spell that), Christmas, or Three Kings Day. Or, none. I'll be sure to get you a gift anyways. This gift will completely stand out in your talk page. You'll love it. Anyway, feel free to leave the reply here or on my page. If you leave it here, send me a talkback template because I'll be busy in this hour. Thank you. This beautiful gift only goes to those who are working very hard. So you'll be getting one. Again, Thanks! RaidenRules! Talk to me! 15:39, 9 December, 2012 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Crown The Empire. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Undelete so a new page can be created based off of what was in the old page Mariolennox ( talk) 03:47, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
Hi, with regard to this comment you recently made at ANI, the inability of Yogesh to comprehend the issues is likely due to personal antipathy. See, for example, this thread on their talk page & numerous past ANI reports. It is not something that is likely to go away, although they've been quite clever on this occasion as they appear to be prepared to sacrifice Doncram to make a mark on me. I may be misreading this situation but I doubt it: there is a long-established pattern of trying to get me into trouble and a similarly lengthy pattern of failure to understand the very policies etc that they cite. I'm past caring about the opportunism, sniping etc because, alas, I am perfectly capable of getting myself into trouble without any nudging from Yogesh! I've got a bit frustrated with some recent goings-on, I know it and consequently I've been working a fair bit on some other things, eg: Stubbington House School, Eastman's Royal Naval Academy and Godfrey Herbert. A change is as good as a rest.
I notice that Salvio blocked another long-term opportunist who commented in the discussion but I don't anticipate that it will make any difference. In fact, it will probably just stoke up resentment. - Sitush ( talk) 13:30, 10 December 2012 (UTC)