Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 17:56, 16 July 2012

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

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

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

Help with Removing Clean Up Tags

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)

If it's a commonly-edited page, a brief discussion on the article talkpage would probably help. If you propose the de-tag, and get no replies for 5-7 days, it's probably good to go. However, if discussion does take place, remember that WP:CONSENSUS is not a vote :-) (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 18:24, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your help! Misplaced Pages can be a confusing place for a newcomer. :) Noreenst (talk) 22:38, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Jerusalem during the Crusader period/draft

Hi, you closed Misplaced Pages: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)

 Done right here (✉→BWilkins←✎) 09:27, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Question for ya

At link -- Avanu (talk) 22:41, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Toddst1 (talk) 20:03, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Calvin999

Avanu asked me to look at this 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 Misplaced Pages, 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 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)

Don't forget this guideline (✉→BWilkins←✎) 23:56, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, Calvin999/Aaron sucks at appealing blocks. You ever think this non-bureaucracy is a bit bureaucratic? Happy 1st. -- Avanu (talk) 00:14, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

The intent of a block is to protect the project and prevent repeat offenders. Are you convinced that Calvin won't re-offend? I'm not even sure he knows why he was blocked yet. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 09:15, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

I wasn't questioning the original block, just the talk page, as I hear a buffet of different opinions on when it is and isn't appropriate to block the talk page. I have my own opinions and they are probably somewhat different than yours, but I think that the lack of clarity in the policy is the issue. I've seen this issue come up often enough that I'm wondering if an RfC might be in the future. I can follow any policy that the community agrees to, even if I disagree with it, but it would be nice if it that one element was spelled out more clearly. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 18:22, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Well, we've always used WP:AAB as a measuring stick regarding talkpage locks. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 19:12, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

That seems to reinforce my belief that the talk page can be used for more than just unblock requests. "Abuse" (via WP:BLOCK) is in the eye of the beholder and I can allow for differences there, but I have to admit that when someone says "the talk page is for unblock requests only", that is like fingernails on a chalkboard to me, as I don't see anywhere it is limited to such. I'm funny that way. I want people blocked that need it, but I want to go the extra mile to be fair as well. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 21:09, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

When his answers are all that he did nothing wrong, and his "friends" start piling on to say the same thing, it becomes admin abuse. Indeed, it would have actually been best to full-protect the entire page considering. If you had been privy to the e-mail exchange I had with Calvin/Aaron, you would have seen more of the same - and additional proof that the talkpage lock was quite justified (✉→BWilkins←✎) 14:14, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Ah, email. It doesn't require a lot of imagination to get to that point then. I trust your word on this, and hopefully you take no offense for my asking as it looked a little thin on the surface. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 18:12, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Irvi Hyka

Yesterday Irvi Hyka restored content that I had previously removed . He was then reverted by another user , and today an IP reverted back to Irvi Hyka's version . The IP is in fact Irvi Hyka editing unlogged, as can be seen from its contribs . International recognition of Kosovo is arguably Irvi Hyka's favorite article and the 80.78 IP reverts another IP editor that had previously reverted one of Irvi Hyka's edits . 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)

Evidence is overly-compelling. Thanks, and sorry to have to deal with it that way (✉→BWilkins←✎) 09:36, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Nomination of Inline-twin engine for deletion

The article will be discussed at Misplaced Pages: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)

Be careful with WP:CANVASS (✉→BWilkins←✎) 14:22, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

3RR

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 too.--— ZjarriRrethues —  19:43, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Melungeon

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)

Ooops, I'm an idiot, thought it was full protection. I should have known you wouldn't do that. Dougweller (talk) 21:10, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Nice self-WP:NPA there :-) I think I also reverted to a pre-IP version (or at least the most recent one) ... which again was likely the WP:WRONGVERSION. But, as you noted ... you can fix it :-) (✉→BWilkins←✎) 21:22, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Editing policy statements

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)

You might take a look at WP:PGCHANGE for guidance on that question. In some ways it is similar to any other edit in Misplaced Pages, in some ways it is a little different. -- Avanu (talk) 13:40, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

The crucial bit there seems to be 'strictly'. As for 'substantive changes', I don't understand why 'Bold' is an alternative without BRD. You shouldn't need consensus to revert an undiscussed substantive change in policy. And in practice I doubt that Bold on its own happens, I'd expect BRD to be more common. Dougweller (talk) 14:50, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

User: TruPepitoM

Dear B, I would have gone to Kudpung but he's away most of the week. This is about this thread here: 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: . 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)

Well, we can only help people as much as we can. In the long run, competence is required. Although I agree with TPM that we need some patience, there's a limit. What's best in a cooperative project is that if they edit something with some actually useful info yet really f-up the grammer - don't revert, fix. That way the editor's key point is included, we just tidy it up a little. I am a little taken aback by his belief that this is a US-English-centric project: most of my writing is in Canadian English :-) However, it's his impression and he's allowed to feel that - our role is to gently prove him wrong and bring him along on the journey (✉→BWilkins←✎) 16:09, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

I have made a mistake. I would have thought that WP:ESSAY and "Writings that violate one or more Misplaced Pages policies, such as spam, personal attacks, copyright violations, or what Misplaced Pages is not" would apply. Even a cursory glance of this user's contributions shows more than a grammar problem : ] (deliberately inserting false info in a sports score) for example. I should not have bothered, because it must be your involvement in that thread that is inhibiting your willingness to do anything but offer absurd platitudes. Tis funny how you were onto this guy last week but now he's a special snowflake allowed to spread his impressions where and how he pleases. Plutonium27 (talk) 17:42, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

You come here and I provide an honest answer, now you're saying I'm giving platitudes? My pholosophy of this project is out there for everyone to see. If you want to SHOW me valid, proven violations of personal attacks in his essay, then show it to me now and I'll deal with it. I see no copyvios, nothing that violates even WP:POLEMIC. Again, show me violations ... (✉→BWilkins←✎) 17:57, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Ongoing issue

Bwilkins, I gather this remark 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)

Not a joke. As you read in the most recent ANI report about you, awareness of the 1RR restriction is assumed when you were involved in similar situation. You were involved. You must have read the rest of the discussion regarding ARBMAC warnings. You're one of those who got one without needing to have it formally placed on your page (✉→BWilkins←✎) 17:59, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes I know that now. But I don't get the fuss, I never used the unawareness as part of a defence; I admitted my actions, and yes, when something is implemented, it can be presumed that relevant people know it. Whatever happens, can this now be an end to it. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 18:03, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

No, you did use it: on ANI you said "I maintain that I was unaware and I have produced irrefutable evidence to support this - that being that no message of 1RR appears when you click "edit", only a message that the page is protected". You certainly have no need for a banner on an article to tell you that it is within the confines of Kosovo-related articles, broadly construed. That is purely a deceptive statement. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 19:44, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

I stated it because it was the truth, but I never said "let me off because I didn't know" - that's what I meant by not using it as a serious tool for defence. The thread was long and towards the later posts I accepted wrongdoing and that a block is possible, I was however warned and my name was added to the ARBMAC Hall of Fame and that was the outcome. Anyhow there is no point continuing this topic. I can't change people's thoughts and if you believe I was being dishonest then I am unable to change that. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 20:28, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

User:Doktorbuk

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

ANI

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

Wikipoodling

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

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

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

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

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

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

Draft

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

Jaan and your wikilink to "TRUTH"

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

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

Bridge Boy & personal attacks

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

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

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

Assume good faith

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

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

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

Bridge Boy

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

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

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

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

Company articles

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

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

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

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

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

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

Note

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

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

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

ANI

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

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

TheIrishWarden

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

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

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

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

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

WP: PERM

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

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

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

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

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

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

The community rejected Rcsprinter123's position that:

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

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

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

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

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

User:Mla46ed

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

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

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

WT: PERM

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bureaucracy

Bwilkins, have you ever thought about the possibility of becoming a bureaucrat? I only ask because over the past couple of month's I have been watching your contributions to Misplaced Pages and in particular, those to the AN/I board. Your blocks are always well thoughts, and your comments are always thorough in nature. You never seem to lose your cool and from what I have witnessed, you are not always quick to usher off a user to the blocked sector. Taking the time understand the contributions and intent of editors is crucial to an admin and you have shown that your skills in this area are superb. Additionally, as a bureaucrat you would be expected to uphold tighter standards and do much of the same for admins as you have for common editors. I believe you would be a great addition to the title and would be a vital tool to Misplaced Pages. As such, I would be willing to give you a well thought out nomination with formal regards for your aspirations and achievements on and to Misplaced Pages. Even if the title is too much to think about now, if I were you I would give it some serious thought. You definitely have the capabilities to handle such a position. Good day to you. Keystoneridin (speak) 18:37, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

A barnstar for you!

The Civility Barnstar

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

Talkback

TheIrishWarden - Irish and proud (talk) 16:59, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

A Barnstar for you!!

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

Please give me some help.

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

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

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