CSDarrow is at it again with his latest assault on the project and its editors. Time to remove his talk page access yet? I'm not sure why someone who despises Wikipidia so much is so upset by not being able to participate in it. Anyway, have a great weekend. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 23:55, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

He hasn't earned a removal of talkpage access yet. Remember, blocks are not punishment (✉→BWilkins←✎) 00:38, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I fully understand that. I'm referring to his inappropriate use of the talk page... to repeatedly attack the project and the "quality" of all its editors, insult specific editors, and promote an anti-WP site with a direct link to it. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 01:59, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oleola is using multiple accounts Dudek1337 this guy is hitler and threatens us, only his point of view is good. HE makes fake accusations before deserves permanent ban for sock — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robertspierre750 (talk • contribs) 23:49, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Once you invoke Hitler, it's not even due a response (✉→BWilkins←✎) 18:33, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the kind welcome, I was not expecting such a personal approach to users/editors so thank you. Also I appreciate the clarification of the various rules and helpful hints to editing one of which I need to clarify is any possible conflict. After briefly reading that policy I believe there should not be any conflict on that one particular page. I have volunteered there a half dozen times since I am a subject matter expert unlike the two staff memebers (executive director/manager & the caretaker) of the non-for-profit foundation that now owns the Chateau. They did share accurate facts on size and status etc upon my request to educate others interested in the Chateau. I have used and loved Wikipedia for many years especially for its educational benefits and it is often the only source of information of many historic mansions and chateaux around the world long since forgotten until now. Its really exciting now to be able to contribute toward educating others on a few more architectural masterpieces. Thank you again for the help and the introduction. A.R.Deer (talk) 19:12, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I quite understand that the "petition" at Talk:Anatolii Alexeevitch Karatsuba is of no effect, but I don't see what is to be gained by removing the signatures that other users are putting there. People tend to react badly to having their comments removed, and there is no mandate at WP:TPO that says you have to do it. I suggest that on on balance it is less disruptive to let people sign away. If their signatures are in the wrong place it would be more courteous to move them than delete them. Spectral sequence (talk) 20:50, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The article talkpage guidelines also state that article talkpages for the sole existence of improving the article. "Petition"-type comments violate the WP:NOTAFORUM provision, and should be removed - this will help to prevent others from doing the same. Clearly, all have arrived there due to WP:MEAT - and the provisions of such also fully permit deletion of WP:MEAT-posted commentary (✉→BWilkins←✎) 21:05, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I see a variety of people who are interested in mathematics and clearly not experienced in the ways of Wikipedia recruited off-wiki and arriving to take an interest in one particular issue. If they get a reception that they perceive as rude (like deleting their comments as unwelcome) they are less likely to remain and turn into productive contributors than if they are treated politely and encouraged to learn how the encyclopedia works. But act as you see fit -- I do not propose to do anything further in the matter. Spectral sequence (talk) 21:24, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Notifying you that I have reverted your latest edit. I was also removing the "Petition" of the IPs but changed my mind reading the above post of Spectral sequence. This IPs can be good wikipedians in future and it is best that we welcome (just welcomed many previous IPs) them than annoy them by removing their comments. Thanks Solomon7968 09:37, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Although I agree that they could become positive contributors, User:Solomon7968, right now they're violating key policies - I'll recommend you read them and reverse yourself. If you wish to go around and welcome all the random IP, then do so - but do not re-add blank posts to the talkpage - I don't want to have to semi-protect the talkpage to prevent people who refuse to read from posting there - that would probably piss them off even more. Over to your immediate action (✉→BWilkins←✎) 09:43, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I will not re-add blank posts to the talkpage but it seems this IPs are wasting time of everyone. For example try to compare the article of Saint Petersburg State University with 8 references with Harvard University. All Russian wikipedia entries are in a very bad state. It is just annoying that this IPs instead of doing positive contributions are wasting time of everyone. Solomon7968 09:49, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

They ARE wasting people's time. Someone needs to a) find out where this WP:MEAT is coming from (I'll bet someone posted to some science/math forum somewhere asking for people to come to Wikipedia) and b) put a RUSSIAN notice on the article talkpage saying "THERE IS NO PETITION - PLEASE HELP BY IMPROVING THIS ARTICLE" (✉→BWilkins←✎) 10:01, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I dispute your deletion of the article. This article obviously meets GNG, given the sources which discuss Anti-Muslim pogroms in India. It is a topic of legitimate academic inquiry as can also be seen from the references and is also widely discussed in the media, as can be seen from the sources given at the AFD. In your summary of valid reasons to delete you said "inflammatory title" This is not a justifiable reason for deletion at all per WP:POVTITLE "When the subject of an article is referred to mainly by a single common name, as evidenced through usage in a significant majority of English-language reliable sources, Wikipedia generally follows the sources and uses that name as its article title" Every source in the article, as well as those given at the AFD use "Anti-Muslim pogroms in India" therefore it is not a violation of policy to have an article with this name. Your other reason for deletion was "sources" bar one all sources in the article were from academic publishers, can you explain please how the sourcing was not up to scratch? My last issue with your decision is that you say the information in the article is covered elsewhere, it is not. Darkness Shines (talk) 17:32, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I summarized the arguments that were the ones that weighed heaviest in the decision, and quite well I must add. I spent a significant amount of time reviewing that entire AFD and found there to be no question as to the delete decision - not even a single waffle (✉→BWilkins←✎) 17:37, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You have not responded to a single question I have put to you, why not? Darkness Shines (talk) 17:45, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think if you read my answer, you'll see that I responded to all of your issues. You simply don't like the answer, and there's nothing I can do about that (✉→BWilkins←✎) 18:01, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, you did not. I have requested deletion review here. Darkness Shines (talk) 18:10, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure you'll remove your false statement: I never claimed at any point that an inflammatory title was reason for deletion. Lying won't help your process here, User:Darkness Shines (✉→BWilkins←✎) 18:12, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That is twice now you have accused me of lying, it makes one wonder if perhaps you ought not have closed the discussion. "The result was delete. A summary of the valid arguments for deletion: inflammatory title" Retract your accusation please. Darkness Shines (talk) 18:17, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I give you better credit for reading English than that. If you cannot read, then you cannot hope to post here further. You're either lying, or you simply cannot read. As I said before I summarized the arguments ... that was one of the arguments that was made numerous times, wasn't it? Duh. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 18:26, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Did you or did you not write the following valid arguments for deletion: inflammatory title As you obviously did in fact write that then how am I lying by saying you said that it was a valid reason for deletion? Again, retract your personal attack. Darkness Shines (talk) 18:31, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I summarized OTHER people's arguments - therefore YOU ARE LYING when you claim that I said it - don't you understand the difference? It's a simple thing in English. So, retract your lie, OR your misunderstanding of the language. Your behaviour is really deteriorating. Do not return to this talkpage unless you have retracted your lie, ok? Thanks. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 20:06, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Mr. BWilkins, could the deleted talk of a deleted article be temporarily (for 12/24hrs) restored / userfied? Is that technically allowed? There are some arguments and comments by some editors/admins which I need to collect, that's all, and then you can delete it perhaps? Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 06:15, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. We would appreciate your feedback at Talk:Presidency of Jimmy Carter#Let's figure out our possible solutions. I think I've summarized all the core/pertinent points at the very end. Much thanks. –Quiddity (talk) 17:33, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm far from happy with RPs response to the feedback to this unblocking and I am considering raising an RFCU/A. If I do, would you consider certifying the RFC? Further discussion on RP's talkpage if you wish to read the interaction. Spartaz ^Humbug! 14:41, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• The discussion has moved on sufficiently to the point where I'm going to let it rest. I don't think RP is in any doubt that they could have handled this better and that understanding was mostly what I wanted to see. We all screw up but its concerning if you don't learn from it. Sorry to orange bar you unnecessarily. Spartaz ^Humbug! 15:39, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No problem ... didn't get a chance to reply earlier - sorry. Hopefully RP (and all of us) has learned (✉→BWilkins←✎) 15:42, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

... over Retrolord. As I said on the RfA page, Kudpung's posts are out of order. I'm sure I'll be chatting to him about them sooner or later, they're unfair and likely to make those who oppose an RfA feel badgered. Those people will then be more vehement in their opposes, cycling around to making the whole process more unpleasant.

What worries me is that you appear to be escalating the situation, talking about blocks, pointy behaviour and generally winding each other up. Might be a good idea to either work on diffusing things or stepping away. Worm^TT(talk) 11:29, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There's nothing on Kudpung's post that was any form of badgering, bullying, threats, improper, or anything - I believe you're rather falsely riling Retro up even further by suggesting that there is. Is it improper for anyone to suggest that someone re-read their !vote based on the discussion below it? Have you even read Kudpung's talkpage? Kudpung did nothing wrong whatsoever - he doesn't need any speaking to, and I think you've done Retro a disservice by suggesting that they were even remotely correct in their reading of the situation. You know I typically agree with most of your assessments, but you're way off on this one, and it will now lead to further drama (✉→BWilkins←✎) 11:34, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Have you ever wanted to stand up and say something's wrong, in the face of massive support? It's a tough thing to do - and Kudpung's comments belittled his vote by stating that it was just there for disruption. He then went to the users talk page and implied that he should try again. There was no need - we don't need people to pass without opposes, we need a fair and open process. I'm following the situation as best I can, but for now I'm going to sit back for a bit and see if things improve, otherwise people will say things in haste which they may later regret. Worm^TT(talk) 11:38, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and don't worry about calling me Dave - it's right there on my userpage, I don't mind. Worm^TT(talk) 11:39, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Retro's !vote was based on neither policy, nor reality. It was based on opinion and false assumptions, and was indeed very weakly on that opinion. 3 or 4 other editors tried to discuss that opinion, in hopes that they would make a new decision. Yeah, oppose !votes that are based on false assumptions/pretenses are indeed disruptive (we've seen more than enough of those). Kudpung's comments were clearly not inappropriate, bullying, or even unfair. Retro's decision to generate drama rather than asking Kudpung to clarify was pure spite and cannot be defended by anyone. Retro's 3 later edits to the RFA were pure unadulterated pointiness that should, indeed, either be removed or lead to a block. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 11:48, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Could you point me to anywhere that it says that RfA !votes have to be based on policy, reality or X's agreement? As far as I'm aware, you can place yourself on either side, and it's recommended you explain why. You don't have to be right. Others can refute your suppositions, and future readers take into account both your suppositions and those who refute them. It's a fine line moving from refuting to badgering - generally around the point that the same statement is being repeated. Implying that someone is only !voting in a certain manner to disrupt the process, that's not on. Retro's subsequent edits may well not have happened if he had been dealt with in a more sympathetic manner in the first place. Worm^TT(talk) 11:57, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're missing the point: Kudpung didn't say that Retro's !vote was disruptive - but that in general, non-reality based !votes, and ones that the !voter is not willing to revisit based on discussion have been shown to be one of the current problems across RFA over the recent years. He was encouraged to re-read the discussion and rethink his position - not forced to or bullied into action. In short, Retro WAS treated very sympathetically (✉→BWilkins←✎) 12:04, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) :::::I have stood up and said something's wrong. It's a tough thing to do - especially when you're an admin who deeply cares about the state of RfA. Retro's !vote was based on neither policy, nor reality. It was based on opinion and false assumptions, and was indeed very weakly on that opinion, but instead of replying on the RfA page and dramamongering, I took my thoughts to his talk page, and in a manner that was deliberately neither accusing, nor patronising, nor suggesting he change his vote. If anything, it was intended to help him reflect upon his further participation at RfA. I'm also not afraid to be active enough to take a heck of a lot of flak, most particulary of the totally unprovoked kind from editors who escape sanctions from ARBCOM on the premise of being good content contributors - that's why I have stayed out of such discussions although I bitterly wanted to say something and provide some diffs there. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:07, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bwilkins, he said that "some oppose votes, are purely disruptive in an RfA that is so obviously going to succeed." - Given he the juxtaposition of that comment with his comment on Retro's page - it is a reasonable conclusion to draw that he was implying Retro's !vote was disruptive. If I were in Retro's shoes, I'd have read it the same way.

Kudpung, it was more the comments on WT:RfA which I saw as problem. Not bullying mind you, just unfair. Worm^TT(talk) 12:13, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) People are forgetting in the heat of the moment that there was one other oppose vote. I didn't directly mention it because there would be no point, would there? The history of how it got there is however unsurprising: this, this ES, and the comment, and this ES. Good thing I'm not an Arb... Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:37, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And now he's edit-warring on WT:RFA - well done, giving him the ammo to believe he was right. It's now becoming his martyrdom. I expect you'll take care of it Dave? (✉→BWilkins←✎) 12:39, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And I wish you hadn't written that - it does make it look like I was goaded into this block - though I hadn't seen the comment. Worm^TT(talk) 12:58, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry ... although you were goaded into the block, but not by me ... but by the blockee, unfortunately (✉→BWilkins←✎) 16:34, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bwilkins. Martyr for Kudpungiang justice. ★★RetroLord★★ 05:09, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus is that he did not bully you, so continuing to suggest otherwise - even in jest - is unbecoming. Oh, while you're here, have you had a chance to read WP:INVOLVED - I've been waiting for your apology for mis-citing it at least a dozen times when it actually had zero relationship to the discussion at hand (✉→BWilkins←✎) 08:59, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

He is using a mw:parser function, not a template in it. 86.121.18.17 (talk) 12:18, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

While posting in a lengthy discussion about a TOPIC BAN of six months imposed by arguably an involved admin — you comment not about the edit on which the ban hinges, but on a rather trifling matter, my signature, to apparently justify the ban? What is your issue with me? If you are so disinterested why bother commenting at all? Besides, like the IP said, it's a mw:parser function and not a template per se.

P.S. Really, this is unhelpful, Wilkins, this is utterly and perfectly unhelpful! BTW I am not watching your page. Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 15:09, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Did you even read my comment? I stated quite clearly that because you had begun to yell at people in bold letters, all caps, PLUS your willingness to completely act contrary to policy by having an invalid signature, you had more than used up any goodwill or sympathy of others. Because of that, almost nobody will listen to your sob stories and concerns because your own hands are nowhere clean enough. My issue with you is obviously that you whine, and want the rules to apply to others but not you ... and you are willing berate the volunteers on this project because you're not being listened to. Childish, to say the least. Whatever valid complaints you might have had have since disappeared into the blue yonder because of the way you've dealt with it. Well done. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 16:31, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Don't you think you're taking this Signature thing a tad too far? What do you assume that I am doing it intentionally?
"obviously that you whine, and want the rules to apply to others but not you" - it is your opinion and I don't share that opinion. And I sense a tone of redundant condescension. You opine a lot. You're entitled to your opinion but I reserve the right to choose what to concur with. Good day, Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 09:41, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There's no condescending ... it's frustration that you have wholly wasted what might have been your sole opportunity by acting they way you have. When even I've given up on supporting your cause, you know you've fallen badly. "Madness is doing the same thing again and again, expecting a new result" (✉→BWilkins←✎) 10:09, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am genuinely touched to see how much you're concerned about me. Mr T^(Talk?) 11:08, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Bwilkins, I apologise in advance if this is not the correct place to contact you as I am new to Wikipedia! I would just like to address my submission for the following page on Ben Draiman being declined: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Ben_Draiman

I understand the comment in regard to Mr Draiman's brother and will edit accordingly. However, in regards to the local radio station play, he does indeed meet that criteria because he lives in Israel, thousands of miles from Canada. So not only did the radio station in question not play it because he was local, but because he wasn't anywhere near the same country. And being in the top 94 of the songs of 2011 is significant and fulfills at least one of the criteria mentioned.

Among the sources which include the Jerusalem Post Article, the Article in the British Jewish Publication along with Altsounds, these are independent sources that give plenty of in-depth information about the musician, which fulfills yet another part of the criteria. Any advice you have on how I can progress with the article in light of these points would be appreciated.Candii H (talk) 22:04, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. I saw this discussion about a blocked user, and saw that that user is commenting in it! I wondered if you in en.wiki allow blocked users to come to the ANI and defend themselves. I ask this only in order to become more familiar with the procedures and policies in here. Thanks.,dgjdksvc;jknhg (talk) 18:02, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, they did not comment themselves. They are permitted to post on their own talkpage - as such, they can create a section on their usertalkpage with the text they want copied from there to ANI, then add {{helpme}} and request it be copied (✉→BWilkins←✎) 18:04, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, it is really awesome and helps all the voices to be heard. So while they are blocked, can they edit regarding other stuff rather than their appeal on their talk page?--,dgjdksvc;jknhg (talk) 18:38, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No. It's rather obvious that the ANI was about their block or their behaviour - thus, they're allowed to contribute. It's the only time editing-by-proxy is permitted (✉→BWilkins←✎) 21:10, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks.--,dgjdksvc;jknhg (talk) 21:55, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I hope that this time they discuss the changes. If they just revert then I will fully support an indef. If that doesn't force them to communicate then nothing will. PantherLeapord (talk) 10:29, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Next time, don't simply post under the closed incident at ANI - open a new one and refer to the old one (✉→BWilkins←✎) 10:45, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Will do. Thanks! I guess it's not one for AIV huh? PantherLeapord (talk) 10:48, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No. Edit-warring is for WP:AN/3RR (✉→BWilkins←✎) 11:08, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I was simply replying to the message. I have deleted the request altogether since it has now been settled. Thanks for doing your job and for informing me of the change. I appreciate it.Ajmccumber (talk) 20:27, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not delete the actionned/responded to request - it will be archived as a record. Thanks. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 20:58, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

" rmv boneheaded cluelessness" you were clearly looking in the mirror when you called me that. PumpkinSky talk 23:58, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Bwilkins. I have raised a request at WP:AN concerning User:Retrolord's user page and talk page. I'm not sure if a block also prevents a user from responding at AN, but we may have to consider an unblock to allow him to respond there. In my opinion, this should be done under the strict proviso that he comments there, and only there, and does not edit anywhere else in any namespaces on Wikipedia. Note that I will be away from my office without Internet for at least another 12 hours.Regards, Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:55, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hey BWilkins, I was wondering if you'd be willing to discuss and/or reconsider your block of PumpkinSky. I know I'm not one for civility-type blocks and tensions are high between you two, but I don't think a block was the appropriate course of action there, especially since it's escalated the situation. I also figured that in the name of de-escalation, coming here instead of going straight to drama central would be the right thing to do, though I do think that if there continues to be substantial conflict over this block, a community review might be helpful. Just my 2 cents. Best, Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 01:03, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• support .. sorry BMW, but I'm with Keilana on this one. — Ched :  ?  01:17, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• That was the 2nd block that came from that thread. It seems to be a poisonous block pit today. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | © | WER 01:21, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Bwilkins, please consider undoing the block. Whether PumpkinSky deserved a block or not, you should definitely not have been the one to make it (nor the one to protect the page, for that matter), as you were involved in the edit war. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 03:31, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:16, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• In accordance with the growing consensus in that ANI thread, and on the assumption that you're away from the computer and thus unavailable to respond to the concerns about WP:INVOLVED, I've unblocked PumpkinSky. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 05:21, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting - accusations of involved, and an accusation that this was a "civility block" because there was some non-existent "high tensions" between PS and I? Wow ... that's extending something well beyond belief. Some folks really didn't read the entire chain of events, and certainly don't AGF much (✉→BWilkins←✎) 10:25, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bwilkins, as a fellow non-enemy of the lulz, fellow owner of an inexpensive automobile, and fellow loyal subject of Betty Windsor, I think you might just over-stepped a little bit in this particular matter. Pete aka --Shirt58 (talk) 11:12, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps I'm not explaining the entire sequence of events properly, or there's a poisoned well somewhere because I had the nerve to be offline and a lot of unfounded, non-AGF accusations happened while I was drinking Coronas and sleeping, but this is bizarre. I know WP:INVOLVED very very well. Just because someone claims I'm involved - and manufactures things like "you're mad because I took your friend to ArbComm" (which is the most bizarre claim about me I have ever seen on Wikipedia) doesn't make me involved - that was a pointy stunt in and of itself, and simply goes to prove that I made the right call on the block (✉→BWilkins←✎) 11:34, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Not that it matters, but I wouldn't have blocked PumpkinSky (big shocker, I know....) but under no circumstance do I see anything that could be seen as admin abuse. I accept that we have different thresholds and prefer to spend my time persuading admin to raise their threshold instead of demonizing them in cases like this where it seems the block was in good faith. Yesterday was a day of drama, perhaps we can work to make today different. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | © | WER 12:11, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Yes, we'll need to move forward - although perhaps User:Writ Keeper would be so kind as to correct his unblock statement about WP:INVOLVED ... oh wait, that cannot be easily done. Good idea not to make such unfounded block log statements in the first place as we move forward (✉→BWilkins←✎) 12:15, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would agree that I don't see how WP:involved played a role. There is entirely too much drama going on and admin are getting caught up in it. Admin are getting trigger happy on both sides of many issues (not just this), and what we need now is some calm reflection, not more drama and debates. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | © | WER 12:20, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I wouldn't correct it even if I could. With respect to Dennis and yourself (the real kind, not the WP:WADR kind), I stand by my statement that this was an involved action, and I for my part am surprised that you and Dennis can't see where we're coming from. You edit-warred with PumpkinSky on the talk page and then protected the page to end the war on your revision and terms: that is never cool. I can accept that you did that in good faith to try to avoid needing a block, rather than explicitly to end the edit war in your favor, but that does not make it uninvolved, nor does it make it even remotely good idea. When you removed PS's comment a second time, your actions became edit-warring whether you meant them to be or not, and I'm surprised you can't see that. Well, you can see that, because you told him to stop edit warring. So how is your re-reversion of someone whom you consider to be edit warring not in itself further edit-warring? And then you go and block PS based at least in part for the edit war, the one that you participated in. (Yes, I'm aware there are other things that happened in between, but it doesn't really matter: you cited the edit war in your block rationale, and even if you hadn't, the edit war without any other context should bve enough to raise a red flag.) I don't think you did this maliciously or to protect your friends from their enemies or whatever. I'm perfectly willing to accept that you blocked in good faith, and that you believed that you weren't involved. But that don't make it so, Joe: it looks to me, and to others in the ANI thread, that you edit-warred with a user and then blocked them for it. And even if you wouldn't have been involved, surely you could've at least thought about avoiding the appearance of INVOLVED and left it for someone else. You're welcome to disagree, of course, but I'd be a little troubled if you can't at least see where we're coming from on this. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 13:13, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Because his reverts were done in an administrative capacity, not an editorial one, that would not be covered by Involved. I guess it depends on what you think his intent was in doing the reverting. If you think it was editorial only, then you might see it as involved. I didn't see it that way. I disagreed with the block, but for different reasons. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | © | WER 13:28, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh bullmalarky WK. Now, if I had actually been involved in the discussion that was being edit-warred over I would 100% agree that I was involved. However, from WP:INVOLVED: "an administrator who has interacted with an editor or topic area purely in an administrative role, or whose prior involvements are minor or obvious edits which do not speak to bias, is not involved and is not prevented from acting in an administrative capacity in relation to that editor or topic area". If I was watching ANY article because of potential problems (maybe someone raised our attention at ANI) and an IP editor added something inappropriate, I'm quite welcome to remove it, and remove it again, and block if needed - that would be 100% appropriate and acceptable. What's the difference here, other than the fact that some of PS's pointiness happened on my talkpage - nothing. The trail of PS's anger spread across Wikipedia yesterday, and his disruption was apparent to anyone who reviewed any of the edits. It was just odd that it was the edit-warring on a closed thread that actually brought anyone's attention to it. The original choice was to block for much longer per WP:DISRUPT, and based on the concept of escalating blocks (I would have only looked at the real ones). Stopping PS from shooting themself in the foot any further is and was the sole goal, and there's no possible definition of the WP:INVOLVED policy that you can link my actions to, period - perhaps you haven't reviewed their edits from yesterday, and have merely drank from the poisoned well that was ANI? (✉→BWilkins←✎) 13:32, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It takes two to do the edit-war tango. You don't get a free pass because you can say "hey, this is an admin action". A thread was closed, and PS was questioning the close. On what grounds is a questioning of a thread's close eligible for admin action? Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 13:55, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Closing is an administrative function, it just doesn't take someone with the admin bit to do it. I'm not going to argue, I will just say that I don't see that as involved and I have to respectfully disagree with that aspect. It isn't personal, but to me, "involved" means having some kind of editorial preference in the content of the words that are being "edit warred" over, which I didn't see. I still wouldn't have blocked, but WP:involved had nothing to do with why. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | © | WER 14:18, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that closing is an administrative action, but that's not particularly relevant, because that's not what Bwilkins did. Bwilkins is saying that reverting someone who was questioning the close [2][3] is also an administrative action, and I very much disagree, particularly when the edit summaries were "don't edit long-closed threads" (it was only closed for two hours; not long by any measure) and "stop edit-warring" (the edit summary of a further reversion is the absolute worst place to say such a thing). Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 14:25, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User:Writ Keeper, what the fuck are you talking about? I quite CLEARLY stated that that "reverting someone who was questioning the close" is NOT an administrative action. Where the hell do you read anything remotely related to what you're claiming I said? I quite clearly stated that obtaining consensus to re-open the discussion was completely acceptable - but that sneaking your comments inside the archive was the problem. Holy fucking hell. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 17:33, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I was talking to Dennis, who had said further up the page: "Because his reverts were done in an administrative capacity, not an editorial one, that would not be covered by Involved." Seriously, chill out: I'm not impugning your character or saying that you're a horrible person or even that you knowingly misused tools. I'm not building an arb case behind your back or anything of the sort. It's just that you just made, in my estimation, a poor call, and I wanted to explain why I thought it was poor. It happens to everyone. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 18:03, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, your unblock log still impugns my character - and you're still claiming (based on all the evidence) that I was involved - so yeah, still impugning. If I made a poor call, it was not based on being involved. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 18:08, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yeah, Writ, your notification on PS's page still says it's because I was "involved" - and you've seen the BS that incorrect statement has caused today. So, go clean up your shit, please - as those things (written by you) are indeed impugning my character (✉→BWilkins←✎) 19:02, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You may want to look at this discussion here: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#New_proposal_for_admins PumpkinSky talk 11:46, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Humourous. Thank you - I needed that. You clearly have zero understanding of what actually happened last night. There was also no such consensus at ANI. Biiiggggg stretch to go from what REALLY happened to accusations of admin impropriety. Your little accusation that Jmh is my friend will be the part that bites you in the ass on this one, as it's proof that your incorrect assumptions led, in part, to your actions. Good luck though. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 11:52, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And your response shows you have zero understanding of the error of your ways. Thanks for proving that there are serious issues with today's admins corps. PumpkinSky talk

I'm always first in line to admit to my errors when I make them. Based on the FACTS in this case, I clearly did not make an error in this situation, and your actions since are merely serving to prove me right. Thanks for that. Now, since you're willing to stop flogging the equine, I'll ask you to not revisit this talkpage until you've taken at least 2 weeks to review my statements, your personal assumptions, and of course you'll want to thank me for saving your ass from what was likely going to be a much longer block by some other admin. Until you reach that point, do not return here. Cheers (✉→BWilkins←✎) 12:23, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Was disappointed by your decline request & to be honest was very offended by the uncivil editor remark. I have tried to maintain as much civility as possible with other editors. 1 guy gets on my nerves & both of us shoot off at each other. If you look at the other editor Abhishek191288,he has been having several uncivilized conversations with several others, has also engaged in edit warring, has admitted to it but gets away with a pep talk.

He has even refused to accept to Government of India notification as a reliable source of information. Take a look at Surat Railway station & Mumbai Rajdhani page main images. For sometime the exact same image was posted there & despite explaining in detail why the particular image was incorrect, he still refuses to accept it. What do you suggest i do with such a person because talking to him is of no use or there is a way to explain how the Great Eastern royale building (in the background)in Tardeo area of Mumbai got transported to Surat ?? Perhaps there is a way to explain how Mumbai Central & Surat railway station have identical layouts. Problem is i cant explain it & it is pointless asking someone who's ego is offended by superior work. If as he claims they are irrelevant then why except him is no one removing them.

He has been targeting my uploads but it puzzles me that when i undo them, i get blocked, he does it he gets a pep talk. Can you please explain it to me because i cant see any reason for it. As far as ownership of articles is concerned,i have long accepted that anyone from anywhere can edit anything but that is supposed to be based on facts not opinions. Besides i have made several offers to him to upload his work so that a impartial analysis of both our works can be done. I have yet to see a single upload in that direction but what i do see on his page is undone edits of various other people.

Fact in this case is that a building in Mumbai cannot be used to depict Surat,opinion is that lets revert the edit because i don't like the other person & he is uploading more images than me especially since i cant match him for quality & quantity. There is a small quote from a John Grisham novel If a witness is unshakeable on facts then beat him up with insignificant details which is exactly the case here. This is completely unacceptable. Help me understand why facts are superseding opinions here.

Had left a message for you on my talk page on 8th June. I do understand that that is not what you prefer but considering that i was not permitted to edit your talk page,it was the best that i could do. I have tried to be civil with everyone but i am only human. Superfast1111 (talk) 13:53, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You may have a point, but can you comment on whether you have also edited as User:Firefighter1675? Catfish Jim and the soapdish 15:10, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]