User talk:DangerousPanda

AWAYThis user is non-permanently away from Wikipedia as of March 25, 2009. This is because On assignment

Makes two of us

I wish you the best, including seldom having to deal with editors like me who can't explain anything or Victor whose pat response to everything is "I didn't know." My favorite - after another editor reverted his partial deletion to reverse its meaning of one of my comments, he accused me of making the edit from his account. "How did your content get posted from my account?" arimareiji (talk) 20:01, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

If that's not proof that the other editor "doesn't get it", then what is? He believes editing ARTICLES and editing TALK PAGES work the same way - he even admitted it. Hopefully, that's changed. (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 20:16, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

I've worked with more than a few people who really were slow to "get it." I can't recall a single one that sarcastically kept repeating variants of "Oh, now I understand" the instant someone corrected them on it. People who really don't get it... don't get that they don't get it. I hope that your short-term impression is right and my long-term impression is wrong, but only time will tell. arimareiji (talk) 20:26, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Your next step may indeed be an RFC, but I would encourage you to write it carefully, and actually show your AGF throughout. Jumping all over the guy for putting a heading (which actually was a great idea) where it slightly didn't belong was reallllllly a killer for your overall reputation (and your argument). (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 20:30, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Let me add ... if he WAS just being a WP:DICK, then moving that heading, and saying "good idea" would have stopped him cold, because that would have been being nice! :-) (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 20:34, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

If you mean an RFC about him, it's unlikely in the near future. Your beliefs aside, I have animus toward his actions and not to him personally. If you mean an RFC about the article, it's already filed - which is the reason he's now being sugar-sweet. If you looked beyond that surface, I believe you would see a VERY different aspect. And so it goes. arimareiji (talk) 21:49, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Just curious, after reading your close of EC's WQA (which I made a point to stay out of): Did you intend to assert that the resolution to Victor treating EC the same way he's treated me, Jwy before me, and others at the Charles Whitman page... is that Victor should open an RfC on me? That would be one of the most unique conclusions I've ever heard. arimareiji (talk) 15:48, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

The question wasn't meant rhetorically - I truly don't know whether you intended to assert that. That's how it seems to read, but I don't know whether that was how you meant it. arimareiji (talk) 16:51, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

To be honest, as you two appear to be well beyond any forms of WP:DR other than an RFC, I was pretty much saying "Fine Victor, if you think you have the evidence against Arima, then go ahead, put your money where your mouth is". So, yes, I was challenging him to put up or shut up ... much like I did with the possible Sockpuppet issue further down the page. I doubt he'll do it, because I don't think he has a way to "win", but it should put this issue to rest whether he does it or not...at the same time, I suggested highly that it will become a joint RFC including both of you, and that's one he cannot "win". (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 17:28, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough. I appreciate you answering an extremely difficult question; thank you. arimareiji (talk) 17:44, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

I try to be honest, fair and open. Note how I recommended that you stay away from him as well :-) (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 17:48, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

I am trying to avoid engaging him on the Talk page or indirectly engaging him through edits. But to avoid him altogether would amount to self-enforcing a topic ban. arimareiji (talk) 22:52, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

arimareiji

BMW, after all that went on in the etiquette discussion of me, and arimareiji's inability to stop and go on and on...would you please look at what has resummed on the Charles Whitman talk page?--Victor9876 (talk) 02:33, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

"My suggestion Wildhart, would be to report this guy for uncivil conduct re-re-re-re-peatedly. The etiqette page should show his propensity to deliberately antagonize a situation and Always have the last word, several times." (Victor)

Following this, Wildhartlivie manufactured a rationale that my asking her to stop insinuating I'm a sock is a "highly contentious and assaultive comment".

Feel free to ignore, if it's on my behalf. If it's on theirs, go ahead. arimareiji (talk) 04:40, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

The above user continually answers questions for other editors on the talk page, makes arguous and uncivil misinterpretations and as he did in the informal process he brought against me, will not, and apparently can not stifle himself. If anyone else wanted to come into the discussion, they may think they were accidently re-directed to examples of the "Tower of Babel" talk page.--Victor9876 (talk) 15:12, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Just as a matter of interest....

have you considered WP:RFA? You seem to deal quite calmly with foolish people. Guy (Help!) 10:44, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea to me. Let me know when you plan to go for it. Guettarda (talk) 03:36, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Patience

I feel this might have been a suggestion to me, but I don't understand what the recommendation would be. I've spent most of the time picking up my dropped jaw at what I've seen on the talk pages. (John User:Jwy talk) 15:40, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

... the comment was not about you ... it was related to the 2 editors who have been trying to out-urinate each other, and really have become an issue to the project overall (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 16:16, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Understood (I think). The phrase "overly patient editor" struck a chord with me. It has been quite a spectacle. Thanks for diving in (I can follow this thread here if it continues). (John User:Jwy talk) 16:19, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Ah, you mean where I recommend that he "also *stay away from* the editors who have tried to help in an overly patient manner"? Seeing as he began to harass Edit Centric, and cavassed me (and probably others) as well, I was trying to get him to stop the harassment. (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 16:25, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Ambiguity resolved. Instead of "stay away from," it could have been interpreted that I should start a RfC or something. (John User:Jwy talk) 16:30, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi there

I've decided that this entire thing is pretty ridiculous and that I have better ways to spend my time (e.g., graduating, volunteering with people who happen to cope with mental illness--people who don't appreciate being stigmatized). I don't belong to a fan website and wasn't aware that any "buttons had been posted to my profie." As I mentioned, the issue isn't whether the page is deleted; I'm concerned that particularly disingenuous information is being dispersed about someone and something that doesn't deserve it. It's an issue I feel strongly about.

Anyway, I'm incredibly disappointed that this wonderful project can be so easily manipulated by nefarious people. I won't be donating anymore money to this cause and I'll advise my friends, acquaintances, and print audience to do the same. Please advise me on how to delete my profile and information. I won't return. Thanks for your message (the delivery was delightful even if the message wasn't)! ;) —Preceding unsigned comment added by MikFantastik (talk • contribs) 16:06, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Mik, Wikipedia can be an odd place - it is, after all, a community. Just like your community, there are standards: calling people mental is not permitted. What you did to one person's Userpage is truly a bad thing. It was since fixed. I gave you both a welcome and a little warning - most editors have had more than 1 warning, and even some of the current admins have been blocked at some point in their Wikipedia career. Everyone has something to add - nothing is ever bad enough to turn around and insult, nor to lose any sleep over.

Take a day off. You have things to add to the Wikipedia project, and think about what they are. Glance at the policies I linked for you. You'll get a good feel of the flow around here, and someday you'll be doing the exact thing I'm doing, and you'll also have worked on and improved some great articles.

Let me know if I can help. (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 16:22, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

List of M.I.High Characters

I must say I disagree with your closure of this AfD. Procedurally, you are not an admin and I think only admins should be able to close contentious AfDs. This was clearly not a SNOW keep as there was a deal of straight "delete" votes. The closure also seemed like it had more to do with your personal opinion than that of the other editors. At the very best, no consensus was reached nor has ever been reached that "Lists are the preferred way of managing fictional characters" for all such lists. Please consider reopening it so that an administrator can close it properly. Thank you, Themfromspace (talk) 19:15, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate your note. I looked carefully at all the arguments. Remember, AfD is not a vote, it is the strength of the arguments that is vital. Certainly, the arguments posted by senior Wikipedia Administrators carry a strong degree of clout. There certainly was not a strong discussion to delete, especially when compared to the overall weight of the keep arguments. I have done many closures of AfD's ... and had minor complaints on a couple, all of which actually held up (one even at DRV). This could have stayed with "no consensus" which would, of course, have had the same effect as "keep". However, it does not take much (at least from an unbiased POV) to weigh the arguments. If you want to have it re-opened, contact an admin. Let me recommend one such as User:Gwen Gale. (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 21:06, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

I just passed this on to the admin you named with a request that he reopen the debate to have it be closed in the traditional manner (by an admin). Themfromspace (talk) 21:26, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

I have no issue with that. Even long-term editors are not immune from a second set of eyes on a decision, and will have no issues with an fair-thinking admin such as Gwen's decision. (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 21:43, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Per GG's comment at his talk page. I'm mostly doing this because I like to see AfD run its proper course. I don't believe AfDs should ever be closed by nonadmins, even in the case of WP:SNOW. All I'd like to see is that the AfD gets closed properly by an uninvolved admin (preferably without your commentary as you did on GG's talk page (diff not available; "database error"). You haven't gone through the scrutinizing RfA process which I believe enables editors to have the trust of the community necessary to close AfDs with delete votes. If it doesnt get closed by an admin, I'll take this to DRV to have its proper closure there. Themfromspace (talk) 22:26, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry for barging in but there is a community consensus that non-admins can close AfDs so long as they're not on the edge. Although I understand your thinking, you can't drape your own policy wishes onto this close: Saying you're not happy with a "keep" is one thing, saying you don't like the close because it wasn't done under a policy you wish would happen is pointy. Please think about this, thanks. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:47, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

As stated above, if this isn't properly closed by an admin, I'm taking it to DRV. A 10-6 vote isn't a snowball's chance in hell, and nonadmins shouldn't close non-SNOW keeps. This is Wikipedia consensus and if you browse over WP:AFD you'll see that this is the way it works in practise as well. I'll also note that you've had some trouble in the past about this with the Artivist Film Festival & Awards, which was eventually ruled at DRV to be no consensus, while you closed it as keep. Themfromspace (talk) 23:03, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Once again, RfA is not a vote. Read the strength of arguments, not the totals. I'm not sure about, or the accusations that I caused a error. I don't know what you want to gain from an "admin" closure rather than "non-admin", and I recommend you read the Admin's comments above. (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 23:56, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

For what it's worth it was a good close and had I commented in the discussion, I would have been yet another on the keep side.  :) Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 04:45, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

WP:ANI

Hello, DangerousPanda. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue you were involved with. The discussion is about the topic Disruptive editing by User:Ohconfucius and User:Tony1. Thank you. --— Dædαlus ^Contribs 23:15, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Hauskalainen problems

Hello Bwilkins. Hauskalainen problems, or so it appears,[1] being that Hauskalainen re-inserted a modification edit to one of my comments on the Right to keep and bear arms talk page using the same alias, per his edit summary. FYI.[2] He is continuing the false accusations, and soliciting meat puppets on DemocracyNow.org. Yaf (talk) 04:44, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

More accusations in violation of WP:AGF, constituting personal attacks, with false accusations of puppetry, with no filing of sockpuppet case, is going on here. Yaf (talk) 16:58, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry Bwilkins, but this guy needed the perspective check; Al Quesadilla?! Edit Centric (talk) 19:33, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

May I just state that the only part I had in this was to advise the user in question to submit his complaint through WP:EAR and not come to me under an alias. I dislike being given the moniker of "meatpuppet" as I have not acted in such a way at all. Howie ☎ 06:35, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Howie, thanks for the note. I will agree, the other user may have gone too far with his terms (however, the first user continually referred to them as a "sockpuppet", so I expect it was tit-for-tat). It doesn't excuse the behaviour, but explains it. The prime issue is that a user was told to either STOP calling people socks, or file the SSP. They then created a second account so that they could continue the name-calling, and then canvassed. I have no dog in the fight, except as can be found in the WP:WQA report on the editors regular account. (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 09:57, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of John R. Palmer

I have nominated John R. Palmer, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John R. Palmer. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. -Elmer Clark (talk) 04:55, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Done, thanks. (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 18:17, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Deletion review for List of M.I.High Characters

An editor has asked for a deletion review of List of M.I.High Characters. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedy-deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Gavin Collins (talk) 17:39, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Done, thanks (see discussion above) (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 18:18, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Death by Wikipedia

Hello, I posted an RfA question for Valley2city regarding Death by Wikipedia because of their own involvement, but as it also indirectly refers via Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Death by wikipedia to you, I thought I better let you know.--Tikiwont (talk) 18:55, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

As I'm already here, some suggestions, if you close AfDs:

1. Please check the edit histories to avoid e.g. that you just handle the redirect (happens also often to admins who use a closing script),
2. In case of outcome as merge be explicit in the closure about the proceeding (in simple cases I prefer a rough merge by e.g creating a section at the target inviting interested editors to refine it, which assures that some merge takes place; if you rather want to leave it up to other editors, say so and use the {{afd-mergeto}} tag,
3. Leave articles some time in your watch list to see whether tags are changed or removed, merges are done or deleted stuff is recreated, especially if the topic is controversial.

Happy editing--Tikiwont (talk) 07:46, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate that. A few of the merge recommendations that I have done, I did the mergeto tags, but you're right, it's a nice "addition" to the close, making work easier for everyone else. (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 10:33, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikiquette

Out of curiosity, would you consider it an insult if someone told you that you were "specatularly unwelcome" and that you "coddle disruptive users"? The Jade Knight (talk) 21:49, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, if he'd said "you're spectacularly unwelcome on Wikipedia/article X then it would be uncivil. And if there's any user who is not community-minded enough to realize that new users need extra loads of help, then they might not be suited for the Wikipedia community themselves :-) (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 21:56, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

I was thinking the same thing. These apply to User:Hipocrite, who seems to forget that DoDaCanaDa, while very WP:bold though ignorant, has been more than willing to learn and try to improve his edits; he has shown extensive willingness to learn (though he has much to learn), and we all need to remember to not bite the newbies. The Jade Knight (talk) 22:30, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

New Developments at Talk:Charles_Whitman

Hey BMW, could you bring another set of eyes over to the talk page, and let me know what you think here? Victor9876 messaged me earlier, regarding a newly created user account whose only edits are changes to edits that Victor9876 has made at the Charles Whitman and Gary Lavergne articles. Here, and here. Call me a worry wart, but this looks..well, odd. (I know, you'll see that I'm using that word a lot in this instance, but that's the best way I can describe it. The Whitman and Lavergne articles are related, btw.

Also, and this is what makes it even hinkier, why would new user Snipercraft post a request for arbitration on the article talk page, and then x-post it to JWY's talk page? Methinks there's something amiss here... Edit Centric (talk) 07:45, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Does sound a bit WP:DUCKish, doesn't it. However, was there even a block involved earlier? Are they actually logging in under both accounts right now in order to sway a vote? (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 10:30, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

No, I don't see that happening, but it is a bit strange. As the Snipercraft account is so new, and given the weird postings within the first 24 horas, it looks a lot like that other issue we saw at WQA, especially the accusation of SOCKS here since my last correspondence. (It looks like I might have shaken a tree, though...) Edit Centric (talk) 15:43, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Believe it or not, although I think the advent of Snipercraft's comments is more than a little odd, I can see a couple of ways it could be on the level. I simply don't know other than to say that he/she's good at editing, whether or not he/she's a sock or a banned user. It doesn't feel like John/Jwy at all, and it's definitely not me.

I don't know whether this will reach you in time, but I posted an open question to you at AN/I about whether you still feel the same way about Victor. It seems as likely as not that your response will be to refute me, but either way I would appreciate your input. arimareiji (talk) 09:39, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

my incivility

hauskalainen has wiped his talk page, so i'm unable to strikethrough my uncivil comments. so simply in passing, of course you're right. being randomly accused of being in a cabal, or colluding with other editors, practically sets my hair on fire, it's so intensely aggravating, particularly since it's impossible to prove such 'black helicopter' claims wrong. remaining civil while being pilloried by a wannabe joseph mccarthy is no easy task. Anastrophe (talk) 18:43, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Trust me, I know it's tough. (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 21:06, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

RE: Wow

Well, you deserve it, and I mean that. WQA is missing your input with you being on assignment, when ya comin' back? Edit Centric (talk) 06:16, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Scheduled to return the 7th :-) (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 11:08, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

New happenings

I apologise, BMW. Please see my userpage (not talk) for the details. Thanks again for all the help at WQA, you rock! Edit Centric (talk) 08:49, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

EC ... don't go disappearing: your help in WQA is appreciated more than you know! Maybe a couple of days off, then come back anew ... we'll let the others maintain the civlity for a few days! (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 11:07, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Will you accept an offer of mediation?

THe subject of mediation is to be your post at WQA, now interpreted as " he was admonished [3] for egging me on " by Greg_L [4] ? Reply on my page. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 13:17, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Mediation cannot proceed if one party [5] refuses. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 13:48, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Cuddlyable3, you will need to be a little clearer in your request. Please explain what my role is in some form of mediation. Am I the mediator? Am I the complainant? Am I one of the parties being complained against? You'll note that documentation on the WQA page that warns against taking action against the neutral volunteers who try and solve issues. Please provide additional information so that I may appropriately reply to the very unclear question. (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 14:40, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

You may be reassured that 1) you will be the only "complainee" and I the complainant. 2) Our discussion in a mediation will can be held confidential.Cuddlyable3 (talk) 15:00, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

No sir, secret kangaroo courts are not valid on Wikipedia. You're making a complaint against a neutral WQA response, with someone who had no desire to get into any additional "fight". I made a valid comment based on links provided. Should you wish to pursue this, it will be in the most public forum possible so that if there are issues related to WP:POINT or disruption, they will be fully on the record, and administrative actions can be taken based on the above. I have no issues with my activities being viewed by a second set of eyes. I have no responsibility for the actions that you took, nor am I responsible for how my valid comments in a WQA are being used - you must take that up with whoever is using them. If you wish to pursue mediation, it will likely be the shortest mediation in history - mediation is used to assist in a dispute between two parties - as I am in no dispute with you, what is the actual purpose? (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 15:12, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

If you want to seek adminship with your attitude above then you may have difficulties. Mediation is not as you say a "secret kangaroo court". In fact it is not a court at all and the only secrecy is whatever the persons involved and mediator agree shall be confidential. You may reject the offer of mediation, as your first word "No" indicates, and you know that you thereby rule out all possibility of mediation.

That done, your other text introduces remarkable ambivalence. You insist you have no issues with your activities being viewed "by a second set of eyes" but that is exactly what a mediator, whom you reject, provides. You predict "the shortest mediation in history" which is a strange view of a mediation that you prevent starting. Not only is that expression confusing, it would also make it difficult to believe any unqualified acceptance by you of mediation. Whether you "desire" or "like" to find that your activity has caused complaint is actually irrelevant to the complaint. Your claim that you have made only valid neutral response without responsibility is what I shall question. Your stance that you will seek "the most public forum possible" instead of a mediation that could resolve this subject quietly without fuss is on the record. as is your awareness of disruption liability. Your claim that you are not in dispute with me when you are informed that is exactly the case does not bode well for reaching understanding. Please do not salute me as "sir", rhetorically or otherwise. Also note that voluntary posts at WQA should be neutral, but that is not the same as claiming that whatever you post at WQA is by definition neutral and non-disruptive. In fact there is no ruling on the WQA page that "warns against taking action against volunteers" as you say, nor is there any such protected status for non-admin editors at WP:ANI, in case you believe you have such an immunity. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 20:16, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply in this commentary - I completely missed its addition, so I apologize for that. You are asking for mediation with me because someone else is misinterpreting a comment that I made. This means that your complaint is not with me, it is with the person who is doing the misinterpretation.

I have also noted that you refactored some above comments that were more than a month old on this page, and then admonished me for responding to your original meaning. That, my friend, is not appropriate, and I would strongly encourage you to not do that again.

Indeed, I believe at this point that I have humoured you more than is deserved - I am always open to answering questions, and am always open to discussion on my actions. As noted more than once now, your complaint is not with me. I will ask you to take your complaint up with the person who it belongs with. Indeed, you're probably far too late to do that, as the discussion should have taken place with the incident occurred as I first advised you.

It disgusts me that you even have the nerve to suggest that I believe I am in any way "protected", or that I have even stated such.

Due to my level of open-ness, I truly hate to suggest this, but I believe that it is necessary for me to ask that you no longer contact me regarding this issue that is not related to me. Your soapboxing above (after you have obviously misunderstood everything I have discussed) is misplaced - I'm not sure how many times I can tell you that.

If you have additional issues on Wikipedia that you require assistance with, then I will help, but I will no longer entertain you beating a horse that is not only long dead, but one that in fact never existed. (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 18:19, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Something you said

"Rule #1 on sock accusations: Put up or shut up. (i.e. file your WP:SSP or STFU) Rule #1 on edit warring: except for clear vandalism, no excuses. (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 00:54, 4 March 2009 (UTC)"

I like it, and I'd like to put it in my free advice section on my user page.--Tznkai (talk) 18:57, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Heh ... I'm glad you like it. We'll call it "BMW's First and other First Laws" LOL (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 19:02, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Since you brought it up...

Albeit on a different page, but still. I was wondering if you would accept a nomination for adminship. I know some people like to stay "normal" for reasons of their own so I thought I'd ask. Padillah (talk) 18:42, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, if you look a few threads above ... a similar question was asked. The short form is yes, if enough of my Wikipedia colleagues feel that I am suitable, I would put myself through the stress that is WP:AFD WP:RFA. (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 18:47, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I hope you mean WP:RFA. You don't want to be deleted, do you? Padillah (talk) 18:59, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

They're both just as stressful in their own way LOL (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 21:55, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

You might want to take a look at Bugs' RfA to get an idea of the amount of coals you are going to get raked over. I'm doing them one at a time so as soon as this is over with, I'll nominate you (if you've still got the guts). Please understand, I am not doing this as some sort of misguided assembly line of admins. I mentioned before and I will say it to anyone that asks I've always looked to you as an admin and see no reason why you shouldn't be one. Bugs' nomination aside. Padillah (talk) 12:43, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

One last chance. Do you really want to give everyone that hates you a reason to pick on you? Just laying it on the line. (I feel kinda bad for putting Bugs through that) But I do feel you would make a good admin. You've been very even-handed and you have appeared to be knowledgeable enough that most people think you're an admin in the first place. You not only deserve the mop, as a patroller of WQA your admonitions would carry more weight. But it's your frail ego at stake here, you tell me. Padillah (talk) 15:41, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

So, are you giving it up? I haven't heard a yes or no from you. Padillah (talk) 12:20, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Your comments on ANI

Please note my thoughts on your comments re Nadia Suleman as posted here. Risker (talk) 04:45, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

FromWP:BLP: Editors must take particular care adding biographical material about a living person to any Wikipedia page. None of my statements are being passed off as biographical material about a living person. If you would like, I could go and find properly sourced versions of those statements (they've been printed in a number of the papers I've written for - and many others), but that would be completely contrary with what I was trying to achieve with the original statement, wouldn't it? (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 09:11, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

(NB: I say the above out of total respect, and not attempting to be flippant. I readily take criticism, but appreciate things being kept in proper context. I was, indeed, supporting the inclusion of an article about a controversial individual (and their doctor) who both have performed highly controversial actions - I placed personal statements that have indeed also been made by sourcable/notable professionals. (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 11:00, 10 March 2009 (UTC))

Hello, DangerousPanda. You have new messages at Beantwo's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Beantwo (talk) 14:54, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

I am not veecort

If you care, I am an experienced accountless user who only edits from ips. My ip changes every few minutes due to the mobile phone. Veecort prob was edit warring but so was the other person Mcjeff. If you don't believe me thAt I'm not veecort, file a checkuser. If not, recant your accusations. because my ip changes so Much you won't be able to verify my history and wiki experience, so either trust me or CU —Preceding unsigned comment added by 32.155.195.251 (talk) 22:05, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

That's all fine then ... but continuing someone else's edit war under an IP address is not conducive to good editing, and looks fishy. It's still an edit war, and you became part of a tag team. (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 11:36, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

well, what can I say? I thought my revert was justified, otherwise I would not have done it. You call it continuing an edit war, yet you and mcjeff reverted too. I still think you all, including veecort, edit warred, but he got banned because y'all assumed I was him. Doesn't matter now, but in the future , there are mobile users who don't want accounts and whose ip change very often —Preceding unsigned comment added by 32.153.172.72 (talk) 00:41, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

...and my single edit was based on consensus, and based on the reality that one user clearly has an axe to grind. Indeed, there appears to be a conflict of interest on that article - and it's Veecort's COI. I've been ripped off in the past too, I just handled it differently. (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 09:31, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Alastairward and the noticeboard melodrama

To be honest with you, I've been emotionally drained by this user and think it's a disgrace you're expecting me to go through these lengths and find all relevant diffs. I just want to be able to positively contribute to WP's community without being constantly put on trial. Want an example? Check out the edit history for Red hair and ask yourself: was Alastairward ever involved with anything even close to the article's subject matter prior to me editing it? Another one: "If it's obvious, then tell me why" - learn to know him a bit and I'll be damned if you don't clearly see that he is playing straight out dumb. If I'll recall anything else, I'll let you know. NotAnotherAliGFan (talk) 16:36, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

If you're going to make accusations, you have to provide supporting diffs, else you're the one actually being disruptive ... (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 20:48, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

You don't seem to try and understand my point at all, do you? NotAnotherAliGFan (talk) 09:36, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

So far, I can't see any proof you're being hounded. The important part is that although someone else's actions may explain incivility, it will never excuse your incivility. Just like sports, the retaliation generally gets penalized harder. Show admins the proof you're being actually hounded, and the other party may actually get a wrist slapped too ... if you don't, it will be you and you alone. (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 10:16, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the welcome!

I appreciate your welcoming message and advice in response to my Wikiquette query. I'm afraid I took Sceptre's remark to someone else, along the lines of "Well you try to summarise it concisely!", too literally. :) But I'm still curious about whether he actually has the ability to block me, or whether that was an empty threat in the guise of an official communication from Wikipedia.

Kateorman (talk) 03:46, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Any editor on Wikipedia has the authority to remind other editors of the rules and policies of Wikipedia by using standardized Templates. They are to be used only when the specific policy has been, or may about to be broken. The standard template reminds the "offending" editor that their actions could be subject to administrative action, which includes blocks from Wikipedia. Of course, only administrators can block, but anybody can warn that you can be blocked. So, the short for is: that individual may or may not have the ability to block, but they have the right to warn that your actions could lead to blocks. (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 10:16, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply! tbh, I think the template is confusing: it looks like an official warning from an admin with a finger on the block button, when at least in this case it's a message from another editor. An explanation of the rules, even an angry one, would have been helpful; instead I received a threat. I have to confess it's put me off trying to make further edits: if the guy is so determined to defend "his" page, he's welcome to it! Anyway, thanks again for your help - much appreciated. And thanks for letting me grumble. :) Kateorman (talk) 11:42, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Admins also use the same templates ... of course, usually there are escalating levels of templating ... you probably got the wrong one - an editor was a little fast on the trigger finger. (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 17:45, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Can I suggest that official warning templates ("You WILL be blocked!") be reserved for admins? Surely as it stands, they're open to abuse by non-admins who want to intimidate others. Plus, if anyone can use them, that undercuts the authority of the admins. It's a bit as though I got a parking ticket from the police and left it on my neighbour's car. I can't really fine my neighbour, so it would only confuse and intimidate them; and when the police issued a genuine parking ticket, they might not take it seriously. Kateorman (talk) 21:21, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

(ec x3)

Please explain "(ec x3)". Thanks. Paul Beardsell (talk) 23:00, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

It means I tried to post the message, but I had an Edit Conflict (ec) three separate times (x3). (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 23:02, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

WQA

Hi BM, actually I have informed PBS about the WQA thread, I just did it at the article's talk page rather than his own user page. He has responded there already so he obviously knows about it. Gatoclass (talk) 09:59, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

(unrelated other WQA) OK, thanks. Rd232 ^talk 15:07, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Help?

Una has filed another ANI on me. You know the history. Need help. See here. Montanabw^(talk) 23:58, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

BMW, given that I am sort of under scrutiny right now, I don't feel comfortable taking much of what's going on to a formal procedure, but please take note of this, which involves another user altogether and I am not involved. Montanabw^(talk) 21:38, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

WQA revisited

I'm not sure how to discuss this without putting you on the defensive. I'm hoping this was all just a mistake.

You made me doubt the usefulness of WQA in your reply [6] to my request at WQA. I didn't look at your edit summary, which said, "can't see any diffs." Instead, I interpreted your comment, "I'm not seeing any incivility. Could you please provide diffs of the exact post where WP:NPA or WP:CIVIL was broken? " To mean you didn't see any incivility in the diff provided. I waited over 24 hours for replies. When yours was the only one, I gave up and haven't used WQA since, despite the need to do so on multiple occasions.

So, was this just a misunderstanding? --Ronz (talk) 00:43, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

The only diff you provided leads to this post: "Multiple people argued to keep this list in 4 AfD's. A few spam fighters can't seem to let it go. Why exactly are you here? If you don't like this list or its inclusion criteria, and are not interested in this topic, then please let those who are interested continue working. You haven't contributed anything to this article. So why are you here? It seems to be just a desire for more deletion. No, seriously, why are you here? You seem to follow Ronz around. When I bump into either of you, the other soon follows. See WP:Wikihounding and WP:TE. --Timeshifter (talk) 00:20, 17 February 2009 (UTC)". Can you show me where any of that paragraph is either a violation of WP:CIVIL or WP:NPA? All I was asking for is a diff where something actually violated those, because none of us who patrol WQA could see it using that one. (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 09:15, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply.

That's what I was afraid of. Everything in that comment other than the first sentence is uncivil. I've seen blocks for less when the behavior is consistent. This is the problem with our behavioral guidelines. The interpretations of them are often incompatible. I'm happy to explain further, but I think the situation is utterly, completely hopeless. We're unable to enforce behavioral guidelines because we can't agree on their interpretation. --Ronz (talk) 15:43, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

RKLawton

Regarding this comment [7]. There will be no needling on the part of me to try to "bait" RKLawton into any sort of incident. I never did that in the first place. Had RKLawton bothered to look up the meaning of "butthurt" he would have seen that it is in no way sexual or a personal attack. My AN/I was simply to point out, and have dealt with, an administrator blatantly violating policy and making personal attacks. Indeed not the behavior expected from an admin. He tried to label me as "disruptive" for making TWO edits. Again, not 10 or 20, but TWO. You can be assured that there was no, and will be no, picking a fight. SpartanSWAT10 (talk) 17:57, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

If the other person took it as an attack, and someone else agrees that it could have been one, then it's likely one. If I were you, I would be embarassed that the thread in ANI and on rklawton's talkpage have gone on for as long as they did - you stirred up more of a hornet's nest than was really deserved, IMHO. I'm not discounting that what rklawton said was improper, but you must be able to see that your comment could be taken improperly. (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 18:22, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

I offered him the chance to take the high road and remove his blatant personal attack. He chose instead to follow-up with a second personal attack. HE stirred up the hornets nest. I was simply reporting a violation of policy. Saying someone got huffy and butthurt is, in my opinion, no grounds for being upset. Saying that someone has limited mental capacity is. Interestingly, you'll see a similar pattern of behavior in rklawton's edits before and since. He also personally attacked another user involved in the discussion by calling her a drama queen. If you ask me, he shouldn't be an admin if he's so easily flustered and so quick to resort to namecalling. Regardless, as I said, there will be no, and was no, provocation or needling by me. SpartanSWAT10 (talk) 19:46, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't think "Drama queen" comes anywhere near being a personal attack. (Just as I don't think huffy and butthurt is one either). It's a bit rude but people need to be able to talk; I was somewhat rude to him too. One mistake does not a bad admin make, and despite his somewhat defensive stance I strongly suspect that he will take mine and others comments into consideration is will be unlikely to make similar comments in the future. The matter is over with. Theresa Knott | token threats 20:15, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Teenly

Wikipedia can be an impersonal enterprise at times, but there is a living being behing every pseudonymous Wikipedian. I do not know whether the passing of a human being whose path once crossed yours in a small way is a matter of concern to you; but in case it is, I am bringing THIS to your attention because you once made her happy, and for that I thank you. Fenneck (talk) 21:04, 10 April 2009 (UTC)