User talk:DangerousPanda

How will I know when my username has been changed so I can start editing again?

Have you submitted the request as you were advised? You need to file a request at WP:CHU, as per the directions. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:35, 15 November 2010 (UTC) It says that I should not make a request on that page how do I do this?? Please do let me know -thedubaipost —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thedubaipost (talk • contribs) 20:03, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Linkels Josy

I hope it doesn't look like I am wiki hounding this user at all, however I have all his pages on my watchlist and have gone around and cleaned all the pages he has added to his desired categories, more then likely, because of a bad cut and paste or wiki formatting. He has asked 2 people for help in his history here, [1] and [2] to which no one has replied, now he has also asked for an [review]. I do enjoy his editing summaries about being a fan of the UK, (Sarcasm) because UK editors are the only editors on the en.Wikipedia(Sarcasm). I just wanted to touch base with you since we both seem to trying to prod this user into proper usage of Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mcmatter (talk • contribs)

Sonicyouth86 twisting/misinterpreting your comments

Hi, sorry to bother you but User:Sonicyouth86 has been suggesting your comments at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ACybermud&action=historysubmit&diff=392880454&oldid=391910091 to User:Cybermud were directed at me also. I think your text is fairly unambiguous and it's clear exactly who you were talking about (afterall I was the first person to suggest Cybermud should drop his SP accusation in relation to User:NickLevinson so many of the comments wouldn't make sense if directed at me). Anyway, Sonicyouth86 is adamant that you were warning me, suggesting I should "read the comment by the administrator about your conduct" etc and refuses to listen to me due to the fact I've issued a warning on their talk page previously (though I also gave one to Cybermud). Therefore, assuming you weren't talking about me, please could you possibly make User:Sonicyouth86 aware of the facts of the matter? Apologies for bothering you with this, but I think it would be better to nip this in the bud now and obviously there's more chance they might listen to you than myself. Thanks--Shakehandsman (talk) 04:44, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Ok, all I'm finding are walls'o'text...you'll need to show me where exactly he's suggesting the comment applied to others. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:22, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Sorry I forgot the second link, he's making the statement it applies to others on his: talk page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Sonicyouth86#Misrepresenting_views.2Factions_of_others_.28aka_.22Wikipedia_according_to_Shakehandsman.22.29--Shakehandsman (talk) 15:36, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi, it really would be useful if you could take a look at this issue as the user is continuing with their disruptive behaviour and they might take notice of you. I know I forget the link before but I did provide it when you requested it. Many thanks.--Shakehandsman (talk) 01:57, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for clearing things up although I think you've made a small error. Your comments were actually directed at User:Cybermud, not User:Sonicyouth86. (I know it's confusing because both Cybermud and Sonicyouth86 had been misbehaving, particularly the later).--Shakehandsman (talk) 16:35, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Userspace draft: PIUG - 2

My most recent entry on having the Patent Information Users Group (PIUG) topic approved and moved to production has fallen off your current page again to your archive5 page.

I believe this entry should be ready to go based on my collaboration with TFOWR, who answered your call for feedback. TFOWR and I worked on "sourcing" as discussed on his talk archive page and my User talk page. In particular, I found an independent reference that covers the PIUG in support of much in the PIUG wiki article: Patent Users Group Celebrates 20 Years. Chemical and Engineering News, 86(23), 33-35 (June 9, 2008).

Is there anything else I can do besides be a "squeaky wheel?"

Tomwolff52 (talk) 21:22, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm torn. I acknowledge TFOWR's help, but at the same time, another admin says it fails WP:CORP badly. I'm rather on the fence. I'm not sure where you studied statistics, but I don't like those numbers if they're truly representative. I wonder if it's not a bad time to pump it over to the article incubator, get some kind of 3rd opinion. Let me contemplate after a coffee. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 09:24, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) It's been a while since I looked at this, and my memory isn't what it could be, so I'll need to revisit it. I do remember a lack of secondary sources when I looked last, however. Like Bwilkins, I'm caffeine-deficient right now. TFOWR 09:33, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

I would like to bring up a recent development that shows the esteem that PIUG is held by the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) and other patent professionals. Anthony Trippe, PIUG Chair, recently wrote about his interaction with USPTO Director David Kappos who initiated the conversation to request help from PIUG. The matter is described in detail by Mr. Trippe on his blog on Our Role in History:

"It turns out Director Kappos wanted our [PIUG] help. USPTO and EPO were working together on a Directive where the two organizations would develop a joint patent classification system. Both organizations would use the joint classification and it would form the basis for a system that could be used by all members of the IP5 and hopefully all of the patent offices of the world... [H]e asked if PIUG would be willing to write a letter of endorsement for the Directive and if I could speak with our colleagues in Europe about joining us for the endorsement and sending the letter to the President of the EPO [European Patent Office] as well... I reached out to Aalt van de Kuilen, the Chair of CEPIUG and asked if he would be willing to work on a letter with me. Aalt ... and I put the letter together, signed it and send it along to the USPTO and EPO."

The posting by Mr. Trippe includes several links to magazines and patent experts that report the directive and the endorsement and pledge by PIUG to partipate with the USPTO and EPO on the Directive.

I hope this development helps settle the question of the importance of PIUG in the patent world and that it is a legitimate subject for a WP article. I would really appreciate your further attention on the matter.

Tomwolff52 (talk) 14:15, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Marknutley

Good call. I blanked the whole NLT/uncivil mess and closed the ANI. Toddst1 (talk) 20:29, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Apparently I'm an idiot for having that perspective. Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts#Scott_MacDonald Toddst1 (talk) 22:05, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Nah, pretty sure you're not an idiot. Although WQA? Really? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 08:48, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I agree with Malleus that WQA is an utter waste of time. I've never been there but I'm willing to bet that over half of the complaints are things like "he called my edit crap, block him he's a big meanie!!!!!!!!!!!" Access Denied – talk to me 09:42, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

This might be mistaken as taunting (I'm sure it wasn't intended as such).[3] The user is upset and volatile, and picking him up like this sounds like "you can't resign because we fired your ass". Anyway, there's no reason why he can't decide, rather than meeting arbcom's requirements, he wants to retire from the project. I'm sure you didn't mean anything of the sort, but I hope you'll understand if I remove your comments and ask you to reconsider. If you decide to replace them, I'll not edit war with you.--Scott Mac 21:33, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm sure Mark knows I've nothing personal against him, and would not taunt him. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 21:35, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Right to Vanish

What exactly does the "right to vanish" allow for, then? Thanks. Andrew Parodi (talk) 17:19, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm sure you've read WP:RTV - especially the phrase "user talks per convention are almost never deleted" (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 20:26, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Could you clarify your comment on my talk page?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Hello. You posted this comment on my talk page [4]. I think you were referring to your comment here [5]. Maybe you could explain why you think that my "actions regarding that SPI filing were disruptive"? I was the accused party not the accusers who had no evidence for their accusations. From your comment here [6] I got the impression that you were addressing Cybermud and Shakehandsman who were saying what a wikihounder I am and planning which editors to accuse of sockpuppetry here [7]. Cybermud was suggesting user Nick Levinson and Shakehandsman was suggesting Slp1. I didn't participate in that discussion. If I misunderstood your comment

"As an outside party, I wanted to say that you've gone way overboard in your comments here. SPI filings are not for fishing as they take up huge personnel resources, and allowing one to continue if you're convinced that it does not apply is pretty bad faith. We have such a thing as dispute resolution, and a policy on WP:WIKIHOUNDING. If you're having issues with an editor, follow DR to the letter...and SPI is not part of it. Although I anticipate that you're an adult and are not likely to be prodded into apologizing, you might wish to use WP:Strikethrough to retract some of your worse commentary."

and it was actually addressed to me (although I really doesn't seem to apply to me) then I would like to apologize to you. Sonicyouth86 (talk) 16:36, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

The above comment, when it was made, was addressed to you and only you. You have since rudely and loudly advised others that it applied to them - it is to them you'll need to beg forgiveness. You never did strikethrough your comments as I advised. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 20:09, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

This comment [8]: "As an outside party, I wanted to say that you've gone way overboard in your comments here. SPI filings are not for fishing as they take up huge personnel resources, and allowing one to continue if you're convinced that it does not apply is pretty bad faith. We have such a thing as dispute resolution, and a policy on WP:WIKIHOUNDING. If you're having issues with an editor, follow DR to the letter...and SPI is not part of it. Although I anticipate that you're an adult and are not likely to be prodded into apologizing, you might wish to use WP:Strikethrough to retract some of your worse commentary." was addressed to me?

I didn't file a an SPI report and I didn't even participate in that discussion between Cybermud and Shakehandsman. Even Shakehandsman says here [9] that you made "a small error" and that your comment was addressed to Cybermud. Cybermud is now using your comment on my talk page in a Wikiquette alert filed against him [10]. I didn't file an SPI report without having evidence. Cybermud did. There wasn't anything I could strike through in this section [11] on Cybermud's talk page because there was no comment of mine in that section. Sonicyouth86 (talk) 20:22, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi I think there is a misunderstanding here. Whilst User:Sonicyouth86 has indeed very much "rudely and loudly advised others that it applied to them" and should indeed seek forgiveness for the deliberate false statements, the original comment by Bwilkins regarding the SPI was actually directed at User:Cybermud rather than User:Sonicyouth86. This case can be quite confusing as we've got two parties who have both misbehaved in the past and I think Bwilkins has become uncertain as to who is who due to continuing poor conduct of Sonicyouth86.--Shakehandsman (talk) 20:31, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Shakehandsman, you have supported Cybermud's SPI case against me and Nick Levinson although you thought from the beginning that we were unrelated. Then you went on to speculate that I'm the "sock of an editor from the fathers' rights article" [12]. And then you singled out the administrator Slp1 of being the "most likely candidate" [13]. All this without having the tiniest piece of evidence. In your support of Cybermud's accusations you wrote something about me harassing and wikihounding Cybermud and this is why I told you to read Bwilkns' comment. Because he wrote: "We have such a thing as dispute resolution, and a policy on WP:WIKIHOUNDING. If you're having issues with an editor, follow DR to the letter...and SPI is not part of it"[14]. You supported the SPI report although you knew that Nick Levinson and I had nothing to do with each other (which you say here [15]) and on top of that you involved an administrator, Slp1, in your speculations about me being a "sockpuppet."

Please don't lecture me on "misbehaving" in the future. And please refrain from calling me "obvious sockpuppet" and "wikihounder" or any other offensive names [16].

Bwiklins, I just want to let you know that Cybermud is using your comment on my talk page which I and even Shakehandsman think was directed at Cybermud (and not me) as a way to besmirch me in a Wikiquette alert. I hope that you will read your original comment here in the midst of a conversation between Cybermud and Shakehandsman [17] and see that it couldn't have possibly been directed at me. Sonicyouth86 (talk) 21:18, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

At no point did I support any SPI in relation to Nick Levinson, on the contrary I was the first to raise objections to Nick being investigated and I did so in multiple places and I am now totally fed up of the number of times you have made false accusations on my part in this regard. As for Wikihounding, yes it is an offensive name but at the time of the warning every single one of your edits involved following around Cybermud so that's exactly what it was, I was simply calling a spade a spade. Given your continued conduct a warning is perhaps even more justified and needed, though in fairness perhaps all your repeated false statements and belittling headings are more a form of harassment now than Wikihounding per se. --Shakehandsman (talk) 21:46, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Shakehandsman, I am asking you for the last time to stop calling me "wikihounder," "obvious sockpuppet" and now "harasser."

Reading comprehension is a useful thing to have. Cybermud filed the SPI case against me and Nick Levinson without having any evidence. You supported that case (which automatically included Nick Levinson) despite the fact that you repeatedly wrote that you thought Nick Levinson and I were unrelated. ON TOP OF THAT, you continued your unsubstantiated speculations about me being an "obvious sockpuppet" of "an editor from the fathers' rights movement" and included an administrator, Slp1, in your speculations [18]. Please stop with your name calling and with your sanctimonious indignation about "false statements." Sonicyouth86 (talk) 22:07, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes my reading comprehension is fine. In fact it's so good I can see that second to last quote above doesn't even exist anywhere. As for admins, they're not immune from engaging in Sockpuppetry and I haven't accused anyone anyway. Talking of admins and reading comprehension, Bwilkins is one such admin and his statement with regards to you is that you've "rudely and loudly advised others" that his warning to Cybermud applied to myself. His advice to you was that "you'll need to beg forgiveness" from such parties.--Shakehandsman (talk) 23:37, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Reading comprehension is a VERY useful thing to have. You have engaged in unsubstantiated speculations that administrator Slp1 or some other "editor from the fathers' rights article" might be a sockpuppet and related to me.[19] The link proves this, no matter how hard you deny it. Bwilkins stated that SPI filings aren't for fishing and supporting an SPI case when you know it doesn't apply is inappropriate [20]. IN MY OPINION, this applies to you since you've supported Cybermud's SPI report and even speculated that administrator Slp1 or other "editors from the fathers' rights article" are sockpuppets. As for reading comprehension: If something is applicable to you, it doesn't mean that it was addressed to you. Sonicyouth86 (talk) 10:23, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Your initial comment was, quite obviously, directed to me (it's on my talk page) and, given it's content/context, makes sense there. Besides responding to it there I've never referred to it again. SonicYouth has indeed referenced it since then in many contexts pretending it means many things about multiple editors. SonicYouth is establishing a long history of mischaracterizing edits and editors. While on the topic, I did strikethrough the only thing I feel was not quid pro quo or written in good faith, that is to say, the inclusion of User:Nick Levinson in the SPI, which I've also apologized for and explained several times now.--Cybermud (talk) 21:28, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Bwilkins, now that I, Shakahandsman, and even Cybermud himself have stated that your comment here [21] was "quite obviously" NOT directed at me but at Cybermud, I would greatly appreciate it if you could strike through you comment on my talk page or otherwise clarify it. I would also greatly appreciate it if you could go to the Wikiquette alerts and clarify that your comment on my talk page which Cybermud has used to besmirch me (although he admits here that your original comment was addressed to him) was a result of a misunderstanding. Sonicyouth86 (talk) 10:33, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Ok, so, what you want me to do is to actually go back to the original series of issues between the 3 of you. I will review all of the information, all of the interactions. If there's a hint of a key policy being broken, I will take action accordingly on any of the 3 of you. In other words, I won't just strike, I'll revisit the entire issue from the start. Is this what you wish? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:46, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for replying. I know that administrators are busy and I'm sorry that you have to waste your time on this but I would like this obvious and to me very frustrating misunderstanding to be corrected.

You don't have to revisit the issue from the start. All you need to do is go back to this one comment [22] of yours in this section [23] on Cybermud's talk page. I would like you to clarify if that one comment was addressed to Cybermud or me. That's all. As I, Shakehandsman, and Cybermud have pointed out to you, your comment was obviously NOT directed at me. Yet on my talk page your wrote [24] that your original comment on Cybermud's talk page was addressed to ME which was obviously not the case. *I* didn't file an SPI case without having evidence; Cybermud did. Shakehandsman supported it although he said from the beginning that Nick Levinson and I were unrelated. I was the accused party (together with Nick Levinson).

I would greatly appreciate it if you could strike through or correct your comment on my talk page [25].

Cybermud has taken advantage of this misunderstanding and has posted your comment in which you confuse me with him on the Wikiquette alerts page saying that your warning is proof of my "bad" behavior. This although he ADMITS that you confused me with him in that comment. Sonicyouth86 (talk) 17:33, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

It's not that I'm busy. Like I said above, if I am going to revisit something in order to retract something, then I'm going to go back through the entire indicent. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 17:45, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Actually Sonicyouth86 is correct in saying that a strike-thru is required for a small portion of your text. Most of what he says is false, but he is absolutely right on one point and I don't think anyone disagrees with him there. However, I would actually favour a wider investigation anyway - all we have at the moment is a Wikiqette alert in relation to Cybermud, when in reality his behaviour editing is now much improved thanks to your previous warning (and perhaps due to guidance on my part). Sonicyouth86 on the other hand has not been at all receptive to any advice from anyone and this needs addressing. Anyway, many thanks for looking at this, it really does need to be resolved as it has dragged on for far too long.--Shakehandsman (talk) 17:53, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Okay. Please start with these three comments posted by Cybermud on the Adrea Dworkin talk page which started the entire episode: [26][27][28] Cybermud describes Dworkin as a “hideous looking Jabba the Hutt type woman” and states that “her nastiness certainly does qualify as a valid reason to doubt she was raped.” He continues to write something about “politically motivated rapes,” and “all men are rapists” and “blatant misandry” and things like that. I told Cybermud that I thought talk pages aren’t supposed to be used for such diatribes [29][30][31] and since then he has been insulting me.

Please check Shakehandsman's insistence on calling me names like "wikihounder," "obvious sockpuppet," and "harasser."[32] and notice how upset he gets when users accuse *him* of sockpuppetry [33]. Please also check other editors' comments that Shakehandsman's "editing pattern is to consistently add one-sided POV information to various articles (often unsourced and sometimes blatantly false information)" [34]. Also note his support of the SPI case filed against me despite the fact that he never believed that Nick Levinson and I were related and his unsusbstantiated accusation that daminnistrator Slp1 or other "editors from the fathers' rights article" might be sockpuppets [35]. For someone who is so averse to being on the receiving end of offensive accusations, it's interesting how much Shakahandsman enjoys doing the accusing.

Shakehandsman, please apologize to me ASP for calling me "wikihounder," "obvious sockpuppet," and "harasser." Your claims about my "false statements" are hypocritical at best given other users' comments about your conduct.

Bwilkins, I'd really appreciate it of you could clarify who your original comment was directed at rather sooner than later. Sonicyouth86 (talk) 18:40, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Sonicyouth86, you really shouldn't be seeking to direct any investigation, and bringing up brand new unrelated points from before you were even a member here really does not help. FYI I settled the dispute with Off2RioRob due to him issuing me with a full apology and retraction of every single one of his false allegations just as I had requested.--Shakehandsman (talk) 19:33, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Shakehandsman, I expect a full retraction and apology from you for every single one of your false allegations. The accusation that your "editing pattern is to consistently add one-sided POV information to various articles (often unsourced and sometimes blatantly false information)" [36] which was confirmed in a Administrators' Noticeboard case by several editors is anything but "false." Your unsubstantiated speculation that "editors from the fathers' rights article" and administrator Slp1 in particular are sockpuppets can be proven via diff [37]. The fact that you supported an SPI case which was for fishing is anything but "false." So... stop pestering me with your hypocritical indignation and your name calling.

Please apologize to me ASP for repeatedly calling me "obvious sockpuppet," "wikihounder," and "harasser." I think "vandal" was another of your personal attacks. Sonicyouth86 (talk) 21:16, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

I support a full investigation. I resent the idea that "my behavior is much improved" immensely, quite frankly. Behavior implies a far greater pattern of actions than exists on my part. I'm not being a drama queen, mischaracterizing any part of the history or blaming anyone for anything I've done. I have been upfront about every part of my interaction with everyone. SonicYouth, misrepresents other people every time SY refers to them. Probably a dozen times about me and my edits in this very thread. To save BWilkins the trouble of pointing it out I will openly acknowledge two things I did in error. First, reverting SY's first disruptive and argumentative edit calling me a "men's rights activist...with an axe to grind." Reverting it wasn't the right way to handle it. I use scripts to revert a lot of vandalism and the highlighting of SY's name in the history made me think it was the very first WP edit (when actually it was the second.) Which is besides the point that it wasn't vandalism per se and my use of the revert tool that called it such was ill-advised and lazy. Likewise I was cavalier in adding Nick Levinson to the SPI that was really all about SY (whom, for the record, I still believe is a sockpuppet.) Most of the rest of this is the direct result of SY's theatrics, dramatizations and repeated mis-characterizations of edits and editors.--Cybermud (talk) 01:03, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Cybermud, fair enough, my phrasing was poorly worded. I retract the statement and will strikethru it. My point should have been that you've made some mistakes previously but since Bwilkin's intervention you haven't put a foot wrong and you've apologised to Nick Levinson too. In other words you've taken notice of the advice you've been given. I think you've summed this up yourself better than I did. In fact the above comment is the best appraisal of the situation I've seen so far. Many thanks.--Shakehandsman (talk) 01:30, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Based on the above, I will not pursue or act any further. Positive agreement has been made. People are welcome to manually archive things from their talkpages accordingly - if as nothing else, it serves as a future warning that people (including admins) are watching, and that we are trying to help people to get along. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 18:39, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

template

I thin you were the first admin I saw using this, I went ahead and made it a template, whaddya think? Template:3questions Beeblebrox (talk) 23:33, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

You could always try Template:coiq which was made from my original userfied one (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 23:52, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Factocop

I imagine you're aware of the ANI discussion about Factocop being a sock:[38] I just wonder if it's appropriate to let his current block expire, or to extend it until they get a definitive checkuser answer? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:43, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

You wanna give him an aneurysm? It appears definitive, but I'm not extending the block - perhaps a comment in ANI to the effect of "if this is definitive, then his current 72 hr block for NPA/BATTLE needs to be extended" :-) (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:45, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

As I just noted on ANI, he's got a still-active partner in crime called BritishWatcher (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). That one was not mentioned in the SPI, but here[39] Blue is better indicates he is a sock of BritishWatcher, which he immediately reverted when he realized that he had given the game away. Factocopy naturally denies he's Blue is better, while he admits to being Pilgrimsquest. My take on this is that there's a whole lot o' sockin' goin' on. All of these guys have the same viewpoint and tendency to engage in battle with editors such as O Fenian. Not a sock. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:35, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Tobago spelling mods

Thanks for your note. Under most circumstances I do bother to take the time to advise editors when making changes to ensure consistent spelling - however.....on busy days, when it is a one-edit IP editor, I am afraid that the effort of writing a note exceeds the potential benefit !  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   11:57, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Question

When you say you're "no longer 100% convinced", I take this to mean you're thinking this is actually not SRQ, but rather a troll impersonating her. For some of the socks or all? From that large list of "suspected" IPs (where there is no edit overlap whatsoever) CU found "several"[40] of them to be operated by the same user that operated Sabra2 (talk · contribs) and UrbanCowboy12 (talk · contribs): since the wireless data concerning geolocation is "simply unreliable and should be disregarded", the CU recommended to "use behavior".

So let's look at some other socks for "duckiness". RiverDeepMountainHigh (talk · contribs) goes from obscure (and I mean obscure) articles that SRQ was either the prime or #2 editor for[41][42], then shows up to get in the middle of a debate (this time with Wildhartlivie and Crohnie) seemingly with no prior knowledge of the situation[43]. ILuvAMRadio (talk · contribs) had an odd thing for Charles Karel Bouley (with their third ever edit there in that known battleground for SRQ) and Christine Craft[44]. Makes a seemingly innocuous change of a word[45], but gets no reaction. So she elicits a reaction[46]. Of course, DocOfSoc predictably responds (exactly what SRQ wants), and the sock starts reverting her[47][48]. NeoNeuroGeek (talk · contribs) also liked the obscure Christine Craft article, but just couldn't help ripping into someone at another article who had just started editing there: guess who that person was? If you guessed DocOfSoc... you're right![49]

I don't know, B, I think either it's pretty obviously her; or an advanced form of troll has really done their homework. What's more likely: an editor with competence issues who vowed to keep editing here even though banned, who thinks she's improving the WP but can't resist her old targets, and who has a very clear history of stalking certain editors... or a troll having one giant laugh, fooling so many and framing poor SRQ (who is innocent of socking)? Pretty diabolical, especially when you consider they've managed to fool those that have had "significant non-positive interaction" with her: who do you think "best" knows how she operates after all those interactions over so much time? And how many editors do you think have actually had significant "positive" interaction with SRQ? It should be noted that while some feel that SRQ was "pushed" into her ban, she has a history of attacking and disparaging those she disagrees with that goes back years[50], and this sort of repeated behavior is really what got her banned. Cheers :> Doc talk 20:30, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

• Note - In lieu of a not "forthcoming" response to the above, here's an excerpt from one of the e-mails, in typical "point-by-point" response from her (so the "quote" in the beginning are my words)...

On Mon, Sep 6, 2010 at 10:20 PM, SkagitRiverQueen <email address NOT revealed here> wrote:

"Sue me if your lawyer thinks it's worth it". Law suits related to the internet are becoming more and more common, you know. And just so you know - I already talked to my lawyer today (not only is he my lawyer - and a very good, successful one at that - but he's a personal friend) and he believes there is definitely legal action that can be taken here. Now, I may not sue you personally (but I'm not saying I won't, either), but Wikipedia on the other hand...well, they are liable for the stuff their editors write as well as the stuff they refuse to remove, you know. And...in the end, Wikipedia could find you to be more trouble than you are worth if you don't do the right thing. It's quite simple, really. All you have to do is remove the statement in question. Are you sure you want to let your stubbornness be your guide, here?

This e-mail was sent by user "SkagitRiverQueen" on the English Wikipedia to user "Doc9871". It has been automatically delivered and the Wikimedia Foundation cannot be held responsible for its contents.

So who used the "email this user" function, and to issue a legal threat no less? Not I. Since mentions of her self-proclaimed on-wiki medical condition exist in many edits from several different users, I would suggest someone start "revdeleting" ASAP if she is to be taken seriously. But she revealed this herself here, and it ain't her full name, e-mail address or phone number. You can't "out" yourself... or can you? I don't believe there is any "legal" issue here at all. I never deleted the mention she demanded, and have yet to be served with any "legal papers". There has always has been an issue of competence with this editor, and this half-baked legal "threat" to me and WP only further demonstrates it. I won't even get into the blatant copyvios... Doc talk 23:46, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Questions

Hi, you made some accusations here. I would like to know who you are accusing of railroading, setting her up using a Verizon account and all the rest of the bad faith accusations you've made against editors. I am very upset by your accusations right now and I need to understand them better I think. If you want an email from me to show you my ISP, let me know, I have no problems being checked out about all of this. I just don't understand why you are treating editors in good standing like we are the way you are. Are we to ignore the vile things she puts on our pages that are unprovoked? I had no contact with her when she called me a cu@@, did I deserve that when I was talking to another IP on my talk page? I don't understand, so here I am asking for clarications because your words were hurtful and in my opinion uncalled for so please explain yourself so I can understand. Do you want us to leave and her to return? What exactly is your goal here with this rude smearing you just did? --CrohnieGal^Talk 11:27, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Crohnie, you're taking my comments far too personally. You might even be taking Wikipedia as a whole too personally. I made no direct accusations, but I can guarantee that there are many people whose hands are not as clean as they are pretending to be. You might just be becoming the victim of someone's likely good faith attempts to help you, but they went too far. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:33, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Re: "no talkback"

I'm afraid that I didn't see your talkpage edit-notice (the only place your request is visible, so far as I can tell) because I used Twinkle to leave the {{talkback}} template, so never saw an edit screen. I apologise for this fault in the Twinkle software. Incidentally, for someone who recently objected to incivility... [51] Also, reply at ANI. ╟─TreasuryTag►First Secretary of State─╢ 13:17, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you, very much, Bwilkins, for your helpful and very wise and astute comments at ANI. Most appreciated. I hope you are doing well. ;) Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 15:46, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

No issues Cirt. Sometimes I just shake my head :-) (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 13:14, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Explanation about CSD

You declined the speedy deletion of User:Expedrium, because it was "Not unambiguously promotional". G11 was not the only reason I had. See this; it was also a copyvio of http://www.elance.com/s/expedrium/. Goodvac (talk) 19:27, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, you cannot place two CSD tags on an article. The second will be automatically discarded. If the user is the same person and the website, what's the issue? There's no copyvio ... (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 20:08, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

I thought it was common practice to use two CSD tags if they were applicable. I could have used {{db-multiple}}. Nowhere does it say that the website has given permission for the content to be used. It doesn't matter who Expedrium (talk · contribs) is. Goodvac (talk) 20:16, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Never mind. Beeblebrox (talk · contribs) deleted it. Goodvac (talk) 23:19, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

It seems to be widely believed that you can't put two CSD tags on a article, but I know of no guideline or policy that says you can't, and nor am I aware of any common-sense reason not to. I am certainly happy to accept two or more, and off hand i don't remember ever before coming across an admin who thinks it shouldn't be done. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:51, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Seconded. I usually place as my reason the most egregious violation (copyvio pretty much trumps all) when deleting, but thats why db-multiple exists. Syrthiss (talk) 13:53, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Mistake?

I wonder if you made some mistake in this edit, since the link you give produces a blank. Simply Special:Contributions/Jpullokaran gives a more meaningful result, perhaps the one you intended? JamesBWatson (talk) 13:54, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Probably true ... link generation from my work computer can be a challenge. Feel free to fix on my behalf! (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 14:05, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Toys out of the pram...

User talk:Dr. Blofeld - obviously not the sort of person who can listen to criticism...  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 22:56, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

No, and it's pretty mild criticism to say the least. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 23:00, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

As a courtesy note, your block of Dr. Blofield is being discussed at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Blocked. Cheers, Resolute 00:25, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

I think the discussion there is leaning towards consensus to unblock, but wanted to notify you and see if you wanted to add more comments prior to taking action. Thanks.

My position, as stated there, was that the block was reasonable under the circumstances, but I support an unblock in the wider context including ANI discussions he participated in and other comments. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 02:50, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Cheers to both Resolute and GWH for letting me know, and associated comments. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:51, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Superb summary [52], BTW. Toddst1 (talk) 11:57, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. It was 4AM and the coffee had not brewed yet :-) (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:01, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Unblock request from Carbine

I see you have commented at User talk:Carbine. My inclination is to unblock and then keep an eye on the editor for a while, per Wikipedia:ROPE. It may well be true that after four years the editor has changed, especially if they are young. At 18 I was very different than I was at 14. Of course they may not have changed, but if so it will soon become evident, and reblocking will be in order. What do you think? JamesBWatson (talk) 12:23, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

I was actually trying to see if perhaps they would have provided any information about other editing while they have been away from Wikipedia on enforced vacation. WP:ROPE can be good. Your call. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 15:37, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Civility

Respectfully, would you please take note of this User_talk:NYyankees51#Recent_Deletion but also please give the user a chance to retract his latest comments before interceding? Hopefully it will be the last time he harasses the other user... Update: Apparently it went to ANI and another admin imposed a 24-hour block. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 16:03, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Factocop redux?

Hi BW. Could you please have a look at 212.242.202.41 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)? I have just blocked it for a week as block evasion by Factocop (talk · contribs) (or whatever the sockmaster is called), but a second opinion couldn't hurt. Favonian (talk) 19:52, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

I think your correct in your belief that it is a sock of Factocop. Mo ainm~Talk 19:53, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

FYI

Hello Bwilkins. Could you look at Blood on the Dance Floor (group)? I'm letting you know since you've salted Blood on the Dance Floor (band). In my opinion this should be discussed properly, the band seems to be quite well known (I found some sources even in the Czech language :)) --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 15:34, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

USER: SPARTAN

As you could of seen on the Admin incident page, the person who was on my account ( I still don't know who ) was on it for the duration while I was away from the computer, so I'm pretty sure they were the ones that were talking to User: Ryan_Postlethwaite. I won't stop pursuing this. Here is the full extent of what happened as I explained to Shell Kinney (arbitration committee) by email. I haven't gotten a reply yet so I might as well share the full extent of what I told her. Essentially, it's happened before in March 2009, when I'm not sure but I think someone must of been on my computer. Last year (2009-10) I was in a dorm style room, so what I meant by "trolls" was I thought someone was going onto my account when I was not there, because at the time my computer wasn't protected very well, it had no password to get into, so I think someone, possibly my roommate thought they were being funny when they were replying to people in Swedish. I'm living on my own now and I of course, have better password standards so it pretty much guarantees no one else can go into my account. I'm using this IP address so I can make sure it gets resolved rather than solely on the Spartan account, since it doesn't really let me go anywhere else. Hope to hear from you soon, 96.50.86.207 (talk) 19:59, 21 November 2010 (UTC)