User talk:DangerousPanda

Note: please do not use talkback {{tb}} templates here unless you are referring to discussion areas that I have not yet been a part of; I do monitor my conversations

WTF

What do you make of this? WP:POINTy? Toddst1 (talk) 23:15, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm a bit surprised by that attitude from Floq, really. I'm more concerned about them telling a user to give up and leave the project - pretty uncivil really, but nothing worth paying any attention to yet (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:58, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

• Thanks, I see I may have been unclear. I'll rephrase. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:07, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Really? This was even remotely helpful? Last time I checked, nobody bullied the user involved ... lest not me! (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 18:41, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Slow edit war

I'm reverting dirsuptive edits by blocked user and its sockpuppets. What is the problem? --Enok (talk) 21:55, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Please, tell me what to do.--Enok (talk) 22:00, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Fountain

Hello Bwilkins! I wanted to thank you on behalf of Fountain for your understanding. I know you went out on a limb and I know you won't be disappointed. I would like to make one last appeal for just a little more generosity on your part--1 week is still a long time during the summer break. Please note subsequent to your decision that Fountain apologized to LHM and LHM accepted. Please see [1]. Now I agree that it should never have come to this in the first place. You see Fountain views me as an unofficial mentor, although I have told him I'm a crappy editor. I am partly to blame for this whole thing with my uncollegial editing and I regret it. Fountain is young, and can be implusive. We were all like that at one time. Appreciate anything you can do. – Lionel ^(talk) 00:12, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

• I was coming here to make a similar appeal. I feel like Fvk is genuine in his remorse, and would not have such a long block log were it not for both BelloWello's baiting and Fvk's own youthful impulsiveness that Lionel points out above. I would certainly support further reduction of the block, as it truly does seem that Fvk has grown through this experience, and will be more thoughtful going forward. I also fully understand if you feel it's necessary, for precedent or whatever other reason, to maintain the block as it stands at one week. I only wanted to appeal for "clemency", you might say, given Fvk's sincere expressions of contrition, his two seemingly outstanding mentors, and his declared intention to make changes moving forward. Best regards, LHM 00:41, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

• I left a note on my talk page in response to your note, but to boil it down, I just wanted to make sure that you understood that FVK didn't violate 3RR, he only made a single revert to the article. You can read the full text of my reply (and my attempt to clarify) on my user talk page, thanks. -- Atama頭 00:57, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

• Excuse me for piling on. After mulling the situation last night and today, I had decided that I would shorten the block to 48 hours when I got home today. So, if you're agreeable to a shortened block, I'd be willing to be the one out on the limb for him and keep an eye on him for the rest of the week.--Kubigula (talk) 01:00, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

• Personally, I think that's a bad idea, you end up setting a precedent that has the ablity to be massively abused. From 1 month down to 7 days is, as the original blocking admin said, "the middle range of fair". Don't reward a history of bad behaviour with "getting off really easy". Give him the chance to properly read and learn over the next 5 days: 5 simple days. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:16, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

• If this were a straight 3RR violation, I would completely agree. However, as Atama notes, it's a less clear cut situation. In any event, I don't think a week's block is unfair, so if you disagee with shortening it any further, I will defer to your judgment as the admin who handled the unblock.--Kubigula (talk) 13:25, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

• Jclemens said that he initially chose 1 month automatically without thoroughly investigating the reasons for Fountain's blocks:

  "Jclemens also overlooks the fact that much of Fountainviewkid's block log comes from undoing the damage of an editor now banned, especially the last block in which FVK was suckered into a 3RR violation by BelloWello using a sockpuppet. --Kenatipo speak! 02:03, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

  You're correct--I did not see any obvious notation in the block log that such was the case, and I didn't investigate further, just picked the next increment of length. That sounds like grounds for a length reduction to me, but the first step is for FVK to understand why the block was placed (and I do hope I've been appropriately thorough) and place a relevant unblock template explaining the way to move forward from this point. Jclemens (talk) 02:16, 11 July 2011 (UTC)"

In light of that, shouldn't the current block be reduced from 7 days? Please? --Kenatipo ^speak! 14:38, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

In other words, if the initial block had been less than a month, then the subsequent block would probably be less than a week. Pretty please? --Kenatipo ^speak! 15:18, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

It takes 2 (or more) to edit-war, and it doesn't matter if the other party is banned, blocked, or vacationing in Hawaii. To be "suckered in" is either a massive lapse in judgement, or a midunderstanding of the policy to begin with. I think 7 days has become extremely fair - the editor CLEARLY has some additional insight to be gained - and it's almost only 4 days by now. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 16:24, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

I just wonder, in the history of Wikipedia, how many editors have been blocked for a month for doing one edit (in ten days) on an article that's under the normal 3RR rule. "Unorthodox" is one word for the block, I guess. --Kenatipo ^speak! 17:53, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

With all due respect, BW, all parties involved, including the aggrieved party, seem to favor a reduction. We know your position on the matter, it is reasonable, and I for one respect it. Noone wants to step on anyone's toes. But just for the sake of clarity: you would not actively oppose another admin if they changed Fountain's block while taking responsibility for said action? – Lionel ^(talk) 20:17, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

The original blocking admin has concurred with my findings - and your consensus involves very few people. My reduction of the block was based on a long reading of the situation, looking at diff's going WAY back, and was extremely generous. Yes, I would consider additional reductions to be WP:WHEEL, unless of course you're in the mood to take it to WP:ANI to get the consensus of a larger portion of the community to reduce the block by what, 2 days?. I'm personally not convinced that he understands WP:EW and WP:DR yet based on his repeated actions - what part of that is a challenge? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:59, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

But, Wilkins, you didn't look at FVK's most recent history (and neither did Clemens) following the lifting of his block on June 28 -- FVK was successfully limiting himself to 1RR on all articles. FVK's mentor, Atama, even told you this, but you didn't hear it. No one (I hope) is considering escalating this; I know I'm not. But, we won't know the damage done here until we know whether FVK will return; at the moment, he sounds discouraged. --Kenatipo ^speak! 16:01, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Can you help with some Wikimedia tech error?

The article on Joseph Smith, Jr. was moved to Joseph Smith. No real problem there, it was discussed and we all knew it. But somehow it got... stuck in permanent redirect to each version of itself. Now, there's no main article, only redirects to each other. An other Admin had tried to undo the change but got a wikimedia error. I don't know how good you are with the tools but I was hoping you could shed some light or know someone that can help. Thanks for trying. Padillah (talk) 13:05, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

I would bet that trying to restore 11,000+ edits is the problem ... (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 13:24, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

So would this go to ANI or is there a better place to request tech help? Padillah (talk) 15:40, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

WP:AN of course ... it may actually take someone with even higher powers to deal with it, and some of them monitor there too. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 16:25, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Trinidad and Tobago - biodiversity

On the page for Trinidad and Tobago, the new section added today on "Biodiversity" was deleted with the comment "doesn't really belong in overview of country". Excuse me - I am new to Wikipedia - but information about biodiversity is on a lot of country pages. Ukraine is one of many examples. Sometimes the information is listed under a heading of "Biodiversity" or "Flora and fauna", sometimes these are subheadings beneath "Geography". Biodiversity is important for each country. Most countries of the world are signatories of the Rio Convention on biodiversity, so it seems a reasonable topic to include at individual country level. Biodiversity deals with all groups of organisms. Fungi are a separate biological kingdom not related to plants or animals, so if summary information about the plants or animals of a country can be put on a country, fungi too ought to be admissible. Rather commonly on country pages there is information about animals and plants, but information about fungi is absent owing to a lack of expertise. In the present case, Trinidad and Tobago, there was no information about any biodiversity. Adding information about fungi (unfortunately my expertise does not stretch further) is surely a step in the right direction. Maybe you would be kind enough to reconsider this action.Middgeaugh-Botteaugh (talk) 20:55, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

...and I will be removing it again. WP:BRD says you be bold with an edit, if it gets reverted, you then discuss. Nowhere does this say BRRD. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:10, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your interest in this matter. Did you notice, before removing the section, that it was not the same as before? It had been modified in an attempt to take on board the points you kindly raised. Thank you for your advice about the need for further discussion, and see the discussion page for Trinidad and Tobago for further comment.Middgeaugh-Botteaugh (talk) 16:03, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

The article you deleted

11:40, 13 July 2011 Bwilkins (talk | contribs) deleted "Alexander Voloshanovich" ‎ (G12: Unambiguous copyright infringement (CSDH))

Hi, Bwilkins. This reason per which you deleted the article seems to me to be not true enough. Every phrase in the article was reworded. Please restore the article. Psychiatrick (talk) 11:58, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

They still appear too close for comfort ... and I cannot even see any real notability for the individual. I would recommend a WP:USERSPACEDRAFT, ensure notability and WP:RS are met - check with a trusted editor to see if it's "ready for prime time" before moving it into articlespace (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:14, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

As far as I know, the deletion you made was not related to the issue of notability for the individual. However, his notability is obvious for all those who want to see the section Political abuse of psychiatry in the Soviet Union#The Working Commission to Investigate the Use of Psychiatry For Political Purposes. Psychiatrick (talk) 12:42, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

I'll say it slowly: the article and the source were still too close. I did not delete it for notability, I stated that notability was not at all apparent in order to assist you as you recreate it as a userspace draft. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 13:33, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

I am sorry I misunderstood your phrase “They still appear too close for comfort”… But anyway, I understand all its subtle connotations I would not imply if I were you. As of the source and the article, its content was reworded and was not copied from the source. In my opinion, when you deleted the article, you pushed the deletion button without comparing the source and the article. Thanks. Psychiatrick (talk) 14:22, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

I haven't looked at the article in question but you may want to read WP:Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing. Dougweller (talk) 14:42, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I’ve read WP:Close paraphrasing. But there are such phrases that are impossible or very difficult to reword. For instance, the source "Dr Alexander Voloshanovich: A Critic of the Political Misuse of Psychiatry in the USSR" (PDF). Psychiatric Bulletin. 4 (5): 70–71. 1980. doi:10.1192/pb.4.5.70. contains the phrase: “I was born of Russian parents in 1941 in Kharkov.” This phrase can be reworded only in two ways: “He was born in Kharkiv in 1941” and “He was born in 1941 in Kharkiv.” There is no more way to reword this phrase. One may not write: “His Russian parents gave birth to him in 1941 in Kharkiv.” The phrase reworded in this way sounds foolish. That is why from today I will try to use only Russian-language sources to avoid problems similar to those mentioned above. I suppose the administrators of the English Wikipedia themselves will soon study the Russian language because of the problems they create for users. Smile. Psychiatrick (talk) 08:31, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

No Plan B Band

What happened here? Pkeets (talk) 12:54, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

One of them was deleted - it's non-notable band on it's own. The second one was setup as a redirect to the tour, which is the only thing that makes any sense. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 13:27, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

I seem to recall looking at this set up before and there were two No Plan B bands. Is that what you mean? This has left a dead end link in the Roger Daltrey article that needs to be resolved. Could you userfy me so I can look at what you've done with the articles? Pkeets (talk) 13:35, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

The Roger Daltrey article appears fixed, as someone change the link to No Plan B (band), which then redirects to the tour (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 14:25, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

The No Plan B band and tour articles should have been merged. If you notice, the later one repeated the earlier, which plagairized the main Daltrey article, and then added the tour info. The band article should be broader than the tour article, as the tour article only references one tour and not subsequent activities with Daltrey. Any related articles should be linked to the main Roger Daltrey article and listed in the Roger Daltrey template so they can be monitored. The band is on tour again this year. How are you going to organize this? A separate article for each tour and nothing on the band? Could I suggest moving the article to the band name instead? Pkeets (talk) 14:49, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

I've requested the move. Pkeets (talk) 03:55, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Re: "Nice to see you back"

Glad to be back! I think it is safe to say that I should be back to my old levels of activity now, as I have shrugged off enough of the illness to the point where I can manage full days of non-physical activity. Anyway just wanted to thank you for your kind comment. --Taelus (talk) 11:46, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice

but, can you explain what the cross-wiki link on the WP:Requests for permissions/Confirmed page is for ? My point of view was, that I have made many edits on the german wikipedia as I mentioned in the request. The admin could IMHO very easily verify my claim by clicking on the cross-wiki link and then grant me confirmation rights. Instead I get asked questions, which I had already answered in my request. So yes, maybe I became a bit impatient. You mentioned that my action might get perceived as circumventing policy and being a WP:DICK. My perception is that I could have been granted confirmation rights based on my work on the german wikipedia. Thanks --POVbrigand (talk) 12:16, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Remember that every project is individual, and has their own rules. It's even possible that an editor at another language has been kicked out over there, and want to come across to English Wikipedia to continue the same behaviours. In short, your editing at de.wikipedia really means nothign in the long run ... I sure as heck would not be able to follow any threads about you/created by you and/or validate the quality of your edits. (Other note: please keep talk talkpage conversations together in one place ...) (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:25, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't want to drag this topic. but ... For autoconfirmation you need 10 edits and I just had 2, after I requested confirmation I noticed that I already had 3 by editing the confirmation page. I wanted to be waived the other 7 and thought the cross-wiki link would enable an admin to do just that. I then waited patiently for almost a day. I got a question instead. After answering that question (and saving the page in between lines) I was nearly autoconfirmed already. Kindly check that my user page and my talk page were only edited once by me. Let's sum it up: 2 random edits + 1 request + (wait for a day) + 5 edits to answer + 1 user page + 1 talk page = 10 edits. I do not feel I circumvented any rules.

I understand from you reply that the cross-wiki link is not to look for reasons to grant confirmation before autoconfirmation. --POVbrigand (talk) 12:58, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Why would you wait a day? There's 99% of the articles on English Wikipedia that you can edit, why sit around waiting to edit one? That's the whole intent of the "autoconfirmed in 10 edits/x amount of time" - to ensure that the editor is going to be a somewhat positive contributor to the project. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 13:05, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

I honestly thought the confirmation would be a matter of minutes. The page I wanted to edit happened to be a semi-protected talk page. Had it not been semi-protected I would have been autoconfirmed without noticing. So my final request to you, please conclude whether you still have reason to believe that I circumvented any policy. I'll help you a bit with the answer, the maximum number of edits that could contribute to the circumvention "allegation" is 4 out of 10 . :-) --POVbrigand (talk) 13:20, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

I never said you did, I suggested that threatening to do so doesn't look good as an introduction to en.Wikipedia (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 13:22, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

I thought you did. You said: "Although I believe your sincerity in editing the English Wikipedia, starting off circumventing policy and acting like a bit of a WP:DICK is probably the wrong way to begin.". My impression was that _I_ was beginning the wrong way by circumvention the rules and being a WP:DICK, but you still had some faith in me. btw. I do not argue about the WP:DICK label. :-) --POVbrigand (talk) 13:32, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

talkpagelocked subpage

Is it intentional that User:Bwilkins/talkpagelocked contains (inside<nowikiw><nowikiw> markers) "Bwillkins" rather than "Bwilkins"? JamesBWatson (talk) 14:36, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

No ... probably a spelling error - and one I should fix! (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 14:55, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Book of Eli

Each section is treated as separate, for an example The Dark Knight is a GA and the cast are linked three times; in the intro, in the infobox and under casting, though not in the summary because they are linked in the casting section. G.I. Joe: The Rise of Cobra is also a GA, the cast are linked in the infobox, in the summary and in the cast section. I'm not going to go back and forth on this but linking the same thing twice in one sentence is overlink, as is linking Christopher Nolan three times in the Dark Knight infobox. Linking three times in one article is not. I see your name in my watchlist, and I know you're a good editor, but if you have a problem with this then it is a film project issue as this applies to every single film article so take it up there. Darrenhusted (talk) 20:33, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

That's actually a perfect example of what not to do. Current practice in the project is contrary to how it's supposed to work. As a fun example (I haven't tried it yet), run the articles in question through AWB...look how many overlinks it will want you to remove, and that portion is based 100% on policy. PS: Keep all discussions together on one page (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 20:43, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

User talk:محمد البكور

Just to let you know that I have unblocked this user. His latest request shows that he has read the Arabic versions of EW and BRD and understands what the problem was; also I was impressed that several of those he has been arguing with thought he should be unblocked. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 10:00, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Understanding was the key. Cheers! (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 20:09, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

WP:ANI

Why did you remove my comment here? --cc 09:46, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't see where I might have accidentally done that (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 09:55, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Ah yes, I had an edit conflict even though I was editing a completely different section. All you needed to do was look at the page history to see we both edited the page at the same time ... a little WP:AGF goes a long way (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 09:59, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

I just spotted that myself. MediaWiki never fails to surprise me. --cc 10:00, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Kingston University

If possible, can you please undo the last two edits on the page. We did have consensus to at least keep the majority of the information before Avanu showed up. His edit amounted to vandalism. :o) BETA 13:54, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Feel free to make request for protected edit on the talkpage of the article. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 14:00, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Possible Sockpuppet/Meatpuppet of ForeignServiceInstitute

It appears that there is a sockpuppet/meatpuppet of ForeignServiceInstitute that has been editing on various language pages, deleting links to a non-profit source of US government public domain language learning materials - you indef blocked this editor for a commercial name and legal threats a while back. The new user is Linguistic Science and I think he is editing under two IPs as well - 72.181.213.221 and 203.118.185.209. Account and IPs are single purpose editors on this topic. I believe he is using a VPN to post from two IPs, or maybe there is a meat puppet. Thanks Bevinbell 17:06, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

False accusation. I have no connection with ForeignServiceInstitute. The edits User:Bevinbell is so annoyed about were mistakes, and that's all. The edits I've made with this account are not single purpose, and neither were those I made while editing from a dyanmic IP range; I've edited a variety of topics, recently including (as an IP) Classification of Pygmy languages. You can ask Kwami about this, as he's familiar with my editing. Linguistic Science (talk) 01:01, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

HistoriaPolska

The user is blocked but I don't see a block template (the formal box) on his talk page. Am I simply too quick to comment on it, or were you getting to that? =) CycloneGU (talk) 18:10, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

You'll see a non-templated notification that includes the information he requires. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 18:12, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I saw that. I guess I'm used to seeing a big red box. =D CycloneGU (talk) 18:16, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

I hesitated to post this, but here's my opinion

In this post here on Talk:Nicki Minaj you referred to Ms. Minaj as a dogla, when you posted "doglas are hot". As I'm sure you know, this is a term that describes a particular hybrid animal so a 'dogla' is an animal or perhaps a thing but it is not a human being. I know you must have meant it as a joke, but even on a talkpage it could very well be construed as demeaning when one would use an animal term to describe a person. Shearonink (talk) 04:59, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

No matter which meaning you're attaching to it related to animals, the simple fact is that it's a common term in Trinidad to describe someone who is of mixed Afro- and Indo-Trinidadian. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 09:21, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Ah, well then. Shearonink (talk) 14:35, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Rationale for user block

A note: your explanation of by recent block (see my talk page) was rather arrogant and sarcastic. I don't think that's the best way to behave as an administrator who should judge such behaviours in other users. Ciao and good work. --'''Attilios''' (talk) 09:23, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

You mean my decline of your unblock request? It was neither arrogant nor sarcastic; indeed, anyone who thinks 8 reverts in 24hrs is ok and that they should be unblocked is probably the veritable definition of "arrogant" (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:55, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

See: you keep being arrogant. Instead of evaluating with clear mind what you wrote, you throw the ball against me. I never said what I did was OK: if I'm stupid or arrogant first, however, this does not save what you write from being impolite, arrogant or sarcastic. --'''Attilios''' (talk) 15:32, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm not being arrogant, impolite or sarcastic. You're working yourself into a tizzy, and seeing as your block quite nicely has expired, you're better off actually going out and making some positive edits to this project, rather than misrepresenting the rather gentle-yet-firm comments left in an unblock decline. I do have your talkpage on my watchlist - additional actions remotely similar to the ones that led to your block will not be well-received by anyone on this project. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 15:41, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Deleting of Verax NMS article

Hi Bwilkins. May I keep working on this article in my userspace ?--Timeport101 (talk) 13:38, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

It would appear that last time you did that, you decided to move it into articlespace without verifying that it was ready. Do you work for the company? Do you understand WP:PROMO? Do you understand WP:RS? Do you understand WP:NOTDIRECTORY? I have "salted" the article title to prevent its recreation in articlespace. If you do not have WP:COI, and think you can actually follow policy this time and create an article that shows any form of notability, and is not advertising, you may try, but there does not appear to be anything of note about this product. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 13:47, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Should users be allowed to remove current block notices?

Thank you for closing Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Should users be allowed to remove current block notices? Your closure is consistent with the consensus at Wikipedia talk:User pages/Archive 8#Block notices and BLANKING in September 2010.

Would you modify Wikipedia:User pages per your closure? The wording of the guideline was disputed here. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 17:57, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for making the change. I've also added a footnote to the guideline with links to the discussions for future reference. Cunard (talk) 18:10, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

• I'm afraid I quite strongly disagree with your close. After reading the discussion, I think if there was any consensus, it was in favour of users being allowed to remove current block notices. The opinions were split pretty much down the middle, but the arguments for forcing users to keep block notices on their talk page made little sense—they seemed easily countered by the suggestion that one just look in the talk page history or the block log, and that the notices are there for the information of the user rather than gawkers. Certainly it would be due diligence for any admin reviewing an unblock request to look at the block log and the history. What convinced me, though, and why I was about to close the discussion entirely the opposite way to you is that the vast majority of admins—who post block notices in the first place, review unblock requests and are responsible for enforcing this policy—were opposed to this requirement. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:46, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

  Agree with HJ, I'm shocked at the resulting closure. Eagles 24/7 (C) 18:51, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

  And I agree with HJ and Eagles. Please see Wikipedia talk:User pages#Removal of current block notices.
  — V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 20:21, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

  It's understandable if you don't really value my opinion too highly, but I'll say that I, too, can't see how you found consensus for this outcome from the discussion. At the very least, please consider changing your close to "no consensus"; I'd still disagree, but I wouldn't complain. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:32, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

• As someone with no preference either way (I came across this when I noticed what seemed like a potential edit war on the the guideline page), I'm afraid I agree with others who are concerned about this close. "No consensus" appears to be a more appropriate evaluation of the discussion. I hope you will consider modifying your close based on this feedback. With a "no consensus" close, I believe the language of the section should be restored to the wording from this version that preceded the changes that led to the RfC and does does not specifically mention removal of block notices one way or the other. (Note: I will be making a similar comment to the discussions on the guideline talk page and at the the Administrators' noticeboard.) --RL0919 (talk) 23:28, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

I think maybe you must have missed something there. I see no consensus there for making editors keep block logs on their talk pages whilst blocked. If anything, I see a slight consensus the other way, or no consensus at all. Gwen Gale (talk) 00:52, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

From what I read, and the actual arguments put forward, with only some weight as to "type" and "duration" of user experience, it was a slight consensus to close the way I did. I believe I admitted the closeness in my closing statement. Realistically, in the long run, is this something that hurts the project? Does it possibly have a benefit? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 08:59, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Prohibiting users from removing block notices will lead to pointless edit warring over talk pages and is basically a "license to grave dance". If you are going to close a discussion counter to the slight majority in the other direction, you need a really strong rationale - and I don't see that here. A safer move would have been to refer it for further discussion. I can get behind the "block notices may not be removed when requesting an unblock" compromise that's been penciled in to UP. In other cases - for example, if the blocked user just wants to blank their talk page to "blow off some steam" and come back in a few days after the block has expired, or retire altogether after an indefinite block - I see no reason or benefit to prohibiting removal when the interface is just as effective at communicating information about the block to other users. –xeno^talk 12:21, 26 July 2011 (UTC)