Tariqabjotu (talk | contribs) →Pudeo's block: + reply |
DangerousPanda (talk | contribs) →Pudeo's block: go ahead then |
||
Line 308: | Line 308: | ||
:::I was just pointing out my block overturn as a courtesy, and just expected you to mentally acknowledge your mistake and move on without responding. But given the way you have treated me, Anthonyhcole, and OrangesRyellow for politely, and rightfully, challenging your judgement, absent an acknowledgement right now that the block was unwarranted and that you'll drop the matter, I am eager to bring this matter to ANI for confirmation of the impropriety of the block and admonishment of your tone here. -- '''[[User:Tariqabjotu|<font color="black">tariq</font><font color="gray">abjotu</font>]]''' 18:32, 15 July 2013 (UTC) |
:::I was just pointing out my block overturn as a courtesy, and just expected you to mentally acknowledge your mistake and move on without responding. But given the way you have treated me, Anthonyhcole, and OrangesRyellow for politely, and rightfully, challenging your judgement, absent an acknowledgement right now that the block was unwarranted and that you'll drop the matter, I am eager to bring this matter to ANI for confirmation of the impropriety of the block and admonishment of your tone here. -- '''[[User:Tariqabjotu|<font color="black">tariq</font><font color="gray">abjotu</font>]]''' 18:32, 15 July 2013 (UTC) |
||
:::: [[User:Tariqabjotu|Tariq]], first, I appreciate your arrival. Even reviewing your statements above, I still see a far different possibility as to what happened, and it's one that actually makes more sense overall without any conjecture. That is, of course, my point of view having reviewed the entire sequence of events a half dozen times - including 4 more times today. So, it seems that we differ on the interpretation of what happens - and you know what, that's ok. |
|||
:::: Above all else, I am not at all averse to your unblocking - if it was indeed as you see it, then we'll never have a similar situation again from this user, and that's awesome. If I was right, we've either corrected the behaviour (which is the goal of a block), or you've given them enough [[WP:ROPE]]. I will have faith in you that it's the former (i.e. you're right, and I'm wrong). |
|||
:::: The problem seems to be now between ''us'' - which surprises me. You see, I dislike admins trashing other admins. Your unblock was based on your ''belief'' (which I still disagree with), but you trashed me and the blocking admin in your unblock - that's 100% inappropriate. It's ''your belief'' that the block was unwarranted - I still disagree. Was it possible to phrase your unblock in such a away that you ''didn't'' trash people? Of course - an ounce of [[WP:AGF]] with something such as "although I can possibly understand the POV of X and Y, it's my belief that...". Maybe the word "disgusting" was a bit beyond, but with some of the sickening things going on across this project, I'm literally becoming disgusted. |
|||
:::: So, I have '''never''' treated you poorly - whatsoever. Did I want you to know that I was appalled by your choice of words? Damned right. Do we disagree? Clearly, yes - but that's human nature. Have I attacked you? Nope. Have I treated you poorly? Nope. I expressed my '''personal''' feeling about what your wording did - hoping that you'd choose more neutral wording next time. |
|||
:::: In terms of the other 2 editors you mention, they came right here to attack - there was no politeness whatsoever, and they showed zero [[WP:AGF|good faith]] whatsoever. They had no business approaching me in the manner they did. Indeed, when I'm simply waiting for you to advise me why you used such an inflammatory unblock request, I was lambasted - not cool, not kosher. |
|||
:::: I have no idea what you mean by "my tone here" - I felt attacked by you, and then was literally attacked by 2 editors while I was trying to understand why you did what you did to me; I'm pretty sure I'm allowed to have a bit of a "tone" after that, if you consider my original shock/disbelief as a "tone". |
|||
:::: So yes, it's possible that a whole whack of people fucked up. However, there are two victims: the now-unblocked editor and me...and you're sitting there saying that I'm supposed to have ''accepted'' unwarranted attacks and still be a victim. Fantastic. Go ahead, take it to ANI ([[User talk:Bwilkins|✉→]]<span style="font-family:Forte, cursive, sans-serif;color:black">[[User:Bwilkins|BWilkins]]</span>[[Special:Contributions/Bwilkins|←✎]]) 19:27, 15 July 2013 (UTC) |
Revision as of 19:27, 15 July 2013
A little help
Was disappointed by your decline request & to be honest was very offended by the uncivil editor remark. I have tried to maintain as much civility as possible with other editors. 1 guy gets on my nerves & both of us shoot off at each other. If you look at the other editor Abhishek191288,he has been having several uncivilized conversations with several others, has also engaged in edit warring, has admitted to it but gets away with a pep talk.
He has even refused to accept to Government of India notification as a reliable source of information. Take a look at Surat Railway station & Mumbai Rajdhani page main images. For sometime the exact same image was posted there & despite explaining in detail why the particular image was incorrect, he still refuses to accept it. What do you suggest i do with such a person because talking to him is of no use or there is a way to explain how the Great Eastern royale building (in the background)in Tardeo area of Mumbai got transported to Surat ?? Perhaps there is a way to explain how Mumbai Central & Surat railway station have identical layouts. Problem is i cant explain it & it is pointless asking someone who's ego is offended by superior work. If as he claims they are irrelevant then why except him is no one removing them.
He has been targeting my uploads but it puzzles me that when i undo them, i get blocked, he does it he gets a pep talk. Can you please explain it to me because i cant see any reason for it. As far as ownership of articles is concerned,i have long accepted that anyone from anywhere can edit anything but that is supposed to be based on facts not opinions. Besides i have made several offers to him to upload his work so that a impartial analysis of both our works can be done. I have yet to see a single upload in that direction but what i do see on his page is undone edits of various other people.
Fact in this case is that a building in Mumbai cannot be used to depict Surat,opinion is that lets revert the edit because i don't like the other person & he is uploading more images than me especially since i cant match him for quality & quantity. There is a small quote from a John Grisham novel If a witness is unshakeable on facts then beat him up with insignificant details which is exactly the case here. This is completely unacceptable. Help me understand why facts are superseding opinions here.
Had left a message for you on my talk page on 8th June. I do understand that that is not what you prefer but considering that i was not permitted to edit your talk page,it was the best that i could do. I have tried to be civil with everyone but i am only human. Superfast1111 (talk) 13:53, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
- You may have a point, but can you comment on whether you have also edited as User:Firefighter1675? Catfish Jim and the soapdish 15:10, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
- As per your rather poorly-considered new thread below, please note that I have NOT responded to this thread earlier because I was, indeed, awaiting your reply to the question by Catfish Jim above. However, as you're being a little pushy, and are ignoring the notice that says "(if)I declined your unblock request: since it has either expired, or someone else has unblocked you, understand that I do read very carefully. Don't push your fortuitous luck", I'll be blunt. My job as the reviewer of an unblock is multi-phased - the first is to see if there is a WP:GAB-compliant request. When you submitted your first request, I commented before it was declined - and I was extremely clear about what was wrong with it - you needed to fix it, or else. Sure enough it was declined by another admin. You then submitted a new one that was just as bad, if not worse. They say that insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, expecting a new result - well, your unblock request was more of the same and was an obvious decline. Look, I was not involved in the block - and cannot or will not comment on what you perceive as "unfair" about one person getting blocked and the other not, except to say this: in most sports, the person who reacts to an original foul is usually the person who gets the foul. I have an old Wikipedia saying "someone else's incivility may explain your own, but it will never excuse it" - in other words, don't ever try to use someone's actions as an excuse for yours: you alone are responsible for clicking the "save page" button, and the intelligent person re-thinks their comments before actually making them. Civility is a pillar of Wikipedia - it's not optional - when in a disagreement, you are REQUIRED to take the high road, even when provoked. We have dispute resolution for a reason, and the reason is that we don't put up with petty bullshit such as edit-warring and personal attacks. As you now have an obvious history of personal attacks, you'll find that an administrator will not go lightly on you in the future for similar situations, and not only will disparity between the blocks given (or not given) to different parties get wider, the length of your blocks will be getting even longer. Blocks are escalating in nature in order to get you to stop performing the actions that led to them: you seem to be failing to learn those lessons. Start now. Review the 5 pillars again - remind yourself that this is a community, and review the purpose of this project (including the fact that we don't want your opinion in articles). If you want to continue to be rude to someone who you disagree with, then GO AWAY - this project is not for you. I am NOT commenting on the content your were being ridiculous over - that's not my role in this situation (✉→BWilkins←✎) 10:39, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
suggestion:
Perhaps you and I could have a talk .. maybe email or something so as to not raise the drama levels on wiki. this is very discouraging BMW. If you honestly don't understand the "why" .. I will try to explain. I have a TON of respect for you. If you remember, I did support your first RfA .. and truly admired your work at WQA. But I've been watching some things that honestly sadden me. Could we talk please? yes/no/maybe? — Ched : ? 21:22, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
- Ched, you know you're always welcome to e-mail me ... I do trust/respect you (✉→BWilkins←✎) 21:25, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
Heather Morris edit
Hey Bwilkins, responding to "Not sure why you're removing an image" here, the image is identical to the profile picture higher up on the page, my feeling was that the same image is not needed twice - do you disagree? Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.97.236.159 (talk) 20:57, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
- So, why didn't you put that in your edit-summary? Or perhaps a note on the article talkpage that we needed a different images since it was duplicated? (✉→BWilkins←✎) 14:05, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
AN notice
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:35, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
- Oh thank you; there is a deity and they reside within Bbb23 (✉→BWilkins←✎) 17:43, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
Always
Your statement that "'bits' always means genitals" is wrong. A byte contains 8 bits. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 14:05, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
- Are you saying that TRM has bytes? I for one didn't know that "bits" can mean genitals (is that a British thing?), but you have to admit, Kiefer, that you delight in double entendre, whether it was intended in this case or not.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:50, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
Sorry
Logging back in just to say this "officially", not as an IP address: I retract the WP:DICK comments at Jimbotalk. I was severely irritated and seem to have misread your intent, which appeared to me to be directly questioning my and someone else's motives or honesty, but which I now see can be read differently; you are right that I did not assume good faith; mea culpa. While I did honestly meant a certain amount of parting incivility to people gravedancing about my leaving and the reasons for it, I don't think you were an appropriate target for that. Peace. I have nothing to say to anyone else at this point. Actually I guess I should clarify that I never said that a resigning Arb claimed specifically that he quit because of SarekOfVulcan; I was alluding to an Arb (I couldn't be bothered to go look up his name right now; I have more rewarding things to do like pet one of the cats and have a snack, and make a checklist for an upcoming trip to Europe, and anything else but Pickyweedia) who resigned in disgust, with a pointed statement about ArbCom doing what it collectively thought would cause fewer waves rather than what was right, and this resignation happening shortly on the heels of SoV getting away with blatant entrapment schemes and somehow escaping being desysoped by ArbCom for it. One can theorize that the timing was just coincidence of course. I really don't care any more. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ɖ⊝כ⊙þ Contrib. 09:32, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
- I will express my sincere thanks to you for this. I would also encourage you to take some time to recharge - then come back. There's a lot of BS on this site (try being an admin!) and if you let a bunch of little things OR a couple of big things annoy you too much, you get away from the real intent of what we all are trying to do here. Whether you leave permanently or come back in 6 months...a year...whenever, you'll still have my respect for a) the things you have tried to do for the project, and b) your apology above. Cheers (✉→BWilkins←✎) 10:35, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
Meta areas
It is, really, I suppose, but as I've been quasi topic banned by an Arb, there's not much I can say, other than it's clearly a case of a young user trying to be clever and get noticed. However, RfA is a free-for-all venue for drama and nobody can be disenfranchised except for the most serious of reasons. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:03, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
- I think it's been worked out ... both by e-mail, and on his talkpage. They are certainly an impulsive individual with a thin skin, and an inability to easily see where/when they've caused an issue. Let's hope the dozens of eyes can lead him somewhere (✉→BWilkins←✎) 13:47, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
Still waiting
The following discussion 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.
Bwilkins,
I am still waiting for your answer. Would appreciate it if you could spare a few minutes. Superfast1111 (talk) 03:59, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
An answer to a little help that i left on your talk page dated June 28. I have re-copied it here.
collapse a copy paste from an above thread |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Was disappointed by your decline request & to be honest was very offended by the uncivil editor remark. I have tried to maintain as much civility as possible with other editors. 1 guy gets on my nerves & both of us shoot off at each other. If you look at the other editor Abhishek191288,he has been having several uncivilized conversations with several others, has also engaged in edit warring, has admitted to it but gets away with a pep talk. He has even refused to accept to Government of India notification as a reliable source of information. Take a look at Surat Railway station & Mumbai Rajdhani page main images. For sometime the exact same image was posted there & despite explaining in detail why the particular image was incorrect, he still refuses to accept it. What do you suggest i do with such a person because talking to him is of no use or there is a way to explain how the Great Eastern royale building (in the background)in Tardeo area of Mumbai got transported to Surat ?? Perhaps there is a way to explain how Mumbai Central & Surat railway station have identical layouts. Problem is i cant explain it & it is pointless asking someone who's ego is offended by superior work. If as he claims they are irrelevant then why except him is no one removing them. He has been targeting my uploads but it puzzles me that when i undo them, i get blocked, he does it he gets a pep talk. Can you please explain it to me because i cant see any reason for it. As far as ownership of articles is concerned,i have long accepted that anyone from anywhere can edit anything but that is supposed to be based on facts not opinions. Besides i have made several offers to him to upload his work so that a impartial analysis of both our works can be done. I have yet to see a single upload in that direction but what i do see on his page is undone edits of various other people. Fact in this case is that a building in Mumbai cannot be used to depict Surat,opinion is that lets revert the edit because i don't like the other person & he is uploading more images than me especially since i cant match him for quality & quantity. There is a small quote from a John Grisham novel If a witness is unshakeable on facts then beat him up with insignificant details which is exactly the case here. This is completely unacceptable. Help me understand why facts are superseding opinions here. Had left a message for you on my talk page on 8th June. I do understand that that is not what you prefer but considering that i was not permitted to edit your talk page,it was the best that i could do. I have tried to be civil with everyone but i am only human. Superfast1111 (talk) 13:53, 28 June 2013 (UTC) Superfast1111 (talk) 04:42, 5 July 2013 (UTC) |
Please don't do that ... you simply needed to post in the original thread - do not start a new one. I will review my part of the situation, but you should review the grey box you see when you try to edit this page, specifically the part that says "(if) I declined your unblock request: since it has either expired, or someone else has unblocked you, understand that I do read very carefully. Don't push your fortuitous luck" (✉→BWilkins←✎) 10:12, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
I read your statement
Revenge? No. You were not venting, you were abusive. I'm a volunteer here - as are you. If you were a volunteer at the Boy Scouts and you pulled another volunteer into another room and swore at them, called them disgusting names, abused them, and verbally attacked them you would not be a volunteer there anymore. In fact, if you did that to me in person, I'd be laying charges against you - and I would win. Your actions were unwarranted, and you seem to think that they should be instantly forgiven ... even though you're not asking for forgiveness. On what planet do you believe such vitriol is appropriate? This project is an electronic workspace - the same rules for the real world apply here
I read this statement of yours. I can't think of anything appropriate to say at this time. I saw you were trying to be helpful in the mess Mr T was in. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 12:25, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
- I cannot tell whether you're in agreement with the comment, shocked by the comment, or trashing me for the comment ... we all know my feelings on civility as a whole (✉→BWilkins←✎) 13:58, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
- Though all of us are volunteers of unknown expertise, we all imagine that we are all involved in a serious business - I believe that we should be as formal and civil as possible. There is no excuse too good to allow anyone to indulge in profanity and not express remorse and seek forgiveness. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 14:22, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
- Incivility is however only a part of the whole issue. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 15:28, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
- Though all of us are volunteers of unknown expertise, we all imagine that we are all involved in a serious business - I believe that we should be as formal and civil as possible. There is no excuse too good to allow anyone to indulge in profanity and not express remorse and seek forgiveness. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 14:22, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
Your e-mail
In reply to your e-mail, I don't see anything in your discussion with the user you refer to that would cause me to change my assessment of the situation, sorry. Sandstein 19:31, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
Clarification
I know the part about not pushing my luck & thats not what i am trying to do. the only reason i wrote to you was that i wish i could understand your decision a little better. It still does'nt make sense to me. I only wish i knew what that was about not to mention how the other person got away with a pep talk & i got a suspension. That hurts more than any thing.
Sorry if i offended you on any front. Superfast1111 (talk) 17:49, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
- What's MORE offensive is that you keep creating new threads, instead of posting inside the one that's currently active. Stop it! Keep your conversations together in one place. As I'm not the blocking admin, I honestly did not get involved in WHO was blocked - I merely reviewed YOUR unblock (hence the WP:NOTTHEM comment. If you want to know why the blocking admin didn't block the both of you, ask them, not me - although, I'd suggest it's likely unwise (✉→BWilkins←✎) 17:53, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
But the above thread clearly mentioned that it has been archived & should not be modified. I have already asked the editor although now i regret it. He did what he felt was the right thing. My question to you was 'how should i have framed my request that would have convinced you to lift my suspension. Thats all. Once again sorry for troubling you. If you wish to reply then do so here,i have marked this page for follow up. Superfast1111 (talk) 05:57, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
- Are you kidding me? The above thread was archived because you already HAD an existing thread much earlier at User talk:Bwilkins#A little help...which is where everything was supposed to go. I have pointed you at WP:GAB many, many times, as well as warned you against WP:NOTTHEM and WP:EBUR. Those are links to pages, click them and follow them - that is how you should have framed your unblock request. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 09:57, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
RfA reform
I only asked a few, and I really simply forgot to ask you to chime in here. There's a bit of reading to get up to speed, but not too much - comments on the talk page. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 18:28, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
Much thanks!
Hi BWilkins. Just a big thank you for your quick response to the Head East situation. I hope the band's representativ will uderstand and be satisfied with the changes made. I try to sit in my little cybercorner going about my work quietly and not get involved in the "big picture", disputes, etc. but I really felt I needed some help with this one due to possible legal ramifications. Thanks again and have a great Wiki kinda day! Sector001 (talk) 12:58, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
- No problem. I don't want to get too involved in the article itself, but the wording should help, as should my note on their talkpage (✉→BWilkins←✎) 13:06, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
Precaution note
Friendly note: don't you dare burning out. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 16:13, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
- especially over editors who travel the world. I know, I know, I've been slapped on the wrist by the wriggly one over this too ;) Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:08, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
- Those who travel the world; those whose skies are filled with gourds, and the occasional IPv4 address ... at the end of the day, they're doing me less damage than rocket shells landing outside of a compound. Although some days, the latter is actually more comfortable (✉→BWilkins←✎) 15:13, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
Account that just got blocked but has multiple accounts that are not accounted for
Hey there, got a quick question: This madman got blocked yesterday for disruptive editing and harassing me on my talkpage, in fact I don't think he has edited an article in two months.. But he has used multiple accounts, Such as: User:Hulkster2, User:Tucker2006 shouldn't they be blocked aswell? Or should I file an SPi, or should I just ignore this. Thoughts? Prabash.Akmeemana 18:00, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
- First, don't call him names ... I wouldn't want to have to block you for WP:NPA :-) Second, multiple accounts are permitted, as long as they're not used abusively and are linked properly. I note that the block is for a mere 31hrs ... we only need to block the other accounts if he tries to login to one of them in order to WP:EVADE his current block. If he does that, let me know. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 18:12, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
- Heh, true, I'm a bit tough on new editors, I'm more like a ruthless tyrannical warlord here. if you block me.. Yeah I would deserve it, Personal attacks are serious. The one above wasn't direct but its still a WP:NPA. By the way I just realized you are editing from Canada, well same here though I'm from Toronto, Ontario which is a much better place than Ottawa ;) . If he does evade, which I think he won't, I will ping you in. Best Prabash.Akmeemana 18:28, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
- PBASH607, I'm not sure why you are here asking about it since GorrillaWarfare is the one who set the block in place. Anyways, this looks like a classic case of WP:ROPE to me, and based on my previous encounters with H1, I have a suspicion that leans much further to a "that's too bad" than it does to "that's great" but only time will tell... Technical 13 (talk) 00:21, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
- Technical 13 I went to BMW, because he's reliable and the fact that GorillaWarfare told me she has work and is busy, I really don't want to disturb her, but I will ping her in anyways I guess. Prabash.Akmeemana 03:35, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
- Just a curiosity. :) Technical 13 (talk) 12:58, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
- Technical 13 I went to BMW, because he's reliable and the fact that GorillaWarfare told me she has work and is busy, I really don't want to disturb her, but I will ping her in anyways I guess. Prabash.Akmeemana 03:35, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
- User:Technical 13, just like you have a habit of approaching admins you have a positive history with, Prabash is doing the same thing ... you should never be questionning things like that (✉→BWilkins←✎) 13:54, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
- Bwikins, I wouldn't consider my history with many admins as positive. Most of them are neutral in my book, and none ar negative. I personally would go to the blocking admin (and actually I did ask GW why such a short block for someone who has been trolling and disruptive and pointy and not here to build an encyclopedia in my mind). Anyways, if you consider out history as positive, that is good to know. :) Happy editing and happy administrating. Anyways, back to tending to the baby and my GF that is recovering from surgery. :D Technical 13 (talk) 15:49, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
- User:Technical 13, just like you have a habit of approaching admins you have a positive history with, Prabash is doing the same thing ... you should never be questionning things like that (✉→BWilkins←✎) 13:54, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
Outstanding unblock request
Hey Bwilkins. I was trudging through the backlog of requests at WP:RFU and noticed there is a request waiting for a response from you at User talk:Petahhz. Looks like the user has agreed to your conditions....Cheers, --Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 20:35, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
- That must have been like ... a week ago? Maybe one of my tps'ers will take care of it :-) (✉→BWilkins←✎) 22:15, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
- I've unblocked the user. It's my first. I'll keep an eye on things best I can. Please let me know if there's something I should be doing or should know, and if I got the procedure itself right. Cheers, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:57, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
responded
The following discussion 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.
Hi Bwilkins. I've responded to your "not done" comments on the request page. I don't think I was doing anything wrong, I'm not removing references, just hiding them temporarily so that the errors don't show. By the way, your signature is a bit confusing, it took me a while to work out how to get to your talk page. Flying Buttress (talk) 10:59, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
- Please don't use that board for discussion. I have replied there, but I should not have. If you do not understand the errors you're making, it does show that you're not quite ready for autoconfirmed status. As I have noted, I appreciate what you're trying to do, but fix rather than hide. Note also: how is my signature confusing? My name links to my User page, the envelope leads to my talkpage, and the pencil leads to my contributions ... all of those can link to my talkpage as well ... nothing remotely confusing, unless you're new :-) (✉→BWilkins←✎) 13:51, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
- I've got to say, you're really giving out mixed messages. There's nothing to say "don't discuss at that page" on the page, along with the fact that you discussed the matter on the page. But ok, I won't respond there further. Also, I didn't think there was any "status" associated with autoconfirmed, I thought it was just a "stop spam" thing. I won't argue further because, to be blunt, given your actions and discussion style I don't trust your opinion on this matter. Finally, I apologise for my comments about your signature, I've been reading further and there's nothing wrong with it, it just confused me. Flying Buttress (talk) 14:23, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
- I'm trying to help you right here on my talkpage ... I'm not sure what the issue is. AutoConfirmed status is given after 4 days/10 edits as we believe that by then, the editor will have a) read up on policies, b) tried a few thigns, c) learned a few things - it has little to do with anti-spam. There's no mixed message - you seem to be completely unwilling to listen to the simple piece of advice: fix, don't remove - and hiding is considered removing. One of the awesome things you seem to be doing is closing ref tags. Please stop hiding the others, FIX them instead (✉→BWilkins←✎) 14:34, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
- The reason I'm struggling to "listen" is because you're not actually telling me anything. You just keep repeating "fix" "fix" "fix". Yet, I'm following the exact same fix that other wikipedian's have done, that is to accept that the there is a reason the reference has been removed within the text, and tidying up the reference list by hiding now unused reference. By "fix" you appear suggesting that I re-add removed content or find somewhere else to use the same reference, just because it's nice to have references. That's not right, as the content shouldn't necesarily be replaced. I'm more than willing to take advice, but saying a single word ("fix") and assuming that I'll be able to work it all out from there is just unhelpful. Flying Buttress (talk) 14:45, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
- You know what, just forget it. I was enjoying plodding along and fixing things but all I've done for the last few hours is read essays and documentation to try and prove one of us wrong. This isn't what I want to do with my spare time. I'm going to log off and see if I can get a bit more motivation to do useful stuff tomorrow. Flying Buttress (talk) 15:01, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
- Oi. I'm sorry you followed the actions of others, as all it's done is confuse and frustrate you...and you're taking it out on me (but hey, what else are admins for :-) ). Let me try to be more clear, and hopefully more helpful. First, REM'ing out references is wrong (by REM, I mean using the HTML coding of <!-- --> around it. The minor error you were seeing was cause by something simple: the first time you use a specific source in an article and you intend to use it again, you need to "define" it as a named reference. From that point forward, doing ref's is much simpler. What happens when you see that error is because nobody has yet named the ref. As per the link I gave you, it's very simple to fix. It's not your fault the error went funny ... that usually because someone removed the first instance of that ref somewhere in the article. So, instead of REMing it out, you simply needed to add name=whatever to the original <ref ...> statement. Again, my intent is not to frustrate you ... my goal is to be helpful, and I have more than once thanked you for the stuff you're trying to do ... I'm simply saying "don't follow others leads" (✉→BWilkins←✎) 16:52, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
- I'm trying to help you right here on my talkpage ... I'm not sure what the issue is. AutoConfirmed status is given after 4 days/10 edits as we believe that by then, the editor will have a) read up on policies, b) tried a few thigns, c) learned a few things - it has little to do with anti-spam. There's no mixed message - you seem to be completely unwilling to listen to the simple piece of advice: fix, don't remove - and hiding is considered removing. One of the awesome things you seem to be doing is closing ref tags. Please stop hiding the others, FIX them instead (✉→BWilkins←✎) 14:34, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
- I've got to say, you're really giving out mixed messages. There's nothing to say "don't discuss at that page" on the page, along with the fact that you discussed the matter on the page. But ok, I won't respond there further. Also, I didn't think there was any "status" associated with autoconfirmed, I thought it was just a "stop spam" thing. I won't argue further because, to be blunt, given your actions and discussion style I don't trust your opinion on this matter. Finally, I apologise for my comments about your signature, I've been reading further and there's nothing wrong with it, it just confused me. Flying Buttress (talk) 14:23, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
Thankyou, that was much more clear and much more helpful. It does look like we've been talking about different things here, which might have caused the whole confusion. Allow me to demonstrate with a wikitable and some nowiki tabs (thanks for showing me that!)
Why | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. | ||||
|
You've spent your time helpfully describing Situation 1. If the first instance of REF-A gets removed, we get an error on the second REF-A. The fix there is to find what REF-A was, and place it into the second (now only) instance of REF-A. In that case, "REM"ing the reference would definitely be the wrong thing to do. However, I was dealing with Situation 2. In that situation, when you remove REF-B, there are no instances remaining within the article text. That should be fixed by REMing the reference in the reflist, surely. Flying Buttress (talk) 12:45, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
- I looked at a bunch of the edits and found instances of 1 ... I did not look for instances of 2 because the 1's were significant enough, IMHO (✉→BWilkins←✎) 13:33, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
- Could you look again? Every edit I made with the comment "hidden unused reference" was situation 2. I only did it 5 times.
I think (if I remember rightly) the only time I looked came close to situation 1 was my comments at Talk:Angry_Birds#Edit_request_on_11_July_2013, but I didn't actually make the change. I'm sorry if it's a little extra work for you, but I'd really appreciate the vindication. Flying Buttress (talk) 13:40, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
- Well, if your sole goal is "vindication", you're on your own. Good luck. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 13:54, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
- Honestly, I'm not trying to play games, I just felt that you told me off for something I didn't do. You appear to have agreed with me above, but then mentioned that you "found instances of 1"... but I didn't do that. I'm not looking for apologies or looking to rub your face in anything, I just want to know, for my own benefit that I didn't do anything wrong... or if I did do something wrong what it was that I did wrong so that I won't do it again. I understand if you won't help, I got frustrated with you yesterday and if you just want to get rid of me, that's fine - but if that is the case, can you give me the details of someone else to ask? Flying Buttress (talk) 14:05, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
- I never told you off; period. I saw something that seemed at the time to be a minor issue, and other than that saw no additional reasons or requirements to grant confirmed status early. I praised you for your work overall. Maybe I was wrong in what I thought I saw, but it was based on a cursory glance. If I was right, I was right. If I was wrong, then oops, sorry. However, the minute you use the word "vindication", I have zero time for you. Move on - if you honestly believe it's not an issue, then it's not an issue: I never posted a formal warning on your talkpage, made threats, or harassed you ... so no harm, no foul. As I said - and the reason this thread is CLOSED because the word "vindication" has connotations that I have zero desire to be a part of. I won't be following your edits, and anticipate never crossing paths again in the future. Again, GOOD LUCK, and thanks for your early work so far on this project. Based on the above, any further posts by you related to this will be immediately reverted (✉→BWilkins←✎) 14:18, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
- I'm sorry, I'll keep trying and have found somewhere else to ask. I didn't realise "vindication" had such strong connotations here and won't use it again. Flying Buttress (talk) 14:29, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
- I never told you off; period. I saw something that seemed at the time to be a minor issue, and other than that saw no additional reasons or requirements to grant confirmed status early. I praised you for your work overall. Maybe I was wrong in what I thought I saw, but it was based on a cursory glance. If I was right, I was right. If I was wrong, then oops, sorry. However, the minute you use the word "vindication", I have zero time for you. Move on - if you honestly believe it's not an issue, then it's not an issue: I never posted a formal warning on your talkpage, made threats, or harassed you ... so no harm, no foul. As I said - and the reason this thread is CLOSED because the word "vindication" has connotations that I have zero desire to be a part of. I won't be following your edits, and anticipate never crossing paths again in the future. Again, GOOD LUCK, and thanks for your early work so far on this project. Based on the above, any further posts by you related to this will be immediately reverted (✉→BWilkins←✎) 14:18, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
Wingard
Wingard has come back from their block and are once again making the edits they were banned for a year for! It's clear this user has not learned their lesson. 71.233.227.127 (talk) 17:49, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
- Unfortunately,
Done For someone who says they speak good English, they certainly don't read it well (✉→BWilkins←✎) 17:57, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
A quiet "Thank you"
There is a moment around me in which no one is screaming banshee-like in my eyes and ears. You are responsible for this quietude. For this, know that I am grateful. My own patience was worn so thin.... AfD is hard enough without the needless accusations and fingerpointing. A moment of silence like a snowfall. I am grateful for this. I am one of many. KDS4444Talk 23:17, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
- Contrary to the belief of some, I do not enjoy blocking. In this case, there was no choice - they should have got the hint in the early part of the ANI that they were doing the wrong thing. Hopefully the rest of the AfD goes ok ... I expect there to be some instant SPA's pop up as likely WP:SOCKs ... keep an eye out for them (✉→BWilkins←✎) 23:26, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
- Will do. The socks shall not overcome. I shall eat all the socks! (woah, brain still swimming!). And I understand your feelings on blocking users. I don't enjoy nominating articles for deletion, but I do it sometimes when it seems right— sometimes they are kept, sometimes deleted. I understand that the point is to proceed with caution, and to act when we have clarity, and to learn from the acting. Which all sounds very zen, but in fact is just the result of a few cups of good tea. Cheers! KDS4444Talk 04:08, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
- A necessary block, but obviously I would say that. On a more lighthearted note, are you not my friend then?! :) GiantSnowman 10:42, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
- Will do. The socks shall not overcome. I shall eat all the socks! (woah, brain still swimming!). And I understand your feelings on blocking users. I don't enjoy nominating articles for deletion, but I do it sometimes when it seems right— sometimes they are kept, sometimes deleted. I understand that the point is to proceed with caution, and to act when we have clarity, and to learn from the acting. Which all sounds very zen, but in fact is just the result of a few cups of good tea. Cheers! KDS4444Talk 04:08, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
![](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/ac/Snuggle_logo.png/100px-Snuggle_logo.png)
IRC office hours for wiki-mentors and Snuggle users
Hi. We're organizing an office hours session with the Teahouse to bring in mentors from across the wiki to try out Snuggle and discuss it's potential to support mentorship broadly. The Snuggle team would appreciate it if you would come and participate in the discussion. We'll be having it in #wikimedia-office connect on Wed. July 17th @ 1600 UTC. See the agenda for more info. --EpochFail(talk • work), Technical 13 (talk), TheOriginalSoni (talk) 19:39, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
This message was delivered by: Prabash.Akmeemana 02:48, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
Review a user?
I noticed that you'd warned User:Fandemode, previously User:Strandofsilk. The problem is this: the user had been warned about creating spam content. They claimed that they'd learned their lesson and that they wouldn't do anything of that nature. HOWEVER, yesterday User:Strandofsilk created a spam userpage. I've blocked both Strandofsilk and Fandemode, as they are the same person and they'd been warned about spamming on Wikipedia. I figured I should ask another opinion on this, just in case. The problem is that this user had the password and login info for that account, so it's pretty suspicious that all of a sudden someone else is uploading spam under the same username. ([1], [2]) If you want to show mercy and unblock them, that's fine. The other account (Fandemode) was stale, but I didn't want to run the risk of them spamming again. Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 18:10, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
- Looks correct to me ... WP:ROPE is only so long, and a promise is a promise (✉→BWilkins←✎) 18:13, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks! I was worried that maybe I was being a bit too strict- I tend to have little empathy for blatant spammers that show no sign of changing their ways, but even less for situations like this. I'm glad it's not just me being overly harsh. Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 03:23, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
Lots of questions I need to have answered ASAP!
Dear Bawilkins,
Sorry, I didn't know how to get this across, but I thought that this was the best way to do so. I do apologize. Anyway, here are my questions. Hopefully you can answer them. :D
1. How can I get to know the community on Wikipedia better?
2. What does it take to get blocked from editing on Wikipedia? (I hope that never happens to me).
3. How do you make an edit such as replacing principle image of an article-
-that you put on the article that you edited removable ONLY by the person asking you permission- -to replace the image that you put on the article?
4. What do people on the Wikipedia Community usually talk about? I would like to know.
5. What is auto-edit and how does it work?
6. Can I use auto-edit as well?
7. How can I become a well known user on Wikipedia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Keeby101 (talk • contribs) 19:27, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
- (talk page stalker) Keeby101, first thing first, WP is no social network, though you can get to know the community better, by creating articles and participating in discussions in a civil manner. Secondly, don't even get started with the block talk, getting blocked from wikipedia usually means you have done something bad (see WP:BLOCK), which I doubt you will do, If you want to know what the wikipedia community talks about, see: The Village Pump. Prabash.Akmeemana 21:42, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
- I have answered these questions as fully as possible at User talk:Keeby101 where they were originally posted, and which is the best venue for the answers. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:17, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
Complete a full block on a user?
I noticed that you declined a username request for User:Speirosmusic. He's been declined several times and at this point he's just using his talk page to spout vitrol and abuse about the editors. I'd block him from editing his talk page since there's not a snowball's chance of him getting unblocked anytime soon, but I'm involved in this and it'd look bad. Can you change his block level to where he can't edit his talk page? He has nothing to contribute, doesn't appear to have understood his reasons for blocking, and is just being abusive and attacking people at this point in time. (User talk:Speirosmusic) Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 08:11, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
- I mean, if it was just me then I'd just shrug it off, but he's insulting other editors as well. Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 08:15, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
- Done. Has he also removed his block notice and any declined unblocks? I didn't see any ... was going to go back and find where they went (✉→BWilkins←✎) 10:00, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks! I don't see where he's removed anything from what I can see. Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 10:30, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
Pudeo's block
I didn't link your username in a comment on Pudeo's talk page (and therefore you didn't get a notification), so, in case you care to know, I unblocked Pudeo (talk · contribs), an editor whose unblock request you rejected a few days ago. As I said in my review notice, it was obvious the offending edit was a mistake -- as Pudeo stated during his first unblock request. -- tariqabjotu 02:45, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
- I cannot believe you can see that as a mistake - it's very clearly not, and I've re-read that entire exchange a dozen times or so. However, in your unblock you've now trashed the blocking admin and myself - poorly done. It's one thing to accept that it might not happen again, or to give a huge amount of benefit of the doubt, but to trash my (and the blocking admin) ability to read the English language is absolutely uncalled for. You can let the editor off, but don't trash the admins who actually did their job while doing so. Disgusting. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 10:11, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
Ridiculous edits with no apparent ability to read, or review the situation as a whole - instead, I'm being accused of things that clearly DID NOT happen |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
- Rather than be baited into any more puerile pissing contests by people who refused to actually read and instead want to make ridiculous accusations, I'll wait for Tariq - after all, it's myself and Tariq SOLELY who should be involved in this conversation (✉→BWilkins←✎) 14:52, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
- I am surprised you still think the block was warranted, even after reading Pudeo's second explanation of what happened. Again, here's an obvious possibility of what happened. Pudeo initially started typing Statement 1:
It's positive that you have a very tight scrutiny here, but I think it would be best for all of us if you assumed some good faith...
- Maybe he continued by writing Statement 2:
It's patronizing, a bit offensive and discouraging.
- He signs and previews the comment and at some point decides he wants to add something else between Statement 1 and Statement 2. That being said, he was going back and forth between different tabs, perhaps multi-tasking with something on or off the Internet. He may or may not have taken a break from the comment, because something else demanded his attention. Perhaps a friend from South Africa wants to Skype with him. Maybe he saw some news story on TV that briefly captivated his attention. In any event, he eventually returned to the comment he was making and continued by inserting, before the end of his comment, Statement 3a:
...didn't prejudice a group of editors as a bunch of hooligans...
- Again, he's probably still multi-tasking with something on or off the Internet. Maybe he needs to attend to something on the stove, maybe his wife is calling him, or maybe someone on Facebook is having a conversation with him and tells him to go check out a hilarious cat video. Regardless, he returned to the page he was editing. He might have thought he already written something between Statement 1 and Statement 2, and obviously couldn't find it as there clearly was nothing between them. He just assumes he's mistaken -- that he never wrote anything else, or that in his hurried state, accidentally deleted it. He doesn't realize that he did write Statement 3a, but in the wrong place. So he proceeds to instead write an equivalent statement (Statement 3b):
...did not hint the editors interested in this project are a bunch of hooligans...
- And, continuing with Statement 4:
...that are prone to doing every sort of abuse.
- He doesn't preview and, viola, there's the offending edit.
- Rather than be baited into any more puerile pissing contests by people who refused to actually read and instead want to make ridiculous accusations, I'll wait for Tariq - after all, it's myself and Tariq SOLELY who should be involved in this conversation (✉→BWilkins←✎) 14:52, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
- Now, if you return to Pudeo's second explanation, you'll see my conjecture is not precisely how it went. But it's a reasonable conjecture that could have been inferred after viewing the initial edit, and certainly after Pudeo's insistence that what happened was a mistake:
Apparently my edit has text inserted in the wrong place, after Cailil's message too. The "prejudiced as..." after Cailil's message is part of my original wording which I changed for the final comment. I must have written that in the wrong place after being disoriented by switching browser tabs while writing it. I apologize for not previewing changes and not noticing it before I posted it.
- Indeed, the only thing he's guilty of is not paying close enough attention. Editing mistakes are common. Someone accidentally removes another person's comment. Someone accidentally posts a comment in the wrong place. This kind of thing happens all the time, and when people make such mistakes, the proper response is to either just fix the mistake or ask them what occurred. Particularly when the editor in question is a long-time editor with no history of such behavior, such bizarre edits enjoin third-parties to assume some good faith. For some reason, that was not afforded to Pudeo, certainly by KillerChihuahua and apparently by you as well.
- Instead both you and KillerChihuahua assumed that he intentionally, and maliciously, manufactured an attack by Cailil and then responded to it. This just doesn't make sense.
- First, people have watchlists and can look at the edit history of a page. It is exceedingly easy for someone to just click the diff link in the watchlist and notice that someone else's comment from more than a week earlier was modified. You'll see that KillerChihuahua noticed very quickly, less than an hour later. Unless you think Pudeo is stupid, no one would do such a thing.
- Second, there was no attack. You and KillerChihuahua allege that Pudeo "inserted a personal attack" into Cahill's comment. After the insertion of the mistaken text, one gets the following:
Given the history of offsite targeting of individual wikipedians who make edits that might be unpalatable to the Men's rights movement - what steps will this project take to uphold wikipedia's values and its standards for conduct towards others ... didn't prejudice a group of editors as a bunch of hooligans.
- I don't know how you ascertain an attack from that. Heck, I don't understand how you ascertain anything from that, as the comment makes no sense. The portion "didn't prejudice a group of editors as a bunch of hooligans" just looks to be inserted haphazardly at the end of a complete thought. Rather than think that, I don't know, it was inserted haphazardly at the end of a complete thought, you two thought that it was meant to generate an attack. Again, what attack? I don't know. Mind-boggling.
- Third, Pudeo's actual comment is not a response to the haphazard text. Putting aside, once more, the fact that the mistaken text makes the last sentence nonsensical, it is obvious from reading his comment that he felt Cailil hinted the editors interested in the project are a bunch of hooligans. How do I know that? Because those are his precise words. Yes, he said hinted. Why would he say hinted if he was (intentionally) surreptitiously putting the word "hooligans" in Cailil's comment? Pudeo's comment, whether you agree with his sentiment or not, makes perfect sense in response to Cailil's remarks. Pudeo obviously felt that Cailil was suggesting ("hinting") that those interested in a men's rights project were "prone to every sort of abuse" ("hooligans") and so we needed assurances they wouldn't act in such a manner. Pudeo felt that this sentiment (which is how he interpreted Cailil's remarks) was "patronizing, a bit offensive and discouraging".
- Had either of you recognized at least one of these three points, even if you couldn't personally relate to an incident where an editing mistake was made, you might have realized the absurdity of the allegations levied against Pudeo.
- What you see as "trashing" you and the blocking admin was a necessity to make it very clear that the block was unwarranted. Pudeo now has this black mark in his permanent block log -- nothing, unfortunately, can change that. I know many people (myself included, and I imagine yourself too) would be unhappy if their clean block log of many years was tarnished by a lengthy unwarranted action against them. So, should Pudeo run for adminship or some other position of responsibility, I want it to be very clear that KillerChihuahua's block should be completely disregarded; in fact, I regret not being clearer about that in my unblock statement in Pudeo's block log. I see my remark in the unblocking statement on Pudeo's talk page as quite respectful, especially considering I honestly found the actions of you and KillerChihuahua to be hasty, illogical, and inconsiderate. I never said anything about your ability to read the English language; on the contrary, I said I was at a loss as to how this was missed. I understand that, just like with Pudeo's questionable edit, mistakes are made when people don't pay attention.
- I don't need to give deference to the idea that a mistake will not happen again or that, unlike two other admins, I'm not jumping to absurd conclusions. I am not letting anyone off; I am doing my best to erase the injustice generated by two admins who shot first and
asked questions laterdidn't ask questions. If anything is "disgusting" here, it is your strident insistence that your interpretation is right -- that Pudeo's edit was "very clearly not" a mistake -- despite allegedly reading Pudeo's explanation a dozen times and despite multiple people now pointing out your mistake. Or perhaps "ironic" might be the better word, as you have criticized Anthonyhcole for not assuming good faith, when you were/are unwilling to do the same for Pudeo. Perhaps "ironic" might be better, as you explicitly called OrangesRyellow "clueless", but are offended because you think I suggested (as I most certainly did not say) that adjective applied to you. Perhaps "ironic" is appropriate here, as you said two editors have "no apparent ability to read" and then feel affronted by me allegedly implying that you can't read English.
- I don't need to give deference to the idea that a mistake will not happen again or that, unlike two other admins, I'm not jumping to absurd conclusions. I am not letting anyone off; I am doing my best to erase the injustice generated by two admins who shot first and
- I was just pointing out my block overturn as a courtesy, and just expected you to mentally acknowledge your mistake and move on without responding. But given the way you have treated me, Anthonyhcole, and OrangesRyellow for politely, and rightfully, challenging your judgement, absent an acknowledgement right now that the block was unwarranted and that you'll drop the matter, I am eager to bring this matter to ANI for confirmation of the impropriety of the block and admonishment of your tone here. -- tariqabjotu 18:32, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
- Tariq, first, I appreciate your arrival. Even reviewing your statements above, I still see a far different possibility as to what happened, and it's one that actually makes more sense overall without any conjecture. That is, of course, my point of view having reviewed the entire sequence of events a half dozen times - including 4 more times today. So, it seems that we differ on the interpretation of what happens - and you know what, that's ok.
- Above all else, I am not at all averse to your unblocking - if it was indeed as you see it, then we'll never have a similar situation again from this user, and that's awesome. If I was right, we've either corrected the behaviour (which is the goal of a block), or you've given them enough WP:ROPE. I will have faith in you that it's the former (i.e. you're right, and I'm wrong).
- The problem seems to be now between us - which surprises me. You see, I dislike admins trashing other admins. Your unblock was based on your belief (which I still disagree with), but you trashed me and the blocking admin in your unblock - that's 100% inappropriate. It's your belief that the block was unwarranted - I still disagree. Was it possible to phrase your unblock in such a away that you didn't trash people? Of course - an ounce of WP:AGF with something such as "although I can possibly understand the POV of X and Y, it's my belief that...". Maybe the word "disgusting" was a bit beyond, but with some of the sickening things going on across this project, I'm literally becoming disgusted.
- So, I have never treated you poorly - whatsoever. Did I want you to know that I was appalled by your choice of words? Damned right. Do we disagree? Clearly, yes - but that's human nature. Have I attacked you? Nope. Have I treated you poorly? Nope. I expressed my personal feeling about what your wording did - hoping that you'd choose more neutral wording next time.
- In terms of the other 2 editors you mention, they came right here to attack - there was no politeness whatsoever, and they showed zero good faith whatsoever. They had no business approaching me in the manner they did. Indeed, when I'm simply waiting for you to advise me why you used such an inflammatory unblock request, I was lambasted - not cool, not kosher.
- I have no idea what you mean by "my tone here" - I felt attacked by you, and then was literally attacked by 2 editors while I was trying to understand why you did what you did to me; I'm pretty sure I'm allowed to have a bit of a "tone" after that, if you consider my original shock/disbelief as a "tone".
- So yes, it's possible that a whole whack of people fucked up. However, there are two victims: the now-unblocked editor and me...and you're sitting there saying that I'm supposed to have accepted unwarranted attacks and still be a victim. Fantastic. Go ahead, take it to ANI (✉→BWilkins←✎) 19:27, 15 July 2013 (UTC)