User talk:Buster7/A. Horch & Cie

Editor of the Week
User:Horologium submitted the following nomination for Editor of the Week:


 * has been quietly fixing all sorts of articles relating to schools; he has de-orphaned articles, added wikilinks where appropriate, created redirects, added categories, and created an array of useful templates. And that's just one of the several areas in which he is active; he's also been busy creating and expanding articles in Bedfordshire, creating articles on historic buildings worldwide, and started almost 60 articles on British prisons. He has amassed over 45,000 edits, and outside of a couple of barnstars in 2010 and 2011, doesn't seem to be getting much in the way of recognition for all of his work. Horologium  (talk) 05:11, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

You can copy the following text to your user page to display a user box proclaiming your selection as Editor of the Week: Thanks again for your efforts!

Reciprocity
The NEW WIKIPEDIA EDITOR senses the Wikipedia Community and they want to be a part of it. They reach out to shake hands and that first handshake should be friendly. Resiprocity. Its why Wal-Mart has a greeter at the front door of ALL their stores. It creates a bond, a customer. It makes good business sense. Using the Wal-Mart greeter as an example, the First Contact Veteran Editors (FCVE) should not be there to help the New Editor decide on a red hat or a blue hat (or which aisle to shop in) but merely to point out where the HAT department is, if asked. The FCVE is the face of WikiPedia; a warm smile, a friendly greeting, assisting, re-assuring. The Initial Contact (FCVE) that the new editor has with a real live fellow editor should be smooth and it should create an opening for the new editor to "walk" into. Reciprocity. It should never be an Attack. "You broke the rules. You walked on the grass. You left the assigned area and dared to think you could edit. You need to be reprimanded and, perhaps, placed in detention, until you read the 57 page manual and learn what is right"! The Focus of the First Contact should never be about rules. It should Always be about "Welcome to Wikipedia"!
 * It should be obvious that the majority of New Editors do not come to do harm. And yet, it seems that the way things are now, that is not the assumption that many veteran editors envolved in the "early life" of a new editor have. Many New Editors are casual users that will either "sell" or condemn Wikipedia based on their experience here. We should do all possible to make that experience a good, fertile,one. POINT:every New Editor should be specifically, and with a determinite effort, be referred to as EDITOR not user or newbie or n00b or whatever. They are editors at their first "Save". WE need to change the conversation, the 'meme', that is prevelant about New Editors. We need to respect them right from the start as equals.
 * WE need to let them know, right from the start, that they are not alone; that they are part of a community, part of a partnership. We walk alongside them, a short way down the path into WikiWorld. Sounds sappy but is necessary to counter the less than savory moments they will definitely experience. They don't know it yet but there are Grenades (Toxic Editors,as Jimbo has called them) on the path. If they pick one up...and pull the pin....POW! Let them know there is a friend they can call to soften the blow..

Message to New Editor that still needs to create a User page
Welcome Aboard. Actually what I created for you was your Talk page...this page right here. If you notice everything @ Wikipedia has a talk page behind it. Creating your User page is up to you. It is a good place to begin in order to better understand the editing parameters here. Check out how other editors do stuff and follow their lead.Have fun. Important: Dont forget to sign your talk page edits. ```Buster Seven Talk

Early days message about editing
Hi. I've had to remove much of what you added to the Insert Article here article for the following reasons; Please don't let this put you off editing Wikipedia. Being objective is a difficult but necessary editorial trait. Perhaps you might try again. ```Buster Seven   Talk  21:46, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Firstly; you need to write neutrally in Wikipedia. As wikipedia editors, we should not add your own observations and opinions.  Phrases like "may be one of the best in the state" is voicing an opinion.
 * Secondly; you need to cite things. Claims like "Dr.Boucher's students have placed at the top in many national contests." need a verifyable source a source to verify it.
 * Thirdly; things should be notable. The fact that the school self-publishes writing by the students is not notable.  Many schools do this.  It is not evidence that "The school's honors writing program has been so successful".
 * Lastly; you should read Wikipedia's guidelines on conflict of interest. It is best to avoid writing about things you are directly involved in, as it can be hard to be completely objective.

'You got 's-plainin to do
The problem I see is that you have two classes of references/sources that need to be carefully segregated. First are those sources that are called "reliable sources" in Wikipedia Land: third party sources with no conflict of interest (nothing to be gained by saying good things about the book). Sources that are "reliable" you can use without hesitation in the body of your article. Others need to go in "External links" or the like. Amazon has a conflict of interest, so I think your first reference needs to go. Link to that "Amazon Best Books" stuff in the "Reviews" section. You have three "reliable source" type links so your article should be ok without it. Try to find a way to link the USA Today and Kirkus articles into the body of the article as references. The author's site is also not a "reliable source". Put the "Reviews" page from her site into the "Reviews" section. Tkotc (talk) 03:13, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Don't take it personal
And don't take it personally! The discussion is about the article, not about you (or about the other editors, so please don't take it out on them, either). Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 23:55, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Other editors

 * After all, the new article you create will be improved by other editors. That is the beauty of Wikipedia.

IP at Rjensen/Conservatism
Kudos to you for dropping your original complaint about the particular remarks by the IP that you specifically cited as its basis. Kudos also for your zealous desire to enforce policy. However the remarks that you have introduced as a new basis for complaint are just rather generalized anti-liberal rants that breach the injunction against using the article's talk page as a forum. (Also you cannot possibly know what the IP's remarks were "designed" for unless the IP has told you.) And while you are right (and please note I did not suggest otherwise) that you can request a block, that's a far cry from your original grandiose statement about "initiating block proceedings" - something your administrator of choice may or may not decide to pursue in response to your, er, humble request. Best wishes. Writegeist (talk) 04:44, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

The Brain
''The brain is a connection machine. It craves patterns and searches for them endlessly''...Thomas B Czerner (2001)
 * No 2 brains are alike. Not in how they look nor in what they dowhen they do what they do. Each brain finds connections and associatoons and links a little differently. How we are wired is different. So is our writing...and our view of ourselves. You have an inflated view of yourself and your role here.
 * Consciousness is subject to error. We see our actions according to our expectations. As a consequence, we get things wrong...especially about ourselves. At the same time, we, as humans, reject being wrong. And so we accept our conscious observation of who we are even if it may be erroneous. People fight hard to hold on to their view of the World. They fight hard to be right about being wrong.

Anias Nin
We see the World as we are, not as what it is....Anias Nin
 * Admins see problems just as Doctors see diseases, Mathematicians see equations, Soldiers see friction and Combat.

Ched
TI first posted this at that other place but then I noticed that all the furniture was in disarray and old pizza boxes and Swanson TV dinners were strewn all over the place. Your Mick Jagger poster was in shreds and some old Bobby Darin record was repeating "...has such teeth, dear, and he shows them pearly white"...over and over again. The front door was wide open so any vagrant can just walk in and make himself at home. I would have stayed longer but the smell was unbearable. Anywho..... I just ran across Template:Friendship Barnstar and read what you said about me. A tear formed in my Left eye. (My Right eye never cries in public). The fact that I was chopping onions for this evenings fish fry had nothing to do with it. TY. ```B7 Talk 13:11, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Brian v Dave/3RR Warning
Please be apprised of WP:EW. Cheers. Collect (talk) 00:56, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm already apprised, which is why I have been both altering the edit(s), inviting you to meet me part way by introducing your own preferred reading instead of just deleting, and addressing the issue on the Talk page.--Brian Dell (talk) 01:12, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Someone is likely to take you to WP:3RRN if you don't self-revert. I haven't decided whether I'm too lazy tonight to do it myself.  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 21:18, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Go ahead. It might be a "teachable moment."  It'd be an opportunity for me to explain to persons wanting to mediate and reduce edit wars the importance of applying common sense.  The other guy reverted "support" four times in less than 24 hours, twice because he apparently didn't want K Street mentioned at all, and then twice because he wanted a more minimal connection to K Street, despite the fact that "support" is clearly in the New York Times article and he's never identified any reason to believe that source is not reliable.  Had he actually considered the material I had originally added in full inside of indiscriminately reverting it all, he would have realized that a fullscale reversion was indefensible and, at a minimum, would have cut the edit war in half by starting yesterday in the war where he started today.  In other words the edit war was certainly unnecessarily prolonged by a lack of analysis and, in my view, the edit war would have been completely unnecessary had he done even a modest amount of analysis (like searching news.google.com for "Santorum" and "K Street" and seeing far more sources pop up than he could reasonably deny).  I asked him on his Talk page to consider limiting his reversion to the portion of the edit(s) that he finds objectionable (and is prepared to defend his objection), but he's apparently either unwilling or unable to understand the point.  I accordingly do not object to getting others involved in a discussion of the origins of and lessons of this edit war.  If you're of the view that these considerations are all irrelevant and of issue is just my reversion count, it may still be worthwhile to formally complain because the process of counting our reversions might be instructive to the other guy, who contends that his reversions don't count if they "do not affect any of [the other party's] words."  I would actually be fine with that definition if it were applied to all editors equally.--Brian Dell (talk) 00:10, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * It would be nice if you reflected what I have actually written and not what you appear to wish I had written. And what Wikipedia means by "revert" and the fact that you specifically solicited my rewording compromise.  Cheers. Collect (talk) 00:18, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Ah, but a rule is a rule, no? 4 reverts, and of identifiable material (what material can you identify that I have reverted "SIX" times?), in less than 24 hours!  You say there's a mitigating factor?  You know what, I agree!  But that's because I am someone who is open to mitigating factors; whereas you seem to be interested in rules, especially when citing a rule can excuse summary action or otherwise failing to inquire further into something.  You've proved to be absolutely rigid with respect to citing what you deem to be an "editorial" even when it appears to be pointless to do so in terms of how the article will end up substantively.  Open your mind a little, my friend.  Cheers.--Brian Dell (talk) 00:39, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Again - please treat what I say with honesty and accuracy. And remember that I am far from the only editor who actually follows WP:BLP equally for everyone across the board.  Collect (talk) 00:48, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * No "Cheers" this time? What should I infer from this unusual omission?  If you want "honesty and accuracy", as I do (which includes not compromising on either in the face of someone going on about a politician's WP:BLP), I would encourage you to use quotes, as this can help verify accuracy.  When I said you reverted me four times, I ignored what you reverted that was non-substantive to the dispute and focused on what was, and then put that in quotation marks ("support").  If I've reverted you substantively six times, I would think you could do me the same courtesy by putting the word(s) of yours that I've reverted this many times in quotes.  Likewise, a faithful and accurate presentation of Wikipedia policy would involve quoting from the policy.  Failing that, the accuracy of a statement about what policy is may be disputed, no?--Brian Dell (talk) 01:15, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * WP:BLP applies absolutely equally to all biographies of living persons - politicians, schoolteachers, novelists, actors - everyone. No distinctions in the policy. Cheers. Collect (talk) 21:31, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Not true. To ensure "honesty and accuracy" I shall quote from the the policy which explicitly distinguishes "Public figures" from "People who are relatively unknown." WP:WELLKNOWN says that for these people "BLPs should simply document what [reliable published] sources say. If an allegation or incident is notable, relevant, and well-documented, it belongs in the article — even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it." An example is given of a "politician" with instructions to include if "the New York Times publishes the allegations..." WP:NPF, meanwhile, says for "people who... are not generally well known... exercise restraint and include only material relevant to their notability, focusing on high quality secondary sources. ... Material that may adversely affect a person's reputation should be treated with special care; in many jurisdictions... there is additional protection for subjects who are not public figures."--Brian Dell (talk) 21:44, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Nice attempt at parsing - but contentious claims even about politicians require strong sourcing.  Your elision of that important part does not aid your argument here.  Cheers. Collect (talk) 01:10, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
 * At issue was YOUR "argument" that WP:BLP applies "absolutely" equally with "no distinctions." This is not language that exists in the policy.  It's language you've invented and then passed off as Wikipedia policy.  If you are not habitually engaging in this you would start QUOTING from policy and stop paraphrasing.  You're been removing considerable amounts of material from various articles the "contentiousness" of which is far from obvious.  Even if it were obvious, there is no authorization to remove unless the sourcing is "poor" or non-existent.  BLP goes into more detail about what is considered poorly sourced and gives examples.  If you are going to remove sourced material, you should be prepared to explain why it is "poor," by, for example, calling attention to WP:RS.  An "opinion" piece could be a poor source, and even probably is, but is not necessarily a poor source for all kinds of claims and for all methods of presentation within a Wikipedia article.  One final observation I'll make here is that WP:NPOV is deemed a "fundamental principle" and a "pillar".  WP:BLP does not have this status, which means that there is no general authorization to bias any articles, including BLP articles, in any direction, including in favour of the article subject.--Brian Dell (talk) 02:38, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
 * And it still does. Your parsing refers only to an example of a politician and is not in any way a apecial treatment of "politicians" as a class.  In fact, the section you claim to make "politicians" a separate class applies identically to all public persons.  As for asserting that following WP:BLP causes a "bias" in favor of the person, such an assertion is absurd entirely!  Collect (talk) 07:03, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Edit warring at The National Law Journal
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on The National Law Journal. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement. Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states: If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing.
 * 1) Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
 * 2) Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

Kudos

 * .....This is an important cultural point embodied in the principle of "Assume Good Faith" - we will sometimes have disagreements that aren't anyone's fault, particularly when they result from failures to mutually achieve a mental connection. The constant seeking for blame and winners and losers in debate is a poison.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 22:16, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Canvas

 * "...almost every time WP:CANVASS is cited, the person citing it is in the wrong. [It is] used to shut down discussion. [It]'s used to suggest that you shouldn't talk to people who you agree with." - Jimbo Wales, co-founder of Wikipedia.

"Not the kind we want" to attract
Rambling Man asked me up above, in a thread that will likely be archived soon, what I meant by a comment I made about the use of the featured article to attract new readers. I wanted to answer the question here, in a separate thread, because it is an issue of more general issue than the topic under discussion there.

If one believes, as Rambling Man and others seem to agree, that at least one criterion we might usefully use to judge whether or not a particular article should be included as a featured article on the home page is the potential impact on helping to attract good editors, then we might ask ourselves: "what kinds of editors do we most need to attract?" I should hasten to add that I am among those who think that we should be doing lots of things to attract new editors, and that it is one (but not the only) factor that should inform our decisions about the editorial content of the home page.

(And, to pre-answer one potential objection, NPOV does not require that we select home page articles randomly. We can and should use editorial judgment based on a number of factors.  NPOV can inform that process, but does not drive forward any simplistic rules about it.)

We know that our community is not well-balanced in some interesting ways. We are predominantly male. We are predominantly tech-geeky. We know, too, that this drives some unevenness in content. Topics popular with tech-geek males (like, for example, South Park, a topic about which we have, I believe, over 200 pages) are very well covered.

Having these articles is not a cause for shame or distaste. It's a good thing.

But at the same time, we know that it is not where we should be focusing our new-editor and editor-retention efforts.

The day that Cartman Gets an Anal Probe appeared on the front page of the site, it also happened to be the 200th birthday of Charles Dickens. If I've done my counting correctly, then in Category:Charles_Dickens_characters we have 49 characters from 6 works of Dickens. There exist hundreds, many of them not likely worthy of an entry, but many of them must be regarded as holes in our efforts to date.

My point is that if we wish to use the home page as, in part, and as we should I think, a tool of editor recruitment and retention, then we should focus our efforts not on where we are already incredibly strong (i.e. pop culture, technology, history of war, etc.) but on areas where we are weak.

Some who were asking me this question seemed to be girding themselves for a battle on the "worthiness" of South Park as a topic. I'll decline to have that argument. It isn't about worthiness as a topic, it's about what we should be focussed on when focussing on recruitment.

If you are a baseball team with the 3 best pitchers in the history of the game, but no one who can hit the ball, you don't recruit more pitchers. --Jimbo Wales (talk) 20:57, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Structural inequality
Defined as a condition where one category of people are attributed an unequal status in relation to other categories of people. This relationship is perpetuated and reinforced by a confluence of unequal relations in roles, functions, decisions rights, and opportunities. As opposed to cultural inequality, which focuses on the individual decisions associated with these imbalances, structural inequality refers specifically to the inequalities that are systemically rooted in the normal operations of dominant social institutions, and can be divided into categories like residential segregation or healthcare, employment and educational discrimination. Example:French in Belgium pre-2000

Strategic ambiguity
A policy of deliberate ambiguity (also known as a policy of strategic ambiguity) is the practice by a country of being intentionally ambiguous on certain aspects of its foreign policy or whether it possesses certain weapons of mass destruction. It may be useful if the country has contrary foreign and domestic policy goals or if it wants to take advantage of risk aversion to abet a deterrence strategy. Such a policy can be very risky as it may cause misinterpretation of a nation's intentions, leading to actions that contradict that nation's wishes.

Before the advent of autoediting tools
...this was a reasonable measure of devotion to the project. In my early days I became an opponent of his list. It happened when at a Meetup/San Francisco 2 a colleague wekipedian told me "I know you: you are #6 in WP:NOE" He probably thought it was a compliment, but I suddenly felt a sharp pain of the feeling of the low intrinsic value of my contribution to human knowledge, since it was appreciated only in terms of the number of mouse clicks. Therefore I left the meetup shortly after and never 'meetupped' again. Now I understand it was part of my growing mental problems, but my opinion about this rat race did not change. Nevertheless, in these olden days when looking at the "Top 100" contributors, I could personally attest they were indeed top content contributors. The Top 100 landscape dramatically changed with the advent of autowikibrowsers and stuff, so today, looking at the "Top 100" I cannot get rid of an image of a lab rat with the pleasure center of its brain wired, incessantly pressing a lever (and wikipedia lacks this picture). - Altenmann >t 21:59, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

A follow up on User:Bw Fro Jimbo's page
I would not have come here, but then I saw this discussion and wished I had come here earlier instead of WP:WQA. A couple of days ago, I filed a Wikiquette report about BWilkins and his non-admin account for responding to my concerns about his admin actions with personal attacks (that is, a week after I left my original message, a week after he had responded the first time). It didn't help that he never gave a straight answer why he switched accounts, beyond saying he was "harassed" and acting like it was standard admin behavior. Only today has he gone on to further elaborate that it was "formal harassment from the primary editor in that Jimbo fiasco," which lead me here. Ian.thomson (talk) 13:37, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Requests for Comment/Community de-adminship proof of concept/Proposals
 * User:Bwilkins when editing as his "alternate non-admin account" does refer to the Bwilkins account in the third-person confusing the fact that the two are linked as the same person. Properly writting "I am on vacation as Bwilkins" when typing as the other account would be preferable IMO. But if one is on vacation and can not be on the other account, it makes one wonder why the "non-admin" account can be accessed and used for communication and not the admin one. If as now stated it is because of "harrassment", well that should be made more clear on both accounts. Harrassment doesnt mean you can hide. I tried hiding from Bwilkins and I got accused of sockpuppetry. In the discussion above linked by Ian.thomson it is pointed out that Bwilkins could be a little more clear on both pages and when speaking about the Bwilkins account when under the other account. If what someone does smells fishy, then it probably is a fish. BTW I'm Camelbinky, I'm not signed in, and I'm not a sockpuppet, and I'm not afraid of making that obvious.97.85.211.124 (talk) 14:41, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Many administrators use alternate non-admin accounts when they are not on their personal computer or other area where they feel the security might be insecure. If something were to happen and their account became compromised, it would be dangerous if they were using their admin account.  I am fairly certain that this is what Bwilkins is doing here.  For other examples see User:Hersfold non-admin. Ryan Vesey 14:54, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Ryan, that wasn't what happened. Bwilkins was told to stay off his admin account because of personal attacks against GabeMc. In an unrelated matter at around the same time, I left a message for Bwilkins questioning his admin actions, to which he responded under his alternate account. Then, a week later, he started attacking me on his alternate account, a week after the issue had been dropped. When I found out that who the alternate account was, he said that he wouldn't log on to his admin account because he was "harassed," and today it's become clear that he was referring to the report GabeMc filed about the personal attacks he (Bwilkins) made. At no point did he imply that GabeMc was trying to compromise his account, he left because he was advised to after attacking other editors, which he has continued to do as a non-admin. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:10, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure what the problem is. I advised Jimbo via e-mail that in lieu of desysopping my Bwilkins account (which would also require the desysopping of an adminbot that performs admin actions), I would be switching to this account, and named it to him. When I first switched, I still had an editor who believed that the occasional swearing was somehow against Wikipedia policy, and was trolling through 6 years of contributions to try and use any bad word (even out of context) against me. That was full-bore harassment, and as such I originally only linked the accounts to ArbComm, Jimbo and one trusted Administrator. Not long after, I formally linked the accounts and continued to monitor my Bwilkins talkpage, etc. Nothing to see here folks. dangerous panda 15:06, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
 * The problem is that you continued to attack other users and refuse to acknowledge it. Regardless of what happened during GabeMc's later report, even Jimbo Wales agreed with the initial point that your incivility was a problem, which is why he recommended you switch accounts.  Ian.thomson (talk) 15:10, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
 * And once again, continuing to imply that I'm not on Wikipedia to help the site. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:12, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
 * The proof is in your actions. This includes the fact that when you have been advised quite clearly to keep off of my talkpage, and the reason provided was quite clear (your brutal bad faith, as evidence by your continued provocation), you need to stay off my talkpage: it isenforceable if the harassment continues. dangerous panda 15:23, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
 * If I hadn't notified you, would that have not opened the door to "oh, you're trying to talk about an editor behind his back"? And for the record, you said "Take your additional bad faith accusations elsewhere," not to not give you standard notification.  Ian.thomson (talk) 15:37, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Looking at this: your notification of individuals related to the previous discussion was very selective: you only notified those who made negative statements: . You also appear to have accused Bwilkins of having a sockpuppet account, you also demanded he ban a specific other editor and that he should "responsibility for the tendentious editor and block him". IRWolfie- (talk) 15:25, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I was quite confused at ESAL's recent offense over something that I directed at Bwilkins over a week ago, especially after he responded over a week ago as if he was a different person. Another admin made the block of that TE shortly after because it was more than justified, and Bwilkins was why that editor was not blocked earlier.  I admit I notified editors who were concerned about Bwilkins's civility problems, along with his non-admin account, and admit that (per procedure) I should have notified the people who would only excuse his unacceptable attacks, as though they wouldn't come out of the woodwork on their own.  Ian.thomson (talk) 15:37, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I have notified everyone from the previous discussion except a blocked user and an SPA IP whose only comment was a snide remark. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:44, 4 August 2012 (UTC)


 * "Nothing to see"?!! Seriously, this crap you continue to do with "I advised Jimbo via e-mail" is ridiculous and is getting old. First a secret apology to "the community" but it is sent to Jimbo's email. You have been a rude editor/admin to US not to Jimbo. You're obligations to be forthcoming and honest is to the Community, to all of us, not to Jimbo and who you choose. This is in no way the proper way to conduct yourself and only shows you lack the common sense and common pure democratic ideas that are Wikipedia, the idea that community consensus trumps all, that the community of editors makes decisions, that even Jimbo whom I personally respect and listen to is NOT the "emperor" people try to smear him with. You continue to obstruct the ability of the community to look into your actions and your behavior, you continue to always say "nothing to see here folks" and hide people who complain or attack them for "harrassment". Ridiculous. I will be watching your contributions as this new account, and I will continue to voice my opinions regarding your ability to contribute without being an ass. You always end your comments with such wording that there is no drama or discussion whenever someone brings you up on "charges"; (Personal attack removed) Now be a hypocrite and ban me, I dont give a flying fuck, Im sick of you and your backdoor conversations and trying to swat people like annoying flies. We are human beings trying to do something, and as long as those like you are around it makes it harder to get anything done.Camelbinky (talk) 15:19, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
 * What in the world are you talking about? My apology to the community as a whole was not secret: it was right here in Jimbo's talkpage.  I have not attacked anyone, I have not been uncivil in the slightest.  Indeed, I've created a couple of stubs, and pretty much stayed off of Wikipedia as a whole for a few weeks now.  Please, do watch this account like a hawk.  dangerous panda  15:30, 4 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I have removed your most overt personal attack. Related to this, I note your own past complaint about Bwilkins was about his use of swear words and incivility: User_talk:Jimbo_Wales/Archive_111. IRWolfie- (talk) 15:33, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
 * It is these sorts of situations that I find extremely paradoxical; we admins are purportedly power hungry, conniving tyrants who block who they please, yet we tend to be on the end of vicious attacks from non-admins about said personality traits; when that happens, we usually let go without sanction, thereby allowing ourselves to be walked all over. I'm disappointed that Bwilkins has felt the need to take a break from adminning, as I think he's one of our best, and the sooner he gets back to it the better.  The Blade of the Northern Lights  ( 話して下さい ) 15:44, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I think this thread pretty much isn't going anywhere useful. Whatever the issues are, I can't see clearly what they are now, and whether they still pose a problem. If BWilkins felt the need to take a break, it was probably for the best, and I would say that he surely understands why it was needed, and I hope he makes the most of that break. At this point, unless there is an immediate problem Jimbo or the rest of us can solve, it might be better to just end this thread and begin anew. -- Avanu (talk) 15:54, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

The account names Hersfold non-admin or Elen on the Roads make the account status plainly clear, the primary accounts are clearly viewable on the user page, and both are listed in the Alternative Wikipedia accounts category. The Bwilkins user talk page states ''This user is non-permanently away from Wikipedia as of July 23, 2012. '' (emphasis mine); the reference to Bwilkins on the ESAL page is not plainly viewable but contained within a link. So it's a false comparison to say ESAL is like Hersfold non-admin. That said, the Bwilkins account is off line and the most respectful and appropriate thing to do would be for us to let it alone until it becomes active again. Nobody Ent 16:18, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Bwilkins is voluntarily not acting as an admin and using his primary account. This was not a Wikipedia sanction as it did not take place at ArbCom.  It was not an official sanction by Jimmy, who is not flexing his bit to bypass ArbCom. Bwilkins made at least one mistake, and is taking actions to remedy that mistake.  Continuing to badger and bludgeon him over it is unseemly and more importantly, it is simply unfair.  Fairness doesn't require a policy to back it up, it should be self-evident and applied to everyone equally, admin or not.  If you want to demand that admins treat everyone fairly (and I would join you in that) then you must demand the same from yourself and treat him fairly as well.  This has gotten out of hand, and needs to stop.  I agreed and stated that Bwilkins needed a break, so I feel I am neutral in saying we need to stop bludgeoning him during this break.  Dennis Brown -  2&cent;    &copy;   Join WER 16:29, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Dennis I respectfully disagree. You can check this page's archives and see that I came to BWilkins' defense when my friend Gabe got too pushy. But at the end of the day BWilkins has no one but himself to blame for all of this. Using another account for the time being is a far cry from stepping down for a while. Had he done the latter I would have respected him. By changing accounts he remains eligible to pick up his tools in six months (or sooner, should he choose to do so.) He has bypassed the need to reapply at RfA, which he IMO would (deservedly) have very little chance of passing. This whole "voluntarily not acting as an admin" thing is a farce and it's shameful. Joefromrandb (talk) 17:27, 4 August 2012 (UTC)


 * There's also the separate problem that the ESAL account seemingly existed for years as an undeclared sock of Bwilkins; and that apparently his use of it was in breach of the sockpuppetry policy and had to be pointed out to him. (If Courcelles hadn't spotted it and pointed it out to him, would Bwilkins have carried on without ever publicly admitting the link?) I'm not sure that another editor going through his past contribs, even if taking some of them out of context, is an excuse for that.


 * Ordinary editors have to put up with people going through their contribs; the difference is that administrators, unlike ordinary editors, more often have the opportunity to make that harder for people (notice there's a bunch of edits on the ESAL talk page that are no longer viewable by ordinary editors.) I feel uneasy that there are, apparently, so many administrators who have rafts of undisclosed past accounts when going to RfA, socks for all manner of things, vanished editors that later develop cleanstart accounts and all the rest of it. The problem of the ESAL account identity having been hidden is now resolved, but what should be pointed out (for the benefit of others) is that it's not a good example of how to do things. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 17:48, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Personally, I think experiencing Wikipedia from the other side of the bit is a good thing, rather than a complete break, as there are more lessons to be learned. This is no different than using his regular account with the bit removed (and the bot was the reason it wasn't convenient)  As for sock policy, never confuse the word "should" with "must", as it was intentionally added to be vague, to allow for exceptions.  Should this be one?  I don't know, but this isn't the proper venue to discover that.  And yes, I agree it would have been much better if he would have but it is moot now. If there is a breach of policy, then taking it to appropriate venue is the answer, however, and not a public lashing on Jimmy's page. This would be consistent with how we treat every other editor (ie: fairness).  WP:SPI is the proper venue for sock investigations, for example.  The whole idea is to get a taste of non-admin life, and this current discussion on Jimmy's page isn't facilitating that, as it is not a neutral board. And it is voluntary, as no one has been barred from seeking resolution at ArbCom. Dennis Brown -  2&cent;    &copy;   Join WER 19:41, 4 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Problem is, "non-admin life" sometimes involves having people like Bwilkins scream at one as being "fucking annoying" (or many variations on that theme). If you really think "a taste of non-admin life" is the aim, then some criticism in this forum (non-neutral or otherwise) is as good a way as any to get a little closer to understanding how that feels. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:06, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Step 1: Bwilkins acts inappropriately. Step 2: Bwilkins is admonished by Jimbo. Step 3: Bwilkins voluntarily takes a break from his admin account and apologizes. Step 4:Members of the community continue to beat Bwilkins's dead horse. Step 5: ??? Step 6: Profit? Sædon talk 20:06, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Hear, hear.-- Gilderien Chat&#124;List of good deeds 20:14, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
 * This reminds me of Pablo Escobar "serving time" in his mansion. If BWilkins is unwilling to step down and reapply for adminship in six months then he should just continue with his main account. This whole dog and pony show of voluntarily stepping down while keeping his admin tools at the ready is an abomination. Joefromrandb (talk) 20:11, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Um, there was not going to be a need for me to re-RFA - not sure where you got that from. dangerous panda 20:18, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
 * And he could have just ignored any of it, forcing everyone to go to ArbCom, where it is very unlikely he would have lost the bit anyway. You don't have to like the current situation to accept it, and more importantly, hope something worthwhile is learned from the experience.  I have no desire for vengeance, only for change, and everyone should be fair enough to facilitate that change.  Beating him up is only going to make someone dig in, it is human nature, and undermines the situation.  Dennis Brown -  2&cent;    &copy;   Join WER 20:17, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
 * If a situation on a website reminds you of Pablo Escobar, you really, seriously need to get a sense of perspective; a generalized version of Point 17 rather nicely fits. Incidentally, as like Bwilkins I'm not trying to hide anything, do you have a problem with this alternate account here? Hall of Jade (お話しになります )  20:53, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
 * The horse isn't dead, the horse seems to have been kicking back for all it's worth, while intermittently being disguised as a different horse. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:06, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, Blade, I do. Why should a reviewer of this thread have to jump through hoops to see that Hall of Jade == BONL? It doesn't add anything to the discussion and wastes other peoples time. Nobody Ent 16:56, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
 * If it were up to me I probably wouldn't use an alternate account, but I know better than to have an admin account on an insecure connection; every so often my Internet goes down (c.f. now) and I kick over to 3G, as is what happened in this instance. It also does make it a tiny bit harder to track my contributions; I have a very good memory, but it can and sometimes does fail me, so a couple times I've forgotten to check the right contribs.  You'll see I rarely use it, and that would be why.  Hall of Jade (お話しになります )  22:49, 5 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Well the suggestion Nobody Ent was making, is that your sig should make clear (or at least obviously imply) which account you're an alternate of. Which isn't required by policy, but wouldn't interfere with your using the alternate account to deal with insecure connections or whatever else you need it for.


 * Either way, I'll presume that if you'd used your alternate account extensively to "edit policies, guidelines, or their talk pages; comment in Arbitration proceedings; or vote in requests for adminship, deletion debates, or elections" or to deliberately interact with people that you'd just had major rows with on your main account, both of which Bwilkins did, then your alternate account would've identified itself on its userpage first - which is what Bwilkins did not do. Apparently he did not do so because of "harassment" by the editor that his alt account then went and deliberately interacted with. Which, to me, doesn't make a lot of sense. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 12:28, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Wow, didn't recognize that this was still on. A couple of major errors in the above: I do not consider the incident with Gabe to be a "major row", period.  My interactions with them in ANI and AN3 were minor IMHO, and merely to advise that they were also partly responsible for a situation.  That they escalated it is, in the long run, a non-issue (albeit a noisy one).  My responsibility as a person, and as an editor, is still to assist where needed.  I saw that Gabe was being harassed by another editor, and I stepped in to try and diffuse it.  In many ways, that's perfect proof that I hold no grudges, and it proves my own point in the whole situation.  Thanks for making my point better than I was myself dangerous panda  12:51, 6 August 2012 (UTC)


 * So who was the editor who was (you claimed) "harrassing" you to such an extent that you needed to use an undeclared sock account, and use it in breach of policy? The assumption widely repeated here is that it was Gabe. If that assumption is incorrect, why did you not correct it? If it's correct, why would one of your first actions with your (at the time) undeclared sock account be to start watching Gabe's page - and indeed then to start editing there without identifying yourself to the person who'd supposedly just been seriously "harassing" you? If action needed to be taken, wouldn't it have been better for you to discreetly notify another administrator? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 17:48, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
 * As WP:ABF as you continue to be towards me, simply because I dared to honestly critique the behaviour of of someone you once mentored, I will only say this: one of the finest real life mentors I ever met once told me "the hardest thing to do is actually NOT forgiving your harshest critic; the hardest thing is to actually serve them". I could tell you the most incredible story of following this that they once relayed to me, but not in public.  Choosing to serve rather than hold grudges forever is healthier both for me, them, and the project as a whole.  You should try it sometime. <font style="color:#ffffff;background:black;">dangerous <font style="color:#000000;background:white;">panda  18:54, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Support for EatsShootsAndLeaves position here - move along - nothing to see  -  You  really  can  19:00, 6 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Since he refuses to address genuine concerns, and instead throws out more accusations of bad faith and some psychology 101 feel-good guff as yet more smokescreen, there is indeed nothing more to see here. Congratulations. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 19:41, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Well, then...
If Bwilkins/ESAL had not come back a week after an issue was over with to accuse me of bad faith, none of this would have happened. If he had been more upfront about why he was not using his admin account (he didn't even have to connect the accounts for all I care, he could have said "Bwilkins has stepped down because of a discussion on User talk:Jimbo Wales) instead of evading the issue, I would not have asked why he didn't carry out the block. If he at any point apologized for calling me a bad faith tendentious editor despite all my article contributions being completely positive and helpful and most of my interactions with users being as cordial as they allow, I would have dropped it.

None of that happened.

I was under the impression that if a user has a behavioral problem that prompts him to step down from his admin account, and that he resumes that behavior a week later, that would be seen as a continuation of the problem and a sign of its severity. I was also under the impression that other editors would only comment if they read what was going on, would not have a knee-jerk reaction that an admin's behavior must be right, and would not defend unrelated behaviors.

I was wrong, and I'm dropping this. I can only hope that:
 * people who pay attention, don't play favorites, and actually have read the policies and guidelines handle this,
 * or that such people do so in the future,
 * or that Bwilkins/ESAL learns to watch his tongue.

Ian.thomson (talk) 20:59, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I have not resumed any behaviour. I have not attacked anyone, I have not been uncivil - not even sure I've used any "colourful" language.  Your continued statements otherwise are unproven, and obviously unprovable.  <font style="color:#ffffff;background:black;">dangerous <font style="color:#000000;background:white;">panda  21:07, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
 * @Dennis-I have no desire to "beat him up". I'll again remind you that I actually came to his defense when Gabe started getting silly. I too have no desire for vengeance. I have a desire to see his deplorable actions as a Wikipedia administrator stopped, and switching accounts for the moment while keeping his tools does not help that problem one iota.
 * @HoJ-If you are unable to see that I was reminded of the absurdity of the situation rather than Pablo Escobar himself, I question which one of us lacks a sense of perspective. Joefromrandb (talk) 21:16, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, I got what you were saying, but it seemed within the spirit, if not the letter, of Godwin's Law. I'm as given to hyperbole as anyone, but I try very hard to avoid comparisons to people like Escobar, Idi Amin or my personal favorite, Thích Quảng Đức, because it detracts from the overall message.  The rest, I've commented on above; I think this is a case where reasonable people can come to different conclusions, as can a reasonable person and I.  Hall of Jade (<font face="MS Mincho" color="black">お話しになります )  21:47, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

I would have been more than happy to stay out of this thread altogether, however, since my name has been specifically mentioned and my actions last month alluded to, I will comment.
 * Clarification - 1) I did not search through 6 years of diffs when I was complaining about Bwilkins' pattern of abusive behavious, I glanced over only his previous three months. 2) I made two edits to Bwilkins talk page after he had reverted me there. One was two minutes after, (which I was likely still typing when the revert occured) and one was 72 minutes after, which was a request for admin assistance that Bwilkins ignored and reverted as vandalism. I was not aware of the reverts when I posted those two posts and as soon as I was made aware of them, I stopped posting there. So I am really not sure how that was hasassment of Bwilkins. 3) Bwilkins never asked me to not post on his talk page, he still hasn't, all he said was: "further posts from you will, indeed, be removed at my leisure." So yeah, I can see now how that is very close to saying "don't post on my talk page", but it is not the same thing, its confusing and it leaves too much room for ambiguity. To me, it meant he would delete anything he wanted or not delete anything he wanted, as he didn't revert everything I posted there. Why not just say, "I'm formally asking you to stop posting to my talk page"? Problem solved. IMO, the vague language set a bit of a trap, where it would not be too unreasonable to assume I might unwittingly post there again. I have no idea whether this was intentional by Bwilkins, I will AGF.
 * Concerns - 1) It is my understanding, per WP:WIAPA that to accuse an editor of harassment without showing evidence in the form of diffs is in itself a personal attack, and thus a form of harassment, i.e. "Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence. Serious accusations require serious evidence." Well today ESAL posted this, which seems to imply that someone is harassing him at this thread, but I see no harassment here today, perhaps someone can point out where the harassment is in this thread, as it seems to be a very subjective notion here, applied liberally by some and conservatively by others. I do not think admins should be throwing around the H-word unless backed by diffs. Admins have much power to cast doubt on an editor and unsubstantiated accusations from them can serve to humiliate and defame a user. 2) If Bwilkins is operating socks inappropriately that should be taken to SPI and dealt with there. 3) I agree in principle with Dennis Brown that Bwilkins need not be publicly lashed here, however, I also fully understand the reluctance to pursue the proper channels when dealing with an abusive admin. I too would have been willing to file a formal report last month had I not been completely convinced that nothing could possibly come from it. The current processes for holding admins accountable are currently not sufficient and are even deemed corrupt by many. Why is it that a non-admin user can be indefed within hours of an AN/I report but to hold an admin accountable we need a special cabal/committee? In the end, Bwilkins' behaviours have awoke a sleeping community to the dangers of absolute power without accountability, and as such the community is currently making efforts to reform the process of de-sysoping. Also, I think the record number of 100% supports at RfA these past two weeks is in some way connected to this issue/discussion. I think we have Bwilkins to indirectly thank for all this. In the end, Bwilkins has publicly ignored Jimbo's suggestion, and as a result he has undermined Jimbo's authority, and ultimately, his own. Afterall, who will be willing to voluntarily follow advice from an admin who refuses to voluntarily follow advice from Jimbo? ~ GabeMc  (talk 22:41, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
 * He didn't "undermine Jimbo's authority". Jimbo chose not to exercise his authority. I think the biggest reason that Jimbo is so often thought of as merely a figurehead is the fact that he so rarely exercises his authority. Jimbo stated BWilkins' actions were "grounds for an immediate desysoping". Jimbo holds the power to desysop. Jimbo should have desysoped him. And while I hold Jimbo in high regard, the fact that he didn't put his money where his mouth was has enabled BWilkins to carry on this "admin without his tools" charade. Joefromrandb (talk) 23:00, 4 August 2012 (UTC)


 * This discussion is pointless. If anyone has new evidence of an issue requiring attention, it should be at WP:ANI. I see a couple of links above which, when examined, show no problem . The usual suspects are complaining about power-crazy admins going on rampages, but there is nothing substantive in the complaints. My recommendation would be for the OP to welcome one of life's lesson—not everyone sees things the way you do. If the matter is not dropped, it will eventually boomerang as the community has a limited tolerance for the kind of unhelpful pot-stirring shown here. Johnuniq (talk) 00:42, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree. Drmies (talk) 03:17, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I second the agree. Doc   talk  11:51, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Also agree. - Jorgath (talk) (contribs) 02:12, 6 August 2012 (UTC)