User talk:EatsShootsAndLeaves

I'm fine with the whole new name, distancing from old identity whatever it is, but you need to pick a name *and* a role and stay with it.

As I write this section, I see the following: "you want me to sign into my admin account to take care of something: odds are very good that it will not happen right now - I'm taking a break from my admin roles, and it would take some extra-special reason to go against that"

Yet, I just saw a post where you say: "Why not answer an admin here on your talkpage?"(link)

You've got a signature that makes your username appear to be "dangerouspanda", even though your username is "EatsShootsAndLeaves". On your user page, you have obfuscated your primary username, Bwilkins, with a promise to not act as a sock. In essence, you are doing several things that mix up who you are and what your intentions are. This is bad form and bad practice and unbecoming for a guy who is trusted with administrative rights and claims the status of "thousands of edits".

My two cents is that you need to either transfer the admin bit to this account or drop it. My other two cents is that you need to stop using a misleading signature that makes it appear as if you are some other editor. You claim this is all approved. I'd like you to request a review of these behaviors from your fellow admins. Thanks. -- Avanu (talk) 23:47, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree - this is a misuse of multiple accounts. StAnselm (talk) 08:03, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Avanu: no, our signature policies are clear, thanks. StAnselm, no, it clearly is not socking. Intentions are obvious, and this misreading is pretty bad faith and brutal. I'll be happy to go back to Bwilkins - it's never been retired, and never intended to be retired. dangerouspanda 08:35, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Let me give my interpretation of the "issue" that's causing the ruckus here. We have an editor A who, rather than try and politely deal with another editor B directly, they went straight to complain at ANI that they "removed their post". Editor B was obviously quite confused for being "taken to ANI for your behaviour". The response at ANI was "looks like a simple edit conflict - no problem". Editor A said "oh, I'll AGF then". Editor B is still a bit pissed off. The only thing I have tried to get editor A to understand is that as Wikipedia is a community, they should have tried to work it out with editor B directly before calling the cops. Editor A instead became belligerent, insisting that he ONLY needs to respond to admins in ANI, rather than simply say "ok, I learned from this". It makes no difference if an editor, an admin, a buro asks the simple question - it's simple with no threat involved.

Regarding my signature: our signature policy quite clearly states that you may sign differently from your username, indeed, it's the preferred method to asking for a rename. This account is ancient, and there`s nothing illegal or improper.

Regarding the link on my userpage: it's been discussed ad nauseum, but has also been found to meet the policy.

More questions or misunderstandings? dangerouspanda 08:47, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate that you responded so quickly, both here and at my Talk page. I don't agree with the sockpuppet case below or an AN/I for this, however, to be clear, I asked *you* to take it upon yourself to ask the admins en masse for their guidance on the issues I presented to you above. I personally feel that you are flaunting a line here, and I feel that this is unbecoming. I won't bring it up again; I dislike having to repeat myself over and over, but I believe this should make clear what my previous statement intended. -- Avanu (talk) 11:31, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Avanu, it's already been debated by numerous admins before - from the moment I temporarily abandoned my Bwilkins account. As it's already been debated and found to be fine, I'm not going to have a secondary (I think it would be fourth by now) debate. I'm AGF'd that you didn't see the first debates, a bit shocked that you of all people would edit-war on my userpage about it. I'm intentionally distanced from my admin account, and have gone out of my way to NOT claim to be an admin. At the same time, both accounts link clearly to each other through a single click dangerouspanda 11:47, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Misuse is too strong a word. IRWolfie- (talk) 12:12, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, unfortunately StAnselm's similar comment on Jason's talkpage due to his own misunderstanding of the related policies is what caused the ANI report. dangerouspanda 15:40, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's your deceitfulness that caused the misunderstanding when you make claims of being an admin or just a regular editor as stated in your comments to IRWolfie and Avanu.  — Jason Sosa 21:21, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, for God's sake, his userpage has a direct link to his other account, and it's not like one has to dig around much to find it. When I first saw ESL's posts on AN/I, I went to his userpage, and figured out in less than 10 seconds who was the "man behind the screen". There is no deceitfulness, and you really ought to step away from the equine carcass and drop the stick. It's starting to get quite tedious at this point. If you were complaining about a potential lack of transparency from User:Bwilkins, you might be able to get a little more traction (since that userpage doesn't directly link to this userpage) but not by squawking about User:EatsShootsAndLeaves, who has had an explicit link to his other account since July 26th, which is well before your first interaction with him. It's the very first thing one encounters on the userpage, so it's not like it's something easily overlooked. The account he links to has two userboxes and a top-icon identifying him as an administrator, so that shouldn't be a big surprise, either. Horologium (talk) 23:17, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's not so much about the link as it is about how he communicates himself as I brought out here, but was removed by him. Thanks,   — Jason Sosa 07:03, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You're continuing to claim something there that I did not. As we had already both clarified the case, shook hands, and backed away, your return with new taunts based on your same previous and proven-uncorrect reading of the situation meant you were not here to work collaboratively, you were hear to restart your incorrect POV. Fine, agree to disagree, but stop repeating what was your opinion and had since been proven wrong. You're entitled to your opinion: keep it to yourself, and keep extremely sincere apologies when they're offered like you originally did. dangerouspanda 07:46, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I learned this from you. :)   — Jason Sosa 13:42, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Really? I don't see you behaving at all like me ... in fact, I see that you declined the honest and heartfelt apology I put forward so that both sides could retreat with honour. As an actual human being, I would never decline such a thing - so please, do not ever claim that you have learned your behaviours from me until you show a positive behaviour or two. dangerouspanda 17:50, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Good morning Panda! This might be of interest. Sincerely, -- Gareth Griffith-Jones (GG-J's Talk) 10:01, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I never said I blamed the tool, nor did I use in any sequence sentence to pertain it was the tools fault. Oh, I've seen many users contributions with WP:STiki and yes about half or few of them from the revisions I have seen have been quickly revert edits and mistakes, and yes sometimes I have heard these tools do break down. I was still waiting for Huggle version after I was allowed to use rollback for them, looking forward to it if, thanks anyway.--GoShow (...............) 13:15, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

When you are in a hole, it is best to stop digging. -- Gareth Griffith-Jones (GG-J's Talk) 16:19, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am stating facts Sir Gareth there's no holes about, unless you found the spring, after I have seen through your contributions as well, and mistakes.--GoShow (...............) 20:49, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about this EatsShootsAndLeaves, I don't want higher manipulative users keep warning just for the benefit of me not knowing much or just taking advantage of me to have me out, but I value alot from STiki and so do others, as well they do mistakes, I just hope you would know that is just me in stating facts and not trying to pick a fight, otherwise, have a beautiful day--GoShow (...............) 20:02, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

GoShow: simple fact is that according to the rules, YOU are responsible for the edit - the tool did not make a mistake. Don't pass the buck next time :-) dangerouspanda 20:23, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The case has been resolved at STiki talkpage, like I said I didn't blame the tool, I am just stating the fact these tools does are not perfect as Andrew, the founder of Stiki, stated, and many users make mistakes, just stop trying to war them off and settle the dispute, the case has been resolved, but thanks for the information anyway.--GoShow (...............) 20:47, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

NO, it is not resolved there: you were told that you used a tool to edit-war against the rules; you turned around and called other editors manipulative there, and here above: that's a violation of WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. Don't do either again dangerouspanda 20:58, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, there are higher users who do use ordinary edits, but have multiple accounts to use on other edits for right reasons and other reasons, of course I am not blaming you for two accounts either--GoShow (...............) 21:12, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What are you talking about now? What is the fact that I have legal multiple accounts have to do with the fact that you edit-warred (which is a breaking a rule) and used a power tool to do so (which is breaking a rule) and then referred to editors in an uncivil manner (which is against a CORE rule of Wikipedia)? Or are you now accusing others of having multiple accounts and using them abusively without filing an WP:SPI report, which would also be considered uncivil dangerouspanda 21:27, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I can see why there were so many wars in the ancient and medieval world without seeing the rulers face to face.... okay look, I am not accusing YOU, I said users with multiple accounts is not vandalism, but using vandalism with multiple accounts is, that was it, zip, nada all right!--GoShow (...............) 21:29, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, so you're accusing others of WP:SOCK? Don't do that without a) proof and b) being willing to put your name on an WP:SPI report. Why not tell me which users you think are related, and I'll take a peek at their contributions? dangerouspanda 21:36, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's been a while, I use to have them bookmarked, but they are already banned;-).--GoShow (...............) 21:40, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ok then ... what does the fact that there are some long-time banned editors have to do with the fact that you RECENTLY were edit-warring using a tool? I'm confused here ... is that your purpose? You don't want to answer the question? dangerouspanda 21:48, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Now just hold on there, man, I've got mowing here and all other chores than just having a staring contest with my laptop;)!

Okay, other than User:Niemti, having a block indefinetly,

"This account has been blocked indefinitely from editing, because it is a sockpuppet account created in order to evade a block. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal the block on your original account, but simply ignoring the block and creating another account is not an acceptable procedure. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:54, 27 July 2012 (UTC)"

However that was 4 YEARS AGO! They eventually appealed to that user,

User:Zenkai251 was an interesting religious Wikipedian, although, the user was blocked, difference than banned(most users who secretly hacked or some administrators who used their edits to hack or multiple manipulation, not the same as good faith multiplicity, are usually banned), due to religious edits and having a multiple account, although, the purpose of what I am talking about was there was another confirmed user tried to resolve an IP however, we didn't know it was proof and it was closed, and the same IP kept deleting Islamophobia from other articles, from they were reliable on those articles, if you seen the contributions.

Now the last IP I agreed, and told them on their talk page, I was just talking about issues of vandalism about all users from IP to Administrators who were banned or blocked, and not accusations against users with multiple accounts with good edits.

Sincerely, --GoShow (...............) 22:28, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What does any of this have to do with you breaking the rules on edit-warring? dangerouspanda 22:30, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't finished talking, pardon me....

However that was 4 YEARS AGO! They eventually appealed to that user,

User:Zenkai251 was an interesting religious Wikipedian, although, the user was blocked, difference than banned(most users who secretly hacked or some administrators who used their edits to hack or multiple manipulation, not the same as good faith multiplicity, are usually banned), due to religious edits and having a multiple account, although, the purpose of what I am talking about was there was another confirmed user tried to resolve an IP however, we didn't know it was proof and it was closed, and the same IP kept deleting Islamophobia from other articles, from they were reliable on those articles, if you seen the contributions.

Now the last IP I agreed, and told them on their talk page, I was just talking about issues of vandalism about all users from IP to Administrators who were banned or blocked, and sometimes the bots and tools may be not perfect or grotesque, but I am not using accusations against users with multiple accounts with good edits. Hopefully, to get to no you more, thanks:).--GoShow (...............) 22:28, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Many confirmed users have the same edit-warring section, but still do their job, from those who keep reverting, although, it was resolved on those conflicts, and hope to have a good night--GoShow (...............) 22:34, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're overthinking it and taking it all far too seriously. I saw what Jimbo posted that day toward you, and he tends to take a somewhat philosophical approach to Wikipedia. He's generally got good intentions and good ideas, but in practice, the community works differently. I think the thing that is more important than walking away from an account is repentance. I get the sense that you understand that already because of how much work you've put into honoring the spirit of Jimbo's remark. But I think you could have done it much more simply too. There will always be dumb mobs making over the top calls for people's heads. (I think AN/I is good at occasionally doing that.) But mobs aren't good indicators of what a thoughtful, intelligent response to a problem should be.

To my mind, this issue with your name is a rather trivial one. I had a mild concern. You gave me an answer. Among gentlemen, this should be sufficient for a matter that is trivial. If you were actually *doing* something awful, I might think differently, but you're just being an editor like everyone else. The only bit that piqued my interest originally was the impression I got from a comment that rolled by on that one editor's page where I got the impression you were telling him to talk to you because you were an admin. And I believe in transparency.

I get the impression that you are very conscientious about the things of Wikipedia. I get the impression that you care and that you want to do the right thing. And to me, that's the best thing. -- Avanu (talk) 14:25, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]