This is an archive of past discussions with User:Brendon111. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
This request for help from administrators has been answered. If you need more help or have additional questions, please reapply the {{admin help}} template, or contact the responding user(s) directly on their own user talk page.
Just as a procedural aside (came across this from Recent Changes, and I'm not an admin, so can't comment or act directly): you don't have to use the adminhelp template, you can just use another unblock template to make a new unblock request. Doing so will probably help the response time to your request. Writ Keeper⚇♔15:25, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
In order to flag an administrator and request an unblocking of your account, you need to use the {{unblock}} template and present your request according to the stated guidelines. Best regards, Cindy(talk to me)15:29, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
New Unblock Request
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).
First read the central issues that were presented in my first request above.Now, the last decline was as incoherent as the block itself. Suffused with red herring, straw man and non-sequitur fallacies. He probably didn't even read my request in its entirety.
"Your inane gibberish is not helping" a comment I made on talk:Muhammad (about a totally unrelated issue) and "I would advice [sic] you to not poke your nose in where you're unneeded" this is a comment I made on User talk:Ron_Ritzman. Hence, first quotation is completely irrelevant (I didn't even say that on the same page as the second), the reviewing admin was just playing tricks inattentive and gravely unmindful while reviewing my request. If they were offenses, and were leading me to a block, why the heck was I not warned? They are just digging up relatively old issues to fill in the logical inconsistencies. Without any prior warning, this sort of blocks based on civility issues are not justified.So, old civility breaches that are now being counted as a rationale for this block couldn't have been the reason why I was blocked (since I was never alerted and thus I didn't knew I was becoming "blockably" uncivil). Hence, that couldn't have been the real reason. Furthermore, the reason was clearly stated here by the blocker himself. Repressive use of administrative privileges ought to not be overlooked. Ask administrator Ron Ritzman(talk·contribs) if I was really harassing him to such an extent where I needed to be blocked from editing, that too for 48 hrs. For goodness' sake. What happened to "don't bite the newcomers"?
The admin reviewer, JamesBWatson says, "All this in a page where you kept persistently posting to badger a user about a decision you didn't like." - He was an Administrator, wasn't he? Anyways, I believe if I were detested by him he would have told me so himself clearly. He didn't (nor did anybody else) warn me in unequivocal terms that I could be blocked if I didn't shut up.
Doesn't it matter that nobody through all this ever deemed it necessary to formally warn me? Did I commit so big an offense that I needed to be blocked for 48hrs straightaway without a warning? I don't think so. And an admin, I expect, would understand why! Brendon ishere18:18, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
Decline reason:
I see no appreciation of the reasons for the block, no indication that you see anything wrong with your extremely uncivil behaviour, and a continuing diatribe of accusations against all and sundry - which has, quite rightly, led to your losing the ability to edit this talk page. You say you were not warned that such incivilities are unacceptable, while at the same time claiming you are a civil person? If you walked into a crowd of people in real life and started talking to them the way you did, what do you think would happen? If you repeat this kind of behaviour after your block expires, you should expect to be quickly reblocked for longer, possibly indefinitely -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 22:58, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
I am sorry that my unblock decline was incoherent. I was not aware of that fact. However, I will briefly answer a couple of the points you raise. You were blocked for personal attacks or harassment, and for exhibiting a battleground approach in your editing. You also claimed in your unblock request that you had never been uncivil, which suggests that you think that is relevant to your block. I attempted to show cases where you had made personal attacks, harassed, exhibited a battleground approach, and been uncivil. That is why my comments were relevant, and not "red herrings". You say that one of my comments is "about a totally unrelated issue". Unrelated to what? Anything related to personal attacks, harassment, battleground mentality, and incivility is relevant. It may well be that one particular incident was the last straw that led to your block, but even if so, that does not mean that, in assessing your unblock request, I was obliged to take only that one incident into consideration, and ignore other examples of personal attacks, battleground mentality, etc.
You are quite right in pointing out that I was mistaken in saying that "Your inane gibberish is not helping" and "I would advice [sic] you to not poke your nose in where you're unneeded" were on the same page. Thank you for pointing out that error. However, I suggest you think carefully which is more likely: that I was, as you put it "just playing tricks", or that I made a minor slip, that does not substantially affect the value of what I said. You may like to consider how that assumption of bad faith will look to a reviewing administrator.
I could easily have given you a one sentence unblock decline. I chose instead to give you a few details to illustrate the reasons, in the hope that it would help you to see how your editing looked to others. My attempt to help you apparently failed. I am now making one last attempt to help you. I suggest that you re-read your latest unblock request, and see how it will look to someone else. I suggest that, in the course of doing so, you bear in mind that one of the reasons for your block was a battleground approach to other editors, and consider whether you think you have chosen an approach which is likely to encourage a potential unblocking administrator that you do not have a battleground approach. JamesBWatson (talk) 19:23, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
One very last observation. I have just noticed your comment below that says "He should now not mind getting lost." That is on a page where you have an outstanding unblock request, where you deny that you have ever been uncivil, and that you have a battleground approach!!!!! You may or may not like to think about that. 19:28, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
"just playing tricks" - sorry. I should have been more precise. Moving on. "I could easily have given you a one sentence unblock decline." - I firmly disagree. The thing is you as an admin should take into account what procedures were followed to caution the editor, before the block took place. And since there were no formal warnings, you shouldn't have declined. That is my point. I am disappointed. I am not convinced. I would have listened to all this if I weren't so rashly and I must say, swiftly, blocked. Brendon ishere19:41, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
"I have just noticed your comment below that says 'He should now not mind getting lost.' " - With utmost sincerity, He really deserves this. I never, never asked anyone to get lost before I was treated like dirt. Anyway my argument stands, if they were so big offenses, why wasn't I warned? Bwilkins claims he "reviewed an escalating case." Either he reviewed the case with Ron Ritzman, or Griswaldo, and even if I grant you that he somehow took everything into account, the question still stands why was I not cautioned? That gives away his predetermined intentions. I didn't know I was being overly or blockably uncivil. My behavior may have been little out of line there but that doesn't justify this punitive and needless block. Blocks are Preventive, not punitive. If he wanted to prevent something he could have politely told me so. Ritzman did, but I was already blocked then. Brendon ishere19:44, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
I would like if Bwilkins (talk·contribs) refrained from commenting on my talk page. He has done his job. He should now not mind getting lost leaving me alone. (Sorry for the "get lost" thing, I was am really disgusted by the maltreatment by Bwilkins)Brendon ishere19:00, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
As you're merely using false edit-summaries to make inappropriate and false claims of harassment when I'm merely answering your questions politely, I have removed your talkpage access for the duration of this block. As you have an unblock request to be actionned, it will be looked into - usually within a few hours (as per the guide to appealing blocks). (talk→BWilkins←track) 20:49, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
Unblocked, but please read
Since Bwiklins has already given me permission to shorten this block and since it expires tomorrow morning anyway, I'm going to go ahead and lift it. However, there's a few things I need to say. On the point of the AFD, I've already said what I'm going to say about that. You are welcome to to take it to DRV if you wish but doing so is probably pointless for a unanimous "keep" close. You are just going to have to accept the fact that An-Nisa, 34 is not going away. Now about my talk page. Editors are given wide latitude on how they handle their talk pages. I prefer to run my talk page similar to the way most other talk pages on Wikipedia are ran. That is, other editors are free to discuss me or my actions there and other editors and talk page stalkers are free to join those discussions. Therefore, if you come to my talk page to question an AFD close then not only do I not mind third party input but I welcome it. There was nothing wrong with Bwilkins commenting in this thread and you were out of line to suggest that it was none of his business. Now about the block, you may have a point that Bwilkins shouldn't have been the one to block you as it was him that was the victim of your incivility more so then me and yes you should have been given a warning. However, at this point I would suggest that you let this go. I'm unblocking you so let's just move on. On a final note, you seriously need to change the way you interact with other editors on this project. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:39, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
"not only do I not mind third party input but I welcome it" - i would have also welcomed it, if he had only been more sensible and considerate. You are right in describing my comments to Bwilkins as "out of line". But you should also take into account that he was the one who started going out of line first by asking me to "stop badgering" and practically get lost. My response was indeed out of line. So was his, don't you think? Administrators should lead by example. The thing is, I loathe domineering people administrators. However, thank you for unblocking me. And I'll move on. But, ought I not to report it to ANI (because I think Bwilkins is really abusing his administrative tools unhesitatingly)?
(responding on my talkpage is cool) I noticed your comment at ANI, (and read the whole lot) I don't know the issue so I have no comment on that, but I would like to offer advice for what it is worth. The editors at ANI generally ignore some things that are written in the wrong form or address issues in the wrong way. It's like writing a love letter and delivering it as if it was the nightly weather report or, the other way around. Also, their attention span is way smaller than that, not exactly twitter-sized, but a lot smaller than that. Basically to start off a conversation there you need a specific request and be able to express it in a paragraph or two about this size.
I personally have a habit of talking a lot, and so with that i mind, before i post, i often read and re-read and cut out a lot of what i have written if it is not totally necessary. Also, ANI is probably the wrong venue for that kind of discussion, I'm not entirely sure what is, because for general things, maybe it's some other board like the village pump, but not really, and for de-admining someone it's probably arbcomm which is out of the reach of newbies entirely. I can only figure that reading a lot of those different boards will give you ideas on what goes where and how. There is pretty much no easy 5 minute guide to anything on here, the place is a mess, but asking people helps and the length of the request is according to the person or audience. Penyulap ☏13:38, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
Don't get me wrong please. I'm not looking for an excuse to de-admin anybody. You're right that's out of my reach. But I don't want to do it also. I was totally taken aback by that block. I am still confused. I simply thought it would be a responsible thing to explicate what happened and how i see it in detail. "their attention span is way smaller than that" you are perhaps right again. And I know I should have wrapped it up quickly. But you know, I'm not so eloquent a writer. I sincerely thank you for your reply. Brendon ishere14:07, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
You wouldn't be confused if you simply stopped removing every piece of advice and explanation that I provide to you here on your talkpage and act like it didn't exist. You cannot simply pretend the information was never provided - it remains in the history of this talkpage ad infinitum (talk→BWilkins←track) 14:10, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
Brendon, you really are not going to achieve anything with this, and I strongly suggest that you just drop the stick now, as RonRitzmann suggested above. Obviously you are welcome to ignore my advice, but just think about moving on now, eh? -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:16, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
(edit-conflict) Let me clarify few things, first, now I don't have a stick anymore. I dropped it. Second, I am amenable to any sober discussion sans oblique threats and coercion. Third, I'm sorry I was extremely perturbed by your treatment and thus I deleted your comments and I admit, it might not have been the best way to deal with it. Brendon ishere14:20, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
But didn't know at the time what I did to deserve this. Can we (wilkins, Zebedee and I) have a truce right now? Just say "yes" if you think I should have been warned (clearly). Now, I am willing to move on. Brendon ishere14:24, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
Yes, a warning probably would have been preferable but the lack of warning isn't really grounds for overturning the block or any sanctions against the block admin. Additionally, you can pretty call a truce with anyone on Wikipedia by simply ceasing to interact with, or discussing them. In the spirit of moving on I'm going to close the ANI but will revert if you object.Nobody Ent14:31, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
I've reviewed your ANI posting and the talk page here. Wikipedia has certain norms for interaction -- they may be different than what you are used or expect, but they are what they are. User talk pages are considered community forums, not private communications between pairs of editors. Nobody Ent14:28, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
Brendon, there's no "truce" needed, because only one person - you - is still pursuing this. I only popped in to offer the friendly advice that you should do as Ron Ritzman suggests and simply drop this whole discussion and move on, and that's all I have to say. Follow my well-meaning advice or don't, it's entirely up to you, but I have no more to say to you on this subject. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:35, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
I'm sorry if you don't like the word "truce". " only one person - you - is still pursuing this" what made you think that, may I ask?(no sarcasm intended) Brendon ishere14:39, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
Hi Brendon, sorry I took ages to get back to you, I'd say as a general rule of thumb, in my experience, there is little or no use trying to request further clarification from the admin who blocked you/deleted something/growled at you/poked out their toungue, or people who supported the original block, generally I find they have already said whatever they want to say, and that can vary from absolutely nothing to precious little :) The usual English wikipedia culture is that everyone is supposed to use some kind of ESP, there are more than 50 policies and 500 guidelines and every user is expected to know every single one of them, and that is 'policy' when it comes to blocking. Generally admins will be rather upset if you haven't read and understood the particular policies and guidelines that they are most familiar with, and get more upset the more you ask. Whatever it was, whatever you have already stopped doing, ask someone else, or try to read up on it yourself (not as easy) there are the help desks to ask 'Where can I find out about (whatever)' it's at WP:?. Just let whoever it is you were talking to get in the last word then ask other people. Go looking for experts who are friendly, if it was to do with content, you can find editors (friendly or otherwise) on the wikiproject page in the banners at the top of an article's talkpage. If you can tell me whatever it was about I can assist you. One good rule to live by is 'there is no such thing as private on the internet' and on wikipedia it's even more true. You can goto my userpages, or anyone's userpages and left hand panel 'email this user' if they have email, they won't chase you quite so much that way, but as I said there is no privacy on the internet. If you want to explain what the issue was I'll be happy to help if I can. Online help on IRC is also possible, I think I wrote a link to it in the WP:BRD essay, I can't recall what it is called otherwise. Penyulap ☏18:13, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
When you mention someone at WP:ANI you're expected to notify them, easiest way is {{subst:ANI-notice}} on their talk page -- it says that in the big wall of text at the top of the page. Nobody Ent14:28, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
Happens all that -- a few months ago I tried to make the ANI header very short and too the point but there wasn't a consensus to keep it that way. Nobody Ent14:32, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
Just best if you stop posting at ani. Best response to sock accusations -- in fact, most accusations -- is to ignore them entirely. If find yourself unable to do that, I'd suggest "If you think I'm a sock then file an [[WP:SPI]]" Nobody Ent14:56, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
Welcome Template looks perfect to me. will be using it now onwards. Brendon have you added this template to your twinkle ? I tried adding it but it does not show up when i want to use it. how do use it ?--ÐℬigXЯaɣ08:16, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
will try it again some time later and inform you as soon as I succeed. :) saw your contributions you have helped a loooooot of new users.I would be happy to give an unasked a suggestion , try not to be very technical with the user pages and other stuff, they might be scared by the technicalities in that, other than that i am glad. regards--ÐℬigXЯaɣ09:52, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
For Welcoming newbies and helping them, you are doing a very good work and your efforts are much appreciated keep it up, cheers ÐℬigXЯaɣ09:47, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
I will not comment on recent events as I have not seen the whole picture. in any case I am happy to see that you have moved on, just remember there are some good people everywhere and there exists some goodness in everyone and not to forget new ones who would appreciate your helping hand, cheers --ÐℬigXЯaɣ09:56, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
Yup. Abso-friggin-lutely. I wholly concur. This world will be a better place if only I could better that one person (myself). Brendon ishere09:58, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
For the template help............continue your good work here....never get depressed..please...wiki needs technical wikipedians like you......even i felt alone during my first few days here as many users were attacking me for inappropriate edits.........but....just move on....learn from the mistakes...(take it positively please)...StrikeEagle✈08:34, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
I don't understand. What is it that you want me to do precisely? I will try my best to help you.
I should clarify though, it's not like I know about "templates" per se. But I know how to tweak around some parser functions, yes. It would help me if you just tell me what was the purpose of the template doom as in what does it do and what part of that is not doing now? Brendon ishere11:39, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
the donut doesn't work, but the grump does. they should both be the same. But don't worry if you cannot find it either, just have a tinker as you please, I can ask about later on as there is no 'rush' at all. I have a lot of these silly little ideas in the works :) Penyulap ☏12:16, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
Although it doesn't solve the issue, I think you should have a "Template:" just before "User:Penyulap/The Donut of DOOM/preload" on this this page since you're using it as a template essentially. Like I said, it doesn't solve the whole issue but it might be one of the reasons. I am looking at the rest now. Brendon ishere12:24, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
So far, from what I can gather, the "preload" command doesn't work with templates inside of user-space. Hence, in order for {{DOOM}} to work like {{Grump}} you need to create another template {{The Donut of DOOM}} (it's currently a redirect, it may work though) and itspreload then after the "|wikilink" section paste, {{fullurl:{{ns:3}}:{{PAGENAME}}|action=edit§ion=new&preloadtitle=You_have_been_presented_with&preload=Template:The Donut of DOOM/preload}}. That's what my assessment is. I may be wrong. Brendon ishere13:01, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
I thought that may be the case, that's ok, I shall wait a while and ask for it to go through the proper process in regards to critics. Thank you for the help. Penyulap ☏12:59, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
You say that you "loathe domineering people". One person round here looks to outsiders as though he has tried hard to domineer over others, and then complained bitterly when he didn't succeed. If you don't want to be blocked again, I suggest you think hard about it. 79.123.78.117 (talk) 09:35, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
Sounds to me like an oblique threat! Who are you? Looks to outsiders? Who are you referring to as outsiders?"tried hard to domineer over others" - I don't hear anybody complain against my domineering behavior, if you're referring to me. If you think what I've been doing is same as trying to domineer over others, then please take it to ANI. Otherwise stay the heck away from my talk page. Brendon ishere09:41, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
Besides, I am an editor, not an administrator. If an editor tries to "domineer over" anybody he could be warned and then blocked. But when an administrator behaves domineeringly, it's others who are blocked even without warnings sometimes.
It is somewhat curious that a contributor such as this IP, who seems to focus on the issues where I have had no input, would choose to get involved in what ought to be, by any reasonable angle, a totally unrelated issue. Who are you?? Exactly why are you telling me this? and Why haven't you created an account so far? Brendon ishere09:45, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
A bit more friendly advice: When you open an edit window at WP:ANI, you'll see that there is an important requirement included in the edit notice. Please don't forget to make the mandatory notifications. Thanks —DoRD (talk) 13:08, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
I'm not complaining against anybody in particular. I don't have a stick. I dropped it. I was not actually asking for any retribution against Bwilkins, I just wanted others' feedback, so that I could learn how to navigate more freely and efficiently in this Wiki-world.. Now as it seems, it won't be possible. Because "their attention span is way smaller than that". Brendon ishere14:09, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
I found in my (limited) experience that there are editors who will want to discuss you (me) pretty much until the end of time on my talkpage, I used to get like, screen after screen after screen of the stuff, and I guess that used to go on and on until eventually I became brief and then after that I pretty much didn't respond to people who did not want to talk about content. (or something like the edit window as mentioned here is cool). I would figure now, it's pretty much a good rule of thumb, if someone doesn't have something to say to me about content, I pretty much don't say a word. It works well for me. Penyulap ☏13:42, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
Strike Eagle likes this comment 13:53, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
ÐℬigXЯaɣ has given you a glass of chilled Lassi with mint. Thanks for staying calm and civil! Lassi promotes WikiLove by making you cooler and hopefully this has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a lassi, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or someone putting up with some stick at this time. Enjoy!
A lassi from me to make this hot summer, slightly more bearable Note:I have assumed you are in northern hemisphere.--ÐℬigXЯaɣ15:22, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
Spread the lovely, cool, sweet goodness of Lassi by adding {{subst:Lassi}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
