Jump to content

User talk:Dennis Brown/Archive 13

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 10Archive 11Archive 12Archive 13Archive 14Archive 15→Archive 20

Sockpuppetry

Hi Dennis, could you please have a look at -and stop their disruption if you agree with me- the user (Inspectortr, redlink as usual) and its IP(s) of a "Sock Family" (or "Duck" Family) at the Recep Tayyip Erdoğan article? (These guys normally fly over the Mediterranean but here they are on another mission...) Thanks in advance and best. --E4024 (talk) 13:09, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

  • The one editor reverting you has been here longer than you. I don't have time for a full sock investigation today, busy at work. You can try WP:SPI to file it, but I would remind you that you need to be careful with so many reverts, 3RR or not, it might be seen that you are edit warring since it isn't actually vandalism. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 14:36, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Thanks. Does "being here longer than one" mean they cannot have socks or be sockpuppets? At the same article they are using two other IPs. Only three of the same person in one article... Remember the case of Ghuzz and TremoloKid? These guys will be older and longer than any one here; because they have opened various accounts and also use IPs. If you do not believe me ask 23x2 or Masri145. BTW if you and other experienced people tried to make WP more user friendly (at least for the older generation) I would disturb you friends less. I already tried to open an SPI case but I cannot tackle with so many templates. (I grew up with milk and books; not coke and PC. :-) Best. --E4024 (talk) 15:52, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
    • It just means they don't fit the mold of a recently created sock, which is usually the case. In other words, it isn't obvious at a glance, and today I only have time to glance. And I am the "older generation", being in my late 40s. Many of the admin I interact with here are a decade or two older than I am as well. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 16:39, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi - note

Hi Dennis - hope your well. Just a note to let you know I mentioned a small discussion/Q I asked you in this talkpage post - regards - Youreallycan 20:51, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

  • I responded there. As always, tread carefully and avoid borderline reverts, but that one example was clearly within the guideline I gave you and I am comfortable in saying that you acted properly in reverting it. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 21:31, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

If you have the time

I was hoping you would be able to take a relatively new editor under your wing or suggest another Editor Retention editor does so. If you have a look at the contributions record and the talk page you will see that there is an editor who has strong opinions, currently against consensus, and who appears to be handling this in a counter-productive manner and becoming increasingly frustrated. Their opinion, even against consensus, may well be right. To me the area they are disputing is borderline, and, probably, hardly worth the passion loads of people are putting into it. To me "source it and add it, otherwise leave it alone" is a pragmatic view. You may have a different opinion.

I'm asking you because you seem good at these things. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 08:39, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

MMA Socks

Any idea which of the MMA Socks BStudent0 (talk · contribs) is the use of "this nomination violates WP:TROLL and WP:DICK" reminisant of a few. Also I feel that Pound4Pound (talk · contribs) quacks as BigzMMA (talk · contribs) any reason not to reopen the SPI and request a checkuser to confirm it? Mtking (edits) 00:52, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

  • I had blocked Pound4Pound as an obvious sock. They asked for review, asked a non-admin (but experienced) SPI clerk to review the case, and they disagreed with me. My position hasn't changed, but I respect the process. Need another admin to review. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 13:43, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
Will file it when I get some time, any thoughts on BStudent0 (talk · contribs) who is clearly a sock, just can't quite work out whos ? Mtking (edits) 19:23, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
also :
Hello, Dennis Brown. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Mtking (edits) 19:23, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Finally found it. I've changed email addresses for enwp, use the built in email next time and I will ping you back. But I wouldn't worry too much. I will see if I can take a look this evening, I'm a bit booked. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 20:31, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
I'll state this though I fear stirring up another hornet's nest. If there is any interest in reopening an SPI regarding a link between P4P and Bigz, there may be evidence available to show a connection though not one that can be openly posted. I e-mailed Dennis about it not long after the last SPI was closed. It seems there is more obvious links in the last couple months. Dennis, if you want me to e-mail the new evidence to you or to someone else, let me know. Otherwise, I'll slink back to my largely lurking habits. ;) --TreyGeek (talk) 00:35, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Somewhere You said...

....I started WP:WEP with the goal of finding ways to minimize the damage and prevent as much as possible. As far as working with newbies, that is as good a purpose as can be found at Wikipedia, and is part of the Editor Retention program as well.. I was just following your lead. Buster7 aka B7 aka Fuzzball.

Persistent IP vandalism

Please semi-protect circumcision Ankh.Morpork 23:59, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I'd venture it looks like a blocked POV warrior. Ankh.Morpork 00:13, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
If so, they will show their hand soon enough with a name attached to over a dozen bogus edits in a day to get passed the autoconfirm, plus blue linking their user and talk page. Ping me if they show up. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 00:16, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
Give me a shout if your IP editor returns when the protection is over. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:51, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

A slight issue

John Carter and I are currently working on the Arb. request, as you asked. Something which you may have noticed has cropped up on the WP:RIGHT talk page today: a statement about the founding of a “WikiProject Left-wing activism”. While this doesn’t exist at the moment, it might be worth to keep an eye out. RGloucester (talk) 16:00, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

  • Jeez, I've been so swamped in the real world. Technically, what Arb decides should apply to all political leaning groups, not just WikiProject Conservatism. The only reason they haven't been hit is that they are all but abandoned. A project that did the same actions, only towards a Liberal perspective, would be no less guilty of bias. And thank you both for the hard work!! Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 18:16, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
  • As soon as I got half way through the first line, I could tell he meant it as a joke. Nothing to worry about, s/he is being ironic. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 18:39, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

User:Ryan Vesey/Port Royal Experiment

So it's a little bit depressing, I learned about the Port Royal Experiment in class so I tried to find more on Wikipedia. But Wikipedia didn't have an article so I started working on one. For some reason now I discovered that a bad article exists at Port Royal Experiment. I have no idea why I couldn't find it earlier. I have no intention of using the existing article's structure, style, or words and I'd prefer to continue my work in my userspace so I can get it ready for DYK. What should I do after that? Can a history merge be conducted? Ryan Vesey 23:46, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

  • If you are completely rewriting the article and not using any existing anything, and all the new wording is yours alone with no other helps, then you just make one edit over the old article and replace the entire content. A complete rewrite via copy/paste from user space. Or I can do a history merge which would preserve all the individual edits and the edit counts would go toward article space instead of user space, although I am not sure how that affects DYK since it has all the edits and dates, so on "paper" it will look like it isn't a "new" expansion but instead took a month. Dr. Blofeld might know that, he deals with DYK a lot.
  • The hist/merge is kind of odd, as I have to delete the old page while moving the new old over it, then restore the old page, in order to preserve the credit for "article space contribs" for everyone. Not a biggie, we do those at SPI so I'm familiar with them. Copy paste is easier, but your contribs will show lots of your own user space edits and only 1 article space edit in the stats, which can affect your ratios, if you watch those things. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 10:38, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Question

Hey Dennis. Hate to interrupt your vacation but. we have another person who wishes to re-litigate the same paragraphs about Jimmy Henchman under Jeffrey Lichtman (Jimmy Henchman's past lawyer). This person is accusing me of copyright violation, which is incorrect. (We know that the argument for censorship on this point changes forms. We've been through several of these with shifting and various arguments for censoring the truth of the matter. I know you were quite involved and helpful as were many others vetting all the articles and sources on which the history was based. I know you're busy and hate to ask but would you mind getting back to me when you have a second. Perhaps you could take a look at what this person wrote on my talk page and did to my careful, original, and well-researched few lines about Lichtman's client Jimmy Henchman and the outcome of the case that was on his Wikipedia page. Not adding the few lines I added (and have been sourced litigated) makes the article quite misleading. Thanks, ---- — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scholarlyarticles (talk • contribs) 14:00, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Hey, Dennis, this is my fault, and I've apologized and commented on Scholarlyarticles's talk page.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:20, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
Scholarly certainly knows the material better than most, and Bbb23 is my "go to" person when it comes to BLP concerns, so I'm confident you both can work it out. And I wish it was vacation. Real world has been busy, and I've been ordered to take a wikibreak by a fellow editor (who shall remain nameless) for being much grumpier than usual, so the timing is good as well. I still check in and do some minor stuff, I just don't have enough contiguous time to get into deep and complicated issues, and it wouldn't be fair to my fellow editors to play "hit and run" admin.
And so you each know, I have respect for you both, so I really am glad to see you both worked it out quickly and smoothly. That is how the system is supposed to work. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 18:16, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

User Nonconnah77's edits. SPA, POV editing.

Dennis, I had taken some of my concerns about edits by Nonconnah77 (talk · contribs) to WP:BLPN a while back, but didn't get any response. I want to have another person look at it. I don't want to edit war on the articles that Nonconnah77 is editing, but it just seems like an SPA that is bent on pushing an opinion/agenda over several articles. Now, the issue he pushes might have some relevance on some of the articles, but he is basically going around Wikipedia to any mention of Timothy Tyson, Blood Done Sign My Name and Henry Marrow and putting in jabs/controversial info. See the recent edits on the Shelby, North Carolina page. This article is barely tangential to the book. Some of the info he puts in might be ok, I am not really sure. Most of it is soapboxing, though. Please take a look, when you get a chance, at their edits and comments on the articles and my talk pages. I didn't know what noticeboard to go to next (Reliable sources? Incidents? or if it is just a content dispute between Nonconnah77 and I that needs resolution). Thank you. -- JoannaSerah (talk) 16:08, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I did a quick (and possibly incomplete) cleanup pass. Everything I saw had WP:NPOV and/or WP:OR problems, and that's before taking up the WP:RS issues. GaramondLethe 17:24, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Dennis, I have communicated with user JoannaSerah about the Master Thesis, and I understand her point.

In reference to Blood Done Sign My Name, Tyson / Jeb Stuart are allowed to promote and advertise Blood Done Sign My Name on somewhere between 6-8 pages thru out Wikipedia.

What I don't understand is I have pointed out that the author / screenwriter and the media are lying about Henry Marrow's military status. The book and DVD are clearly advertising a Vietnam Veteran. That information can be seen on the P.O.W. Network along with the media coverage stating Vietnam Veteran. It's obvious no fact checking was done on the book or DVD, and there was no fact checking from the media. Someone has to be accountable for stating an Vietnam Veteran. The accountability has to fall back to two individuals, Tyson and Jeb Stuart. Here is my argument. The P.O.W. Network shows advertising of a Vietnam Veteran and shows the military records of Henry Marrow where he never served in Vietnam.

And most of my edits were ( Public information has revealed a character in Blood Done Sign My Name is not a Vietnam Veteran. The P.O.W. Network states the last place he was at was CorrHoldingDET ( SFW21BVU ) FtLeavenworthKS. He was confined at Leavenworth. He received a dishonorable discharge. He never served in Vietnam.[4] The media coverage is reporting the military status to the public incorrectly.[5] )


Tyson and Jeb Stuart are advertising a deceased person as a Vietnam Veteran. There are rules and regulations governing "written" material under The Stolen Valor Act.

It has been confirmed that Henry Marrow was not a Vietnam Veteran. So now I'm talking with a Wikipedia Representative that I hope can make a unbiased decision and weigh the information fairly. My information should be allowed or do a speedy delete with anything concerning Blood Done Sign My Name on Wikipedia. Wikipedia should not allow or give unlimited access to Tyson and Jeb Stuart for self - promoting and advertising to deceive the public.

The P.O.W Network shows a picture of the DVD promoting / advertising a Vietnam Veteran. You can "see it and read it" Vietnam Veteran in the newspaper articles. So I don't think this fabrication needs to be discussed in length, and I don't think a think group needs to be involved. When you can see and read Vietnam Veteran I'm pretty sure that a 100 % of the public would believe that to be a true fact. The question is does Wikipedia have any responsibility to the public?

Nonconnah77 (talk) 19:06, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Just a note here, considering that the Stolen Valor Act was struck down by the US Supreme Court, that part of the discussion is moot and really kind of borders on legal threat. I will let others reply as to the content of your suggestion. Thank you. -- JoannaSerah (talk) 19:23, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure about moot. http://www.fakewarriors.org/SVA_Ruled_Unconstitutional.htm - there are still laws that govern fraud, document forgery, impersonation, medals wear etc. Nonconnah77 (talk) 21:22, 31 October 2012 (UTC) 

  . Dennis, I don’t know what’s going on but your attention is needed immediately.

I have tried to be patience, but now changes are being made by user Darouet.

There are two things going on here, Wikipedia is now showing a change made on Henry Marrow’s Wikipedia page by user Darouet that Henry Marrow served in Vietnam with a newspaper source that was not verified. Wikipedia is now showing that Henry is a Vietnam Veteran and also showing that he was not a Vietnam Veteran. You can’t have it both ways. The Freedom of Information Act would be more reliable than a newspaper article.

  1. 2 user Darouet also added living persons names back to Wikipedia. I believe this is in violation of Wikipedia rules about living persons.

I would appreciate your prompt attention. Nonconnah77 (talk) 16:22, 7 November 2012 (UTC) Nonconnah77 (talk) 16:23, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

    • Here is the thing: Being an admin, I get involved when behavior reaches a threshold that requires intervention. I do not involved when it comes to a different of opinion when it comes to content. Admins have no authority to dictate the content of articles, that is solely up to the community. You need to use the talk page of the article, then WP:DRN if that doesn't achieve a consensus. I can't go and "fix" the content, admins aren't allowed to do that. We are janitors, not content police. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 18:43, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Beatles sock

Maybe I am reading too much into this, but the latest from the Beatles sockmaster seems to me to perhaps cross the legal line into a physical threat. Any thoughts? ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 03:15, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

  • I wouldn't take any threat serious. They look like they were trying to be clever and simply failed miserably. With all that IP hoping, it is impossible to always whack that mole, so deleting and ignoring is usually the best reply. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 13:45, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Block terms

I noticed in one of your comments that you seem to believe that our ban policy dictates some sort of maximum block term against IPs. In the case of [1], for example, you took a block in an escalating pattern of (72 hours, one week, three months, one year) and reset it to one month, despite it being an apparently static IP long held by a banned user. What prompted you to do that?—Kww(talk) 15:48, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

  • If it had been a static IP, I would have done exactly what you did. There may be some exceptions, but I generally do not block static IPs for longer than one year, that is correct. Not sure if it is policy as much as my judgement of good practice since IPs, even static, can and do change. In this case, however, the geolocation link shows it is dynamic [2] which led me to to a one month, with the intention of watching it and extending it longer if needed. Some dynamics are more dynamic than others, and this one was due to expire in a day, which led me to use one month, which is one of the longer terms I typically use for dynamics, although again, there are exceptions up to 3 months. It did look pretty static for a dynamic to me as well, but I fell back to using the geolocation info, and treating it accordingly. Our goals are the same in this case, only our judgement of whether it is static or dynamic differ. Oh, and there is no doubt it is a banned user, he asked to use an old login name, which is one of the banned socks, so I consider that a self-confirmed banned user, backed up with current and previous SPI data. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 16:19, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Admin's Barnstar
The Admin's Barnstar is awarded to an administrator who made a particularly difficult decision or performed a tedious but needed admin task. Like, writing an article. (Barnstar for statistical purposes.) Drmies (talk) 16:51, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Question about DYK.

Dennis, do you have a lot of experience with suggesting a DYK? I just created the article for NC's first poet laureate Arthur Talmage Abernethy and there are a couple of points that might be DYK? worthy (at least, I think). Which, if any, do you think I should suggest:

  • he earned his A.B. degree from Rutherford College, but was denied the degree at first because of his age.
  • he was named as the first North Carolina Poet Laureate in 1948 even though he never published a book of poetry.
  • was professor of Latin at Rutherford College for several years beginning at age 14.

I've not done a DYK? before, so I was just looking to find out if you thought any of those would be noteworthy enough for that and how to go about it. I've looked at the nomination page, but still a little uncertain. If none really work, that's fine. It was just a thought. Thank you. -- JoannaSerah (talk) 17:22, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

  • I've only had three DYKs, so no expert but that article qualifies. Those are really interesting facts, by the way. I particularly like the second one, but the third is also good. The first is ok, but not as attention grabbing. I've hesitated to nominate my own, but I will be more than happy to finally learn how to properly nominate and follow through just for you. I started the DYK nomination at Template:Did you know nominations/Arthur Talmage Abernethy which you should watch. They will have comments, requests, etc. to cleanup for acceptance (cite this, fix that, etc.) and the process is very slow, so just keep a watch out. Good work! Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 18:09, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for your help. I will keep watch and see. -- JoannaSerah (talk) 18:38, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Question on article title

I was doing some readings for class when I learned about the "Nigger Hollow mines". An article didn't exist, so I decided to start one. While researching the Wikipedia article, I learned of some mines operated by the company St. Louis & O'Fallon Coal Co called the "St. Louis & O'Fallon mines" that were numbered in the same way. I couldn't find anything definitive to show that they were the same mines until I read this. With that in mind, what would you name the article? Per the source, and per the naming of the mines in readings I've done, "Nigger Hollow" seems to clearly be the most common, if unofficial name. "St. Louis & O'Fallon" is only used in an official (usually government) capacity. The question becomes, how do I apply WP:COMMONNAME. Within the section, it says "Article titles should be neither vulgar nor pedantic" but directly follows that up with "The term most typically used in reliable sources is preferred to technically correct but rarer forms, whether the official name, the scientific name, the birth name, the original name or the trademarked name". So is using the word "Nigger" considered vulgar? Other articles like Nigger (1964 book) use it. If it is considered vulgar, what takes preference, "Article titles should be neither vulgar nor pedantic" or that they should use the clearly common name? If I go with the common name, I'll need you (or another admin) to move the article for me sometime soon. If I choose the latter, I'll probably need some redirects created. Ryan Vesey 20:46, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

  • "Nigger Hollow mines" seems to be the proper title if that is the common name the sources use, with a tag in the lead saying it was also known as "St. Louis & O'Fallon". While we don't pick titles for the purpose of offending or being vulgar, we do have articles on Nigger, Niggerhead (old brand name for a bunch of products), Nigger Bill Canyon, and Niggertown Marsh because they are common names, even if the words are offensive to many people. Some are redirects because they are less used, like Nigger Hollow, which was renamed "Freedom Road". If all else fails and someone take offense to the mine's title, or finds more sourcing demonstrating the less offensive name, "Nigger Hollow mines" would still be a redirect, and an "aka" in the lede, so I would just follow the sources, even if the title is a little ugly. Accuracy is more important that political correctness. The key is sourcing well and making sure that really is the most common name. If it is a draw, then you use that as a redirect and in the lede, but go with the govt. title. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 21:14, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Thanks, I'll continue referring to it in the text as Nigger Hollow and I'll try to make one last determination once I finish the article (maybe I'll find 1000 articles mentioning St. Louis & O'Fallon (or Black Eagle mine, another name for mine 2)). Ryan Vesey 21:22, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) Lost Nigger Gold Mine was on the main page and seems to have survived without incident. As long as the name is genuinely the name in common use and it's clear you're not just using it for shock value I can't see a problem - readers can understand the concept of "people in other times had different ideas of what was appropriate". Mogism (talk) 23:28, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

A question

Hi Dennis, hope things are well with you. I have a question (it's not urgent or anything) about a situation I've become somewhat involved in. IP 98.193.61.234, see their contribs has been harrassing Mr.choppers off and on and has now received a second block for doing so. The IP's most recent edit has left me wondering if this could be a case of sockpuppetry. After all, the IP claims to have made many contributions over half a decade, however the contributions page shows only a small amount and most of it quite recent. Of course, it is possible that somebody has simply had their IP change, but it is also possible that somebody is editing without logging in to avoid the consequences of poor behavior. Since I really don't know what should be done in this case, I'd appreciate your input. AutomaticStrikeout 22:54, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

  • They might have always contributed as an IP. Or they could be exaggerating. Or they might have abandoned their account, or forgot the password and didn't get another. Or logged out to be a jerk to others. It would really take someone familiar with the subject matter to pair them up with a registered account. Trying to find a match to an IP when you aren't a regular editing the subject matter, aren't familiar with the subject in general, and without any CU data is very time consuming and seldom results in finding a match. Since it is an IP, Checkusers generally will not run and/or disclose anything. Once a pair is made by someone familiar and brought to SPI, then it is a matter of comparing the edits and behavior in a technical fashion, and much easier to make. Even then, it isn't guaranteed. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 23:12, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
    Ok. I guess we'll just have to wait and see what happens when the IP's block expires. AutomaticStrikeout 23:20, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
    Well, or get someone familiar to see if they look familiar. I generally have access to the same things you do, not much more except deleted contribs, which doesn't really help here. It is just as hard for me to try to pair up as a non-admin who is unfamiliar. The tools don't really help here. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 23:22, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
    Alright, I'll ask choppers. AutomaticStrikeout 23:25, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Reminder: Wikipedia Loves Libraries Atlanta event - November 17

Hello Dennis: I wanted to give you a reminder for the Wikipedia Loves Libraries event that is scheduled for November 17. If you have signed up as tentative, please visit the meetup page and confirm your participation. I look forward to seeing you there. — Ganeshk (talk) 04:56, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

User:Ghost rider14

Hi, could you please take a look at the work of User:Ghost rider14, who resembles a blocked user that you acted on a while back. Thanks. Logical Cowboy (talk) 02:15, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. There's still an open question on WP:Sockpuppet_investigations/Yattum of whether Ghost rider14 is blocked user Jetijonez. CU only said it is "possible" but what about the behavioral evidence? Would welcome your opinion. Logical Cowboy (talk) 15:28, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
 Done Looking at the technical aspects of behavior, it is a pretty clean and clear match. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 15:40, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Protection request

Hi Dennis - Would you please fully protect my new edit notice - User_talk:Youreallycan/Editnotice - I don't need to further edit it and don't see that any others users need to edit it - also feel free to give me some feedback on the wording, here or via email - thank you - Youreallycan 04:22, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Hi Youreallycan, regarding full protection - editnotices in userspace can only be edited by the user, admins and account creators, so full protection it will only prevent you and account creators from editing it. The chances of an account creator wanting to edit, and doing so without checking with you are fairly small, so really it's only stopping you. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 04:52, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
Ow - thank you Callanecc - not really needed then - request retracted - many regards - Youreallycan 05:00, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
I thought that as well; however, I am none of those and I am allowed to edit it. I think it is because it is in the user talk namespace. Ryan Vesey 15:43, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
Ah - ok - then could you fully protect it for me Dennis? Youreallycan 15:49, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
How about this: if you put your editnotice into a .js subpage (like User:Youreallycan/editnotice.js or whatever) and then transclude it on your regular editnotice page, we can fully protect it without you being locked out, as only you and admins will be able to edit the .js page. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 15:56, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
Created - I did transclude something once but forget how, can you remind me Writ Keeper please - Youreallycan 16:00, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
Yep: just put the name of the page you're transcluding in double brackets curly braces, like a template. I've gone ahead and done it for you, and I'll protect the page too. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 16:02, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
Okay, created, transcluded, and protected. You should be good to go; you can still make any changes you like to your editnotice by editing User:Youreallycan/editnotice.js. Let me know if you need anything else. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 16:05, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
Many thanks Writ Keeper - Youreallycan 17:03, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
This is a great page to get stuff done, I'm gonna start coming here when I need help ;) Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 17:09, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
Good thinking Writ Keeper! Hahha, I know what you mean Dennis! Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 01:15, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
Every admin's talk page has its own flavor or style. Some are bland, some are like pubs. Mine tends to be like a woodworking shop with everyone pitching in and helping each other build stuff, or just swap ideas. I rather like that. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 01:32, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
Drmies's is like a pub. I guess mine must be bland; is there a fourth choice?--Bbb23 (talk) 02:54, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
Put a WER banner on the top of your talk page, that will get you traffic. When I removed it for two weeks to take a break, traffic slowed way down. It depends on your personality I guess, I like learning new things about Wikipedia and helping people is a good way to do that, so I guess I attract that kind of traffic. Not every admin is that way. And you can tell I took a break by the fact that I don't have over 50 ongoing conversations here, which was the norm before I took a little break. Kind of like WT:WER is a good place to talk about things as well, informal, chats about Wikipedia with no stress or timetables. It is more like a community center over there, which I also like. As long as I don't have to be the only one with the answers, I enjoy the crowd and helping those I can. It is like a self-service education for all of us, myself included. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 03:14, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Looking for volunteers

I think I saw somewhere that you're (maybe) considering running for Arbcom. If you decide against running, I think you would be a good choice for the electoral commission, if you'd be so inclined : ) - jc37 04:17, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

I've been asked several times, but I have no intention of running for Arb. I've always stayed away from most Arb activities until getting the bit, so I would consider myself not up to speed enough to help this year in an admin capacity either. Thanks though. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 12:01, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
Fair enough. - jc37 12:07, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/KNWC

Hey Dennis, hope all is well. Need an admin close on an uncontroversial AfD (listed above). It's essentially a SNOW Keep with the last !vote being on November 6, the AfD itself was created on November 5. Since there hasn't been any action on the AfD since the 6th, I don't think anyone would mind if it were closed a day early. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 14:29, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

  • I would prefer to just let it ride out since only a few have voted. I'm funny about what I close early, trying to limit that to bad faith or genuine snow circumstances. I don't want to deny the community the right to participate, even while I admit a keep is very, very likely. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 14:34, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
    • Okie Dokie, it should be closed after the full 7 days tomorrow. But knowing Wikipedia, it probably won't for some reason. :D Hope you have a good Sunday. :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 14:48, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
      • Hey Dennis, just wanted to let you know, the AfD was closed by a non-admin with the result "Keep as per positive consensus that affirms the article's notability as per WP:BROADCAST standards. A non-admin closure." Which is pretty much what we all expected. :) Take Care...Neutralhomer • Talk • 04:48, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
        • That is good, it was 7 days. I just hate to close early unless there is a lot of votes, regardless of how "obvious" it is to me. That would be injecting my own bias by doing so when so few people have participated. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 12:09, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Requesting Assistance

Hello, not sure if you're busy or not but someone has maliciously reported me, accusing me of being a 'Sockpuppet'. Basically I've been editting using my IP for many months now, and recently posted on a deletion topic debate and another user has singled me out for doing so. Most of my time on Wikipedia lately has been devoted to editting the Amazing Race China Rush 3 page, and I have provided about 90 percent of the content of the page, before that I made a random edit here and there on random Amazing Race pages but mostly just updated the tv show ratings for random American shows. The user he is accusing me of has editted pages that are nothing like the ones I have editted and the guy appears to be from the Phillipines yet I myself am British. I have never broken any rules on here and have always been respectful to others. Would you mind looking at this page please http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Aquarius2 I would love this issue resolved ASAP as I find it unfair that someone is trying to single me out and accuse me of something I haven't done. Thankyou 86.15.195.205 (talk) 20:37, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

  • I've looked at it and asked for more info. He isn't reporting in bad faith, he even notified you, which isn't required. You do geolocate in the same general area as I believe the puppet master is from, although so do tens of millions of others. At this point, I don't have enough info to have an opinion, so waiting for him to provide evidence. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 20:53, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

As the first admin on my watchlist

Can you please have a look at the Paralympiakos (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and his contributions, he has not taken kindly to me point out the attacks at the AfD's and continues to revert such as Vandalism. Mtking (edits) 23:25, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm just clicking a button to remove it quickly. There were no attacks, I merely pointed out that the editor is anti-MMA. No attacks there. I've asked that Mtking leave me alone, so if he/she keeps quiet, there's no issue. Paralympiakos (talk) 23:29, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
(edit conflict)There was no personal attack involved. You could argue that it was an ad hominem argument, but it still doesn't come close to a personal attack. Furthermore, if you do have an anti-mma bias, that information is relevant. I haven't checked to see if that is indeed the case, and Paralympiakos presented his argument in a poor way. In addition, this generic warning without even a link to where the "personal attack" occurred was not a good idea on your part. Reverting it as vandalism was not correct, but nothing should be done about it. Ryan Vesey 23:32, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
It is an ad hominem argument, which is explicitly listed in the WP:WIAPA section as an attack, it is commenting on the contributor and not on the content which is the whole point of the WP:NPA policy. Mtking (edits) 23:41, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
To just add one further argument in my favour, NPA would be if I said "Mtking is a stupid (expletive) who should be ignored". Ad homineum would be if I said "Mtking likes cricket, so their opinion on MMA is irrelevant". Rational argument would be what I did. Another example would be if I said that a Christian extremist campaigned for the removal of the wiki page for gravity. Obviously personal bias would make it a ludicrous deletion candidate. Granted, that's an extreme example, but that was the argument I was making. However, Mtking should not have readded the warning to my page after I clearly requested they not post on my talk page again. My talk page is my own and if I wish to use twinkle to quickly get rid of the harassing nonsense, I'm permitted to do so. Thank you. Paralympiakos (talk) 23:42, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
In the future, can you use Twinkle's AGF button or something other than the vandalism button in the future? Ryan Vesey 23:51, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
Please note that WP:WIAPA says "pointing out an editor's relevant conflict of interest and its relevance to the discussion at hand is not considered a personal attack" Ryan Vesey
I don't have a MMA COI, and I cant see how saying "Nom is an anti-MMA editor who should be ignored" is "pointing out an editor's relevant conflict of interest". Mtking (edits) 23:59, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
If you don't have a conflict of interest, then point out how he his argument was incorrect rather than running around screaming NPA. Ryan Vesey 00:03, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
Actually, basically saying "ignore all his edits because he's an X" is extremely uncivil - the chilling effect of putting a community "shunning" on an editor is wholly inappropriate. What's next, a scarlet letter? (✉→BWilkins←✎) 12:04, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
Sounds like it has already been discussed, but I will say that one of my biggest pet peeves is editors that revert edits calling them vandalism when they do not pass the test at WP:VANDAL. The same could be said of mislabeling any edits. I'm off to bed, been busy this evening, but if I have to look at it tomorrow, I can bite heads off at that time. Maybe you two can work it out between now and then. I know Mtking fairly well, enough to know he is a strict about whether articles meet criteria or not. I'm actually similar, and I've mediated at MMA, so I wouldn't say I am completely uninvolved here. I don't know Paralypiakos, but if you are throwing templates for vandalism or reverting anything Mtking does and calling it vandalism, I'm quite sure you are mistaken. You might disagree with him, but it isn't vandalism, which is strictly defined here. If you have been reverting as vandalism, you need to stop now. As for tagging as NPA, I will defer to Ryan's judgement, who I trust, as I haven't looked and remind us all to raise our thresholds just a bit. You both have been here long enough to know to not slap template on each other's pages anyway. Talk it out, keep it calm, and don't use labels for each other. Seriously, you both have too much experience to be slapping template at each other, just don't. I'm heading off, ping me tomorrow it you think you can't work it out, but I strongly prefer you try without admin intervention. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 04:50, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Requested moves

Hi D, noting that you are someone who couldn't get in a fight if he travelled with Napoleon to WaterlooTM: Drmies, do you think that I should be converting Talk:Jatt_Sikh#Article_title_seems_wrong into a formal requested move discussion or similar? It may seem bizarre but I've never found myself in a position where I instigated a discussion about an article title and faced a challenge, so I am not sure of the protocol. I am wondering if perhaps a neutrally-phrased announcement at WT:INB would suffice? - Sitush (talk) 00:44, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

  • You could do an RfC if you think it is appropriate. Lasts 30 days, only 4 steps at WP:RFC and that gets it broad coverage and new eyes. Probably better to use your idea though, a neutrally worded notice at INB is a good start. You could also leave neutral notices on editors talk pages that pass a neutral criteria, ie: all editors who have edited the article in the last 3 months or 6 months. Or all editors that have used the talk page in the last $x months, or both. The key is using an arbitrary criteria and wording that doesn't show bias. "There is a discussion on the talk page of Jatt Sikh regarding a name change and I though you might be interested. I'm notifying all editors who have recently edited the article." Something like that, use the same wording on all editor's talk pages. I generally skip notifying IPs since they change so often. The key is going overboard to make sure it looks neutral in tone and selection. We have a lot of folks editing Indian related articles, that should do it. Put a fancy header at the top of the discussion too, can't think of the code off hand, but you can swipe it from another page. If it is close, ask a future admin to close it, they need the experience. Ryan Vesey above is a good example. My76strat, Lord Roem, Mlpearc, Kurtis etc., experienced editors that barely missed out on their last RfA, for example. Just should be someone you don't know. Shouldn't require an admin unless it gets really, really ugly and contentious. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 04:40, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Thanks. Plenty of food for thought there! I particularly like the idea of exposing some poor soul to the blood that flows around contentious Indic subjects, although I doubt that it would be seemly for me to approach any of them to request a close. Doing so would likely just stoke up any accusations, so if it were close then a note at WP:AN requesting a closer might be the way to go. I could invite a non-admin in that note, as I am sure that potential RfA candidates (should) keep an eye on AN.

    Anyways, I'll see what happens over the next couple of days, have a ponder in the interval and then, if necessary, do something along the lines you suggest. Much appreciated. - Sitush (talk) 04:59, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Text or table?

Do you think the text at User:Ryan Vesey/Temp#Mine no. 1 and the next section would be better presented in a table? I like to use text as much as possible, but it's easy to lose your place reading that and a lot of it is repetitive. Is there a better way to organize it? Ryan Vesey 17:38, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Tables, absolutely no question about it. Malleus Fatuorum 17:46, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
  • I hear a lot of people talk trash about tables, but I agree with Malleus here, and I like them in general anyway. They are neat and clean. Tables have a way of conveying information that is hard to beat, as the eye will naturally follow the structure. It tells you how many at a glance, lets you compare more easily, etc. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 19:24, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
    Yep. I did a lot of work on this article for instance, an FA that uses a table to list the casualties of the event. Malleus Fatuorum 21:01, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
Damn fine example, that table is way more informative and readable than simple prose. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 21:13, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
Interesting discussion; I'm a fan of tables for some types of information, but had this nagging feeling that the writing experts might prefer prose. I'm happy to see that experts feel that tables are best in some situations. Now to make sure I don't translate that into "use tables whenever possible".--SPhilbrick(Talk) 14:09, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the advice from the both of you. The table works great in the Peterloo Massacre article. What do you guys think about the appropriateness of the death section as I've included it? Personally, I feel that the information is important to the history of the mines, but I fear that some will argue that mining deaths were common and shouldn't be reported on individually. Is there a policy argument against that? If worst comes to worst, I'll use it as an external link. In addition, is it preferable to use a different primary source for each of the deaths (if I can find it) than mark the one source as being for the whole table? Ryan Vesey 01:43, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
    • I put an " " in the blank fields to force the two empty boxes to produce a border. Not sure if that is the right way here, it is just a simple kludge I use in html tables. I think the deaths are fine and always an item of interest with mines, which are crazy dangerous places. If you wanted to make the section even better, you could add some kind of statistical analysis/comparison if that info is available. This mine compared to other mines in the day. Or compared to modern safety, ie: deaths per year. Is it more safe, less safe than others mines in 1900-1920? Violations or innovations. Or any particularly noteworthy event that you can dig up newspaper clippings for. Or if a common type of death (falling, etc.) has been eliminated, etc. Just expanding what you already started in the lede of that section to give context. And not sure if every single one needs an individual cite, seems that one for the whole table would be sufficient. But yes, it is 100x more readable and easier to understand with the tables. Looks like a good start to the article. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 02:14, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
      • Thanks for that fix, I was wondering what to do about it. I feel like the primary source I mentioned has that type of information, the only problem is it's not searchable. I might see if I can get Penn to get it for me. Ryan Vesey 02:29, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
        • Apparently I didn't mention the source, [3]. Ryan Vesey 02:33, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
          • Or you can buy it for 3.49 with free shipping. [4]. Not sure if that one is worth it. I've bought at least a dozen books for some auto related articles I'm working on. Finding deals on books in the $10 range shipping and all on Amazon and here locally at Ollie's Bargain Outlet here in town and in the city where I work, got about 4 at the two stores for under 10 bucks. I actually get some joy from reading the books so it is worth it for some stuff, even if not for this one. Heh, my "entertainment budget" gets spent on books for Wikipedia....no, I'm not a nerd... Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 03:09, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
half.com is also a great source for used books. I have an inventory of about 400 for sale. Ive also purchased some of my best reference-type books from "half". ```Buster Seven Talk 08:35, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
Should I scrap the information on wife and children and just leave the last column for the source? The column is only fitting two words a line. My initial source stopped working so I'm using the cached copy to help but then finding the actual copy to mark as my source. Ryan Vesey 21:34, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Need guidance

Remember me? I am in a similar quandary again, only this time I have not even used - let alone abuse - the access that has been revoked. Please check my talk and tell me what to do. What did I ever do to deserve this? Mr T(Talk?) (New thread?) 14:08, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

  • Had to look around a bit to tell what is going on. Snowolf is an exceptionally rationale guy, which may be why he has so many bits, including Steward. Looking at the discussion he used as a justification, here, I can see why he was concerned. I can't really override his judgement since it is based in fact and within policy. You did push the responsibility on the devs when it lies with you, even if you pulled back a little later in that discussion. Even if the software goes 'nanners and pastes 100x templates on 100 user's talk pages, you are supposed to check the output and modify or fix any errors it makes, every time. Using tools is exactly the same as hand typing a comment when it comes to responsibility, 100%. You accept that risk when using them and agree to this. I think you need to explain to Snowolf that you understand that and assure him you will take extra steps to verify everything that you do with AWB, and in the future will be more aware of the templates and more careful to only use the ones that apply, and remove any mistakes quickly. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 14:31, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
    I seriously believe you and I am sure he is rational guy. But, you, my friend, are imputing such things to me which I never asserted in the first place. On how many pages do I have to repeat myself?

    I, not he, put forth this page as reference. He didn't make it clear where he saw me claim that I do not take responsibility. If you had just read what I wrote in reply to him on my talk you would have gotten it crystal clear. It is just a misunderstanding, that's all. Also, I never asked you override anything. Didn't I ask you to check my talk and tell me what to do? Then where does the overriding come in? Anyway, I again repeat: I didn't say I do not take responsibility. I take responsibility for anything that comes with the tool, but if someone asks me to change/modify the tool itself, that I do not know how to do. Modifying the tool itself is not within the purview of my knowledge. Hence I wrote that I am not the guy one should be complaining to about the wording of the warning messages (this is different from edit summary which can be and has been customized). Mr T(Talk?) (New thread?) 08:36, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

    (talk page stalker) No comment on anything else, but I'm pretty sure that if you AGF revert with STIki, it won't warn the editor being reverted. Hope this helps Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 09:24, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Then this shows how easy it is to misunderstand that page, because I had gotten the same meaning out of it that Snowolf had gotten from the conversation. Sometimes words do that. I trust and believe you that this isn't the way it should be taken, but surely you see how it could be taken otherwise. I'm not sure how to add AWB access, not a tool I use, but I will ping Snowolf. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 11:59, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
    @Dennis: You're right I should have picked words more carefully, you do not need to do anymore, your appreciation as an editor is more than enough. I sincerely thank you.

    What should I do now, Sir?

    @Callanecc: thanks for your comment. It does help. But the issue is, I don't think anybody has any problem with STiki, not me at least. I like the warning messages, and like notifying users that I reverted their edit. This gives them a chance to get back to me or improve their edits or re-add the deleted data with sources. Mr T(Talk?) (New thread?) 08:27, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

New user "Letmewatchthis7"

Be double-plus good, and you have nothing to worry about.

Came and began removing all references to Turks in Persian-related articles. I am not sure if we are facing a new Qatarihistorian case... All the best. --E4024 (talk) 23:01, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)You always strike fear in people, except me.—cyberpower ChatLimited Access 13:53, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

To all Interloppers, Sockpuppeteers and Vandals
Be afraid! Be very Afraid!! D Brown is on Patrol! ```Buster Seven Talk 17:44, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Poor "Letmewatchthis7" has fast achieved fame with only 3 (three) edits in WP, thanks to your popularity among TP Stalkers. He/she will never feel easy to get involved in edit wars or anything of the kind, as all the eyes will be on them... :-)

Reopen

Can you reopen this filing Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/98.5%_Chimpanzee. New suspected sock has appeared. IRWolfie- (talk) 16:37, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

  • Actually, just file it like it is a new one, and it will automatically append to that old one since it isn't archived yet. There has already been enough action in the current one that just adding a name will make it confusing. Then ping me, since that one is fresh in my mind.Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 16:40, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
Done, IRWolfie- (talk) 16:46, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
And another one appeared to carry on edit-warring, and make personal attacks in edit summaries, on article talk page and on IRWolfie's editor review page. Diffs provided at newly filed SPI. Thanks. ~~

WikiProject Conservatism

Damn, I forgot to tell you this earlier. My obvious mistake. Honestly, I ain't that familiar with setting up RfArbs myself, particularly not in a case like this. If you look at DGG's talk page, you'll see that I tried to get some help from him myself. He reasonably declined. So far as I can tell, having looked over the history, about the only really likely result I can see is that, maybe, Lionelt might get sanctioned. Of course, he's retired, so it probably doesn't mean much, and I think with the election having not gone what I think is his way he may well remain such. DGG basically said watch it, see what happens, and, maybe, get involved as appropriate. There is a bit of a history of WikiProjects being deleted, but, honestly, that is not real likely in this case. If it goes inactive, then a merger could take place. Personally, at this point, that seems really likely. I know you talked with Elen about this, and she indicated that it might be possible for ArbCom to take the case anyway. Kirill I know has been peripherally involved in at least one of the earlier WikiProject deletions. If you want me to go ahead with the filing, I will, given a few days to really work on it, but, honestly, I at this point really think it would probably be declined. Sorry again for the delay in responding. John Carter (talk) 01:32, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

  • It happens. Meanwhile, I had to file my first Arb case, so I'm not an Arb Virgin anymore. I have been slow with the process because it looked like a merger would be possible, but not guaranteed. If we could merge all the inactive (like this is now) political projects into one wikiproject "Politics" then it would stand a better chance of self-policing and having a general goal rather than a singular political goal. I would consider that the highest possible victory for Wikipedia, as people with an interest can still participate and the community doesn't have to constantly monitor. It sounds like you and I are very much on the same page with this. But what next? Propose a merge? If we can't get consensus, we are back to ARb as the last result, but if there is any chance of avoiding, I'm all for it. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 01:40, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
    • [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Politics] does exist actually, and is more or less organized to be the "umbrella" project for the field, like MILHIST became under Kirill and like I have myself tried to do with most of the Christianity related projects. Personally, I think one way to go might be to just find who the active "leaders" are there, and maybe see if they want to perhaps go ahead and "tag" the various Conservatism articles with the Politics banner as well. Theoretically, there's no real basis for their complaining. That would get some of the Politics editors involved as well. Then, if the project really does become moribund, a merger would be a lot easier, with the other project already involved. I don't see any sort of clear "leader" of any sort from the Politics talk page, but maybe the best approach might be to post the idea to them? Bots can add a second banner really easily, and that might be at least the first step toward a form of defacto merge, even if they do remain, officially, separate. If there were someone who was very highly regarded about this subject, like Kirill and Roger over at MILHIST, they might be the people who could now start things so that, maybe in a year or so, the two could be formally merged without controversy. I could help on project banner details, if it comes to that. I can also try to find the various encyclopedias which relate directly to politics. If the Politics project can clearly show a comparatively neutral viewpoint and more effective organization after Lionelt's departure, that would probably be the best thing to help a merger along. John Carter (talk) 02:03, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
      • Sounds like you have a very good plan and direction in mind. I'm not in a hurry, and there is some resistance at WP:CONS... over any changes, but nothing I think that will present a problem once a viable alternative is presented. I think that since this entire process started, it has benefited Wikipedia simply because all the political bickering and ANI reports are no longer happening. I think drafting a short and long term plan that others can view and help with would be beneficial. You seem to have a lot more experience than I do here (I deal more with individual disputes) so if you will take the lead and provide a rough draft of a plan, I will be happy to help out in any way I can. I know plenty of others will as well. Not everyone is going to love it, but it is the best way forward, and while he lost Lionelt along the way (something I didn't want to happen) I think we are preventing more losses from all the drama and frustration that the project was contributing toward. The key is get others involved so they are part of the process, not just bystanders, after an initial draft is made. There will be discussions along the way, but if the multiple projects are defunct, RfCs shouldn't really be needed at this stage, if ever. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 02:12, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Re: POV-pushing, IP-hopping editor

This is getting ridiculous. Not only has this editor continued to revert, but also stalk me on DAB pages. From the sheer number of articles this editor has wreaked havoc across, protections won't work because (s)he may find more. See a similar issue I faced continually earlier this year. GotR Talk 05:38, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

You have a reply on WP:BN

Please see WP:BN#Request for desysop made on Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case (since you requested to be pinged). ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 06:24, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

RfB?

Hi Dennis, I know you are apparently busy right now, but I would like to ask you to at least be willing to consider this idea. There has been so much talk about the RfA/RfB process and whether or not it is doomed. I think it would be very interesting to see what would happen if you ran for cratship. I think it is fairly obvious to just about anyone applying common sense that you are one of our most level-headed admins and there is no reason to believe that would change if you were given cratship. If you went through an RfB, it could be very informative and helpful to those analyzing the situation in determining if the process is truly doomed. In other words, if you can't make it through an RfB, probably nobody can. AutomaticStrikeout 20:32, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

  • I'm flattered, and actually several people have been asking me to consider running for Crat and Arb. Arb won't happen, but Crat might some day, who knows. I think before I consider a run, I need to do more homework on name changes, get more experience in judging consensus and a little more experience as an admin. I'm actually working on those things, although I am not convinced I will ever run for Crat at this point. Very likely, the soonest I would consider it is my one year anniversary as admin, in April. You have to remember, I've only been an admin for 7 months or so, even though I've been here for many years. What matters most is I have to consider if that is the role that I would be happiest in, if that would bring me enjoyment and make me a better asset to Wikipedia. At this time, I really don't know. I'm open minded, but still learning a great deal, so not in a hurry to get more bits. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 20:40, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
Ok, thanks for your reply. AutomaticStrikeout 20:43, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
It's a shame you don't think Arb will happen. I've looked over the areas you seem to tend to like to patrol, and dispute resolution would seem to be an area you're not bad at. But of course, people are welcome to contribute in the ways they are comfortable with : ) - jc37 17:36, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
I'm not sure I would receive a warm welcome at Arb. While I strive to be polite and tolerant, I do prefer to cut to the chase and fix problems. I'm a problem solver by nature, here and in the real world. Having to solve problem by committee would likely feel trying to get 10 other chaps help me drive my car, with all of our hands and feet on the steering wheel, gas pedal and brake pedal, at the same time. Accepting the admin bit required a great deal of personal sacrifice regarding personal freedom here, particularly in the area of expression. I'm not sure how much more freedom I'm willing to give up just yet. More importantly, I really want to be where I can do the most good in creating a better environment for Wikipedia as whole. For example, WP:WER is an important part of my wiki-life, and not sure how that would be affected if I were to have any more bits. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 17:57, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
Arbcom elections - Rfa times 10, without the associated discussion....lol
Sooo, I can understand your hesitance (I've had similar wonderings myself).
But I think, from my look over your contribs, and what I've seen others say about you (in particular how respected you appear to be as an regular AN/I closer) that you would likely do fairly well in the elections. Course, I'm more interested in the good work you would do after being elected : )
I won't pretend to know all that goes on behind the scenes in Arbcom, but it seems that it's essentially like an extended consensual discussion that is ongoing, which culminates in what they finally decide to "vote" on-wiki.
But nod, from everything I've seen, it will take a chunk out of your wiki-time. (I have heard several say that they needed to set limits and restrictions on themselves on how much time in each part of the wiki they would attend, else arbcom threatened to consume all their time.) But I have no concerns that you have that self-discipline.
Anyway, no I'm not gonna browbeat you to try to get you to run (as if that could work : )
But I just would like you to further consider it : ) - jc37 18:19, 13 November 2012 (UTC)


It's a trap, Dennis. Notice the cookies and warm hot chocolate just inside the door? Stay free like the wild stallion that you are. (Ok...maybe frisky pony is a better desciption). ```Buster Seven Talk 18:10, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
First laugh of the day, literally out loud. Thank you for that, I needed it. :) Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 18:12, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
Rofl, I was like, edit conflict? Then I read it and my computer almost wore the cookies and milk : ) - jc37 18:19, 13 November 2012 (UTC)


Not Here

Can you look at The Genius Me from a not here standpoint? The user hasn't been too disruptive other than messing with my userpage a little bit. Their talk page is covered with things from other users' user pages. (That's probably how mine got messed up). Ryan Vesey 03:25, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

  • I did a little research. That is a troll/sock of someone, and I have indef'ed them. It was more subtle than average, but the evidence is all there. They are obviously not new, even if they try to pretend they are, and they picked exactly the right "buttons" to try to push by adding stuff on their talk page that they knew would cause controversy with one person or another, ie: admin badge, bot badge, claim of many edits, etc. They are trying to get a rise out of people. Also note that in the first few edits, they turned their talk page and user page into blue links. New users don't know to do that. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 14:13, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Arthur Talmage Abernethy

The DYK project (nominate) 16:03, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

How much statistical information to include

So, I've still got a ways to go with the current table and the prose, but I'm curious about how much statistical information is appropriate for the article. I have the information to create a table listing the number of deaths and non-fatal injuries every year. I also have information that could list various stats for the mines (How many tons were mined, how many people were employed, how many days the mine operated , aggregate value of total product, etc.) My worry is that the tables will become much longer than the prose in my article. Ryan Vesey 21:27, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

  • They might, but that isn't the end of the world. You don't have to have all the stats in the table either, some can be in prose, the more unique things that aren't common to all or even half of the people. Plus if you have any prose that relates to the economic impact of the mine to the area, that would be worth including in the prose as well. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 21:57, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

"a landmark article"

Dennis Brown, you are one of a few who actually grow their sense of humor. Good for you. I am going to get to work, and then I'll have a look at that masterpiece. Drmies (talk) 16:50, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

  • Ha, wait--you weren't joking. Alright then, Mr. Serious Partner, I'll have a critical look. Drmies (talk) 16:53, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
    • I'm very confused at this point, not sure which landmark you are referring to. I've been on very, very light load for a couple of weeks, trying to get a break, keep from getting burned out. Thinking about avoiding ANI and lessening my load at SPI so I can work on articles more. Just got in several new books for the 1950s articles I'm working on. It caused me to have to start several other small new articles like Tri-Five, Santa Ana Drags and a stub for Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1952. Think I need to open a bottle of wine and do some serious reading today with the new books. I've got a bottle of Beaujolais I've been wanting to open anyway. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 18:14, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Random acts of baking

Here's a little something to help keep your blood sugar levels high! And chocolate levels too! -- Dianna (talk) 03:55, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Happy Thanksgiving!

Happy Thanksgiving, Dennis Brown!
As we all sit down at the dinner table and say our thanks, I would like to give thanks to you for your wonderful contributions and wish you a very happy Thanksgiving. May your turkey, ham or beast of choice satiate you until next year! TRA! ```Buster Seven Talk 13:54, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
A traditional Thanksgiving dinner.
  • Thanks Buster. Thanksgiving is my favorite holiday. I truly feel lucky in many ways, to be born in a relatively free country, been blessed with at least average health and intelligence, and the opportunity to control my own destiny. I try to take the time every Thanksgiving and reflect upon these thoughts, be truly grateful, and find a way to share my good fortune with others. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 14:07, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Request for arbitration

The request for arbitration in which you were named as a party has been declined as moot. For the Arbitration Committee --Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 16:43, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Bolton High School (Arlington, Tennessee)

Hi, Dennis. If you could possibly protect the above article, I think that would be helpful, due to persistent vandalism of the usual school type. Also you may wish to consider revdel on this diff, due to students, presumably minors being mentioned in a not to good way. Thanks! Gtwfan52 (talk) 19:47, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Want some WP merchandise?

A Tshirt!
I thought that you deserved something a bit extra for all of the amazing work you've done for the project.
I've nominated you for a gift from the Wikimedia Foundation!

Who doesn't want a free Wikipedia shirt from the WMF? David1217 What I've done 01:20, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

  • That was exceptionally kind of you, thank you very much! Whether I really deserve a free t-shirt may depend on who you ask, but please know you have made my day by this act of kindness :) It is kind acts and words like yours here that make the rough days worth riding out and sticking around. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 01:29, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

This bit of humour is in no way a reflection on the awesome nice-ness of the gift

So I helped out at Wikipedia and all I got was.... : ) - jc37 01:44, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

@Dennis: Thank the Foundation for giving away free t-shirts, not me. @Jc37: perhaps Dennis can get a t-shirt that looks like this one. :^) David1217 What I've done 03:28, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

RFA

If you are going to move sections to the talk page, something I understand, you might want to at least leave a stub where you removed it pointing to the talk page, just to allow for continuity. Small font "Extended content moved to talk page" should be sufficient. Not sure about policy, maybe I'm wrong here, but it seems like a good idea to prevent confusion and let users know there was more info that was moved. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 02:19, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

You're right, and I typically do.
That said, not sure how to do that from where it was moved.
You're welcome to try, or even just a suggestion of how-to
And if you think it should be reverted, I'm fine with that. I started to try to fix the indent formatting (we kinda stopped all possibility of neutral numbering), and in reading it over it looked a bit like more of a discussion regarding adminship in general. :But it can be a fine line, and I have no problem with it being undone. - jc37 02:25, 15 November 2012 (UTC)


No no, no reason to revert. My comment was to help, not to criticize or remove the efforts. I agree that we need admin to clerk RfA. I think it would be better to have an admin that wasn't participating in the RfA, like other boards, but the moves you made weren't controversial. (I've worked with others on the idea of clerking, off wiki, something I know you don't like) The best idea I had was the small font idea

and on the talk page:

I guess you could number them as well, on both tabs, to make it easier to follow. Nothing fancy, just some logical way. I don't claim to know the final "best way", but maybe trying a way or two would be a good way to test it. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 02:48, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Please don't drink the bears
Thanks for the suggestions. "small" was a good idea (and is used elsewhere, I can tell I'm sleepy today : )
I added the note to the rfa, but I think the header itself on the talk page probably makes clear where the thread came from.
Oh, and as an aside, I'm a fan of transparency. but I don't have a problem with email for privacy reasons, non-wikipedia-related reasons, and to a minor extent, to avoid a statement which could embarrass someone else on wiki. That last being another fine line, of course...
You could try "bare drinking"?
(You wouldn't believe the weird emails I've received. My favourite is from when I was less active for awhile - actually got emails asking me to donate my "admin account" to some "cause". I notified arbcom about it as I recall...
Anyway, thanks again : ) - jc37 03:03, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
I chat with several folks about different things, sometimes just to bounce ideas around. I don't take admin action based on offwiki information, but I don't restrict my interactions to onwiki. Berean Hunter and I have had some excellent and productive conversations while drinking bear and eating barbecue, for instance. As for the donate scam, I'm sure that would go to a worthy cause.... Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 10:42, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

You drink bear? You must be terrifying in person. --Dweller (talk) 10:46, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

How about "bare drinking"? --Dweller (talk) 11:12, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Personal (album)

Hey. This AFD has been higly contentious but on a very interesting way. I made an NAC and got restricted at ANI to make them after the nominator reverted my close and started the thread. After the complete 7 days of discussion, another non-admin closed the discussion only to be reverted again by the nominator. 8 days past, no delete votes [only keeps], I guess this is time enough for that AFD to be closed. I'd thank you very much if you take a look at it and give me your thoughts. — ΛΧΣ21™ 15:05, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

I only glanced at the ANI, which admittedly did seem a bit rushed, but I don't have enough information to have an educated opinion on the the ANI handling itself. Perhaps that can be revisited in the future, and I will be happy to look at it then if you like, but I can't think of anything I could do to help at this time. As to the AFD, I would have recommended against closing it for several of reasons. 1. There was some contention, even if it didn't show up in the votes. 2. I'm against early closures in general (admin close or NAC), excepting when the nominator withdraws and there is zero contention, or there is a dozen keep votes and no contention. 3. I'm generally against NAC at AfD and strongly recommend against it to all the future admin I mentor. As a rule, I won't revert NACs unless they are flatly wrong, and don't have a problem with them so much, I just don't recommend them, particularly for future admin as they don't demonstrate "admin skills" and have a great chance of coming back to bite you in the ass at RfA. It isn't a question of skills, it just isn't in the future admin's best interest. This is based on my participation in over 1600 AfDs, which is where I cut my teeth at during the dark years at AFD, 2006-2008. In case you don't know, 1600 is an extraordinary number of AFDs to have participated in, yet in 6 years without the admin bit, I don't think I ever closed one. (The stats mistakenly show 4, but those were after becoming an admin)
I think you had the right conclusion, that it was going to end up in a Keep, there really isn't a question about that. The problem is the politics of it. Theopolisme was reverted at close at well, and in that instance, it had run the full time and there really wasn't a lot of question about the outcome, but Till still managed to cause some unneeded drama with the 2nd revert. I see Bwilkins has already closed this as well.
And to be more clear, I'm in favor of experienced and trusted editors being able to close RfCs, ANI discussions, and other board discussions and have not only spoken out for their right to do so, but have asked many non-admin to take a larger role in closing obvious RfCs, to reduce the backlog. I do think that non-admin should limit themselves to only the most obvious cases. Again, not from a lack of skill, but to avoid headaches. When I close a discussion and it is even a little controversial, the admin bit helps give it a bit of "authority". I still must often deal with a lot of questions, and sometimes abuse, regarding the closing rationale or conclusion. This is why many admin won't close discussions. The skills required to deal with the angry editors are very different than the skills required to actually close the discussion or even judge consensus, and AfD is a poor place to learn those skills. In the end, the policy actually discourages (but allows) NAC at AfD. I personally recommend working/clerking at WP:DRN or WP:RFPP to gain admin experience, as well as actually working AfD cases as an editor, helping save articles occasionally, and providing genuine insight when they can't be saved. As a side note, I notice that of your 387 AfD votes, the percent of "delete" votes is around 85%, although you're within consensus most of the time. Normally, 2/3rds of all AfDs are deleted, which might make you look like a "deletionist" at your next RfA as it looks like you are focused only on deleting articles instead of saving them. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 15:49, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
Well, yes. I can consider myself a deletionist, although I saved several articles when I considered it worth to. I thank you very much for all the feedback you gave me here. It will help me a lot in the future :) — ΛΧΣ21™ 16:19, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
Dennis - careful, User:Hahc21 is prohibited from NAC's on any Wikipedia forum right now :-) Someone might cross an RFC close with a NAC and hit the block button. I think they should tread lightly for awhile (✉→BWilkins←✎) 16:05, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
Well, I was only asking Dennis to take a look at the AFD, not at the ANI thread. I am not revisiting that restriction anytime soon neither will vote on any AFD or participate in any AFD from now on, but that's not the point. All I wanted was the AFD closed, as 8 days have passed. Now that you, Bwilkins, had closed it, there's nothing else to say, I guess. Regards. — ΛΧΣ21™ 16:15, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
I'm aware, and he knows it. Like I said, I saw the ANI thread. I was just giving him general info and why I'm not a fan of NAC at AFD regardless. That is also why I recommended DRN and RFPP if they were interesting in helping admin out, neither of which would really involve closing actions. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 16:53, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
Well, now after what happened, I don't recommend NACs either. I may take a look at RFPP and work there :) Thanks for your comments, Dennis. — ΛΧΣ21™ 17:19, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
No problem. If in doubt, just ask first. Armbrust is a great non-admin clerk at RfPP (and other areas), you might ask him for pointers. Just take it slow, don't get in a hurry, learn the methods. The help is always welcomed. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 17:22, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Review of admin actions

Yo, DB, User:WinkaDinka was blocked as a VOA by Edgar181. He posted two unblock requests, the first of which was declined, and the second of which was...pretty bad. I revdeled the second unblock request and removed talk page access; as an uninvolved admin, can you take a look and make sure I did the right thing (both technically and policy-wise)? First time I've done something like this. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 18:40, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

  •  In progress Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 18:42, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
  •  Done Revoking talk page access was completely appropriate and needed. The RevDel was 50/50, some admin would have, some wouldn't have and just deleted it. It was disruptive, but since he didn't actually mention the name of anyone, it wasn't a BLP issue. I've been called worse on my own talk page and didn't even delete it, but that is because it reflects poorly on them, not me. But your actions seemed totally fine and within expected norms in my opinion. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 18:50, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Okay, thanks. I was wrestling a bit about the revdel; the thing that swung me is that, while he doesn't name names, he makes it clear he's talking about specific real-life people, and the specific people he's talking about are indicated by his (also revdeled) contribs. I'll hold fire on the revdel next time (ugh) and get a second opinion, just in case. :) Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 18:55, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

User:Corrine.L.Clark

Hi Dennis Brown, given the way this was left at the Administrators' Noticeboard, I thought it appropriate to drop you a note re: the restoration of this page [5]. Best, JNW (talk) 20:33, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

I have deleted it and, in view of your final warning, indef-blocked. JohnCD (talk) 21:07, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
Looks like we all did the right thing. We offered lots of patience, plenty of explanation, a second chance, and they are so blinded with hatred and fringe theory that they obviously are incapable of being here. The only person here who should have regrets is Corinne. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 22:39, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
Yes, she was given an ample sufficiency of ROPE. JohnCD (talk) 22:46, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
Thank you both. Yet I won't be surprised if this recurs under a new account [6]. Judging from the user's brief edit history, initiated with a full-blown article earlier this year, I'd guess this is someone who knows their way around the premises. JNW (talk) 00:09, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
Careful with those beans... ;) Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 12:56, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
Amen. Feel free to revert.... JNW (talk) 14:59, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Andrea

There are much more then two articles like I noticed there a 5 articles pretty much not connected to each other.[7]--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 07:33, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

  • That is odd, the tool I used didn't show a couple of those. I will take a look later in the day. I had worked with Iloveandrea for a while, got them unblocked and tried to mentor him before he went back to editing PI pages, which was his main problem. You still need some specific diffs, as the checkusers have become a bit more rigid in requiring them and of course it is my job to comply. Just editing the same articles isn't quite enough, need to show similar style or adding back the same content, etc. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 12:56, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
Hello, Dennis Brown. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Here we go...

I've created the nomination, it's [8]. Thanks in advance. I'll let Anthony know too. Basalisk inspect damage⁄berate 14:42, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

  • I've added my nomination statement and a header for Anthony to place his co-nom statement. I haven't read over your statements yet but will when I get caught up. Ping me again just before you go live so I can add my "support" in the proper section at that time. I'm off today, will be on and off wiki all day. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 14:54, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
Thanks. I'm also around all day, I'll let you know once Anthony's done it. Basalisk inspect damage⁄berate 15:05, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Boomerang

For what it's worth, your comment here deserves to find its way back to you. I shall assist seeing to it. In short, I feel confident the community would benefit if you were on the committee too. I hope it is something you have given consideration! That's all I could ask anyway, and I am asking. My76Strat (talk) 18:55, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

  • I've been asked by several people, mainly via email, and I'm sincere when I say I'm humbled by the faith and trust put into these requests, but I won't be running for Arbitration Committee this year. The main reason is that I don't feel ready for the task, but I also don't know if that is something I would want to do anyway, nor am I sure that it is something I would be well suited for. Maybe in a couple of years I will give it more thought, but right now I'm doing exactly what I enjoy: working directly with users, helping them on a daily basis, working to bring some order and lower the drama on the boards, mediating for good editors who just disagree, and cleaning up the place of socks and other problem users. The "front line", so to speak. I'm not sure I will ever leave it. Arbs can't mediate, can't work the boards that much and have a great amount of limits placed on them. Even though I may grump at our Arbs from time to time, I respect the job they do and know it isn't easy. There are some good new candidates coming out, in particular User:Worm That Turned, who barely missed the cut last time. I'm convinced he will make an excellent Arbitrator, much better than I could be. Others will be announcing soon as well. I've also had several people try to persuade me to seek Bureaucratship, although I have no idea if that is the direction I want to go in either. I don't really have a desire to earn more bits just to collect them, and each new bit comes with sacrifices, even my current admin bit. I have no idea if I will feel differently next year, but I'm not planning anything and told myself I would wait at least one year (April) before I would even think about anything else. I'm not one to rush these things, and I still have a lot to learn just to be the kind of admin I want to be. Thanks again for the trust, and hopefully, I will continue to earn it. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 01:14, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Basalisk

Sorry, I had to go out immediately after my post. I assume your question was meant in jest?--Anthony Bradbury"talk" 23:04, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Sock question

Hey Dennis, I saw you were involved at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Bt8257/Archive, so I thought I'd ping you on how to proceed since I didnt see my question covered at WP:SPI or WP:SOCK. I'm suspecting Bt8257 and User:SNIyer12 are connected based on the massive overlap of sports rivalry edits, not to mention random subjects like Arnold Schwarzenegger, Harry S. Truman, Joseph McCarthy,Juan Perón, etc. Since they both already have SPI cases, is it worth doing a CU to link them, or its enough to do the WP:DUCKTEST? How do we merge cases as far as tagging their specific roles as master/puppet?—Bagumba (talk) 23:27, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

On a related subject with SNIyer12, AngelsandDevils (talk · contribs) is also quacking with these overlaps. What's usually done if there is no obvious disruptive behavior (yet?). Thanks.—Bagumba (talk) 23:27, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

  • Ok, about caught up on my other duties, will need to look at this closer. I will say you have to be careful with interconnects and sports. Lots of people who edit sports, edit lots of articles, so there will lots of interconnects naturally with two sports fans of the same field. Next, it doesn't matter if a sock is "disruptive" or not. Being a sock itself is the disruption. Over half the socks we block didn't do anything except sockpuppeting. Now lemme go look at some contribs and get back to you here. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 01:57, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
No prob. I'll just add add that the obsession with rivalry related articles for such a broad array of teams and sports is quite rare IMO.—Bagumba (talk) 02:06, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict)That is not so many overlaps, all are NY teams, after all. You and I have 68 intersects [9] even while our paths seldom cross ;) (with admin, that is common, however...) The point being that sports intersects are weak unless they break regions and actual sports by a large degree. You might look at the talk page at the block [10] and get User:AuburnPilot in the loop for this. The only reason I didn't indef the editor was due to the request of this admin at the SPI itself (in the archive [11]), so they have adopted the user, so to speak. They will know them better as well, my role at the SPI was only administrative, I didn't research the whole case. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 02:08, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
SNIyer/AngelsandDevils is weaker (NY only), but the Bt8257/SNIyer12 does span sports and cities. My bad for commingling the two cases. I'll take it up with AuburnPilot. Thanks.—Bagumba (talk) 02:21, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

A POV-pushing problem

Hi Dennis, can you or one of your talk page stalkers take a look at this problem: PESO44, who has already been blocked once for harassment, is pushing a pro-Islam POV at this article and another editor has improperly used rollback at least once to keep improper content in the article. Rather then continuing an edit war, I'll bring it here for resolution. AutomaticStrikeout 00:37, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

The content is on NPOV, judging on someone won't be a harassment.--PESO44 (talk) 00:50, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
Peso44, you have been reintroducing copyvio as well as POV material. Do not restore the content again. Ryan Vesey 00:51, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
I'm not a full-time stalker (just watching after my post above). I'll assume PESO44 was not aware of our edit warring policy and have warned them and provided some relevant links. I trust a consensus will be reached on the article talk page.—Bagumba (talk) 01:08, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
The situation is worse than you think. See the discussion on the talk page. This is unquestionably POV pushing considering the original vandalism [12] that made the change. Ryan Vesey 01:11, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
This doesn't lead me to believe PESO is listening. AutomaticStrikeout 01:17, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
(edit conflict)(talk page stalker)As an uninvolved editor, I have to agree with this edit. The reverted edit plagiarizes the PressTV report, against WP:COPYVIO. Peso44, I don't know who you are, but you are violating copyright, and I will report you to the administrators myself if you continue to post copyrighted material. You also altered a quote, and we do not alter quotes. "Money hungry," "propagandist," and "unislamic" are judgemental terms that are highly non-neutral and therefore something a neutral encyclopedia avoids. It was also incorrect to call AutomaticStrikeout's edit vandalism. I've placed the article on my watchlist. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:24, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
I haven't looked at all this, since you guys seem to have it under control, but Ian is 100% correct in that the edit was plagiarizing and was unacceptable as it was. We don't just copy and paste. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 01:29, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
That didn't take long once I started looking. Indef blocked. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 01:34, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
Thanks all. AutomaticStrikeout 02:20, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

False accusation

Confused editor, more confusing to onlookers but really is nothing. Hatting to prevent confusing, not to deny or hide.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Where did he accuse you of sockpuppeting? AutomaticStrikeout 01:00, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
Well, that was weird. You can't see it (except for in the main talk page history), but an IP above removed a complaint about a sockpuppet situation that I think has something to do with this: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Dustinliu76/Archive. Then, Dustinliu76 came and removed their complaint here. AutomaticStrikeout 01:10, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I actually created another section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dustinliu76 (talk • contribs) 01:18, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Another user I am

I'm also 76.233.110.131.

Blocked user POV pushing by creating parallel page. Karaite Folk vs Crimean Karaites

Kaz was blocked at 6 October 2012 due to for disruptive editing of his POV on page Crimean Karaites Please compare Kaz's last versions with posted by Budo Karaite Folk page commented by him as""Independently corroborated brief summary of information from the 6 volume Karaite Folk Encyclopedia". Obviously the versions are almost identical.

In Talk:Karaite Folk page he claims that does not accept Kaz's blocking ,motivating it as personal issues between Kaz and other editors.

Please refer to Budo's editions list showing that at last to weeks all his efforts are to change links to original Crimean Karaites page by links to his Kaz's POV Karaite Folk page.

In his editing Crimean Karaites original and accepted page he tries to reduce significance of this page by some ridiculous changes like claiming that there only Crimean Karaites 80 in the world.

After that he use this change to claim that "the Crimean Karaites article, may indeed need deletion for notability reasons (there are only 80 Crimean Karaites in the world)"

Probably Budo misunderstands the meaning of Crimean Karaites (Karaim) term (ethnic group having origin from Crimea but leaving all over the word). The issue is explained on Crimean Karaite page, but all efforts to explain him were useless.He continues repetitive removing links to RS regarding Crimean Karaite population outside the Crimea. Please learn the issue and prevent this unacceptable behavior. Неполканов (talk) 21:23, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

My belief is that Budo and Kaz are the same person. At the time the IP check was done during the Kaz sock puppet investigation, they were not using the same IP. The Budo ID probably edits from an internet cafe or free wireless internet area.
Note also User talk:WordsWorth who was blocked for harassing Неполканов, who I believe is another Kaz sock.--Toddy1 (talk) 21:35, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
There is an SPI at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Kaz that could be reopened to include this information. I've notified User:Budo that he is being discussed here, at the risk of misusing Dennis's page. EdJohnston (talk) 22:01, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
Ed, I'm easy, you can air out your dirty socks here if you need to. I wouldn't know how to act if it wasn't as busy as a bus station around here. I'm about to sit for a quick bite of dinner, and will take a look. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 22:41, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

@EdJohnston, thank you for letting me know about this somewhat underhand discussion. I know Toddy and Неполканов that you both take issue with certain facts since you did not not answer my questions last month on the Crimean Karaites Page. But nevertheless, why try to sweep the facts presented at Karaite Folk under the carpet? Have you read the article? Objectively, it is a very good collaborative wiki effort. Although I agree with you both that it does not belong at the Crimean Karaites page where user Kaz was pushing his ideas, since Crimean Karaites are objectively a minority lacking significant notability, but yet they have a wiki page of their own. I think you should both focus on trying to make the Crimean Karaites article into something worth keeping on wikipedia, and drop the bone now. For the record I work with minorities for local government and our IP is used by thousands of employees who I have never met. I like to read wiki articles and touch up trom time to time during my breaktimes. This is not an "Internet Cafe", and I am not User:Kaz. I do not want to reveal anything more about myself than that.

It might be best for everyone now to get back to discussion on the content of the Crimean Karaites article (especially the population figues) and see what we can do together to make it worthwhile keeping. Budo (talk) 14:42, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

To my opinion Budo is not Kaz. Blocked for disruptive editing Kaz is familiar with the Crimean Karaite subject and sources languages. From the other hand Budo lacks even base knowledge regarding the issues above in spite of the answers on his question that he has got at Talk:Crimean Karaites#s#Back_to_August page. While he recognizes his limitations, he has strong and blind opinion that Kaz's POV ,having some common lines with Karaite Folk Encyclopedia, is the only right POV. This POV is presented on the Crimean Karaites#Origins as one of POVs. If he thinks, that it is not enough, he could edit the original page with proper citing from the Encyclopedia .Instead of it he claims in his repetitive edits of original page that Crimean Karaites are living in Crimea only, while promoting the rejected version of the page by illegal way that needs to be stopped Неполканов (talk) 13:53, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Denis - another one of Kaz' sock-puppets is appealing his block.[13]--Toddy1 (talk) 20:58, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Case

Hi, can you have a look at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/98.5%_Chimpanzee? You are probably the clerk most familiar with this socking. IRWolfie- (talk) 10:46, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) The report is malformed. SattvaBodhi (talk · contribs) should be listed as a suspected sock. Doc talk 10:52, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
Cheers for spotting that, I need to get myself a coffee IRWolfie- (talk) 10:54, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
First edit ever?[14] Not a new user. Doc talk 11:13, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
Done. That was a little harder due to less edits. I might recommend letting them edit just a few more times to make it more obvious. This sock watches the SPI pages, so once you file, they are tipped off. I can tell because this time they didn't blue link their talk/user pages, per my observation in the last report. Just like fishing, sometimes to you have to let them take out a little line to make sure you can set the hook. I did ask for CU to shake the tree and see what falls out, not to prove this guy, but to find some sleepers. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 12:53, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
Unfortunately I didn't read this before filing that SPI, but the checkuser got it. IRWolfie- (talk) 12:20, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Arbcom

Would you please put your hand up? --Anthonyhcole (talk) 04:42, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Yea - come on Dennis - I think you have support , perhaps enough to make a difference - Youreallycan 04:47, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
We don't always agree, but I'm pretty sure I would support, since I know that you think about what the other side is saying rather than bowling them over. --Rschen7754 04:56, 17 November 2012 (UTC)


See above - jc37 04:57, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
That doesn't mean we can't try :P --Rschen7754 05:01, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
If you read the above, you should know I don't disagree : p - jc37 05:04, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
Aah. #Boomerang. Change your mind, please. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 06:17, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
You all should read User:FT2/Arbcom the punchball. Very interesting stuff, and I trust quite accurate. If I ever do seek ArbCom, it will have to be when I am mentally prepared for the onslaught. My age, job and lifestyle allow for it, but I'm just being honest in saying that I'm not mentally ready to make the sacrifices. Jumping in this year would probably lead to me burning out by summer, or simply doing a poor job. We should all be aware of our own limitations, and I don't ever want to seek a new bit unless I feel comfortable that I am prepared for not just the technical challenges, but the emotional ones as well. Besides, I'm enjoying my first year as admin, simply being a student of Wikipedia and helping people, learning and growing. Your perspective changes once you get the bit, you get more practical and you develop a deeper understanding of the why in policy, not just the words. I'm still learning how to best interpret policy, getting a good feel for the real consensus on many things, and of course, I'm making plenty of good faith mistakes along the way. I owe it to everyone (and myself) to first become a better admin before I even consider a higher office. I'm flattered, but honestly, the community gives me more credit than I have earned.
In short, I am simply not ready for the job. Thanks again, it does feel good to have the trust of your fellow editors. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 15:58, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
What? You're not ready to rise to the level of your incompetence?. I'm afraid you're just too level–headed for this place. Mojoworker (talk) 20:16, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
You could try for OS and see if being a functionary's something you might want to do; it doesn't seem to be that much more complicated than being an admin, just more consequences if you make a mistake. --Rschen7754 02:08, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
I work SPI a fair amount and may seek CU in the future, simply because that is a natural extension of what I'm already doing, but I don't have a fixed time table. I like what I'm doing, so I'm in no hurry. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 02:18, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Removed ANI post

Dennis Brown: "wise old thing"

Hi. Picked you because we just "conversed" and people say you're a wise old thing. Hope you're still online. I removed this: [15] for what I hope are obvious reasons. I informed the poster, but in case he takes no further action, would you be prepared to see if the post needs any action? Thanks Begoon talk 17:40, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

  • Some will debate it, but I think you did the right thing in both reverting and following that up with informing and admin who you believe is currently online, which happened to be me in this case. When it comes to privacy, it is best to be quietly bold, then inform someone who can look at the issue and take action, just as you did here. I've blocked the IP for trolling. You might also ping the editor who make the ANI report and just point him to this discussion. I know him, we get along well. Normally I prefer those kinds of issues get dropped off at Oversight or an active admin, to prevent more eyes falling on it. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 17:48, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
Let them debate. I did what I considered right, weighing the added exposure of possibly private details at ANI against the additional time it would take to find someone to act. If you hadn't responded so soon I would have found someone else. Good point, though - I'll link to this discussion from my post on his talk page. Thanks for the swift response. Begoon talk 17:54, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Hmmm, "wise old thing" – that's got a nice ring to it. Mojoworker (talk) 20:32, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

IP

Frédéric Bourdin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

89.94.23.111 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

My talk page

Dennis, as the last blocking admin, could you please take a look at this? I believe I'm exempt from WP:INVOLVED in this instance and can block, but in an abundance of caution ...--Bbb23 (talk) 17:44, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

  •  In progress Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 17:49, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
  •  Done Static IP blocked one year. Obvious block evasion of someone who had been making legal threats. If it was fast and furious and needed instant action, I would suggest just making the block and then filing at ANI for review as an exception to involved via "what a normal admin would have done". This wasn't that way, so I completely agree with the decision of dropping it here. WP:INVOLVED can cause real drama even when you are in the right, so yes, you did exactly the right thing here. [[User:Dennis Brown|Dennis Brown--37.160.14.80 (talk) 03:24, 18 November 2012 (UTC)>]] - 2¢ © Join WER 17:59, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
Exactly, I, too, didn't think it was urgent. Thanks for taking care of it.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:01, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Dennis, could you take another look at the article itself and the various IPs that are re-adding the same information? I reverted one, but I can't keep reverting, and I don't feel comfortable semi-protecting the article. The geolocates for the IPs are a bit weird, too. One comes from France, as does the sock, but not from the same place in France. The other comes from Canada. Yet, they are all crawling out of the woodwork and editing an article that is relatively obscure, which can't be coincidental. As an aside, you forgot to slap a block notice on the sock's page. I wanted to fix their request for an unblock, but it's hard to do without the notice being there in the first place. I apologize for all the trouble.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:25, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Hello Denis, could you give a fair look at this matter since the change that are made on Bourdin's article are documented. I don't know if Bbb23 is your friend but I think that he has no right whatsoever to stop people editing this article when they do quote reliable sources. His motives are unclear and that is the real problem, not who is editing it (or where they live), I believe Wikipedia's policies permit the editing of articles if it's done seriously right ? Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.160.14.80 (talk) 02:47, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

  • I just semi protected it for 3 months as this has BLP implications, and it is obvious that the IPs are related or working in tandem to bypass a block. IPs should use the talk page. I can see if they are proxies later, as I'm busy now. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 02:50, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Thanks. I'm going to leave the last IP's edit in place for the moment. I'll wait until you have the time to check the technical issue, although I'm still inclined to revert based on WP:DUCK.--Bbb23 (talk) 03:07, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Well, I am not using any proxy as you will see, neither working with anyone to bypass a block. I am just telling you that the only one who's causing damage to the Bourdin's article is Bbb23. This article has been edited with reliable sources and he keep canceling them using the argument that the editing is not valid because it's quoting the article's subject (Bourdin) which is wrong since many subject on Wikipedia are quoted. Bbb23 has a problem and manipulating both Wikipedia's rules and you. Can you give it a fair trial ? --37.160.14.80 (talk) 03:24, 18 November 2012 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.160.14.80 (talk) 03:03, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

  • Sorry, was real world busy. Yes, 37* is an obvious block evader of the other IP. Looking at the other IP and will take appropriate action if needed. I reverted the sock's edit as well, no reason to reward bad behavior. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 03:39, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Dennis_Brown/Archive_13&oldid=1181874593"