Jump to content

User talk:Dennis Brown/Archive 15

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 10←Archive 13Archive 14Archive 15Archive 16Archive 17→Archive 20

Can you take a look at an editor?

Nothing here has been beyond the pale, but can you take a look at the actions of Doncram at Talk:List of Methodist churches#Red links in See Also? He's edit warring to include red links in the see also section, and some serious ownership issues are evident. He's referring to any edits or editors who he doesn't like (mostly Orlady) as being only involved in "disruption, and hatred". There's some battlefieldish behavior at the deletion discussion for the article. And here, he referred to Nyttend as an "idiotic non-person" in an edit summary. Ryan Vesey 01:31, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

  • Thank you for giving me a headache. Reading all of that was an ordeal, to say the least. I've never seen so much wriggling around and politicking with terms in my entire life. I'm sad to say, I'm not sure what to do here. He has climbed his hill and will defend it to the death it seems. I can't even figure out exactly what he is defending, I just know who he is defending it against, and it would appear the list is growing as he is pissing everyone off. What little experience I have with him has been that if an admin comes in and tries to talk reason, it will immediately be turned around and taken as taking the other side, and cause more drama. I would have to think about it. Tokyogirl seems to have had the best luck reasoning over there, she may be a valuable voice in the discussion, although she is loathe to get in the middle of a pissing match. I'm not quite sure he needs a "shot across the bow" warning yet, or if that would even help. History has shown that he either calms down on his own, or gets blocked. Again, I'm not sure what the best action is here, and would have to think on it. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 01:54, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
He was raised at ANI for another issue so I added the concerns there to the discussion. The edit warring continued on his part. I'm hoping a one revert restriction and a mentor will help him. Ryan Vesey 23:24, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Point to Ponder

Hello Dennis, I'm not sure if you would read my reply on my 'talk' page, so I;m posting it here as well. Hope this is okay. As you can see, I'm not that Wiki-knowledgeable, apart from article-writing, which is probably why I get into trouble for doing all sorts of things I'm not supposed to :)

Thanks for your kind words, Dennis. However, the SPI interested me not at all. I know I'm me, so that's that. No, what has caused me to leave Wikipedia is that I feel I have been bullied, there has also been attempted manipulation and threats of mass deletion of all the articles I created. Is this Wiki policy? I think not. I'm sorry, but I am not prepared to accept that. Life' too short, I don't need it. These were Sudo's parting words to me, relating to the letter above : Considering the attitude you've had with me and several other editors, I'm sorry but I'm not even going to read this. Treat people like crap and you'll be ignored, because believe it or not, people don't want to be treated like crap, no matter how "humor'' (there it broke off). It took me a long time to write that letter - I wanted to try to explain my position. I wonder what Jimbo would think of that response? Not much, I'll warrant. I, too, have been here 6 years (or maybe 8, memory fails with age :)). Anyway, I just came back to thank you for your thoughtful post. Best, Andrea AndreaUKA (talk) 13:56, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Laugh of the day

This one did make me chuckle. Hope you're good. Basalisk inspect damage⁄berate 16:28, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Admin's Barnstar
For sifting through 24 sockpuppets to pick out the handful still in need of blocking. Next time I'll only add the worst offenders. — Francophonie&Androphilie(Je vous invite à me parler) 23:29, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

WER

Hey Dennis, if/when you have a moment could you please take a look at the last couple of days of interactions involving JanetteDoe ? They've been AWOL since 15 September and I'm damn sure that is because they took a bit of a battering from an admin. I'm not asking you to step in there and say one side or the other were in the right, merely perhaps to review and post a message on their talk as you see fit. JD was unbelievably helpful behind the scenes and did a fair bit of much-appreciated work on articles and their talk pages also. Be a shame if they do not return, although I suspect we may be too late to reverse it. - Sitush (talk) 07:32, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

  • Yeah, I'm trying to find that but it probably would not be appropriate to use it. I'm sure they've emailed me at some point because of WP:RX stuff, and I'm sure that I've emailed them. But if they've chosen to disable the feature then it would probably not be right to use the address now even if I found it.

    The disagreement between the two was six of one and half-a-dozen of the other and for that reason I rather sat on the fence at the time. But JD felt it badly when Orlady was firm. It could have been better handled by me and by Orlady: I should have got involved a bit more in smoothing the waters and Orlady, as an admin, might perhaps have suggested escalating the issue to a noticeboard such as WP:RSN. I've overegged the pudding in criticising Orlady on JD's page: that is deliberate & I'm hoping that Orlady can take it on the chin: get JD talking again and things can soon be resolved. JD was a phenomenal sourcer of material from libraries etc, rather like Shrike - we really do need people who have access and are prepared to fill that niche. - Sitush (talk) 14:23, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

  • Most of my editor retention work never gets mentioned at WER, but I have learned that you have to accept that often, there is little you can do when you can't contact them. Often times, it is a simple pleasure for the casual editor, and once they have a bad taste, they just move on to other simple pleasures and have no interest in Wikipedia, so they never see the notes. This is why you have to be careful taking sides, as no amount of sweet words will change that. We are most effective helping hard core editors adjust with mentoring and mediation. But we try, and this is why we try to get involved with new editors as well, "guardian angels" in a way, to simple jump in on their first dispute and help teach them the methods of resolving it, so they don't feel powerless. It is more about teaching them to fish rather than handing them one. Editor Retention will always be a hit and miss affair, we can't save them all, but we should always try. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 14:32, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Ok, noted thanks. I didn't particularly take sides at the time - I could see both - but perhaps my words today have bust that one, even though (analogising fish again!) the intent was to dangle a bit of bait and reel it in. Which is not the same as WP:BAIT. I'll take my punishment from Orlady. - Sitush (talk) 14:40, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
  • I'm disturbed to think that my interactions with JanetteDoe may have had the totally unintended effect of driving this user away. I engaged with this user when I was perplexed to see that reference citations to works published before Wikipedia existed had been deleted from articles on the grounds that the cited source was a Wikipedia mirror (a logical impossibility for a source that pre-existed Wikipedia -- it is impossible to have copied from Wikipedia before there was a Wikipedia). I was hoping for specific discussion of the sources that had been deleted (particularly desirable considering that the cited content remained after the citations were removed), which didn't happen. Unfortunately, the user's curt responses to me weren't effective at communicating the substance of the concerns, particularly at first. Considering the tone of the user's statements to me and about me, I'm rather surprised at the suggestion that the user took personal offense at my comments. I sincerely hope there is some other reason for this user's absence and that I was not personally responsible for driving them away. I hope JanetteDoe will return. --Orlady (talk) 21:51, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Orlady, I think that there were misunderstandings all round. It's just one of those things. One aspect that was not fully conveyed is that Gyan is more than just a mirror: they plagiarise both other publishers and their own authors. One of the many examples that I have found can be seen by comparing
  • Pandey, Aditya (2005). South Asia: Polity, Literacy and Conflict Resolution. Gyan Publishing House. p. 181. ISBN 988182053038. {{cite book}}: Check |isbn= value: length (help)
with
I should have done more at the time to mediate the situation, given that I'm more familiar with the issues. Still, I've got my own problems now! - Sitush (talk) 22:01, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
  • One of the first "rules" I created when I established WP:Wikiproject Editor Retention is that we don't point fingers. Sometimes, someone may to be blame. Other times, an editors interaction simply hastened an inevitable departure. Other times, it was either unrelated, or the person got their ego bruised and is too embarrassed to come back using the same name. We all make mistakes. I've said things that caused people to leave for a while (I know of two cases, but they came back). Editor Retention isn't an absolute and the Project isn't about curing all the ills. It is about identifying situation we can help in, and making Wikipedia more user friendly for everyone. And we all make mistakes. As to any culpability here, I have no idea and I'm not inclined to try to lay blame as that solves nothing. Some simply can't handle the rough and tumble atmosphere here. The key is making the overall environment less rough and tumble with easier dispute resolution. This often means getting independent people involved early and keeping problems off the boards when it comes to newish users. That is what the volunteers do at WER. If you ever feel a situation is spiraling, just drop at note on the talk page at WER and someone will show up very quickly to help the new users and act as a mediator if needed. In other words, we do better if we help each other. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 22:06, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Yeah. It is easier said than done because often the spiral is not spotted until it has already become a maelstrom. In this instance I didn't really think that it was spiralling. I was/am familiar with both and knew them to be level-headed etc, so kind of assumed something. Obviously, all of my analysis here is dependent on another assumption: that JD's cessation of contributions is related to the incident. It may not be but it is one heck of a coincidence. FWIW, I've been having an issue with an IP at Talk:List of Reddys today and have specifically said that a third opinion might be the best option. I know what the outcome will be but, although some seem unwilling to recognise it, I do actually try to help people out etc. (Rayabhari is one recent example of that and is doing very nicely now). If you fancy stopping by that list talk page then feel free. - Sitush (talk) 00:16, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Triple Crown

Hi, want to go for the Triple Crown? Passat Ltd. Logical Cowboy (talk) 04:13, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks so much for all your help on this. Do you think there is a behavioral similarity between Castle and WP:Sockpuppet_investigations/Bamanh27? Seems like two peas in a pod to me. Logical Cowboy (talk) 13:54, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
Many paid socks are because they use the exact same methods, which makes it easier for us to spot them as they stick out in a crowd. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 22:24, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

LatinoLatino (sockpuppet)

Hi, Dennis. It's nice to meet you. It seems that yesterday or today you've blocked an abusive editor and his sockpuppet accounts (see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Imperium Romanum Sacrum). He really didn't like it and his response scared me a lot. With one of his sockpuppets (LatinoLatino) he opened a thrrad called "Enemies of Brazilian history" where my name was included.[1] Someone who uses this kind of language to describe another editor with different views ("Enemy") shouldn't be in a colaborative website like Wikipedia. And he seems to have made a legal threat: "I will offline inform other people about this behavior on Wikipedia".[2] Thank you for your time, --Lecen (talk) 20:39, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Guitar

Spun around for 390 feet from impact at 65+mph, it stopped after tipping but not rolling. The wife has taken emergency driving training, it paid off. Could have been worse.

This is cool! So is this LOL!♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 18:08, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

  • Very cool jam session version of the Sultans of Swing. Again, your timing couldn't be better. The wife just called: someone merging on the interstate at 70mph/113kph spun out out control, slammed into the front end of her pickup truck, sent the truck spinning several revolutions on the rainy highway at full speed, knocking her into a ditch and almost rolled the truck. She is fine, fortunately. The truck which is older but (was) in near-new condition isn't driveable, and had to be towed. So I'm a bit shaken up by it, although obviously not as much as she is. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 22:22, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Ouch, that is nasty. She'll probably end up being a bit more shaken up than is apparent straight after the event. I'm not quite sure if "She is fine, fortunately. The truck which is older ..." means that you have a very young wife or a very old truck but, either way, if it was me then I forget about WP for the rest of the day. Best wishes to you both. - Sitush (talk) 00:09, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Well, the wife and I aren't new models, that is certain. ;) The truck is a 2005 Chevy 2500HD with only 60k miles and we kept it in perfect shape since buying it new. The other lady's insurance will cover it, but still. Once you know the wife is perfectly fine, then you get frustrated because they messed up a perfect pickup. Most "repaired" vehicles aren't the same after a wreck like this. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 00:20, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
Wow! Glad she's ok!! (✉→BWilkins←✎) 13:48, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
Thank you. She was a little stiff this morning but not too bad, going to keep an eye out, sometimes you never know and problems don't show up for a day or two, but we are pretty sure she is fine. Fortunately, the truck slid to a relatively gentle stop and tipping since it was so wet. She experienced a lot of movement but not much in sudden impact. Like the old expression says, "No one ever died falling off a building. It's the sudden stop at the end that gets you." Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 13:52, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
Glad all is OK. Cherish your Christmas present---your wife by your side. ```Buster Seven Talk 14:25, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
I do and have for over 7000 days now. We are an oddity nowadays. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 16:07, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
Glad to hear she's okay. Are there any little ones (or slightly bigger ones) celebrating Christmas with you? Ryan Vesey 00:21, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
Yes, one is 18 pounds, the other is 28 pounds. Both have cold noses. I'm still paying off the student loans for obedience school. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 00:28, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Doncram at ANI

It looks like your proposal to sanction Doncram for personal attacks is going to fail. Given the state of things, I fully expect to be back at ANI before long; I've given Doncram a final warning for personal attacks, and a single additional incident that I find will result in my requesting that he be long-term blocked. Since the community appears to be excusing his attacks on me and his driving off Dudemanfellabra by blaming Sitush, we may need to go to Arbcom. Nyttend (talk) 20:37, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Assuming sanctions fail at ANI, would the next step be an RFC/U after Doncram's behavior continues? It's a sad case, because he's an extremely productive user operating outside of Wikipedia norms due to (for the most part) what seems to be a communication issue. Ryan Vesey 22:26, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
  • If we must. The incivility doesn't bother me so much, but the tenacious editing and battlefield mentality does. It is an editor retention issue, as that kind of crap runs off editors. As for the apologists, everyone is free to form their own opinions I suppose, although they do seems to quick to ignore and rationale the behavior. And he has already had an RFCU that failed, so Arb is the next logical step. Ignoring it isn't an option. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 22:28, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
  • I can't help but think Arbcom is the only logical course. I would support that.--Amadscientist (talk) 22:46, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
  • If I remember correctly, the only RFC/U about Doncram was attempted nearly 3 years ago. It failed to get traction because it was very narrowly framed. Most of the complex and acrimonious wars that Doncram gets involved with are about extremely trivial matters, such as whether he should be allowed to include redlinks in the "See also" section of an article, or whether Poquetanuck, Connecticut should be treated as a place or as a historic district, or whether the fact that a property is listed in the National Register database justifies the creation of a stub article with text that reads something like "The Jones House is or was a house in Anytown, Pennsylvania, that was built or has other significance in 1857", or whether a historic district with buildings built over he span of a century can be included in a category for architecture of particular year. Individually, none of these "issues" ought to be worth more than a paragraph of talk-page discussion, much less an RFC/U, but some of them have led to multiple megabytes of acrimonious talk-page interaction (partly because the issue typically relates to at least a dozen articles, and in some cases hundreds of articles) and the departure of editors. It may be worthwhile to attempt another RFC/U, but it needs to be broadly scoped to address the entire pattern of behaviors and not merely the most recent squabbles. --Orlady (talk) 00:21, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
  • I recall some palaver about "built or has significance" etc. I was reminded of it when I saw "This list includes, with documentation, notable OBCs that have been identified at one time or another." and some equally anodyne (?) phrases. - Sitush (talk) 00:38, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
I've had dealings with Doncram on a fairly regular basis over the past five years or so. On the one hand, he is a tireless creator of stubs, disambiguation pages, and supporting or linked articles. He created much of the basis for the present WP:NRHP project. On the other hand, he has a way of personalizing disputes, and in lieu of thorough research he will default to language like "is or was associated with on or about 1857" that is better suited to a deposition than an encyclopedia. I tried to mediate the Poquetanuck business over a six-month period and made some headway, but it was excruciating, given Doncram's tendency to slice content into as many distinct articles as possible and to write walls of text to defend them. On a number of occasions I've merged material that should never have been divided into multiple articles, or found content forks that referred to the same subject under Doncram's preferred naming hierarchy. On other occasions I've run interference for him, declining speedy deletion noms that could have been avoided with a little more content and sourcing to indicate compliance with the GNG, then fixing it myself.
Since the Poquetanuck business I haven't been actively worked in the Doncram mediation arena, having used up my store of patience. I am very reluctant to see him blocked, as has happened in the past: he has done much good and I believe he has WP's best interest at heart, but experience has shown that he will not hesitate to dehumanize editors who don't share his particular editing philosophy. Cbl62 helped out Doncram as a kind of mentor for a while with positive results, but it's a full-time job. The quotes referring to Nyttend and Orlady (and others in times past involving Sarek) simply can't be justified, and it creates a toxic editing environment that has affected Elkman and Dudemanfellabra most notably.
Wading into Indian castes with this style of editing seems like a recipe for disaster. It's a horrible minefield for experts, and while I don't know if Doncram has any personal experience in the area, a continuation of the approach he's used on NRHP topics is asking for trouble.
Unfortunately, I don't have a solution: if Doncram, for instance, removes discussion from Orlady (as he has done previously, interpreting disagreement as an attack) on any page but his own talkpage, I'll block him myself, but I don't see that as a cure for the root of the problem. Acroterion (talk) 19:29, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
@Acroterian. I'm not attempting to own the subject area here: I am aware that others will agree with me. I've already told Doncram that I am not prepared to engage in a running battle across thousands of caste article talk pages when the fundamental point will be identical in most cases. I described that proposal of his as "divide and rule". If he should resume doing that, I'll be going straight back to ANI. I'll also be going straight back there if he starts creating misleading dabs or inserting redlinks and unsourced statements: the caste sphere makes NRHP look like a walk in the park, both in terms of relative complexity and size. I mean, they cannot even agree on spellings of any one name, let alone which name is used consistently.

I'd much prefer it if he dipped his toe in by fettling a few small articles first, but I am already aware that he is not really an article builder (cf: stub creator) and his interests lies in creating list after list after list, all intricately woven but (I suspect) largely unloved. I'm afraid that he is going to learn the hard way and, yes, that may well include death threats & other off-wiki harassment etc such as I have had. Neither ANI nor any other part of WP can protect him from those. - Sitush (talk) 21:58, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't think you are trying to own the subject, and going by my experience, NRHP is a walk in the park compared to the caste articles, so if Doncram's having trouble at NRHP, I don't feel optimistic about how he's going to fare in Indian castes. My very limited contact with that topic area has not been happy, and it's been mostly confined to blocking people for death threats, something that has never occurred with respect to any article on old houses/barns/sheds/parts of towns where people want a tax credit. I really don't think Doncram understands how difficult such subject areas can be. You need asbestos underwear to survive in that environment. Acroterion (talk) 22:05, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
You may notice that I have only stayed out castes (something I know less than nothing about) but I've made sure on multiple occasions that others knew my comments were limited to the issues with the Methodist church edits. You couldn't pay me to work near castes. I've worked the MMA debates, and they are nothing compared to the fury. I have no personal issue with don, never crossed paths with him. Was asked to mentor him when I first became an admin, but took the job of mentoring YouReallyCan instead, what I still consider a much easier job. I just want some peace, and less bickering. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 22:18, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
My apologies to Acroterion. My opening statement was poorly phrased. I was not suggesting that you thought I was trying to own the caste/community stuff but rather that it is an accusation that has been levelled at me of late, principally by the Colonel and others involved with ARS. As for MMA, well, I've seen some of the furore and I'm quite happy to trust those people who are (a) sensible, (b) technically uninvolved and (c) see (a). As far as I am concerned "(a)" is synonymous with Dennis. Although I'd hope that you are finding the time to deal with the real life car crash rather than the metaphorical version that is flying around here. - Sitush (talk) 00:05, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
I hadn't entirely assumed that you'd assumed that I thought that you thought that I believed you were owning the caste articles. Though it's of course been implied at ANI, I'm not buying it. Don't worry about it. And re:below, I've found that if you show up at the desk at Enterprise, they'll make a deal with the insurance people on the spot. It's in their interest to rent you a car and they'll do the legwork. Acroterion (talk) 01:50, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
She waited at Enterprise for hours. Part of the problem was the other person had just switched insurance companies two days prior, so it wasn't "in the system". He finally had to get bitch on the insurance company just to talk to a real person. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 01:54, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
Cripes, if Enterprise can't figure out how to get you a car, it's pretty bad. Acroterion (talk) 02:17, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
I hadn't entirely assumed that you'd assumed that I thought that you thought that I believed you were owning the caste articles. Woah, I need some sleep before I try to parse that one ;) - Sitush (talk) 01:57, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
Isn't this an effective communication medium? Acroterion (talk) 02:17, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Two days later and the insurance company still hasn't authorized a rental car. Oh they did say if she just rented one on her own, they would pay 25 dollars a day, which is a laughable amount. All that matters is that my wife is ok. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 00:09, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Wow, what a mess. (I confess that a few days ago, when I saw Doncram starting to edit caste articles, I though to myself, "No good can come of this...") I've watched the situation in NRHP off-and-on for several years, and I think some sort of formal process (RFC/U or Arbcom, although I suspect the latter wouldn't open a case at present) is probably necessary—the current approach where conflict flares onto AN/I on a regular basis is not doing anyone a bit of good. Part of the problem, in my experience, is that by the time Doncram and someone else are going at each other on AN/I, it's much easier to concentrate on suppressing the personal attacks than looking into the apparently trivial details that touched off the dispute. If we're trying to float an RFC/U, there are probably three areas that would be worth focusing on:

  • Lack of synthesis and evaluation. The "built or has significance" locution occurred, as far as I can tell, because Doncram was creating articles from a single database which did not unambiguously identify whether a particular date was the date on which a structure was built or the date on which some other historic alteration was made. He wouldn't look it up himself, and he also wouldn't tolerate other people removing the data altogether. In other cases, he's shown himself very much opposed to removing any data from the article if it was in the database he's using, and generally seems very uncomfortable doing in-depth research. In caste areas, where judgment and evaluation are a constant necessity, this sort of "if-it's-in-the-database-it-must-be-true" mentality would be disastrous.
  • Reluctance to use user space. This may have improved a bit recently, but my experience a year or so back when it was suggested that he make use of user space pages to assemble some of his unfinished material was that he rejected it out of hand. In general, the willingness to place draft content in mainspace seems to be a problem.
  • Unwillingness to engage his editing practices. When I tried to unsuccessfully smooth over a dispute a few years back, I had a great deal of trouble trying to get him to productively discuss what it was about his editing style that upset people and how he might try changing. Of late, his attitude seems to have hardened into believing that all his work is licit and policy-compliant and that the hostility directed towards him is purely the result of bullying. While I will say that he's cut a lot less slack than the average editor by those who have lost patience with him (see e.g. Acroterion above about speedy deletions), this inability to examine his own editing is a major problem. Choess (talk) 07:53, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Block experience

Hi Dennis, Thanks for the note about Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Lurulu. I was kind of surprised by your comment that you were concerned that the person genuinely didn't understand why or even that they were blocked.

May I suggest you create a doppelgänger account for yourself? You can block the account and log in with it to see the blocked-user's experience. There's no way a blocked user wouldn't know they were blocked.

Such accounts are also useful to experience various non-admin user interfaces so you can better understand the non-admin experience (which changes over time). FWIW, mine is Toddst1-test (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log).

Toddst1 (talk) 13:21, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

  • I didn't notice the notice you put in, and it appears the CU didn't either, and I assume it was from the sea of other templates on the page. I do have a doppleganger account that is blocked, User:DennisBrown, but I've never logged into it. You idea is a good one, as I've managed to never be blocked and haven't seen it from that perspective. I went ahead and logged in to try it, and once you try to edit, it does shown a simple text message saying you are blocked. I was expecting more of a banner, but it is sufficient that they likely knew. Sorry about the misunderstanding. It wasn't meant to be accusatory, I just notified because I thought you would want to know about the comment. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 13:30, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
No worries. It looked like a simple oversight on Courcelle's part. As you say, there's a sea of templates there. It also sounds like the blocked user's experience has changed some since 2009 - the last time I saw it. Maybe I should go block myself. :) Toddst1 (talk) 13:44, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
  • There is a little red text, but I think we can do better to make it more obvious. I suggest my favorite attention getter, a large stop sign. Or at least a bright red box that can't be missed. "Adequate" it might be, but it could be more obvious. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 13:46, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
I'm sure that text and treatment is editable. I wonder where. It really should be prominent. I'm off to work now. Cheers. Toddst1 (talk) 13:58, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
MediaWiki:Blockedtext? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:48, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
Thank you! I've changed the border and text to bright red, lets see if it sticks. That should make it much easier to see, stand out a bit. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 02:55, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
The blocked notice is so much better than it used to be. It used to take up your entire page this is what I saw. On that note, I'd like to make a remark on my experience being blocked. First off, it sucks, especially when the block is indefinite. I would say that a large number of users who are blocked made a mistake, but they sincerely want to improve Wikipedia. For some users, this might not be possible because there's a problem with their personality. For others, they are capable of being productive editors the moment they are unblocked. Consider me as an example. Getting rid of that indef block is insanely hard. It was a 4 day process, which is actually shorter than a lot of peoples' but felt like forever to me. From the first two declines, I didn't think I was going to be unblocked, and it sucked because all I wanted was the ability to edit again. I was worried about the possibility of losing talk page access and felt like my opportunities were running out. I got lucky that I had the right people review my third unblock request, but I had also been actively emailing admins (Boing! being one of them). I was heavily considering just creating a new account and editing with that. When you're blocked, actions like socking aren't meant to be malicious unless you are socking to vandalize articles. While some might think the worst case scenario is that the editor is unblocked and damages the encyclopedia, the real worst case scenario is that the editor is never unblocked if they would be productive. It is easy to re-block an editor who was unblocked while facing their first long-term or indef block. One editor I know off of the top of my head who I can compare this to is User:Carthage44 who was blocked for 2 weeks for personal attacks. While this is 2 weeks rather than an indef block and he should've just waited, he socked and his block was increased. He socked again and I believe it was switched to an indef block. He's now been 3 months without editing which should certainly be enough to change behavior, but faces the prospects of never being unblocked, or being unblocked after another 3 months because Wikipedia takes such a harsh stance towards a)indef blocked editors and b)anyone who has socked. I think it's important sometimes to realize if somebody's socking is malicious or if it's because they want to improve the Encyclopedia so bad. Another editor who has easily served their time is Penyulap. Personally, I wanted Penyulap banned and never heard from again at the time he was blocked; however, I can't imagine that unblocking Penyulap now would harm the project and can certainly imagine that it would help the project. It is almost certain that Penyulap's behavior will have changed because of the block (Penyulap's case is a bit more problematic because we know there are external mental issues). But in both Penyulap and Carthage44's cases, neither of them are likely to request an unblock knowing that it hurts their possibility for a new unblock request. Is there a reason for standard offer to be 6 months rather than one month? In fact, general consensus seems to be that any habit can be changed in 21 days. Some of these poor Wikipedia behaviors wouldn't be considered habits, but is it possible that the same 21 day logic is enough for somebody to realize they have to change their behavior? In any case, this has all been stream of consciousness so it might not have a coherent point but </rant> Ryan Vesey 03:21, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
I suppose this applies to someone like Airtuna08 who is indef blocked for doing the split personalities sockpuppetry. It's one of those situations where it's unlikely to ever happen again and if it did occur again, it would probably be noticed immediately. If Airtuna knew he was unblocked and immediately started editing again, Wikipedia would likely see improvements. Ryan Vesey 03:45, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
In another case, we've got User talk:Clumpytree. Socking or no socking, WP:ROPE could be applied and if we get lucky, things'll turn out for the better. Even if the socking claim is true, he's still been blocked for 3 months. Ryan Vesey 03:48, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
In some cases, people play games and simply exhaust the patience of admin, who simply will not listen to further requests. It isn't a group decision, they just run out of people willing to consider it. The standard offer is as much about us as them. 6 months is a minimum for good reason. It is enough for memories to fade a bit. I will say that my luck with standard offer has been mixed. Not everyone is cut out to edit here, and some can't resist the urge for lols. The distractions they cause make life less fun for normal people who just want to edit, so it becomes a retention concern. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 11:57, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Nice turn of phrase

"I'm just saying ANI is like a night court where all the judges like to give life sentences, so it is best saved as a last resort." I liked that. Beyond My Ken (talk) 14:02, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

  • Thank you. I hope my fellow judges don't take offense, it was a bit of hyperbole perhaps, but as you know things often do get blown out of proportion there. We handle big problems just fine at ANI, but not small problems. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 14:05, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
WP:ANIISLOUSY. Toddst1 (talk) 14:18, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
That has some family resemblance to Point #12 here. Beyond My Ken (talk) 14:28, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
Of course it is your fault when you report someone at ANI. Before that, we were in blissful ignorance of the problem and you just popped our bubble. Besides, we were already busy having a 10k / 100 comment discussion because someone said "fuck" on their own talk page, and we couldn't decide if it needed to go to Arb or not.  ;-) Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 14:33, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
Are you tawkin' ta me? (said in my best Bickle). Toddst1 (talk) 14:48, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Talk:Sergiu Popovici

I just wanted give you a heads up that when you deleted Sergiu Popovici you missed the talk page. Cheers. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:48, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Earth100 AN/I

You never replied to my inquiry about reporting people mentioned, but not the subject of AN/Is, so I'm still unsure of the procedure. Do you have to inform all people mentioned in an AN/I, even if they are not the subject, or only the subject(s) of the AN/I? Inks.LWC (talk) 17:14, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

  • Sorry if I missed that. You need to notify anyone you are reporting, as well as anyone whose conduct might be examined. IE: if you were reporting "Bob" for edit warring with "Alice", you would have to notify them both as both of their behavior would be examined. You don't have to notify those that just participated in discussing it, unless you think they need to know. Be careful, if you notify one those that agree with your position, that is considered WP:CANVASSing. The idea in notification is to be objective and tell those that should be there and offer info. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 19:10, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
    • OK, thank you. I had only notified Earth100 there, since I was unsure of the rule, and since Meow had shaped up behavior after giving him the edit warring warning, I figured that bringing him into the AN/I would end up leading to more fighting rather than resolution. Thanks for clearing that up for me. Inks.LWC (talk) 19:16, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Blocked user

Hi there, can you take a look here as you're the blocking admin? Bjelleklang - talk 18:48, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Reseal discussion involving User:MikeFromCanmore?

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Dennis Brown, will you reseal this discussion?[3] I apologize for adding on to the discussion outside of the contained area, but I felt that I should respond. But I know that this user is just going to come back and hurl more insults...and rationale based on his own personal opinion rather than on any Wikipedia policy or guideline, and I don't want User:JoannaSerah to be bugged anymore by this unless she wishes to be bugged by it. There's obviously no use in trying to discuss things with User:MikeFromCanmore. 220.255.2.160 (talk) 21:03, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Yo, 220, I've been following this thread as well (DB beat me by a split second on the sock block), and I've reclosed the discussion. Just FYI, you can do the same in the future by moving the {{hab}} to be right below what you want to collapse; it's not an admin thing or anything. For what it's worth, I think you might have been a little ill-advised to post it in the first place, since an indefblocked editor can't reply. But no worries: it's water under the bridge, and not a huge deal anyway. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 21:12, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
Thank you. I'm aware that that I could have resealed it, but I was taking the timestamp into account. Resealing it with the original timestamp makes it look like I violated the "Do not modify" seal and only serves for User:MikeFromCanmore to then violate it (although he'd most likely be reverted). And if I had added my own timestamp, it looks like I was trying to get the last word over User:MikeFromCanmore. I was in a way, but not initially by having the discussion sealed. 220.255.2.140 (talk) 21:32, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
If all else fails, move the closing HAB, and just leave a very good summary. Look at her history: When I first did that, I said I was being bold and feel free to revert me :) Same thing applies to you when acting in good faith. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 22:22, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

MediaWiki:Blockedtext

I removed the red border as it felt like I was lost in a sea of red. But I made a few formatting changes to hopefully make it stand out more, which is, I think what your goal was.

My concern now is to make sure we didn't just violate WP:ACCESS somehow due to using a colour and not black for the wording. - jc37 06:16, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Nit police

I usually ignore typos on talk pages (mainly because I have so many myself) but I saw "complimentary" on Mf's page when you meant complementary, and I thought it would be nice to catch it before he sees it. Plus I'm jealous that you are working together on such a fun article. Nice work. (I wouldn't have pegged you as a Michelob man).--SPhilbrick(Talk) 22:55, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

"Before he sees it and takes the piss" is I guess what you meant to say. ;-) Malleus Fatuorum 23:01, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
I wouldn't peg anyone, certainly not Dennis, with or without a Michelob bottle. Drmies (talk) 17:25, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict)Michelob Ultra, to be exact, although I love any Michelob if I have to drink off the shelf bottles. Scotch doesn't go well with Chinese food. I'm a low carb guy, can't eat flour or sugar due to blood sugar issues that disappear if I do an Atkins diet. And Malleus is quite used to correcting my bad grammar and spelling. If I wrote two paragraphs that were perfect, he would suspect my account had been compromised. Feel free to just correct any mistakes I make without permission, btw. I even state this on my user page. I am fully capable of complex thought, I just have bad spelling and grammar, one of the downsides of being an autodidact. And yes, I'm very happy Malleus decided to help me after I begged and pleaded for his help. This is the first article that he and I have teamed up on, and I have learned a great deal. To be honest, I already knew he had a weak spot for old automobiles, which was part of the reason I chose this subject, knowing it would be a little easier for me to steal some of his precious time if it was a topic he fancied. ;) Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 23:09, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
So now I am scratching my bloody head due to your bloody header, I hope your happy. Darkness Shines (talk) 23:19, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
The Atkins diet would probably kill me. LOL! No....seriously though.....--Amadscientist (talk) 09:31, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
My fasting blood sugar went from 116 to 92 (120 is pretty muc the start of diabetes), the lowest it has been in well over a decade. That and losing 40 pounds. I still want to lose another 20. Not sure how it could kill you, I eat lots of good leafy veggies and quality whole meats. My cholesterol is only a light high, but it was higher when I ate carbs. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 12:36, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
Atkins is not recommended for those with hereditary gout. Gout can still cause death from renal failure I believe as well as a few other issues it can cause, but is indeed very rare in the 21st century. Good job though. The decline in the blood sugar is a great accomplishment as is the weight loss. If I had to give up bread I would be miserable. LOL!--Amadscientist (talk) 00:53, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Imperium Romanum Sacrum

This doesn't seem to have any SPI content. Dougweller (talk) 21:46, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Not sure why there is no link, but its at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Imperium Romanum Sacrum/Archive. Monty845 21:50, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
Hi Dennis Brown. I hope you don't take it amiss that I address you here, but I think that ANI has gone far enough and don't want to escalate anything there. But in a nutshell: enemies list? Doesn't that spell "newbie" all over? And a rather bitten one at that?
If you haven't understood what Jorge Alo's dense prose has been alluding to: LatinoLatino's big mistake was waltzing naively into a private garden of a very aggressive editor. He tried to intimidate him, bait him, then attempted an ANI block, that failed, and then discovered his weak spot - a few unrelated socks. Jackpot. All in the course of a day or so. And here we are.
Why are third parties speaking up? Because we've seen these characters and bullying tactics before. Jorge Alo is indignant and insisting on calling them out. I just don't like seeing such tactics succeed - particulary when inexperienced new editors are involved.
I know you did your job honestly and fairly - I don't consider you part of this. All I was hoping was to ask for some mercy on a new editor's behalf - a bit of editor retention, as it were. Sure, he's made mistakes. But he's a newbie - a newbie who's just been through a rather harrowing experience. I don't expect him to ask you anything - frankly, I don't expect to see him back here at all. I was just hoping a little mercy, some reaching out, might sweeten the sour a little bit, and encourage him to return someday. Maybe you can do nothing until he asks, I don't know. But I couldn't really just stand by and not try. I've spoken my piece, perhaps more than I ought, now I'll step back. Walrasiad (talk) 04:52, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

I know I promised not to refer back to this, but Jorge Alo raised some serious questions over at the ANI. I just noticed that nobody notified our newbie that an SPI was being conducted against him. The submitter didn't, and even sniffed when reminded he probably ought to ([4]). (perhaps unsurprising; his attempt to get him blocked the day before had failed,2). But you didn't either (at least, I don't see it). Our intrepid newbie got expelled from Wikipedia before he even knew what hit him. I don't expect him to even understand what he did wrong (if he did, which is still not clear), what he can do or how to go about it. Or even if he wants to. Like I said, given the kick-in-the-crotch welcome basket, I don't expect him to come back at all. While it may be too late for this case, if attracting and retaining new editors is a goal, as you have expressed in your sig, perhaps there ought to be sort of policy discussion and protocols about them specifically, as newbies are much more apt to make mistakes and less likely to know how to handle or rectify them. Perhaps things like this can be tightened up, so that new editors don't get blindsided by experienced gardeners who know how to "work" the system? Walrasiad (talk) 02:17, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

You would be hard pressed to find someone who is more concerned about editor retention. I founded WP:WikiProject Editor Retention, after all. As for SPI, notification is not required, and is in fact, discouraged. SPI isn't a vote or a discussion, it is an investigation by experienced administrators and Checkusers, subject to review by other administrators and Checkusers. There is more information available for comparison than you realize. Removing sockpuppets is part of what we must do to retain quality editors. Same for blocking vandals and POV warriors. Editor retention isn't about "saving" everyone, it is about creating an environment that productive content creators will want to work in, free from manipulation and hassles.
LatinoLatino is not a victim here, he was sockpuppeting. They are the same person as Imperium Romanum Sacrum. They also created a "enemys list", forcing me to block their access to their talk page. I've explained all this in detail at the ANI, and I don't see the benefit of being redundant since I was quite detailed there. If he asks for a review, he will get it, by an independent party. If anything, he is lucky I didn't extend the block for his Imperium account longer for his actions on one of his socks. I have a history of working with editors who have sockpuppeted, and had he shown any good faith, I would have done the same here. You are of course free to check my contribs or simply ask the community if there are doubts as to my dedication to editor retention. Or click the link in my signature. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 03:42, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Dewey Wins

Arb elections: Win or lose, it's gonna hurt in the morning.

Shame if it's not free. Being one of the 8 aside, I'd be tempted to post that to my user page if I even merely got more than 50% : )

That aside, it will be nice to not feel like I'm under the community-microscope : ) - Though... I have several community-wide discussions on the back burner that I just need to summon the energy to start. As I think you know, these things can take a fair amount of energy. Sooo... : )- jc37 01:43, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

  • Oh, I can imagine it would it is a pain much worse than RfA for sure. You can have it. I don't see me ever wanting to be an Arb. Too much sacrifice. Not really sure what the reward is. Being an Arb seems like being in a boxing match. Even if you come out a winner, you still got beat up in the process. There you go, a picture for ANI :) Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 02:02, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
    • Dennis: Too bad, you'd be a good Arbitrator. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:09, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
      • I appreciate the kind words, but I'm not sure the job would bring out the best in me, honestly. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 02:23, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
        • I'm quite sure the job is extremely strenuous for everyone who takes it, and stretches everyone to the limits of their patience, but I think you'd be equal to the task. Still, you know yourself better than I do. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:33, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
          • Maybe I will feel different in a few years, but I'm only 8 months into being an admin and think the best chance I have for making a difference is working with new editors, editor retention, mediating, mentoring, SPI and removing some of the drama at ANI. Crazy as it sounds, I actually love working in those areas. I'm not willing to give up working in those areas just yet. It is very doubtful that I would ever run for Arb, which is a thankless job, but I may consider other positions after I've been an admin for a year, although I'm really not tempted to do so at this time. In the meantime, we did have some excellent candidates this year, so I'm very hopeful for the coming year. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 15:39, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Pending changes

I have made my very first review as a pending changes reviewer. (Woohoo) I took the liberty of finding a reliable source to verify my review was correct and left a message at the IP's talkpage to explain the rejection and show them the RS and suggest that they may make another pending change that should be accepted if they use the correct information. I will not be doing this everytime I reject a pending change but thought it was something that I should mention to them and give them the chance to add the information. My question is.....if I reject a pending change as incorrect or innaccurate, may I make the addition myself? (I actually would love the IP editor to have the chance to make the contribution though)--Amadscientist (talk) 06:49, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Yes you can make the change yourself. However I'll point out that there are very specific conditions under which you can reject a change (see Wikipedia:Reviewing#Reviewing process). Unless the pending edit was one of the four on that list you should have accepted it and then reverted the edit. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:59, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
Yes, I just found that and was about to comment when the Wikiservers went down. Understood!--Amadscientist (talk) 07:03, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
Ha me too, I didn't think it'd saved, but obviously it did. As far as I can see, it doesn't matter as much in this case because you gave a reason and let the IP know on their talk page - but make sure you read through WP:Reviewing and WP:PCPP. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:12, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
Thanks, will do. I didn't even realize that pending changes had been brought back officially until today. I knew we had been discussing bringing it back, but just assumed it would not gain consensus.--Amadscientist (talk) 07:19, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
There was an RfC in May, the result of which was that PC would become active on 1 December. During October-November there were a number of RfCs on how it would be implemented, and there were quite strict rules introduced about when and how it could be used. Hence we have a list of reasons to reject a change. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:44, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
Ironic, I rejected my first last night, vandalism by an IP on an article I had on my watch list. That is going to take some getting used to. There are too many steps in rejecting though. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 11:59, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
OK...then the irony is double...becuase I saw that on my watchlist and that was how I discovered PC was brought back. LOL! It is going to take a bit of getting used to.--Amadscientist (talk) 20:47, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Chili burger

I think that withdrawing sends the wrong message. That it says to pbp that he can kick up drama and thereby achieve the outcomes that he wants. I think that if this merger discussion is allowed to run its course, then a proper consensus will form (and that that consensus may not agree with my position) over as long as the discussion needs. I'm not willing to withdraw under those circumstances.

I don't think there needs to be a delay. In fact, a delay might work against the "keep" position because the AfD participants will lose interest and may change their minds. By continuing the discussion as soon as possible, we get a true gauge of perspectives.

You think that a delay might help to reduce the drama. I think that exactly the same thing will happen in 7 days, 14, 30, 365 however long. The resultant drama will be the same. It's the way things happen around here. So, where's the opportunity for compromise? ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 17:38, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

  • Whoa...whoa...whoa... Are you saying that the AfD was closed as kept because I "kicked up drama"? It was closed because a whole lotta editors (some of whom I'd never seen before) agreed that it passed GNG. As for the merger discussion, the only one who's been "kicking up drama" is you. I am very disturbed that you seem to see this as some high-noon battle between the two of us. pbp 17:43, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
Did I say that the AfD was closed as kept because you kicked up the drama? No. You're absolutely right that you are very disturbed if you're reading that. Meanwhile, as has been pointed out previously, you have WP:BATTLEGROUND issues not just with me but with virtually anyone with whom you disagree at AfD. See for example your longstanding issues with ARS, or the fun and games that you had at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Occupy_Ashland_(3rd_nomination). But what am I saying? I've tried to work these issues out with you and it failed. So... I'll expect your reply, pbp, but I'll let you have the last word because I'm not talking to you. :) ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 17:47, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Look at your own words, "I think that withdrawing sends the wrong message.". You are focusing on being right, on how it looks and all the wrong things here, friend. I don't say this to be mean, but to tell you the truth, even if you don't like what I am saying. You are coming across poorly, as someone who is bitter about the AfD and trying to have your way. This is what is causing the drama. I don't care what the end result is, I really don't, so the possible outcome has no bearing on my decision of timing. Once I give an opinion at AfD, I'm happy to accept whatever the consensus is. In the larger scope of life and Wikipedia, this article is meaningless. If you knew anything about me, you would know I spend a great deal of time trying to prevent drama at Wikipedia. Often, the best thing to do is to pull back, let tempers die down, take the high road, and reintroduce an idea once the environment is neutral. How willing we are to delay our own wants, in order to serve the higher goal of building the encyclopedia, defines our character.
I've tried to provide an easy way for you to pull back just a little and allow others to reach the same conclusion you have once they see the scarcity of sources. I've looked, they are hard to find, and my previous participation wasn't based on "I like it", I actually improved the article, but barely. I didn't ask you to change your mind, or not pursue a merger, only that you use some judgement and patience here and do it in a way that doesn't polarize people. They are responsible for own actions, but if you know that your current methods are not optimal and creating an environment that will create drama, then you aren't any less culpable. I'm not going to fight about it, and I don't really care about what policy allows or disallows, that doesn't matter either. What matters most is the encyclopedia and the community that builds it, and that we work in collegiate manner, putting the needs of the whole above our short term wants. Do whatever you like, but we both know what is best for the community. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 18:07, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
You said that I should wait a month before proposing the merger. I have responded to that by saying that it won't matter when the merge is proposed, this will be the result. The environment will never be neutral. I have done my best by proposing the merge in as neutral language as I possibly can, but that can only work so far when the other side immediately comes in and starts digging trenches. It's not about being right or wrong, I would accept a genuinely derived consensus without the drama.
But look at it this way: let's say that there is a strategy for a person to get what they want at any discussion at wikipedia. It works most of the time. And it's kind of fun in a perverse trolling sort of way. That is to kick up drama. If I withdraw, then I'm giving more encouragement for that sort of strategy because I'm saying "yeah, you created a battleground so I give up, you can do whatever you want." That's not a good thing. If you're about preventing drama at wikipedia, then you wouldn't be suggesting that one side to a dispute "turn the other cheek". As a teacher, let me tell you the amount of times that I have seen that result in a happier playground: exactly zero times.
So, my voluntarily taking the high road wouldn't matter. As I've stated elsewhere, I've also tried to work it out personally with pbp, but that certainly didn't work. My suggestion then is this: I will close the discussion if you commit to opening a new merge discussion, putting the discussion in neutral terms (if you think that you can do a better job on the language than me) in a month's time. I expect that you'll oppose the merge from the get-go, and that's fine too. ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 18:39, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
Ping me in a month and I will. By that time, I will have had time to verify the lack of or existence of adequate sourcing. I would recuse from !voting and just mediate if necessary. This would at least provide the opportunity for me to monitor behavior of both sides equally and insure it is a discussion and not a fight. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 18:58, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment: I see twothree problems with the "come back in a month" approach. a) You haven't gotten Danjel to withdraw the nom, and it isn't looking good on that front, b) You haven't made there be any way to make Danjel stay away from me for the next month, and c) You haven't done anything to ensure that next month's merger request won't be even worse than this one (Now, mind you, I'd be fine if you banned both of us from the merger discussion, although I think I at least should be allowed to still make edits to the article as I created the darn thing). As such, while I applaud your spirit, I find the proposal flawed pbp 20:48, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Looking at his contribs, he has only made one edit since I wrote that, and he is essentially offering to withdraw based on a criteria that I agreed to. If you want to not interact with him, then don't. Stop filing at ANI and just stop interacting and allow me to do what it is that I do. You both need to stay off each other's talk pages and likely stay away from the article talk pages, and let someone else clean up the merger mess. Cool down, lets spend a month seeing if we can source this article, and then have a discussion about merges in a month. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 20:57, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Since Danjel went offline and I have agreed to his terms, I went ahead and cleaned up, so there isn't any more premature discussion. In one month, we will reopen the discussion, and in good faith, determine the best course of action as a community. I will abstain from voting and mediate. Now is the time to source it better. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 23:02, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
Cheers. Sorry, I did intend to wait around for the issue to be finalised, but some real life issues intervened. ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 01:06, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
Not a problem, I figured as much. The real world comes first, understandably. I waited long enough to be convinced that was the issue, then acted on your behalf towards this goal. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 01:08, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Talk Page Stalkers Notice: Wikipedia:Merchandise giveaways/Nominations

Thank you for all the kindness shown, even after I asked you to not vote for me. Jalexander emailed me and talked me into accepting the t-shirt, and I went and made a donation equal to the retail price and shipping, to keep my karma in balance. Those of you that haven't supported the program by nominating or voting to give some editors some shirts, you should go now. It is a nice program to reward editors, and one that I support as a means of editor retention. Perhaps I will upload a picture of me in my shiny new gift t-shirt when it arrives. And if have any good ideas regarding editor retention, tell User:Jalexander or stop by WT:WER and share it, we would love to hear your ideas. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 20:29, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Purplebackpack89 ...

... left a message on my talk page. FYI. --regentspark (comment) 20:46, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Jenni Rivera

Hi, could you please protect the article Jenni Rivera. I added the report at RFPP but it still waiting for admin response. The page still being disrupted by multiple IPs and accounts, thank you. Tbhotch.™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 23:09, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Edit of Jenni Rivera

Undoing the last edit was in error. Apparently the media have had issues reporting her name correctly, we have the smoking gun now, a copy of her (smoking) driver's license that confirms her birth/legal name to be Dolores Janney Rivera. Some places may list her name as Dolores Janney Rivera Saavedra, including her maternal surname....which might be her legal name in Mexico if she's a dual Mexican-US citizen, but her US birth name would have to be Dolores Janney Rivera as registered on her driver's license.

http://abcnews.go.com/ABC_Univision/wreckage-jenni-riveras-plane-found-mexico/story?id=17924160#.UMe32FTZeSp -see captions with pictures of the driver's license — Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.165.176.28 (talk) 23:21, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

  • I didn't do the revert, I just protected the page. I suggest you use the talk page of the article and present your information and allow a registered editor add the material if it is appropriate. It is common to protect article on recently deceased persons. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 23:23, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Uninvolved admins

In response to [6]. That is fine, but I do note, for future times, that it is usually within the uninvolved admin's discretion to choose the version to lock into place (even reverting prior to doing it) without becoming involved. IRWolfie- (talk) 23:24, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

  • When I'm familiar with the topic and it is obvious, I often will go back. In this case, I haven't even looked at the content and just locked it in place as it was. Admin have to be very careful to not revert or change to their own preferred version, or you aren't "uninvolved" any more. That will get an admin called out pretty fast, so I avoid any reverting unless it is very, very obvious. Usually, when it is obvious, it is because it is vandalism or a BLP violation, which would mean blocking instead of protecting, for that matter. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 23:27, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
To me, (discussing in generality as I don't expect you to change the text now as you would become involved at this stage), the most logical choice would always be to revert to a previous stable version when I don't know what the topic is, particularly to avoid rewarding someone edit warring a version in (per WP:PREFER). IRWolfie- (talk) 23:35, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
There are different ideas on this, so I can't say you are wrong, I can only say that not everyone agrees. Honestly, doing "nothing" is the safest bet an admin can take when protecting. It isn't required that an admin be familiar with the subject matter to make a determination that protection is the best option, as the decision is based on behavior, not merit. When I'm not familiar with the subject matter, then I'm inclined to take the safest possible route, as to not cause drama by making the mistake of reverting to a version that had some other flaw that I didn't know about. In short, if in doubt, take the safest route. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 23:40, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

User:MikeFromCanmore as IPs and as registered accounts

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Since he's been allowed to post at User talk:Drmies as IPs, does this mean that you all are trying to understand his line of thinking...which may lead to his main (rather initial) registered account eventually being unblocked? Talking to him as an IP, he still hasn't made much sense when it comes to defending his edits and that's mostly because he still doesn't understand Wikipedia policies and guidelines. He butchered the meaning of WP:Verifiability, which I pointed out there on User:Drmies's talk page. I don't at all see this user being a productive, trustworthy editor of this site, and his pitiful attempt to pretend that he wasn't User:MikeFromCanmore certainly doesn't help matters. 220.255.2.145 (talk) 15:08, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

  • I've blocked him. I hadn't noticed him there until you mentioned it. You seem to have a familiarity with some of the LGBT issues, you should consider registering and getting a regular account. It is more anonymous than an IP, and people tend to take reg'ed accounts more serious. It isn't required, obviously, but it really is a better way to edit. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 15:17, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
    • And you don't get caught up by semi-protections. Your choice, though, of course; you will not have been the only good editor who's decided to stay an IP. Anyway, I probably should've blocked him earlier, as it was indeed obvious who he was. My logic in not doing so was that, if he's evaded two blocks already, he can evade a third, so I didn't think blocking the IP was going to help much. Should've blocked him anyway, but oh well. I apologize for that; shouldn't have given him another chance to spout his abuse (his twisting of my advice to him on verifiability made me cringe). I was also hoping that, without the ability to continue edit-warring, he'd start listening to what we're saying, but it was not to be. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 15:35, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
      • I've done the exact same thing before and agree that sometimes it is better to engage them a little, at least try. I try to not be dogmatic about it. In this case, I will stay open minded but I fear this editor will never be able to contribute here productively. Some people just don't get it, and can't understand why others don't see their "wisdom" as undisputed fact. He is probably really good at something else, but not so much as an objective and neutral editor of an encyclopedia. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 15:44, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
    • (edit conflict) Ironically, after Mike's endless complaints about 220's ever-changing IP address, it turns out he, too, has a dynamic IP. Anyways, in for a penny, in for a pound, so here's the IP he had for most of his time socking: 142.161.182.190 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). — Francophonie&Androphilie(Je vous invite à me parler) 15:45, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
  • 220, I'd really recommend you make an account, particularly if you want to edit these articles; judging by that twit's latest post on Drmies's talk page, he's planning on continuing once the semi-protection expires, which might require extending the protection. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 16:59, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
I haven't even read his latest reply at User talk:142.161.182.190. Maybe I will read it a few days later and reply then. But it's fruitless replying to him because he's so stuck on the fact that he's right even in the face of overwhelming evidence that he's wrong. He thinks like this (meaning the version he removed). He doesn't understand at all that we follow what the sources say, except for when it suits him. And that he insists that the information in the Lesbianism in erotica article about studies showing that men are more sexually aroused by lesbian pornography than heterosexual pornography are wrong makes my head hurt. He acts like we are presenting opinions as fact, when all we are really do is presenting the findings of several studies -- not one, but several. In his opinion, we shouldn't include this information because he doesn't consider the evidence strong enough. Yet he considers "just googl[ing] the most purchased adult videos," "see[ing] what they're about" and that this "would correspond to male arousal quite well" to be strong enough evidence. Most heterosexual men buying heterosexual porn doesn't mean that most heterosexual men are more sexually aroused by heterosexual porn than by lesbian porn.
Regarding everything else: Writ Keeper, your "but it was not to be" wording made me laugh. Thanks for that. Dennis Brown, I saw your advice for User:MikeFromCanmore at User talk:142.161.183.162. You certainly do give the benefit of the doubt, but being open to giving someone a second chance is (generally) a good personality trait to have. As for User:MikeFromCanmore still posting as IPs, I feel that his posts should just be removed each time he posts them...unless posting them on his own talk page. By leaving his posts elsewhere, he is repeatedly getting his way. I've considered getting a registered account, but would rather not (no comment on why that is). 220.255.2.133 (talk) 18:19, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
Wait a second, I just remembered we have pending changes now. I wonder if that would be a better solution. It would enable IPs to still submit changes, but they'd have to be reviewed before going live. That way at least you could get some work in, even though it'd need to wait for someone to review it. That might be a better plan. Lemme read up on the policy about it; it only happened like ten days ago, so I'm not on the up and up about it. Dennis, do you know about PC? Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 18:37, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
And there ya go, Bwilkins is all over it. 220, you should be able to make edits now with pending changes on the page. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 19:03, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
I see that you mean the Lesbianism in erotica article. But, like I told Drmies, I don't know much about lesbianism in erotica. I know more about research on lesbian sexual identity, lesbian sexual activities, and human sexuality in general.
Since the semi-protection on the Lesbian sexual practices article will expire in a couple of days, and User:MikeFromCanmore has vowed to change that article no matter what, I feel that the semi-protection on it should be extended significantly. To a month or more. Better to do so now instead of two days from now after User:MikeFromCanmore has again tried to edit it. I'm sure that he'll create a new account for this purpose eventually, if he hasn't already, but he'll be easy to recognize as soon as he tries to remove or misrepresent the studies that he doesn't like. But I suppose it wouldn't hurt to try the "pending changes" feature on that article with the same note about persistent sockpuppetry...and see how that works out for my and other IPs' editing it since you and a few other administrators are watching it. I of course still maintain that any future edits he makes to article talk pages should be reverted since he is indefinitely blocked. 220.255.2.125 (talk) 22:30, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Problem is that we can't protection as a preemptive action, only as a reaction. Rules on admin are funny that way, to insure we don't use protection as punishment or to shut out legitimate discussion by IP users. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 22:34, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
That's a rule? I've seen administrators extend semi-protection when an article is near or has reached its semi-protection expiration date. As for legitimate discussion, that doesn't apply to User:MikeFromCanmore because he is indefinitely blocked. Such edits to article talk pages (or any except for his own) are supposed to be reverted on the spot. I've seen administrators semi-protect article talk pages because of repeated postings by one or more indefinitely blocked users. 220.255.2.155 (talk) 22:45, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
There are some legitimate reasons to extend it, and some types of "preemptive" are tolerated, like when 4chan comes a knocking. Often, it is done for the wrong reasons. I try to walk on the proper side of using protection, and a single threat, possibly idle, won't get me to extend protection. Now, if they start back, I might go in instantly and add a much longer period of protection, which is left to the admin. We do have a lot of rules to follow, much more so than editors. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 22:49, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
I altered the title of this section by adding "and as registered accounts" because he has recently posted at talk pages as a registered account and will probably keep posting as registered accounts at these talk pages unless these talk pages are full-protected. Doesn't matter how many times this editor is blocked or reverted, he just keeps coming back. It's sort of crazy. 220.255.2.170 (talk) 21:22, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
I blocked yet another IP. He will get tuckered out soon enough. I considered semiprotecting the talk page, but that would have shut you out. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 21:28, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
By all means, semi-protect the talk pages. While others besides me have reverted him at the other talk pages, I'm the only one who has reverted him at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Sexology and sexuality thus far. And as seen in the diff a little higher, I already told Writ Keeper that I'm tempted to request protection for all these talk pages. If I do, it will be requests for full protection, although I may only be granted semi-protection initially. As for him getting tuckered out, I sincerely doubt it. Even if he does, knowing how he is, he'll very likely just wait a week or more, or a month or more, before continuing these tactics. 220.255.2.142 (talk) 21:44, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
It is best to always ask for what you want. You raise doubts about your judgement if you ask for something that obviously doens't apply, and full protection doesn't yet. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 21:45, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
Full protection is what I want. But I shouldn't ask for it because it obviously doesn't apply? I don't understand how it doesn't, given that he's shown that he won't stop posting...and given that these talk pages, except for the WP:LGBT talk page, are not often active. 220.255.2.102 (talk) 21:54, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
You can't always get what you want, but if you try sometimes, you just might find, you get what you need...But enough about the Rolling Stones. ;) Admin have to act within specific guidelines, and they can't full protect that. If I saw an admin full protect it, I would revert him as it is against policy to full protect the page under those circumstances. We use protection of a talk page rarely to start with, and then only when socking is an issue, and only for short periods to deal with the socking. The whole idea of being a free encyclopedia that anyone can edit runs deep. We would rather block editors than protect pages in this circumstance and this is reflected in policy. And I just commented on Mike's block request. I can't deny it since I am the blocking admin. You would be amazed at how many rules admin have, which are all based upon the consensus of everyone here, not just other admin. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 22:00, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
I've seen administrators full protect talk pages in such cases, meaning when the talk pages are consistently being edited by a sockpuppet; "consistently," as in every few minutes, every few hours or every several hours. Not sure if they would do so if it's just an every day-thing. How extreme does the case need to be to full protect talk pages? Or is it more of an individual administrative decision? I'm fine with semi-protection, as is clear above. 220.255.2.143 (talk) 22:36, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
Full protecting talk pages is a bad idea except to deal with very, very short term issues. I would never more than 3 hours. You have locked the entire article and its associated talk from being edited, that is a very harsh action. If there was a whole drawer full of meatpuppets or sockpuppets, short term might be, but I wouldn't. I would just start blocking socks quietly. Usually, the less noise you make, the quicker they get tired. You make a lot of attention, and it acts as a reward. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 23:43, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
You may have seen this, but Alison semi-protected the talk pages (the WP:LGBT talk page indefinitely, and the other two until late tomorrow). 220.255.2.136 (talk) 22:54, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
I trust Alison's judgement. She knows the material as well. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 23:43, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Just so y'all know, Mike filed an unblock request; it was rejected on the relatively narrow grounds that he hadn't addressed edit-warring concerns, but I've since cited two diffs showing times where he lied about not being a sockpuppet. I figure that should tidily cut off that route. And, hey, maybe we'll get lucky and he'll request an unblock at AN/I, and land himself with a nice community-declined-unblock ban. — Francophonie&Androphilie(Je vous invite à me parler) 21:52, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Am I not allowed to defend myself against User:MikeFromCanmore referring to me by female pronouns and making baseless accusations against me, or what? Surely an administrator or even a non-administrator is allowed to link there on his talk page to the currently removed statement I made. 220.255.2.136 (talk) 23:47, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Would like to aim for adminship

Hello Dennis,

I posted the following on Pedro's page, he's busy with real life things and suggested I post it on your page. I'd appreciate it if you could have a wee look.

I see you have a fair chunk of experience within the world of RfA and related. I've recently returned from a self imposed Wikibreak while I was focusing on my studies. I've been refamiliarising myself with policy and the lay-of-the-land of late and thinking how I could best contribute to Wikipedia. It's always been something of a backburner goal that I would like to aim for adminship at some point. Currently I'm mainly bouncing around project pages offering my opinion from time to time as I rejoin the flow of the community as a whole. If at all possible, I'd like the thoughts of an outside editor with experience in adminship and RfA on how I can best work towards this goal over the next few months. Cheers, Cabe6403 (Talk•Sign) 21:33, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

  • I appreciate your enthusiasm, but RfA is a tough gauntlet to run, and you are pretty far away from a successful run at this time. The problem is, it is impossible to assess you. Looking at your edits [7] shows you haven't been really active since 2009. It is virtually impossible to get the bit without having at least 12 of the last 18 months as "active". I've had one candidate barely pass with just over 6000 edits, but it is very hard without at least 8000 total. RfA is much harder to pass now than back in 08/09. I would suggest taking the next 6 to 9 months editing actively on article content and a little in admin areas, then request a formal review and begin to prep. Focusing on adminship at this stage will simply give others the impression that you "want it too badly", a common reason to oppose at RfA. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 21:52, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
Awesome, great advice. I figured as much but it's nice to hear it from someone with a bit more experience. I wasn't intending to imply I wished to 'focus on adminship', rather, just point myself in the general direction over the coming months. Thanks for the response. Cabe6403 (Talk•Sign) 21:55, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
Not a problem, and give me a yell when you are ready. Gaining a WP:GA or two along the way is a great way to convince the doubters that you understand article creation. It isn't required, but helpful. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 21:57, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
(TPS) Good advice as ever Dennis. Yeah, just keep going with articles, do lots of work in that area, get some up to good and featured status if you can, do a few non-admin closes at WP:AfD ... anything really that shows without a shadow of a doubt that you understand Wikipedia policies inside out and have a track record of resolving conflicts calmly and amicably, leading to a general trust that you will never misuse the tools. --Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:44, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
It's rather uncommon to see a candidate opposed over this "misuse of the tools" trope. Much more frequent is the "I dislike this candidate intensely, because (s)he once upset me when we were both editing XYZ, so I'd rather see him/her in Hell than promoted to admin". Stated much more circumspectly of course. Trust has very little to do with it, think vendetta. Malleus Fatuorum 16:55, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
Is there any particular reason we allow RFA opposes with no real rationale other than personal grudge matches, while we don't allow WP:IDONTLIKEIT to stand at AfDs? --Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:59, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
Because they're generally cloaked in the language of incivility, the most important of Wikipedia's five pillars. Malleus Fatuorum 17:04, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
A very good reason, I think. Votes without rationales are generally not counted by the Bureaucrat anyway. We also allow WP:IDONTLIKEIT in AfDs, but again, they aren't considered in the final tally. A closer is given the authority to discount any votes they choose. AfDs are subject to review, but RfAs are not. The Bureaucrats RfA decision is final and there is no appeal, by design. This is why the bar is so high to become a Bureaucrat. Allowing bad votes to happen, then not counting them is a better solution than trying to police votes along the way. Who is to say what is and isn't a good vote? In the case of an RfA, the Bureaucrats are. Best to just ignore them. Besides, if you tried to force people to use "real" rationales, they would just make them up "He can be rude to people" "Doesn't understand policy", etc. Then those would have to be counted in the final tally, as they are providing reasons and it isn't proper for the closing Bureaucrat to go and verify the claims, only to consider the discussion. ie: when closing, you can't introduce new evidence or it you are instead "supervoting". At RfA, it doesn't matter if you pass with 75% or a clean sweep, you still get the same tools on the same terms, so it is best to ignore the little things. Making a big deal of them can cause drama and undermine the process itself. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 17:07, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Winter Wonderland

Peace is a state of balance and understanding in yourself and between others, where respect is gained by the acceptance of differences, tolerance persists, conflicts are resolved through dialog, peoples rights are respected and their voices are heard, and everyone is at their highest point of serenity without social tension.

Happy Holidays. ```Buster Seven Talk 15:39, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
Thanks Buster :-) Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 16:57, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Sarah J Price

Hi, Dennis. I'm just interested to know why you put Sarah J Price up for an A7 CSD in less than five minutes of the article created. Since you tagged it here, the article's creator has added a bit more content, and while I think it would still have a tough time getting through AfD as it currently stands, I think the claim (though unsourced) for writing for several notable (though not wikilinked) magazines such as Q (magazine) is sufficient to pass the A7 barrier. Any thoughts on this? --Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:48, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

  • I won't labor it, you obviously are acting in the best of faith and we just have different ideas. Often, the work is notable even if the author isn't. I would disagree that simply writing for Q is enough to be a claim that passes A7 (else we could create stubs for every bi-line name of every magazine), but again, I don't own the place, I just work here, use my judgement and give a wide berth to others to use their's. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 16:56, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Got Bacon?

The perfect stocking stuffer for bacon lovers ==> Mmmm!

...although I'm still off bacon after seeing that photo of Drmies. :P
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 21:01, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Need Some Help

Hey Dennis, got a problem that Drmies and I have been dealing with (and I can't revert per previous problems). User:Thetallnathan, who claims to be the General Manager of WTJU (a radio station in Charlottesville, VA) continues to change the wattage of that station from the licensed watts which are 600 watts (per the Federal Communications Commission or FCC) to the construction permit wattage, which are 1,500. As I told Drmies, "We have to go by the FCC's "licensed" information (per WPRS and other rules), which says 600 watts unless there is third party sources to back up the claim before the FCC updates their website." I had previously left a message on the user's talk page which seems to have gone ignored. Drmies reverted after my post to him last week with the edit summary "Sorry, but we have to go by what the sources say".

The problem continues, though, as today Thetallnathan reverted to the construction permit wattage even though the source (the FCC) hasn't updated their website and there aren't any third-party sources. This appears to be one of those on-going problems I don't do well with. Since Drmies is offline at the moment, I am bringing this to your attention and hope you can help. Take Care...Neutralhomer • Talk • 22:17, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

  • Ok, I'm about to walk out the door and take my lovely wife out to dinner, but let me leave you with this. If I were to change it to 25 watts, it wouldn't break the wiki, so just remember this is a small thing and not a BLP violation. Likely the guy is simply trying to pump up his radio station using the largest numbers he can document and only four people have bothered to even look at that article in the last month, and you have said all of their names in this section ;-) He did provide a reference in his last summary, http://licensing.fcc.gov/cgi-bin/ws.exe/prod/cdbs/pubacc/prod/app_det.pl?Application_id=1524001 and I haven't looked at it in detail, but I'm guessing the facts are in there. So it seems obvious that he is acting in good faith, by virtue of the fact that he provided a citation. Assuming it pans, that needs to be added to the article. You need to click, read and insure it is in that document. These docs get updated all the time (I worked in radio in my salad days, 100k watt FM station) so I'm betting he is right. If not, lets just ask and take it slow. Even if it is wrong for a few days, it wont' hurt us to assume good faith. If the FCC hasn't updated their website, then I think you just watchlist it and take in good faith for a while. WP:V says it has to be possible to verify, not that it is proven, nor easy to verify. It isn't his fault or yours that the FCC is slow. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 22:35, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
He is indeed working in good faith and indeed right, it's just the rules I have to go by. At WP:WPRS, we always told to make sure we should go by the licensed information and all construction permit information should be left off until the page is updated in the slight case the CP isn't approved or built. The problem with that is the FCC, anymore, is notoriously slow, taking as long as a month or longer to update a license on their website. They used to be much faster, but that's good ol' American bureaucracy for ya.
I will keep the page as-is until the FCC updates, just hope it doesn't take a month. :) Hope you and your wife enjoy dinner. :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 23:42, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
WP:V trumps all of that including WP:WPRS. It is a policy, that is a project. If you can drive to Washington DC and find the documents, then it is verifiable. I just got back and looked at the engineering data from that link he provided. It shows 1.5kw (ie: 1500 watts), The sub page on engineering shows this so I would say he did provide proper citation when he made the change. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 23:51, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Block change

Just a heads up, i've modified your block on this range. Sadly hardblocks are not an option at this point. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 03:23, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

  • Thanks, I had pinged Alison about that but it appears she was busy and I needed to do something. That is part of at a larger /16, so just hoping that segment will be enough. Hopefully I didn't break the wiki too bad there. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 07:19, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Alison's put up a list of every confirmed proxy sock. Interestingly, it appears the Flyer/Mike overlap was a coincidence, but allowed Alison to stumble onto the much more significant overlap between Flyer and the IP who was crusading against Mike (rightly, if logorrheically). So those are the proxy socks of either Flyer or, if she's to be believed, her brother. Likewise, if she's to be believed, her brother's proxy socks might not need blocking regardless, since, while he writes far too much, I don't recall him doing anything blockable himself. — Francophonie&Androphilie(Je vous invite à me parler) 07:35, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
There is a lot more than meets the eye. I've had a lot of private interaction with Flyer, dealing with this in the past, and she and her brother sound awfully alike. I've commented there, but I can't tell if this is all one person in a clever troll, two people and Flyer and her brother are the same, or really three people. There is a lot on this that hasn't been onwiki as well, including block exemptions, etc. Like I said there, I'm not sure what to believe, and I don't have access to the CU data. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 07:53, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
Knowing nothing about the history here, to me it seems highly unlikely that Mike's anything more than a coincidence (or that, perhaps, he intentionally used a Singporean IP to make it harder for us to pick him up during the edit wars on Drmies's talk page). I feel the same way with this as I did when I was accused of sockpuppetry: sure, it's possible that Mike's a sockpuppet of Flyer and/or her "brother," but that would be a whole lotta effort for a seriously botched execution. And judging from Alison's comments, she seems to more or less agree that the MikeFromCanmore part is a lot less conclusive. As to the brother issue... there I clearly don't know enough. Reading through the request, it looks like a perfect situation to AGF, but obviously if you, Alison, and AGK are all running out of patience, perhaps good faith's run out. There is always the option of asking them to present some sort of real-world evidence of their claims, though I can tell you from experience that that feels rather... icky... and I did it as a pre-emptive measure myself. Anyways, nutshell of my opinion, for whatever it's worth: Ignore the Mike part; decide the brother part based on your own knowledge of the situation. — Francophonie&Androphilie(Je vous invite à me parler) 08:04, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
It seems out of my hands at this point since it is a CU matter. You would be amazed at some of the sock trolls I've run across at SPI, so if all three were the same, it wouldn't be the first time. Without access to the CU data, there simply is no way I can determine this. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 08:09, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
Did you notice Alison's comment, though? "I'm going to say that the MikeFromCanmore group is a separate sock group at this stage." Sorta got buried between the massive sockfarm and the massive unblock request. — Francophonie&Androphilie(Je vous invite à me parler) 08:15, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

SPI Block

Pe your comment here and the apparently frivolous block and reason, cant we unblock?(Lihaas (talk) 19:42, 13 December 2012 (UTC)).

Happy holidays!

Hey Dennis, I just wanted to wish you and your family a happy holiday season and a congratulations on another great year of editing. -- LuK3 (Talk) 23:03, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

  • Thanks, and you, too! Not sure what I've got planned yet, but going to spend some quality time with the nieces, the nephew and at least one fellow Wikipedian around Christmas. I'm don't really celebrate it myself, but happy to share the time with family who does. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 23:06, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Checkuser

I just read the above and it occurs to me... With all the work you do with spi, why don't you apply for CU? You might argue that you don't do much on bureaucrat pages or arb pages (as you seemed to above, previously) but you can't tell me you don't do much in the way of interacting with CUs : ) - jc37 08:13, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

I've thought about it, but you have to wait until an election comes up. There is also the issue that it only takes the word of two Arbs to deny you the ability to run, regardless of whether the community would support you or not. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 08:20, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
Apparently I missed a discussion somewhere, and Wikipedia:CheckUser and Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/CheckUser_and_Oversight need to be updated if that is true. - jc37 08:32, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
In Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/CheckUser_and_Oversight the "Appointment Process", there is the second line "The committee carefully vets all applications; very clear consensus among the committee members is needed for a candidate to be presented for consideration to the community." That means Arb can deny anyone from running without a near majority acceptance. While I'm sure that is based on sound reasoning to prevent abusive CUs, it isn't without the potential for abuse, or simple injection of inappropriate and unrelated opinion. I have concerns on the chilling effect that theoretically could have as well. If I decide to request a run, hopefully that would be a moot point, but I've learned to not assume when it comes to these things. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 08:43, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
Well, as (afaict) the request would presumably be done through email... - jc37 08:51, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
One of the main reasons that CU is blockable by Arbs is that the decision is often based on private information, which the community will not have knowledge of. This can leave a very popular candidate (from a community point of view) who is actually unsuitable for the roll. Even with my longstanding push for transparency of Arbcom, I can't see how we could change that. WormTT(talk) 08:55, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
Nod, my surprise was the suggestion that it only took 2 though. It's been awhile since I read over AUSC, but I would think that after they do their due diligence, the vote should be of the whole of arbcom? If not, that should be changed. - jc37 09:09, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
Two is news to me, and I'm fairly sure that a larger portion of the committee would be involved in a non-obvious situation. Having said that, I have little knowledge of the inner workings of the committee (yet?!?) so I don't know for certain. WormTT(talk) 09:13, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
AUSC doesn't have anything to do with the selection of CU/OS, as far as I'm aware. --Rschen7754 09:15, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
Read the third paragraph and the second to last paragraph concerning AUSC: Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/CheckUser and Oversight. Seems they at least oversee usage. - jc37 09:18, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
The last appointments process was here: Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/CheckUser and Oversight/2012 CUOS appointments --Rschen7754 09:21, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
I've seen mumblings onwiki about an appointment process in January. --Rschen7754 08:56, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
The last several weeks have been mild at SPI, oddly enough, but before that, we were often short of CU and backed up 40 cases. I think this is part of the reason several CUs have burned themselves out, spending too much time just doing CU. The tools would be useful, but I couldn't and wouldn't spend all day doing nothing but CU checks. That will burn out anyone, which is why we need enough to spread out the load. I've noticed Arbs doing a lot more CU work lately, at least at SPI, but they have had few cases to deal with as well, so the last many weeks have been very easy to get a CU for a change. And Worm, I understand why the system is there, and agree some checks and balances are needed, I'm just saying there exists a real possibility of using the ability in the wrong way, out of pure opinion, without any recourse. This is why Arb needs to be as transparent as possible, where possible. You and I agree on that. And I can't swear to two, it is just my understanding. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 12:41, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Possible sockpuppet

Hi, just wondering if you might be able to have a look at User:Dribblingod. For a user active only two weeks, they seem to have hit the ground running; creating a template suggests a high level of knowledge of Wikipedia. Hack (talk) 09:51, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

My question

Any particular reason you didn't run for ARBCOM? I can think of few current editors who possess your conflict resolution skills (Worm being another, and I'm very glad s/he ran), you would have been great. Sædontalk 12:28, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

  • You would have to search my archives to get the full story as I've been asked by a number of people, but it is doubtful that I would ever run for ArbCom. The primary factor is that I would have to give up working the front lines like ANI, pull back at WP:WER, stop mediating disputes because they could end up at Arb. I'm actually enjoying what I'm doing and would like to think I'm making a small difference in some areas, and I'm not willing to sacrifice those things. But as I told others, I'm flattered that you have that kind of faith in me, and appreciate the kind words. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 12:40, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
That's a very fair point and I can certainly see it from that perspective. The irony being, of course, that the exact person who should hold such a position is the exact person who would never want to hold such a position :). Sædontalk 12:52, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
Catch-22 right there, amiright? — Francophonie&Androphilie(Je vous invite à me parler) 13:06, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
  • I agree with your assessment of Worm. He is one of just a few running that I actually openly expressed my support for. Most of the rest of my votes were and will remain secret. I'm betting he makes the cut this time around and looking forward to more openness. Of course, this is tempered by the reality that he is only one man and these things take time, but it will be a definitive step in the right direction. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 13:48, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
Well, in your case it appears to be a very helpful and dedicated person. Also, as a biologist I happen to think worms are rather fantastic. Sædontalk 12:52, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Dennis, one of the reforms I have proposed for Arbcom, and that others have also proposed, is that cases be heard by 3 or 5 arbs, rather than en-banc. In my opinion the workload and complexity would be greatly reduced with this approach, and responsiveness and care increased. I would be interested in your opinion on this idea. Rich Farmbrough, 21:41, 14 December 2012 (UTC).

  • I've suggested something similar, having a few more arbs to fill in shortages and 5 to 9 available hear each, depending on the case. I was told that some Arbs may prefer to hear every case, though. I haven't completely thought it through but think the idea is interesting and some type of system like this is worth exploring. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 22:04, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Asshole American presenters

Conversation here in which I mentioned some of the ones I dislike. What about you?♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 20:09, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

  • I don't watch any of them. I have gotten to watching shows on DVD or Amazon Prime, but I just can't stand to watch TV with commercials anymore, and I watch very little anyway. I'm pretty I haven't missed out on much. I do listen to CNN, Fox News and Redneck Comedy Channel on XM radio and change channels when commercials come on. I spend two hours a day commuting, need good radio. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 22:20, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
I occasionally watch Celeb Big Brother, but the main one should have ended 10 years ago! ♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 11:31, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Worth thinking about

"Wikipedia is not only a terrible place for immediate news, I am hard pressed to think of a worse place." While this is probably true of "random" news, for high impact stories Wikipedia has had better coverage and been the place to turn to for at least three stories that I am aware of, including the Fort Hood shootings and the 7/7 London bombings. This is because as a tertiary source we have kept a grip on where our information has come from, and been fairly robust in weeding out unsubstantiated information, whereas the media are desperate for words, and will report "some people are saying" and so forth.

All the best. Rich Farmbrough, 21:18, 14 December 2012 (UTC).

(talk page stalker) I agree with Rich that Wikipedia, as a tertiary source, has been pretty good at filtering out unwanted content. I do think, however, that once this CT shooting has died down a bit, we should have a discussion regarding implementation of a policy to cover procedure in a case like this. These articles are edit-conflict galore mass mayhem. Some of this, I think, could be avoided if we hammered out a policy. But for now, that's neither here nor there. Thanks. Go Phightins! 21:58, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
The problem is that Wikipedia is not professionally vetted, and I think it is a mistake for people to rely on a news source like Wikipedia. We have better luck adding context after the fact, assembling what the sources said and providing a "big picture" view, like most encyclopedias. I understand why people would like us to take on the responsibility and even why they would trust Wikipedia due to the redundancy in vetting, but I think that this is somewhat outside of our primary goals, and as such, will be ripe for mistakes. Yes, we can correct those mistakes, but not for the people that ran here looking for "news", found bad info, then went away. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 22:08, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
Develop a header for such articles that says something will turn up in due course but that because of WP:NOTNEWS, in rapidly-developing situations we prefer just to have a placeholder. Something like that? It's drastic, but it is fair. Obviously, the article would then have to be full protected for some time and more or less blanked, as with copyright situations, For most situations, 24 or 48 hours of protection should be enough for people to actually evaluate the news sources and for those sources to begin to get their facts straight. The header could include a link to Category:News organisations (that's red, but .... - Sitush (talk) 22:27, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
That's an idea. I think we need an RFC to throw out a conglomeration of ideas that will hopefully gel in to a policy. Go Phightins! 22:29, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
That is the problem. At every AFD you hear "sigh, you KNOW its going to be notable, two people died!!!!11" and other useless arguments that others glom onto. As I said, we handle news poorly here until some time has passed. I'm thinking more like at least a week. As an encyclopedia, we are supposed to benefit from hindsight. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 22:31, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
We do have a header - {{Current event}} - it could perhaps be made a little more apposite to the issues raised. But once again if we are careful the material can all be accurate "Washington Post reported that..." and indeed we often end up with a decent section on the media coverage of the events as a bonus. Rich Farmbrough, 22:37, 14 December 2012 (UTC).
Yes, I know of that header but I do not think it does us any service as an encyclopedia. We are not a vendor of news and that header serves mostly as a disclaimer. Encyclopedias are about calm reflection and analysis of sources etc, not knee-jerk reportage and a mangled mess. - Sitush (talk) 01:22, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
What Sitush says. They got it wrong, they got the guy's name wrong, and some moron posts the wrong Facebook page in the article. And then some other moron links to photos. Ridiculous. The best place to turn to is the continuously updated blog of the NYT or some such sources, where you don't have a bunch of bored morons thinking that they're doing the world a favor with an update every 20 seconds. OK, I'm done ranting. Sorry Rich, but I couldn't disagree more. Drmies (talk) 02:56, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive83#Virginia Tech massacre subarticles for my experience with the London bombings. Uncle G (talk) 22:40, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

ArbCom

A bit of a weird one for you and your stalkers, Dennis. Can someone request an ArbCom case be opened about themselves? - Sitush (talk) 22:22, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes, they can. I remember that Ottava Rima did it a couple of years ago – he ended up with one year ban that gradually morphed into indefinite. Malleus Fatuorum 22:27, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Well, I've seen doncram ask for one and it hasn't opened yet. I guess someone can request ArbCom review sanctions given to them at WP:AN which is kind of like that. I guess I need more context, a hypothetical, before I could figure how policy would apply as it may depend on circumstances. You have some deep seeded guilt you want to tell us about? Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 22:28, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
They can, but I wouldn't. I still remember the Great 1974 Mining Disaster. Sitush, if this is about various accusations being levelled at you, you can start a case, but I would have expected it to be about "the other guys". Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:57, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
  • While I didn't raise an Arcbom case about myself (though I considered it) I did ask Arbcom to accept the second request for a case against me, partly because it was so absurd, and partly because in the previous attempt to create a case against me Coren (an arb) had said "I'm reasonably convinced that the time drain will be higher all told (by bouncing back to the AN boards again and again) until we settle the matter one way or the other." Editors can and do request amendments, there is no process here that stops ArbCom re-writing the conclusions or sanctions of cases at their whim. Also of course through the magic of Motions Arbcom can do pretty much what they like, including derail community consensus. Rich Farmbrough, 23:28, 14 December 2012 (UTC).
  • I'm hoping Sitush isn't considering a case to prove himself innocent of anything. This is always a bad idea. This just invites everyone who has ever had a dispute with you to come there and list your crimes since you started at Wikipedia. It is a recipe for drama and regret. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 23:30, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
    Absolutely right. ArbCom trials can be notoriously fickle, and volunteering to be the victim of one just seems suicidally crazy to me. Don't do it Sitush. Malleus Fatuorum 00:51, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
  • No, folks. I've no intention of submitting myself for a roasting. From the comments above it seems that you may know what I am referring to. I've not had a massive involvement with the contributor & although the issues seem to be similar, they originated at and are extensively documented in an area that I do not usually frequent. It's just that things fizzled out at ANI with a suggestion that an appeal to ArbCom might be the only way to resolve the issues, and that suggestion came from the person who was at the centre of things. It has kicked off again in relation to a caste-related AfD and it is becoming very personalised because of past history, regarding which I have almost entirely been a bystander because it did not relate to India, let alone some micro-subject within that sphere. - Sitush (talk) 01:17, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
Now you can start a case on the basis that "there is a kerfuffle at Tofu and the community seems unable to deal with it", even if you are only marginally involved. There's plenty of historical precedent for that. Elen of the Roads (talk) 01:29, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
Did you say hysterical or historical? Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 01:31, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
I've just remembered something. Perhaps I should request opinions because it really isn't fair that I am a sock of Jimbo and so can do what the heck I like ;) - Sitush (talk) 01:33, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
Hysterical sounds right. No, my point is that the person seemed themself to think that the only way to resolve was to take matters to ArbCom ... and then has resumed exactly the same sort of behaviour that they've intimated needs some sort of high-level diktat. Money, mouth, is. - Sitush (talk) 01:37, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
Who am I to argue? Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 01:39, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
Well, I've asked the question on their talk page. It is possible that they are unaware that this can be done, although it is at least equally possible that they've had second thoughts. ArbCom = hassle. - Sitush (talk) 13:57, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
Based on his comments at the last ANI, and the understanding of people like me at that ANI, if there are future problems, Arb is the next stop. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 14:44, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
Well, post-ANI, it is already getting personal at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_Other_Backward_Classes and ArbCom has been mentioned there. This is such a mess. - Sitush (talk) 15:27, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Dennis_Brown/Archive_15&oldid=1145840088"