Jump to content

User talk:Dennis Brown/Archive 24

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 20←Archive 22Archive 23Archive 24Archive 25Archive 26→Archive 30

FYI

Two different things you might be interested in: this, and Wikipedia:Village pump (idea lab)/Archive 23#Watchlist. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:24, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

I checked out [1] and can't find anything relevant. When the WMF says 'some of the thinking about...' it generally means it might be addresed in anything up to 2 years or more - just like their abandoned promise of a new landing page. I think my suggestion could be just a relatively simple software tweak, and really quite useful immediately for people with large watchlists. Even on a 12,000 page watchlist, not all pages are regularly edited, but have you ever tried pruning such a huge raw watchlist? Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:13, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
Oh, I didn't think that was a solution, just saying we are independently on the same page. I will look at your ideas later. This whole Qworty drama has me massively distracted, and honestly discouraged. I've never had to explain what seems so obvious, so many times in my entire life. Dennis Brown - 2¢ - © - @ - Join WER 12:20, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

QM400032

Hi, re this edit; your assumption is incorrect. See the block log - the sockpuppet block was imposed some hours after the user's unblock request, which is for the IP address, not the account. It was that unblock request that prompted me to check out their history, and file an SPI. You'll notice that my message about sockpuppetry is below the unblock request. --Redrose64 (talk) 13:22, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

  • I knew they requested due to the autoblock, but the autoblock is what led to them being blocked as a sockpuppet. At the time I reviewed, they were blocked for being as sockpuppet, so my statement was correct. They were blocked for sockpuppetry. I had gone and checked the SPI report and compared to the sockmaster before replying there. The decline was basically a procedural decline since the circumstances had changed between the request and the reply, so I just kept it simple, but I was aware of the chronology. My terseness was intentional. Dennis Brown - 2¢ - © - @ - Join WER 13:27, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Rob Ford

I had rather thought it settled by policy that the re-adding of the criminal allegation required an actual consensus on the article talk page. Apparently this is not held by TFD inter alia, if you examine the repeated re-adding of the contentious claim of a rumour of an allegation of a video which is unavailable showing a person committing a crime. I have no particular connection with Canadian politics whatsoever, but I suggest that if you examine the BLP you will note that it is not exactly NPOV with regard to the amount of text about "substance abuse." Cheers. Collect (talk) 14:25, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Many thanks - sometimes I think there is a blindness to WP:BLP when it comes to edits about people they do not like. Collect (talk) 14:47, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
Absolutely a blindness. It's one reason I avoid most BLPs except as an admin. I don't need more aggravation. Dennis Brown - 2¢ - © - @ - Join WER 14:48, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
The alleged video was viewed and written about by two investigative reporters with the Toronto Star, and has been extensively reported in Canadian media and foreign media, including Independent, Guardian, and BBC in the UK, the New York Times and LA Times in the U.S., to name just the few sources I checked, and has been the subject of satire on Leno, the Daily Show and Jimmy Kimmel. This is AFAIK the only coverage the Mayor of Toronto has ever received outside his country. I see no reason why it should not be in the article, and nothing in BLP that would prevent its inclusion, despite what Collect claims. TFD (talk) 01:02, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
I have no idea, I didn't read the sources or watch the video. It would be improper for me to act if I had a fixed opinion. I just say what was possibly a BLP violation due the extreme nature of the claim and the lack of clarity about it being him or not, and protected. As for the merits of whether it should or should not be in the article, that is probably best discussed on the article talk page. Dennis Brown - 2¢ - © - @ - Join WER 01:06, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
We already have an editor saying he will restore the problematic material as soon as protection ends :( , and the Doug Ford, Jr. BLP has also has allegations based on anonymous sources added as well. Somehow I dount that either meets NPOV <g> in any case - the political editors are hard at work yet again. BTW, TFD is ingenuous as to what the reliable sources state - they do not affirm anything as fact other than that an article was written about something they can not verify. I hate misuse of RS sources. BTW you can't "watch the video" - the sellers wanted $200,000 for it. Cheers. Collect (talk) 11:57, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
It probably needs to go to DRN, which would justify asking to have the protection extended while the discussion is ongoing. I haven't looked at the sourcing or even the statements myself. I don't need to in order to see it is contentious and warring was going on, justifying the protection. It it turns into a revert war again upon liftin of protection, I'm inclined to protect for a week. I would rather do that than block in these cases, but some admin would prefer blocks, so I would be very careful. User:Bbb23 is the admin I tend to ping when it comes to BLP concerns, he has lots of experience with BLP issues and might can offer advice on the best course of action. Dennis Brown - 2¢ - © - @ - Join WER 12:02, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
Meanwhile note that I made a compromise edit roundly and instantly rejected with a claim that I "did not read the sources" <g> which I found amusing at best. Alaney2k t seems bound and determined to have his lengthy assertions about Ford in the BLP - and seems unwilling to accept any compromise whatsoever thereon. Cheers - I think it needs to be fully locked pending DRN. Collect (talk) 19:02, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
These days you don't have to ping me, just wikilink my user name. I read the removed material and looked at many of the sources. I read the section at BLPN. If there's stuff on the Ford talk page, I didn't read it. If I've got it right, there's no longer a video to cite to, so the primary source argument has been eliminated; is that right? My view is you cannot keep a story like this out of the article, and that a better and probably more achievable goal is to reduce the amount of material and make it as encyclopedic as possible (less blow-by-blow and more overview). Scandals about well-known politicians are usually exempt from WP:BLPCRIME. Citing to the video itself would be a separate issue and not one that needs addressing if it's not available. We should also be careful about sourcing and use the best sources. Although I'm not an expert on Canadian sources, the Toronto Star and CBC both look decent to me, whereas the National Post does not, at least not the piece I saw (reads like biased opinion). TFD mentions non-Canadian sources, but I didn't see any cited in the material.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:59, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
I attempted to do that in a compromise edit - rejected instantly if not sooner. Cheers. Collect (talk) 19:02, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

I never suggested anything in the sources be stated as fact, unless the sources state them as facts, for example, that three members of Ford's staff have left. The Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, which is a crown corporation and the oldest broadcasting corporation in Canada is probably the most reliable television and radio broadcaster. The Star is the largest and considered one of a handful of the best newspapers in the country. The National Post, which was founded by Conrad Black as a right-wing alternative, is highly regarded and along with the Toronto Sun backed Ford for mayor. The fourth major Toronto paper, the Globe is generally conservative but did not back the mayor's election because they thought his speaking and personal actions might lead to trouble. Their preferred candidate, Rocco Rossi, dropped out of the race and ran unsuccessfully as a Progressive Conservative candidate in the last provincial election. Despite what Ford says, this is not just a story from the "maggots" in the press backed by the "Socialists" and the "elites."

While non-Canadian sources may not have been used, it has been reported in foreign sources. It even made Fox Carolina,[2] the Charlotte Observer,[3] the Raleigh News & Observer,[4] and the Greensboro News & Record[5] I have never read any of these sources before, but imagine they are not all left-wing tabloids.

TFD (talk) 21:27, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Beyoncé Knowles

Hello, I was wondering if I could have some advice? The editor I was involved in the 3RR block with reinstated the edit which I think is a WP:BLP violation. I've replied to their talk page note, do I await a consensus from other editors there? Or should I take it to a noticeboard? Thanks. —User:JennKR | ☎ 19:07, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

  • I've protected the article, forcing a discussion, and left him a strong warning on his talk page. Once the protection expires, if he reverts it back in without a clear consensus, he will be blocked. I didn't look overly close, but most of those sources looked questionable as well. I would ask you both go to the talk page and have a sincere discussion. I won't be commenting on the merits. Dennis Brown - 2¢ - © - @ - Join WER 19:22, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
The discussion seems to have come to a stalemate with no consensus; as the content still exists on the article, should I revert the edit? Take it to WP:DR? Or keep discussing? Thanks. —JennKR | ☎ 14:41, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
WP:DRN is the best option, as it does seem that the talk page has been used enough that it is clear a consensus isn't going to happen there. I wouldn't revert, personally. Dennis Brown - 2¢ - © - @ - Join WER 14:47, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Happy Memorial Day!


AutomaticStrikeout  ?  is wishing you a Happy Memorial Day! On this day, we recognize our fellow countrymen who have fought our nation's battles for the past several hundred years, protecting our freedom and safety. We remember those who paid the ultimate price and we support those who continue to willingly sacrifice their safety for the sake of their country. Happy Memorial Day!

Share this message by adding {{subst:Memorial Day}} to a fellow American's talk page.

  • Thanks. As a military veteran, and the son of a retired military veteran, I think we should take a little time today when barbecuing with family and friends to acknowledge those that paid the ultimate price in the service of their country: American, Canadian, Brit, Australian, French, Dutch, and everyone else who served. It isn't a time for politics, it is a time for respect and reflection on those who believed the greater goal of freedom was worth dying for. Dennis Brown - 2¢ - © - @ - Join WER 14:35, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Got a moment?

A while back, during a request for arbitration that you weren't involved in [6] you and Cas said you'd be willing to talk to the subject of the request, just to confirm they'll be modifying their behaviour regarding overruling consensus, once they're editing again. [7][8]. He's been editing for a while now, Would one of you be able to have a quiet word? (Posted on Cas's talk page too.) --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 14:57, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

There's no urgency at all, but someone will have to have the talk with him sometime. If a month or two goes by any neither of you can be bothered (completely understandable) let me know and I'll rope in another admin. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 16:31, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
I'm not sure what to say here. If he wants a sounding board, I'm happy to oblige but offering it outright might strike the wrong chord and be a bit presumptuous. I think he is a good guy that just hasn't kept up with consensus on the expectations of admin. It has changed radically since I started almost 7 years ago. Dennis Brown - 2¢ - © - @ - Join WER 17:44, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
I agree. The request for arbitration closed with the understanding that someone would check with him that he'd got the message about overriding consensus. Assuming he's the reasonable man he seems to be, we could just take it as given. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 08:56, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Mr. Prime Minister

Could I trouble you to fix a capitalization issue with the stub article Night School? It was an improper DAB page and I've got it fixed with the exception of the software not letting a non-admin change "Night School" to "Night school," per standard form. It needs to be the latter. No rush. Thanks. —Tim /// Carrite (talk) 16:13, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

ThinkEnemies

In view of your warning [9], kindly take a look at this [10] subsequent post of his. Regards, 5.12.68.204 (talk) 00:51, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

An Actual Editor

I'm sorry that IP address with zero edits to improve wikipedia has decided to pester you. If IP address decides to makes his first edit to improve this project -- I will be shocked. †TE†Talk 01:11, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your service


Gtwfan52 (talk) is wishing you a Happy Memorial Day! On this day, we recognize our fellow countrymen who have fought our nation's battles for the past several hundred years, protecting our freedom and safety. We remember those who paid the ultimate price and we support those who continue to willingly sacrifice their safety for the sake of their country. Happy Memorial Day!

Share this message by adding {{subst:Memorial Day}} to a fellow American's talk page.

Gtwfan52 (talk) 07:29, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

About ready for FAC now

I've added the material I intended to on Lord Rootes and the Tiger's competition history, so perhaps you'd like to take a final look through and see what you think? Eric Corbett 12:47, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

DrKiernan

Thanks for closing the DrKiernan item on ANI, and I'm glad I'm not the only one who has thought his recent edits are worrying. Just looking at the recent edit history it shows extremely worrying trends. For instance on this page he's been reverting other editors consistently, I count 5 reverts in 5 hours, and this isn't the one he was brought to ANI for. I think there is a bit of an ownership problem going on as well as the edit warring. Canterbury Tail talk 01:16, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

  • I'm hoping my vague message was anything but. Edit warring is not something any admin can take part in. We are just as human as anyone, and we all make mistakes, but this like more than a singular loss of good judgement. If you see more problems in the future, feel free to ping me here. Hopefully this can be talked out. Dennis Brown / 2¢ / © / @ / Join WER 01:25, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
Time will tell. I'll keep an eye out when he returns from his block. Canterbury Tail talk 11:18, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Men's rights movement/Article probation

Dennis, please look at this discussion. As I stated there, I'd like to change the probation page and edit notices but don't want to do so without first checking with you. Perhaps I'm missing something. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:22, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Only added new infomation

hello, I didnt go back to work on what I was blocked for, that was recently settled by other editors of the page during the time I was blocked, I haven't touched that part. I only went back to add new information to the article, which she just embarked on. (Monkelese (talk) 21:41, 30 May 2013 (UTC))

  • It was different material than what got you blocked, but it was reverting DrKiernan, the person you were block with for edit warring. My point remains that you need to use the talk page first when you are adding back material you know was reverted out, considering you were just blocked for reverting that same editor. You can see is talk page for the links that clearly show the material. Dennis Brown / 2¢ / © / @ / Join WER 21:57, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
I didn't know I had to post on the talk page when adding a new material after being blocked. I apologize for that, I 'll be more cautious and use the articles talk page to communicate with editors. Thanks for letting me know. (Monkelese (talk) 22:10, 30 May 2013 (UTC))
You don't have to post on the talk page when adding material. When adding material that someone has been reverting out, THEN is is wise to always use the talk page first, or at least drop a note explaining. Not doing so right after a block for edit warring does look like an attempt to keep warring, even if that wasn't your intention. In short, if you know that someone vigorously disagrees with what you are about to do, you should take it to the talk page first, particularly if it was already reverted out previously. If you can't hash it out there, go to WP:DRN. You prevent edit wars by not salting the wound. Dennis Brown / 2¢ / © / @ / Join WER 22:13, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
Ok, I'll post on the articles talk page on my recent edits to prevent any edit wars on this (Monkelese (talk) 22:32, 30 May 2013 (UTC))
Thank you, and if someone reverts you, please don't back and revert yet again, just go and discuss it, or go to WP:DRN. Dennis Brown / 2¢ / © / @ / Join WER 22:57, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 27 May 2013

Bowery

@Dennis: When you have a moment, could you take a look at the recent editing on this article? The consensus on the talk page (last thread) seems crystal clear to me, but User:Epicgenius is denying that there is a consensus and is editing against it. Thanks. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:44, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Not to be a dissenter, but why are you so against the use of "Bowery" versus "the Bowery", BMK? Either way is fine. Epicgenius(talk to me • see my contributions) 18:18, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Then if either way is fine, then there is a clear consensus. My job is done. ;-) Good timing, too, I just got back from the store with a six pack of Sam Adam's Summer Ale, which is quite nice, I find. Epic, I understand curiosity, and the desire to ensure "the" isn't overused, but there does seem to be more or less consensus to use "the" (but not "The"). It sounds odd to me, too, but the sources are the deciding factor, not my own biased ear. I've learned that once a consensus is clearly against me, it is more gracious to capitulate on the main points and focus my energies into making sure future use is consistent with the sources (ie: when to use "the" and when to not). That would be more useful at this point. Dennis Brown / 2¢ / © / @ / Join WER 18:57, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

ANI thread

Thank you for removing it, it was very likely that my responses would eventually result in me being blocked - I feel very strongly about what happened to that user, and if I felt like it, I could investigate the IP and find out who they are (but I have no wish to). Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 12:36, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

  • I don't have an opinion one way or the other on the user, but it seemed that material was inappropriate for a closed ANI and insisting it be placed was problematic. I've warned him on his talk page. You need to be careful about getting caught up in an edit war at ANI as well, best to be patient and allow someone else to review once to you approach 3RR, regardless of reason. Dennis Brown / 2¢ / © / @ / Join WER 12:40, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
  • That's precisely why I backed off - I was writing a reply in the ANI both times the thread was removed (once by the IP, who tried to alter the thread by starting it again, and once by you) after making the two reverts. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 12:43, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Yip Sock

Could you please look at User_talk:KuroiNekoko-chan? That Jonathan Yip sock is either trying to defame Lucia Black and provoke the situation. I'm informing you because you originally blocked the sock. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 01:54, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Does this interest you at all?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/English_Wikipedia_readership_survey_2013 --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 02:53, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Publishers Clearing House

Hi Dennis. Given your exceptional political tact, I was wondering if I could persuade you to moderate the discussion here. The issue is that the article already has a long history of poor COI editing, so if I were in Bilbo's position, I would find myself being very defensive. On the other hand, there is no path a COI editor can take to avoid speculation of "positioning" and cherry-picking. I think it would be helpful to have a third-party moderate, as I would always prefer to have impartial editors work things out among themselves than to find myself in a position of arguing. CorporateM (Talk) 19:14, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

  • I can't this evening, have some other stuff going on, drinking some beer, working on a new computer, etc. By BS threshold gets a lot lower when I imbibe, like anyone else, so I avoid contentious discussions and mediation, and just clean up a bit. I will take a look tomorrow. Dennis Brown / 2¢ / © / @ / Join WER 19:18, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
No problem. There is nothing contentious yet - on the contrary Bilbo has given us kudos for disclosing and offered his concerns in a reasonable and courteous manner. I just find that where I edit on a volunteer basis, I get frustrated quickly if a PR person starts arguing or edit-warring with me. Especially if they have edited the article poorly in the past. I think it is much better for me to facilitate a discussion between impartial editors and avoid the appearance of lobbying for a specific version of the article.
The article as proposed is almost exactly as I would have written on a volunteer-basis, as PCH's only edits to the draft I offered them were typos and copyedits. However, there will always be some degree of reasonable speculation of "positioning" - it is uncomfortable for both parties for a PR person to write their own article and if anyone is not uncomfortable, we're doing something wrong. ;-) CorporateM (Talk) 19:54, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
Hi Dennis. Just pinging since you mentioned taking a look yesterday. WP:NORUSH though. I can ask someone else if you like or am happy waiting till next weekend or whenever you have a minute. CorporateM (Talk) 15:07, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
I've looked briefly, but not sure how I can help at this stage, the key is patience and you both seem to be using plenty of both so far. Part of the issue is that I have an article at FA, while working on an separate GA, and I seem to be involved with a number of administrative duties. Oh yes, and the whole "day job" keeps getting in the way ;-) You may just need to propose and get some people to review and !vote on it. Dennis Brown / 2¢ / © / @ 18:22, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Normandy landings

Hello Dennis, Could I just ask for your opinion on the contributions and reverts made by user Syngmung on this article. He/she seems to have a unhealthy interest in rape (on this and other articles) and has placed accounts of rape during the Normandy Campaign on the Normandy landings article. Other Editors and myself have reverted his contribution, but he is getting close to a edit war by further reverting with strange reasons for re-insertion. There seems to be very little references to back-up these stories - one book and a newspaper review of same. I would be grateful for your advice/action. Regards, David, David J Johnson (talk) 14:58, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Many thanks Dennis. Regards, David, David J Johnson (talk) 17:03, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanksgiving

Dennis,

Thanks for your feedback re my intent to include three ways to enhance Thanksgiving, in part: "an edit you did on Thankgiving here [1]. I don't argue against your logic, but in an encyclopedia article, we try to be a bit more formal and less "instructive", so it didn't fit"

Is there a Wiki forum in which it DOES fit? Or, do you have any other suggestion? My goal is to incite a movement via the Net, slowly and steadily, to bring back gratefulness to Thanksgiving (much like the Memorial Day is not National BBQ day theme). Any input is welcome,thanks.

ThankfulGal (talk) 19:45, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

  • Good question ThankfulGal, although I'm not sure of any single website. Here at Wikipedia, we are a bit more stuffy and only record what already is sourced as tradition, and policy is very much against promoting anything new. Much like the old fashioned paper encyclopedias. http://www.wikia.com might have some wikis that are related to holidays, but likely you would have to setup a website (maybe at Wikia, it is free) and visit forums to promote it. For the record, Thanksgiving is my favorite holiday and I try to set aside some time to truly think about how lucky I am, and to be truly thankful. I'm probably in the minority, but for me, it is a very meaningful holiday and a time for gratitude and self-reflection, humility, charity and of course family. You didn't have to convince me that it isn't "eat too much and watch football day" ;-) Dennis Brown / 2¢ / © / @ 19:54, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Go Phightins!'s talk page

Sir, Happy to know you are my adopters go to guy sockpuppet man!can you help me out of this mess,a quick look at this page please http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Uncletomwood Uncletomwood (talk) 03:14, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Bicycle crash

As you and others have said, the Australian cycle helmet article is a mess. I'm doing my best to discuss things but in the spirit of open-ness, given that you said you were keeping a watching brief and there have been a lot of comments on the article talk, I'm declaring a possible breach of TPG by myself here. The "discuss content, not the contributor" bit of TPG. - Sitush (talk) 06:46, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

  • I'll wait until you come back and finish the article, then I will block you. ;-) I expect talk pages like that to get a little heated, and as long as discussion is moving forward, little things should be overlooked. If this is indeed that author, then haven't really tried to hide the fact. I don't suggest laboring the issue, but I don't see a single mention as outing. Probably not very productive, but not outing. And good lord, you can't get internet access in some parts of Wales? Dennis Brown / 2¢ / © / @ 12:29, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

SPI question

You recently closed an SPI case I filed. I think I may have gotten the sockmaster role wrong in that filing; as I mentioned there, I was sort of guessing, and I think I now have identified a more likely candidate. Given that the workloads of CU/SPI mean that it often requires a week or more for a case to be investigated, I was wondering if your suggestion would be to re-open the existing case and comment, or simply begin a new case? The IPs in question are the same. Reply either here or on my talk page, whichever is most convenient for you. Thanks. -- [ UseTheCommandLine ~/talk ] # _ 16:19, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

In the previous filing I suspected now-banned editor Little green rosetta. But I noticed that Jodayagi seems to have started editing the article in question on the same day as the main ip, and before any of IPs in question. They also tend to edit at the same times of day. Both this user and the main IP tend to be a bit accusatory of other editors. -- [ UseTheCommandLine ~/talk ] # _ 16:41, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
There also may be connection to the banned user Belchfire. both Jodayagi and Belchfire are/were connected to both the TDC article and GOCE. And Belchfire was banned for socking. -- [ UseTheCommandLine ~/talk ] # _ 20:09, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

If/when you do anything about this i would appreciate a note on my talk page. i won't necessarily have whatever page it happpens on on my watchlist. Thanks. -- [ UseTheCommandLine ~/talk ] # _ 21:20, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

  • As Arb has asserted themselves in this case, I'm more inclined to give it a wide berth. The problem is that I lack enough definitive information and pure speculation about other connections would be uncivil on my part. This doesn't mean I will ignore it, but I am loathe to act on cases when I lack all the available information. Timotheus Canens made the block and might be a better point man for this sock. Dennis Brown / 2¢ / © / @ 13:13, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
I think the connection of IP editor to Jodayagi is fairly clear (lack of line spacing, referring to "hookers"). I can't be sure about LGR, but I think at least these two are connected. Perhaps just refiling for those two is appropriate, and a note to T. Canens as well? -- [ UseTheCommandLine ~/talk ] # _ 05:43, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

ANI closure

With only one minute between our postings here, you probably didn't see mine :) Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:30, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

  • We were clearly on the same page, I saw yours in between my two posts. I did a major Facepalm Facepalm while I was trying to close that ANI discussion and saw who beat me to the punch. I just dropped you an email on an unrelated matter, btw. Dennis Brown / 2¢ / © / @ 00:37, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
Replied. I'll start working on a list of diffs so you'll understand, because I'm sick to death and tired of it, and it's nearly caused me to retire on more than one occasion, and If I do I'll make absolutely damned sure the entire community knows why. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:02, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
FYI: Is this place going completely crazy, or is just from editors who needed four attempts to get the bit? Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 20:13, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
Love the little slam there, Kudpung. I maintain that Eric Corbett should have been banned long ago, and any admin that prevents discussions about him or sides with him does Wikipedia a disservice.—Kww(talk) 20:21, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
And I maintain that you ought to be desysoped for your persistently aggressive attitude, which really can't be doing you any good. Eric Corbett 20:57, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

And I think there is room for all opinions, whether or not I agree with them. As for opinions, my opinion is that need to take the evening off here, watch some old Star Trek: Next Gen on Netflix with Mrs. Brown, as Papa John is on the way. (Double bacon + pepperoni, if you are curious) Perhaps a few Summer Ale to wash it all down. Too much of this place isn't good for the soul and it is weighing on me. You two gentlemen are more than capable of dealing with this on your own. Dennis Brown / 2¢ / © / @ 20:38, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

You were the one that hatted the discussion, Dennis. If you don't feel like chatting about it now, no problem, but I remain of the opinion that your efforts to keep things calm actually prolong the agony.—Kww(talk) 20:42, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
I closed several side discussions as to focus the discussion on the matter at hand. In the one discussion, twice I noted Eric's comments were less than stellar. That doesn't mean they are actionable. If no action is to come of it, it only serves as a distraction that prevents consensus on the main issue, KW. This is no different than I have done for other editors on many occasions. I think that entire KW thread has already exceeded the drama limit at this time, so leaving the thread open seemed counterintuitive. Dennis Brown / 2¢ / © / @ 00:03, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
Meanwhile making an apparently productive editor feel like his quite legitimate complaint was being ignored for political reasons (which it was). Closing threads about Eric when he has clearly committed yet another blockable offense only benefits him and his defenders.—Kww(talk) 00:10, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
Substitute Eric's name with any random editor's. I would still have closed and not blocked, particularly since this was a huge, heated debate. If you know anything about me, you would know that, this isn't new. Above, you said that "Eric Corbett should have been banned long ago" making it clear you've lost your objectivity here. With all the comments flying around there, singling Eric out in this discussion seems rather pointed (if not convenient), regardless of who is doing it. The editor that filed that complaint left out the context and wasn't on the receiving end of any of those comments, so I disagree with your apparent conclusion that they were victimized somehow by my close. Dennis Brown / 2¢ / © / @ 00:37, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
I'm quite objective: I've reviewed Eric's behaviour over the years and have come to the conclusion that he persistently violates our policies against personal attacks and shows no sign that he will ever conform. There's certainly no lack of evidence for that position. That something is obvious doesn't make everyone that notices it biased: if it did, no one would ever get banned, because everyone that called for it would be deemed unobjective.—Kww(talk) 00:51, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
Only in your dreams are you objective, as your comments continue to demonstrate. Why is conformity so important to you anyway? Frankly I blame your military background. Some of the worst sysops here seem to have a US military background. Eric Corbett 00:56, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
(edit conflict)It would take entirely too long to point out all the flaws in that logic, Kww. I would unquestionably consider you unobjective/involved based on both your stated desire to see him banned and your inability to see any bias in yourself. We all have biases, Kww, none of us are as pure as the driven snow, and your claims only bolster my argument. I have listened and explained but perhaps it is time to drop the stick. We aren't going to agree, and it isn't required that we always agree anyway. And Eric, for the record, I have a military background, including serving and being raised in a lifetime military family. Make of that what you will. Dennis Brown / 2¢ / © / @ 01:20, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
I said some of the worst, not all of the worst. Eric Corbett 01:39, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
Now that you mention it, there ARE a lot of ex-military people here, disproportionately so it would seem. I don't think this is a bad thing, in the military we were taught to serve and help others. My experience is that many ex-military types don't like to color outside the lines, maybe I fall into that sometimes as well. We are used to structure, maybe seeing it where it doesn't exist, like here at Wikipedia. Bureaucratic structure is an illusion here. Not sure what to make of all that, but you gave me something to ponder. Dennis Brown / 2¢ / © / @ 01:58, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
I worked with the British Army when I was with our Ministry of Defence, and I can say with utter certainty that I would never have fitted in as a soldier, sailor or airman, or ever wanted to. I found it hard enough to tolerate the military bullshit as a civilian. Eric Corbett 02:08, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
I managed to get out before my first tour was over, honorably of course. I did not fit in particularly well, although I have managed to learn from the experience and take some good with me from it. I had the nasty habit of thinking for myself, something I suffer from here as well, and that attitude doesn't blend well in a culture that demands conformity. Then as now, I try to bridge the two as that is my nature, but it doesn't always work out. Dennis Brown / 2¢ / © / @ 12:58, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
  • I think you'll find that there are very few experienced admins who condone incivility, especially when it persists on a grand scale and is often completely unprovoked. There are some editors who defend such behaviour on the claim that it is always provoked, but they have not taken the time to do the in depth research. It's also interesting to note that those who have a reputation for incivility are often those who jump to the defence of those accused of it. Oh, and BTW, I also have a military background ;) Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:22, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
    Why should it be surprising to you that those who disagree with a policy sometimes defend those accused of breaching that policy? Eric Corbett 02:08, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
    • I should have know :) I've spoken against and for Eric, just as with KW. With KW, he got blocked at my RfA, and I went to ANI to get his talk page access back. I unblocked him the other day, yet I basically supported leaving the block as an indef until he can realize the problem. I think I'm objective there. Eric and I disagree on those points, but we aren't arguing with each other about it, we can respect each other's opinions. Why can't others do the same? Like I said, it isn't necessary to agree on every point in order to get along and respect each other. Entirely too often I find myself between two people whom I like yet they dislike each other. It isn't fun but I'm not inclined to pick sides. I shouldn't have to pick sides. I won't pick sides. Dennis Brown / 2¢ / © / @ 01:35, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
      • Is Kww's monomania about getting me banned not uncivil? Is his recent accusation that I changed my user name to evade my block log not uncivil? How much investigation did he do before making that accusation? None. Objective be damned, he's a man on a mission. Eric Corbett 01:53, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
  • @ Dennis - kudos for trying to contain a very volatile situation here. Sadly I've already spent more time researching and reviewing the KW situation than I ever intended to. There are some points where my thoughts differ from yours in regards to KW, but nothing I have any desire to "hash out". Although I will voice (type) a few of my thoughts as I feel comfortable speaking freely here. @Kww .. sorry - I very strongly disagree with you in all so many ways. First you're carrying years old grudges into things. Second, saying you're objective and spouting off the way you have is outright hypocritical. Yes, without a doubt many folks have had issues with Eric over the years - but the strangest thing I've noticed is that the people that actually go and talk to him with an open mind, willing to listen, willing to give respect ... oddly they seem to become strong supporters of his work. I honestly do applaud the efforts to keep our project respectable, and do want to see folks be respectful to each other. But one thing that sticks in my craw is that when this time of year comes around, we end up with a bunch of young editors looking for an outlet for their energies. School is out, and rather than work around the house or get a job, they jump into Wikipedia. When they get encouraged to buck the status quo, they tend to get disruptive. Now when some of the adults who have spent years and untold hours to create a vast knowledge base start getting harassed?, then I'm sorry, you tell the damn child to STFU.
Back to Dennis and KW. Your point about Kiefer's ability with words is well taken. However, I very much disagree with some of the assumptions made (by others, not you) which I thought were well out of line. My thinking is much along the lines of User:Intothatdarkness, User:NE Ent and User:Black Kite. No - I do not think that KW should be blocked at this time. He stated an oppose at an RfA with reasonable thoughts. I may not agree, and in fact I don't agree that, that "writing skills" alone are the criteria to give a user the few extra buttons; still, his view is valid. I think he should not have engaged in any of the resulting "badgering" which followed, but that was his choice. Now - the AN thread started by Fram was a good faith attempt to resolve a situation; although I feel it was poorly thought out. GS and KW seem quite capable of discussing things between themselves. This leave us with the "Demi" situation - which I feel resulted in a "shoot the messenger" conclusion.
OK - I'm hesitant about the use of words here, because apparently some words have a connotation that eludes me. KW noted that there appeared to be a group of inexperienced editors flocking around Demi - this was something I had noticed as well. In trying to look at all sides, I think on one hand it's easy to perceive an editor who is creating a collective group of meat-puppets to advance any "POV" or agenda. On the other hand, it may well be that an editor is open and welcoming to new users. I'm not a frequent IRC contributor anymore, so I'm sure there's much that I'm unaware of. Now over time it's fairly verifiable that KW has irked a lot of people, and the whole thread has a "this is our chance to get him" feel to it. IMO, KW is an extremely intelligent person, but does not suffer fools gladly. His skills in the math field alone are astounding. His ability to choose his words (as you've noted Dennis) are exceptional as well - but I don't think we should be attributing anything beyond the basic definitions to those words. Trust me, I know where you're coming from in that regard - and given your own abilities, I respect your insight.
@ Eric - for the love of all that's holy in "hot-rod heaven" ... just ignore the twits and twats that take their snide shots at you. You're above that. You know that. WE know that. And if ya go out and have a few drinks - turn the computer off. Spend the time with the love of your life, and just ignore us.
Take the words of Desiderata to heart all. There will always be greater and lesser things in life, and each life has something of value to share. Dennis, sorry for the wall of text on your talk - but as I said, I feel at home and welcome here. Cheers all. — Ched :  ?  02:17, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
Let me expand a bit on KW. I do think he tries to get clever with double entendre and I would venture to say he is quite good at it, but he took it to far. My beef isn't what he said, and it certainly isn't his RfA vote. For that matter, I told GS that his reply to Kiefer was "unnecessary combative", and he later agreed. Completely forgivable, we all can push it too far sometimes. My beef with KW is singularly based on the premise that he knew his actions would result in a drama-fest, which is why I presented two options to him: Either he knew and did it intentionally, or he set a new record for foolishness by uttering it. I never thought he was directly implying paedo ideas, only using FUD, but I know him well enough to read his comments carefully, as he has a well established habit of massaging his text to be easily misunderstood, and he loves to call someone out for "foolishly" misreading it. I think I can make that claim without diffs. So my concern is likely much more focused, more singular, than the complaints of others in this.
Outside of meta areas, I find KW entirely agreeable and productive. I don't consider KW a "friend" here (there are few here I would attach that label to), but I think we have an understanding and a degree of mutual respect. One or two mistook my unblocking of KW earlier as some favor or gesture of friendship when it was not. It was doing my job as I perceive it, as any "good" to be gained from the block has already been exhausted. Some can't fathom the simplicity of that, but it isn't my job nor goal to educate everyone on how to be even handed. I supported the interaction ban and still do, but I didn't take sides and don't care to. My support wasn't for Demi's benefit nor KW's, it was for our benefit. I'm tired of the squabbling and I really don't care who is wrong or right at this point, they just need to avoid each other so we don't keep getting side tracked. I hate interaction and topic bans in general, but it is my practical side that wants them separated. My greatest frustration is that was all entirely avoidable, yet I've had to waste a great deal of time on this topic, time that could have been spent doing better things, or at least things that actually bring me some satisfaction. Even yesterday evening, my plans were interrupted out of a sense of "duty" I felt via WP:ADMINACCT. Why some admin give back their bits or just leave and never come back is beginning to come into focus for me. There is entirely too much politics and not enough practical common sense in how we do things. Dennis Brown / 2¢ / © / @ 12:58, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
I can't say there's anything there I disagree with. re: "Even yesterday evening, my plans were interrupted " - can I have mushrooms on my pizza? :-D — Ched :  ?  14:55, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Roger's cable troll block evasion

He's back! [12] This is obviously another IP from the banned Beatles troll. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 21:38, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

  • I only see the one edit, so not inclined to jump or draw a conclusion just yet. I will try to keep an eye out, however. Dennis Brown / 2¢ / © / @ 13:02, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
    • Right, that's their new tactic, to only edit a few times per IP so they don't ever get blocked. Its obviously the same troll, from the same Rogers Cable with the same range vandalising the same project, who was blocked for a year. Its definately block exavsion, so why look the other way? GabeMc (talk|contribs) 21:25, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
      • It isn't about looking the other way, it is about not spending time on futile attempts. If I know the IP won't be editing any more, then blocking is a violation of policy as being punitive, and it is rather pointless. You aren't "preventing" anything. A better solution that might actually achieve some goals would be to take it to WP:RFPP and get semi-protection for the articles. Dennis Brown / 2¢ / © / @ 21:28, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
        • Havn't you already spent more time explaining why you didn't block the IP then it would have taken to just block it? I'll see you in a few days after more disruption. Also, its not at all punitive to enforce a block from another admin, is it? GabeMc (talk|contribs) 21:34, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
          • Gabe, if I know he isn't going to edit from that IP again, then I can't block it. It isn't a matter of how much time it takes me, it is a matter of policy. Arguing doesn't change the policy, just as blocking that IP won't solve anything because he isn't using it. I did protect that article for 30 days, which WILL actually accomplish something. Dennis Brown / 2¢ / © / @ 21:39, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
            • Thanks for the PP DB, much appreciated, but FTR you really don't know if he will or won't edit from that IP again, all you know is that its the same blocked Rogers Cable troll. Nonetheless, the PP should help for now, so thanks again! GabeMc (talk|contribs) 21:43, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
              • But based on your input which I trusted, he was doing hit and run edits with IPs, so I deduced that he likely would not. If I thought he would, I might have blocked, but it is still really hard to be completely sure of a sock with only ONE edit to compare. Protection was the safest route, insuring I didn't accidentally block the wrong person, although it comes at the price of stopping IP edits. That article is an FA, and it might actually be a better candidate for PC1. Dennis Brown / 2¢ / © / @ 21:47, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
You're the best Dennis, thanks once again for being so helpful! GabeMc (talk|contribs) 01:49, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
    • We don't have a large enough image of a trout here for that. That was skirting NLT for starters. You can't do that, period, and you know I have to tell you this. I've CSDed the page. I understand the frustration, but you are playing Russian Roulette when you do things like that, some admin will just block you outright. I'm familiar enough with the circumstances and understood what fed this incredible loss of good judgement, but please don't do that again. Dennis Brown / 2¢ / © / @ 01:52, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Follow-up

Hi Dennis. Following your comment here, would you be willing to re-visit the situation? There seems to me to be a WP:IDHT issue, although you may well have a different take on it. Thanks so much for your help. Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 22:55, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 05 June 2013

Administrators allowing Eric Corbett to harass other users.

Why is user Eric Corbett allowed to call other users idiots and the like with hardly any negative reactions from administrators? Rather you seem to be cozy up to him and thus legitimizing his harassment. I am considering starting an RfC or proposing a community ban of the user. Regards, Iselilja (talk) 09:23, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

  • If you're referring to the AN thread: quite a lot of users were acting in that sort of manner (and the same in the RfA thread that was linked to) - including myself, at times. Eric was not really any worse than anyone else. You won't get a community ban from a solitary proposal; you'd definitely have to have a RfC/U or ANI thread first. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 09:39, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm not likely to block anyone for calling a few names. I've been called a lot worse than anything Eric said, right here on my talk page, and I didn't block them. Calling someone an idiot isn't helpful, and I said as much, but as Luke pointed out, you have to consider the context. I'm not one known for dishing out civility blocks anyway, as they do more harm than good. Dennis Brown / 2¢ / © / @ 10:23, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

  • Let add a final word as well: Eric and I have worked on a number of articles together, and have been on the opposite sides of issues on a number of occasions, so I probably know him better than most editors here. I've called him a great editor, and I've called him insufferable before. Even there, I told him his comments weren't helpful. Like the rest of us humans, he is a mixed bag but overall he is clearly a net positive for Wikipedia. You are welcome to start a community ban discussion if you like, but the outcome is quite predictable and you won't like it. For every comment that Eric makes that might be a bit offensive, he has 1000 that improves articles here and he makes a lot of edits per day, so his signal to noise ratio is quite good. The community as a whole tends to look at this. Most of the time, his abrasiveness is spot on when it comes to context, even if I would prefer he use different phrasing, but that begs the question if passive-aggressiveness is better than bluntness. Some of the worst insults are dripping in sweet words, hiding the insult in "civil" language, which I personally consider more insulting than if someone just called me an asshat. Does this mean Eric should get a free pass? Of course not, and in that discussion I twice noted that his language was suboptimal. I'm not going to scold him, he is not a fool and he knows the risks involved when he chooses to be so blunt. There is plenty of history on that very subject that you probably aren't aware of. But in this case, my objectivity and "cozying" isn't at issue, as I wouldn't have blocked anyone in that discussion. Admin aren't civility police, and in heated discussions, you have to be extra tolerant or you make a bad situation worse. Dennis Brown / 2¢ / © / @ 11:20, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
  • @Dennis: Considering that you have over 300 edits to Eric Corbett's talk page,[13] and your own admission above that you've worked on a number of articles together, I don't think that it's a good idea - at least going forward - for you to act in as an uninvolved administrator in regards to Eric Corbett. Thanks. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 12:23, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
    I begin to feel the downdraught from the wings of the circling vultures. Eric Corbett 12:42, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
  • I understand the concern Quest but I respectfully disagree. In this case a number of people had already indicated closing was the right action, both explicitly and implied. For the purpose of policy, I do not consider myself WP:INVOLVED. Getting along with an editor when building an article doesn't taint my judgement. Eric and I work well on articles together, but more often than not we disagree on policy issues, yet manage to do so without incident. I've spoken out against Eric on a number of occasions, including at Arb, and he spoke out against me at my RfA. That I've chosen to engage Eric instead of shun him doesn't disqualify me from acting, it only demonstrates that two people can find common ground and mutual respect even when they disagree on politics. I've already noted his tone wasn't helpful there twice, while others suggested closing or to focus on his character rather than the actual comments, so arguably, I was the only admin that actually addressed the merits of the case, while the bulk of that discussion was little more than ad hominem. I handled this the same as I would any other editor, and after 10 hours of being open, closing it was the only responsible action, as it was obvious no other action would come of it and it was only adding more fuel to a discussion already ablaze. Dennis Brown / 2¢ / © / @ 13:30, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
    There IS no such thing as an uninvolved admin in most cases that involve subjective user conduct. There are admins who can look past their own concerns and biases and make sold decisions, and there are those that can't. Just like anything else. "Uninvolved," like "community" and "consensus," is one of the biggest fictions here. Dennis is usually able to look past his concerns and biases, and when he can't he's mature enough to admit it. Not every Admin (or every user) has that maturity. Intothatdarkness 13:35, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
    There's a myth being constructed that I'm some kind of monster who chases away loads of users both new and old, in an effort to justify my being banned. But really nothing could be further from the truth. And just compare what I've contributed so far today with what Iselilja has contributed in the last week. Looking at that, who in their right mind would want to see me banned? Eric Corbett 13:44, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
    It's the closed society idea. They can't exist without "enemies of the state." In order for something to be special, there needs to be something that can be painted as wanting to destroy it. I would actually contend that the closed society model, with its policy OWN and massive groupthink, does more to chase away intelligent, informed contributors than anything else. That will always fly under the radar, though, because most of those people aren't inclined to run screaming to a drama board (especially after they've seen a witch burning at one of them). They just cut back on contributions and eventually slide off the radar. And that's the biggest loss, not some anecdotal "hurt feelings." Intothatdarkness 13:56, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
    I'm inclined to agree with you. “I ask you to judge me by the enemies I have made.” Eric Corbett 14:14, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
    Not every person wanting to police civility does so with malice. I think it is that some people want to see Wikipedia being a proper and polite place and mistakenly think this possible. This is a Utopian vision of Wikipedia, but human nature being what it is, this is unobtainable without using oppressive methods. This leaves us with a choice: 1) Use draconian methods to enforce a zero tolerance policy for incivility, and lose the majority of editors or 2) Tolerate things we might find offensive from time to time unless they pass an easy to see, well defined threshold. As you drift into the middle ground, the potential for abuse rises exponentially as it relies on the subjective opinions and biases of the individual. In a multicultural environment, this is particularly fraught with pitfalls. And yes, as a community, we do consider more than the single utterance and do consider the signal to noise ratio for each individual. This might not seem fair, but I would maintain it is the most fair of all options. If an editor only edits once per month and each time it is offensive name calling, that is not the same as the editor that edits dozens of articles with thousands of contribs per month, then calls someone an idiot. The community should not look at each diff in a bubble isolated from all context. Tolerating something doesn't mean you agree with it, remain silent on it, or like it. It only means that you endure it, that you adjust your threshold a bit. That cuts both ways, of course, and I think people who frequently offend should put as much future effort in not offending as others put into tolerating, not as a matter of policy, but as a matter of respect. Over the last year, I have seen both effort and results by Eric, although it is a long and winding road. Dennis Brown / 2¢ / © / @ 14:32, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
    I don't think anyone's saying that everyone who goes after civility does so with malice, but it does lend itself to being turned into "are you now, or have you ever been, a member of the Communist Party" by those who do have agendas. And I would further posit that the "as a community" it might be wiser to consider it as "as the part of the community who focuses on these things." Using "the community" in such a shorthand, sweeping form is rather misleading. I'm also concerned that this focus does precious little to address passive POV pushing or some of the more obnoxious, yet superficially civil, behavior that goes on. Intothatdarkness 14:59, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
    Clearly any effort I may or may not have put in counts for naught though, as I apparently ought to have been banned years ago. So what's to lose? Eric Corbett 19:11, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
    There's always an element of self-criticism in it, too. You need to admit to your sins, work to correct them, and then join in the collective effort to reeducate others who may be misguided or have wandered off the path of truth. The whole process is fascinating in a way from an indoctrination standpoint but quite messy in practice. People looking for "difs" or "evidence" may simply stop at the first outburst and not move further back to discover just what triggered that outburst. And for those who are part of the closed society, such outbursts can be easily glossed as "simple excess" or "passion" to defend the project against abuse or injury. And apologies for taking up so much space on your talk, Dennis. Out now. Intothatdarkness 21:18, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
    I'd say self-abasement rather than self-criticism. The whole indefinite block thing bears an uncanny resemblance to the Spanish Inquisition. Repent, lest ye be cast into the fires of an everlasting community ban. Eric Corbett 21:28, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
    I'm not sure but this seems to be in fundamental harmony with the "Repent" philosophy (from AN re Kiefer block length)?: "What Kiefer needs is an epiphany. Unfortunately, I know of no fixed period of time can ensure that happens. Dennis Brown / 2¢ / © / @ 11:20, 4 June 2013 (UTC)"
    Ihardlythinkso (talk) 00:31, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
    It would be very difficult to call me biased against KW if you know the whole story. There is a great deal of history between KW and I that you are likely unaware of. I have acted and spoken out in KW's favor more than a few times. You can always ask KW what he thinks of me. He might disagree with my perspective here, but he knows I'm not out to get him. Dennis Brown / 2¢ / © / @ 00:56, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

ANI notification

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

Just a courtesy as I've mentioned you. Cheers, GiantSnowman 16:41, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

potential SPI case

Sir can you please check this page Waterford High School (Connecticut),looks really fishy to me and the edits are by editors with name starting with 16,i dont know how to open an SPI (if it is an SPI!) :P!Uncletomwood (talk) 17:39, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

  • Yes, obviously that is a bunch of connected users, although there might be a legitimate reason, such as a class project. Any stalking Checkuser might take a look. I've dropped a note on IRC but I don't park there regularly. In case it is a class project, I don't want to discourage or slam the ban hammer on a bunch of students, even if the majority of their edits are likely due for the waste bin for not passing our regular standards. Looking at the surface, I don't think they are trying to do any damage, so I would suggest leaving the article alone as nothing is hurt by allowing it to stay a short while. Dennis Brown / 2¢ / © / @ 17:46, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
Seen from my watchlist and dealt with (I have almost all school articles on my wl). This is part of a school's initiative to make their school article and edits will almost probably stem from the school's IP but the editors are individual people. I have copy edited the article, removed some content and left messages for all the users concerned and on the article talk page. I have also semi protected the article for 24 hours until they have familiarised themselves with the article guidelines. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:43, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
Thank you very much! These are always delicate issues, I worry that someone will go in and not know it is students, and get hamfisted, when it only requires a firm touch. Dennis Brown / 2¢ / © / @ 23:54, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

striking comment

I striked it as you and Snowman suggested. [14] May122013 (talk) 21:06, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

I have some extra work activities over the next 10 days which severely limits my access to the internet. I have already noted at ANI that I striked(struck?) the comment which I did primarily out of respect for your suggestion, but also because I regretted making the comment. I will get over there right now and discuss the concerns. May122013 (talk) 21:32, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Advice

Hi Dennis

No pressure on you at all, but if you had time I'd appreciate your opinion.

A little background: Omdo is a bit of a loner who has one main focus which is to add bits and pieces to articles with a view to reinforcing the position that Sabah and Sarawak should have more rights because of "agreements" at the time of the formation of Malaysia. It's a minority point of view, I believe, but strong in some circles/areas. He slowly turns perfectly good little articles into WP:COATRACKS for these views and ruins them with poor English, tangential, unbalanced content and irrelevant pdfs/links/documents. Inbetween times he does things like [16] adding the 2 states to lists of sovereign nations, here and on other lists - lists of Dependent territories is another favourite. These aren't mistakes, they are attempts to shoehorn in a POV. He never explains any of his edits, in summaries, or on talk pages, and he won't join discussions even when invited.

The saddest part of it, I suppose, is that he isn't even any good at it, because when he has finished with an article, it is generally close to unintelligible, and you'd struggle even to know what the POV was, because of the poor English and attempts to "sneak" stuff in. It's just a mess after all that. In this sense it's actually hard in some ways to distinguish from vandalism - although unintentionally so, I'm sure.

Periodically, I've cleaned up a few of these articles, as have others. See Talk:20-point agreement for one example. This sort of thing has gone on for a very long time. The most recent 'incident' is his creation of the formation of Malaysia as an unattributed copy/paste of the stuff we had cleaned out of the 20-point agreement article, from its history. The rest of the story you could read at User talk:Omdo.

I don't really know what I want you to tell me, I'm just looking for other thoughts, I guess, and it would be fine if you told me: "you're doing it all wrong" - but I would appreciate any thoughts or ideas you might have. Thanks if you can, no problem at all if you can't. Cheers. Begoon talk 22:13, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

  • This looks like a combination of problems, from copyright to POV editing, plus an unwillingness to respond outside of an edit summary. It does look like you have made multiple good faith efforts to communicate but he has refused to engage. If it was just the POV stuff, then an RFC/U might do some good but my gut feeling says it won't. Unfortunately, I would recommend crafting a concise report with diffs, taking pain to be be neutral and stay on the merits, then file it at ANI and notify him. I'm not familiar enough with the subject matter to fully appreciate the POV aspects, although it seems obvious that is part of the problem, so it should be discussed with the community as a whole. I would assume you would ask for an indef block until a time that the individual can recognize the issues and pledge to comply with our copyright, NPOV and communications expectations. Dennis Brown / 2¢ / © / @ 22:39, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
See... that's just what I was afraid of. I don't really want to do that unless it's unavoidable. In actual fact, without him, the point of view would be unrepresented and we do now have a couple of articles (completely rewritten from his originals) which we wouldn't have had without him. I just wish he'd play nice. I'll see how he reacts to my last note before deciding what to do. Thanks Dennis, you probably don't realise how helpful it is, but you basically confirmed what I thought and that's valuable to me when I'm involved. Thanks - I may be back... Begoon talk 22:49, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
Maybe that will be the catalyst to force him to engage, maybe then an RFC/U can be started, and if he responds favorably at ANI, then a block isn't needed. But sometimes you have to wave the stick around to get someone's attention. Dennis Brown / 2¢ / © / @ 22:51, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
If you don't mind, cast your eyes over User:Begoon/sandbox, and see if you think that would be sufficient. I think I may need to go ahead with this in the end. Possibly not, because he has started a minimal sort of response, but I'd appreciate your comments anyway, whilst it is 'fresh in your mind'. Sorry to bug you again. Begoon talk 01:32, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
I would make it more concise, removing things like "loner" "saddest part" and the opinion on his editing. ANI reports are best done in a way that doesn't show biases that aren't related to the problem. ANI reports don't need to be quality prose, just neutral statements of fact, nice and boring. Dennis Brown / 2¢ / © / @ 01:38, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
See, that's why I asked - try this - it needs some explanation left in, I think, but I've tried to be more neutral: User:Begoon/sandbox Begoon talk 01:53, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
That is a longer than average report, but some have to be and now it is much more neutral in tone. Ping me when you file it. I'm off to bed soon, but you can point back here as you have done, and I will say here that as I understand it, your interpretation of events seems accurate. Dennis Brown / 2¢ / © / @ 01:56, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
Ok, here. I think I've done as much as I can on my own, and more input will be valuable whatever the decision. You are, of course, notified... Thanks for the help, too, very valuable when I'm as wrapped up in it as I am. I owe you (another) virtual beer - I can afford those. Begoon talk 02:19, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
Ah, well, archived without closing. I guess I did my civic duty, at least. Thanks for your help, Dennis, appreciated. Begoon talk 08:10, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
Keep the links handy, if there are more problems, it can be shown they refused to engage and I may just have to block to get their attention. I've left a message on their talk page to this effect. Dennis Brown / 2¢ / © / @ 11:18, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
Thank you. Handled like a pro, as always, from start to finish. You're worth every penny they pay you. Cheers. Begoon talk 12:26, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Question

How does one go about getting an IBAN between an editor and an administrator? Darkness Shines (talk) 14:35, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

What are the odds on my being granted one against an administrator? Darkness Shines (talk) 14:46, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
A unilateral ban? Zero. Eric Corbett 14:48, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
So an admin who admits to hounding, and whose comments to an editor are usually snarky gets a free pass then? Darkness Shines (talk) 14:58, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
Yes. The contorted WP logic is that admin have to have abused their tools before action is taken, which hounding and snarky comments are not. Best advice would be to ignore this admin. Eric Corbett 15:41, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
That is a very good question. It isn't common and every situation is unique so any odds are at best, speculation. I'm not sure which admin you are referring to but regardless, I wouldn't bet my lunch money on it. There are a number of reasons why some people think that no admin should be subject to an interaction ban, and the individuals that hold these ideas span the entire spectrum of editors. How the evidence is presented is just as important as the evidence itself, hence my prior tip. Additionally, any editor that proposes the ban will likely be scrutinized very carefully by various members of the community, so missteps can easily lead to the boomerang effect. It isn't something I would recommend doing in the heat of the moment, if at all. I have supported such a ban only once, and it didn't pass. Dennis Brown / 2¢ / © / @ 14:59, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
The admin in question is WP:INVOLVED with me and cannot take administrative action against me. He has admitted previously to hounding my edits, it had stopped for a while and now he is back with the same snarky comments, I should not have to put up with being told I require remedial education, or that I need to learn grammar again. I have no desire to interact with the a guy who obviously still carries a grudge from a year ago. Darkness Shines (talk) 15:14, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
This is a tough call. I don't have enough information to have a firm opinion one way or another. You edit in topic areas that I generally avoid as they are far outside my areas of expertise, so much of what goes on I simply haven't seen, one way or the other. All I can recommend is that you proceed with an abundance of caution and with a cool head. I wish I could offer you more, but it isn't a simple situation. The political overtones in such a request are sure to draw a crowd, and a crowd usually means drama. Dennis Brown / 2¢ / © / @ 15:24, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
The reality is that you're going to have to put up with it Darkness Shines, just as I have to put up with the admins obsessed with getting me banned by hook or by crook. Just the way it is. Eric Corbett 15:38, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
I currently have an interaction ban with a handful of editors. You won't find any discussion or record of the ban 'cause I just decided for myself that we're just not going to agree and it's best for the 'pedia if I just ignore them. So just totally ignore the admin -- don't reply, don't remove their posts from your talk page. So Eric is both correct and incorrect -- correct that ignoring is the best option and incorrect because you can impose a unilateral action ban -- just decide unilaterally not to interact with them. NE Ent 15:57, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks to all for your advice, much appreciated. Ent, I am going to do as you suggest. Darkness Shines (talk) 16:01, 8 June 2013 (UTC)




  • As far as I'm concerned, whether one of the parties is an admin shouldn't be a factor in deciding on an interaction ban. Now, as Eric might insinuate, in practice it could make a difference, but if memory serves me right we've dealt with that kind of thing before at ANI and it was granted. As for Ent's comment, I'm under a restraining order that prevents me from thanking them for their useful remark. Drmies (talk) 22:58, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

DrKiernan deleted all my hardwork and editing on the article Camilla, Duchess of Cornwall

For the past few years I have been on Wikipedia and edited without having such as administrator attack me so much. I edited her page through a book that i read, and added reliable sources, i just checked her page on article, and all of sudden half of the information is gone from her page, he claims because the references which mainly includes one book is copyrighted which I violated, I don't understand since it's a book. right now I am out of words, I don;t know if I Should stop contributing to Wikipedia or just wonder what DrKiernan seriously has towards me contributing to her page. Please I need an explanation from this, I have responded to him on the article's talk page to avoid any edit wars and have not received any response... (Monkelese (talk) 20:29, 8 June 2013 (UTC))

  • I get the feeling that this is going to take a while to work through, and I'm about to be out of town for a week, so I will be ill suited to review it right now. Perhaps a talk page stalker can take a look. I just don't want to start something I can't finish properly, and this has the potential to be rather contentious. Dennis Brown / 2¢ / © / @ 20:32, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
  • I did noticed the largest deletion was this [17] which he says is a copyright violation. He didn't say which site, but in the case of copyvio, it is pretty common to gut any questionable material and rebuild those sections by hand. Dennis Brown / 2¢ / © / @ 20:39, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

the largest deletion is from a book which I read, and others are from newspapers and website like BBC News (Monkelese (talk) 20:43, 8 June 2013 (UTC))

Thank you, I have responded to him on the article's talk page and waiting for him to prove to me that everything I added was copyrighted. (Monkelese (talk) 20:57, 8 June 2013 (UTC))

A barnstar for you!

The Original Barnstar
For helping stop a sock puppet! Way2veers 21:26, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Immediate block of Eric Corbett account needed

Please see this edit which includes the phrasing "I couldn't have put it better myself." Obviously the account has been hijacked and should be indef'd until we can establish Eric's regained control of it. NE Ent 23:58, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Did I miss anything?

A friend of ours came by from Tuscaloosa. She's an Irish dancer and had a gig in the city. So we all went, ate fried food and shepherd's pie, and watched the show. My oldest daughter got up and danced as well. Then we drove home, my youngest daughter giving directions: she loves driving "down the town" as she calls it. Then we ate pie with whipping cream. So I'm feeling pretty good. How 'bout you? Drmies (talk) 02:19, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Tuscaloosa? Sounds like a very unpleasant dental condition for woolly mammoths.
Still hoping they will make a new (or cloned) one, someday soon! --Demiurge1000 (talk) 02:26, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Finally I want to thank someone for an edit and I can't! Dick puss! Hey, every other day there's another Auburn story in the papers--point shaving, armed robberies...I remember when Alabama players got those headlines, and it's nice to be on the other side. Oh, I'm putting in a bid on Saban's lakehouse. I may need some help scraping the $11 million together--how many blocks is that? Drmies (talk) 15:53, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Speaking of "Did I miss anything"...

Anything new in the last few months? : )

Oh, and Hi : ) - jc37 03:26, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

  • What's new? Loads more admin abuse! Nice to have you back--that is, if you're a duly certified member of the abuse cabal. Drmies (talk) 03:35, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
    Loads more admin abuse? (so very not unobtrusively tries to hide the mop over ---> there, somewhere) Those terrible admins, what did they do now? : ) - jc37 03:38, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
  • One of them used a bad word in an email, apparently. Another referred to trolling as "trolling". Back to work, Jc: there's loads more good-faith editors to be driven away. I hereby hand over the reins to you, since I REALLY need to finish The Rings of Saturn. You may, of course, delete that article since that's the kind of thing you admins do. Happy days, Drmies (talk) 04:01, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
I'm about halfway through Endangered Phrases myself. Though it looks undeletable atm. The ultimate protection against deletion: a red link - Endangered Phrases: Intriguing Idioms Dangerously Close to Extinction : ) - jc37 04:19, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Oh, and Dennis Brown, having blocked enough editors at $10 a pop, is off to Vegas to live it up with his girlfriend (in fact, he married her--the nerve!). Drmies (talk) 04:02, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
When in Vegas, do as everyone-else-at-the-Elvis-Chapel-of-Love does :-) (✉→BWilkins←✎) 11:23, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
Its funny you mention that, as the chapel is on our agenda to at least visit. This is the 20th anniversary year for Mr and Mrs Brown. Years ago we said we would come back there for our 20th. I hit Vegas regularly for trade shows, but this is a pleasure trip. Dennis Brown / 2¢ / © / @ 11:31, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
It seems I missed out on that benefit... $10 each? How many usernames does Wikipedia have again? 48,300,397 ? Hmmm. - jc37 04:19, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
Good to see you back. The shortcomings of the system have been coming sharply into focus, as Drmies points out. Sadly, it is the trolls and disruptors that cry the loudest about how they are not being "editor retained" while the quiet and productive editors simply disappear without a peep. It has not been encouraging. Dennis Brown / 2¢ / © / @ 10:32, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Why is it that none of the administrators ever hound or harass me? I make comments at various places, so you think I would be an easy target? Most ignore me, a few compliment my work, and every once in a while, one helps me out. And, Dennis, I plan to stay around for a long time, thank you very much. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 16:09, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

  • Not sure why you've been skipped, but I'm happy to oblige: indef without talk page access incoming. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 16:22, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
  • The only editors that seem to have a problem with admin are those that walk around with a chip on their shoulders and make it their full time job to judge the worthiness of every admin action. And I'm glad you will stay. We need skepticism and criticism here, just not the badgering and disruption that some resort to. Dennis Brown / 2¢ / © / @ 16:23, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
    • I have come to the conclusion that we are all taking ourselves entirely too seriously, and we all need to just chill the fuck out, man. I feel that this is a profound statement of the human condition to be preserved for the ages, and if acted on, will save not only Wikipedia but global civilization as we know it (for they are one and the same). Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 16:27, 9 June 2013 (UTC)


Jonathan Levine Article

The number of edits merely reflects my responses to the questions and comments (often scurrilous) that I have received. And if new information presents itself, I will present it to the editors and will not be intimidated. In fact it is I who have been the subject of abuse, which I now realize is the inevitable result of a dissenting opinion on this forum.

My best regards, Screwtape666 (talk) 18:09, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

  • Maybe you should have read that essay I linked instead. Let me summarize it for you: Your edits are disruptive, and you are bordering on getting blocked for them. Dennis Brown / 2¢ / © / @ 18:11, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for creation/Redirects

Hi Dennis, I've just restored that page to functionality. Not sure what went on there but it seems it was hit by several editors in quick succession. Could you take a look at User:Jake Uniacke contribs please, they seem to be either lacking competence or just out to disrupt. I'll leave them in your capable hands. Pol430 talk to me 19:09, 9 June 2013 (UTC)


A good admin with good edits deserves a good cookie. I'd also like to apologize for the sockpuppet tagging stuff. I've moved on and with you being an active admin, I'd tnink you have, too. Enjoy and happy editing. WorldTraveller101BreaksFixes 19:41, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Stop moving my comments

See WP:BURO. It is impossible to follow conversation when it is split between multiple sections. — The Potato Hose 19:51, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

  • Potato, it is specifically my job to do exactly that as an SPI clerk. Please keep your comments in the proper area. You aren't the first person to file at SPI, and this case isn't particularly unique. Claiming WP:IAR means you don't understand what that policy means. The clerks and CUs are used to reading in different sections and it was setup specifically to do just that way. Dennis Brown / 2¢ / © / @ 19:53, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
  • The way you are handling this is improper on several levels, and is a bit disruptive. Please stop. If you want to ping the CU on his talk page, that is fine, but this one particular report is just that, a report, not a place to discuss changes in how we handle socks in the future. Dennis Brown / 2¢ / © / @ 19:56, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
    • I will stop when you explain how anyone else reading the page is supposed to follow a conversation that is occurring in two separate places. I asked for more information. That is all. I didn't ask for private information to be revealed. Stop being so beholden to silly rules and recognize that the easiest way to follow conversation is if it is in one place. You're already claiming I'm being 'disruptive.' Bullshit. I'm just not following stupid little rules for the sake of following stupid little rules. — The Potato Hose 20:02, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
      • I've explained already. If you revert again, you will be blocked. I can't make it any more plain than that. Dennis Brown / 2¢ / © / @ 20:05, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
        • You have explained already? No, really you haven't. Explain: how does splitting up a conversation make it easier to follow? — The Potato Hose 20:09, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
          • I'm tired of debating this. You should contact the CUs and tell them they are foolish for setting up this system. Obviously you are wiser than they are. Until they instruct me otherwise, however, I will follow their directions on how they want the page clerked. Dennis Brown / 2¢ / © / @ 20:13, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
            • Oh, my mistake. I'd thought you weren't one of those admins who follows the "Do as I say or else because I am an admin and you have to do what I say and I'm going to get snide when you don't kowtow" mantra. Now I know better. — The Potato Hose 20:19, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
              • I follow what the CUs say must be done at SPI. That is exactly what a clerk's job is to do. Complain to them, they are who I answer to when it comes to anything at SPI. Dennis Brown / 2¢ / © / @ 20:21, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
                • You're right. I'm sorry. I should have known it's always a better idea to just blindly follow orders. Excuse me for that. — The Potato Hose 20:24, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
                  • Not to be a voice of sanity here (I'm hardly qualified for that), and it's a bit late in the game since it's been archived, but, seeing as how there's no crucial context to be had from T. Canens's comment, wouldn't it have made sense to let Potato's question be moved to the "other comments" section, and then for Dennis to reply to him in that same "other comments" section, rather than edit war over the "clerks" section? Dennis could've just made a "tagged, closing" comment in the clerks section and then made the rest of his comments (the bits addressed to Potato) in the "other comments" section, to maintain continuity. @Potato: in fairness, I see where Dennis is coming from on this; that section is supposed to be a concise overview of the history of the case; inserting other commentary into it detracts from that. So it's not as who should say blindly following orders; there is a method to the madness. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 20:58, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
                    • I have explained this to death. A clerk's job is the format the pages to the exact instructions of the CUs, nothing more or less. If you want that template changed, ask them. Until then, I will continue to follow their instructions on format as SPI IS a formal format board, just like RFPP, AIV, Arb and others, and unlike ANI and AN which are freeform boards. I would add that the current format is very easy for admin, clerks and CUs to read, particularly in the archive, which is likely why the CUs have determined that this is the format that clerks must follow.Dennis Brown / 2¢ / © / @ 21:20, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Some music while you wait

I will be gone for several days with very little access to the internet, so anything urgent should be directed elsewhere. I will only have the tablet and I hate trying to type on that thing. If I do check in, it will be with my alt User:Farmer Brown, which has a different watchlist, so I will surely miss stuff. Dennis Brown / 2¢ / © / @ 19:24, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

We love you Farmer Brown. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:32, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
And I'm in love with your daughter. Drmies (talk) 21:16, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

While you're there...

You should try the Golden Nugget. I was in Vegas not long ago and I left quite a bit of money there that you and Mrs. Brown are most welcome to spend in any way you wish. You'll find it dispersed amongst the craps tables; I gave the fellow at the sportsbook a few hundred for you as well. :) Hope all is well with you and your family. Joefromrandb (talk) 05:21, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Stayed there years ago. I like Freemont St. but usually stay on the strip since we get free rooms at any of the Harrahs properties. Mrs. Brown loves to gamble and they love Mrs. Brown... Plane about to leave, looking forward to getting the flight over. Flying used to be fun, not so much any more. Farmer Brown - 2¢ (Alt. of Dennis Brown) 10:09, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

My favorite thing to do in Vegas is go to the Wicked Spoon, a buffet in the Cosmopolitan. It is fantastic, not overly expensive, and I highly recommend it. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 13:10, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 12 June 2013

Anna Frodesiak's possible RfA

Hi Dennis. How are you? I'm wondering if you might consider nominating me for administrator. Moonriddengirl did a partial review and says I seem alright. Also, I'm on China time, so that might be useful if you have an administrator shortage during the night.

Lately, I've been stalking some admins and looking at areas where I might be useful:

Are those useful areas? Would you suggest others instead, or would I need more to start with? Ideal would be to start with very boring, routine duties that take a load off other admins. What do you think about the whole thing? Best wishes, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:37, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

  • I wouldn't need to review you before deciding, I've been watching you out of the corner of my eye for a year and a half, dropping hints your way, all with the hope that you would eventually run for admin. I've always believed that Wikipedia would benefit greatly from you becoming an admin as I think you have the right demeanor, humility and skills to do an excellent job. I would be honored to nominate you. If you would like, I can look at the metrics as well, but my willingness to help in any way isn't dependent on them. Dennis Brown / 2¢ / © / @ 23:52, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
I've also been aware of this editor for a very long time. I would be happy to co-nom. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:54, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict) What you state that you are interested in at RfA is what will be examined most closely, so stick with your strengths and keep it simple. You don't have to list everything you might be interested in, just 2, 3 or 4 areas where you think you already have shown to be competent and where it is currently easy to see you have the skills. I would also add, having someone like Moonriddengirl as a nominator would be a strong statement if she is willing. From my observation, she is one of the most respected admin around, and she has earned every bit of that respect the old fashioned way, hard work. You have earned that kind of respect from a number of people for the same reason, Anna. I'm truly glad you are taking this step. Dennis Brown / 2¢ / © / @ 00:00, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
  • 👍 Like This is a good development. Basalisk inspect damage⁄berate 00:16, 8 June 2013 (UTC)


  • Anna, I will be out of town June 10-13 (mon-thurs US time), but I have prepared a nomination in my sandbox, along with a raw list of the 1416 articles you have created, as that is a very time consuming list for the servers to generate. Copy and paste as you like, or ask another one of the noms to do so. I would be happy to be 1st, 2nd, 3rd or whatever nom you choose. That is a decision you should make yourself, and it should be what you feel is singularly in your best interest. I will have my tablet with me those days, but service may be spotty and I didn't want to force you to change your schedule. I think you could have 60 nominators if you wanted, I know a great many people like you, probably more than you realize. Dennis Brown / 2¢ / © / @ 01:06, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
    • 60 is not exaggerating. I don't want to prognosticate or set hopes too high tempting fate, but I could see a Drmies margin. I'd nom, but I think you've got it well in hand. Go Phightins! 01:49, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
Thank you so much Dennis. And I just read the sandbox nomination. It's lovely. Actually, I'm the one who's honoured.
I understand about your schedule thing. There's no hurry with any of this.
I appreciate what you say about sticking with my strengths and keeping it simple. If I were to become an admin, I would really like to start super slowly and simply.
I don't think I will bug Moonriddengirl for more help. She was nice enough to review my edits and I know it took her a long time. In fact, I have no idea who or how many nominators is right. I never paid much attention to the whole RfA thing before. Kudpung and Go Phightins!, I think you're both great (as I'm sure you already know). Can we let Dennis decide?
And thanks everyone for being so encouraging. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 02:37, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) 👍 Like Where am I signing? — -dainomite   02:40, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
  • This will be one of the few RfA's I'll participate in, because Anna should be up there with the mop. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 04:41, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
  • I mistakenly thought Moon was prepared to nominate. It is your choice, of course, but Kudpung is heavily involved with our educators, new editor permissions and RfA reform in general. Plus he has been watching your grow into the role, just as I have, which gives the participants at RfA the benefit of two nominators who are very familiar with your wikicareer. I would be very pleased to share the stage with him. This doesn't speak against anyone else, and there are many other fine editors who would also be assets. You could have more if you chose but I think two is pretty standard and honestly, your body of work speaks for itself; Kudpung and I are just decoration. I don't see a need to delay, but the time table is up to you. Dennis Brown / 2¢ / © / @ 04:47, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
I'm sort of leaning toward only you, with no co-nom. I've received a number of offers via email and my talk page, and I like everyone. So, picking one person makes me feel like I'm rejecting the others. Would there be anything bad about not having a co-nom? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 05:05, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
Not at all. Co noms aren't required, just as Noms aren't, it is purely up to you and you should do whatever you feel most comfortable with, and I think they will all understand that it is hard to pick from so many. I think that User:Pedro (who was my nominiator) set the record for six nominators in his 2nd RfA, so there is no requirement for two, even if it is common. It is 1:11 here and I'm about to head off to bed right now, but you can start the template and just not transclude it, to work on your questions if you want to get it started this weekend. The RFA itself doesn't "start" until the template is actually transcluded, a confusing act that I did wrong on my own RfA, but Pedro saved me. Dennis Brown / 2¢ / © / @ 05:16, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
  • I saw this through Echo. While I don't really have time to do a nomination justice right now (I try to stay by during the week and couldn't give it the time she deserves) and was just giving her feedback on her development, I want to say that I am delighted she is moving forward and in such good hands, Dennis. :) I am an enthusiastic supporter and look forward to the chance to tell everybody as much. We could use a dozen more just like her. :D --Moonriddengirl (talk) 23:50, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
    • I appreciate the trust, it means a great deal coming from you, Moonriddengirl. I'm ready whenever Anna is. No RfA is every "smooth", but I am confident the community will like what they see in Anna. Dennis Brown / 2¢ / © / @ 00:15, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
I am still concerned about any skeletons in the closet. Dennis, should a bit more digging be done? I mean, the MMA thing I didn't handle so well. You saw that. I was on the wrong side.
Oh, and I've decided what I want to do. If accepted, I would like to use the tools to handle the tasks I use in my own work without having to run to admins -- things like moves over redirect, etc. That would satisfy the requirement for "need". And to help the community and take a load of other admins, I would like to start slowly, only with handling UAA and AIV with non-controversial cases. From there, explore and see where I can be useful. Does that sound like the right course? What would you suggest? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:29, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
There is no right or wrong side, it is about being able to jump in the middle of a fire, and not get burned. I can modify my statement, but we all have "skeletons", times when we are less than perfect. I try to screw up at least once a day now ;-) Admin make mistakes, it is how you handle them that matters. Dennis Brown / 2¢ / © / @ 00:42, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
I'd say just get on with it Anna. WP badly needs more girls with the admin whip. Eric Corbett 00:48, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Let me be frank: I can't promise what the outcome will be, I can only promise that RfA week is hell in many ways, but it is a lot of comfort in others. The key is don't respond to all the votes, allow everyone to have their opinions, whether they are well founded or silly. Your tenure here speaks for itself. If you have made mistakes here, it is only because you have done so many good things. You have to make sure you don't watch TOO much, but you keep aware so you can answer questions. You don't need to please everyone, you don't need to win them over, you only need to be YOU. It is YOU that has impressed so many of us and instilled us with confidence that you will make a fine admin. Be true to who you are, and I think you will do well. You are not defined by the comments at RfA, nor by whether you have the admin bit or not. The admin bit is just a set of handy tools, and gaining access to them is a matter of trust, not a matter of perfection. You have clearly shown you can be trusted. Sometimes, you just have to close your eyes and jump in head first. Delaying won't make it easier. You have a lot of friends, so you aren't alone. Dennis Brown / 2¢ / © / @ 00:54, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
    It's very reassuring to be reminded that I'm not trusted Dennis. I think I'll go away and sulk now. ;-) Eric Corbett 00:58, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Anna, I'm going to be out of contact in about 9 hours. I will have my tablet, but I'm taking the wife to Vegas for a week, so time here will be limited and my fat fingers aren't the best at typing. Of course, you can have anyone copy/paste my nomination if I"m not here when you are ready, and I will still check in when I can and make it a priority. I think you will do fine without too much hand holding anyway. Dennis Brown / 2¢ / © / @ 11:22, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
No problem at all. I have off-wiki commitments and will be gone for about 36-48 hrs as of about now. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 12:25, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Moving forward

Sorry to take so long to get back here. Okay, I've thought about it. I think Kudpung would be a great, sole co-nominator. You like him. I like him. His style of dealing with people is great. I considered others, but keep coming back to him. Kudpung: does the offer still stand? :)
Oh, when considering other co-nominators, I did something I probably shouldn't have, so I want to disclose something. The complete story: On June 11, I was at IRC. In the helpers channel, someone asked me when I would do the RfA and I said probably Sunday. Someone else asked about a co-nom, and I said I'd rather not say. A few minutes later I went to the en-wikipedia channel and asked if it would be appropriate to ask for opinions on a particular co-nom. I didn't say who. Right away, someone PMed me and said that IRC isn't a good idea when running for admin. So, two seconds later in the en-wikipedia channel I said never mind and left. End of story. I'm pretty big on transparency so I thought I'd tell you that. I hope I didn't do anything wrong.
Now, I'm often busy on weekends, so I'm thinking of this Sunday evening. Does that sound okay? Also, who actually creates Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Anna Frodesiak? Do I start that, copy paste the sandbox nomination you created into it, notify Kudpung, await his co-nom bit, then transclude to accept? Please let me know the procedure.
Finally, I've been reading previous RfAs and the additional questions sure look tricky. Do you think I'll be okay? I don't want to let you down. Best wishes and thank you. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 21:16, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
I have a really tricky question all lined up ready! --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:41, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
Stop making me panic Demi! :) And I hope your question is something like "What does Wikipedia mean to you?", or something. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 22:36, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Just ping Kudpung on his talk page, I'm sure he would be more than willing. Sunday is fine, I expect to be around on/off all weekend. I blew a power supply in my main computer, so working on that and transferring a few terabytes of data (fun), and just got back in town, but I will be around a fair amount. Dennis Brown / 2¢ / © / @ 17:03, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
Okay, I will indeed. Thanks, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 22:36, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
As for IRC, I don't see you were trying to do anything wrong, nor did anything wrong, and would just suggest staying off IRC for a week. IRC is a touchy subject for some at RFA. Dennis Brown / 2¢ / © / @ 22:42, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
Oh, and normally you create the page and answer the questions, etc. The actual RfA doesn't start until you transclude it. Just take your time and read the directions. Ask in a new thread at the bottom if you have questions, and a stalker will likely help. Dennis Brown / 2¢ / © / @ 22:43, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
Perfect, thank you. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 22:46, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

SPI

Since you had interaction related to one of the socks named here, I thought I'd bring your attention to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/DanielTom. Toddst1 (talk) 20:26, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

A beer for you!

Woohoo! Farmer Brown is in Vegas!!!! Drmies (talk) 02:49, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Stuck in Atlanta, no net access for days since Im too cheap to pay 15 bucks per day. In the skyclub, snuck in since I'm not a member, eating their food, etc, so I have access. Bad storms in the east meant I almost didnt get to leave vegas. Wont get home til 4am. Might have to hit the bar and get some scotch... Farmer Brown - 2¢ (Alt. of Dennis Brown) 03:33, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

  • Holy cow, the sky came undone in the eastern part of the US this week. Even my flight had hours of delay due to the flights coming in being delays. I saw tons of cancellations, but fortunately not mine. During all that mess, I was pretty much enjoying the 100F dry heat and 34F cold beer. Broke even on gambling and got to comp a bunch of stuff, so not a bad little break. Dennis Brown / 2¢ / © / @ 17:07, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

revdel request

I happened across this edit summary, which I think should be hidden for self-explanatory reasons. Thanks DB! GabeMc (talk|contribs) 21:43, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

ANI courtesy notice

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

Sorry. I guess I forgot I mentioned your name here and I believe I am supposed to mention why your "ears were burning". 174.118.142.187 (talk) 04:11, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

User Omdo

link to original discussion

Hi Dennis

I know you're off having fun at the moment, I just wanted to leave you this note with a link to the comments I left for him today, as an update regarding the warning you recently left for this user. Cheers. Begoon talk 06:30, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for posting the additional final warning. It's infuriating, because if the guy would just communicate instead of copy/pasting unintelligible garbage all over the place, we could help him to get some proper content representing his POV included. It's a minority POV but worthy of some balanced coverage - the thing is he seems to want to try turning any article he can into a messy coatrack, and won't be content with just fair coverage. I've already fixed stuff of his a good few times, rather than just reverting - but with zero communication, and almost every edit a poor one, or against policy, and masses of them, he's just a timesink at the moment. Begoon talk 16:21, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
I added this to his talk page: User talk:Omdo#One more from today. I really don't want to start stripping the copyvios out of The formation of Malaysia myself until the AFD I started for the article is finished, because [a] I might not need to, and [b] it wouldn't be a good look for me to seem to be 'gutting' it while its at AFD. Either way, though, a lot of time has now been wasted on this, and I'd like to think we don't have to keep wasting more. Sorry if it feels like I'm 'bugging' you on this - if I felt I could get any further on my own, I would. Begoon talk 00:25, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
Blocked for one week. I think sufficient warnings have been given. And it isn't bugging me, I volunteered to do just this. Copyright is a serious issue here, so I appreciate the help, and you have done it exactly correct. Dennis Brown / 2¢ / © / @ 00:40, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
Thank you. It is reassuring to be told I acted correctly, particularly by an editor whose attention to correctness is well known. He might just sock for a week from Indonesian IPs if history is any guide - but we don't need to cross that bridge unless we get to it. There may be a language issue, given the nature of the couple of brief responses, rare edit summaries, and most contributions that aren't copypasta, or that may be for effect, it's impossible to say, but at some point disruption and flouting policy is just that, whatever the reason. There aren't many editors active in the Malaysia articles, so he's historically just been able to shoehorn his stuff in by sheer persistence. Begoon talk 01:10, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Dennis_Brown/Archive_24&oldid=1168300675"