Jump to content

User talk:Dennis Brown/Archive 25

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 20←Archive 23Archive 24Archive 25Archive 26Archive 27→Archive 30

ANI discussion

No problem Dennis, that's fair. But I think its a little interesting that there are no less than three other current discussions at ANI with titles that would need to be similarly modified and its common for titles like this to be "allowed". Although they frequently aren't regarding admin behavior. If we are going to do these types of changes then they should be consistent. Kumioko (talk) 14:50, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

  • My change was more for your benefit than his, even if that isn't obvious at first glance. The discussion didn't need a distracting tangent, which that could easily have become. Dennis Brown / 2¢ / © / @ 14:57, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
    • Yeah no worries. When he did it I felt it was inappropriate but when another uninvolved admin did it (you) I agree it was probably the right thing to do. Kumioko (talk) 15:09, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

FYI

[1] + [2] — The Potato Hose 06:31, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Dennis Brown. You have new messages at JetBlast's talk page.
Message added 16:06, 16 June 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

JetBlast (talk) 16:06, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Omdo sock

Dennis, after your block of User:Omdo, they've clearly returned as User:180.253.140.171. Regards, CMD (talk) 23:23, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

  • I was afraid of that, and it is obviously him. I've increased the block to 10 days from today, plus blocked the IP. If he continues, he will be looking at longer blocks and maybe an indef. Going only to 10 days is pretty generous. Socking is one of the issues I tend to be less than my usual jovial self about. Ping me again if you need. Hopefully you won't. Dennis Brown / 2¢ / © / @ 23:38, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Question

Can I edit here? --TheShadowCrow (talk) 01:15, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) My little girl is very persistent when she wants something. I usually let her ask me about a dozen times, just suggesting she waits, before the 'unlucky' thirteenth, when I say "OK, you insist - No." I'm pretty patient like that. Dennis is one of the most patient guys I've never met - far more so than I. Anyway - I was just passing through... Begoon talk 17:19, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Music break

The original Dennis Brown. I wasn't born until 8 years later. -db

[3]♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 20:48, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Try this one.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 12:42, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

  • More good timing. I've off in a few hours to get a dental cavity filled. I've learned some Zen techniques for relaxation over time, but I've had serious dental anxiety for many years now. I love Chet's "walking music" style of picking, something I've tried to emulate (poorly) in my own way when covering Alice's Restaurant and others. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | © | WER 12:55, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Ran across this impromptu jam [4]. I'm not that big on today's country music, but I love chicken pickin, blending minor and major scale, and he is no one trick pony.[5] Not what most people would expect from this unimposing, good ol' boy. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | © | WER 13:42, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
Entirely off topic, but I just randomly listened to The Mountain Goats Song for Dennis Brown and had to check and make sure it was about Dennis Brown and not User:Dennis Brown =). a13ean (talk) 15:09, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Cool, love it! Yeah I know what you mean about commercial contemporary country, all sounds the same and is musically very bland but Chet Atkins I rate as one of the best guitarists and I love the way he combines classical with country.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 11:12, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Barnstar of Integrity

The Barnstar of Integrity
For somehow managing to maintain sanity, calmness, and common sense amongst the insanity of wiki. PumpkinSky talk 22:19, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
Hehe, the Ronco Vault, that's neat. PumpkinSky talk 22:37, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
You'll find Precious there ;) - Dennis, I left a comment for you on the Pumpkin talk, - I am not so fond of the new "notifications", --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:59, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Seconded, a well-deserved barnstar.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 11:14, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

You've got mail from User:Technical_13

Hello, Dennis Brown. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Technical 13 (talk) 16:05, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

RfA advice

I just had to say, that was some excellent advice for an RfA candidate. I think it should be added to the advice we give all candidates. - jc37 16:25, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

    • Thanks, and you are welcome to steal any of it. My RfA was just over a year ago, and I still remember the feeling. Of course, I expect Anna's RfA to be much smoother than my own. I've always haunted the halls of ANI, which carries risk. That, and she is nicer than me. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | © | WER 16:31, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Dennis Brown. You have new messages at JetBlast's talk page.
Message added 18:42, 17 June 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

JetBlast (talk) 18:42, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

As your about

Would you be so kind as to block this IP sock of Nangparbat. AIV have said to take it to SPI which is pointless. Darkness Shines (talk) 21:37, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Simple clarification

In this recent confirmed SPI, when you said "Feel free to strike comments from both accounts", did you mean to strikethrough their comments, or to remove them altogether from the RfC discussion? Thanks so much for your help, Grollτech (talk) 21:26, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

  • It depends on the context, I use the phrase generically. Sometimes it is better to strike with the note "Blocked sock. ~~~~" at the end of that comment, such as when it is in the middle of a thread. Other times it is better to remove, such as when it is a stand alone comment. Other times, using the {{hat|Blocked sock}} + {{hab}} collapse method is better, even if it includes discussion with others that isn't adding to the consensus. There are other considerations, but that is main consideration. Removing comments in the middle of a thread can be very confusing, so it requires judgement and best left to an experienced hand who is active at the discussion, rather than a "once size fits all" approach. The key is simply to make it known that the user isn't really a user, but a sock, so they are allowed no input into that discussion, or their input should not be counted towards consensus. And of course, you want to do it in the least disruptive way possible. Each situation is different, and might be a combination of methods. This might not be as simple as you hoped for, but it just means to use your best judgement, AND if anyone complains, you can send them to the admin that said to strike those comments. Dennis Brown / 2¢ / © / @ 21:36, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
Thanks very much. Life is never as simple as one hopes for, but your explanation makes perfect sense. I was indeed concerned about disrupting the RfC, since the user has comments sprinkled throughout; I had used strikethroughs everywhere, which I found to be a bit jarring. A blended approach definitely seems more appropriate, and I also hadn't considered the {{hat}} + {{hab}} method. Ya know, before I asked, I looked for but didn't find anything along the lines of your suggestions, which are impressively both thorough and concise. IMHO, that should be bottled into an essay or guideline somewhere. Thanks again, Grollτech (talk) 23:50, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
My pleasure. The best part of being an admin (for me) is helping others. The essay idea is actually a good one, along with some similar "How to deal with sockpuppets" advice for non-admin. Much of that isn't intuitive for people that don't deal with sockpuppets every day. I may give that some more thought. Dennis Brown / 2¢ / © / @ 00:15, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
It will take a couple of weeks, but I started User:Dennis Brown/Dealing with sockpuppets. Thanks for the idea. Dennis Brown / 2¢ / © / @ 00:40, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
Perhaps you can say something about presenting readable reports? --Rschen7754 07:38, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
I have added a little of that. You are welcome to join in, of course. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | © | WER 19:03, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
Awesome, glad I dropped that seed, didn't expect it to take root so quickly! Just read the draft, and already I've learned something today, before my allocated 5 minutes of thinking each day had been used up. Great stuff!  —Grollτech (talk) 12:38, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Article protection and Zdawg1029

Sorry, I didn't figure that protection under those circumstances was a big deal.

And THANK YOU for your intervention. It's nice to hear from a voice of sanity once in a while around here. :-) Nightscream (talk) 17:48, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

  • No problem. As for the tool use, the community has changed over the last couple of years and really discourages tool use that isn't directly related to improving Wikipedia. When I started in 2006, the rules were much more lenient about this than they are now. No harm, it was changed back. You can always ping if you have an issue or question, I'm happy to offer an opinion. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | © | WER 19:43, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Some help?

Hello Dennis Brown--I don't know if you're really a redneck, but you've worked on car articles before. I just wrote R U Faster Than a Redneck? Do you think we can get it in the Did You Know section? Mindy Dirt (talk) 15:49, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

  • Let me take a look and see. As to being a redneck, I enjoy some of the redneck lifestyle such as gardening, fishing, owing a heavy duty truck and the occasional swig of moonshine but I'm sure the official Redneck Association would reject my application for being too city-fied. ;-) I now live among the natives and share their watering hole, but I'm not considered one of them. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | © | WER 16:16, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
    • Thank you--some help would be great. Someone put a note on the article already. I don't know much about cars or what good sources for cars and car programs would be. Mindy Dirt (talk) 16:46, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Question 2

Is it normal practice to have a section which is essentially a BLP which was deleted per BLP1E recreated in an article on a controversy said BLP was involved in? Darkness Shines (talk) 18:58, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

It just looks weird having a BLP as a section in an article, especially as the guy was involved in the controversy, it also seems like a way around the AFD to me. Darkness Shines (talk) 19:14, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
I would have to have more info, is the point. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | © | WER 19:18, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
Sorry, had some long hard days of late and am worn out Linky to the AFD And section in article were the BLP ended up Darkness Shines (talk) 19:21, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
There is this as well. [8] I didn't read all of that, but looking at it in a general sense, it isn't always bad to do that. Someone can fail the WP:GNG and still be worth covering in a broader article. In this case, that is a pretty large section that likely needs trimming. You can always recommend that on the talk page, and use DRN if you must. But the general idea isn't always bad. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | © | WER 19:29, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
User:Crtew has read this convo with interest. ;-) Thanks, Crtew (talk) 21:37, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Request for opinion

You will get tired of hearing from me...

Because I'm obviously too close to it, I'd really value your opinion on this debate, but only if you have time, and only if you want to. I'm not asking you to vote or take any action, because I'd see that as canvassing, in fact for that reason, I'd rather you didn't - but an outside view from a seasoned observer would be very useful to me. Begoon talk 04:20, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

  • It has been relisted, which is the way to go. I'm not familiar with the process. The best thing to do with an AFD is just let it run its course and accept whatever the consensus is, as long as it is a fair process. I've done a lot of AFD work, over 1600, and I've learned to not get too invested in them as it just leads to frustration. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | © | WER 12:51, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
Thanks. Yes, it needed relisting. It also needed me to be less verbose, and more to the point. Harder to see that in oneself than in others, though. I need to conquer the fear that my words are not being understood, consider the intelligence of my audience, and remember that just adding more words doesn't generally help clarity or my case. I think it's about my 4th AFD, and the others were easier. I will help to rewrite the thing if it is kept, anyway, so no biggie, really. Thank you, as always. Begoon talk 13:31, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
No problem. I'm still too verbose at times, it is something I've fought for years. Conciseness is a skill that takes a long time to develop, I've discovered. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | © | WER 13:35, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Heads up on potential WP:MMA battleground in near future

Hey Dennis! I know you absolutely love helping out with the exciting activities that revolve around the MMA WikiProject. *ducks whatever stray object that might fly his way* I know the other admins and folks who monitor WP:ANI enjoy it as well. *ducks more objects* I wanted to give you a heads up that someone posted at WT:MMA asking about the possible procedure for merging potentially non-notable UFC event articles into 2012 in UFC (discussion here). I do not know when/if merge discussions may be kicked off. If/When it does happen we know from past experience it could be a mess. (Hey, it's been four months since the last mess!) So, I just wanted to give you and your WP:JAGUARS a heads-up on this possible situation. Hopefully, things will go smoothly and there will be nothing to worry about. --TreyGeek (talk) 22:54, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Wtshymanski

When you evaluated Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Wtshymanski did you mean to say that the IPs are not related to each other? My interpretation is that they are, but probably not related to Wtshymanski. Please let me know if you disagree. Toddst1 (talk) 15:10, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

  • It was only concluding that the IPs weren't related to Wtshymanski. The IPs are probably related to each other but there wasn't an attempt to hide that and there often good reasons why (we have multiple IPs here at work, one for wireless, one for hardwired, etc). I didn't see a clear violation of WP:SOCK. As for the behavior and WP:DE, sometimes I do look at the whole picture, sometimes I let an already open venue handle it. I didn't even look at WP:DE aspects because the ANI was already open and dealing with it. I opined only to answer the one question "Are the IPs the same as Wtshymanski" and in this case, the evidence that they are not the same person is pretty strong. I trust your judgement on the DE determination. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | © | WER 15:19, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
Thanks. That's what I thought. Thanks for your confidence. Toddst1 (talk) 15:25, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

What do you think about this edit?

[9]. I'm not sure if it's appropriate or not - so asking one of my not-so-local-but-friendly admins (or something like that) :) Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 17:57, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

  • Very likely a COI looking at the next edits and the total contrib history [10]. The source for the first is solid, I don't see the reason for removal. COI editors are often a problem. I suggest dialog, then dispute resolution if that doesn't work, as always. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | © | WER 18:03, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
(talk page stalker)SPA suggests COI, but often a COI editor removes content instead of correcting it when there is a genuine error. In this case, I note that the source just says she is a lesbian, plain and simple. Saying that she "came out" makes it sound like she was hiding it at some point, which isn't supported by the current source.
I had a similar experience on an article about a PR organization. They kept removing my content, turned out is a factual error, which I promptly corrected. I gave them this template. They followed the directions and immediately became helpful instead of disruptive. CorporateM (Talk) 19:44, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Question

Question header is just to annoy you Can you please expedite Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Nangparbat as it has been sat there for a while and he has created a few new socks since the last report, Darkness Shines (talk) 22:33, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Just a heads up

Something weird about an IP's edit to Rdsmith4's user talk page, restoring a message from a block-evasion account (that you blocked, hence me dropping you a line). Anyway, I figured I'd put a bug in your ear in case it warranted closer examination. EVula // talk // ☯ // 23:00, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Death in family

My partner's grandmother became ill this past February and had been in the hospital since that time. Unfortunately she passed in late May and I have been off line and unavailable. Things are much calmer now, but still a lot of work ahead.--Amadscientist (talk) 06:23, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

  • I was looking around your contribs and wondered what was going on, knowing that your RL is sometimes busy, but had no idea. My condolences for and your partner's loss. Mrs. Brown hasn't worked in a long while, instead helping her parents with hospice and assisted living, so I know how busy and very difficult that can be. Tell your partner that a friend wishes them peace. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | © | WER 10:23, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Per recent ANI on non-admin closures

I just found the ANI thread you closed. Per that discussion, you may be interested in this Wikipedia:Move_review/Log/2013_June#Hillary_Clinton. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 21:21, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

I will probably pass on commenting on the merits of that particular close, but you are correct that non-admin closes should carry the same validity as an admin close, assuming it has the support of the community. Those that are claiming otherwise are mistaken.
There is some truth to the fact that admin generally have more experience, and the most complicated cases are typically best left to admin simply because they have that experience, but the difference isn't the admin bit, it is the experience. I'm not sure how much experience you have closing these types of discussions, but you've been here a while and have enough edits that it isn't unreasonable to think it is within your capability. That doesn't mean it was or wasn't the best choice. However, whether this particular close was proper or not I will leave to the community. That determinations shouldn't be based on whether your not you had a "bit" attached to your name, however. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | © | WER 22:14, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
Any opinion on whether Wikipedia:Requests for Comment/Non-admin closures would be a good idea? -Nathan Johnson (talk) 22:37, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
Not sure it is needed. I think a lot of people want to give us lowly admin more authority than we have. I will say that for the most complicated closes, I still recommend letting an admin handle it. Not because of skill in closing, but because we are expected to handle the heat that will be created any time you close a contentious issue. It is expected of us. The community also puts more faith in admin closes, which I think is a mistake, but it is what it is and you can't change an entire culture of thought with a single RfC or proclamation on an admin's talk page. As to the Hillary close, it was pretty damn complicated. Still, even if it is overturned, a close should be based on the merits, not the closer. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | © | WER 23:09, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
My thinking for the RfC was not to try to change whatever the current consensus is regarding NACs, but to try to gauge what exactly that consensus is, because everyone seems to have a different idea of what exactly it is. (Sorry for that horrid sentence. I need to run and don't have time to edit it into something comprehensible. Hopefully you speak Nathanese.) -Nathan Johnson (talk) 23:32, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
Using an RfC to gauge consensus isn't the best use of an RfC and typically gets weak responses, and perhaps the opposite result you want. RfC's that affect policy get the best turn out, thus represent real consensus. Current consensus is that NAC is fine, there is nothing to be gained by a weak RfC. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | © | WER 23:34, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Oh wise one, I'd appreciate your further feedback at Wikipedia:Move_review/Log/2013_June#Hillary_Clinton based on your previous intervention. It is now being discussed to what extent a closer can judge the value of arguments and or reject them and decide on their applicability to policy. I've read WP:CONSENSUS and sub-pages many times, but I'd welcome another view on this. I've responded to discussions at the page, but if you'd take a read and give your thoughts to some of the latest comments in the discussion section it would be much appreciated. There seems to be a line between rejecting an argument as not being policy-based, and "deciding" or "picking a winning argument" - that perhaps I have crossed, perhaps not, but I would love a neutral POV on this.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 13:53, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

  • I'm probably going to sit that one out. I've spoken on the validity of NACs in general and avoided the merits as it is better if I only comment on one or the other. Whether you crossed the line or not, we must leave to the community as a whole. Hopefully, my previous comments will persuade others to view the merits at face value. My sole opinion would be inferior to the community consensus there. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | © | WER 14:00, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
Thanks Dennis - what I meant was, I would appreciate your neutral contribution on a particular point of policy around decisions of WP:CONSENSUS - not a judgement on the whole move itself, which I understand you're sitting out on - but rather, the particular question of how much leeway a closer has in judging arguments, their quality, and their applicability to policy. I'm being accused of supervoting, when I interpret what I've done (and what many other closers have done in past closes I've studied) as rejecting arguments that don't apply to policy, which I thought was permitted. So just on that one particular point, interpretation of WP:CONSENSUS and closing instructions, your neutral input would be appreciated, even if as your understanding of the general principle without judging the particular case, but if you want to decline it's no problem. cheers. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 15:04, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
There really is no way to decouple the merits from a supervote discussion, that is the problem. I can ponder the theoretical implications, but that wouldn't really help there. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | © | WER 15:12, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

You'll appreciate this

We got two pizzas delivered to us. Not baked pizza from the mall, but frozen pizza from Chicago. No kidding--and it was good. Drmies (talk) 02:31, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

  • You rich professors and your discriminating palates . I hope you were able to put it on the university's expense account, cultural research expense or some such thing. Was it any good? Dennis Brown | 2¢ | © | WER 10:29, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
    • Our friend in Illinois sent it to us. I could send you the list of salaries in my department; I just compiled it. Then you'll see why I can't pay someone $50 to get my car stereo fixed and instead put on my headphones when driving. DYK that I have colleagues in the department who make twice what I make? And don't give me no crap about expensive beers--not during the summer, since I'm on a 9-month schedule. :) Drmies (talk) 16:07, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
      • And now you brag about getting a 3 month vacation every year. You suck. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | © | WER 16:11, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
        • I'm teaching two classes this summer to pay the bills. My "vacation" will be six days long. Hey, nice work on Kiefer's un/block. I guess I missed something exciting, but cutting down on some WP time has an oddly calming effect. Drmies (talk) 16:16, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
          • I was hoping to get involved in some car articles for a calming effect, but there has been a number of issues that seemingly demanded my attention. Fortunately, they were all issues the community agreed with me on, and should have been obvious, but still, someone has be the first to open their big mouth... Dennis Brown | 2¢ | © | WER 19:35, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Note

I think we are done here. I'm not up for debating semantics. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | © | WER 21:34, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

At your comment on the KW block, I would note you did not directly address the asserted reason which was to protect against a described line of attack with reference to on-wiki history in addition to off. Also, see Arbcom case for blocking for off-wiki attack. But you may want to withdraw altogether from involvement with KW related things, as per the last discussion re KW at AN. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:33, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

  • I do believe I supported an indef block of KW at the last AN, and initiated the topic ban of KW at AN later. I'm not sure why I should withdraw. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | © | WER 12:42, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
    • Let me also add this: The reason I jumped in really had nothing to do with Kiefer. It has to do with the belief that NO admin should ever issue a one year block based solely on an editor's comment on a different website, regardless of who it is. It is about fairness and equity and insuring we admin don't abuse our "power" and overreach with our authority. That is the issue at hand. Had this been you, me, Jimmy Wales or anyone else, my comments in this discussion would be identical. Policy does not support admin acting unilaterally in this way. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | © | WER 13:02, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
      • Additionally, it seems quite clear the community agrees with me. We do not want admin going off and playing cowboy here regarding actions on other websites, no matter who it is. I damn sure don't want to be blocked for a comment I make on Facebook or twitter, do you? Dennis Brown | 2¢ | © | WER 13:18, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
        • As to your last, I don't know why I would be discussing anyone here, on twitter or elsewhere. As to the first, it seems you may have a tendency to white knight in these things, of late, so that was just a suggestion. Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:26, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
          • I'm worried any time I see admin overstep, accidental or otherwise. Just as I'm concerned when I see false claims of "admin abuse!". It isn't even about KW, it is about setting dangerous precedents. I've pretty much always been involved in admin/editor relations, this isn't new. There HAVE been a lot of cases in the last week, however. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | © | WER 15:43, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
            • Dangerous? Upon reflection perhaps you will agree that there is nothing "dangerous" about any of it . . . and it is that kind of loose talk that is drama. Worried is fine. In general, though, we all seem to rush around too much, yelling, when a little time would do wonders.Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:26, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
              • I disagree. When editors get the (incorrect) impression that admin can go around and do as they please, we lose editors. Obviously bad blocks are terrible for morale and should be quickly dealt with to discourage future occurrences and to demonstrate that admin will check other admin. I haven't been the only admin to speak out about these issues, I've just been the first to notice a few of them this week. Next week, my name may be back in the middle of the pack again. I can't really apologize for noticing horrible blocks and speaking out about them quickly. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | © | WER 16:08, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
                • No. It is more likely that the hyper-talk of "dangerous" and the like will give people the false impression. Do we not know what actual danger is? For instance the last admin action did not do anything it pleased, unless you assume too much, they did something they thought there was a reason for. They maybe wrong but it is nothing like danger, unless people go around 'resorting to flame when only light is required.' Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:48, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
                  • Maybe this wasn't a big deal to you, but blocking an editor for a single comment off-wiki is a very big deal to me and others. "Dangerous precedent" is exactly the right phrase as that has a chilling effect that reaches far beyond the single editor. I didn't file the ANI report, someone else did, btw. I commented on KW's page, hoping the blocking admin would reconsider their block. The same with PumpkinSky's block the other day, I tried to convince the blocking admin that the community would not uphold their block and waited a few hours, but they refused so I was forced to go to AP:AN in that case. In every one of these cases, I have tried the path of least drama first. You and I seem to have a different opinion as to the scope of this error. I don't the admin is a bad person, but I do think the mistake was a very big one, for a number of reasons. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | © | WER 17:14, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Re: Velas Resorts

Hi,

Please dont undo the changes in Velas Resorts I try to according the article. Thanks, --JRodriguezPV (talk) 16:14, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

User:AfadsBad

Hi there! I'm just dropping you a note because I've unblocked a user you blocked: AfadsBad. The user came into the IRC help channel to discuss an unblock, and I've discussed it with xyr twice now. After talking to some checkusers, who have confirmed that the IP evidence does not point to a sock, I've unblocked and will monitor. – GorillaWarfare (talk) 21:33, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

  • Well I certainly won't argue with the CUs, and since you are monitoring, I can't possibly take issue with unblocking. We all make mistakes, I'm no different. We will see. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | © | WER 21:58, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
  • After looking around a bit to make sure, I went to their talk page and made a formal apology. [13] When I do err, I do prefer to be as public in the apology as I was in the mistake. I will update the SPI archive as well. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | © | WER 22:58, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 19 June 2013

Main Page appearance: Sunbeam Tiger

This is a note to let the main editors of Sunbeam Tiger know that the article will be appearing as today's featured article on July 12, 2013. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. If you prefer that the article appear as TFA on a different date, or not at all, please ask featured article director Raul654 (talk · contribs) or one of his delegates (Dabomb87 (talk · contribs), Gimmetoo (talk · contribs), and Bencherlite (talk · contribs)), or start a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/requests. You can view the TFA blurb at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/July 12, 2013. If it needs tweaking, or if it needs rewording to match improvements to the article between now and its main page appearance, please edit it, following the instructions at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/instructions. The blurb as it stands now is below:

A red Sunbeam Tiger

The Sunbeam Tiger is a high-performance V8 version of the British Rootes Group's Sunbeam Alpine roadster, designed in part by American car designer and racing driver Carroll Shelby. Shelby had carried out a similar V8 conversion on the AC Cobra, and hoped to win the contract to produce the Tiger at his facility in America. Rootes decided instead to contract the assembly work to Jensen at West Bromwich in England, and pay Shelby a royalty on every car produced. Two major versions were built: the Series I (1964–67) was fitted with the 260 cu in (4.3 L) Ford V8; the Series II, of which only 633 were built, was fitted with the larger Ford 289 cu in (4.7 L) engine. Two prototype and extensively modified versions of the Series I competed in the 1964 24 Hours of Le Mans, fitted with the larger engine, but neither completed the race. For two years the Tiger was the American Hot Rod Association's national record holder over a quarter-mile drag strip. Production ended in 1967 soon after the Rootes Group was taken over by Chrysler, who did not have a suitable engine to replace the Ford V8. Owing to the ease and affordability of modifying the Tiger, there are few surviving cars in standard form. (Full article...)

UcuchaBot (talk) 23:01, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Admin's Barnstar
Double-bonus points for this. Thanks for the followup Alison ❤ 23:12, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

A photo for you

A Sunbeam Tiger, and a stuffed tiger.

Hello Dennis,

I was thinking of your work on this article when I was at a classic and antique car show in Yountville, California with my wife and son the other day. This may not be the best photo, but I hope you like it.

Congratulations on your upcoming TFA. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 23:56, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

It's obviously a Tiger I, and I think it demonstrates quite nicely how the Tigers were modified by their owners. Eric Corbett 00:24, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
Very true. The 289 badge looks very similar to the Mustang/Galaxie 289 badge. [16]. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | © | WER 00:29, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Bacon

Hey Dennis, have you tried frying bacon with a bit of fennel seed and a good helping of anise seed? I recommend it: a sweet aromatic saltiness. And the drippings make for some serious fried chicken.  davidiad { t } 02:08, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

  • That actually sounds very interesting. I like anise in a lot of things, even my snus. I have a chicken dish where I take a boneless and skinless chicken thigh, roll it up with dehydrated onion and a fresh sprig of rosemary inside (and other herbs), then wrap it and bind it with one or two pieces of bacon, using toothpicks. The dyhdrated onion is a must, it soaks up the juices and holds the other herb's flavors. I then just bake it 1-1.5 hours, broiling it in the final few minutes to crisp the bacon. That is the best of both worlds, I wonder how some fennel and/or anise would be on the bacon for that, soaking in from the top. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | © | WER 10:55, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
  • It is good. Of course, instead of rosemary and Italian seasonings, you can put anything you want in the middle but the dehydrated onions are a must to allow it to soak up and marinate while it cooks. I'm wanting to try a couple different combos: a wedge of fresh skinless lemon, peperoncini off the vine, and fresh basil, or a Mexi-mix of fresh cilantro, a whole cayenne pepper and cumin. I also well and grow my own herbs and peppers all over the property. I've done the original recipe with turkey bacon and I've tried both bacons in the smoker as well. Infinite possibilities with it. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | © | WER 13:21, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Thank you

Let me reiterate again that I very much appreciate your work here. It's was difficult situation, thank you for taking the time to see it to an amicable conclusion. TippyGoomba (talk) 03:39, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

ROTF-LMAO

User:Dennis Brown/A Texas Farmer. luvin dat. :D — Ched :  ?  14:48, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

  • Glad you liked that. That is a guaranteed laugh at cocktail parties. I heard that story over two decades ago but never put it into print before. I think it transcends the North vs. South nature and can apply equally to people who are native English speakers and those who are not, and other situations as well. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | © | WER 14:52, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
It does tend to highlight the difference between "book smarts" vs. "street smarts". I think it transcends MANY cultures and conceptions. Well done. — Ched :  ?  14:56, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
I appreciate it, but I just told the story, I didn't make it up. I wonder if should move that to WP:Farmer? Dennis Brown | 2¢ | © | WER 14:58, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
Nope, the moral is far too punitive, not preventative. If it's going to move to project space, the story needs to end with the moonshine knocking the broker out, and then he wakes up with his mouth sewn shut to make sure he never says anything uncivil again. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 15:02, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
Naw, and I did give the farmer a name, Farmer Brown. Not to be confused with Farmer Brown, who is coincidentally a native Texan and loves to do some serious gardening as well. ;-) Dennis Brown | 2¢ | © | WER 15:04, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Maserati Bora

Moving this to Eric Corbett's talkpage.  Mr.choppers | ✎  16:07, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

As usual

[17]I am entirely correct, what a shock. Now I do have to ask a question, how exactly does my using a template designed for the purpose make life difficult for you? If this is a beans thing, fine. Otherwise email me and tell me your actual reasons. Darkness Shines (talk) 17:45, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

  • If you are wrong in placing the template, then you have violated WP:CIVIL and I have to deal with the innocent but pissed off person. Even if you are right, it tips them off, which means they stop editing, which means I have less evidence. There is nothing a clerk hates more than having only a couple of diffs to try to compare with. Sometimes, we want to NOT have them tagged for reasons that aren't said online and I won't disclose. The goal is to catch socks, not shame them, so often it is better if they don't know what we know. There are other reasons, but those are the highlights. There is no administrative benefit in any way to having someone else tag them and there are a lot of downsides, some of which can get a user blocked. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | © | WER 17:52, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
    • I forgot to add, the fact that YOU tag them and YOU are the one battling against them, it feeds them drama. There is a bit of psychology involved, but trust me on this. That is the reason Clerks don't get emotional there as well. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | © | WER 17:54, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
You are wrong on the civil crap, the rest I get. You have my word I will not tag suspect socks again. Darkness Shines (talk) 18:01, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
Well, if you tag someone as a "sockpuppet" and they are innocent, that isn't much different than saying "You r teh sockpuppet!!!1" on a talk page in most people's eyes, including mine. I've seen the drama it causes and the drama alone is a problem, particularly if it bites a new user. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | © | WER 18:06, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
Dennis, I have been wrong twice. And one of them was cos I tagged the wrong master { You have my word, cheers. Darkness Shines (talk) 18:14, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

I wonder.

We have:

I obviously have too much time on my hands at the moment. — Ched :  ?  18:21, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

I GOT IT!!!... There was something rattling around in my head that I couldn't put a finger on. I finally figured out what it was: THIS. — Ched :  ?  18:31, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Request

If you've got time, could you do something about the thread here: [18] please? There's a fair few walls-of-text in there, but the outcome should be reasonably straightforward. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 10:37, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

User:Lauriacts, their socks, and identifying the correct master

Dennis, thanks for handling the blocks of Lauriacts' recent socks. I noticed on Lauriacts' user page that NawlinWiki recently identified Lauriacts as a sock of User:JarlaxleArtemis (whose LTA page confirms recent disruption on I-P articles).

I'm wondering if based on the above, Lauriacts and their socks should be identified at socks of JarlaxleArtemis? Singularity42 (talk) 03:15, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

  • I had already noticed that, and that is the typical procedure. Sometimes there are reasons why we don't for technical purposes, and I was going to check into that today. It was late and I wanted to make sure I at least got them blocked last night. We are backlogged terribly at SPI right now. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | © | WER 11:45, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
No problem. Just wanted to make sure I wasn't missing anything. Singularity42 (talk) 13:58, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
I checked with the CU who recommended leaving things as is. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | © | WER 20:11, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Stoopid or Stupid?

Dennis -- Not a big issue, more of a curiosity really, in fact it literally is a stupid question. In your recent essay Farmer Brown it reads "You drive as stoopid as you talk". Did you intentionally misspell "stupid"? Sorry, as I said just curious. Lettik (talk) 12:17, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Request for input in drafting potential guidelines

Hi. There are, at present, no particular clear guidelines for religious material here, or, for that matter, guidelines for how to deal with ideas in general, particularly those ideas which might be accepted as true by individuals of a given religious, political, or scientific stance. There have been attempts in the past to draft such guidelines, but they have quickly been derailed. I am dropping this note on the talk pages of a number of editors who I believe have some interest in these topics, such as yourself, and asking them to review the material at User:John Carter/Guidelines discussion and perhaps take part in an effort to decide what should be covered in such guidelines, should they be determined useful, and what phrasing should be used. I would be honored to have your input. John Carter (talk) 19:19, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Music break

[19]♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 16:10, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

  • A bit different than your usual catalog. A nice after lunch treat. I see him playing a Godin. I used to own a different model, electric with DiMargios and a piezo both, flamed sunburst. I probably should not have sold it. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | © | WER 17:01, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

I've been working out Joe Pass's version of Summertime [20]. I don't have the tab but I have a shortish chord melody tab of it by somebody else in my jazz book. Learned some new voicings of A minor 6 including A minor major 9 and A minor 6 9 and E7 dominant chords like E7 flat 9 flat 13th, E7 sharp 9 flat 13 using the E as the bass of the chord and picking notes from the other strings, E7 flat 9 flat 13 would be Open E 6th, then G# (the major 3rd), D (flat 7th), F (flat 9th) and C (flat 13th or augmented 5th). A D minor 7 flat 5 with the open E can also function as that chord which is interesting to me at least!♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 08:59, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Here's two for enjoyment.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 09:01, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Today's offering.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 14:43, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Admin's Barnstar
Because you really are in fact, very very helpful Darkness Shines (talk) 22:43, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Arb Com question

Your suggestion of a mentor for Doc James seemed like a good idea to me. Would you be willing to mentor him if he agreed to it? Malke 2010 (talk) 23:59, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

According to his talk page, someone else has offered mentoring, so I would defer to their judgement in the matter. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | © | WER 00:31, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
I tried mentoring once and it was an absolute disaster. Has it ever worked? Eric Corbett 00:36, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Boone's Cave Park, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Laurel and Native Americans (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:57, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Request to look at SPI case

Hey, Since you've handled several SPI cases about sockmaster User:Urklistre/User:HGJ345, I was hoping you could quickly take a look at another possible sock that just showed up at 16:10. WP:Sockpuppet investigations/HGJ345#25 June 2013. Thanks! Indrek (talk) 11:47, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Battle of Ia Drang

Good morning Dennis, Could I please ask you to take a look at the recent history of the above article. Some time ago (mid-2012 and before) it was agreed amongst editors, myself included, that the fairest outcome of the battle should be described as "Inconclusive - both side claimed victory". However, in the last week or so a person is edit warring by constantly replacing this with "US Victory" or similar and citing sources which are hardly notable or fair. I have no wish to engage in any more warring and would be grateful for your opinion. Regards & thanks, David, David J Johnson (talk) 10:07, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

  • I'm really short on time today, and my internet access is very, very broken. Been on the phone with Timer Warner for hours. This weekend is probably a bad weekend for favors, sorry. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | © | WER 11:54, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
Understand, Dennis. Hope everything turns out OK. Regards, David, David J Johnson (talk) 12:44, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
Went ahead and read up this morning. Gave him a warning, and it will be followed by a short block if he keeps warring. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | © | WER 11:56, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
Many thanks for your help. Regards, David, David J Johnson (talk) 18:09, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

"If Jimmy wanted Fram blocked"

Not sure what you meant by "If Jimmy wanted Fram blocked, Fram would be blocked". If it's "If Jimbo hinted he wanted Fram blocked, some eager sycophant would rush to oblige", I do believe you're right. If it's "If Jimbo wanted Fram blocked, Jimbo would block Fram", I don't think so. Jimbo caught so much flak for blocking me in 2009 that he abjured the use of the block button. Formally, he hasn't kept strictly to that promise, but he hasn't blocked an established editor since, and I don't believe he would.[21] Bishonen | talk 15:20, 25 June 2013 (UTC).

Possible sock/meat issue at an AfD

The author of the article is implying possible issues at this AfD. His assertion appears to have some merit, although his article does not. In general, this AfD is a cesspool. Please take a look when you have the time. Thanks! Gtwfan52 (talk) 16:16, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

  • You could probably tag the edits with SPA tags, but I think it needs to play out a bit before any admin needs to get excited about it. AFD is messy sometimes and I don't want to assume too much here. If there was a bunch of SPAs to keep, that would be more worrisome and likely of traditional meatpuppetry but there is no obvious "meatmaster" here if they want it deleted. I'm thinking the closing admin can deal with what I see so far. Sounds like you are staying directly on merit, which will help the closing admin. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | © | WER 16:54, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
  • I thought that looked familiar, I was the first one to nominate that for AFD. I really can't admin there, but I did participate. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | © | WER 16:57, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/B0bsmith354

Hello, Dennis. I notice you just marked Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/B0bsmith354 as closed. As you hadn't commented on them, I was wondering if you'd possibly overlooked the two additional accounts I'd added [22]. The behavioural evidence seems much stronger in these cases, since the accounts were created simulataneously, and the content of their edits or edit summaries were nearly identical to the other accounts. —Psychonaut (talk) 19:29, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Sticking to procedure

Thanks for the correction. As you can see from the part of WP:CBAN that I quoted, I thought I was following procedure. Would you be interested in modifying that particular bit of policy to clarify the necessity of an explicit discussion on banning? As it stands, it implies that an indefinite block that's been sufficiently discussed - without necessarily as a "ban" - is a ban.

Best wishes — Scott • talk 12:09, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

  • I don't question your faith, that is for sure. Over the last couple of years, consensus has shifted a bit, but essentially a de facto ban doesn't need listing, where as a de jure ban does. A de facto can only be established over time, say after a few months with multiple rejected appeals which clearly demonstrate that no admin is willing to unblock. For me, the main issue is that we treat even the most despised among us no differently than anyone else, and allow enough time to pass that we will know that the decision was one based in logic and fairness, not an overreaction. Honestly, it isn't about Russavia, it is about insuring we are fair to everyone and use the same process every time. In other words, for ourselves. I will take a look at that policy in a bit. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | © | WER 12:34, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Thanks. I guess that in addition to misreading(?) the policy, I was being somewhat presumptuous in assuming that there is no possible successful appeal that Russavia could make. I would still be willing to lay money on that probability, but you are entirely right in pointing out that it should be allowed to happen by itself. My concern is always that of the welfare of the project, and I agree that actions made with the aim of protecting it should be based in logic and fairness. I'll bear your comments in mind the next time I encounter such a situation. — Scott • talk 12:55, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Oh, I think you are right and this is inevitable. The process is just to make us slow down enough that we don't make mistakes and overreact, and to help insure everyone is afforded the same opportunity. I didn't jump in to protect Russavia, I jumped in to protect the next person who might be much more innocent by making sure there wasn't a new precedent. No harm, no foul. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | © | WER 12:59, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
  • That's a great thing to do. I'm also going to take the liberty of copying your "fellow admin" statement to my user page, as that's how things should be. — Scott • talk 19:30, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
  • I've no sympathy for Russavia at all, but Russavia is not a vandal and should never be called "a vandal". Many former editors listed in that list have never vandalized Wikipedia.This list is Wikipedia's shame. This list is absolutely unnecessary, but if so called Wikipedia community cannot live without it, "vandal" should be replaced with "userlinks" or something similar, and now you tell me where I've got it wrong? 76.126.142.59 (talk) 16:08, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
    • Anon, I agree with your concern. I've created a template alias as a result; see Wikipedia talk:List of banned users. — Scott • talk 19:28, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
      • I've commented there and agree it is a good idea. There is more than a fine line between "politically correct" and "simply fair" and stuff like this falls on the "simply fair" side. Not something I've thought about before but once pointed out, it makes sense. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | © | WER 19:32, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
        • Thanks, guys. It is a small step forward! As a matter of fact most former users listed in the list are not vandals. Vandals usually get blocked by a single admin. Getting banned is a privilege of content creators. Besides listing users who edited under their real name (I am sure there are a few of them in the list) as vandals is a violation of their BLPs. 76.126.142.59 (talk) 22:40, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

A note from me: I've gone ahead and made a few tweaks myself. I've made sure everything is alphabetized correctly, (before, there were a few inconsistencies, with one user having the "The" from their name ignored, whilst others weren't; some were sorted by surnames, some weren't) reformatted the entry for one of them to bring it in-line with the others, and fixed a link for one of them. Hope this was OK! :) Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 16:04, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Edit warring

Dennis, an IP asked me for some help because I had put a welcome template on his talk page. It appears there is some serious edit warring going on over there [23] but I don't have time to collect diffs and report. Can you take a look at that or refer it someone who has the time? Malke 2010 (talk) 17:07, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. They were going in both directions. Definitely needed an admin tap. I agree, you might need to protect it. Also, I did warn the IP about the 3RR rule. Malke 2010 (talk) 17:39, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
I'm scattered over a few pages on this, the editor calling the IP a "vandal", the IP at 3RR, etc. I am betting I can talk them off the ledge. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | © | WER 17:41, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
Yes, I was counting on you doing that. You've got good 'talk off the ledge skills.' They're very passionate about that topic. Malke 2010 (talk) 19:04, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
Which is why someone like me who isn't smart enough to have an interest in the subject matter can sometimes be handy. ;-) Doc has come in with some formatting changes and an opinion on the talk page, maybe that will help move the talk page to a consensus. We will see. I'm not a fan of blocking in situations like this and prefer heading it off early, so I appreciate the heads up here. Usually, a warning to protect is enough when dealing with intelligent but passionate people. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | © | WER 19:09, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
I've just looked it all over. What a difference you've made. You know I saw your note on the article talk page and I was thinking full protection as well, maybe just for a few hours. They seemed that intense. You've got them all calm and happy now. Glad Doc J was able to sort the RS for them. Also, I'm so glad no one got blocked. They did seem just to have forgotten themselves. Malke 2010 (talk) 20:08, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

An IP writes...

Firstly, I'd like to thank you both for taking the time and trouble to look at this. I do appreciate that.

I felt you might be interested in some feedback from an IP editor:

I have to admit I cannot understand why I was "bordering on 4RR" or why I was "the most active reverter" [24]. The only actual revert I am aware of having made is this one [25], based on a talk page observation. Also, yes I am passionate about protecting Wikipedia from concerns such as "encouraging students to misuse [a drug]", but frankly I can't see that I needed to be "talked off a ledge" (I'd already promised to back off [26]). Also, I believe the "consensus" edits by Doc James were broadly in line with my initial work (eg [27]) made in response to the concern raised by User:Hildabast and supported by another WP:MED regular, User:Scray.

Why do I think it's worth pointing this out? Basically because given your very constructive interest in editor retention I feel you might be interested in my first-hand experience here of contributing as an IP. My reason for doing this is to avoid getting into personalized disputes, and I think this is the first one of any note I've been in as an IP. I don't know whether my experience in this case is at all representative, but I suspect it might be. My impression is that I've interacted with two Admins / senior editors who have genuinely tried to help me understand the situation, but who unduly influenced (plausibly) by certain assumptions about how I, as an IP, was likely to be editing. You may say I'm wrong, but since many new editors start out as an IP I felt you might be interested in my experience.

Best wishes, 86.164.174.67 (talk) 23:01, 25 June 2013 (UTC) (previously User:81.157.7.7)

  • I appreciate your perspectives here. I took years off and edited as an IP, and still edit once in a while as an IP (but not in areas I edit as a logged in user). It is a different experience. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | © | WER 23:29, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Hello IP, I appreciate your feedback as well. I hope you are not offended by anything Dennis and I said in our exchange above. When you came to my talk page and I looked things over, I took you very seriously and I appreciated what you were going through as an IP. I've actually had an IP come to me twice to move an article he'd written into main space. I do understand what you are saying about admins who are unduly influenced by the fact that you are an IP. I brought the problems to Dennis because I trusted he'd see you were well meaning and sort it for you and he did. I see you have a new IP. I'll explain 3RR on your new talk page. Malke 2010 (talk) 03:23, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
While a registered user I argued at WP:WER that Wikipedia has real issues with its working environment, which unintentionally facilitates conflict and naturally selects users somehow better equipped to survive in a conflictual environment.
Only after writing my IP impressions yesterday did it occur to me that the new registered editor would perhaps have a somewhat similar take to my IP's (eg not fully 'getting' WP:VANDAL and WP:MEDRS, just as I didn't 'get' - and still partially don't ("[clarification needed]" !) - the so-called "bright-line rule" of WP:3RR). In my case I didn't stop to investigate the likely human history of the page [28] before diving in to implement MEDRS to address a real issue. Yes, too hasty, I agree... But also maybe, like you guys, just human...
  • @Dennis: Thanks for sharing the information that you took "years off" (or out?) as an IP.
  • @Malke: Absolutely no offense taken. Thanks too for the explanation about 3RR. (Though I have to say I'm not sure I don't technically break this "bright-line rule" often while just doing detailed revisions of content.)
Cheers, 86.164.174.67 (talk) 09:23, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
For the record, I'm not a fan of people being slavish to the "bright line" rules. I have blocked for edit warring before 4RR, and I have seen 6RR where I did not block and chose to protect instead. I think judgement is required in these cases. 4RR is commonly a reasonable line in the sand if they have been warned, but unless there are other circumstances, I don't like to see blind blocking at the 4th revert. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | © | WER 12:51, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
Agree, it needs to be fuzzy and I really appreciate the work you've been doing to encourage a thoughtful culture among WP "insiders" (admins, senior/prolific editors, etc). A point I was trying to make is that WP:3RR (and all that...) is far from intuitive to gf "outsiders" (of various hues) who are basically doing their best to do what seems to them to be right at the time. A real challenge for Wikipedia, imo. 86.164.174.67 (talk) 14:15, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

IP hopper

How about shorter ranges in the 75.15.218.xx for example? That's only 999 Ips. They are all from exactly the same geolocation. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:55, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

  • I only glanced at the edits, but I'm pretty sure they are rotating UP from there. If I were to make a block, it would be in the *119*-*120* range. A rangeblock of 75.15.216.0/21 for a few hours would be ok, but I'm not seeing the flood at CSD, last I looked. That is about 2k IPs. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | © | WER 16:00, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
Unfortunately it's not just the rampage with the CSDs. He's vandalised the ANI page and caused some mischief elsewhere. I'm not up to playing cat and mouse with him so the only other solution would be to speculate where he's going to edit next and preemptively semi the pages for a very short while. That would be more difficult than a short range block of a couple of 1,000 IP numbers that are from exactly the same geolocation even if they are dynamic. There is always a risk of some collateral with a range block - or any IP block for that matter. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 16:37, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
The interface won't allow us to block anything larger than a /16. (smaller /x numbers means larger networks) If you do block the /21, I suggest just a few hours. There isn't much we can do here as the IPs are not likely to rotate perfectly in order between *.*.x.* ranges. Even with a big hammer, not every problem is a nail. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | © | WER 16:40, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

RFC/U Beyond My Ken

I'm sorry to drag you into this, but you were involved before, and I'm not allowed do what I think would be the most appropriate thing, create an RFC/U. Feel free to create one, as I think I would be able to contribute then.

I'm witness and participant of repeated hassle over very little: White space in front of navboxes. The matter itself is of little importance, but it is trigger for some ugly behaviour by User:Beyond My Ken, again and again, most of all baseless accusations of socking every time an IP turns up. He also routinely ignores any attempt to point out why his behaviour is wrong, even if it includes direct quotes from various policies and/or guidelines.

That recently took a new development when BMK acknowledged that his way of doing things is not the preferred way to achieve these changes. I commented on this with a piece of criticism (because this very fact has been pointed out to him more than once and a long time ago) and a piece of what I think constructive advice (pointing out where he would get the changes he wants). He reacted, predictably, with socking accusations.

What I think is more important is that after he acknowledged the existence of CSS, he made (at least) two further additions of white space. He is well aware that these changes are divisive, and I can't see what good could come out of that.

This has been the topic of at least two bouts in AN:I, and other discussions in other places. Nothing good ever came out of it.

Please consider the matter, and please let BMK know what you think about it. Thanks. --91.10.2.76 (talk) 18:27, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

  • There are a great many other editors who are capable of starting an RFC/U if they choose, but I would decline. I am what you might call "format agnostic". I really do not care what format we use, blank lines, etc. I'm happy to use whatever the consensus is. I consider that and other small formatting issues as minutia and not worth fighting over. I would be the wrong person to get involved in this case. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | © | WER 18:32, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
I'm a bit surprised, since you got involved before, apparently by your own choosing. At any rate, this is not about the formatting issue, which was never really contested on its merits, but about user behaviour. Please read your statements to BMK here and reconsider. --91.10.2.76 (talk) 18:37, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
I got involved before to try to defuse a situation. Staring an RFC/U would require a great deal of time and energy and I have limits on both of those. I'm not arguing against or for, I'm simply choosing to not select that act as how I spend my limited time here. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | © | WER 18:38, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
(ec) Bummer, I think that an explanation from you to him might have been the easiest way to go forward.
Have fun, thanks for listening! --91.10.2.76 (talk) 18:42, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
I suggest that the IP user would be better off editing under his account name, since editing with an IP to avoid scrutiny of one's edits is a direct violation of WP:SOCK. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:39, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Clearly Beyond My Ken you've missed the fact that Dennis has chosen to, properly, engage with the editor who is using an IP address without worrying about blue linking policy pages regarding sockpuppetry. That you (self evidently) think it helpful to do so when the IP editor has raised legitimate queries speaks far more about your, ahem, "character" than that of the IP. Pedro :  Chat  22:04, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
  • (Ahem), Pedro, the "IP" has been harrassing me for years under both his account name and numerous, obvious IPs. He's got a bug up his behind about this issue and has brought it up numerous times in numerous venues and has been slapped down each and every time. Under his account name, he's been told by a number of admins to drop the issue and not to bother me, which he why he uses the IPs. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:50, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
The IP has repeatedly pointed out that you are handling white space wrong, which you finally admitted recently. Your unfreindly reaction to IPs is entirely up to you.
As for the accusation of a blockable offense, CU me and Curb, then we see. --91.10.34.128 (talk) 23:04, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
  • I apologize for cluttering up Dennis's page with this, but he does know more about socking than I do, so it might be constructive. @BMK, if you suspect that the IPs are being used by User:Curb Chain, why don't you file a report at WP:SPI? You're correct that a CU request would no doubt be rejected, but if you provide enough evidence, an administrator may still determine that socking is involved.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:27, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
Please do, especially because my sockyness is now used to keep BMK's POV-pushing in the MOS. --91.10.61.13 (talk) 23:31, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
Whether you are or aren't a sock, your editing is becoming increasingly disruptive. You've been warned by one editor about your MOS edits, and now yet another editor has opened up a topic at ANI on the problem.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:43, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
@Bbb23: Unfortunately, CUs will not connect an account name with IPs - something which used not to be the case - so my filing an SPI would be useless. I wish it were otherwise so.

Dennis, you have extensive experience in this area, please correct me if I am wrong. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:50, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

BMK, please read my post more carefully. Users may be blocked at SPI without a CU.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:59, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
Thanks, I did read it wrong, thanks for that. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:28, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
CheckUsers will check IPs vs usernames but they will not disclose the relationship of the two publicly. Best to email a CU a few choice diffs. In the public view at SPI we clerks "decline" the CU requests of IP v Ed., but that doesn't mean a CU isn't run. CheckUsers have the final say on what is and isn't run and they do not publicly announce every check they make. Much of what they do never hits SPI. It is complicated. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | © | WER 09:08, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

courtesy note:

Hi Dennis,

Since I did mention you by name in one of my RFAR comments, I thought I should stop by and clarify my thoughts a bit. First, you're obviously not the only person that feels that Doc's mentor should be made public, and in fact I agree with that point. (although I personally have no problem with who he's chosen as I consider them to be a respectable and admirable admin. in many ways). The point that I was trying to make, and I probably did so poorly, is that there has yet to be any mandate that Doc even have a mentor .. at least at this point in time. So my saying he doesn't need to disclose it, is simply a technicality issue. Community consensus isn't developed at wp:rfar - but rather in discussions such as RfC or AN. The Arbs haven't made any "official" declarations, either at WP:AN or by motion. I probably shouldn't have mentioned your name since you were hardly alone in your views; but I figured you and I were well enough acquainted that I could take that rare chance to say "I disagree with Dennis" :). Anyway .. I do apologize, and if you'd like, I'll gladly strike or edit my comment. — Ched :  ?  15:28, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

  • Under no circumstances will the Arb make a declaration that a mentor must be obtained. The Arbs are a bit ancillary to the main issue as there is no doubt that Arb will not be taking the case. I'm pretty sure they can't decline the case, then require that any action is taken, by policy. I would assume that Arb would construe my comments as saying "The community can take care of this" and nothing more. My suggestion for a mentor was to find a solution that every single person who was inclined to file an RFC/U would accept as an alternative. It was as much for Doc's benefit as the community's. It was solely to find a compromise that caused the least amount of drama to Doc and the community, and allowed the greatest chance of "fixing" the problems that the community sees. I don't know who he has chosen and I didn't anticipate any objection to whomever he selected anyway, but I think that if he is asking the community "Don't do an RFC/U, instead let me get a mentor", then he should disclose who that mentor is to the very people that can file the RFC/U. Again, it has nothing to do with Arb, who has already made it clear they don't want to get involved. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | © | WER 15:38, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
Ahhh .. ok. That does improve my understanding of your thoughts. Anyway - if you notice some sort of discussion on the RfC/U or mentor subject - feel free to ping me. Also, I'll have a follow up/question when I have a bit more time. Cheers. — Ched :  ?  15:51, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
I'm a naturally verbose individual. In my effort to be more concise at enwp, I sometimes am not as clear as I would be if I allowed myself twice the verbiage. I'm a work in progress. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | © | WER 15:56, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
<placeholder> Not sure how aggressive your TP archiving is .. but do want to continue this convo. Not a good idea to post on wiki after drinking though . so I'll wait until tomorrow. OHHHH ... wait ... wait ... One thing: Hey, I've had people tell me I'm "a real work". Prolly not the same thing though as a "work in progress". — Ched :  ?  03:02, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
Hey Dennis, could you link me up with some of that "Arb policy" stuff you have in mind? Not my area, so I've never really paid much attention to things that didn't concern me directly in that sense. — Ched :  ?  13:11, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
My "Arb policy stuff" is based solely on WP:COMMONSENSE, that they can't decline something, then impose something, in one fell swoop. They can accept and create a case, they can have a motion to make a summary judgement, or they can decline, which means they do nothing. Individually, they may offer advice as fellow editors (like some have) but it doesn't make sense that they could say "We won't hear the case, but you must do $x" They can't have it both ways. The closest real world analog I can think of is a judge summarily dismissing a case, but then requiring the defendant went on probation. I'm happy to read anything to the contrary if someone wants to point it out, but that is what my clue-meter is registering. Arbs have to act within a structure of due process, even more so than the rest of the community. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | © | WER 13:19, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
Note that at one time, I worked within the judiciary system, so I have a basic understanding of how the judiciary system works. I am not a lawyer nor a wikilawyer. ;-) Dennis Brown | 2¢ | © | WER 13:25, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
LOL (and I mean that literally) .. Thank you Dennis - smiles are always welcomed. And no, I didn't know you had any legal background. Cool. — Ched :  ?  18:49, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Question IV

Den, which notice board does one use if an editor is misrepresenting a source? Is it the NOR one? Darkness Shines (talk) 10:16, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

  • Hmm, it depends. If it is an innocent misunderstanding, DRN is fine. Usually, the talk page of the article is always the best place to start, as any time a problem can be solved without admin getting involved it is the best solution, particularly if the issue is content and not behavior. If it isn't innocent and it is a POV issue, then ANI after you have tried to fix the problem on the user's talk page. WP:ORN isn't a board I normally frequent, but misrepresenting a source doesn't seem to be within the scope, judging by the name. That seems more like a RSN type board. Again, handling at the lowest possible level (and lowest drama level) should be tried first. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | © | WER 10:32, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
    (talk page stalker) DS, which article and which source. I'd be happy to take a look and comment there. --regentspark (comment) 12:02, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
He changed the source and I cannot access it on GBooks. The article and edit is here If you can access the book I would appreciate it. Although as I have again been dragged to the drama board for adding content some do not appreciate it may be a moot point One week a pro Indian POV pusher, the next, an anti Indian POV pusher. Ironic really. I get called all manner of things here, so far I am a zionist and a Nazi, pro & anti Indian wonder what I will be next week. Darkness Shines (talk) 12:42, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
I have access to the book (at a library) but not till I get back to the city on Tuesday (relaxing in the countryside for a bit!). Will take a look and drop a note on the talk page then.--regentspark (comment) 14:24, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
Never apologize, stalkers are welcomed and appreciated. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | © | WER 14:35, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) I read somewhere that if you are being blamed and praised by both sides of a conflict, you must be doing fine. (or something to that effect) :) Anir1uph | talk | contrib 13:09, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 26 June 2013

Hi

Hi! I'm curious as to why this was tagged? I'm pretty sure that's the guy that Mangoeater1000 is trying to drive away from the site, which unfortunately worked... --Rschen7754 22:53, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

WDUQ-LP‎

Could you keep an on the above linked page, please? I have had some problems with the anon making edits on the page before (I'm pretty it's a person who works for the station or owns it). The anon adds alot of original research repeatedly. Since I am on 2RR (per Drmies, who isn't online yet this morning), I was wondering if you could help. Thanks...Neutralhomer • Talk • 13:33, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

YGM

Hello, Dennis Brown. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
.. um, did you still want that article? Cheers. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:58, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
Yes, sorry, I've got 100 things going on all at once, have for a couple of days. Hasn't been a fun week to be an admin, frankly. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | © | WER 23:05, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
I can't image how all of the effort you tirelessly put in here, Dennis, is ever fun! But for you some weeks do indeed seem far worse than others. No worries - whenever is convenient. A 32 year-old magazine article is hardly hot news! Martinevans123 (talk) 23:10, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

lost

I know I've only been catching bits and pieces lately due to real life stuff. So I do have to ask. Is it me? Or has wiki world turned into Bizarro World? — Ched :  ?  01:32, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

  • It has been a bad day. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | © | WER 01:33, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
  • sigh - you farmer types that are up at the crack of dawn. re: this .. :( ... I had stuff to say. </me pouts, acts like 12 year old that had his gameboy taken away - but knows better than to argue with parental units, mumbles under his breath as he's walking away .. very quietly though> — Ched :  ?  11:08, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
  • I woke up to a banned sockmaster trying to hunt me down in 10 channels on IRC... not a great afternoon. :/ Thankfully I had enough friends who figured out what was going on and issued some bans... --Rschen7754 11:13, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
    • Two people blocked from that one thread, admin are on edge all over, teenagers are running amok all over the drama boards. Sometimes the less said, the better, and since Bwilkins had the final say in that thread, I felt it was best to just close it. Tensions are ridiculously high everywhere at enwp right now. More words are probably not going to reduce that tension. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | © | WER 11:14, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
@Rschen .. good grief. So it's not just wiki then, but the whole internet?
@Dennis .. yea, can't disagree with ya in the least on that. I do have some thoughts on the "rebellious teenager" syndrome, as well as your email. :P. But maybe I'll just take the User:Floquenbeam approach and just wait til all the kids are back in school before I get much involved again. Oh well, busy week and a half ahead - so you folks have a good one. ttyl. — Ched :  ?  11:24, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
The problem being that the influx of new and inexperienced teenagers has a way of creating a lot of new drama and someone calm and tolerant needs to deal with it. As there is a shortage of both calm and tolerant at enwp, I guess I will do what I can to help the others but it doesn't mean that I enjoy it. Everyone is just too excitable lately. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | © | WER 11:29, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
There have been a series of vigilante justice type admin actions as of late.--MONGO 18:52, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
I don't think I would use the term "vigilante", but I have noticed a dramatic increase in the number of "incredibly low threshold" blocks, where a discussion would have been better and a block was (in my opinion) a very suboptimal way to deal with a concern. It is likely more complicated than that, but that is the best way I can think of to summarize it. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | © | WER 18:56, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
That's a flowery way to put it. Bottom line is a few admins have been acting like vigilantes and by doing so all they do is bring disrepute to the vast majority of admins that do a great job and stir up more drama with their overzealous actions.--MONGO 20:39, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
Maybe I've noticed a few more of the blocks that you have, because I know a few that really weren't bad faith, even if they weren't optimal. There have been so many, of varying quality, it makes me look for the pattern, although one may not exist and it might just be a normal fluctuation in an otherwise "normal" period. If I were to be scientific about it, I would probably blame it on the full moon[citation needed] that just happened ;-) Or maybe I'm just looking for patterns where none exist. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | © | WER 20:48, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
I've recently been watching AN/I and AN since my return to en.wiki. It's obvious some things have changed from a couple of years ago - but I don't think too much has changed. There's still some with a poor attitude, but that doesn't mean the entire sysop bunch are rotten apples. I just think the admin role has been tarnished a bit by the actions of others, and trust needs to be restored. Admins like Dennis are fighting an uphill battle, and it's sad - cause they're only wanting to do good. Dusti*poke* 21:35, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Talk page bans

Hi Dennis,

I've had numerous admins, editors and even an ANI discussion or two about banning people from my userspace. I was under the impression that this was allowable. In their most recent form, It was a little note halfway down my user page, that jokingly said "Exile for life -User example". I don't really think that is violating policy. What is your opinion on this matter, and could you please recomend a way, if the most recent form is unnacceptable, that I can keep this info somewhere on my userpage? Thanks, ★★RetroLord★★ 18:28, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

  • I think you have the right to say "Please do not post on my talk page" and they should respect it, excepting when they need to, such as regular templates for CSD, PROD, notifications, etc. I think you have to be reasonable about it. Whether you are reasonable or not, everyone is going to consider those, as well as admonishments, warnings, etc. from admin as an exception to that ban. You don't own your talk page, but we try to give you a fair amount of leeway. The way you had the names posted on the page, however, was a bit over the top. You can't "shame" people off your page.
Let me offer you this: I'm an admin that works at SPI, dealing with sockpuppets. This is one of the most contentious places at Wikipedia, full of people who want revenge for getting blocked. I also regularly patrol ANI. Same thing. It is very easy to piss people off in the places I regularly patrol, and I'm very active. Yet no one is banned from my page, and there are almost no instances of even semi-protecting my talk page.[29]. If I can do it, you can do it. You can always just revert their edits off your page, but I recommend you do so politely, with an edit summary that is neutral "I'm sorry, but I'm not interested in talking with you". Even if you have to do this a few times in a row. If you have to do this more than a few times, ping me politely. That is the key here, don't get sarcastic, don't start drama and don't call names. Chose to be calm and your problems will often take are of themselves, often by those of us that keep a pretty close eye on stuff. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | © | WER 18:38, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for your reply. Also there is one other question I would like to ask (if you don't mind). User:PantherLeapord is to an extent stalking and wikihounding me, and everytime I get blocked, told off or the like he seems to appear with some overly negative remark about me. I guess part of the aforementioned wikihounding would include the barnstar he gave you for blocking me. I'm not really sure how to proceed going forward about this, I've asked him many times to stop posting on my userspace but that doesn't seem to stop him. You may have noticed the few ANI discussions about him also. What would you recommend? ★★RetroLord★★ 18:43, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
He stalks this page, I believe. I think you both should just avoid each other for a week or two if possible. You seem to have mellowed out a bit, perhaps he has, too. Sometimes, we all can just get on each other's nerves. The best thing is if we chose to just avoid each other for a bit. We all have something to give here. You review GANs, something I'm not good at. I have a way of calming people down and helping them get along with others. We all learn from each other. I would ask Panther to simply give you a wide berth for a while, let you adjust a bit, and just move on. Us old timers are used to a lot of new faces when summer starts, particularly at ANI where good meaning people can actually make life hell for us. This also means more people getting on each other's nerves, which means more work for me. All this can be avoided. I would you both avoid each other's talk pages and articles for a while. An admin shouldn't have to carve it out for you two, just be adults about it and work it out yourself. You can do this. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | © | WER 18:49, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Admin's Barnstar
Great job in working with RetroLord. I have a feeling that that entire situation could have turned out much, much worse for him. Kudos Dennis, Kudos! Dusti*poke* 18:29, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
  • I appreciate the kindness. I'm just trying to keep the peace and let everyone do what they do best. Calm is the solution to a lot of problems around here, or at least a good starting point. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | © | WER 18:40, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Dennis Brown. You have new messages at 75.172.12.104's talk page.
Message added 19:04, 28 June 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Though I'm fairly certain you're aware of this response, I would like to observe that now the user is lashing out at you and taking a very narrow reading of WP Standard Operating Procedure (Rules/Policies/Guidelines/Best Practices/Etc.) to the point that it seems to be one of the hordes of MMA-Recruitees who have been coached about how to respond to certain queries and are more interested in their winning the argument than improving Wikipedia. Hasteur (talk) 19:04, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

  • He can always drag the issue to WP:AN if he chooses, although he will likely just be the next in line to figure out my way of handling problems is very often more gentle than the community's, on the whole. This is why I was trying to dial back the drama, but if they want to reopen all this and risk getting blocked, then that is their option. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | © | WER 19:13, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
Per WP:GS/MMA I am requesting enforcement regarding IP 75.172.12.104. After attacking me at Talk:UFC 161#Format for this page I requested that they strike the personal attack and gave them a 24 hour window to ammend their comment. They forcefully declined and proceeded to wikilawyer further at Wikipedia talk:General sanctions/Mixed martial arts#Non-admins giving "warning" in admin area? and personalizes the debate again. User has had the rules explained multiple times and still refuses to get the point. Per WP:CIR and the lower threshold for applying sanctions authorized by GS/MMA, I formally request that sanctions appropriate for the level of attacks and disruption that this user has caused in the lifespan of 3 Days be implemented. Hasteur (talk) 00:11, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
Not sure they apply, would have to look up. I thought it was just about edits to articles. Not sure it crosses that threshold. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | © | WER 00:28, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
Based on the enacting statement at [30] it seems that talk pages (i.e. Talk:UFC 161), project pages regarding the governance of special sanctions for MMA (WT:GS/MMA), and their attempt to disclaimer all attempts at giving warning to them (User talk:75.172.12.104) that they are repeatedly and seriously failing to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia. As evidenced by their own admission at their talk page [31] they are working in coordination with an interest other than that of the Wikipedia community and without regard for compliance with content rules. All these have been the user's own statements and therefore it is only reasonable to show a self ascribed non-wikipedian the door when they refuse to be part of the community. Hasteur (talk) 00:39, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
  • I have given a final topic ban warning. Please note that the general sanction warnings and topic bans can not be given by non-admin, per the actual discussion. A non-admin can't give a final warning because they lack the authority to implement the actual ban. [32] I recommend disengaging as much as possible. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | © | WER 00:52, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

I need your help

Hi, Dennis. I just noticed a new user, User:WordTraveller1O1, who appears to be trying to impersonate me. Based on this edit, I suspect it is Jonathan Yip again, and that he is back, because he and a number of his socks made the exact same edit, not to mention that he is making other bad edits, such as his latest two edits (which I reverted). Is this SPI-worthy or should he just go to WP:AIV and then all should be done? WorldTraveller101BreaksFixes 21:40, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

I was wondering...

Since I am currently looking for a mentor would you be able to take up that role? PantherLeapord (talk) 23:31, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

  • The problem is that I'm so overbooked, I wouldn't do very well as a full time mentor. I haven't even been able to write articles lately. Even here, I'm working at "work" while doing this. My hours may be getting really odd soon due to work. User:TheOriginalSoni would likely be able to help match you up with a suitable mentor, and I would request he please try to if he can. I will still pop in regularly and offer little nuggets of help when I can, and I never mind that. Often, my time is better spent dealing with those individual issues rather than a full time mentoring schedule. And you can always ask simple questions here anytime as well. I am blessed to have over 300 highly helpful talk page stalkers that do a great job of helping people when I'm not around. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | © | WER 23:38, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Holla Dennis,
Thanks for sending Panther over to me. I didnt realise I had become the information headquarters for adoption schools throughout Wiki, but I guess thats a good thing :)
I've suggested him Yunshui, who will make the perfect adopter if he can take any more adoptees. GoP has also suggested Jackson Peebles for him.
I think I'll keep a lookout for Panther, and check if there are any other adopters free enough just in case. [I myself would have taken him up, but I would not be ambitious enough to take any more than 2 adoptees during my first adoption]
P.S. You dont need to be eternally grateful to me ;)
Cheers,
TheOriginalSoni (talk) 05:11, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Colton Cosmic

He just won't stop trying to trick admins into unblocking him. [33]--I am One of Many (talk) 16:38, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Anna Frodesiak's RFPP actions

Please give me feedback on the following. I promise not to bug you with too many of these:

Duration: 1 month
Rationale: Problem has be ongoing for ages; different users/IPs; apparent copyvios. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:17, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Long answer: The "multiple IPs" [34], [35] and [36] etc. are all really the same person, or at least company, Cisco. (from the talk page, choose "geolocation" at the bottom for these links). Had I seen it, I would have done a whois in a bash shell to determine the range (in this case, NetRange: 173.36.0.0 - 173.39.255.255, CIDR: 173.36.0.0/14, a huge range) then figured that I had the choice of either determining what portion of that range I can safely block, or I can semi-protect in a slightly out of process way (because I know it isn't multiple people, to be honest). The end result would have been the same as what you did since it would likely cause the least disruption. I just took the long road to it. I might have protected 3 days or longer, but not everyone agrees on longer terms. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | © | WER 23:31, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
      • To add, I don't know how network savvy you are. You don't have to be a pro, but there is always something new to learn that will help you. Interesting stuff. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | © | WER
Fair enough. There was also the 71.139.169.86 IP, but also from California so I guess the same people. They've been at this since April, so what's one of the reasons I thought 1 month protect. The other reason is few other constructive edits. Should I change it to 2 weeks or less and monitor? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:19, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) I could be in the minority, but I'd argue for way longer semiprotection. The article is being repeatedly spammed, as far back as February 2013. The protecting admin might leave a comment on the talk page to explain the situation. This might allow the IPs to explain their thinking, and possibly some dialog might occur. So far as I can tell the only constructive work on this article is being done by registered users. EdJohnston (talk) 01:24, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
(edit conflict)(talk page stalker) I'm not an enwp admin yet, and I do not claim to know any of the cricumstances, but based on what Anna and Dennis have mentioned here: /14 CIDR range, and a "few other constructive edits" I would have likely opted to protect the page with a two week PC1 protection as a starting point. A little less stringent, but would allow the constructive edits in (after review without a {{Edit semi-protected}} request). Just my two cents on this one. Technical 13 (talk) 01:32, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
Duration: 1 day
Rationale: Quite serious BLP vios; 3 different single-purpose accounts. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:17, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
Talk page lurker. Good shouts on both. I look forward to your blocking me, I was running out of admins Darkness Shines (talk) 23:27, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
[EC] Talk-page stalker here... I agree with the action on Dumble Amplifiers. I would have gone longer than a day on Conor Maynard (at least 3 days, or a week), as I don't think a day will be long enough to stop the silliness. --Orlady (talk) 23:29, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
I will be the first to admit I'm pretty heavy handed when it comes to protecting BLPs. Most of the time I have to semi-protect, 1 week is the minimum, 2 to 4 weeks is common if it is an ongoing issue. For full protection of BLPs, I do 3 days typically. BLPs are particularly sensitive. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | © | WER 23:35, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
Well ya, but that would depend on the BLP, are they high profile? Caught in a scandal of late? It has to be a judgement call really. Darkness Shines (talk) 23:42, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
I will monitor and do another day if needed. That was the plan. Is that okay? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:19, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
If you intend to monitor it then yes, solid plan. Not sure why you are asking me though, I am just the guy who gets blocked do they not teach indenting at admin school Darkness Shines (talk) 00:29, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
Oh right. One too many indents. Sorry. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:36, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
@ DS. And you wonder why you get blocked? :P — Ched :  ?  00:42, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
Well to be honest I have always assumed that it is due to jealousy over my enormous manhood, I honestly cannot think of any other reasons other than that. Darkness Shines (talk) 00:52, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
Anything to do with sex is just like money: Those that talk, don't have. Those that have, don't talk ;-) Dennis Brown | 2¢ | © | WER 00:55, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
OK, let's talk about money. :) — Ched :  ?  00:57, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I would have done no less than three days on a BLP, serious copyvio 5 days minimum, libel a week... If you are monitoring, I would say that continuation of issues after your initial day is up, would warrant the 5 days imho. Technical 13 (talk) 01:32, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Duration: 2 days
Rationale: Almost all vandalism and no constructive edits on July 30 with relatively little before.

If the subject is a person, is the tag automatically BLP? Most of the vandalism in this case was BLP vios but a bit was not so I tagged it as vandalism instead of BLP. Is that a big deal? Next time BLP? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 11:16, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

  • Not always. If the problem itself is BLP issues, then use the BLP tag. If it is just "poop vandalism" then there is no need for a BLP tag, for instance. The tag isn't a big deal but we try to be accurate. Technically, this was BLP violation. Again, with BLPs, I tend to go at least a week so they aren't prone to wait it out. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 11:24, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
Okay, next time a BLP tag and 1 week. Thank you kindly. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 15:54, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

To 3 July, 16:38

Hi again. Would you please (or a stalker) search my name at these pages and spot check to see if I'm making okay calls? Many thanks.

Anna Frodesiak (talk) 16:39, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

True, but that only shows actions taken. At the links I gave above, the declines are shown too with my rationale. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 17:47, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
But that gives the big picture. Remember, I'm used to opening up 10 links at a time and drilling down. To check a Protection, I just look at the page and decide what I would have done. For a block, I just click the contribs tab. Then look at that log to see what you did. The report itself isn't important. Often they will ask for the wrong thing anyway. Your link is good, too. Will try to look more later. I sampled some from the log and it looked good. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 18:29, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi

Hi, while I agree that it is best for the article to be protected for a while, it should be reverted back to the version as I have explained that the official website says that the info that Bollfooot added was incorrect. 24.212.195.135 (talk) 01:36, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

  • Any time I protect, I'm never sure which is the "right" version. If you can get a consensus to the "right" version on the page, then I will revert to it and lift the protection, but right or wrong, that kind of edit warring is unacceptable. Seriously, I protected it to keep YOU from getting blocked. Most admin would have just blocked you both on site for clear violation of WP:4RR. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 01:43, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
    • Dennis, you must have had a delicious dinner not to block these two cats. Is this good enough for LAMEWAR or whatever it was? Drmies (talk) 02:05, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
    • The UEFA site suggests that the IP is correct on the Astra location. IP, if you start editing those articles again, kindly remove all those kindergarten-style flags per MOS:FLAG. Drmies (talk) 02:10, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
      • This is exactly what I have been saying. The official site that Drmies pointed says the correct info. This url has already been linked in the Report section. Sorry, I do not know anything about flags. I would rather have another user edit it. FYI, I noticed that on MOS:FLAG, under Appropriate use, it is commonly used for sports team. Also, under Avoid flag icons in infoboxes, examples of acceptable exceptions include sports competitions such as this. 24.212.195.135 (talk) 02:16, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
        • I try to never block for warring if protection will do the same job and they aren't famous repeaters. It lets other editors hash it out. I also said that any admin is free to revert me at WP:ANI. Protection was just faster. And yes, a little spicy Italian sausage mixed with zucchini and onions, lightly seasoned with garden fresh rosemary and other herbs, fried up hot and fast in a proper iron skillet, almost stir fry style. Plus most of a bottle of Flint Hill "Crushed Velvet" that I picked up at the Yadkin Valley Wine Festival (working on it). Quite good on all counts. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 02:14, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Ideas

based on a recent discussion, I have quickly drafted this. It is in no way definitive, but the effort is to keep it very simple and on track. You are welcome to develop this further on its talk page or tweak the draft until such times if and when a collaborative effort can be moved to RfC space. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:12, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) O.o I like this idea. — -dainomite   03:16, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Just woke up, no coffee yet, but you might want to look at WP:RAS, a proposal I penned last year with some help from User:Coren. On that talk page is template to many other discussions, which has links to another proposal by User:Jc37. Dave (Worm) was pretty involved in those discussions before as well. My proposal had a larger role for Crats as well. I think it those are worth reading, including main page histories as the proposal changes some over time. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 10:14, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

"The formation" of a new mini-mess

So Omdo has returned after his block.

His copyvio coatrack, The formation of Malaysia was deleted, and an ok little stub has replaced it.

So, he creates Formation of Malaysia instead, and redirects it to Formation of Malaysia (disambiguation), which is not a disambig at all, it seems to be just a new mini-coatrack to hang his new little articles on, and one alternative spelling.

Looking at the 2 linked book stubs, they are the usual, lots of tangential bluelinks, garbled English and any sentence that seems to be in good English is invariably copy pasted from somewhere - The Google Books page, the Amazon page, or newspaper articles he has linked or referenced. The copyvios are each fairly small, but persistent in his style, and need fixing. They are fine to have as articles, and I've fixed up things like this for him in the past - but it's always a "battle". Anyone else would look at the articles and say, meh..., WP:SOFIXIT, and they would have a point, so I've done some of that. I see a rinse and repeat pattern, though, and no end to it. Guess that makes me too involved.

He wouldn't listen to me if I tried to discuss it, I'm sure - and I don't have time to be his babysitter. This looks to me like just another embryo mess for someone to clean up - the book stubs (particularly the Borneo one) need scrubbing for copypaste and rewriting in proper English, the disambig basically just needs deleting, and Formation of Malaysia retargetting to The formation of Malaysia as an alt spelling. I can't do that as a non-admin.

As far as I see it, his English isn't good enough to write without copypaste/bad close paraphrase, and so that's how he creates his content. Add to that the obvious SPA/POV focus and disruptive use of redirects and close titles to "shoehorn" it all and I'm afraid the only answer to that sum is "timesink". Different matter if he'd talk about this stuff, and accept help - the book stubs can be fixed up into ok little articles, but, honestly, it's work, and I suspect he'd fight every change.

Your wisdom and advice, as always, appreciated, maybe I'm just too close to it all and you won't see it as I do, but I'd rather be creating my chart templates for World War II casualties than dealing with this - so I'm basically going to do just that for now. To see how I really feel about this kind of thing, here's a recent discussion with SlimVirgin about similar issues. Cheers, and sorry to bother you again. Begoon talk 04:22, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

No problem at all. This is far from the biggest fish on your plate, I'm sure, there are lots of people causing much more "trouble" than this at the moment. I left him another note in the meantime, just because I don't think it sends the right message if I ignore the resumption of copy/paste issues after the block, especially when I've fixed them and mentioned them here, which is hardly an invisible place (to your credit, and no doubt occasional frustration). Thanks. Begoon talk 09:39, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
Ok, sorry, but now he's just getting on my nerves. He's still inserting copyvios such as Creating Greater Malaysia. I've prodded Formation of Malaysia (disambiguation) and Making of Malaysia (disambiguation). He added some garbled nonsense about state formations and removed the prod. I'm not sure if I can CSD them, because G6 says "such as those listing only one or zero links to existing Wikipedia articles", and they have links, but inappropriate ones. However, it says "Deleting unnecessary disambiguation pages", and they are certainly that, even if not covered by the example. It's just plain disruptive now, trying to cram as many pointless pages and tangential links in everywhere he thinks he can. Every time I fix or remove a misuse of link templates or hatnotes, he just sticks in a different inappropriate one, presumably to stack up some sort of semi-circular little walled POV garden. I can't keep up with it. The patience you referred to me posessing earlier is now pretty much exhausted. I have to conclude at this point he's incompetent, disruptive and unwilling or unable to discuss anything at all. ( He's "competent" enough to be reading this note, though - because each time I update it, he makes another pointless related edit 5 minutes later...)Begoon talk 03:42, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
Fascinating how they managed to put wikiproject categories for Malaya, Brunei, Singapore, North Borneo, and Sarawak on Talk:Creating Greater Malaysia, but didn't include Malaysia. The stick clearly hasn't been dropped then. CMD (talk) 08:50, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
I will try to look at this closer today.... Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 10:16, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
Well,if you get time, you could do worse than looking at this first... Glance at the edit request on the talk page beforehand. Looks like I've upset him...Begoon talk 10:32, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

I've given him a final warning. If he continues to add copyvios and refuse to disengage ( and [38] doesn't count as engaging, his last talk page comment) then I will indef block him. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 12:35, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

OK. Like you, I have other fish to fry at the moment, particularly at Commons, and depending how that frying goes I may not be around much at all - so you could do me a favour and make a note to keep a tenth of one of your many eyes on this from time to time, because it is actually the kind of thing that matters, in the sense of helping to keep an environment that people will want to be a part of. I know you will anyway, because I know that much about you, just from observation. Begoon talk 12:45, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Another music break

[39]♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 11:56, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Check out this. Probably the most beautiful song I've ever heard.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 17:42, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Do you like John Denver at all? Eva Cassidy and John Denver have among the most moving voices I've ever heard.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 12:54, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

  • In the 70s as kids, we played and sang a lot of his songs. While he wasn't first to record Leaving on a Jet Plane (but he did write it), it was his version that I learned, along with a bunch of his other stuff. One of my sisters and I used to sing Take Me Home, Country Roads and at the top of our lungs quite regularly (a capella and with guitar). Mom was also a huge fan. It is safe to say that he was an influence for me musically. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 13:12, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

AN 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.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:34, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Sock trolls and sleeper accounts abounding

The proverbial feces has hit the fan at Talk:Pink Floyd regarding sock-troll-time-wasters. Can you please provide some assistance per WP:DUCK. Thanks and cheers! GabeMc (talk|contribs) 20:41, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Admin's Barnstar
For always setting a great example for admins! We need more of your kind around here. Thanks! GabeMc (talk|contribs) 22:18, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Civility Barnstar
For always putting forth your best effort to be civil, even when drama is cast into the spotlight. 155blue (talk) 02:26, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Articles for Creation ease of use

Hello Dennis. I saw your comment about Articles for Creation a few days ago at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Editor Retention where you said "It needs to be easier to promote (by a simple move) or utterly reject (csd tag) articles". I was wondering, have you tried Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Helper script? It is very simple to use, and it makes accepting a submission require nothing more than clicking "Review" from the drop-down menu, clicking "Accept", then clicking "Accept and move to mainspace". If you need to make any other changes or improvements to the submission, these can be made either before or after accepting it, by just editing it in the usual way.

If an article falls under an existing CSD criterion, it is acceptable to just go ahead and CSD tag it, and nothing additional needs to be done in such a case. So this cannot really be made any easier. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 09:47, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

  • I have used the script, but I find the entire process to be the opposite of a normal article in normal space in a number of ways. It is very unintuitive, which has been what has kept me (and likely others) from participating there fully. Not having a talk page, for example, is a fatal flaw, as it forces short comments at the top of the article and requires too much bureaucracy. I really have tried a number of times, but the entire system is so irritating to me that I just leave each time before getting much done. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 10:48, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
  • (talk page stalker) Hey! I came across this topic while looking at some other stuffs here and would love to discuss this with both of you a little more. I'm in the process of designing a complete overhaul for the afc process from article creation wizard to review to publishing to article space. I'm hoping that by streamlining the creation process in the wizard, some of the automatic fail instant csd submissions will cease to be created (for example, I intend to have the article creation wizard parse the page before each save and run it through an api of a dupdetector/copyvios type bot/tool and refuse to save if it is G12 worthy). Any ideas or concerns that may help with the development of this would be greatly appreciated. Happy editing! Technical 13 (talk) 20:38, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
    • If you aren't doing this in conjunction with the Foundation, you are wasting your time, however, as anything this big has to be coordinated with their developers. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 20:55, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Pss, pss, Dennis :)

You have new message/s Hello. You have a new message at Anna Frodesiak's talk page. Ms.Bono(zootalk)☆ 19:20, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Also, i have created this page User:Miss_Bono/Ali_for_FA, just in case you want to reply at my request there, since we were talking at Anna's talk. Ms.Bono(zootalk)☆ 19:20, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

JamesGannon1

Are you about to block him, or should we just watch him? Robert McClenon (talk) 23:41, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

  • Not only am I watching him, but have already contacted a Checkuser offwiki and in the middle of a more complete behavioral analysis. ;-) There is a method to my madness. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 23:43, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
Okay. At first he said to be a self-promoter, but he may be a troll. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:20, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
That is why I haven't blocked yet, but in case he is he, WP:RBI. Of course, if you find one that looks odd, just ping me here with just the diff, I will take it from there and file any paperwork if needed. This is different than regular situations, since we don't want to reward them. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 00:23, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Faizan vs Faizanhb2

Hi — at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Syed Noor Zaman Naqshbandi Shazli you struck a comment by Faizan (talk · contribs) as being by a blocked sockpuppet. However, Faizan is not listed at the SPI and has not been blocked. Maybe you were thinking of Faizanhb2? Anyway, I have unstruck the comment but I thought I'd let you know here in case this wasn't a mistake and you have some reason beyond similarity of names to think that Faizan is involved in the sockpuppetry. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:16, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks David and Dennis! Actually, "Faizan" is one of the common names in Pakistan. Faizan 09:49, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
I learn something new every day. Sorry about the mix up. I am overdue for a new set of glasses.... Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 09:54, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Tabs on the top

(If you do not use Monobook, please disregard this message.) In the past, my SPI tabs have always appeared to the right of the Twinkle tabs. However, recently I noticed that they occasionally appear to the left of them. Have you experienced this? Cheers, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:40, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

76.189

I would like to take a moment to try and change your mind about 76.189. I'll be posting this same message on two other user talk pages. If you could consider these relevant facts:

  • The entire thread, including the ban discussion, contains exactly four diffs of 76.189's actual doing:
    1. [40] A comment made after you had just accused him of Wiki-lawyering and not being here for the right reasons. A pretty mild response, I would've been a bit more -fruitful- in my language.
    2. [41] A comment User:Bbb23 said was polite
    3. [42] After Kudpung pointed to a dismissive essay when the IP was concerned about Bbb23's revert that doesn't even make sense to me why he'd revert it.
    4. [43] A silly mistake that was then called defacement by User:Incnis Mrsi, which he later admitted was wrong, but now has returned to calling defacement
  • There have been no diffs presented to support the accusations in the proposal. The diffs that were provided occured on User_talk space and the first two parts of the sanctions don't even deal with those. The third is a given for all users, and the last, as I demonstrate below, is inaccurate.
  • The bad boy list was language Bbb23 introduced, it was picked up by the IP in a humorous tone here because Bbb23 introduced the vernacular. Toddst1 turned around that around as evidence the IP actually had one and said it was classic battleground behavior. There is no evidence of a bad boy list, the comment was made in response to Bbb23 and was meant to be funny.
  • The IP has numerously received accusations of "drama-mongering unless obliged to, or is simply trolling", without diffs, responded rather politely, later with diffs showing the same behavior by his accuser, and for merely defending himself he is accused of more drama mongering.
  • The IP has removed comments from his talk page. The policy, WP:BLANKING, says "A number of important matters may not be removed by the user...For IP editors, templates and notes left to indicate other users share the same IP address." The IP has been using the IP for a solid 2 months, has been the only user to use that IP, and there is no evidence of use by others users. So a "dynamic IP" notice was misguided at best, trolling at worst and the policy quoted is inapplicable. In addition, the policy only covers removing this dynamic IP notice, not any other discussion on the page since the other comments do not "indicate other users share the same IP address". So the removal of comments by others was acceptable and the edit warring, and further warnings, to restore the removed content was a misunderstanding of policy on the part of User:155blue and User:I B Wright.
  • Finally, he has apologized more than once.

Please reconsider your support of sanctions. From an outside perspective, this user has been treated unfairly, reacted fairly mildly, and has had those mild behaviors thrown back at him with very little actual support in diffs. If nothing else, let's encourage the IP to get an account and find a mentor.--v/r - TP 14:12, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

TP, I hope you know I have a great deal of respect for you, but I don't think you should be posting these sorts of messages on the talk pages of supporters of the ban. With a little rephrasing, you could easily post the above analysis at AN itself. As for your comments, I don't feel like addressing them point by point, but it reminds me of a Mary Tyler Moore episode (I've already used I Love Lucy). Mary is depressed about her life generally. In an effort to cheer her up, Ted relates two stories about a typical day in Mary's life that are worded identically. However, in the first, he says it with a gloomy face in a pitiable tone, but in the seccond, he is smiling and his tone is upbeat and happy. In other words, so much depends on your perspective. What you may see as a poor IP being treated unfairly, others may see that he has repeatedly provoked such treatment. What you may see as a faily mild reaction by 76, others may see as a repetitious, grinding stubbornness and a refusal to hear what others are telling him. Remember, too, that the ban would not prevent 76 from editing any articles, which is really what we're here to do, or in the case of many admins, foster an environment in which that can be done collaboratively. It just prevents him from jumping from noticeboard to noticeboard and from drama to drama and from drowning other editors with his opinions, many of which are not even well-founded. Not really a harsh ban, when you think about it.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:40, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
A couple of additional thoughts. Mentoring could be a good option, but it would have to be made clear what kind of behavior is unacceptable; otherwise, what is the mentor trying to achieve? As for registering, I'm always in favor of that, but based my interaction with 76, I don't think he'd go for it.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:12, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
Yes, you're certainly right about perspectives and mine was uninvolved and unconnected when I got involved. It is a mild sanction, but that doesn't change it's demoralizing impact on the person receiving the sanction. Especially when seen through the lens I've seen it through where an IP-user has faced users who call mistakes "defacement" and then report him to AN.--v/r - TP 15:31, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Your previous uninvolvement is a good thing, although you have gone from uninvolved to being a fairly strong advocate (which is your right, of course). However, I was the one who reported 76 to AN, and I don't recall using the word "defacement". You must be talking about Incnis, and I think that whole discussion is a distraction. As for my reporting him to AN, I tried not to. I tried to talk to him first on my talk page. I tried to get him to let it go, but that's just not something he does easily. And it wouldn't be so demoralizing if he didn't so "passionately" (one of his favorite words) cling to things in the first place. The whole thing ends up being way too personal for him.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:42, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
Some of us get passionate when we feel we're against a great obstacle. I'm certainly passionate now, well into the strong advocate arena, and I see a lot of traits in this IP that I share. My real concern at first, the concern I have with you, Dennis, and Toddst, is that the claims haven't been properly substantiated. I've gone through the conversations and diffs and I don't see it. But my bigger concern with Incnis Mrsi and 155blue, and most recently AndyTheGrump, is that they've been baiting this guy.--v/r - TP 15:45, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
Do you want to mentor the IP? :-) ?--Bbb23 (talk) 16:04, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
What, I can't pawn this one off on WormTT like all the others?  :-D--v/r - TP 16:06, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? Wikipedia would gain from a mentor, but would loose from an enabler. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 16:18, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
Why me? My only interest in this case is a legitimately imposed restriction. I am not actually concerned about what 76.189.… posts. I am concerned about how and how much does he post. His stuff distracts many users, including experienced and competent users, from solving actual problems that possibly wait for their involvement. There will be few or no social-network-style chatter ⇒ I’ll disengage. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 16:18, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
Actually, you'll disengage either at the conclusion of this AN thread or soon after that. I've got a fairly decent case of baiting from you and I'm prepared to take you to ANI for it. I'm being kind by waiting for you to see your actions through the eyes of 76.189. If you're not concerned "what" he posts, then that seems to me to be an admission that he isn't wrong only that he is verbose and a regular at ANI. Your same complaint could be made about two dozen administrators and three dozen editors. So why are you after the IP?--v/r - TP 16:26, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
Actually, the only your accusation which have any chance to lead to sanctions against me is my persistent problems with WP:Civility. In all other aspects I am rather competent editor and your insinuations about my baiting or whatever will be disregarded or dismissed. I am not an AN/I frequenter, and my negative impression about 76.189.… is based mostly on his user_talk activity, especially on his campaign in defence of an IP edit warrior, his conflicts with Toddst1, and on what I saw at user_talk:76.189.109.155. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 16:43, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
What to achieve? More edits in articles and less chatter on user_talks, of course. Possibly, the person in question should be attached to #wikipedia-en or so – it could solve the problem partially. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 15:34, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
^ This is what we should really be after. This is an unsolicited attack of a user who isn't here. Just because it doesn't use language doesn't make it civil. This kind of baiting is what led the IP into this hole.--v/r - TP 15:37, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
  • This all seems unnecessarily intense. There are a number of people who disagree on the disruptive inclination of the IP. I would maintain that it is entirely possible to support action there without have an ax to grind, being that I am one of those uninvolved individuals. Ramping up the frustration here and beating this dead horse continually isn't really helpful. I've opined at the ANI, I've listened here, but I'm unpersuaded and my opinion hasn't changed. Perhaps we just need to allow others to opine there, then let someone read the consensus and make a determination. This is pretty standard stuff and there really is no need for the side discussions. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 16:34, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
    • Fair enough, Dennis, but it was worth a shot. I don't see the intensity here, and I think I've made the magic tricks by others clear, but if you're not convinced then I'll leave it be.--v/r - TP 16:45, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
      • To be clear, my opinion is based on my own investigation into their editing history. It was not based on anyone else's opinion or any evidence presented in the discussion itself. Being naturally skeptical from working at WP:SPI, I prefer to do my own digging. I can't speak to anyone else's motivations nor how they came to their own conclusions. All I can do is present my observations without bludgeoning anyone, then rely on the wisdom of the closing admin. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 16:51, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
        • Sure, but then it's tough to change your opinion if I didn't know what it was based on.--v/r - TP 16:56, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
          • I think that sometimes the best way to persuade someone is by showing the positives, rather than picking apart the negatives. To demonstrate that the negatives are the exception rather than the rule. In cases like this, "picking apart" individual diffs may look more like a continuation of wikilawyering, the very reason we are there. This leads the discussion to become little more than contradiction, which is neither constructive nor persuasive. I'm happy to hear other people's perspectives on the issue, of the IP's positive contributions, but I'm not as anxious to provide lists of diffs to be picked apart, particularly since my opinion is based on a pattern, not a singular incident. Again, the closer is free to completely discount my opinion if they find it unsubstantiated. Unfortunately, the discussion has become so contentious, long, and focused on minutia that I find little purpose in trying to refute any points there, which is why I have bowed out. I don't think that my adding a lot more text with diffs and explanations will add more clarity to that discussion, or else I would. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 17:46, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Hridayeshwar Singh Bhati SPI

With respect to your closing statement on the SPI case, I have sent them a standard welcome on my part, and an invite to join the IRC help channel so I can potentially help them out.

Cheers, TheOriginalSoni (talk) 14:15, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

    • After several attempts, I finally managed to get him come to the IRC. Hopefully I was able to convey some sense of direction, though I wouldn't count on that. The matter should be hopefully resolved now TheOriginalSoni (talk) 11:35, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Ali Hewson

Hi Dennis,

Sorry I am bothering again. Yesterday you posted this in Anna's talk: I also noted a lot of copyvio notices in the hidden comments, 8 of them, that need sorting out. . I need, if possible, that you point out those copyvios. Please. Also, take a look I have fixed a few citations anf its format :) Thanks. Ms.Bono(zootalk)☆ 15:29, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
  • If you look at the page copy and just search for "copyvio" you will see 8 notes in there. I haven't tried to verify them, but they need to be looked at and verified to be incorrect or fixed. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 15:37, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
Thanks! also you have an issue down there ↓. have a nice day! Ms.Bono(zootalk)☆ 15:43, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

As you have commented - CMDC & Specifico

You may want to look into their interactions at the other noticeboards. OR, NPOV, BLP. CMDC raised complaints at all of them (and elsewhere - AN I think) that all pretty much went nowhere. At this point I think Specifico is getting harrassed into taking actions he shouldnt. One common result of being hounded by wikipedia policy/bureaucracy is that editors fall back to template/minimal interaction. 'If they are going to use procedure against me, I will return in kind' etc etc. Short of topic-banning both of them and ramming an interaction ban between them, its not going to go away soon. Only in death does duty end (talk) 20:11, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Duck Sock of Koov (talk · contribs)

Hey, Dennis! I've cornered a quacker of a Koov sock, Tepido (talk · contribs), but I'm on a mobile device and can't really file a SPI right now. Could you or one of your watchers deal with him? Cheers :) Doc talk 22:28, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! Here's the evidence in a nutshell:

  1. Creates his user page just like a Koov sock.
  2. Jumps right into templates on foreign relations, just like a Koov sock.
  3. Removes my post to another user's talkpage, which he had obviously watchlisted. Said user was the last to file a Koov SPI. No new user does this.
  4. He doth protest too much about being Koov, and this is clearly no new user. Doc talk 22:47, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

When he removed my post on Danlaycock's talk page I was surprised at his gall. How would a brand-spanking new user (as he still claims to be) watchlist that page? Thanks for filing that for me! I'll be watching. Doc talk 23:00, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

"You still couldn't prove to me that I am the banned user Koov. So you give up your lies and leave me alone. You are the liar here." I guess it's really not that important that I prove it to him, right? ;) Cheers! Doc talk 23:18, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

He makes it so easy. Like shooting fish in a barrel. To claim to not even know who Koov is at all[44] after an acknowledgement that Koov is a banned user[45] - a guilty conscience poorly feigning ignorance and innocence. I enjoy a good socking mystery once in awhile, but Koov takes all the fun out of it. ;) Doc talk 00:15, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Block or protect

Hey Dennis, could you either block 65.88.88.203 (talk · contribs) or semi Kashmiri Pandit, please? We're having another run-out of the "purest race" nonsense on that article, which has caused admin intervention in the past. I'm not sure if blocking the IP is feasible but I guess it would be preferable. - Sitush (talk) 23:36, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. - Sitush (talk) 05:11, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
No problem. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 09:22, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Admin reform

I wasn't actually aware of this, but at the time I was still ruling out the desysoping thing as being anything directly to do with the lack of candidates for RfA. Anyway, thanks for looking over my draft. There is a fundamental difference between the two projects: while yours lays out a clear solution, mine is just to test the community's opinion on whether something along those lines would garner support - and be a new task for the 'crats. Ironic, however, how some people reject these ideas because they are suggested by admins! Let's keep closely in touch over developments. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:30, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

I see you two are still conspiring to get rid of me ;)--v/r - TP 03:14, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
Just work with content pages, and your sysop will not be questioned. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 05:58, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
Does that mean I should stop working at WP:SPI and just let people sock puppet unchecked? Admin'ing is ugly but necessary, even if the value to the reader isn't obvious. And Kudpung, I do want to be in the loop. I thought since my proposal had Crats in a significant role and had feedback on those points, you would find it interesting. You might want to be be aware of Jc37's [proposal] as well as the entire over arching discussion at Wikipedia:Requests for Comment/Community de-adminship proof of concept. Although I don't think you will find any surprises, you might find some useful information. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 09:21, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
Do whatever you like, Dennis: the heaven wouldn’t fall if whatever individual stopped to do whatever work in wiki. For the record, I do not believe in the ability of the SPI people to check socks effectively. It is partially determined by the privacy policy, but also by the use of the wiki technology for that purpose. Wiki is clueless for databases and queueing. It leads to silly quarrels about whether the investigation has to be open or closed instead of actually assisting CheckUsers’s job. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 09:41, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
SPI certainly wouldn't shrivel on the vine without me, but someone has to do it, and it requires the tools. Admin that avoid using the tools are not fulfilling the expectations of the community, after all. The whole purpose of giving us bits is so we will use them on the behalf of the entire community. The majority of SPI work doesn't require CheckUsers, btw. Or even Clerks. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 09:57, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

wikihounding by Eodcarl as well as Sock puppetry

I see you closed this case as having no merit. Could you expand on that decision for me? It's very apparent this user is checking to see my recent edits to any and all pages now and then proceeds to delete them, or makes arbitrary edits to them. This user has an obvious personal grudge against me and is now trying to lord over everything I do on wikipedia merely to try and annoy or pester. I thought that was wikihounding 101, so I would be grateful to you if you could explain why you thought this was without merit. Thank you. Kmanblue (talk) 05:38, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

  • Sock puppetry isn't the same as hounding. Opening multiple venues on a fellow user is always problematic and not fair to the editor. As far as sock puppetry, no convincing evidence was presented there that would definitively connect the two. Looking at his contribs [46] he hasn't even edited that much this year, or ever, and has an obvious interest in those topics that predates any interaction with you. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 09:17, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
I understand sock puppetry and wikihounding are different, but both were going on IMO. 1 user is named Eodcarl, with EOD being a job title in the military, and the other user's first edits are to a wikipage covering this job title, then that same user quickly joins a contentious discussion in favor of EODcarl on another page and even makes edits in response to reversions of Eodcarl's edits. Both user accounts also almost immediately get into editing wars on the pages they first start editing because they steadfastly impose their new version over any conflicting version. That's just too coincidental for it not to be the same user IMHO. I believe that's worthy of a check even if the alleged sock puppet is now only rarely being used. The original, or master user now shows up on just about every single page I edit and is making erroneous edits in some cases because he doesn't know anything about the subject matter at hand (like this edit diff [47] on the Live Oak wikipage) or is deleting edits or even whole pages simply because he doesn't like me(for example this deletion of this page seen in this diff [48]) or is making superfluous editorial type edits which add nothing to the article but rather just show that he's indeed wikihounding me (like this edit seen in this diff [49]). Also, the original user is a self admitted avid fan of the University of Missouri and is now making edits on their heated rival's, the University of Kansas, related pages only because he followed me to those pages. He has a very clear biased POV on all of these KU related pages and is not making good faith edits to them, nor has he arrived at editing these pages in the first place in good faith, but merely is trying to wikihound me. I've made hundreds of good faith edits on wikipedia over many years freely sharing my expertise and knowledge, so I think I've established myself as a reliable good editor (i.e. I'm not some problem editor needing to be followed to make sure I'm not creating more problems) and this type of wikihounding behavior shouldn't be allowed IMHO. It's antithetical to what I thought wikipedia stood for and is making me seriously rethink my being a part of the wikipedia community. Kmanblue (talk) 21:06, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

User:Suridal

Hello Dennis. Having casually noticed an issue with the lead to Existentialism, I moved some unsourced content to Talk [50]. After doing so, I looked at the page history to see how the problematic paragraph had got in... Oops! Turns out it was added in just a few hours ago by a new contributor, User:Suridal, who actually seems to have intended [51] to put it into Existentialism#Definitional issues and background rather than the lead.

Not sure quite what to say to Suridal... Maybe a reassuring welcome from a senior editor like yourself would help? Best wishes, 86.161.251.139 (talk) 11:09, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

  • Someone dropped a welcome template on his page already, he only has one edit. Actually, I think the way you revert then took it to the talk page with the exact passage is the proper way to do it. It doesn't require reading diffs to discuss and can be judged at face value. Much better than just reverting and communicating via a summary only. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 14:01, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
Thanks Dennis. :-) 86.161.251.139 (talk) 16:15, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Tag

Hi Dennis. Please see my change in this sockpuppet tag. I hope this is the right one to use, but the person is only blocked three months, not indef. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 05:40, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

  • Looks fine to me. Of course, they can remove that when they are unblocked, unless of course they sock again before then... Our SPI scripts automatically add them with a single click and I normally don't tag sockmasters who are not indef blocked. Then again, 3 months is an unusual block for a master. It is usually 2 or 4 weeks or indef but this editor has some compounding problems that forced a long vacation. Hopefully, it will cause a change in behavior, but I've learned to not hold by breath for editors who are socking to bypass an Arb restriction. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 11:12, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Comment on AN/I Discussion

Hi, I made a comment addressing some points you made on my AN/I discussion at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Hullaballoo_Wolfowitz_and_Margo_Feiden_Galleries. Thanks! Factor-ies (talk) 08:41, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Pss, pss

You have new message/s Hello. You have a new message at Anna Frodesiak#FA articles's talk page. Ms.Bono(zootalk)☆ 13:22, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Request assistance

Hi Dennis. Wonder if you or one of your talk page stalkers with permissions would be able to fix a few diffs for me please? With this edit I may have crossed the boundary of WP:OUTING. I have removed the potentially incriminating line with this edit but would appreciate oversight to be on the safe side. I also accept that I am self-reporting for a potential breach of WP:OUTING should anybody feel that I need to be sanctioned. Much appreciated. Keri (talk) 17:49, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

  • I RevDel'ed the previous edits with the questionable material. You have to be careful with that, as you know. I don't see any justification for sanction, however, as it wouldn't prevent anything and you already understand the mistake and took the right action by bringing it to an admin. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 18:08, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Oh, and Keri, this isn't really socking. They might have just forgotten their password. Even if it is the same person, there are some legitimate reasons for the second account. If in doubt, instead of templating them, just drop it on the talk page of an SPI Clerk's talk page (like me). A list of active clerks can be found at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/SPI/Clerks. You can drop off any SPI concern with us, we will take it from there and do any filing necessary. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 18:12, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Lesson learned

I should have blocked on the spot, DENIED, and that was the worst possible example to give anyhow, right? Sorry about that. :( Thanks for the fix. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 18:29, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

  • There is more to it. Blocking on the spot unless you know the master, whom we don't mention, wouldn't have been good. We were already watching. You can always ping me with any sock concerns, it is my full time job here ;) Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 18:30, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Assistance

I need some help, and understanding you are an experience user, can you lend a hand? --Bar of Twmplatter (talk) 18:41, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Giano

Just wondering, but if it was anyone other than Giano, it would have been dealt with instead of simply swept under the rug, right? AutomaticStrikeout  ?  19:40, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

  • I can't think of any time I've crossed paths with Giano. That is still off the topic at hand. You are letting your emotions take a hold of your better judgement when you propose a block of someone else in the middle of a discussion of a block of Eric. It is bad procedure. Admin can take care of themselves, if they feel a need to block, they don't need a vote. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 19:44, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
  • I know that they don't need a vote. I'm just tired of all the "content creators" who demand perfection from admins and then lash out at anyone who dares to question their own conduct. I'm not sure why Giano is allowed to get away with his stereotyping. AutomaticStrikeout  ?  19:49, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
  • We are all content creators. Some focus mainly on content and I'm appreciative. Some of us focus mainly on keeping the machine oiled, and I'm grateful. We are all editors, however, and we are sometimes asses to each other. I find it is best to just not involved in people being asses to each other unless you really can solve the problem. Right now, a block isn't going to solve the problem, it would only make it worse.
  • Have you read my archives? I get called all kinds of stuff. It hasn't warped my mind or caused me to resort to anti-depressants. I'm an admin, I'm expected to be able to tolerate an extra ration of that. It always bothers me when someone call me an asshole, and some admin blocks them for it. I accept that sometimes people are rude. You are better off to just ignore this particular issue. There isn't anything you can do to "fix" the problem, but hammering away on it will make it worse. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 19:55, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
  • I can safely say I "know" Giano (in the sense of knowing his Wikipedia editing history, the other accounts etc etc) and heartily endorse Dennis' comments here - opening up that block request thread was just going to add to drama and produce far more heat than light. Pedro :  Chat  19:58, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Stick around a bit longer and you'll figure it out, ASO. PumpkinSky talk 19:59, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
    • I did leave a note on Giano's talk page about his hammering the reverts and not even providing a good summary as to why. Seems rude to not even explain why you are reverting a good faith hatting. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 20:03, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks

I would like to thank you for chasing down the sockpuppet of Faster2010 over at WP:SPI, as well as disabling Fladrif's talk page access and blocking the IP there. I personally had a couple of issues with Fladrif because of a long history of his condescending attitude and personal attacks towards me and other users such as Penbat. After his condescending comment on my talk page and reading up on the WT:BASC regarding Will Beback in which Fladrif's comments caused AGK to withdraw from that discussion, I knew that Fladrif does have a long history of doing this not to me, but to other users, members of the Arbitration Committee and administrators. Also, I don't know if you are aware of this, but Ched acknowledged that he has said negative things about me and apologized to me, during the recent ANI discussion on Fladrif back in April. Once again, thanks for your efforts as usual. Keep up the good work, Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 19:53, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

    • I see where you are coming from. But when someone posts questionable aspects on my behavior, as well as unfounded accusations towards me, I get a little shaky. Having had issues with disruptive users such as Yomiel, a sockpuppet of the banned user Fragments of Jade, and the events with Yourname back in late 2011, that made me realize that I cannot trust sockpuppeteers, users who commit vandalism or chronically disruptive users and I have always held a strict policy advising against all personal attacks towards anyone. I've blown up at users before, apologized, and try not to do things like that again. Other than that, best of luck. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 21:58, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
      • I completely understand. I'm just saying that SPI requires I don't prejudge the masters, we have to remain a bit distant in how we determine connections. Obviously, I hate socking or I wouldn't spend the time there hunting them down. It isn't sexy work and is usually thankless. But we still have to just connect dots without getting our opinions of the individual players reporting or reported involved. It is a fine line. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 22:02, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

One Tree Hill (song)

Hi, Dennis. I was wondering, how can I nominate U2 One Tree Hill'song for TFA?? Ms.Bono(zootalk)☆ 20:13, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

  • I'm the wrong one to ask. My first TFA will be on July 12, and Eric and I didn't actually apply for it, it was just granted rather quickly, so I'm not sure of the whole process. The article we worked on Sunbeam Tiger is rather unusual in that very few car articles make FA and I think it is the first one to make TFA ever. Maybe someone here can help, or you might have to read up at WP:FA. I'm in the middle of learning all that as well. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 20:20, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
Thanks 4 ur time! :) Ms.Bono(zootalk)☆ 20:34, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
Sorry I couldn't be more helpful, but I'm working on learning that system. I avoided it the first 6 years of my Wikicareer. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 20:37, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
WP:TFAR is the place to go, but be warned the folks there get annoyed if you don't follow their instructions. @Dennis, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6. 78.149.172.10 (talk) 21:05, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
Ah, so it is rare, but not unheard of. Then I have no idea why it was fasttracked. I know that they give extra points for someone who has never had a TFA, but I can't speak for why it was so fast for me. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 21:08, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
The schedulers try to rotate through the categories on Wikipedia:Featured articles that haven't been on the Main Page. There was a railroad article scheduled for July 1 and an aeroplane last month, which just leaves road transport, and most of the road and bridge FAs are deathly dull. 78.149.172.10 (talk) 21:15, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
You know more about this than I do. You should register and help me work on a few more ;-) Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 21:28, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
Been there, done that, can't imagine going back. Life's a lot easier as an IP - no-one ever comes to you with stupid questions or time-wasting demands, you can do as much or as little as you want without feeling under any kind of pressure, you never get sucked into the alphabet soup boards of posturing self-important nonentities, no watchlist so you just follow things that look interesting and see where it takes you, nobody can make assumptions about you based on who or where you are since UK IPs almost always geolocate to BTs offices in central London, whoever your ISP is, and when someone's hassling you, you just flick your router off and on again and - click - a fresh start with no baggage. I'd recommend it. 78.149.172.10 (talk) 21:55, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
I'd have to move a few thousand km east to do that :) I actually understand, I went IP for two years myself, then decided to come back and worked towards adminship to try to make a difference. Some days are better than others. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 21:57, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
Heh, because you were writing about an English car I assumed you were English. What was I saying above about making assumptions? Further to the list of former TFAs above, although there have been car designers and companies on the main page more recently the last TFA on an actual model of car was Holden VE Commodore way back in July 2007, and once the Tiger runs the only car FA not to have appeared will be Brabham BT19 (which is about motorsports rather than production cars). You can generate a list of current FAs on any given topic by replacing the word "automobile" here with anything else from this list - whether any given article has been TFA is listed at the top of its talkpage. 78.149.172.10 (talk) 22:13, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

The Sunbeam Tiger was American at the core, and British in structure and form. That pretty well describes both the car and Eric's and my collaboration on it. It just seemed fitting that we did it together. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 22:27, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

AN/I

Information icon Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Ironholds (talk) 22:35, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

FYI

Jacob Peters is back: [52]. My very best wishes (talk) 23:19, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Dennis Brown. You have new messages at Noformation's talk page.
Message added 23:59, 4 July 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Just in case you didn't see I've migrated your comment and responded at my talk page Noformation Talk 23:59, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

DYK RV/MH Hall of Fame

Hi, I was just about to review your DYK nomination but there seems to be something wrong with the nomination template? Sorry, I don't know enough to be able to sort it! By the way, the first paragraph in the "Features' section needs a ref and the hook sentence needs the ref immediately at the end to comply with the DYK criteria (pedantic, I know) - I was going to insert it but I can see you are presently working on the article SagaciousPhil - Chat 14:55, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, I've just called in the cavalry (in the form of BlueMoonset), who I'm sure will be able to sort it. SagaciousPhil - Chat 15:05, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
Glad you noticed and brought that to my attention. The built in link is stripping "RV/" from the link. It is a software failure. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 15:06, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

DRN contretemps

Dennis can I get you to look at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard#Talk:Morgellons if you're still online? We might need an admin's help there and at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Disruptive editing and intervention. If I've gone too far, please feel free to trout me. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 16:07, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, Dennis. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 16:34, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Today...

Is one to forget for Wikipedia, I think. It really hasn't been successful :\ Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 16:45, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Time off

I've manually archived, so sorry if I've missed anything but I need some time off. After seeing User:Boing! said Zebedee and User:Drmies both ask for their admin bits to be removed, it is safe to say I'm a bit depressed. Both of them were my mentors when I first became an admin and I hold them both in the highest esteem. I still have a few active things I need to finish up and I will finish those, but please don't drop anything new off here for a while. Yes, even I get depressed, and this is plenty of reason. I'm not resigning anything nor am I going to opine on recent events, but I'm just demotivated right now and it is probably best that I just take some time off. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 17:28, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

  • Totally understandable. I, and I think most editors, are not anti-admin, but rather anti admin abuse and the communitie's complete unwillingness/ineffectiveness to do anything about it. And a gutless arbcom does not help. As is, it takes countless victims and arduous years of RFCs/AC/etc to get something done about just one bad admin. Drmies and Boing are fine admins and yes, seeing their frustration get to this level is very sad.PumpkinSky talk 17:31, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Ugh. The bunch of you are just going to make more work for the rest of us normally-reasonable admins :-P ... which means more editors will get mad at us, and more of us will resign/go on breaks. Great. I so look forward to burning out while B!sZ, the good Dr and steady-as-a-rock Dennis all go on hunger strikes. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 17:47, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

To be clear, I'm not trying to make any WP:POINT here, I promise. I'm not prone to show a lot of emotion, so I don't expect others to understand how and why this affects me, but it does. It is my burden, however, and I need to not push it on others. The wisest course of action is for me to step back a bit and let my good judgement catch up with my emotions. My absence is unlikely to create any undue burden. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 18:01, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
Dennis - you know that I know you are not being pointy ... my :-P also should have alerted you to my sarcasm. I wholly understand and respect what you're doing/saying ... and I think you knew that based on my comment (✉→BWilkins←✎) 18:04, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
Dude, who's going to be head admin now? Take your time (but not too long!) and re-fuel. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 18:05, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
I knew you didn't take it that way, but others might have read my first statement wrong. Again, my wordsmithing skills and judgement aren't the best, which is why I need to step back for just a short while. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 18:07, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
  • (To repeat what I said to Boing!) Taking a regular break is healthy! Someone once suggested that all policeforce employees should be required to work in a daycare/kindergarten (or plant-nursery) for a few days each month. The wildly different perspective and pace, is recharging and inspiring. — But do come back soon, you're a much-valued part of the community. We'll miss ya in more ways than countless. –Quiddity (talk) 18:09, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
I thought we were already working in a daycare/kindergarten... Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 18:21, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Welcome back!

Good to see you editing again! --Demiurge1000 (talk) 19:37, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
"My name is Dennis, I am a Wikipedia editor". Local branch contact, anyone? Martinevans123 (talk) 19:52, 6 July 2013 (UTC) N.B. ... only counts as a "personal attack" if I also call you an R. Sole.
Don't read too much into a couple edits I made today. There were a couple of places that I felt an obligation to participate in as they were processes that were already started, such as Arb and one DYK that was about to hit the front page. I'm still taking a short break to gather my thoughts and try to put everything that has happened into perspective. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 20:05, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
Ah, yes, perspective. You might need one of these. Don't worry, Dennis, we all fall off the waggon now and then. I do hope you enjoy your break Dennis. You deserve it. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:14, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Dennis_Brown/Archive_25&oldid=1168300685"