Jump to content

User talk:Dennis Brown/Archive 5

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7→Archive 10

Banned user

As you recently gave a 3rr warning to this guy's recent IP, you might want to familiarize yourself with Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/PoliticianTexas/Archive. He likes to pull out new socks on a fairly regular basis. He pretty much uses the same MO every time; so I don't think he cares that we know it's him. It's just an ongoing game. LadyofShalott 23:14, 4 May 2012 (UTC)


RfC/U notice

As you have worked with User:Agent00f, I wanted to make you aware of Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Agent00f. I know it's moving backwards, but I'd like to have all previous attempts at least tried before going for the final solution. Hasteur (talk) 01:41, 12 May 2012 (UTC)


Hey

You're good. -— Isarra ༆ 22:14, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Marketing mix at AN3

FYI, see WP:AN3#User:219.163.197.4, User:219.163.197.5, user:218.225.58.206 reported by User:Jojalozzo (Result: ). In my opinion the sock issue would justify semi. You had previously declined it at RFPP, so you could comment at the 3RR board if you wish. I agree the edits are potentially in good faith, but the complete lack of communication after many reverts means that the article is stuck unless there is admin action, in my view. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 23:30, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

  • By all means, do what you feel is best. I'm quite easy, you are always welcome to take action and just tell me afterwards. Even after I've been here a while, you will find I'm easy about these things. I trust your judgement, more than my own in these cases. Right now, I'm probably a bit too conservative. Of course, this is better than overly bold, when equipped with a brand new bag of tools. :) Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 23:35, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Just a note

Dennis, I think I opposed your RfA but I wanted to say (somewhat belatedly) how impressed I have been with your various admin interventions. The ones I have seen have been statesmanlike and well measured. Keep up the good work, and feel free to ping me if you ever want a second opinion on anything. --John (talk) 08:25, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

  • Thanks for the kind words. I didn't take any opposes personally, I'm not so easy a person to pin down at a glance. And I appreciate the offer, I will likely take you up on it. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 11:20, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Barnstar of Diplomacy
Since I started editing actively again I have seen you appear several times. Very few editors know when the best action is not to take action. I believe you are excellent at recognizing that. Ryan Vesey Review me! 18:00, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

a couple minor points

First, I've been watching you since you became an admin, and I think you are doing a great job. (No, this isn't going to be followed by a "but".)

I want both MF and SW to continue contributing to the project, so I am unhappy about the recent incidents. I think you are trying to defuse the situation, and want to support that initiative. I accept your response to me at ANI, I don't wish to belabor it there.

Sorry, this isn't as coherent as I would like, as I'm trying to deal with too much at the moment, but just wanted to make a small point.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 18:54, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

  • No problem, you and I agree on this. I'm not quite sure how to "fix" this problem, but I know that ANI isn't going to be the answer. I'm working on ideas even now, but have no solution yet. And thank you for your compliment, it means a great deal to me. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 19:49, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

More MMA problems

Hey Dennis.

Please see Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(sports)#MMA_.26_other_event_based_Sports_Notability, where MMA editors who aren't happy they can't get their way with MMA are trying to take it out on other sports. We need more eyes on this as I strongly believe this is a WP:FORUMSHOP which could turn ugly with MMA SPAs at any time. —Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 02:57, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

A cup of tea for you!

A hard-working Wikipedian such as yourself deserves to relax with a cup of tea! Thank you for your valuable contributions. Dianna (talk) 04:01, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Hi

A short hello and touching base. I just wanted to say that I've been watching your input around the "house" lately and I think you are doing a grand job. I genuinely admire your work here, under difficult circumstances. A fair few other users would do no wrong by taking a leaf out of your book. Carry on =) GwenChan 21:48, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

  • Hearing you say that is truly heartwarming! I hope that I am able to live up to your words every day. When I don't, do me the favor of kindly letting me know that as well. I am human, and I do err. You just brightened up my day considerably, thank you! Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 21:56, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

A post you recently made on ANI

I'm curious why you made this edit. Unless I'm missing something, it doesn't seem very constructive.--Rockfang (talk) 17:39, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

  • He stated that he "knew" this mythological entity in the link provided. He has a history of good edits, and all of a sudden, very odd edits. It wasn't meant to inflame at all, only to get a feel for their state of mind to determine if the account has been compromised or if the person is not feeling well mentally. If it came across poorly, I would apologize. A look at their recent history is a little troubling. I appreciate you bringing it here, and if you strongly feel that I have made a mistake in this, I will strike it, but my goal is to determine IF there is a problem here, as there very well may be. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 17:47, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
  • I did modify the tone just a bit since no one has replied to it. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 17:56, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for responding and thank you for the explanation.--Rockfang (talk) 21:37, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
No problem. You are always welcome to come here and ask, I will always gladly explain any action I make. I appreciate you bringing HERE first, as to reduce any drama there. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 21:39, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Jenks24

You've supported twice (numbers 68 and 90), I'll leave it to you to sort it out how you want. Dpmuk (talk) 19:05, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Webcomics

Will you just give me a straight answer on how "Oh, this last AFD was closed as 'no consensus' or had faulty reasoning for its keeping; I think 2 years is a good enough gap to renominate" is a bad thing? There's nothing saying you can't renominate after a no consensus. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 21:55, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

  • Hammer, it is a general pattern, and you have always been at the limits when it comes to deletions. Every time it comes up, I either stay away or take your side, even though I completely see their points. You really have gotten what appears to be, obsessed with the deletions. You *need* a break. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 22:01, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

99.251.114.120

Since you warned him the other day - if you haven't seen it already, note this diff. From where I stand, BR has gone above and beyond in turning the other cheek and trying to make peace with somebody who's been warned over and over about personal attacks. --GenericBob (talk) 22:53, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

FYI

Bot didn't revert the angsty IP, it just moved his angst from the bottom on the page. 28bytes (talk) 02:12, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Need feedback

Dear Dennis Brown I'd like to draw your attention toward the article at User:Maharathi/sandbox and invite your valuable suggestions and feedback to improve the article.Maharathi (talk) 02:37, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

  • I don't usually do a lot of biographies, and this being sourced primarily in Hindi will be a challenge. On the surface, it looks pretty good, and I see Bgwhite is also working on it, who is more qualified, however I will see what I can do to help. I do like to see this type of article creation, in a sandbox, getting input from others. Good work. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 10:15, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Protection

Thanks for protecting Josephus on Jesus. I also mentioned there that the blocked user does the same here and also here. Do I need to make separate requests for those, or could you just protect those for 3 months as well? That will be appreciated. History2007 (talk) 15:40, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

  • Normally, you want to stay in process and do them individually for these requests if it isn't urgent. You can mention that I added 3 months, but any admin is free to use their own judgement. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 15:43, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
Ok, I will make another request. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 15:47, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Resource-based economy!

Thanks! --OpenFuture (talk) 14:05, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

ANI

I am a hair away from walking away from this article anyway. It's starting to affect me too much. Anyway, I deeply appreciate your kind words, both on the ANI, and on my talk page. When someone takes that much care to understand what I am trying to say, and actually listens, I find it touches me deeply. I make you a solemn promise, from another lifelong autodidact. I will not make a fool of myself, and I will not make a fool out of you, with NPA, no matter what anyone else does or says. Tftobin (talk) 00:43, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

  • Good to hear. And I actually enjoy working with people like you, that made mistakes but are reasonable, that got into a bad spot and just need a friend to say "hey, go do something different for a while." Seriously consider working in non-controversial areas. I do all the time because I enjoy the work without all the drama, then I can just edit and it is actually fun. That is what I'm doing right now, making redirects, adding some sources, etc. I try to limit my "drama" to no more than 30% of my daily intake at Wikipedia :) There is much to do and make a difference at here. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 00:48, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks...

...for your help at The Bachelorette (season 8). And beyond that: As I've said many times, it's a lot of work being an admin, and having to scout all the various noticeboards to try to put out all the fires. I think the rest of us need to just say thank you, in general, to you folks now and then. With regards, --Tenebrae (talk) 01:16, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Friends

There is no protection right now, as someone else claimed in WP:RFPP. --George Ho (talk) 03:13, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Resource-based economy

Hi Dennis, you can unprotect the page. I had no intention of engaging in edit warring. I just wanted to create the last diff before going to dispute resolution (DR), to provide the most up-to-date and most accurate diff to the DR process. (I formally requested dispute resolution a few hours ago.) There is nothing to worry about -- as I said, I had no intention of being involved in a war. (And I also have no desire for getting involved in other people's wars, as I consider edit warring a total waste of time.)

Regards, IjonTichyIjonTichy (talk) 08:25, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

A question about blocking procedures

Hi Dennis,

Hope all is well, and that the weather is just as lovely in NC as it is here in the UK. If I may, I would like to ask a question about blocking procedures, and perhaps an investigation into one such incident that occurred with myself a couple of days ago. I was issued with a 24-hour block on Saturday night with the reason for the block being 3RR (apparently I had done a 4th edit which put me over the limit). However, a few editors - one being an administrator - shown concern that the 4th edit being counted should have been disregarded as it was a BLP revert (which apparently is covered under #7 of WP:NOT3RR), whereas the over 3 edits where in regards to a Human Rights content on article Eurovision Song Contest 2012. The administrator who shown concern could review my unblock request as they have had involvement with myself on the Eurovision Project. But he did express that the block was potentially heavily handed, and the BLP edit was being used as an excuse to just issue a block anyway. If this is correct, then what action should now be taken? The block has since expired, but it is distressing that 1) a block for 4RR was issued when I had only reached the 3RR limitation; 2) it took 20 hours before someone made a decision on the unblock review; and 3) the unblock request was denied even though the BLP edit was established as being disregarded - thus meaning the 4RR reason would be null and void. Thank you in advance for looking into this - Wesley☀Mouse 12:08, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

  • It is a Catch 22. I don't have to wait for the 4th revert to block someone, I can revert on the 2nd if I feel it is disruptive enough, although I will likely have to explain to my peers and be subject to their interpretation. The 4th is just the "line in the sand" to which all admins will universally agree and not labor the issue. I would have warned you instead of blocking you, but not all admins are as communicative. Looking at the summaries, I don't see that you made a claim that it was a BLP violation in the summary, which I would suggest in the future. Likely, the admin saw multiple reverts, most said "good faith revert" and just hit the bit red button forcing you to go read a book for a day. We handle so many edit wars and such that we might not always read every word in every revert it if looks obvious. Personally, I don't revert more than twice before I get outside opinions, unless it is clearly vandalism and I have tagged it as such. Often I won't revert the second time before getting another editor (doesn't need to be an admin) to look at it. Perhaps someone who is shown to be active on that article. Just a neutral note on their talk page asking them to look at it. You can talk with the blocking admin, provide the diff that was a BLP but it is kind of moot at this point and you can't "revert" the log entry. And yes, often block requests don't get attention for some time. I haven't worked my up to block reviews yet, but I know it is understaffed. We have a lot of admins here, but often too few to deal with the load. The problem with block review is that an admin is usually not willing to override another admin unless there is a clear mistake. One of the edits being a BLP consideration might not be enough reason, as the admin might have just blocked you for the 3 reverts. Did you look to see if the reviewing admin tried to ask the blocking admin on his talk page? That might provide some info. So while I might agree with you in theory, in practice the best thing to do is never use that 3rd revert unless it is an emergency, and then if you do because it is a serious BLP issue, summarize it as such very clearly and immediately ask an admin for assistance. Then if you are blocked, you can establish a clear pattern of seeking assistance and providing a rationale. Not everyone is as reluctant to block as I am, so you have to be a bit more careful. As you have seen, even when you are right, things happen and there isn't much to be done after the fact. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 12:27, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Firstly, thank you for explaining that so clear and precise; I understood every word you wrote in your response. It was a bit of a tricky one, and admittedly I should be more explanatory with my edit summaries, something that I shall take on board and implement in future. Of the 4 edits on the article, the first was fixing a name issue of a living person. An official source which was used to reference the list of spokespersons, listed the name as Aleksey to which those details were used on the article. An editor changed the spelling to Oleksiy; which deviated away from the official source. Now I know that BLP policies are as secure as Fort Knox, and as strict as a dictatorship regime (for choice of phrase); which is why I swiftly changed the name back to how it was shown on the source. My understanding was that logic would have prevailed with it being obvious the change was a living person and nothing else. A few hours later, another editor added controversial content about human rights issues; and there was still an on-going discussion about a previous inclusion of such details (written in an objective and emotional manner) on the article's talk page. During that discussion it was decided to omit such details and work towards a mutual re-write; where members of the project where invited to write on the talk page, their suggestions of how the re-write should be worded. Now I know the user who added the latest details wouldn't have been aware of this discussion, and at the time I did the first revert, I wrote on their talk page explaining about the current decision to omit, and also invited them to participate in the discussion on the talk page. However, instead of discussing, they reinstated the content and then started to discuss. It was at this point that I did the 2nd revert and reminded them that they need to discuss first before re-adding content that is still being agreed on. A second user then re-added the details for a 3rd time, and again I left them a note making them aware of the current situation and the content discussion asking them to kindly self-revert. My request was ignored, so I boldly placed the article back into its omitted version - being fully aware I had reached the 3RR limitation, and wouldn't have crossed-over to a 4th revert on the same content (if it was to have been added again for a 4th time). The 24-hours (in all honesty) were a God send, as it meant I had to take time-away from Wikipedia - something which many editors, including yourself, had advised me to take since the recent family loss, and that I never acted on the advice at the time. Again thanks for the feedback, much appreciated - Wesley☀Mouse 13:33, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

YRC

Hello -- I wonder if you could help YRC learn to express himself without the use of phrases like "Jew issues" (as at BLPN, in the discussion on Mark Zuckerburg). There is a long history of this sort of thing. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:06, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

  • I have a couple of comments for what they're worth (I participated in the brief discussion on YRC's Talk page). First, if YRC doesn't want you to post to his Talk page, you shouldn't. Second, if your objective is to make it "less visible", then you could always come to Dennis, as you've done now. Third, if YRC permitted you to post on his Talk page, why couldn't you have done it in the same way as you did here, which was perfectly polite, rather than say something like "What planet are you on?" You could still have objected to YRC's phrasing without being insulting. And the choices are not only do I post it at YRC's Talk page or in the forum where YRC made the comment. There are other possibilities. Now back to your regular channels.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:29, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
    • I just saw that comment, as I went to the mentoring page, not YRC's talk page. To put it bluntly, Nomoskedasticity, you weren't leading by example on YRC's talk page. Feel free to bring any concerns directly to me, but Bbb23 is correct, and I would say that during mentoring, here is the right place. As you can see, I dropped everything I was doing and handled the situation first. When you state your case poorly on his talk page, you undermine my efforts, and I would ask you please give me enough credit for handling the situation until you have reason to believe I have failed to address it in a timely manner. I did reply only 6 minutes after you brought it to my attention, after posting a notice to his mentoring page only 5 minutes after your notice here. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 16:37, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
      • I'm grateful for the timely response, but since I wasn't being impatient I'm not sure what the point is. As for rudeness -- though I don't expect that anything at all will lead you to condone it, I note again that this issue has been in play for years, and I'm not the only one who is thoroughly fed up with this editor making offensive comments in a topic area where he doesn't know anything. The best solution for all concerned would be (as suggested not just by me but by quite a few others) for him to leave editing in this area to those who actually know something. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:38, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
  • YRC has corrected his comment at BLPN and acknowledged the error on his Talk page, which is good enough for me. As for "those who actually know something", All Hallow's Wraith is accusing me at BLPN of not knowing anything and being "highly disruptive". I'm genuinely touched by his concerns.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:48, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
  • That is good. And again, I have no issue with anyone bringing a concern here. In fact, I encourage it. Better to just let me know and let me deal with it. If you don't like how I deal with it, chew me out. I'm convinced it was a mistake, but an honest mistake. I would also note that YRC has made a tremendous amount of improvement, and has taken the whole mentoring quite serious. It wasn't forced upon him it was suggested and he chose it. We just aren't done yet. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 18:13, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Dual boot

Per the discussion on Reaper Eternal's talk, I'd suggest that you consider getting the Ubuntu Live CD and perform a dual boot installation as a side-by-side with Windows. I just used nmap to scan those IPs easily from the bash shell. It would only cost you one blank CD and some hard drive space and you'd have access to all of those tools that you are used to in *nix . I will say that I convert new installations from using Unity (user interface) back to traditional GNOME desktop and I would suggest the same for experienced users. My 2 c , fwiw
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 22:33, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

  • I found a good solution: Zenmap, the self installing GUI for nmap on Windows, found at nmap.org. It is actually quite good and I already know the syntax. It does have a couple of small diffs, ie: -P0 is done as -Pn, but generally the same. I don't want to run Linux when on Wikipedia, as I like to run videos in the corner or use the TV card. I'm a snob about using Linux on the server, but more open to Windows on the desktop only for the entertainment apps. Most of the time, as now, I use the TV as a monitor here in the living room and watch and type. If I used my regular desktop, I might just partition and dual boot Fedora solely because I'm so familiar with RH's backend layout. I cut my teeth on RH starting with 1.0, and now use CentOS. I still can't get used to Debian based distros, even though they are superior on the desktop. I have several servers I can ssh into, but PUTTY isn't the best for cutting/pasting, and I wanted a native app. I could just reinstall Cygwin, but I think I like Zenmap better since it is basically the CLI, with some mouse options. Not fancy at all, but 25mb to carry the backend. You might give it a try for boxen that require Windows. I used to use PortScan, a french program that hasn't been maintained in a decade and was simple but good. Might still see if I can get that to work in a virtual machine. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 22:48, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
    • Personally I'd use VirtualBox instead if you need Linux.--Jasper Deng (talk) 22:48, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
      • Yep, what Jasper said. Cygwin has its limitations but virtualization would/should allow the OSs to play nice in the sandbox with each other. I was so used to Debian-based systems that after finishing RedHat Academy a few years ago, I opted to stay Debian-based...usually Ubuntu but also Linux Mint, too.
        ⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 22:59, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
      • That is pretty fancy. I wear many hats at the company (technically, I'm in marketing) so I don't get to tweak nearly as much as I would like to. I'm subpar at Linux on the desktop, but have been doing the backend stuff for forever. I remember the internet before the web was created. Gopher, Veronica, Archie, IRC in a shell with IIRC then BitchX, anon FTP for, um, things :) This is one reason I want to tool up a bit and maybe help out in SPI. I actually understand the back end a bit more than most, although much of it is old school. I still love working in a CLI over GUI for any real work, but I'm not as up to date as I would be if I could do IT all day, instead of 15% of my day, and spending the rest of the time in photoshop and writing commercial web copy and dealing with managerial issues. Ever work with Lantastic? Ha! I even ran a multiline BBS for a few years before the interwebs, in DOS with QEMM and Desqview. Told you, I'm old school, and just lazy enough to use the easiest tools. Probably because I'm getting old. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 23:15, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks

Just a note to say thank you for acting on the AN/I that I posted (about 84.45.222.192, et al). I hope that does the trick...Moonraker12 (talk) 17:39, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

  • Just doing what I thought was right. I hope it helps as well. I looked a little at the other editors, who haven't edited in a while, and couldn't see anything that require immediate action at any. If another admin looks and concludes differently, that will be fine. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 17:41, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

The Kelapstick Beans Award

The Kelapstick WP:BEANS award
Please don't give Drmies any more ideas, sometimes he follows through, and someone has to clean up after him kelapstick(bainuu) 02:39, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
Well said, K.! LadyofShalott 03:09, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
You know what happens when you given Wikipedians WP:BEANS, right? They WP:FART. Drmies was just trying to emulate that scene in his favorite movie. LadyofShalott 03:24, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
How did you know? I'm sad K-stick moved the article--the longer title did a great job of indicating what's happening here: nothing masquerading as something. Welcome to the future of WP. Drmies (talk) 04:40, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
BTW, someone seems to have vandalized the article, and the related AfD is an amusing read. Drmies (talk) 04:43, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
I'm quite saddened by the page move. It was my hope to see it eventually go to AFD with all the articles in the list added sneakily to the AFD, so we could delete them all in one easy step. There is no way to express the tremendous pride I had in that title, my only contribution to this batch of rock soup. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 10:31, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
Dennis, don't feel disheartened, this is a juggernaut of the twitterpedia, there is no stopping it now. This has potential to grow to epic proportions. I won't be happy until I am included in the list, with my 15 followers, how big will the article have to be? And don't get me wrong, I loved the title. Now we have to start 2012 in Twitter. --kelapstick(bainuu) 10:42, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
Andy Warhol would be proud. It is a shame that we can't create articles that automatically expire and delete themselves. In the larger scheme of things, these article have a shelf life only slightly longer than milk. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 11:00, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
Case in point - Seamus (dog). What do you think an AfD would look like after the election?--kelapstick(bainuu) 11:11, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
A long sheet of relists because no one would care. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 12:10, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
I can't believe it took me over an hour to pick up on the Warhol joke (and I am just seeing the link now, I had thought you had linked to the page). Too long a day, and too much Hahn perhaps (I can't always blame it on the beer, but I do when I can). --kelapstick(bainuu) 12:34, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
I like obscurity, it's my specialty. I made a slight change to Drmies article, to keep it from getting dated. And left Drmies a "barnstar". Sort of. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 12:36, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
Awesome barnstar, probably my second favorite (after the one here, look for one by Drmies on 11 Feb this year.) --kelapstick(bainuu) 12:45, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
We do what we can on a budget. Drmies (talk) 14:06, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
This may have the unintended consequence of being a good thing, sort of. I know that you had no intention of this Drmies, but if Dr. Blofeld has his way (and I support his way), then you will have the proud distinction of being the original creator of the only article on Wikipedia that covers celebrities on Twitter. If that isn't irony, I don't know what is. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 19:12, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

←My oh my, lots of interesting things occur on the Wikipedia when I go to bed. AfD's fly all over the place, amazing. Remember to listen to me more Dennis, remember what I said, a juggernaut...there is no stopping this now, we are going to steam-roll over the Wikipedia!--kelapstick(bainuu) 22:21, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Ban?

Dennis, can you help me understand how an individual admin can "ban" an individual from a page without support from any other editor? Involuntary bans are only performed by the Community or one of its collective processes. The fact that another admin did a page protection indicates that there is not a ban, because if there were there would be no need for protection. I believe you are misjudging that banning is within the role of the admin as if Community support is not needed. I saw no such support at ANI. JJB 17:17, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Surreal Barnstar
Deserving of this.. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:51, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your kindness Dr. Evil Blofeld. That is the first one of those I have received. I will proudly put in on display with my other barnstars once my fellow editors have had the opportunity to admire it. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 19:03, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Factseducado FYI

They attempted to remove your objection to their unblock. I have restored your comments. Hasteur (talk) 21:39, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

An outside opinion

Hi, sorry to bug you. I wonder if, in your opinion, I am being too thin-skinned by taking offense at this: [1]? Difficult to be certain - I am deeply offended by it, but should I be? I trust your judgement in these things. GwenChan 00:36, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

  • Looking....Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 00:39, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Ok, here is the honest truth. I read the whole thread, but not the article content. What you have done is all that needs to be done. He was a bit insulting, but it is a contentious discussion, he is raising what seems to be legitimate points (I have no comment as to who is right or wrong, I have no idea) and I think this fall under what I would normally called "heat" or "peppered speech", as it appears that his concerns are in good faith. A little rude, but is predominantly on topic and the slightly insulting tone is still dealing with facts. You pointed it out, properly and politely, but I would move on. Tomorrow, it will still look slightly insulting, but still a bit insulting. I would normally not get involved in cases like this because the overwhelming amount of the discussion is actually healthy debate. The rudeness was unnecessary, and I don't condone it in the least, but pointing it out further will only have a Streisand effect. Your debating skills are plenty good that you can overlook it and focus on the merits of your argument, just like you have been doing. You probably are a little more sensitive right now because it is something you care about and it is frustrating that he isn't seeing your perspective in a way you want him to, and is a bit dismissive in a way that might be perceived as arrogant to some. In short, it is not actionable, or close to actionable at this point. Feeling the way you do is normal. Asking for another opinion was wise. Just keep doing what you are doing: being the sweet, passionate person who uses logic and persuasion without getting snippy back. You are always welcome to ask me here, anytime you need a second opinion. I might not always tell you what you want to hear, but I promise I will always tell you what I believe is the truth. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 00:56, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Your comment at ANI

Are you endorsing a run at ARBCOM with your statement? I'm trying to show compassion, but if you think it's time to drain the resivor, I'll start the ArbCom filing tonight. Hasteur (talk) 14:46, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

  • I think you might let someone else a bit more neutral consider filing. I was hoping that Drmies or DGG might decide the next step, or at least play a part. No need to do it today. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 14:48, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

DS/TG IBAN

Hello Dennis! just thought if you are interested (and of course if you have time) I can give you the links to previous RFCs, AfDs and other discussions where both of the editors commented or discussed in somewhat similar way as the AfD in question and also to previous IBAN vio reports (some were closed as WP:BOOMERANG and they were whacked off). Furthermore Salvio and Magog are the two admins who have been following this issue mostly. Regards --SMS Talk 22:13, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

  • My main concern was the policy itself, as I'm not used to working iban situations and it seems (for lack of a better term) utterly stupid to not include AFD discussions as part of the interaction ban. Perhaps I'm overcome with common sense in a world obsessed with wikilawyering, but I can't fathom why AFD would be an exception, as it should instead be at the top of the list. In this case in particular, since one author clearly created the article, it should be obvious. I'm not one to easily accept that "we've always done it like that", as I'm far to independent for that. WP:IBAN seems to need work, and more clarity would make this issue moot. If we simply allow him to withdraw his vote (I've tried, he won't), but make it clear that AFD is also off limits, that would be fine with me, as I'm not trying to get anyone blocked, only prevent this needless interaction and constant ANIs. Yes, I'm an old timer who is new to the mop and just now noticing a few things. While some parts of Wikipedia are fine, many parts are terribly broken. And I apologize if I seem frustrated, it is certainly not your fault, but there is a shortage of good old fashioned common sense at ANI all too often. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 23:52, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Follow up I've left a message at WP:IBAN, but previous discussions seem to indicate that AFD is not an approved interaction for ibaned users, per my thoughts. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 00:14, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
    (edit conflict)You are absolutely right in saying that it is violation of the (spirit of) IBAN, I totally agree with you and there are other people who agree with you like Regents Park who also commented on some previous IBAN vio reports with same thoughts but nobody gave it due weight. IBAN can't work this way and it actually isn't working if you have noticed blocks were also issued for violations of IBAN in last 2 months. Probably the best way to move forward would be to ask DS and TG to forget any IBAN relaxations/(or whatever you may call it) given previously and clarify them it is an IBAN violation and it should not happen again. That will I guess help in solving the issue. Though I think a TBAN is more needed here and I with some other editors did give this suggestion at the time of IBAN proposal and later too but it wasn't taken. My concern here was just that the reporting editor himself has been doing the same, has observed similar actions being done by the other party in the past and had been given clarifications by admins a number of times but yet again.... Well I see you may be disappointed that how a simple thing can't be understood by the editors but it is only that in the past admins did let it go (somewhat similar situations). (Btw I know you are a new admin as I am following you since you filed your RFA. Not in any negative way just for the learning purpose.) --SMS Talk 00:36, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
    I'm not sure watching me will be very educational. I'm constantly told that I'm different than other admins. Personally, I wear those comments like badges of honor. I do prefer common sense over policy, and it usually serves me well, but it does bite me from time to time. Also I'm under no illusion that there are any innocent parties here, but I have to still consider first, the issue that is presented, then any other. I can't undo previous leniency, I can only condemn it. And I've started the conversation on IBAN to get the policy clarified. My experience has been that when I forcefully interject a little common sense into a discussion, often it takes root, if only in one or two people, and we are often able to resolve the issue without all the damn policy links, and instead just find the right solution that works and is fair to everyone. I find the average editor respects this, even if some of the old blood doesn't. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 00:52, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Insufferable?

While I sometimes find you insufferable, ? Really? That makes Wikipedia better how? Nobody Ent 22:23, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

  • I was quite sincere. I wasn't trying to flatter him, only speak from the heart, and I meant every word. His editing skills do make Wikipedia better. We are not overflowing with talent in the writing department. We need good authors more than we need good admins. We are an encyclopedia, after all. Take a look around at the state of most of the articles here. He seems to have taken in the proper vane as well. He was quite vocal in opposing me at my RfA and has never bothered to even address me before now, but I certainly don't take it personal. I accept everyone for what they are, good and bad. Including Malleus. He frustrates me, and I've been vocal against him at times, but that doesn't erase his contributions. To be honest, I consider a rare few of his "disruptions" to be among his finest contributions. I'm complicated that way. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 23:37, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
    No worries Dennis, even I find myself insufferable at times. I'm complicated that way too. ;-) Malleus Fatuorum 00:39, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Purpose of afd

See [2] for the actual consensus state of affairs. An obviously bitterly disputed merge might as well go to AfD, though most of us would word it as delete if it can't be merged or some such thing to deal with the literalists. There have been discussions for years to get Articles for Deletion formally renamed as Articles for Discussion ; the rename once or twice has gotten consensus but nobody ever did the work of changing all the bots and templates and guidelines. None the less, that's how we treat it. You've asked that I criticize you where I think it's needed: You're a new admin--don't start off being so dogmatic. DGG ( talk ) 01:09, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

  • Point taken, friend. I try to not be dogmatic, even while I try to keep things orderly and in their proper place. I have seen many closes over the years that were consistent with my belief that one should never propose a merge directly in a nomination, and had just assumed this was correct. WP:Merging does say this is discouraged, but you are correct that it is not an absolute bar, and perhaps there are times when it does make sense. I will redouble my efforts to speak less in absolutes, and perhaps think a bit less in absolutes as well. I stand corrected. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 01:33, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
    • I slept on your words, and thought about it this morning a great deal, and concluded my comments above were correct but were insufficient. I have rectified the situation here [3]. It isn't right for me to expect someone else to publicly correct themselves if I am not just as willing to do the same, so I have. I wouldn't be serving a very good example for someone I am mentoring, nor anyone else had I not. A little humble pie is good for the soul. Thank you friend. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 14:16, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

I want Danceking5 blocked, and I want it now.

This is why. → ROUX ₪ 11:01, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, but a week isn't long enough at all. I want him to retract his accusations, and promise to never ever make them again before he is allowed to edit. → ROUX ₪ 11:14, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
    • I have replied at the ANI. To say that I'm non-plussed with your tone here is an understatement. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 11:23, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
      • Oh yes, I keep forgetting, when people attack me with utterly bullshit allegations, cast aspersions on my mental health, make truly bizarre comments about the times at which I edit (I'm a chef, we have odd hours) and so on, I'm supposed to be nice and polite and not ever get angry. Fuck that. → ROUX ₪ 11:27, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

A cup of coffee for you!

Because you shouldn't edit before your first cup, here is a long black. Australia's only acceptable contribution to coffee, in my opinion. And only acceptable because of the double entendres it provides. Consequently a flat white also provides the same comic relief. kelapstick(bainuu) 11:41, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Much better, thank you! Interesting read as well. Sounds like a variety I should try. I am enough of a snob to grind my own beans at work and at home. Coffee is the nectar of the gods, to be sure. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 11:47, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes, well you can't get a regular cup of coffee in this country it seems. If you ask for a cup of coffee, you get a look like you have three heads. Even the single cup machine we bought when we got here makes espresso only, I have to make the espresso, and add hot water. And don't go looking for a coffee maker here, they only have three models, I had to order my single cup unit (a different one I keep at work that makes just regular coffee as I can't handle instant for too long) from the US. I ordered two in case the first one crapped out on me :) --kelapstick(bainuu) 11:52, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
    • I grind and drip fairly strong, something like a European large coffee without the crema. I have owned a few espresso machines, but the $200 and less machines don't produce a proper crema, so not the same. I like it prepared in a number of ways, as long as it is black, no creme, no sugar, same as my tea. When the power goes out, we make cowboy coffee over the open fire. Most people can't drink it that way. I just floss afterwards. ;) Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 12:02, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
      • I like the cut of your jib Brown. In Canada, when someone is doing a trip to Tim Hortons, and asks what I want, I usually say "I am a large black man", despite my neither being particularly large, nor particularly black. I once owned a percolator that was used for the cowboy coffee while camping, right on the coals, I am sure it is horrible, but camping coffee always tastes good. No matter how bad it actually is. --kelapstick(bainuu) 12:18, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
        • Oh, and have a look at this before or after it gets deleted, my second favorite NPP find, after Angela Lopez. --12:21, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
        • Oh no, you don't use a percolator for cowboy coffee, just a pot and a spoon. Simmer, remove from heat, add grounds, wait a tic. I do have a perc unit for camping as well, but usually can't find when the power goes out, which is rare. I pre-grind the beans when weather looks bad, so I don't have to try to grind them with a hammer should the power fail. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 12:23, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
          • Well played, well it all worked out. Just booking some tickets for Mrs. K and the kids, they get to fly home business class thanks to Aeroplan, me, well we will see. But I have done lots of international business class travel and this will be a first for them. My only regret is not seeing the kids trash the lounges :) --kelapstick(bainuu) 13:24, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

how can I remove an article that I posted?

Hello..

I posted an article about head tilting, posing for photos (Ta3jet Nour).

I'm new at this and saw speedy deletion markings. I will look into it at another time. Meanwhile how can I remove an article that I upload in general? And this one for now I would like to remove until I understand better the mechanics of this site.

Thank you very much. Chingonnn (talk) 12:51, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

  • Glad you asked! If you want it deleted, you can just edit the page, remove all the text, and someone will CSD it as a blank page. This is only proper to do on articles like this, very new, you started it and no one else has added a bunch of other information to it. And please do stay around and learn about editing at Wikipedia. WP:HELP is a great place to start, as are the links someone added in the welcome template on your talk page. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 12:54, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

La Tour Eiffel

Oops, thanks. Having said that, if this hadn't already been move-prot'd, I would have declined a request for move-prot based on the pre-protection history (only moved once in 2006 and once in March 2008, even though full move protection was not added until July 2008). There's no need for it to be moved, of course, so it doesn't hurt to have full move prot on it, but then again we don't fully move protect all articles where there could never be a reason to change the title. Not complaining, or suggesting anything, just thinking out loud! Regards, BencherliteTalk 20:27, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

You owe me an oops, as you removed my semi-protection entirely when increasing my move-protection from 1 year to infinite... BencherliteTalk 00:41, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Youreallycan

As his mentor, I think your opinion might be helpful about what's going on here. He wanted a discussion removed or hatted, which it was, but he objects strongly that I'm the one hatting discussion. It just doesn't really make sense, and I cannot fathom his reasons for objecting to closure at this point. AniMate 22:46, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

I removed a WP:TPG violating thread - the user that created it - User:Egg Centric revert warred it back into the talkpage (other users had objected to the discussion also) and then the reverter and TPG violator deleted the whole discussion and User:AniMate a user with citable strong objections to my editing walked by closing without even a simple comment - Youreallycan 23:13, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
Since it's been brought up, it would also be nice if you could check if his definition and/or diagnosis of a "revert war" makes any sense whatsoever. Egg Centric 22:56, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
A revert war is if you replace good faith removed disputed content - did you do that? Youreallycan 23:16, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
Oh, factually I reinserted (once) some content that you had removed. But there was no mens rea on my part, no reason at all for me to believe the content was disputed by yourself - and I didn't. You had removed it with no comment and an edit summary of "archive". You seem amazed that I couldn't read your mind. Egg Centric 23:25, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
diff - WP:TPG You created a violating discussion thread - Your thread had already been hatted and objected to - easy peasy - "archive" was your opportunity to quietly let it go, but you revert warred it back to the talkpage Youreallycan 23:30, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
I was in touch with the user that hatted it. I had no reason to believe you considered the hatted (and that's an important word because it was restored hatted as well) discussion problematic. Nevertheless since then I have indeed been tying to "quietly let it go" but you won't let it drop. It's now you insisting on discussion on what is now four separate talk pages - trying to get me to admit... what? that I made an edit? Egg Centric 23:34, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm just looking at the talk page issue here: Wow Egg, this was not a good idea. Bearcat and others pointed this out. YRCs wasn't revert warring he only made two unrelated reverts, one of each. I may have worded it differently but that is just how I am, and I'm not the measuring stick for civility anyway. I have to admit, when I saw your post, I was shocked. As to reverting the hatting, he had the right to revert, and he did since he felt it wasn't over. I might have done the same, and I have at ANIs and other discussions before. This is how the system works. Even if it seems rude, it was proper and within policy. As to policy interpretations, there is already an admin participating in the discussion, Bearcat, who can help, and that isn't as important as the larger issue anyway. The conversation got a bit heated but I didn't see anyone cross the line, and I would expect it to get heated in this type of circumstance. It looks like everything was handled in discussion, so I'm not inclined to get involved. Sorry guys, but this is one you need to work out yourselves. I suggest leaving it alone, because for the most important parts of the talk page issues, YRC looks to be right. Wanting the invitation removed and unhatting the discussion, these are things I might have done myself, even if I'm a sweet talker when I do it. As to the content of the article and placing back disputed BLP material, I would direct you to WP:BLPN, as that is out of the scope of my experise. But I don't see anything I need to spank him for. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 23:37, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Wow, not the response I was expecting. Ok YRC, you "win", I admit to the henious offence of whatever. Egg Centric 23:40, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
You see, thats not what its all about, there is no winning and losing in this vague Wiki world, - its more about getting over hurdles as this when as contributing volunteers we all want the same options - Youreallycan 23:43, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
Egg, it is not about winning. It is about working our way through problems. Sometimes it is ugly. This one was ugly in every possible way, which is why I'm not wanting to get involved. There is nothing about that conversation that I would have done the way that everyone else did. Well, except Bearcat I guess. That doesn't matter. You guys can handle it yourselves. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 23:49, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
Not the response I was expecting either, and I'm not sure how closely you've read things. Egg Centric's post was awful and he shouldn't have restored it, but he certainly didn't revert war. And YRC didn't say he objected to the hatting because there was more to discuss. He objected because Egg Centric requested it and I was the one who implemented it. Those aren't valid objections. The discussion wasn't even about him, it was about Egg Centric and frankly shutting down any suggestion that we use the talk page the way he intended seemed like a good idea. And while it isn't about winning, this very much seems like a case of YRC wanting this to stay open until someone admitted he was right. AniMate 23:58, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
Maybe, but there is already an admin there and since I don't see an obvious problem that forces me to get involved, I'm not inclined to, and let you work it out yourselves. The situation started out badly. That it continued badly isn't a shocker. But it isn't a situation that I need to interject my opinions into. There are times when I need to jump in, and times I need to stay out. This is the latter. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 00:17, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Lol

See bottom of article Egg Centric 15:07, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

What message?
Anyhoo thought you might be amused with that little "clipping", I've notified everyone else involved with this discussion... Egg Centric 16:09, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
This was causing controversy elsewhere here, someone had a list of Wikipedia editors who this person "might be". Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 16:10, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
I saw that, quite the list! I was torn between AnomieBOT and Iridescent Egg Centric 16:28, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Review please?

Hello, Dennnis. I consider you to be my friend, and as such, I hope that you'll be happy to know that I'm trying to follow what I have been told in my RFA. Can you please review me? Thanks. Dipankan (Have a chat?) 09:25, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

  • Normally I would say no because I am currently training in two different areas, mentoring another editor and my plate is quite full. However, if you are patient, I will take the time and review and offer you any guidance I can. Keep in mind, I will be honest and blunt, much more so than in your RfA, and you might not like everything I have to say. If you are in agreement, then I will find the time when I can. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 11:03, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Your recent meassage on my talk page

Hello, Dennis. It looks to me as though the user is persistently failing to grasp the point of the various messages, and there is perhaps an element of paranoia too. However, we will see whether the matter continues, and if so how. JamesBWatson (talk) 15:50, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

  • I didn't want to say too much, as I'm technically too involved and you are not, and you seem to have it under control. Just wanted to let you know I was aware. Pretty odd to copy all that text, what an odd axe to grind. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 15:53, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for !voting

at my successful RFA
Thank you, Dennis Brown, for !voting at my successful RFA; I am humbled that you put your trust in me. I grant you this flower, which, if tended to properly, will grow to be the fruit of Wikipedia's labours. I feel a little sheepish for the stuff my connection did, but no harm done. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:33, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Sockpuppet edits

Hi, thanks for your assistance in the SPI issue. But I would like to ask your permission to reinstate the edits recently made to Scripps Ranch High School. These edits are not problematic, indeed they were constructive in trying to respond to my own demands for citations and correcting factual errors. Elizium23 (talk) 01:41, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

  • By all means, you don't need my permission, whatever makes the article better. I reverted because there was a question about them and I had blocked the sock. If I misjudged the content, you do me a favor by fixing it. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 12:14, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

WP:RFPP

You have a request at RFPP. [4] Armbrust, B.Ed. WrestleMania XXVIII The Undertaker 20–0 12:01, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for this. I simply didn't have the time to respond to him, so it's good to see that he got a good response from you. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 13:35, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

User:Scottdelaney1067 once again

I just looked at some of his recent edits – I didn't look at all of them... Can you check [5] and [6]? I think I've rectified that situation. Also, the 3 in-a-row escalating templated warnings at User talk:198.24.31.117 seem rather bitey. Perhaps you could give him a bit of sound advice. Thanks. Mojoworker (talk) 23:49, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

No, I don't think a block is in order. I think he means well, but he's just gone a bit gung-ho. And, as you've expressed previously, he may run up against someone who may hit back at him hard. I think maybe an explanation will suffice. I thought that should maybe come from you since it looks like you were his "first contact" here at WP (and you have such a diplomatic style). I'm out the door, (and I need to get some notes ready for a conference call in the morning) but I'll try to offer him some advice when I'm back online if you don't get there first. Maybe point him to the WP:CVU where I've been helping out a little with its resurrection. He may be a perfect candidate for the academy there. Mojoworker (talk) 00:43, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
I've tried talking to him before, but with no luck unless he asks one question, gets one answer. Maybe having his head bit off a bit will do him good, to see the consequences of his actions. We've tried so many other approaches. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 00:54, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the heads up on his user name change. I just had to warn him for templating people making sandbox edits. I notice the activity on his talk page is heating up. I'm seriously wondering if WP:CIR applies here... Mojoworker (talk) 19:13, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
Waiting, giving rope, WP:AN might be in the future. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 19:51, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

User:50.81.90.92 and The Next Food Network Star/Food Network Star articles

Help! You recently semi-protected The Next Food Network Star (season 6) and Food Network Star (season 8) after a series disruptive edits by User:50.81.90.92. The editor is still active on the season 3-5 and 7 articles as well as the main Next Food Network Star article, making fiddly edits in what appears to be an attempt to make the articles perfectly uniform. The problem is, the various seasons haven't been perfectly uniform, and he/she is removing perfectly good, relevant and sourced content over and over again, with no discussion and no edit summaries. AussieLegend and I have warned her repeatedly, and attempted to engage her in discussion over and over again, and get no response. Now she's putting requests to edit on the talk pages of the semi-protected articles, so we know she can engage in discussion when it suits her. It's increasingly difficult to AGF when there is this persistent a pattern of tendentious, disruptive editing, particularly with respect to crafting the tables to her vision without regard to other editors, her refusal to respond to warnings, her ignoring of warnings, and her repeated, unexplained removal of appropriate content (notably descriptions of outcomes and of the contestants from some seasons.) She does make some good edits, but it's the problem edits, removal of any other editor's edits and the endless fiddling (for want of a better term for it) with the articles that's a problem. It's clear semi-protection isn't going to stop her, given the recent talk page activity, it's equally clear she will simply resume her disruptive editing as soon as the semi-protection is lifted. Moreover, the semi-protection on season 8 is keeping several IP's who do good editing from doing so. It's time for some attention getting administrative action targeted at the editor if we're ever going to get this pattern of editing stopped and the IP's attitude adjusted. I'd most appreciate any action you can take. --Drmargi (talk) 18:31, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

  • I've left a final warning, so any admin will see that as a opportunity if he doesn't begin a dialog. Really can't block until that final is given. Reverting it back shouldn't be an issue, but this isn't vandalism, just disruptive, so 3RR still applies. You might need to go to RFPP if he isn't the only one. I'm a bit in and out today, so hard to follow everything. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 18:41, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
Well, we can but hope he/she will respond, but I'm not optimistic. The multiple daily fiddly edits are annoying, but the repetitive removal of good content is just unacceptable, as is her blanket refusal to engage in any consensus building. We seem to have a cadre of IP editors whose sole playground is the endless collection of elimination shows, and who have a shared "my way or the highway" approach to editing. Yeah, I can revert again (I'm watching 3RR), try to engage her in dialogue, leave an edit summary, ad nauseum, but she'll just come back the next day and take it all out again for no discernible reason other than the apparent need to remove anything from one article that isn't in the rest. Page protection won't solve the problem. --Drmargi (talk) 19:11, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
I'm a bit tied at the moment, at my day job, so a bit hard to examine as close as I would like. Will look at it later though. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 19:12, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
I understand; I wasn't nagging, just commenting, and as you say, we do have to give the final warning a chance. I'll keep an eye on things in the meantime. --Drmargi (talk) 19:49, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Well, she's moved on to Chopped (TV series), and is editing that to distraction (distruction). Most edits are fine, but the she keeps reverting erroneous names for food items with no discussion, no edit summaries, and the rest. When do so many fiddly edits to the same page cross into 3RR territory? Somebody find me a bridge to jump off. --Drmargi (talk) 02:24, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Sock case

Hello!
You had in recent past blocked an IP for being a suspected sock. Sock case here is of Mr Hamza. Another IP 119.73.39.12 seems to be here now with same edits. Could you take care of this? I haven't opened any sock investigation before and certainly don't know how to do of the archived ones. Hence posting here. §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 13:27, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Forgot to mention that their locations seem to match. §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 13:36, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
Thanks! §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 17:41, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

So I took your advice

And asked Mar4d on his talk why he reverted a good faith edit as vandisim. From what I can garner he says it is vandalisim as IRWolfie said on ANI that the edit might not be NPOV. I am unsure how something said at ANI after the fact is a reason but that's the one I got, maybe you ought to ask him, be does not like me very much you see. Darkness Shines (talk) 16:19, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

  • Well, you did drag him to ANI without trying to discuss it first, that might explain why he isn't happy with you. If you find yourself in a situation where no one agrees with you on a point, you are better off asking a respected editor who is uninvolved and edits on that page, on their talk page, for a second opinion. Or sometimes, you might just be wrong. We all are from time to time. In this case, I don't know since I didn't get into it deeply enough since it didn't belong at ANI, because you didn't try to address it on any talk page first. If you keep dragging people to ANI prematurely, you will suffer from The Boy Who Cried Wolf syndrome, where no one wants to jump in in the times when it is needed. ANI is the last resort, not the first. You should know this. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 16:31, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Counter Vandalism Unit Academy

Could you elaborate for me a little on User:Scott Delaney; Wikipedia:Counter-Vandalism_Unit/Academy/Enroll#Active_Requests_to_Enroll. Thanks Dan653 (talk) 02:07, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

  • Short version: Judgement is worrisome. Uncommunicative at times, which makes determination very difficult from here, sometimes unresponsive. Seemingly young and a bit careless, often looking only at the surface and missing the nuances in other's actions, misinterprets because of this. Somewhat binary thinking. Not malicious in the least, but can be accidentally disruptive (BITEy via templates, etc.) even when he means well. Possibly CIR concerns, and has struggled enough that a couple of us have been keeping an eye out since day one. Borderline in many ways. Mojoworker is also familiar. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 02:25, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
  • This page and my archives might be useful. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 02:27, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the helpful comments. Dan653 (talk) 02:58, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Dennis Nixon (IBC Bank) page

Hello,

I work for the public relations agency for IBC Bank and we noticed that someone outside of IBC Bank created pages for the bank and its CEO and Chairman, Dennis Nixon. We created a username (ibckgbtexas) to try to update some of the content since the creator used information that our client saw outdated and/or did not want on the page. We are brand new to the whole editing process and are slowly learning the rules for Wikipedia. However, we have been banned by you without any opportunity to help us address our issues. If we cannot update/ edit the pages without being banned or reprimanded, what is the process to have these pages deleted as our client is unhappy with the current versions? We appreciate any response.

yviands@kgbtexas.com

  • First, you need to understand a few things. If you want to learn editing on Wikipedia in a way that is consistent with our goals, fits the needs of the reader, and as a side benefit, make the the bank happy, then you would have to be willing to spend a little time reading what Wikipedia is about. It isn't a business directory. We don't delete articles because the subject of the article doesn't like them. It doesn't work that way. If you add content here, it must be 100% original and not already copyrighted (no cut and paste from the website), and when you do, you release it under the CC license. This means that everyone else can use it, change it, modify it, add to it, subtract from it. You do not own that article any more than you own the air you breath, and you have no more say about the content than I do, or the next person who logs on. We all try to make sure the info is accurate, but we are not interested in helping you make your client "look good", and efforts to manipulate articles solely to make a client look good will get you blocked from editing. Wikipedia is a community supported, corroborative project, designed to build a free and open encyclopedia. It isn't a phone book ad.
  • Anything that looks like spam in any way is generally deleted or reverted instantly, be it a website or editor. If you are simply wanting to add this info and insure it stays here, you are wasting your time and mine. If you want to actually learn how to add material here properly, including stuff about your client, and be respectful of the system here, then I will show you some links worth reading, below. If this is too much work, then your stay won't be pleasant and it wont' be long until the entire IP bank is range blocked for policy violations.
  • We are here to build an encyclopedia. We are not here to help you make money. We will happily tolerate you making money, as long as it doesn't get in the way of us building a neutral and trustworthy encyclopedia. Once it does, our tolerance ends. It is that simple. We have enough issues and work to deal with. I had to stop editing articles now to answer this, so you have already cut down how much new data will be added tonight. I'm not thrilled with this, but I'm trying to give you the benefit of the doubt, and give you a proper reply here.
      • These are linkes, policies and rules reviewed and agreed on by many thousands of editors here, not just a few people, and have stood the test of time (Wikipedia isn't new, by the way.)
  • General help page
  • 5 pillars - Until you read this short page, you have no idea what Wikipedia is.
  • WP:COPYRIGHT - Anything you write here, you give Wikipedia and the whole world an irrevocable license to use pretty any way they want, only giving credit back to you. This is why we can't use text that is already copyrighted except in limited circumstances. It must be original.
  • WP:NPOV Neutral Point of View. As an encyclopedia, we document facts that are covered by reliable sources. We are not here to extol the virtues of your client.
  • WP:COI Conflict of interest. If you can't cope with your conflict and write in a neutral manner, then you don't edit at Wikipedia.
  • Finally, don't log in with this IP again, please. Technically, this was a policy violation itself, but I understand that you didn't know that, so trying to help. If you want to be unblocked, you need to log in with the IBCKGB account, ask to be unblocked and convince another admin that you will comply with the above, explain the issues there, get a new user name there. That is the breaks. If you want to use Wikipedia to make money, fine, but you aren't special, so you follow the same rules that I follow. Oh, and one of the rules is one PERSON per account. We do not allow company or shared accounts. You can read about that at WP:USERNAMES. If this is too much, then editing at Wikipedia isn't for you.
  • One quick note: Since there are 1500 technical minded administrators who eat, live and breath this stuff, and this has a case report in the archives, trust me, ignoring my requests here would be foolish. Logging in from home and editing the articles, for instance, would take less than 3 minutes to notice and get blocked for, so seriously, I don't want to see that happen, and would just say that you need to do the things I asked so that perhaps you can edit here legitimately. I'm actually trying to help you. Most admins would have just blocked your IP and deleted your message, which is actually what the policies kind of say to do. Seriously, I'm trying to help you. Spend the time to learn a bit, follow the advice here, learn to contribute in a way that is acceptable. It isn't hard, you just have to forget about the checks you are getting and contribute in a neutral tone, and follow some simple guidelines. We have lots of 13 year olds who can do it here, surely you can. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 03:26, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Editor's Barnstar
You are really on of the best admins we have! I have seen your archieves and saw your comments (kind of stalking) and I m really impressed. Especially I like the way you handle conflicts and questions brought to you. I also love to see your work at helping editors and your improvements at CSDs. You are doing great and I hope that you'll continue the good work. All the best! →TSU tp* 11:25, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Thank you! That is very kind of you to say. I'm not sure I can live up to your words, but I can promise that I will try. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 11:36, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Request

Can you look on Magog the ogre talk page section titled another violation and either block or not as you see fit. I dislike having this hang over me, I find it stressful. Let's see how that natural justice works out. Darkness Shines (talk) 12:16, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Ribfest

If Wiki develops Scratch and sniff technology for its images, I !vote that this is the first one -
⋙–Berean–Hunter—►

You know about this, right? I would go but I will be barbecuing a pork loin.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 16:11, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

If you go, take a camera. Good chance for photos but you will need lots of napkins to keep your hands and face clean. I'll add the festival to the list.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 16:22, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
Not sure if this is notable enough to include yet, but I've started a sandbox to find out here: User:Dennis Brown/Texas Pete Twin City RibFest Help would be appreciated, so we can determine if it passes WP:N. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 17:25, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
I also added a bunch of sources on the talk page. I think it can pass wp:n with some help. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 17:44, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
Oh, and we ARE going. Likely Saturday after she closes the shop. Thanks for the heads up! Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 17:55, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
I've watchlisted it and will see what I can do later. I've got to get some things done before the afternoon slips by. Enjoy the ribfest!
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 18:09, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
I'm back! Great ribs, lots of cold beer and music. Think I will wait a while til I edit though.... Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 23:11, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Sock

No idea whose, but as you have dealt with Echigo mole perhaps you can hazard a guess on this [7] fellow. Darkness Shines (talk) 21:52, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Scott Delaney

Hi, Dennis. Sorry I've been absent to see what's been happening with the above user. I have placed a note on his page and placed a statement on WP:AN. If he continues, I will support the block which you recommended based on WP:DISRUPT. I understand your frustration, so let's hope this gets sorted out sooner rather than later and close the discussion for archiving. About twinkle, I know, currently that users can add it to their account whenever they like. Have there been any discussions for it to be handed out at places like WP:PERM? Thanks. --Chip123456 (talk) 19:59, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

  • It used to be able to be taken away more easily, but I don't think it needs to a matter of permissions as most people use it fine. Snowolf covers one way around this, where it can be taken away, but its a little unusual. It would take an ANI or AN discussion to take it away from someone, which may be happening there now. I took it to AN rather than ANI, as it tends to slightly slower and more thoughtful, with a bit less drama. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 20:40, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Twitter issue

As you had participated in the previous AfD, your views would be welcome here Talk:Use_of_Twitter_by_celebrities_and_politicians#Proposal_to_merge. §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 16:25, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

IP

Hi Dennis Brown, IP 31.146.35.112 who was blocked a few days ago is back and is continuing with their disruptive edits at the Turkish people article. Now they are going by the user name "Whatisgeorgianwhatisgood". Would you please be able to help me as I'm pretty certain this is still User:Ledenierhomme playing their annoying tricks.Turco85 (Talk) 22:30, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi Dennis, (about User:Claude A. R. Kagan)

Could you replace the first line on this user page with the following code for me, (the page is protected from editing)

<div style="text-align: center;">{{Deceased Wikipedian}}

'''Rest in peace - [[Claude A. R. Kagan]] - October 7, 1924 - April 26, 2012'''</center>

Thanks ! Penyulap ☏ 08:38, 12 Jun 2012 (UTC)

Looks like Alison beat me to it. Let me know if there is anything else I can do. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 11:47, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
I'm wanting to edit despite the page protection, after a suggestion on my talkpage. Penyulap ☏ 12:12, 12 Jun 2012 (UTC)
The page isn't edit protected, only move protected. You should be able to edit it just fine. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 12:14, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
It's early, or I'm an idiot. Pick one. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 12:15, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
Make a draft and I will unprotect long enough for you to add, or just add per you. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 12:16, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
Per me is cool. thanks, at the moment, that is all we are after, although, now you mention it, would you add a redlink to his article, per above, that is all that is needed in the foreseeable future. Penyulap ☏ 12:23, 12 Jun 2012 (UTC)
I would say give it a day, come up with anything you think is appropriate after talking with others on your page, then make one change. Since it will be a redlink for now, another day won't hurt. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 12:28, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
No problem, and it is a good idea. I think a mention of his full name might be discussed as well, rather than a day, we may take some time longer, there is the article to do, and that is going to turn up a great many interesting things to consider. The man was a genius. Penyulap ☏ 12:33, 12 Jun 2012 (UTC)
Sounds good, I will be ready to help when you are ready. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 12:34, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Was this a personal attack?

Hello Mr Brown.

an IP said on his talk page that This This wasn't a personal attack.

Could you clarify that for me please?Scott Delaney (talk) 02:31, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Note that I'm one more attack edit from the IP from bringing this to WP:ANI. Accusations of inserting libel are unacceptable. --NeilN talk to me 02:44, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Was that a personal attack?Scott Delaney (talk) 02:51, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

No, not a personal attack. It borders on legal threatening, though.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 03:04, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
And if it's a legal threat, I advise on speedy block. Dipankan (Have a chat?) 06:46, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Just got to work and I see this is at ANI now. It is quite incivil, bordering both on a personal attack and a legal threat, but coming up a little short on both. Normally something I would strongly warn for rather than block for a single incident, but it looks more complicated and getting aired out at ANI, so will let that process work. May pipe in there if needed. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 12:29, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
  • I see a number of admins and known reliable BLP familiar editors are on the talk page for the article, so I will leave it in their capable hands. If I see more legal sounding threats, I will warn the user, and may still. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 12:47, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the Info!--Scott Delaney (talk) 23:39, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Sockpuppets

Hi Dennis, thanks very much for blocking Rcodella as a sockpuppet.

I have just determined that EcFitzsimmons is also a sockpuppet. Same articles, same ideological edits. Plus, a very curious User page that basically admits it. And, edits that have been criticized by at least one other editor, see [8] and possibly early comments by Nolelover. Shall i do another report/analysis, or is there a possible shortcut?

Thanks, Richard Myers (talk) 18:03, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

OK, thanks. Turns out, Cbislingtion is yet another instance. I'll see if there are more before i submit. Richard Myers (talk) 18:15, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
Good idea, and ask to check for a CU to check for sleepers. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 18:16, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
No response here yet. I'm not feeling impatient, there's no hurry, but i'm wondering if the document needs to be marked open instead of closed. Thanks, Richard Myers (talk) 04:44, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Would you mind?

The reinsertion of the PA is a bit over the top. Toddst1 (talk) 20:03, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Muchas gracias. Toddst1 (talk) 20:05, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
BTW, I almost blocked him before this incident, but I'm forever the optimist I suppose. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 20:08, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
ooohh ooooh ooooh can I decline the blatant coming unblock request? please please please? Egg Centric 20:10, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

As you are not an admin, no. We do not want to taunt the trolls, Egg, it only makes them angry and then they become more destructive, and that makes more work for me and others. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 20:12, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Oh, and I didn't bother templating them, so they can figure it out on their own I suppose. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 20:13, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
More seriously, would you mind revoking talk page access? That PA been put back post-block. I revoked it, but self-reverted. Toddst1 (talk) 20:15, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

 Done and I removed the taunting.... Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 20:18, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Dennis Brown. You have new messages at Wikipedia:AN.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Adjwilley asking you to hammer out details on a reply at The Administrators Noticeboard.--Scott Delaney (talk) 22:33, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Discussion at wikipedia:AN

I saw at The administrators noticeboard that the discussion about the CIR issue is still open. do you think you mark it as closed?--Scott Delaney (talk) 00:37, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

  • It will be fine. The discussion should be closed by someone not involved, after allowing anyone to object who cares to. This is part of the normal process. My request to close wasn't really trying to get someone to hurry up and close, but to just let others know that the situation has been settled, and they are free to close it if they choose. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 00:42, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Invercargill airport

I would like to request permission to use this non-free image on the International Technical Stopover section of Invercargill Airport.Just let me know if you have any questions.Thanks!--Scott Delaney (talk) 04:28, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

  • That probably won't be possible. That photo really isn't about the airport. To qualify as Fair Use, the photo must be substantially covering the subject matter, and this photo isn't. If you found a photo of the airport itself, then you might have a case. User:Moonriddengirl is probably the best person on Wikipedia for determining what is and isn't proper for Fair Use as she works with Copyright all the time. She is always a good person to get a second opinion from. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 11:57, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Use of Twitter by celebrities and politicians and List of Twitter users

I don't understand why they must be merged. In Talk:List of Twitter users, I requested that "@drew" account bought for one million dollars by Drew Carey be added, yet someone opposed inclusion of it. Even "non-notable" accounts, like one used by Carey's current blond girlfriend and another by Britney Spears, can be worthy of inclusion, but not until the discussion is over. I couldn't discuss this in either talk page; replying there can be distracting. Since you are an administrator right now, and you supported merger, why else must they be merged? --George Ho (talk) 09:02, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

  • It doesn't matter that I'm am admin, my voice is no greater than yours in the matter. I supported a merge because I felt they were redundant. I would suggest just discussing it on the talk page, it is active there, but everyone seems pretty reasonable in the conversation. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 11:54, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Mentor issue

Hi Dennis

In this discussion Talk:Luka_Magnotta#No_connecting_evidence - User:Wnt has accused me of violating Wikipedia:No legal threats - can you please investigate/comment - I have notified the user here User_talk:Wnt#Discussion - thanks - Youreallycan 22:02, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

  • I addressed it earlier at that discussion. Any time you mention anything "legal", people tend to get a little hair trigger. I think it was just an honest misunderstanding, so just moving on is best and trying to avoid the "L" word when possible. Linking to the policy should be sufficient. Another one of those areas that isn't about right or wrong, just about the best way to get along. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 00:34, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
  • I'm gonna jump in here, not that anyone asked me for my opinion. :-) I've never seen anyone refer me to Wikipeda's terms of use before in a discussion. If I were at the receiving end of it, I would (a) be bewildered because those kinds of documents are VERY long, very legal (despite the fact it says it isn't), and generally hard to understand - and, here, YRC, you referred to the entire document without pinpointing a particular section and (b) be somewhat intimdated by the reference. Therefore, regardless of whether the statement violates WP:NLT, it's not a constructive thing to say in a content discussion.
As for NLT itself, it's one of WP's wonderful policies where it never clearly defines what a legal threat is. Instead, it defines what it isn't and expects the reader to figure out the rest. That said, I think your comment, YRC, might fall under the section called "Perceived legal threats". Admittedly, it's subjective, how someone else is going to interpret your statement, and just because the other editor did perceive it as a legal threat doesn't mean their perception was "reasonable". My own feeling is it is a legal threat but I can see that others might disagree with me. Either way, the section called "Rationale for the policy" sums up the situation, even if it is NOT a legal threat: the comment "inhibits free editing" and "creates bad feelings". (As an aside, YRC, I think it's absolutely wonderful that you come to Dennis in these situations and lay yourself open to scrutiny. It shows not only good judgment, but real courage. Kudos.)
And so now, Dennis, we have to add the "L" word to the list of no-nos in the English language? It's gonna be particularly tough on lawyers, of which there are many at WP. "Your Honor, my client's conduct was perfectly L." Heh. End of long-winded opinion.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:41, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
Well, using the L word does set off red flags at Wikipedia, often like a hair trigger. I didn't see YRC's statement as a legal threat, even if I would have worded it differently (I say that a lot, in a lot of conversations it seems), but I didn't see it as a breach of NLT. I tried to simply ramp down the drama and get both sides to not use the L word or refer it anything that implied it should be a concern, would the goal of not coming across as taking a side. Bbb, you are of course welcome to provide your perspectives on that page as well, and I always encourage anyone that thinks I'm mistaken to do so in the same venue. I have been known to be mistaken from time to time. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 15:22, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
Unlike you, Dennis, I've never been mistaken about anything. Well, there was that time in 1854, but it doesn't really count as I wasn't born yet. Besides, if you really examine the transcript of the trial, I was probably more right than wrong.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:02, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
Then I'm grateful that I wasn't born with the burdens of perfection. Perhaps this is why I am more tolerant and forgiving of other's shortcomings, as I have plenty of my own. ;-) Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 16:07, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

As a reply to Bbb23's comment that, ... the comment "inhibits free editing" and "creates bad feelings".

The comment diff is completely correct and true its just that no one understands it/or often it seems, want to accept it. - I often want to explain it to people so as they get it - we are all totally legally responsible for all our edits here. Willy nilly replacing content that has been removed is not a good idea legally as you become completely responsible for it being in the article. Free editing is not a reality - responsible policy compliant editing is.The Foundations terms of use is being linked to a lot lately as I have seen - Letting people know there responsibilities is beneficial imo and is a way to move to a more responsible editing environment - . A for the "creates bad feelings" issue - the user that I was having the content discussion with stated that he was ok about it and in the end comment he did get it - / accept the reality diff - The user, User:Wnt that asserted it was, "coming really close to WP:NLT territory" diff and I have a very poor relationship, I have previously requested him not to edit any biographical article on en wikipedia - I don't think my comment was a legal threat in any way - but I will be careful in future not to mention the reality of contributing here, so as not to allow editors that have a historic poor relationship with me to allege such serious claims. Youreallycan 15:46, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

I think Bbb is also worried that your phrasing might also be consider as giving a "chilling" effect, although technically, that kind of was the idea. It is a slippery slope and one where we all need to either tread lightly when telling someone, or perhaps asking someone else that works with BLPs to make the point to them, perhaps in their own words. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 15:58, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
Its something I have told users many times when they say as this user did , "I didn't add the content" - Yes you did - the discussion wasn't about anything else than that point. There was no "chilling affect" as the content was cited and just disputed as undue weight in a BLP - it wasn't like I had removed it and was trying to stop him replacing it - the discussion was only about the I didn't add it /responsibility point and the user was fine about it. To be honest I am bemused that User:Bbb23 considers my comments in that thread a violation of WP:NLT , something I can be blocked indefinitely for until I retract the threat. Youreallycan 16:13, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
If I were an admin, I would absolutely not block you for the "threat". My argument that it constitutes a threat would not be persuasive to many other editors, and even I acknowledge it isn't clear. To block you in such circumstances would be unjustifiable.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:26, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
Hm, anyway in my position its clearly better when they say, "I didn't add it" that I avoid telling them that they did and their responsibilities in regards to that - thanks for the feedback - regards - Youreallycan 16:36, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
You're welcome, and I hope my feedback was constructive (Dennis's always is), even if you didn't agree with everything I said. It certainly wasn't my intent to pick on you. Best.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:28, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
You might find this odd, but I actually go out of my way to seek advice from people whom I often disagree, but respect and are friendly with. This gives me a more balanced set of opinions than seeking only those that agree with me. I find that for improving myself, this is a better solution. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 17:37, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
I avoided this before because it seemed like a mentor discussion, but I should point out that I'm not going to avoid a topic, or avoid debating an issue about it, just because one editor with an extreme opposing position says to stay away from it based on my opinions of how Wikipedia should do things. He keeps saying over and over that he's given me this command as if that means something. And it's wrong to say that I "accused [him] of violating WP:NLT". I said he was coming close, which obviously indicates by my reading he hadn't quite done so. Wnt (talk) 19:23, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
That is between you two. He asked me to offer an opinion, I did, that both of you probably need to worry about content and less about legal issues. If there is a concern about a BLP, I suggest taking it to WP:BLPN. I haven't, nor wouldn't, discourage you from participating in any venue or discussion regarding content of an article or any other topic. Youreallycan doesn't "answer to me", I'm just a friend helping him out. When it comes to BLP matters, I consider him more skilled than I am, so tend to stay out of his way and only comment on singular issues, like on that talk page. My goal is to provide a moderating voice when needed on the side issues, then get out of the way and just let editors do their jobs, with no interference from me. On a personal note, he can be a bit grumpy at times, but he is actually a pretty good guy once you get to know him. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 19:34, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Request for review of another user

Dennis, if you have time, could you take a look at the contributions of User:Risanila; in particular his contributions on Haj Mirza Sayyed Ali Aqa Qadhi Tabatabai Tabrezi? Several users, including myself, have warned this user for adding lots of info sourced to blogs, or using other language wikis as sources. I gave him a final warning, and he persisted. My guess is that he either doesn't know about talk pages, or doesn't have the ability to respond. After me telling him I'd request a block, oddly enough, he did add some properly sourced info, though I don't know if that is merely luck or that he somehow understood how RS works. Could you take a look, and either block or warn as you feel appropriate? Qwyrxian (talk) 21:42, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

David Steen

Consensus from whom precisely? I get utter nonsense posted by bgwhite who doesn't know his aperture from his elbow and I don't see any difference between a list of Steen subjects (which are fully referenced in his book and online) and a list of, say, songs performed by Elvis Presley.--Autolycus 14:34, 13 June 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Autolycus1 (talk • contribs)

  • WP:BRD is the guiding light here. You added, he reverted, now you discuss it on the talk page with others. This may take a week or two. But this is how we do things here, to prevent edit warring and disruption. I'm not getting involved in the content itself, as it is outside of my field of expertise and would choose to be the objective admin in this case. I will say that comparing it to another article is generally ignored as a rationale at Wikipedia, via WP:ATA, which is a worthwhile read for newer editors wishing to get involved in heated discussions. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 14:38, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Blocked IP:125.236.44.45

This IP Is asking for their block to be reviewed. Do you think you could do this? Cheers!--Scott Delaney (talk) 21:52, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I'd just wait for another admin.--Jasper Deng (talk) 21:53, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
I also see no request that needs to be reviewed.--Jasper Deng (talk) 21:57, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Scott, block reviews are handled by a variety of admins who carefully watch for them and reply on their own time table. No action or reminder is usually ever needed. Sometimes, a request my be put off for many hours because an admin is researching. While I appreciate your concerns, this is likely an area you need not worry about. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 22:00, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Older in Sockpuppets

I notice you closed Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Tobaifo after putting them in instead of SatiricalTruth as the older. Tobaifo only started up after SatiricalTruth's last edit. Not that blocking the usernames would do much, it looks to me they are just grabbing a new username any time trouble occurs, I believe User:Ertwo2 and User:Sifour4 are the same and just wonder where the 1 and 3 went to and who 5 is now! Dmcq (talk) 14:14, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

  • For the purpose of SPI, we always list the name that had the first edit as Master, regardless of where that edit came from. As for closing, that doesn't mean they are innocent, sometimes it just means I can't definitely connect the two, at least to the point that I'm willing to indef block someone. Usually, if they are, they will either drop that account, or eventually show their hand and it can be refiled. You have to err on the side of caution, or you end up blocking people who aren't guilty. Just like the theory of the US justice system, it is better to let 10 guilty people go free than convict one innocent person. Eventually, we will catch them if they are sockpuppeting. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 14:18, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
I was mainly pointing out the funny business about older as I thought I had followed the directions properly and I couldn't figure out why you changed it and I still can't but suit yourself. Dmcq (talk) 18:27, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
Honestly, I changed it because that is how they tell us to do it, that is all. It isn't about my personal opinion. I'm just a trainee, so I just do the paperwork like they tell me. The account that is the oldest is always listed as the master, no matter the order of the individual edits that lead it to SPI. I don't know enough to question it too deeply yet. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 18:54, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
Sorry looking at it again I must have misread the logs and contributions. Dmcq (talk) 20:01, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
No problem, that is why we have procedures there to fix it. People do it all the time, it is an easy mistake to make, and usually people are more focused on the problem, not the paperwork. That is why they call us "clerks". Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 20:04, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Requesting permission

I would like to get permissions to edit IP talk pages. I promise i will Only edit IP talk pages to add the old IP warnings template, Or enage in a conversation with that user..Thanks!--Scott Delaney (talk) 00:29, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

  • You need to discuss this with your mentor. As I stated in the WP:AN discussion, I am leaving all decision making in their hands, on their time table. For me to grant anything wouldn't be fair, and would sound like I don't trust him. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 00:32, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Philcha

Please consider to unprotect the user page, looking at this proposal, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:03, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Done and msg left there. Let me know when it is ready for full protection and I will be happy to assist. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 12:17, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
I think this page can be protected again now. Thanks for you help. Richerman (talk) 11:04, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
I've protected the user page. I'm assuming the talk page should be left open, unless requested otherwise. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 11:06, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
That sounds about right, thanks. Richerman (talk) 11:13, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

My username

Hi Dennis ncould you give me some feedback on my request tonthis nuser - User_talk:Mathsci#My_Username - Tje user removed my first request for removal/comment without even a edit summary, http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Mathsci&diff=prev&oldid=497681700 diff] I have added a diff and used my one revert and replaced my question to them - imo its a good faith question that deserves a good faith response - thanks - Youreallycan 08:45, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

The user has deleted my question again without an action or feedback at all with an edit summary of "please stop posting on my talkpage I have read your post£ - Dennis - I am allowed and it should be respected without a good reasdon to take a new name and not be refered to by my old username - am I correct it that and to ask politely and with good faith for users to allow me that respect? - See here the edit history in regards to the users talkpage in respect to my question to him - This diff by the User:Mathsci is the most revealing imo - I asked politely and in good faith and the user just deleted my question without even an explanation/edit summary at all?Youreallycan 08:55, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

(watching, because of the request above) It reveals more about the other one than about you, I would not argue, perhaps just respond with something like "you probably meant me, using my old name", or something more witty, - putting things into perspective. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:36, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for commenting Gerda and yes, perspective is a good thing to remember as per your posts in regards to the above issue - The user has now remover my previous username and replaced it with my current one , {http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=497678902&oldid=497678244 diff] - so that has resolved this specific request although I would like some feedback from Dennis as regards whet I could have done to communicate better in this instance, here or via emailI - I have had similar previous issues with editors and good faith discussion has occurred between us and they have all accepted my request to use my new username - I was surprised in this case when I opened a discussion in a polite manner on the users talk page when they failed to discuss at all and just deleted it without even an edit summary . = Youreallycan 11:18, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Please excuse the formatting as I am editing on a small mobile device = Youreallycan 11:22, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

  • Gerda is right, and if they corrected it, I wouldn't labor it further as the point is already made. Sounds like you did the right thing, and yes, you do have the right to make a request like that on their talk page even if they have asked you to avoid their talk page, in my opinion, as this isn't an argument about content or a personal comment, but is instead a neutral, procedural request. I don't see any problem with how YRC handled it. It wasn't the only option, but it was an acceptable one. Persistence is different than harassment. I wouldn't have pushed it any further, but I likely would have done the second post as well. It might be annoying to the user (as was the improper name), but the request is a valid one, and the editor did remove without comment, so YRC had no idea if it was ignored or not. Had he not changed it, I was going to just go in and change it myself as a 3rd party. YRC shouldn't do that, but anyone else could, again, in my opinion. Being polite doesn't require being passive. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 12:11, 15 June 2012 (UTC)


Another precious line, the last one, thank you ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:23, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Thank you Dennis and to you Gerda for the advice and investigation of the issue - I wanted to just remove it myself but held back as I am editing under a voluntary one revert condition, this is helping me a lot and I will be continuing it for the foreseeable - Best regards - Youreallycan 02:53, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

RFPP

Hey Dennis, would you mind reconsidering semi-protecting Mumia Abu-Jamal‎? Since those socks were blocked another account has been registered to make the change. I'm not sure what the motivation is here, it's a rather odd edit to be persistently trying to add. No big deal either way, we can always RBI. Speaking of which, would you mind taking care of the latest sock User:Dzandzuba? Thanks! SÆdontalk 00:46, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Looks like more socks were started. I went ahead and protected a month, which should discourage the creation of more socks. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 09:05, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

EASYMONEY

Hopefully I'm not taking over - just brainstorming. I think I'm done with it for now and it would be a good time to get a few more brains in the pot. Feel free to ping me later on if there's an area in particular I can contribute. I think where the value of my participation is greatest is in understanding the mindset, needs and language of the reader. Since all such documentation has been created by Wikipedians, without the input of COIs, we haven't created something the average person in my profession understands. Under the current theme (which may change) the essay would stand strong if even anti-paid editing advocates find it acceptable. User:King4057 03:03, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

  • I will have to look at it a bit more, I can see some more tweaks I would like, but don't want to rush into it until i can digest your changes. The pendulum of ideas is swinging wide right now ;) I generally like to see that early in the process, so don't take it personal if I remove or change ideas as well. Some things will get added, removed, added back, removed again, then finally added finally, so any removal doesn't always mean "no" as much as "I'm not sure that is needed, but maybe". Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 13:27, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
Absolutely, much of the essay is currently aligned with my personal point of view in an area where Wikipedians have vastly different perspectives. I think where I struggle most is PR types are constantly saying they need clear instructions on how to contribute. As you can see, Wikipedia has mountains of instructions that COIs rarely take the time to read. Additionally, folks like CREWE/PRSA will keep expressing disappointment until the rules and instructions fit their needs (instead of Wikipedia's). I think, in order to make a guide simple but also effective, we need to focus on what is ok 100% of the time. On the other hand, I'm still looking at the half-dozen essays/guidelines we have and wondering if we really need more. I like the idea of a task force to clean up and improve COI instructions generally. It's just much easier to create something new than engage in community-wide consensus-building. User:King4057 14:53, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
If you two don't mind, I'll also take a look at the essay. I would love to see Wikipedia engage the COI editors rather than ban them all. It would certainly improve our coverage of small notable organizations which is currently very poor. Ryan Vesey Review me! 15:41, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
Of course, you are always welcome in any project I start. The more eyes, the better. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 16:19, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

DanceKing5

Sorry to trouble you, but in light of this last block, could you please take note of the fact that the user is persisting in bad faith accusations which include, yet again, an insinuation that he is being "stalked". This is among the first contributions the user has made after returning to wikipedia (which indicates to me that such antagonism will continue unless further warnings are given). Semitransgenic talk. 06:07, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

  • Sounds like you both are in a bit of heated discussion, which I think is acceptable, as that is how it typically works. Since he has offered to leave you alone, perhaps you both should try to stay away from personal comments, as it looks like the discussion is moving more or less forward. I will try to look in from time to time. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 13:23, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Revert

Ah shit, I'm editing from my phone and must have misclicked. Sorry about that! Keilana|Parlez ici 16:39, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Anne Bremner

[why have you objecting to the posting of a picture iof me ion my wiki page where it has both been in the pucblic domain and where I actually also hold the copyright. Please advise. Thank you. ]] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anne bremner (talk • contribs) 01:19, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Why have you objected to the uploading of a picture of me that has not only been in the public domain but where I also own the copyright? Please advise and please remove your ferroneous claimed copyright infringement objection. Thank you.'

You must be mystified or amused (or both) by this, Dennis. I think Bremner means me, not you. Heh.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:23, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
The picture at issue has been deleted at Commons.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:27, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Daft SPI

Thanks again, Dennis. ----Jack | talk page 14:41, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

SPI Juanmramirez2012

Please note that I have added the requested information. Your assistance would be appreciated. N419BH 18:51, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Rfa

You were certainly the most refreshing voice of logic there. Thank you. History2007 (talk) 20:38, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

  • RfA is an odd place, where the candidate is under a very powerful and faulty microscope. If you say "The sky is blue", 3 people will start saying how clueless you are because sometimes it has clouds, so it is blue and white. Two more will call you culturally biased because they live in Western Europe and the sky is often grey. 1 will argue that that if you go up high enough in an SR-71 and look up, the sky will obviously be black. Then someone will tag it {{cn}}. People are so busy trying to over-analyse and read between the lines that simple truths get lost in the noise. Most people, including most that opposed you, are indeed wonderful people that are just not used to seeing common sense being used as a blunt instrument. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 20:48, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

"Fear of honesty"

I realize you were personally disappointed because of History2007's RfA, but do you really think it warrants making the post-RfA remarks you've made regarding opposers having lack of comfort w/ "honesty", etc.:

  • "I personally like your style [...]. It appears others have trouble dealing with that kind of honesty."
  • "I think you just scared some people with your honesty and independence, even if they won't admit it."
  • "... most that opposed you, are indeed wonderful people that are just not used to seeing common sense being used as a blunt instrument."

You can know, this particular editor for one (who opposed) doesn't have any "trouble dealing with honesty", nor is "scared" by same, nor is "unused to seeing common sense being used bluntly". (If you'd say those things of me, I'd resent it!)

But you probably weren't referring to any particular opposer with your remarks. (But that raises the question, what opposes caused you to form the opinion, that resulted in your remarks? I've read through all the opposes carefully, and can't find even one that contains even a trace that the opposer harbored lack of comfort regarding issue of honesty, or bluntness, or "independence". [Did you know all the !voters specifically, to be able to know they were aptly concealing what they "really thought"?] What I do see, is consistent disapproval of answers from the nom, that were either incomplete, not good, evasive, or non-answers, and a disinclination to care enough about it, resulting in concern as to what it might mean as Admin when concise and collegial communication becomes a premium. So I really don't understand how you arrive at your opinion which resulted in your remarks, and they seem irresponsible to me.)

I understand you may have had a temporary mini-emotional "blowout" due to disappointment. But you are Admin subject to "a higher standard", and should realize such remarks coming out of emotion or bias without factual basis, can be offensive when applied to group of editors. (Sourgrapes remarks might make you and/or the nom "feel better", but the "feelings repair" sessions don't exist in a vacuum, but on very public WP Talk spaces.)

Thanks for your consider. Cheers, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 09:59, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

I respect your opinion and appreciate you taking the time to kindly word it, but I would have to stand by my original statements. No blowout was experienced, even if passion was involved. Perhaps my statements aren't being seen in the full context of my experiences with the editor, the well documented troubles with RfA in general, as well as my own frustration with admins who take themselves too seriously. They were more directed at the flawed system of RfA than any individual. While I obviously disagree with your position in the RfA, your comments weren't the basis for my later observations.
RfA is a rediculously demeaning guantlet, one which I've been active in trying to change for some time. I discussed some of my concern with one opposer at User talk:Bbb23, whom I disagree with often, and hold in very high regard. Actually, many of the opposing votes were by people I know and respect. Some of them I work with on projects here on a daily basis, but I still think they were mistaken. As I said, most of the people are wonderful people "not used to seeing common sense being used as a blunt instrument", as History2007's application of common sense IS a bit "in your face". I value independence as the most important trait in an admin candidate, and use common sense more often than policy when making admin decisions myself.
As to your ideas of admins: Admins shouldn't take themselves or having the admin bit very seriously, only it's use. We admins are not super-editors, our !votes count only as 1, we are not the leaders, we are simply the janitors. We mop up and we fix problems. We serve the community, we do not rule it. Being an admin, however, is not a bar to participate fully in discussions. I would suggest that in any discussion, you never give an admin's comments any more weight than those of a non-admin, and simply judge the comment on its merits. You probably do not know me very well, but one of my goals is to insure that non-admins do have the same voice here, and that admins don't become a separate class "above" the average registered editor. This is why I prefer voting for admin candidates who I think won't be clique-ish or develop "group think".
Thank you for politely expressing your concerns. While I wasn't acting as an admin in this event, and only as a fellow editor, I will always try to take the time and explain when someone has a genuine concern. I'm universally considered a civil person, yet there are times when being polite but blunt is a better option. My comments shouldn't be taken so personally by anyone, as they were a statement on the system rather than any one person. While this might not be the answer you were looking for, it is the truth. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 13:05, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
Dennis, read your remarks (there were three) listed in this section, again. They are remarks about opposers in the RfA, not remarks about the "system" that is RfA. You essentially accused the group of opposers as having a fear of honesty, that explains their rejection of the nom. (And other variations of that, "scared", "not used to", etc.) I pointed out, after going through every oppose carefully in the RfA, that not one showed any sign if this, even to a small extent. So when you smatter a group of !voters with your opinion they are "afraid of honesty", well, as already asked you, on what do you base that?
When you participated in the RfA, it was not as Admin as you say, it was as general editor. Fine. But you are also Admin, and held at "higher standard" (acc. Jimbo). (Do you "go for" a lower standard, when you !vote in RfAs? Anyway, it doesn't matter. This is missing the point. I found your remarks about "fear of honesty" insulting whether you are Admin, or not.)
If you "stand by your statements", in spite of my pointing out how rude and irresponsible they were, well then, how civil is that? Again, please don't change the topic. The topic is your sourgrapes statements about opposers in the RfA, voting out of "fear" and "being scared" and "unused to" honesty and independence, which is a totally irresponsible opinion to form (unless you know the voters all personally, that they are hiding their feelings behind their texts), and your remarks voicing your opinion about the opposers and their reasons for voting, equally irresponsible.
I could template you for "not getting the point", but, I have no reason to continue this discussion. You say you are "universally" held in high regard vis-a-vis your civility. Incivility, as Malleus has pointed out, comes in more significant forms than simply "bad words". (Here you go off insulting me and others with sourgrape statements, that the collection of !voters does not value "honesty" and "independence", then when these statements of yours are pointed out politely to you, you "stand by them" and go off in some other direction and topic about how RfA is broken, as a dodge. That's civil? Here's another Malleus quote I'm fond of: "Just because xxx says yyy is true, doesn't make it so." [Translation: Just because others say you are the most civil person they every met, and you believe it yourself about yourself, ... doesn't make it true.)
If I'm offended by your remarks, you say: "Don't take it so personally." How far does that carry logic? There is only text on WP, no voice. People are held accountable to what they write. So ... you can write anything about anyone? And then if they complain, your retort is: "You're taking what I said too personally."?
I already told you I didn't personalize your remark, and you also went out of your way to say it wasn't meant for me specifically. That's just fine. But then, who were your remarks meant for? (I already asked that one. You deflected.) And what basis to make your remarks? (There's no indication in *any* oppose as to the fear you label.) But I am in a group of editors, to which your remarks were directed or applied. (You were not commenting on any system; you were commenting on people/editors/the collection of opposers. If your words did not reflect your real message, then who is accountable other than you, to correct them? Saying "I stand by my statements" is hardly correcting them, so I infer, no correction is intended.)
Re your last comment: "While this might not be the answer you were looking for, it is the truth." What? That you were commenting on the RfA "system", and not the RfA editors who opposed? (And that's the "truth"? And that's "maybe not the answer I was looking for"?) I really do not know what you mean. What I do know, is what you wrote; and I quoted that. And now what I do know, is that you "stand by [your] statements", without either modification, or apology.)
Let me get this straight: Is your "and that's the truth" supposed to mean that your statements about a group of editors (people), should now be interpreted as a statement about a "system" (i.e., a thing, process, not a person or people)? And so your comments about people, should "not be taken personally" even though they were written as applying to people, and not to a "thing"? (Well, if I got that right now, cheerio to me, because, it is really ... a stretch, and a dodge.)
No more to add from me. If you really value honesty and straightforwardness, as you seem to proclaim to, they why should discussing anything with you, be such a guessing game?
This thread is about *you* Dennis, your civility (in case you were wondering). Ihardlythinkso (talk) 10:04, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
Then we will just have to disagree on the issue of civility. I have strong feelings about the current state of affairs at RfA, and you take exception with how I express them. Sometimes good people just disagree. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 11:57, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
I have just as strong an opinion about the state of affairs at RfA, very likely quite different from yours, and about your rather loose interpretation of what passes for civility here. Unlike you though I am not an administrator, therefore am forbidden to express my opinion. The bottom line though is exactly as Ihardlythinkso expresses it; you made a personal attack on all those who opposed History's RfA, and your continued obfuscation does you no credit. Neither does your ridiculous claim that your civility is universally held in high regard, unless your universe is a different one to mine. Malleus Fatuorum 12:24, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
And let's be brutally frank. Your mate History displayed a significant degree of dishonesty in claiming repeatedly that adminship was no big deal, that he would continue whatever it is that he does regardless of the outcome of the RfA, and then retiring in a huff when it was unsuccessful; which I guess is what prompted your own rather misguided outburst. Malleus Fatuorum 12:28, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
I always appreciate and respect your candor Malleus, even when I disagree with your conclusions. I still think adminship should be "no big deal", even if some take their admin bit too seriously. You know as well as anyone that RfA is a stressful event, particularly for the unprepared, leading many to take a break after an unsuccessful run. As to my civility, all I can do is look at the situation after a day or two with a fresh perspective and reconsider the merits of both your concerns, something I promise I will do. I am fallible, and with two people making this point it does deserve a second look. As to all non-admin's ability to speak out freely, I would hope you know where I stand on that issue, as I've been quite vocal in a number of forums regarding administrative excesses. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 12:44, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

An apology

As promised, I did review the event more thoughtfully and I acknowlege the concerns, even if they frustrate me. Had I stumbled across another editor saying the exact same things I had said, I would not have taken any administrative action or issued a warning. I make allowances for blunt, generalized opinions, and usually overlook them when possible. Had this been two months ago, before I was an admin, I feel that the comments would have been largely ignored or just taken at face value and nothing further said of them. As the vast majority of my time at Wikipedia was as a non-admin, some old habits resurface from time to time. While admins "should strive to model appropriate standards of courtesy and civility to other editors" that line isn't always so clear, sometimes frustrating so, and the more I think about it (and again read the expectation), the clearer it becomes that I came up a bit short.

At Wikipedia, I do strive to maintain a professional demeanor and typically succeed even in circumstances where my natural instict is to be more blunt. Occasionally, the blunt side of me shines through in spite of my best efforts. Most of us are fallible enough to fall victim to own words from time to time. In this situation, I concede to the point that my comments were below the standards put upon admins, and I should have chosen them more carefully. I should have withdrawn earlier and been more polite in expressing my opinions, which could have been seen as hurtful, even though it was not my intention to hurt anyone. For anyone I have offended, I truly apologize. I don't feel they were a personal attack since they weren't directed at any individual, but they were still inappropriate in tone. My frustration was with the system as a whole, not at any individual voters, even though it didn't come across that way. There are always good reasons to oppose even the best candidate, I understand this. My frustration with RfA is larger than this one candidate, which is why I have participated in trying to change it for some time.

Being less than two months into adminship, I find it an odd and often frustrating experience, as I'm more accustomed to playing the role of advocate, both here and in the real world. At this point, I still do not see myself as a leader at Wikipedia, and certainly not by virtue of my admin bit. I don't consider anyone as a leader simply because they they have the admin bit, regardless of how they may or may not view themselves. Most of the people I truly respect aren't admins, after all. All I can do is pledge to be a bit more thoughtful in the future and be a little more mindful that my words may be given more weight than they are really due. I have always said, and have so far complied with the goal that if I make a mistake, I will apologize in at least a public a manner as the mistake was made. Whether this is satisfactory to those who may have been offended, I do not know, but it is sincere. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 19:27, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

"I don't feel they were a personal attack since they weren't directed at any individual ...". Let me remind you how different the rules are for administrators and the peasantry. My recent Arbcom case stemmed from a comment I made about some administrators being cunts. That wasn't directed towards any individual either, but it got me lynched. Malleus Fatuorum 00:18, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
I'm aware that there is an US-centric bias in many places here, as not all words mean the same thing on both sides of the pond. I catch myself from time to time, and have to be reminded. It is the conditioning of a lifetime, after all. I wasn't involved in the politics here at that time, but I think you know I'm not one to overreact to a minor incivility. As to here, sometimes it takes a day or two to realize a mistake, or just get why it was a mistake, but I'm human after all. Your warning is well received, I'm still new to this admin thing, and it would be wise to not let my passion get the best of me. By the way, regarding your concerns about unenforceable promises at my RfA a while back, you might note User talk:Dennis Brown/CSD. Anyone is welcome to comment there. As flawed as I am, character means a lot to me, which is why I will always apologize in as public a manner as the mistake was made, and do try to keep my word when humanly possible. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 11:20, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Looking for a neutral opinion on a matter

Hello there Dennis, thanks for blocking the IP address who has recently attempted to out me. Care to revdel the edits he made because my real name has been made public on this domain? Another thing I'm looking for is an opinion on an WP:ANI thread: ([9]). Care to come and place your opinions? You can come there if you like. Mr.Wikipediania (Stalk • Talk) 01:29, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for the offer of assistance, but I think I am done posting on Wikipedia. I do one thing wrong and I got bombarded. I get reported to an incident board because I don't respond to two messages and never did anything wrong again. People keep saying I am biting a newcomer even though the user in question has been posting since at least 2009, way before more. I am sorry for the rant. Thank you for your kindness. I pray more users will be like you. LongLiveMusic (talk) 06:20, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Admin's Barnstar
It's not-quite-but-nearly two months since you got handed a mop - having glanced over your edits at ANI this morning I just wanted to say that I think you're doing an excellent job; clearly your adminship was well-deserved. Yunshui 雲‍水 10:41, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for the kind words! It has been an adventure, that is for sure. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 11:52, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

McKinsey & Company

Hi Dennis,

Appreciate the opportunity to contribute to the latest COI essay. OrangeMike, my mentor BusterD, OlYeller21, SmartSE and Uzma Gamal are all engaged in the issue of COI as well and represent a spectrum of perspectives. Uzma and SlimVirgin made some interesting comments here. I'm also particularly fond of the balanced and reasonable approach Fluffernutter presented at last year's Wikimania conference. These might be some ideas on folks to ping to get more hands in the pot.

I also wondered if you were interested in chipping in on the McKinsey & Company article. This is a company with a brand that elicits strong emotions from reliable sources. An article filled with praise and an attack piece could both be equally well-sourced. McKinsey merely got unlucky, so I'm here to help improve the page following COI best practices. So far my approach is to "stick to the facts" until we get to a Reputation section, where we can present all majority and minority viewpoints.

In any case, it's a complex project, but we've tackled controversial issues with civility and done some great work. It's also a high-priority, start-class article for Wikiproject Business. At the moment, I'm waiting for feedback on a draft history section (see notes here), which is actually - in some ways - more modest than the prior version; the correct direction for the pendulum to swing for this particular section. Controversial work isn't my stock and trade, but I think collaborating on a complex project would be an interesting way to share perspective. User:King4057 14:26, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Hosni Mubarak

Dennis, this article may require full protection based on conflicting reports, denials, etc., about Mubarak's "death". There's a lot of activity on the article. I've removed the section about his "death", but I doubt it will stick.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:52, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Bonfire Cry For Help EP

Hey, I just added the Bonfire 'Cry For Help' EP page and now see that you redirected it to the band page because there were "no sources or chart info". Well, you actually redirected it to the page on...bonfires, not the band, but you meant to direct it to the band page. Anyway. I copied the template exactly from the pages of the other five Bonfire singles, and they are all allowed on here fine. They don't have any sources or chart info either. I was merely completing the set in the same way the previous ones in the set were done.

The Bonfire main band site will confirm everything I had on the page, but it would be a bit unnecessary and redundant to source that on all the single pages that already exist. It is already linked to on the main Bonfire band article. So, I'm not sure what exactly you expect. Please get back to me on what you would like me to do instead to put the page back up or simply revert it back yourself if you don't feel anything more needs to be done after my explanation. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zanthos (talk • contribs) 00:32, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

  • Actually, you do need to source the individual article or it is likely to be at AFD to be deleted. All articles on Wikipedia must be sourced, and demonstrate stand alone notability. See WP:MUSIC for a general overview. The sources should be about that particular topic, not just the band themselves. When stand alone notability can't be demonstrated, usually the best result is to redirect to the band, or a subsection of the band that covers that EP. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 00:36, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Ah, well I just assumed copying the previous ones was good enough. If this is the case though, should you not be editing the other five single pages to redirect to the band page as well for the same reason?

  • I just haven't gotten to it. My contribs might show I'm pretty busy ;) And when you copy from one article to another, you can't just copy without giving proper attribution. I know, it is the same encyclopedia, but if you didn't write all those words, you need to make sure your edit summary says "copied from xyz article", so it can be traced back to the original authors. That is part of the Creative Commons licensing. Keep in mind, a redirect isn't a death sentence, it is just a place holder until you can properly source it. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 01:09, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Well I just copied the format, of course. I didn't use any of the actual text as it wouldn't have been relevant to the different release. Anyway, I see the other singles do have warnings at the top saying they need to have references. I'll try and source all of them properly I guess... Thanks for taking the time to reply. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zanthos (talk • contribs) 01:38, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

  • No problem, I would rather give you some tips and help you actually KEEP the articles you create, than to go and redirect and tag them. If you find sources for the one I redirected, reverting back and adding the source is fine. Just make sure to use good quality sources, such as chart info and such. Not iTunes or Amazon. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 01:41, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

N. R. Narayana Murthy

After the protection you imposed expired, I thought things were going better as at least there was some discussion on the Talk page, but in the last day it has deteriorated, partly due to a WP:SPA who insists on his version and labels others' edits as vandalism. For my part I have reverted twice and don't intend to revert anymore, even if the SPA reverts me. I left a message on the editor's Talk page asking him to come back to the discussion, but ... Use your own judgment as to what action to take, if any.--Bbb23 (talk) 11:25, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

 Done Full Protection 7 days, warning on user's page for not using article talk and calling good faith edits vandalism, strong warning on article talk page to all parties. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 15:04, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Alicia Wade

Hi there. As a contributor to this article, back in 2007, you may be interested to know I've nominated it for deletion. Your comments are welcome at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alicia Wade. Robofish (talk) 19:55, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Martial arts sockpuppet investigation

Hello Dennis Brown, as a courtesy note, a recent sockpuppet investigation you conducted has stimulated discussion at WikiProject Martial Arts, if you weren't already aware of it. Janggeom (talk) 14:14, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for bringing this to my attention, I always appreciate knowing when my actions are discussed, good or bad. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 16:21, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

WP:RM backlog

Hi Dennis,

Quickie question. I've noticed there is a massive backlog at WP:RM, and was wondering if its only admins who can deal with them, or is anyone allowed to have a look? If the latter, then I don't mind helping clear some of the backlog. Wesley☀Mouse 16:07, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

  • I'm not very familiar with RM policies, which can be tricky as you have to "close" them, so to speak, then act. Some of them may require the tools to move, most will not. Assuming you have spent the time to learn the policies regarding moves, and if you are familiar with closing formal discussions, I can't see why you can't act on some of them. I would urge caution to start, only processing the most obvious cases. Keep in mind, when you close any discussion, you have to determine consensus, and if someone disagrees with your determination, it can go to review or cause further discussion (or arguments) where you will need to participate in discussing your conclusions and actions. This is why I recommend starting on the easy ones and working your way up over time. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 16:25, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Thank you for replying back. You've raised some good pointers there, which I shall bear in mind. I've just found WP:RMCI which i=gives instructions, which is a bonus help, and it does mention about non-admin closures. I'll see what I can do, and try to help reduce the back-log. Wesley☀Mouse 16:33, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Dennis, I've attempted a simple RM request for F.C. Internazionale Milano to Inter Milan and followed the instructions. However, the original article is semi-protected, and the move option isn't available for non-admins. Would you be able to do the move for me, and I'll finish off the cleaning up steps as part of the move. Thanks. Wesley☀Mouse 18:32, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Not to worry. I thought that one was simple, and hadn't noticed the semi-protect at the time. I have made a note on the closure that an admin will come along in due course to complete the move due to the semi in place. Wesley☀Mouse 18:41, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

UFC 148

Thanks for unprotecting the UFC 148 page, Dennis. I hate to ask for one more thing, because at this point I feel like I'm being a nuisance, but could you also unprotect this redirect page named "UFC 148: Silva vs. Sonnen II", or at least redirect it to the page "UFC 148"? Here is the link: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=UFC_148:_Silva_vs._Sonnen_II&redirect=no Thanks.  Gamezero05  talk  00:52, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

  •  Done You aren't a nuisance, that one falls into the same camp, so I just did it. I don't ever mind helping, sometimes it just takes a while. I feel compelled to always offer a better way when it exists, to help in the future, but it isn't a problem. I have extended family at the house, and my eyes are about shot for some reason today, so I'm only running at partial speed. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 00:57, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
No worries. Thanks again.  Gamezero05  talk  01:03, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

How does DR work with an IP editor who respects no one?

[10] And I quote Yo Fuckbag, pray tell what do you think WP:DR is going to achieve with an editor like that. Wee Curry Monster talk 07:38, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

  • I left a warning on his page, but I'm guessing you improperly tagged him for vandalism a couple times? Doesn't justify his personal attack, but if you did tag him improperly, that is considered an incivility as well. Doesn't justify, even if it might explain. And blocking or protecting pages solely because of a content dispute isn't going to happen, as that would be favoring one side over the others. Sometimes, there isn't a good answer, so you pick the least ugly one and work it. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 11:02, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
Calling me a vandal -twice, the second time being after I had already directed your attention to WP:NOTVAND- is also a personal attack. If you're going to attack me, you need to be prepared to get as good as you give. If you call me a vandal twice, I am entirely justified in calling you fuckbag at least once. I don't "respect no one". I don't respect editors who call others vandals over a content dispute. 89.100.207.51 (talk) 11:10, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
    • WP:NPA does't work that way, nor do I. This isn't the school yard, and if he tags you improperly, yes that is a problem, but doesn't justify your actions. If you keep getting tagged improperly tell me or another admin, with diffs, so we can do something about it, but don't go attack someone or you will be the one on the sidelines. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 11:15, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
      • For info, he is removing a cite, solely because it is British and therefore he claims it is POV. He's then removing the information cited to that source. This is vandalism pure and simple. I also find it rather insulting that you'd act based on the presumption an established editor would make a request for protection to win a "content dispute". I made it plain in my comment that a source was being dismissed solely because of its nationality. Thats simple racism if you boil it down to the essentials. If you'd taken one second to look at the contribution history, its resplendent with this IP's disruptive behaviour. Wee Curry Monster talk 11:24, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
        • Since you are both here, let me make this clear. You are both wrong. Curry, calling his edits vandalism is simply wrong because they are in good faith and not designed to undermine the encyclopedia. Like it or not, if you continue to label edits that you think are wrong as vandalism, that can actually get you blocked, by any admin, as it is seen as incivil and a violation of WP:AGF. Read WP:VANDAL as well, and only use the term when it fits the strict definition. 89.*, your attack is so obvious it doesn't need explaining. Another instance like this and I will block you on the spot, period. I've protected the page for 1 full week, which isn't an endorsement of ANY version. This means either you two work it out on the talk page of the article, find consensus, seek WP:DRN or whatever it takes, or if the warring continues when the protection ends, the next step will be blocks. It is fine to disagree, but there isn't a need to be disagreeable. Go there, stay on topic, discuss, debate, whatever, but I expect no attacks or personal remarks. Both sides have legitimate concerns, find a compromise or consensus. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 13:16, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
          • Quick comment: there's not much point in you asking both editors to "hammer out a consensus" in the Talk page (with which I fully agree) and protecting the article for 1 week so they can do that, if the IP editor is then blocked for 1 week by another admin. If he's not given the chance to reach a consensus with Wee (or at least have a civil discussion) he'll just come back after that week equally upset and revert Wee's edit back. Just my 2 cents. Gaba p (talk) 14:50, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
            • I had chosen to not block, and another admin has decided to override my decision without notifying me, so it will have to be reviewed. I've left a note on the other admin's page. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 14:54, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

OK Dennis, before I assess any edit as to whether it is vandalism is not, I would first of all ask myself whether the edit was made in good faith. As the edit was reverted because of the nationality of the source, I decided that it more than likely wasn't. How you can then turn round and continue with a presumption that I was the one at fault here, frankly I am flabbergasted.

It wasn't a case of editing content to improve the article, or out of concern for content it was editing out of dislike for a particular nationality. As noted at WP:ANI, that IP is noted for aggressive editing, invariably refusing to take matters to talk, starting spurious RFC or other administrative measures. The talk page is resplendent with multiple vandalism warning. I see no evidence whatsoever the guy is operating in good faith, plenty to indicate it was done in bad faith. I remain convinced it was done in bad faith and incredibly offensive you're continuing to presume I was operating in bad faith.

The guy has no intention of hammering out a consensus in talk and never did. Any admin who blocked me for seeking help against a disruptive editor like that, when it is obviously vandalism (and I say it is obvious because he himself gave the reason it was down to nationalism) would find themselves at WP:ANI very quickly. Honestly, you've shown very poor judgement here. I'm sorry but I have to disagree with you strongly and I remain very offended by your presumptions. Wee Curry Monster talk 15:28, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

I see the IP had replied on TC's page, and that you have deleted my post on your talk page. Hopefully, you read it first, because that is the definition of vandalism that will be used in any dispute here. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 16:23, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
Dennis, please stay off my talk page, you're continuing to demonstrate extremely poor judgement. I know what vandalism is, WP:AGF is not a suicide pact that requires we continuously give a disruptive editor chance after chance as you appear to think. I found your lecture patronising and completely misplaced. I'm now at the point of wondering why I bother to try and maintain the quality of articles at all, I've always been a content editor more interested in writing but I seem to find all my time is taken up repairing them. This is supposed to be about writing an encyclopedia not a social experiment in rehabilitating idiots who get a kick out vandalising wikipedia. Those edits were vandalism, I will continue to say so and frankly I don't care if you block me for it. The guys contribution history speaks for itself, he isn't here to improve matters. Wee Curry Monster talk 16:41, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
I haven't come to your talk page except as an administrator, to issue a standard notifications. There hasn't been any other discussion on your talk page, and you are the party that brought the issue to me, but you didn't like the answer you received. If you are asking me to not issue templates or notifications when they are applicable or appropriate, I'm afraid I can't comply with that. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 16:54, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
No Dennis, I've asked you politely to desist from delivering another completely inappropriate lecture. You've repeatedly stated that I don't know what vandalism is, when you've acknowledged to another admin that its not so clear cut and a "borderline" case. And you're wrong, because I do know what vandalism is. Its any action designed to detract from the quality of a wikipedian article done in bad faith.
Let me educate you a little bit. The IP editor was being disingenous about the source. The WP:PRIMARY source was a poll commissioned by an Argentine newspaper. The same material is sourced to a number of secondary sources such as newspapers and magazines. Its also mentioned on the FCO website as a WP:SECONDARY source. Its an uncontentious fact, acknowledged by all sides in the dispute and not really up for debate. Yet he repeatedly removes it, claiming its contentious solely because it is mentioned by the FCO ignoring all the others. He was removing content in bad faith and it was designed to detract from the quality of the article.
The edit was reverted by multiple editors, British, Argentine and Bulgarian but never once brought to the talk page. All of the comments in edit summaries demonstrate bad faith, the guy demontrated bad faith with his "Yo Fuckbag" comment in my talk page, his contribution history shows a series of aggressive edits, a refusal to go to talk, repeated misuse of admin boards and frivolous RFC. He also has a history of making offensive remarks to other editors.
As to your comments you missed the evidence of other disruptive behaviour, please note that I drew this to your attention yesterday [11]. I've repeatedly asked you look at his contribution history and can only conclude you never did as his disruptive behaviour is immediately apparent.
Frankly your comments were grossly offensive to all the productive editors seeking to maintain that article's quality. This IP editor showed no evidence he has ever assumed good faith, multiple instance of evidence of bad faith behaviour and in bad faith removing content. Suggesting that all the good faith editors who reverted this IP editor in recent days also don't recognise vandalism when they see it is stretching things too far. This was vandalism and it was trolling, plain and simple.
You have displayed some appallingly bad judgement and to be honest as far as I can see from my perspective, its because of your presumption of bad faith on my part at the outset and you've never wavered in your faith in your snap judgement. Its been like a dialogue of the deaf, you've simply not listened. Seriously, how did you ever expect DR to work here? Wee Curry Monster talk 18:07, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Note that the Falklands article is not exactly the only one that has been experiencing similar problems with this IP. As I've noted on Timotheus Canens's page, this IP is now continuing to edit war on multiple articles including Prince Aimone, Duke of Apulia, James, Viscount Severn and Sophie, Princess of Prussia, all of which are BLPs, and none of which came under the current protection. I reported the IP to WP:ANEW last night after s/he breached 3RR at Prince Aimone, Duke of Apulia. By refusing to block when the editor has a clear pattern of edit warring across multiple articles, we're effectively legitimising it. Given this information, which it appears you may not have previously been aware of, I would like to ask you to reconsider your decision not to block in this case. Kahastok talk 17:30, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

  • My consideration to not block was only for the Falklands article, which was brought to me here on my talk page, not at ANI (which I didn't see until much later). This one article was the only consideration in my decision to issue a warning and not block. I've gone ahead and blocked him for one week, which was TC's initial term for a different reason, for edit warring on Prince Aimone, Duke of Apulia. And thank you for assuming good faith here. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 17:43, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
Since the IP editor is now blocked, is there any point in maintaining the lock on the article? Regards, Gaba p (talk) 22:24, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

A bowl of strawberries for you!

I thereby award you with this bowl of strawberries. Hope it tastes good. Have a great day. Armbrust, B.Ed. WrestleMania XXVIII The Undertaker 20–0 11:47, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

After that last pileup at RFPP, a refreshing treat would be great! Thanks! Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 13:08, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Sockpuppet Investigation

Why was Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/81.138.16.5 moved to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Corbomiteo? I'm not suspected of being a sockpuppet of Gordonstove. We were at odds in the AfD discussion, and the sockpuppets were attacking me. Corbomiteo (talk) 00:44, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

No worries, thanks for the quick correction! I appreciate your attention to the investigation. Corbomiteo (talk) 00:55, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

VanishedUser314159 / SA socking

The same banned user is commenting in an arbcom case against me [12] IP 128.59.168.78. --POVbrigand (talk) 01:16, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

A beer for you!

After your work fighting the backlogs at RfPP and SPI, I think you deserve this. Enjoy responsibly! -- Luke (Talk) 01:51, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Thank you! Exactly what I need! Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 01:54, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Question

see my comment below. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 16:34, 23 June 2012 (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.

Recall my asking on ANI about Mar4d misuse of twinkle, you closed it and said to ask him about it, he never gave an explanation. And he is again misusing the tool, [13] now calling me a vandal. Darkness Shines (talk) 20:02, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Sorry to butt in, and I'll let Dennis deal with the specific problem, but we really need to do something about Twinkle and the fact that anyone can use it, even someone who hasn't even been granted rollback rights. It makes zero sense.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:39, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
I am doing something about it. You can too. As to this specific issue, I've left a msg asking why for now, if he keeps doing it where it doesn't apply, it is a blockable issue, although I try to use that as a last resort only. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 00:50, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the pointer - I've commented. Believe it or not, that's my first time at such a page, and it's mightily confusing. I've put it on my watchlist - maybe some of the confusion will dissipate if I stare at it long enough. :-) --Bbb23 (talk) 01:03, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
Go ahead and stare, but it will probably still be confusing. Particularly since the discussion started as looking at the problems with ArbCom, and no one thinks ArbCom is the problem to begin with. It is a more formal RFC type event, but like a town meeting where everyone stands up, says his piece, and others can agree or disagree. It doesn't change policy, but it gives ideas on what direction policy may need to move at the Pump. I don't participate in those events very often either. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 01:06, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
A now Mar4d misused the tool to revert an established editor putting back in blatant source falsifications.[14] This is starting to truely damage wikipedia. JCAla (talk) 15:39, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Dennis, you may wish to take a look at this where it has been said in clear words "Participants have agreed to avoid disputes outside of these pages". An editor above comes to an article I created on a terrorist incident and adds a whopping 10,000 bytes of single-agenda POV-enforcing smokescreen under the garb of "removing source falsification" [15], chunks of which has been simply copy-pasted from other articles (also under discussion on mediation) and with 90% of the information not even relevant to the article. Actions like these are themselves currently disruptive to the project and defeating the purpose of the ongoing mediation process. If the editor above carries the notion that he will not get scrutinised, he is mistaken. Mar4d (talk) 16:08, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
Mediation is not a reason to keep blatant source falsifications as they are damaging to the wikipedia project. Mar4d has misused the twinkle feature to restore source falsifications. JCAla (talk) 16:13, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
Furthermore, the mediation, in the content discussion of which Mar4d ironically has refused to participate so far, is about whether a majority position needs to be written with attribution. In order not to touch that dispute, everything added by me to the article, has been fully attributed. The relevance of the text has been explained on the article's talk.[16] JCAla (talk) 16:16, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
You yourself have given admission in the above comment that despite being an active party in mediation, you choose to flout the rules and still put things the way that you'd like on articles. That is not how it works. Talking about source falsification, what if I tell you that 90% of what you added very aptly fits this description: WP:COATRACK, which makes it worse. Mar4d (talk) 16:20, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
Mar4d added source falsifications to an article. I removed them. Mar4d restored them using twinkle.
The additional fully attributed text added by me is completely relevant per established scholar William Maley see talk for citation. Mar4d may not agree with it, but we go by reliable sources not by Mar4d's pov. JCAla (talk) 16:24, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
Sure, let's talk about POV. This [17] is a perfect example of POV. Any neutral reader can conclude that only three or four lines of what you added is related, the rest is the usual BS you've pasted all over other articles on Wikipedia. How many articles are you going to quote Amin Saikal on? The Ahmed Rashid quotes say nothing about the embassy attack, the Sharia law sentences are again quoted out of context. Don't get me started on the rest. This discussion is concluded as far as I am concerned. Mar4d (talk) 16:32, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
This has exceeded the purpose of my talk page at this point. If there is ongoing resolution, then I would expect everyone in this thread (except me) to go and participate there. Mar4d, this includes you, and I would consider it a sign of bad faith if everyone doesn't participate. This is a hint, if you haven't already figured that out. There is a reason we have the venues for content resolution, and this is it. I don't care what is in the article, as long as it is a consensus and within policy. To be clear, we are done on my talk page for now, go there. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 16:34, 23 June 2012 (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.

A barnstar for you!

The Admin's Barnstar
For making the tough call on the FishingKing sockpuppet case. I hope he grows up a bit, then comes back with more control. Ebikeguy (talk) 14:14, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. Sometimes, a little tough love is called for. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 14:15, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

That's exactly what I would have done. Good call, Dennis. Keilana|Parlez ici 16:28, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Quick question

Hi, I saw you closed my ANI. Do you disagree that the edits made by the editor was racist? If so, could you explain why? I respect your judgement on the matter, just simply curious. Thanks Leaf Green Warrior (talk) 18:38, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

  • What one man calls racist, another calls nationalistic, and another calls neutral. Unless a remark is clearly over the line, using an objective standard, then I ignore it, and allow for a difference of opinion. Personally, I find your threshold of tolerance to be entirely too low, and you are entirely too quick to use the word "racist" in how you describe everyone who doesn't instantly agree with you. Please read The Boy Who Cried Wolf. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 18:42, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
Fair enough. Perhaps you're right, and my threshold is too low, but I cannot help my own opinions and feelings on the matter. Thanks for the explanation and straight-forward answer. Leaf Green Warrior (talk) 18:43, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
Not a problem. I have strong opinions on many things. I find it serves me better if I don't air them out all the time, because sometimes I might be right but airing them out undermines my arguments. Other times, I find that I was wrong, and it is better to be silent and thought a fool than to speak out and remove all doubt. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 18:47, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Boomerang

Now that it's (apparently?) resolved, just wanted to comment that the mental image conveyed in the above link made me chuckle : ) - jc37 22:42, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

just a question...

I don't know that it's worth worrying about, or if there's even a problem with it, but since being blocked after comparing himself to a rape victim and the admin to a rapist, WiliamJE has now gone on to defend his analogy on his talk page and write 3 sections on his user page about how badly he's been mistreated, (and I just read all of it, he again repeats that this event was like being raped for him, and the admin was again acting like a rapist, and the rape victim got blamed for it all, that can't be ok to leave on your user page, can it??). What's the "correct" response to that? Nothing, ppl can write whatever they want on their user and talk pages? Is there a policy that covers that? POINT doesn't really seem to be in play, IDHT does, but so what... just wondering. Seems to me the rest of the internet often does a good enough job unfairly judging Wikipedia, I don't really enjoy being a platform for it myself. -- Despayre  tête-à-tête 00:23, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

  • BWilkins has already blocked access to his talk page, and I collapsed the rant. Collapsing is generally a non-controversial way to not delete, but still deny easy viewing, and not likely to get you in trouble if you do it politely. It is still there if an admin needs to see to consider an unblock. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 00:33, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Well, it was reverted, and BWilkins is trying to work with them on this, so I'm kind of in limbo as it isn't good to step on another toes in a delicate situation. I would agree that having it on that page is not optimal. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 00:53, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
I wouldn't have thought of hatting it (for all the good it did anyway), I guess that's why you get the big bucks around here . Will wait and see what happens, but I do find the rape references somewhat...tasteless, as a comparison to a 24 hour block. -- Despayre  tête-à-tête 01:06, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
This is only a suggestion, but I think it might be decent practice to not repeat language that you find offensive from others. Better gone and forgotten, I think. - jc37 01:16, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
I don't find the word offensive, I find the comparison between what he went through and what a rape victim goes through as equivalent, to be offensive. -- Despayre  tête-à-tête 01:28, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Re: ANI -> BLPN

Given that I was mainly asking for review of my revdels, an admin action, and only admins could see those, ANI seemed the logical place to me. That said I'm not too bothered as long as I get a second opinion. Dpmuk (talk) 00:58, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

  • Ah, I see your point, I will take a look. I get very cautious with BLPs, and see so much debate on them at ANI, I try to avoid them there. WP:AN has more admins less gawkers, might be better for getting admins only to look. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 01:03, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
  • I've gone over it fairly well, and it looks clean. Thinking about it, I would still rather put it an BLPN, as they would tell you any diff, or call another admin if needed (two of the regulars call me for admin action regularly). But any port in a storm and the job is done. Bad case, definitely needed the redaction. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 01:14, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Civility and socks

Hello You advice/insight/guidance will be appreciated.

The WP:ARBPIA is a magnet for socks I myself have filed recently a SPI case [19] .But the problem that veteran users IMO failing to WP:AGF when dealing with new users, I had recently conversation about that with user:Ohiostandard [20].I think such edits is violation of WP:AGF and WP:NPA if the editor have evidence he should open SPI case.Here is an example:

  • [21] Accusing user of socking and reverting him
  • [22]Striking new user comments
  • [23] Violating article talk page guidelines and accusing other editor of socking instead opening an SPI case.

Do you think that is acceptable behavioral?--Shrike (talk) 13:06, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

P.S I have notified Ohio of this discussion[24]

  • I will look at this in greater detail a bit later, I have a few things I must do first, and this will require devoting more than a few minutes to review properly. This isn't something I would want to just give an offhand opinion on, but agree that here is a better place to discuss it than ANI, at least for now. If OhioStandard wants to offer come guidance here as well, that would be appreciated. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 13:12, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
I see this but the problem is the civility issue.If the suspected sock doesn't add any material that need to be reverted right away(vandalism or blp or extreme pov push)why not wait day or two so he could be blocked if he is really a sock and then revert.--Shrike (talk) 06:16, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
I expect to raise the issue, I was just letting you know that we were talking about similar issues. I agree that editors should be careful about how they use the term "sock" when reverting actions and such, and I know he has to deal with a lot of real socks as well, so yes, I want to continue the discussion with all of us later in the day. This is a common concern with many users that do the same thing, call many people socks that may or may not be, in good faith, but sometimes in excess. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 11:16, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Voter turnout in the United States presidential elections

Dennis, I just happened to come across this article, which at first seemed like a good thing - until I started looking for the source of all that data. Only two references are provided, way down at the bottom - the first deals with only the 2008 election, the second has numbers that vary from those presented in the wikiarticle.

Reading between the lines of the long footnote there, it seems to me this is a case of OR, which is foisting unreliable info on readers. And therefore should be deleted. But 1) This is not my area of expertise, 2) I'm not really sure how to navigate the twisting paths of a request for deletion, and 3) It's a lovely Sunday afternoon and I have much better things to do with my time.

So I'm just putting a bug in your ear about this - do with it what you will. Textorus (talk) 18:24, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

  • Thanks, I have four windows open and trying to get outside as well :p I will take a look this evening or tomorrow. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 18:33, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
  • The topic is actually very worth an article on, but this isn't that article and the sourcing is certainly lacking. I need to make sure an existing article doesn't already exist, in which I would just send it to CSD#A10, but otherwise I may try to recruit a helper or two and clean it up. I can imagine that tons of sources exist. But I appreciate the challenge you gave me here, I bet we can put some lipstick on this pig and dress her up nice with a little effort. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 11:26, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
    • Thanks for looking into it, Dennis, and I hope you get a helper to fix it up nice and proper. It would be quite a worthwhile little "pig" with accurate numbers and reliable sourcing. Textorus (talk) 21:00, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

AfD closure

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Addobbati (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Dennis, if you have a moment, could you please close this AfD? I've withdrawn the nomination. I'm not sure if the nominator is permitted to do a non-admin closure of his own nomination; otherwise, I'd do it myself. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:29, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

  • Oops, you did it anyway, thanks! And if I had noticed your comment in the section just above this one, I would never have even posted this request. My apologies.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:41, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Not a problem, I'm just in high demand today, and I've some personal issues I'm having to deal with, so not as available as I would like, but still don't want to ignore people who need help. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 19:13, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
  • I took the liberty of finishing up for you on the article itself per WP:AFD/AI, figuring that what I did was more ministerial than substantive. I said the result was "keep", even though that isn't what you wrote. Feel free to change that if you think I was wrong to label it that way.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:43, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
  • oh, I should have thought to do that. I'm a bit out of it today. Our plant manager at the factory several hours south of here died of a sudden heart attack yesterday evening, never had heart issues before. Young guy, in his 30s, been with us for over a decade. I wasn't that close but knew him well enough as I visit the plant from time to time, but it is still a lot to deal with. I'm a bit distracted, checking up on family and close friends down there. Not much I can do for the situation, however. I also don't close many AFDs, likely less than 5 before, so it isn't habit. No one should give you any problems for cleaning up my mess here. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 19:53, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Sorry about the personal stuff, must be dreadful for his family. I think the completion of the closure is good enough. I've never done it before, but, just like with so many things at WP, I sat there with windows open following the step-by-step instructions. Perhaps I'll start looking at non-admin closures so I can get some practice, but I feel like I have a fair amount on my plate lately, so not sure.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:57, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Tinga Tinga

Maybe you're watching anyway, but in case you aren't. I've responded to your messages on my talk page. JamesBWatson (talk) 21:08, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

WP:RFPP request

Hey Dennis, I don't normally ask this but, do you think you can look over my request for protection for the Syrian uprising (2011-present) article? It's been almost a day and an half since the request was posted. Thank you very much! -- Luke (Talk) 23:25, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Your perspective

There is a really interesting conversation on paid editing in the second half of this string. I find that I learn a lot just by absorbing different viewpoints and I haven't heard yours yet. I was wondering if you would care to contribute to the discussion. If it is of interest to you, I would enjoy getting your perspective. User:King4057 01:54, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

  • It has been a rough weekend on many fronts (see above), and I expect to soon but have been swamped with RFPP and SPI backlogs, plus requests on this page, which were urgent. The next day or two I expect to jump back in and reincorporate some ideas I have. I will check your discussion tomorrow morning, 10pm here. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 01:58, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
(watching) repeating in rough times that you are an awesome Wikipedian, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:46, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
Nice to see a kind word with the first sip of coffee of the day. Appreciated. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 11:12, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
New perspective ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:39, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
I went and read the entire article. Very good, worthy of FA. And now I'm very flattered that you gave me one a while back! (It is safely stored in my barnstar vault) Thanks again, and for the link as well. I needed to just stop and read a really interesting article, and that one certainly is. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 23:06, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
Love to hear that! (I knew why I used it.) Tell the author also, or - perhaps even better - support the nomination ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:15, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
Thanks, helped ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:37, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
Cool! I love articles like this, a part of the culture of that area. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 17:40, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Socks

Check your email, thanks. 2 lines of K303 15:32, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

How to change user name style?

How do you change the style of your user name and user talk boxes? Thanks. --Anderson9990 (talk) 01:03, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Hello, Dennis Brown. You have new messages at Anderson9990's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

False positives

I was just wondering if you think it is a good idea if i start up a false postives page? Thanks, --Anderson9990 Talk to me False Positive? Report it! 02:38, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Re: Northern Arrow / Factocop SPI

Hi Dennis, re the above SPI I'm inclined to agree with DeltaQuad. I don't think there's enough for any further action at this time - if something more appears then I'd support taking another look--Cailil talk 12:34, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Requests for Permissions/reviewer

Do you want to take a look at these 2 requests for reviewer? no one has accepted or declined permission. Instead, it is more being used as a forum then a requests page. Thanks!--Anderson9990 - Talk to me - False Positive? Report it! 02:09, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

  • Reviewer rights are slow to get doled out because the entire function doesn't exist yet. It was part of a test, but isn't expected to roll out until December. I'm personally not familiar enough with the requirements to grant reviewer rights to anyone. You are still kind of new as well, not sure what their criteria is, as that is out of my normal realm of work. I would just wait, you can't really do anything with it until December, and I don't think it will take very long to get a decision in the proper venue. Under the best of circumstances, it usually takes a couple of days to get rights granted properly. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 02:14, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Strikethrough edit summary?

Hi, Dennis - I regret the edit summary that I made in this edit, for obvious reasons. Is it possible to strikethrough every word prior to "disambig," or those words there, unretracted, for the life of the article history? I don't see a rationale for revdel'ing it, particularly since the edit itself was (I believe) a good one, other than the WP:DICKish summary I gratuitously stuck on it. I don't want to pretend I never typed those words, just make clear they are not to be seen as my considered, rational opinion. Thanks! ☯.ZenSwashbuckler.☠ 13:18, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

  • I don't think revdel wouldn't be appropriate. What I would do if I had done that, is go to the talk page, explain the edit and just apologize for the rude summary. We all have bad days, it isn't the end of the world, but an apology is usually the best sign of good faith. Or make a null edit with an apology in the summary. I goof from time to time as well, and I find that if I make myself apologize in at least a public a manner as my mistake, it keeps me from making too many mistakes and keeps me honest. And people are usually quick to forgive occasional lapses in judgement when you admit a mistake this way. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 13:24, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
    Thanks for the advice, and for responding extraordinarily quickly. ☯.ZenSwashbuckler.☠ 13:53, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
    That looked good, and will be obvious from the history. We all have bad moments, and I always have tremendous respect for people who are willing to correct a mistake in this way. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 14:07, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Query about block

Hello, Dennis. I see that you blocked NJ Wine as a sockpuppet, and removed talk page access. That is normally done only when there is a history of talk page misuse while blocked. However, this account had not edited at all while blocked, and the sockmaster has not, as far as I can see, abused talk page access while blocked. Is there a reason that I have missed, or was this a mistake? JamesBWatson (talk) 13:51, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

You online?

I saw a request on RC for an article to be created but this[26] won't let me, can you fix it please so I may crate the article? Darkness Shines (talk) 19:25, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Ignore, Tom has done it for me. Darkness Shines (talk) 19:32, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
sorry about that, I missed your message or I would have been happy to help. During the day here, around 1200UTC to 1700UTC, I'm at work so it is hit and miss, so I sometimes miss comments. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 19:06, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Dennis Brown. You have new messages at Anderson9990's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

--Anderson9990 - Talk to me - False Positive? Report it! 21:19, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

well i just wanted to say thx for all the hard work and good luck and if u want to could u please send me a message it would mean the world to me and once again thx

Wwecenarules (talk) 05:05, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

first blush

I noticed [27] post, and wondered if perhaps you weren't being a bit defensive. I didn't see it as "posturing" by Mastcell, but rather a considered action followed by a detailed reasoning as to why he did what he did. That's not to say that I'm familiar with the situation, I'm not. Just that having seen and known Mastcell for a long time, I have to say that I've never known him to point fingers, make accusations, or step on toes. I /do/ understand that when you take an administrative action which gets changed that you start to question yourself and all (big time .. but I won't go into my own details), but I doubt any slight was intended in the least. You're doing some damn fine work Dennis - don't let the little stuff throw ya for a loop. Cheers. Chedzilla (talk) 18:46, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

  • Maybe a little, but since I was the one that unblanked the page, it seemed directed at me. So did the discussion above by another admin, who pointed me out by name. In this case, MastCell didn't need to threaten to protect the page, which to me is posturing: drawing a line in the sand. He could have just said "I've reverted back because $x, discuss before you change back", which would have been fine and inline with the spirit of BRD and all that. But by suggesting that an edit war was even possible, he wasn't exactly assuming good faith and it was a bit improper. I've been accused of many things, but edit warring isn't one of them. I hadn't crossed paths with MastCell before, and to take such a public and defiant stand on an action I took just seems inappropriate and unnecessary. Perhaps later I will see it differently, but his words seem fairly clear. Not incivil, but certainly defiant in declaring how "strongly" he felt. I would like to think I'm fairly responsive and approachable in these types of matters. By the way, thank you for the vote of confidence, it is appreciated. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 19:01, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
    • As I said at WP:AN, it really wasn't intended as a swipe at you. Like you said, I don't think we've really crossed paths, but the vague impression I have of your work is very positive. I certainly don't have any reason to think you'd edit-war over the courtesy-blanking. I do feel strongly about the blanking, and wanted to convey that, but not as an attack on your handling of the situation. MastCell Talk 21:20, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
      • No problem, the target of your comments wasn't clear, so we will just chalk this up to a simple communications issue, no harm, no foul. I agree about either redacting or blanking info in general when it might out someone. Have not looked specifically, been at work, but take your word for it. I had just assumed the blanking was only due to the RTV, as that is standard procedure. The big deal was relinking the account anyway, both for convenience and because he has violated the terms, and a pledge should mean something. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 21:53, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Question on Lionel Richie/vandalism

I noticed your comment on User talk:Anderson9990#Lionel Richie about the IP editing to Lionel Richie not being vandalism. The Lionel Richie page has now been protected by another admin for "persistent vandalism" in referrence to those same IP section blanking edits and perhaps another IP add. I just want to be clear on whether this IP should've been warned for vandalism or not? I reported this to the admin page for vandalism, and no one told me I was mistaken. I notified another admin directly and there was no mention of the case not being one of vandalism. I just want to make sure I'm doing the right thing in the future, and this is a bit confusing. Thanks for your time. INeverCry 04:54, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

PS - There's another Ip who added, in what would seem to be good faith edits, some detail about a Lionel Richie look-alike. This wouldn't seem to be vandalism either would it, as this other IP added what he thought was a relevant detail? INeverCry 05:14, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
I've answered on Anderson's page, to make it easier. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 11:06, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for clearing this up for me. The idea of "erring on the conservative side" makes perfect sense, as does the advice of getting the help of other editors. INeverCry 17:43, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
Not a problem, I'm happy to offer advice anytime. We are all players on the same team, after all. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 17:45, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Bullying

I am really fed up with the bullying comments about my editing at this page Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Echigo mole. Another use has chosen to characterise my edits as incompetent, superficial, faked, zero expertise, wrong, lack of clue, tiresome, not a great idea. His comments on Goldie's Theorem (not Theory) being left behind are just plain nonsense. I am only too happy to have my edits checked by an impartial expert, but really do not want to face any more personal abuse, arrogance, bullying and nonsense from this person. Can you please do something about it? Thanks. Gangs of Wasseypur (talk) 14:52, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

  • I have endorsed the CU process, so we should wait and see what comes of it for now. SPI's do get ugly sometimes, something I don't particularly like, but sometimes this ugliness bears fruit. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 17:12, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
... and now apparently I'm deluded as well. Evn tought you endorse this "ugliness", I do not have to put up with it. No need to bother to check over my edits, just cancel my account. There's a list of topics I was planning to address on my user page, someone else can do that now. Gangs of Wasseypur (talk) 18:10, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
I only endorsed checking the account, not his statements, due to technical reasons. Accounts can't be cancelled, but you can black both your user and talk page and put only this tag: {{retired}} on each if you wish to leave. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 18:13, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Unfortunately for Gangs of Wasseypur (undoubtedly a troll sock of Echigo mole), in 1977-1978 in my third year as an undergraduate I took Part III of the Cambridge Mathematical Tripos. One of the courses happened to be on non-commutative ring theory, one of my favourite subjects as a schoolboy and undergraduate. It was given by Derek Taunt of Jesus College, Cambridge. The course included Goldie's theorems. In real life I think I have met most of the top academics in the UK in algebra, including Paul Cohn. At least two of them are very good friends of mine. Mathsci (talk) 18:24, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

  • Unfortunately for me, the content is incredibly beyond my comprehension, which is why sometimes you have to speak slowly and spell it out, to allow me to use the tools I do have, technical and behavioral comparisons, in order to make the call, while not jumping to conclusions prematurely. The system works, it just isn't as quick as a light switch. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 18:33, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
    • I appreciate that. As with Ansatz, the discussions at SPI are a bit tricky. In this case they made a fatal error ... But again, many thanks for your help. Mathsci (talk) 18:54, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Editor retention

How do you address it, or do you suggest there is none ? Penyulap ☏ 17:37, 29 Jun 2012 (UTC)

  • I think editor retention is a very important subject. I've addressed it here [28], and here [29] and on User:Parrot of Doom's talk page after his block. My sandbox has a pledge in it's early stages [30], perhaps eventually an essay, about how admins should always warn before blocking. I've been vocal in supporting our established editors, even one or two who can be somewhat disruptive, at the risk of upsetting more than a few of my more "mainstream" admins, at ANI and other venues. When possible, I inject myself early in the process to prevent heavier hands from overreacting, and have received a fair amount of grief for being less harsh than some feel I should. If you look above, I just had a talk on another user's talk page [31] about not templating editors with vandalism tags when it is inappropriate. The idea that my role is to keep good people here permeates every action I take here. I even became an SPI clerk trainee, as sockpuppets undermine the quality work of content creators, and this is a way I can fish out the POV and problem editors, paving the road for higher productivity of the neutral editors.
  • I freely accept my role as janitor and accept that the most important role at Wikipedia is the content creator, not the admin. I wouldn't expect you to notice as you have more important things to do than follow my contribs, but I've been quite vocal about this in multiple venues, and on a regular basis. I've said it 100x before: People don't use Wikipedia because of the great admins, they use it because of the great articles. Our goals are the same, even if our methods aren't. I'm against added bureaucracy because in the end, that actually hurts content by offering new methods of wikilawyering, which the bad guys WILL exploit. I am for changing the perspectives of some admins to my way of looking at our role here, which I think is the root of the problem. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 18:05, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
Just a comment since I saw this. Do you think the more important change for editor retention is going to be found in keeping editors from being blocked or by keeping editors who fade away? I see many editors who create an account for one purpose and leave when it is done or who never become involved in the Wikipedia community and one day stop editing. Generally, we block editors who would otherwise keep editing, so that may be more important, but there's also the issue of editors like Sebastian Lake or Adambrower. Both of these editors created articles (Sweet Revenge (liqueur) and Herbert Greene (Broadway conductor) respectively) and have discontinued editing since. Do you have any idea how we can create an environment where people want to spend their time here? (This isn't to say that there aren't editors like you, Penlyap, and I who want to spend their time here, but how do we make new editors want to?) Ryan Vesey Review me! 18:14, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
I'm not entirely sure how to keep the very casual dabbler, who creates one or two articles. My efforts have been on keeping older editors who were here when Wikipedia was a different place. Both are important, granted, and encouraging dabblers to become full fledged members of the community is a worthy goal, but many have no interest in the community, they just want to add a couple of articles on things they like. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 18:17, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
I see the problem this way, there are many good editors who have a mature thoughtful approach to justice. I see little to no acknowledgment in policy that the 'justice' here is not perfect, and there is an appalling reliance on people investigating themselves. I feel and see that many of the best editors, the most thoughtful, view the system with contempt because it makes no attempt to address these simple issues in a meaningful way. You do not stand in a warzone, it's an uncomfortable place because you know you can be shot or mortared at any moment, and that is the analogue of what they feel and face, that at anytime, someone will take a dislike to them, indef block them, and because of their integrity they will not return. Returning involves telling lies, as is required "I did something wrong, I understand I won't do it again" to the same person who hates them, and they're gone forever. There is no allowance for a difference of opinion between the admin that block someone and that blocked editor. They either agree with the person who has just upset them, bow and kiss arse, or they're out. There is no possible reason why it needs to be the same admin that reviews a block, beyond the admins ego, it assumes that no other admin is capable of assessing an editor re-entering the community.
Side-stepping the issue with the pretense that it cannot happen because there are lots of things to prevent it fundamentally misses the point that it does indeed happen. Even if you want to pretend it doesn't, you have to make the absurd dangerous assumption that it cannot ever happen and lay that on top of ignoring the many people who say it does.
Community strength and admin strength is found not in backing one admin to make the decision and review them-self, it lays in the same message being given to an editor by different admins, or the community themselves saying the same thing as the original admin, while the original admin stays silent. If one person calls you a horse, you ignore them, if ten people call you a horse, you buy yourself a saddle. Admins tend to think that they should 'back up' each other regardless of their poor decisions, rather than each of them being willing to rely on some other admin to come to a similar, or even different, decision. 'backing each other up' leads inevitably to an 'us and them' mentality that divides the whole community. Relying on each other to make similar decisions reinforces every decision as a good reason to buy a saddle.
When admins cannot, or are unwilling to trust each other to come to a similar decision based on the same set of circumstances, it is an admission that the circumstances involved do not speak for themselves. In the eyes of the blocked editor, who sees that someone else would consider the block unreasonable, it's confirmation that it is, indeed, unreasonable. If the first opinion is wrong, and there is no second opinion, then you can justifiably think that you may well have got a bad block. If five people endorse the block, it's less likely, if 30 people endorse the block you are on your own and have to accept that yes, it's just you. The way I see it, if any editor has ever been disliked by one admin, then they may as well leave now, because it's just a matter of time, because regardless of the editor's actions, the system fully supports and backs spite and vendetta and admins reviewing themselves. If broad consensus came into it, fine, if single admin consensus is the standard, then that's that. People will look at wikipedia as having standards the same as any board or forum. I expect not many people try to do high quality encyclopedic work on 4chan, and so the good editors see that wikipedia is simply not up to the task. Penyulap ☏ 20:56, 29 Jun 2012 (UTC)
First, the admin reviewing the block shouldn't be the blocking admin. I review blocks from time to time, but I would never, ever consider reviewing a block I made. I might comment about it below, but wouldn't refuse the request. Technically, each request SHOULD have a different admin, each time. And not all admins think the same. I went and pitched for User:FleetCommand to be unblocked to the admin, and got him unblocked, but he is still upset and yet to come back. If you want to admin's to be independent, then you can't lump us all together. Independence is the number 1 reason I vote for a candidate at RfA. More important than any other quality, and an otherwise perfect candidate will get an oppose from me if I think they are cliquish. We aren't all the same, but if you take an adversarial attitude about all admins, you end up pushing some of them against you. All I can do is what I do, stay independent, I give admins the benefit of the doubt, but I give all users the same, and when I see a mistake by an admin, I ask them about it, politely, since that is the most effective way to get them to voluntarily reverse their actions, and that makes them more likely not to do the same thing in the future. Admins are NEVER going to have a universal blocking system, I will always be less likely to block than others, and some will always be willing to block without notification. Don't waste your time trying to fix that, it is a volunteer force, it won't happen. All you can do is vote in good admins, or become one and lead by example. More rules aren't going to solve this. Keeping things in full daylight will help, however. In the end, that is all I can do, be independent, try to fix bad blocks when I'm aware of them (see my user page, I say I will review admins if asked, btw). Wikipedia will never be "fixed". All I can do is try to not make the same mistakes as others, and make my little corner a better place, and maybe others will try to do the same. One person at a time. Again, more rules aren't the answer, accountability is. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 21:41, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
I don't know to what extent I could be considered to be a typical case, but Penyulap's position resonates with me, and is the fundamental reason why my participation here has drastically declined, and will continue on that path unless something changes. Bad blocks are hard enough to swallow, but then to see an ArbCom member arguing that all blocks should be indefinite pending the blockee's self-abasement is a step way too far. Malleus Fatuorum 00:02, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
I agree that the idea that all blocks should be indef is absurd and opens up so many venues of abuse that I would never agree to such a system nor participate in such. I agree with Penyulap as far as the general problems are concerned, but there are two schools of thought when it comes to solutions here. We can reach for the moon, or we can start with the lowest hanging fruit. I tend to start with the lowest hanging fruit, trying to make a difference where I can, and doing so more often. I can speak out early and often, and hopefully persuade others to my point of view. I don't think more rules are the answer, as we have so damn many rules now that after almost 6 years, I'm still finding new ones weekly. I'm more a fan of common sense than rote memory of rules anyway. As for the solution, all I can do is that which is within my own limited skill set, using my own judgement. If we disagree on a solution, it is helpful to remember that we still agree on the problem. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 00:20, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
But of course there isn't just one problem here, there are many. I was reminded earlier today of another factor that plays here, that disruptive newbies are treated with kid gloves while established editors "who should know better" are treated as harshly as a strict interpretation of the rules allow without the blocking admin getting into desysop territory. Does anyone seriously believe that this user didn't know any better after having been warned umpteen times? Blocked now at last, yes, but at what cost to the editors who had to put up with that shit for far too long? Malleus Fatuorum 00:38, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
Malleus, unless you know something I don't you're being a little harsh on Arbcom there – you might not agree with every position they take, but they do generally try to have a modicum of common sense. I assume the comment you're referring to with "all blocks should be indefinite pending the blockee's self-abasement" is this thoughtful contribution to the debate from Sandstein – in the unlikely event that Sandstein were ever elected to Arbcom, the job of Wikipedia's admins would become considerably easier given that a substantial portion of the editor base would leave Wikipedia there and then. 188.28.117.86 (talk) 00:43, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
That was indeed the observation I was referring to, but I see that I was a little premature in attributing it to an ArbCom member, as Sandstein won't be one until the next elections roll around. Malleus Fatuorum 00:47, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
Occasionally when I'm bored, I snipe from the sidelines about these issues on admin notice boards. Snipping from the sidelines seems to be the nearest a content editor can get to having a voice. What I say there is routinely ignored or misrepresented by admins and admin wantabees. Other content editors seem afraid to engage, and are probably rightly afraid. Or I guess they are amongst the army that have already abandoned the place. I still contribute here, mostly by trying to pretend the miserable situation doesn't really matter. But that's not really true, and only works up to a point. --Epipelagic (talk) 00:52, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
(edit conflict) The number of serving Arbs was reduced for a reason, and assuming Brad, Elen and Casliber are shoo-ins that only leaves five vacancies at the end of this year. Regardless, all the deckchair-rearranging discussions on policy nuances whilst the Holy Shit Slide continues unabated increasingly remind me of the scene in Foundation, where every significant part of the Empire has seceded but the Emperor refuses to recognise this and continues issuing edicts to people who no longer even realise he's still alive. If Jimmy Wales really wants the noble title it's occasionally suggested he's angling for (allegedly, and all that), "Holy Roman Emperor of the Internet" has a certain ring to it. 188.28.117.86 (talk) 01:05, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
Nine weeks ago, I didn't think that much about retention, as I saw other problems that still motivate me, even if they don't take up as much time. As time goes on, I see more and more simply because I'm seeing it from the other side, so to speak. Below you see an IP that I blocked, yes, before the mandatory 4 warnings, because it was obvious, knowing someone might "call me out", yet knowing it was the right thing to do. So I did. I don't really have my sea legs with the admin bit yet, to be perfectly honest, it takes a while. And I'm still seeing new things because my perspective is literally changing by the week, even while my core beliefs have not. I've never been as involved with the actual process here (politics) as I've been in the last two months so it is often a bit to take in, and often I find myself stretched in so many directions, with only so many hours in the day. I seldom get to edit now, as the demands to resolve disputes and help others, plus learning SPI dominate my day. Malleus, you might feel that little is lost ;) but I still enjoy editing, even if it isn't my best talent. I actually like helping others, likely as much as editing, so I will get over it. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 00:57, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Every other day of the week I think your one of the good guys, and while I can read all through the comments here, and see all the places I agree with you, at the end of the day, it comes down to your oppose vote, bereft of any other explanation I can only guess that you didn't read or understand the reasoning for the proposal, maybe it's poorly formed, or muddied up by other commentary, but any way I look at that page, including standing on my head, I can only conclude that you're part of the problem. I don't care mind you, I mean it makes no difference in the end who votes for what it's just numbers, which in itself is most of the problem, because a puppet counts the same as a well reasoned persons vote, but I just didn't expect that sort of drive-by, it surprises me still. I don't understand, and my response there stands. Penyulap ☏ 02:57, 30 Jun 2012 (UTC)

  • I'm sorry you feel that way as I've always respected you Penyulap, even when I disagree with you. All I can do is attempt to fix the problems in my own way. I believe I understand the proposal, but I can see 100 ways for it to be abused as well, so I have no choice but to oppose. It wasn't a drive by vote shooting down your idea, and I felt that I explained it in a fairly detailed way, particularly the first time. Another issue is binary thinking: there are many admins who agree in principal with what you are saying. I would encourage you to work WITH those admins instead of lumping us all together. Swap ideas, allow us to be persuaded without being told that we are part of the problem. Allow us to share our experiences of abuse to help tailor a solution as well. There is no silver bullet here, only incremental changes that will help the culture evolve into something better. If you want to open a dialog and invite open minded admins on a subpage somewhere, maybe that would be better as a first step, so any idea would already have some degree of consensus. Start by identifying the problems, rather than proposing solutions, allow others to see the problems who might not have before. Again, building from the ground up. It might seem slower, but that is the only way I know to actually be successful at creating change, here or in the real world. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 12:59, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
Yes, you are quite right as always, hey, hang on a minute, as *almost* always :D
I guess in some ways it will need to wait, as the information gathered from putting the question to the mob is more interesting. The answer is often the least interesting thing, and the outcome is hardly relevant, but the workings of the interactions is fascinating. Anyhow, something to doublecheck, and I won't ask Auntie, because Auntie will tell me what I think more than what I said, so I'll double check with you, that paragraph that begins "So make a simple route for a third party newbie editor to follow," someone claims something or other about not respecting consensus or some such, which is not what it says, and people often have a tendency to read whatever it is they would like to be reading rather than what is there. So I don't care really if one or two can misinterpret, but I was wondering if more than just one or two can misinterpret that paragraph, what do you think ? Besides Penyulap is bothering me taking up my time when I have a million things to do, btw, sorry about that, and take a week to respond, there is no hurry. Penyulap ☏ 10:09, 1 Jul 2012 (UTC)
Specifically: You are forcing them to abandon empathy for their fellow man, my integrity will not allow me to agree with your demands and I'd sooner be a maytr than do as the rest of you do and go along with this insanity, I will not abandon my humanity, I'd sooner die, or in this case welcome with open arms an indef ban. There is always thewik.net, wikialpha, or any number of Carpathias where people wind back the clock to the better days, and carefully avoid this idiocy.
Well, that is a bit of a line in the sand, at least how I read it, but I don't take it quite as serious as others might. You and I use different version of English and were raised in different cultures, so we might have different ways of being mellow dramatic. In this case, I think you got very emotionally invested in the conversation, something we all do from time to time. Last week Malleus was kind enough to snap me into reality for doing the same, although your comments were more civil than my transgression. Your words could be taken in a couple of different ways, but no one is that upset. After all, most took them in good faith and replied with on topic questions rather than dwell on the wording. I wouldn't dwell on it.
Make no mistake about it, I'm passionate about many things, and don't let my (usually) calm demeanor mislead you about this. I try very hard to keep a cool, rational method of communication here because when people see a bias in your speaking, it has a way of pushing them into playing devil's advocate. It isn't easy, and I'm not as successful with it as I would like to be. As for essays, I started User:Dennis Brown/EASYMONEY which I'm working on, addressing another problem. I posted notices on prominent pages of editors whom I trust, and watching it grow. It isn't exactly going in the direction I intended, but it is interesting to watch it grow. Rock soup, something I quote a lot, applies here, and I find it is easier to get consensus and others on board when I start an idea, invite a diverse group of people to participate, and then get out of the way a bit and see what happens, making it clear that everyone is welcome to edit the essay directly. It is all a great experiment, after all, just like democracy. So I am working on retention in a number of ways, perhaps less grand than your vision, but hopefully in small but fruitful ways. I'm stretched a bit thin right now, but would try to help as best I could if you wanted to start a similar essay project of your own. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 13:13, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
Wiki is not what it once was. The way we operate needs a rework from the top down and inside out. PumpkinSky talk 13:15, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
  • "People don't use Wikipedia because of the great admins,..." ... true; but often good people leave because of poor admins. IJS. (and no .. that's not an implication - I think you're doing a fine job). Chedzilla (talk) 13:33, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
    You are completely right about bad admins pushing people away. Or more often, when good people make bad mistakes as admin. I don't think all the bad actions are intentional at all, some just get so cynical and settled into blocking at first sight. Others are too busy doing other things to research properly. If you want to change the way admins react to situation, you also must acknowledge that improper blocks aren't usually bad faith, even if a bad idea. And that most admins, even the ones making what you and I might call "mistakes", are actually trying to do what they think is best for Wikipedia. I know it is often hard to see that side of it, but you must if you want to change what is going on. Like all problems, it isn't so simple. You change the outcomes by changing the culture here, and that takes time, patience, a large group of fellow admins who willing to work within the cause, and steady (even if slow) progress. I get lumped as a "typical admin" by people who are pissed about another admin's action all the time, and it doesn't endear me to their cause. If you want to get admins to change, you have to vocally support the admins who are doing it right. There are several, and many more on the cusp. My idea isn't popular, but that isn't relevant. I know it is the only way to get popular support for these other ideas, by working together and keeping it level headed with reasonable goals. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 14:25, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
    • Part of the problem, which is indeed multi-faceted, is the very nature of wiki: open editing, anonymity, culture clash (ex: Malleus thought nothing of saying "cunt" but it appalled others. Throw cabals throwing power trips around, centuries old religion and ethnic warring, editors who think anyone that doesn't agree with them is an idiot, blocking productive editors, good editors leaving because the bad ones abuse them and are more determined to stick it out til they get what they want, etc. and you have what we have. What happened with Yogo sapphire, which was TFA yesterday, is a shining example of wiki being what it should be--editors coming together to make an article the best it can be, not what it too often is. Cracks in the old way are starting to show, but there's a long long way to go. PumpkinSky talk 14:32, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
      • I believe that to get good results, you have to use the carrot more than the stick. People with good ideas and positive attitudes are successful at getting things done because people like to be around them, will listen to their ideas, and be persuaded by them if they make sense. You seek out and reward the people doing it right, you learn from them and co-opt their ideas and methods into your own. Spend at least half your time doing that, instead of spending all of it criticizing the many that do it wrong, and you have a reward for good behavior instead of only a punishment for bad. We don't need a Cabal of "good" admins, but maybe we need a project that focuses on editor retention, and can be a place for admins to learn methods to help with this. Wikipedia:WikiProject Editor Retention would be one idea. So I started it. So let us all put our money where our mouth is, join, actually participate, and develop a real strategy for dealing with the many reasons for editor retention issues. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 15:07, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
        • That's certainly a step in the right direction, but it's only part of the solution. You can't ignore the bad elements; they won't go away because you ignore them or be nice to them. Being nice is going to change some ethnic warrior trying to carry out some 1000 year old vendetta. I will join your project. Check out one some of us formed a few days ago to help with issues with quality articles: WP:QAI. PumpkinSky talk 15:18, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
          • Then we take that step, because it is in the right direction. One at a time. Again, this is why the project makes sense, so we can each take different steps, but in the right direction. Some things, like 1000 year old vendettas, won't be fixed except by traditional methods, but if someone can't edit without being a warrior, then they need to be blocked because they are interfering with quality editors that CAN edit in a collegiate manner. The idea of the project is that we can discuss all these different problems and solutions, in one neutral area. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 15:23, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
I've joined the project, I hope that doesn't completely poison the well, feel free to delete my comment or edit, whatever. I'll reply here later. Penyulap ☏ 15:49, 1 Jul 2012 (UTC)

Of course you joining doesn't poison the well. I did change the wording of the list. If we are going to actively get admins to engage and participate (which IS necessary) we have to be just as neutral there as we would be in any article. We need to work on that with you, just a tad ;) But if you work in this way, I promise you will see more results than if you don't. I can easily promise this. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 15:57, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

arbitrary break

Dennis, your "Anne-Frank-I-really-believe-all-people-are-essentially-good-Rodney-King-can't-we-all-get-along" pablum is a little bit nauseating since it amounts to passive wishful thinking and won't lead to anything concrete to address real ills. How about an admin who throws away his RfA-promised recall-list subscription after only a few months on the job then discovers it's really fun servicing his personal grudges by carrying out revenge-blocks on editors targeted who've not respected the admin's almighty power as they should over any excuse imaginable at an opportune time that can be exaggerated to appear in line of duty fully supported by policy while keeping other admins at arms length by intimidating them by calling them trolls if they interfere or manipulating them using accepted concept of admin corps comradeship ("I-caution-you-to-think-twice-before-butting-in-like-this-and-questioning-a-fellow-admin's-decision") and generally throwing around "fuck this" and "fuck that" in edit summaries whenever the urge strikes and subjugating victims with "I'll unblock you if you promise that you'll no longer be a dick" and routinizing said formula with threat to indef cherry-on-top and so on and so on while avoiding as much as possible obvious evidence of blatant admin abuse knowing that admins are seldom removed by arbcom and to operate under the radar pretty much guarantees a lifelong mop and if anyone wants to mess with them they have their aggressive and equally-brutish admin buddies who'll come through the window to help out immediately claiming uninvolved editor status and then supporting their buddy's decision while adding berating comments to the victim to keep things under control because that's what friends are for, right? And writes an obvious "us versus them" WP essay because they feel safe in the nest they've created here and want to boast to the world how macho they are and how much they should be feared since they know how to operate and don't give a crap. I think you're dreaming pretty pastel colors that any way forward isn't a tooth extraction for the ache that pains – when you are gripping your jaw in pain in the dentist chair does your dentist do a rootcanal or just stand in front of you preaching how someday good and reasonable dental hygiene and further advances in flouride technology will someday make cavities the way of the dodo if we would all just agree to start now by practicing good hygiene habits at home on a daily basis? I can see the need for a recall process mandatory for all admins and I'm only 1+ years editor here; how about working on something concrete like that that will address a real ill? (It'd not only feel better with the toothache gone knowing all admins are subject to mandatory recall, but the entire mouth will smell better too since a bad tooth can really stink a lot.) Thanks for consider; good luck with your effort. p.s. I have some "blood-stained clothes", can you recommend a good detergent that can remove the stains? Ihardlythinkso (talk) 16:11, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
  • And I see the glass as half full. Real change will only happen when you have the support of a large number of admins and non-admins alike. It is a long term approach to a problem that has developed over a long time. I can only use the tools at my disposal, and I've a lifetime of experience getting people together using positive reinforcement in a consensus environment, offwiki. I believe you need to provide a positive alternative to the status quo, one that attracts other admins rather than repels them and puts them into defensive mode. You may see my ideas as Pollyanna or unworkable, but I've also a lifetime of experience from doubters who sat on the sidelines while I did what they said was impossible, so I'm not so easily dissuaded. Will this work? That depends on those who participate more than myself. The problems at Wikipedia are entirely too large for one man to fix, and I am certainly not qualified to take them on by myself. I can, however, try to organize these ideas and seek to develop a consensus on one issue at a time, one problem at a time, using patience and persistence, and maybe I will get more done than had I just sat on the sidelines and complained about the problems, waiting for someone else to fix them. At the end of the day, even if I can only affect a single, minor change, it is still better than not trying at all. I will leave before I let Wikipedia make me bitter. Life simply has too much to offer, and Wikipedia is only one tiny option. While I am here, however, I would like to try to make a positive difference, no matter how unbelievable that might seem. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 16:41, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
I agree with both of you, and you are both right, I have the annoying habit of being able to do that, I differ from Dennis's correct view, by having the view that the glass can be either half full or half empty because in the end the glass doesn't need to be the question. Better, I see that change is the law of the universe, and believing that change can only happen given xyz conditions doesn't need to apply. I will happily help with change on all fronts, because it's the law. So while I am here, I'll work with Ihardlythinkso on the innocent prisoner and Dennis on the long term solution, whilst saying Screw you guys I'm out of here, working on the starter projects, as there are solutions, easy ones, to all the supposed reasons why they'll never replace wikipedia. Incidentally, if more than the given percentage didn't understand my passage wherever it was on martyrdom, I'll point out, that just because I think the chef is a moron who cannot cook a meal to save his life, and all the waiters back the chef's view that he can, doesn't mean I have to cause any fuss whatsoever, or make my friends uncomfortable by doing so, I'll pay my bill gracefully, not burn bridges, I'll return to the restaurant quite possibly if friends insist, but I'll only order drinks and I'll be happy to explain to my friends why I'm not eating if I haven't done so over the phone before we ever got there in the first place. So you see, the chef is a moron, the waiters are idiots, and they'll all be happy to see me and take my cash next time (for drinks at most) because that is what they do and what they like about me, I'm a polite customer who pays his bills and gives feedback when asked to do so. If of course I ever go there, I don't care if they stay in business or not, none of my concern. Penyulap ☏ 17:48, 1 Jul 2012 (UTC)
Innocent prisoner's dilemma is an excellent concept to talk about at the project on the talk page. Right now, it only gets brought up at a venue when tempers are high, so it's discussion and application seem rather spotty. Seriously, if you want a solution, you have to start the discussion when tempers are flying, when you aren't accusing someone, when you can point to diffs and say "This is what is broke, this is why, how can we fix this?" in calm voice, and people will actually listen to you. If the only time people see you make a point is when you are on a soapbox, don't be shocked if they only see you as a soapboxer. Wikipedia is easier to change from the inside than from bludgeoning it from the outside. I think we have a better chance of success if we calmly discuss ideas and make friends instead of enemies. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 18:14, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
And if it wasn't already clear, I don't live in an optimist's delusional world, but I usually choose to admire the rainbow rather than bitch about the rain. I used to be much more cynical in my youth, but life has a funny way of throwing things at you and changing your perspective, making you a bit more grateful. There is no problem that can't be solved, there is no issue that can't be resolved. If we don't get the result we want today, we can try again tomorrow. Luck may favor the bold, but success favors the persistent, and I can't be persistent unless I keep a good attitude and enjoy the journey a bit. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 18:26, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
+1 because yes I agree, and +1 for making me out to be an eternal optimist who is also an eternal pessimist :D Penyulap ☏ 19:43, 1 Jul 2012 (UTC)

Incidentally, both of you might be interested in this little debate going on presently

It strikes me as a little heavy handed, although I just saw it and only beginning to look at the background, but this seems like another good case study, so to speak, for the kind of things that demotivate and discourage editors. -- Avanu (talk) 20:31, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

    • It struck me that way at first, but then I realized that he was trying to edit by proxy, so I understood why Bwilkins said he shouldn't have done that, although he does comes off a bit gruff. I think the problem is that there is no clarity regarding proper use of the talk page. I will reply on the policy page. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 20:43, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Remember, we're not a bureaucracy (in theory), and I think we end up sending mixed messages at times because of this. On one hand, we play fast and loose with rules, and simultaneously, we look for exact and particular rules for a situation. So, do we operate by the spirit of the law, or the letter of the law? I think it changes from second to second and admin to admin and editor to editor. 'Editing by proxy' while potentially WP:MEAT seems to imply people getting a big group together to overpower the opposition. Stretching the definition to a blocked user as if they are a mob boss ruling from jail seems a little beyond even the spirit of the law there. Also, I see a problem because Bwilkins warned him, he didn't do it again, but he was still blocked. Not for breaking that rule, but for debating whether it was spelled out clearly to him. (And I checked, if you take out the emotion and read it dispassionately, it could, under AGF, be considered a reasonable question, especially given the lack of clear policy on User Talk Pages.) So, was this a block to prevent disruption and harm to Wikipedia, or just because an admin was tired of hearing arguments and said 'you don't get it, so I'm blocking you for not agreeing with me.' Even though admins are not supposed to be any more special than anyone else, and are expected to behave dispassionately, I don't find it surprising if they don't always. Contempt of cop happens because we are human beings and because once we gain authority, we tend to take it personally at times if people don't respect our authority. -- Avanu (talk) 21:01, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
I've left a message on Bwilkins talk page, which speaks for itself. Basically I'm trying to find out if there is more than meets the eye here. Blocked users are not restricted to only use their talk page for unblock requests, I'm not sure where that came from, as I don't see that anywhere in policy. Now, they aren't supposed to use it to edit by proxy, which is what he did, but that isn't why Bwilkins took away his talk page access. I'm hoping it isn't for Calvins last statement, which I don't find particularly problematic, just his opinion of the fairness. Or like I told Bwilkins, maybe I'm missing something, I don't know, but I don't want to jump to conclusions and since Bwilkins made the call, I want to hear it direct from him, to get a better understanding of why the talk page access had to be revoked. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 21:27, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
Don't delude yourself into thinking it stops with inappropriate removal of User Talk page access. How about an admin totally and completely removing *Email* access without any justifiable whatever other than personal grudge? The point is, abusive admins are only stopped thru force, they'll take any slack rope you give them. This is nothing to do with attitude or personal philosophy orientation towards life, Dennis, rather simple observation. George Carlin was smarter than any of us and said he saw the glass as neither half empty nor half full but as: "too big". Ihardlythinkso (talk) 07:57, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
Perhaps I'm not as simple minded as I seem. You speak of using only force, but you are a single person. What force do you have? By yourself, no more than I. So you and I can sit here and just complain, or Give me a lever and I can move the world. I don't think Wikipedia is a terrible place. Again, if I get to the point that I feel it is, I would just leave. There are a great many flaws but none that aren't fixable, given enough people and time. I'm only one person and only expect to do small things, but yesterday I reviewed a block out of process, asked the admin about it, posted on the policy page and found like minded people, started a project, got a few ideas moving, contacted a few more, and the lever got just a little bit longer. What did you do about the problems? Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 11:46, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
Ridiculous question Dennis, because I am lowly 1+ years editor and not an admin like you. (You admins have discretionary power I could only dream of. A better question would have been to ask me: "What would you do if you were an admin like me?" The answer to that is simple. I would revert any block that I researched and concluded was tainted with abusiveness. And just in that, I would be plenty "busy". Your question is unfair, the only reason I'm talkin' to you at all is that you are admin and somewhat "different" and open to ideas, however, you are also quite fallible too, as you aptly demonstrated to me by dodging a simple incivil thing you did by calling the group of editors opposing History2007's RfA "in fear of honesty" without any basis, then "standing by your statement" until a big-gun like Malleus came by, then were insulting to me further by then responding you needed time to "reflect about it for a couple days", when the incivility on your part was not subtle or refined to warrant extra "think time" and you clearly (to me) were attempting to find a way to save face before making your "apology", which still was buried under long sentences and fancy words. But hey!: I forgive all that because you're human. I think you just need to look in the mirror more, and more carefully.) But it's hot out now and I need to find some lemonade. Cheers! Ihardlythinkso (talk) 19:23, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
It was a second opinion. Had it been someone else, I would have re-reviewed as a few days had passed and the heat of the moment was gone. And if I took a combative attitude about other admins, I wouldn't be one very long, would I? An admin can't affect change here by being combative, and it isn't my style anyway. I apologized to you and others, with the a giant header that said "apology" and you say I was hiding it. I've made it clear I will review any action by an admin long ago on my user page, and do and have started more than a few discussion with admins on their actions, including reversing a couple, but that is insufficient. I've been an admin for just 2 months now and don't claim to be an expert at anything, yet have put myself out there as being an admin that is trying to stop bad blocks, who tries to persuade other admins to warn first instead of blocking first, and all you can do is find fault with my every action. I didn't see anyone else willing to just jump in and restore the user's rollback rights, I only see you attacking my rationale for doing it. You seem to have the ability to find the cloud in the silver lining, and it is a level of negativity that I don't share. I'm all for constructive criticism, but I only see constant criticism. I am not sure why you waste your time talking to someone you obviously have a very low opinion of. All I can do is take the free time I have and try to do the right thing here, that is all. The admin bit isn't as powerful as you think, and I don't consider myself better than any editor here. I'm getting close to 50 years old, and my experience is that most people are good people, even if a situation brings out the worst in them. You have equated this to "Anne Franks" naïveté, but I'm no fool. I simply try to make a positive difference and keep a positive perspective on life and people, which is a bit rare here perhaps, but not so rare in the real world. Sometimes this means compromise and being pragmatic about things. It would seem that you and I just have a very different view on people and life in general, so I doubt I will ever meet your standards. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 20:45, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
You know Dennis, I can answer all your questions. But I see you're not too interested. You'd rather levy more personal insults, untrue disparaging remarks, based on overgeneralizing and the same kind of logic that led you to make a totally baseless assertion that the editors who voted against H2007's RfA did so because they "feared honesty, even if they wouldn't admit it". Putting title on a section "Apology" is not the same as making one. I did read your "apology". If you want to go over it sometime, how you obscured it and tried to save face, we can. It was all about capability and will to face simple accountability.
I'm not aware of saying the "way forward at WP" is to assume a "combative attitude about other admins"? (How does "reverting a block tainted with abusiveness" lead you to that? Or, what led you to that? I have no idea.) I am *all behind* the effort to get admins to consistently warn before blocking. (Did you think I wasn't? It seems you're implying I didn't. On what basis? I've never thought that nor even suggested so. Do you practice the AGF that you often preach?)
"Find fault with your every action." Another exaggeration, Dennis. I've brought up *two* things. (How did two things, become "every thing"? Do you like to manufacture hyperbole, then turn it into a "spear of accusation" and then hurl it at me? Is this more AGF and civility coming from you?)
You say I "attacked [your] rationale for restoring rollback rights". No, I didn't. As explained at ANI where you made the same charge, what I did do was to ask you if you saw the huge double-standard or not: one whereby it is virtually automatically demanded of any blocked editor that they address their behavior as a condition of any unblock; whereas in Toddst1's case, after echoing the consensus that he (at a minimum) "made a mistake", and after no admission to any degree of having made any sort of "mistake", you seemed perfectly contented to end the matter there and call it done. I never got an answer (do you see the doulble-standard?), only an attack. You morphed my question into an "attack on your rationale", when I had/have no problem with your basis for restoring the rollback right -- no problem with your rationale for doing that. But the justification of your restore action isn't what my question was about, was it? You seem to consistently misread what I write, you've done that several times now. And you also now show a tendency to use the misreadings as springboard to launch unkind & unfair charges my way, i.e. personal attacks, regarding my attitude, my statements, etc. (Is this demonstrating more of the AGF you practice? And civility?)
"I'm all for constructive criticism, but I only see constant criticism." You're clearly frustrated and (I think) confused by our little dialogue, aren't you. (Asking me "don't know why you waste your time" chatting w/ you.) Our topics were basically just the two -- your assertion re why the opposers !voted the way they did, and the Q about double-standard at the ANI. Both topics could have been dealt with simply enough, but, you chose the path each time of denial, and misreading. (I didn't go away, so now you step things up to personal attacks as responses.) You pride yourself in dealing straighforwardly with issues, but look how confused, frustrated, and emotional you get when those issues are about *you* and challenge your concept-of-self that you've built-up, of admirable admin ("universally viewed as civil"), supported by lots of editors and admins stroking same. So I'm a "stone in your shoe". Too bad for me. (Block me! ;)) And rather than *deal*, it's much safer to react with as many disparaging things you can think of to say to me, screwing fairness & civility, just so you can get back to your normal, comfortable world of being thought of so highly.
I've enjoyed our little chats, I haven't found it a waste of time. But only for a time, since I find unpleasant the way you process information and argument, especially when it is about you. I am sure you are a great guy and neighbor. But as WP admin, I think you should lessen drinking your own Kool-Aid, you have the standard faults including easy hypocrisy and lack of civility. Getting a stream of compliments to reinforce a princely self-concept can be deforming. I wanted to heat you up and bend you the other way a little. (I definitely heated you up!) Cheers, & good luck for all. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 14:51, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Dennis_Brown/Archive_5&oldid=1147942833"