User talk:Kim Dent-Brown/Archive 7

Hello

Hello, I'm sure you're already aware of Kim (book) too? :-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 16:54, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Indeed I am - in fact my given name is actually Kimble, a homophone of the Kimball in the book! Not named directly for him, in fact my parents can't remember where they got the name! A Australian(?) sportsman, they think... I was born in 1958 but haven't been able to track him down! Nice to hear from you - I was aware you were out there but I don't think we've actually crossed each other's path before. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 17:39, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Re: Requested Move on Germanic Neopaganism

Kim, it would be my recommendation that you withdraw the current nomination for a move on Germanic Neopaganism and replace it with an RM for a specific new title. As an admin who closes a fair number of RMs, it is not our job to determine the proper new title, but to determine if there is consensus to move the title to the new title requested. In the case of Germanic Neopaganism, there is really nothing for an admin to evaluate. There is nothing wrong with withdrawing your request, which would then be closed, and starting a new, specific request that can be properly assessed. --Mike Cline (talk) 16:48, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for that advice Mike, I'll act on it. It seems to me there are really only two candidates; the present name (which I actually marginally prefer) and one alternative. I'll start an RM with the alternative as the target title and explain the procedure to people who will wonder why I'm proposing a move which I in fact oppose! Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 19:19, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

---

Kim, it seems that consensus here goes mostly to "Heathenism (contemporary)", I think the issue should move forward. --Bhlegkorbh ^Talk 21:09, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Also, I make you notice the behaviour of Mr.Dbachmann here and here. --Bhlegkorbh ^Talk 21:28, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Diffs

The two diffs that you left here are both identical. Did you intend to reference the same content twice?   — C M B J   12:53, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

No indeed, thanks for spotting that. I'll review and correct. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 12:55, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

re: Occupy Marines

good work :) — Ched :  ?  16:44, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Ched, appreciated. Thanks too for trying to pour oil on troubled waters at the AfD. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 17:00, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks

Just wanted to say thanks for the level-headed way in which you handled the Occupy Marines fiasco. I'm sorry for getting so worked up, I guess I need to work on not rising to attacks on my integrity. Thanks again Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 01:04, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Basalisk, I was going to write to your talk page to say well done for stepping away but I'll do so here! It's an easy thing to advise, but a hard thing to do and I'm sure you were right to take some time out. It's the sign of a good, self-aware editor that they can recognise when this is necessary; unfortunately the editors who most need to do this are the ones who are least able!! Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 10:32, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Advice to JohnValeron

You: "sarcasm ... is not helpful - indeed, I don't think sarcasm here is ever helpful, but if we blocked everyone who had ever used it this place would be a ghost town."

Absolutely priceless, I couldn't stop laughing. On a more serious note, your advice was outstanding (IMHO).--Bbb23 (talk) 02:00, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Bbb, I sometimes hesitate to jump into meleés like that but it's rewarding when the hoped-for calm sometimes results! Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 10:32, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Military Historian of the Year

Nominations for the "Military Historian of the Year" for 2011 are now open. If you would like to nominate an editor for this award, please do so here. Voting will open on 22 January and run for seven days. Thanks! On behalf of the coordinators, Nick-D (talk) and Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 23:34, 15 January 2012 (UTC) You were sent this message because you are a listed as a member of the Military history WikiProject.

Regarding your request for review of "Partnerpedia"

I've responded to your message at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Business#Request for review of Partnerpedia. Pine^talk 02:14, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

User box

Re your AN comment - yes, there's one at User:SineBot. -- John of Reading (talk) 22:47, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you John, I knew I had seen that around. Interesting use by a bot though - what would a bot wear if it were not editing naked? Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 10:02, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Soft-wear? -- John of Reading (talk) 08:06, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

<groan>!! Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 08:08, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Reply

Your concerns have been noted. ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 16:56, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

What?

Kim, you're a pagan?? Oh my... Perhaps this image of Christ carrying the Cross will change your mind. It's not too late! Drmies (talk) 14:59, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

I have seen the light! No, wait, it was the reflection from all the balloons... Now I'm confused, can someone please sculpt me a Horned God out of sugar icing? Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 15:11, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

I posted the picture on Facebook, but none of my friends seem to have returned to church yet. 'tis strange, passing strange. Oh, in your honor I'll work on some black metal articles. Drmies (talk) 15:39, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Unfair Rebuke

I am curious that you rebuked me for cleaning up the beginning of the Germanic Neopaganism article. The current version is wordy and repetitious:

Germanic neogapanism (also known as heathenry[1] or Germanic Heathenry[2]) is the contemporary revival of historical Germanic paganism. Precursor movements appeared in the early 20th century in Germany and Austria. A second wave of revival began in the late 1960s, and has developed a number of denominations which lay claim to a Germanic religious heritage, the most prominent ones being Ásatrú, Odinism, Forn Siðr and Theodism. Dedicated to the ancient gods and goddeses of the North, the movement is found in many countries.[3] Attitude and focus of adherents may vary considerably, from strictly historical polytheistic reconstructionism to syncretist (eclectic), pragmatic psychologist, occult or mysticist approaches. Germanic neopagan organizations cover a wide spectrum of belief and ideals.

Different terms exist for the various types of Germanic neopaganism. Some terms are specific in reference whereas other are blanket terms for a variety of groups. In a 1997 article in Pagan Dawn,[4] the authors list as more or less synonymous the terms "Northern tradition," "Norse tradition," "Ásatrú," "Odinism," "Germanic paganism," "Teutonic religion," "The Elder Troth" (as the name of a specific organization and at the same time an attempt to replace trú with an English equivalent) and "heathenry.

This is my version, which was repeatedly erased:

Germanic neopaganism, is Germanic paganism in the modern world. Dedicated to the ancient gods and goddeses of the North, the movement is found in many countries across the planet.[1] Attitude and focus of adherents may vary considerably, from strictly historical polytheistic reconstructionism to syncretist (eclectic), pragmatic psychologist, occult or mysticist approaches. Germanic neopagan organizations cover a wide spectrum of belief and ideals.

Different terms exist for the various types of Germanic Neopaganism.[2] Some terms are specific in reference whereas other are blanket terms for a variety of groups. In a 1997 article in Pagan Dawn,[3] the authors list as more or less synonymous the terms Northern Tradition, Norse Tradition, Ásatrú, Odinism, Germanic Paganism, Teutonic Religion, The Elder Troth (as the name of a specific organization and at the same time an attempt to replace trú with an English equivalent) and Heathenry.

My version contains ALL the points--including a reference to so-called heathenry--without all the verbiage.

--ThorLives (talk) 00:28, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

By the way, my suggestion that we include material on Bhlegkorb's group was not meant to be sarcastic. He is either in a group, or he has a web site, or has a book or article that he is trying to promote. In the interests of peace, we should simply ask him and include a reference in the article. Again, I am not trying to be provocative here, but simply trying to restore the peace.--ThorLives (talk) 07:16, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

ThorLives - This is not the place for a discussion about the article. My main concern was your attitude towards other users and I was not the only one to comment on this. Did you not see Drmies' comment to you on the same topic? If you don't realise that your interactions with Bhlegkorbh come across as sarcastic and unhelpful, then please either (a) take this as some honest and impartial feedback, and change your manner of interacting or (b) carry on regardless and see whether or not the editing atmosphere improves. I can assure you I am not in the habit of issuing rebukes on a daily basis; I only do so as a penultimate resort. In this case I felt it was well deserved although I can quite understand it was not welcome. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 11:33, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Duplicated Material

There is now material that appears TWICE in the Germanic neopaganism page: once in the introduction and once in the heathen sub-section. May I suggest that you remove it from the intro? I would do it, but our heathen friend would go thermonuclear.

This is the material in the intro:

Historically, the term was influenced by the Gothic term *haiþi, appearing as haiþno in the Gothic Bible of Wulfila for translating gunē Hellēnis, "Greek (id est gentile) woman" of Mark 7:26, probably with an original meaning "dwelling on the heath", but it is also likely that it was chosen because of its similarity to Greek ethne "gentile" or that it is not related to "heath" at all, but rather a loan from Armenian hethanos, itself loaned from Greek ethnos.

This is the material in the Heanthenry sub-section:

In the Sagas, the terms heiðni and kristni (Heathenry and Christianity) are used as polar terms to describe the older and newer faiths. Historically, the term was influenced by the Gothic term *haiþi, appearing as haiþno in Ulfilas' bible for translating gunē Hellēnis, "Greek (i.e. gentile) woman" of Mark 7:26, probably with an original meaning "dwelling on the heath", but it was also suggested by Jakob Grimm in his Teutonic Mythology that it was chosen because of its similarity to Greek ethne "gentile" or even that it is not related to "heath" at all, but rather a loan from Armenian hethanos, itself loaned from Greek ethnos.

--ThorLives (talk) 02:18, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

• Germanic Neopaganism: howdy! Thor, heathen friends, do they believe in 'thermonuclear' in the first place? Isn't "berserk" the proper term? Drmies (talk) 17:39, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi there Drmies, good to have you on the page. As you'll see from the talk page I have been longing for some other folks to come along and help with actual article writing there, rather than engaging in long talk-page arguments. So it was very good to see your edits, none of which I had a problem with. If you stick around it will be interesting to see how they go down with other regulars on the page. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 18:37, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Yep. One thing led to another and I've been going through some of the articles related to the topic, mostly organizations. There's a wealth of fan talk and POV editing going on there as well, but that was to be expected. I was happy to see you on the talk page, though. Anyway, I gotta go and sacrifice a virgin lamb now, since the Milky Way is in the Western house and on a collision course with Mars. Happy editing, Drmies (talk) 18:39, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Mr. Dent-Brown, thank you for the "heads up" on the complaint, but what should I do? When I went to the page in question, I noticed that it is for administrators only.

By the way, although I complained about the Bhlegkorbh edits, I did not actually reverse them. That was done by an administrator after my complaints. --ThorLives (talk) 23:36, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Addendum: The deletion was made by this administrator, and I fully support him! [1] --ThorLives (talk) 23:44, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi there, the page is not exclusively for administrators; anybody can post there. Particularly, if you have been the subject of a complaint raised there you have every right (and might be expected) to do so. However, the complaint has been pretty firmly handled by Drmies and in this case it might be simplest and wisest just to let the item close - or at the very most to post a very short note indicating that you've seen the item and don't have anything to add to Drmies' comments. Anything more might be superfluous and could be seen as rubbing salt into Bhlegkorbh's wounds. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 23:50, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Indeed. BTW, Thor, while I think the complaint had little merit, right now yours are the edits causing some disruption. You're not helping the cause, I'm afraid. Drmies (talk) 14:58, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Gentlemen, disrupting the article was not my intention, but I see that even the best intentions may not always foster peace. On the positive side, the article is much better than it was in the dark days of November 2011, so I will "stand down" and let others make the improvements.

--ThorLives (talk) 07:31, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

ThorLives, I'll say the same to you as I did to Bhlegkorbh in these circumstances - I hope you reconsider and can find a way of editing here (and bringing your undoubted expertise) to collaboratively improve the article. I agree with you it's better than it was but I also think it has a ways to go! Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 00:13, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Ashoka

Can we move protect it? There are many attempts to move it. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 13:45, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Already done :) I just made it a week of move protection, we can extend this if the problem persists. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 13:46, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

I just saw the move in my watchlist and pinged you. Impatient me. :) Anyway Thanks. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 13:48, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

No probs. I have it on my watchlist now and will be keeping an eye on it. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 13:52, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Good to know

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.

---

That an editor practically admitting to engage in harassment-like aggressive verbal behavior is not a topic of administrators' interest. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 11:38, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

The above editor is engaged in the same facts-twisting as that other editor was. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:43, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

In my opinion, WP:AN was not the right place. WP:AIV or WP:RFC would be better. FWIW, I'm no fan of Bugs' tactics (and have !voted for a topic ban from AN/I) but I'm afraid this thread was unlikely to be productive and would merely attract more drama. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 11:47, 7 February 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.

Belatedly off-topic, I hope

I just saw you add your real-life research to your user page. It looks like an intriguing field for the complete outsider that I am. I guess the drama boards here do work as dramatherapy for some, but not for others. I'd be interested to hear your professional opinion on that issue. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 12:13, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Not a field on which I have any data, but my own view is that they neither do, nor should, work as therapy for anyone! I think the disinhibiting nature of the www means that people say far more, more quickly, and in a more extreme way than they would do in a more socially moderated environment. And the results are rarely, if ever good! But thanks for noticing my bit of vanity on my user page.... Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 12:33, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

I think you do have a point that entertainment (particularly that at the expense of others) is not exactly therapy if it reinforces anti-social traits or behavior. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 12:40, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Oops the lead

Yeah you're right to remove that, I was actually going to but I copypasted it down while I was working on rewording things and forgot to remove it after --Mistress Selina Kyle ^{(Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉)} 20:11, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

No problem - I thought it looked out of character with the rest of your draft. I was actually OK with the longer version (I do think Wicca is essentially duotheistic...) but I like crispness in a lede too, so it's all good. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 20:14, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Gotta ask

...so did you actually meet/see Hess at Spandau?VolunteerMarek 21:13, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Didn't meet him, but did see him. The article on Spandau Prison gives the background - I was there in 1986, the year before Hess died. Each month, one of the Four-Power Authorities took it in turn to guard the exterior of the prison as well as the gatehouse, and I commanded the guard platoon there on a couple of occasions. We walked the perimeter walls and could wander at will round the grounds and outbuildings. Only the central keep where Hess was imprisoned was out of bounds. It was a spooky place, essentially untouched since May 1945. I only saw Hess a couple of times at 50yds or so distance. He would slowly walk out to his summer house in the garden, my memory was that he was a tall, stooped over figure with a slow shuffling gait. I gather after he died the buildings were pulverised and the dust dumped in the North Sea to prevent it becoming a shrine. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 23:19, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for that little chunk of history.VolunteerMarek 02:12, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

A Barnstar For You

Hasteur (talk) has given you a plate of hummus! Hummus is a specialty of the Middle East. With some pita bread, they are delicious and promote WikiLove. Hopefully, this one has added flavor to your day.

For handing out a Ban to Andy The Grump and making ANI a less toxic dumping ground.

Spread the goodness of hummus by adding {{subst:Hummus}} to someone's Talk page with a friendly message! Give a plate of hummus to someone you've had disagreements with in the past, or to a good friend.

Thank you - it feels awkward to be thanked for handing out a block (not a ban...) as it's not a thing I ever enjoy doing. Andy is a good veteran editor and he lost it momentarily. But hopefully if the result that people feel slightly less free to dump on others in future it's a net gain. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 20:55, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Without passing judgement either way on the other editor mentioned in the barnstar, I wholeheartedly approve of your initiatives on ANI as well. And it does seem that you managed to lead by example, because a few other admins are more proactive there now. I hope the trend is going to last. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 21:02, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

In no way was I disparaging Andy, simply Kudos-ing you for having the chutzpah to actively detoxify the board. Hasteur (talk) 21:38, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Thank you both, I really appreciate your comments. Yes I've noticed a change in the atmosphere at AN/I too. Maybe the collective wobble we all had a day or two ago was just what we needed to get our collective act together! Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 21:48, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

• Hey remember it was me who that said the insults were getting out of hand in the first place, you were/are supporting baseball bugs? :) Do you still really really hold by the assumption of bad faith you made against me accusing me of some machiavellian rubbish whilst glorifying the one trolling, reallyreally? To me it looks like my refuse to get back to the bus when trolled moment[2][3], which I got blocked for, has made more people realise more should stand up to it[4]? --Mistress Selina Kyle ^{(Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉)} 00:35, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
  • You should be aware that at this very moment the admin who unblocked you is being pressured by an Arbitrator to reverse himself. So, it's a little early for you to head for the rooftops again. Let the admins deal with the Bugs infestation of their own premises. Take that as a friendly advice. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 01:47, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

yeah I wasn't intending to get involved don't worry, thought maybe Kim would agree that i was good intentioned in reporting stuff now ~nods and sighs~ I'll just shutup --Mistress Selina Kyle ^{(Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉)} 01:57, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi Selina, looking back I suspect there were mistakes made on all sides. If I made some I apologise; you've changed your approach and made some sensible decisions subsequently; there seems to be a consensus towards keeping you unblocked now; even AN/I is a more businesslike place for now! So maybe good things can come out of difficult times. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 16:15, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Just a note

appreciate all your wonderful and hard work on the AN and AN/I stuff. :) — Ched :  ?  14:27, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks a lot Ched. It's intrinsically rewarding when people just respond to the threads I've started (and even more so that AN/I seems to be having a good day today.) But it's also very nice to get a personal not, thank you!! Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 16:16, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Note

If the discussion had been strictly about the blocked editor, it wouldn't have "involved" me. However, as certain editors saw fit to try and blame me for getting that editor blocked, they opened that door. Feel free to point that out to them. And you're right, I've made my positions clear, so dat's dat. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:52, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

It was your comments on censoring/removing the "bullshit" remark that were unnecessary. !Voting unblock for MSK and even commenting on your own involvement was OK I think; but going further was unwise and ran counter to what I thought you had agreed to. Anyway, 'nuff said and I will now invoke the 4th power of the Sphinx upon myself. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 16:57, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps it's just as well I don't know what that is. I'm not into Sphinxes. As regards Tarc, I don't know what I did in the past to incur his wrath, but as a wikipedia citizen I don't think censorship of comments is right. But whatever. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:02, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

[5] Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 17:07, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

OK, "silence". Not sure that qualifies as a "power", although it probably took some will-power not to yelp when Napoleon's soldiers shot his nose off. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:11, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

I am trying to become a useful idiot for the admin cabal

See this feeble attempt. If you have any comments... ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 17:14, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Admin's Barnstar
	Thank you so much for patrolling WP:Dramaboard during this difficult period. Your work has really helped to shut down the current drama frenzy and helped people focus on editing rather than battling each other. Dianna (talk) 15:15, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks so much Diannaa, I really appreciate the barnstar! The best thing is of course that the input really does seem to be having an effect at the moment, and everyone seems to be collaborating to make it a better place. I'm not so stupid as to think the change is permanent, but if we can distinguish what makes AN/I run well from what makes it run badly, maybe we can increase the ratio of good days to bad ones. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 15:25, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

User:Twomorerun

Kim: Thank you for closing out the AN/I report on this user, and for putting the note on his page. If I'm right about this editor being the IPs from the past, their pattern has been to move along to another IP, or maybe, in this case, an ID. If I notice this happening, would it be OK to let you know so you can take a look and see what you think? Best, Beyond My Ken (talk) 16:54, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes of course, that would be great. It's all very well me threatening fire and brimstone but if I don't know they're up to their tricks again it's all bluster! So if you could keep an eye open that would be excellent, thanks! Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 16:59, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:35, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Speed closing getting out of hand

There is a reason we don't archive threads for 24 hours on AN/I. There are many time zones and in many cases you're archiving threads very shortly after the last comment to them. This limits input and hampers discussion.--Crossmr (talk) 00:25, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

I take the point about threads not leaving the board for 24 hours because of timezone issues. But I still think they can be helpfully closed after less than that time (eg by use of the {{archivetop}} template.) Of course that template is not very helpfully named because it doesn't actually archive anything. We're not archiving threads any faster than before but we are closing them more quickly and decisively when it's clear they have been dealt with. In no case this week have I seen a quickly-closed case which would have benefitted from being left open so people from the opposite hemisphere could comment... But your point of view would be very valuable over at Wikipedia talk:Administrators' noticeboard, would you consider posting there? We are in danger of congratulating ourselves on a job well done (so far) and if you think otherwise it would be good to hear from you. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 00:43, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

What you consider dealt with and what another person considers dealt with might be two separate things. In some cases it is a binary yes or no, but in a case where it's subjective, it certainly isn't. Let's take the Jasper Deng thread as an example. I made a comment, and while I was sleeping you yet again closed it. But, before it got closed Jasper gave us more interesting information. That he was under mentorship. Doing some checking, I actually found this behaviour to be a long term and on-going behavioural issue for him. One for which has generated consensus discussions twice before that his editing was not okay and had to be changed. This is a discussion which clearly isn't over--Crossmr (talk) 00:55, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Indeed, I absolutely agree I'm not infallible! In a system where we close early, there will be some false negatives - ie reports closed that should have been left open. But if new information emerges they can (and have been) re-opened. The danger of closing too late is that there will be more false positives - ie reports left open that should have been shut. These are the ones which generate dramaah and once it develops momentum it's very hard to shut it down. But I think this discussion would be very useful over at Talk:AN/I. Would you mind if I copied it there? (Tomorrow, going to bed now...!) Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 01:00, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Oops - I see you have already posted here, thanks! Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 01:02, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

(ec)If you want, I've made a couple of comments there already. Unfortunately false negatives are quite damaging to the project. Most of the drama I've seen on AN/I tends to come from a few sources, and it should be dealt with appropriately if it's disruptive. But we risk driving people away more by closing discussions down than leaving them open a little long. People can ignore a drama thread, but if their issue or an issue they're interested in gets shut down prematurely they're going to feel frustrated. The less experienced an editor is, the more likely they are to possibly just leave because of it. More than once I've felt complaints against certain admins (not made by me) that had merit were shut down very quickly, much like this Jasper Deng thread merely because the community got together and gutted the messenger. After it happens several times it could almost be made to seem as if certain things were being swept under the rug. If an editor who has been here nearly 6 years can feel like that, imagine what a user who'd only been here a month might think--Crossmr (talk) 01:12, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

VP thread on new "admin abuse" noticeboard

You might be interested in m:Requests for comment/Gwen Gale. --He to Hecuba (talk) 00:42, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Post at Moni's page

Hi Kim - just alerting you in case this is of interest to you. User_talk:Moni3#Work_proceeds. Cheers Manning (talk) 03:49, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Update - I felt it was time to centralize this ANI analysis discussion. Please feel free to join me at User:Manning Bartlett/Moni3 ANI analysis. Manning (talk) 02:10, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks - Wikiquette assistance

Hello Kim. This is just a short note to express my thanks for your time and your wisdom on WP:WQA recently. I’m particularly grateful for the soundness of your contributions at diff1 and diff2. I asked for a sysop to leave a message on a User’s talk page, and you did so HERE. Many thanks. I have made my closing remarks on the thread and I publicly acknowledged your contribution – see my diff Dolphin (t) 01:52, 17 February 2012 (UTC).

Edit being repeatedly deleted by a cyberbully

Hello,

Since Kevin Rutherford wasn't much of a help (actually no help at all), I decided to turn to you.

One of my edits is constantly being deleted. I edited the page "Julian Assange" by adding two facts which I've put under a new segment, the common "In popular culture". It has been removed several times, even though there is no reason which would justify that act, since I've written it according to Wikipedia's guidelines.

Many articles have that segment, such as "Neil Gaiman" ("References in popular culture ; Gaiman made a guest appearance on long-running cartoon series The Simpsons in 2011, in an episode called The Book Job.") and "Lindsey Buckingham" ("In popular culture ; Lindsey Buckingham has been portrayed by Bill Hader in a recurring sketch titled "What Up With That" on NBC's Saturday Night Live. He appeared as himself on the May 14, 2011, episode during this sketch.").

Especially after reading these edits one can see that there is no plausible reason for deleting my edit. In order to avoid the risk of being accused once again of being engaged in an edit war, for a mere act of reaction on my part to someone's act of arbitrariness and to put this once and for all behind, I would like to ask you the following :

What am I to do in order to keep individuals from deleting my edit repeatedly and without any reason ? If the two aforementioned segments aren't outside the pale and can be and stay in the respective articles, so can mine.

After all, you can see it for yourself ; look up "Difference between revisions" of that page, you will find it under "Revision as of 08:30, 15 February 2012"

(In popular culture

He will appear on the 500th episode of The Simpsons, which will air on February 19, 2012.

He was impersonated three times on NBC's Saturday Night Live by cast member Bill Hader, during December 2010.).

As far as I can see, there is not one thing in these edits that could be considered a breach of any of Wikipedia's policies.

The only step to be taken by someone in my position that is suggested by Wikipedia (or at least the only one I happened to find) is to discuss it on the talk page, which isn't an option in this case ; discussions with unreasonable individuals who are arbitrary by nature are unfortunately impossible. Someone who responds to my edit with "Trivia - this article doesn't need random 'popular culture' entries, and see WP:CRYSTALBALL" is not open to any rational conversations. As far as I know, that individual has been reported for incivility in February 2012 and during January he has been advised to stop adding unreferenced or poorly referenced biographical content, especially if controversial to articles or any other Wikipedia page and received the following warning : "This is your only warning; if you make personal attacks on other people again, as you did at talk:East Germany, you may be blocked from editing without further notice.".

I started contributing to this encyclopedia with the intention to share relevant and valuable information and knowledge with the international community and not to be dragged into an edit war and subsequently being verbally abused by someone who is constantly breaching guidelines and insulting other users.

Plus, none of my edits includes speculations, rumors, or any sort of information that is irrelevant and/or false. In this case, both are approriate encyclopedic content ;

if "References in popular culture ; Gaiman made a guest appearance on long-running cartoon series The Simpsons in 2011, in an episode called The Book Job." is appropriate, then "In popular culture ; He will appear on the 500th episode of The Simpsons, which will air on February 19, 2012." is as well ; if "In popular culture ; Lindsey Buckingham has been portrayed by Bill Hader in a recurring sketch titled "What Up With That" on NBC's Saturday Night Live. He appeared as himself on the May 14, 2011, episode during this sketch." is approriate, then "He was impersonated three times on NBC's Saturday Night Live by cast member Bill Hader, during December 2010." is as well.

If instead of "...which will air on February 19, 2012" a change to "...which is scheduled to air on February 19, 2012" is necessary, then this change will be made. After all, after February 19, 2012 it will be necessary to change it anyway to "...which aired on February 19, 2012".

I would like to settle this before the airing date, since it's a jubilee, a milestone, and therefore a cause to celebrate.

Greetings Audrey Horne 89 (talk) 04:40, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Hello Audrey, sorry for the late reply but I have been away on holiday for a week! I'm afraid I'm not going to be a great help either, because I'm going to suggest there's nothing here for me to do either as a fellow-editor or as an administrator. What you can do is start to discuss this content dispute at the article talk page. That's the way to sort out disagreements like the one you have been having. Best wishes, Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 22:40, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Stavgard/Tore Gannholm

FYI: I don't doubt that it really is him. And yes, he is famous, on Gotland. He is a well known local original and local-patriotic pseudo-historian. He has a lot of good points but, as all pseudo-historians, lack all forms of self-criticism. His books are self-published and not reliable sources. --OpenFuture (talk) 11:48, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

I assumed as much - but of course you are quite right that whoever he is, he has to learn how we work here and play by the same rules as the rest of us. I'm not optimistic but will keep AGF until proven otherwise. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 11:57, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't think there is any doubt about the good faith. The question is if he will be able to accept Wikipedia policies. Other pseudo-historians I have had internet contact with in relation to Wikipedia has not been able to accept that the outside world doesn't take their word as law, and have ended up leaving, viewing Wikipedia as a Force of Evil, which is sad and bad for everyone. --OpenFuture (talk) 12:07, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

I couldn't understand why everything I wrote was refuted. OpenFuture is in Sweden disreputed and what his says about me is a lot of nonsense. If you let him censor everything I write than it is meaningless to use Wikipedia. It is an insult to call me local-patriotic pseudo-historian. I might sue him. I wrote: You are breaking the rules. We can discuss here why you want to stop a paper presented at an international symposium in Moscow and edited by 2 professors and published available for you to buy the book. It fullfills all the requirements. Will I be allowed to continue to censor? Stavgard (talk) 08:15, 17 February 2012 (UTC) OpenFuture is heading a group of disreputed people whose aim is to censor everything they don't like and defame his opponents. Hi was before Christmas banned from the Swedish newspapers. I learnt very much from you and am greatful for this. Stavgard (talk) 08:22, 17 February 2012 (UTC) I have read the Wikipedia rules a few times and As far as I can find, it says: "All reliable sources are, by definition, both published and accessible to at least some people. Sources that are not published (e.g., something someone said to you personally) or not accessible (e.g., the only remaining copy of the book is locked in a vault, with no one allowed to read it) are never acceptable as sources on Wikipedia." In my interpretation I can refer to "2000 Jahre Handel und Kultur im Ostseegebiet - Gotland, Perle der Ostsee" ISBN91-972306-6-9 As far as I can see this book qualifies. If you accept this we can go further. If you search ISBN91-972306-6-9 on Google you will get 109 results" OpenFuture does not accept this. Are you reading the rules in the same way? Stavgard (talk) 08:31, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

OK, this has officially become funny. :-) I don't mind Stavgard trying to "out" me. In fact it is interesting to see who he guesses at. He doesn't know who I am, so his guesses will continue to be wrong. --OpenFuture (talk) 10:36, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

If anybody wants to talk to me, I'm here too. The organisation I head is the Swedish Skeptics Society, which continues to enjoy good access to the Swedish media. Whether or not we are disreputable depends on whom you ask. Martin Rundkvist (talk) 06:46, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

FYI: Föreningen Vetenskap och Folkbildning --OpenFuture (talk) 07:16, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Kim, I'm not sure where to take Stavgard's accusations on my talk page. His unfounded accusation against 2 editors seems to me to amount to gross incivility worthy of a block. Bazj (talk) 22:18, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Kim, I am very greatful to you for the help you gave me re-write the page Astronomical calendars on Gotland. As ref is also an edited paper by two professors at the Institute of Archaeology. Russian Academy of Sciences.

I don't know why your friend Martin Rundkvist does not like ref to Institute of Archaeology. Russian Academy of Sciences. He has deleted my article.

He started insulting me under the signature OpenFuture. Than he used the signature Mrund to delete my entries. An now he uses Bazj.

I presume you have higher ranking than Martin Rundkvist alias OpenFuture alias Mrund alias Bazj

It is not acceptable for him to delete links to papers edited by two professors at the Institute of Archaeology. Russian Academy of Sciences.

Actually it was you who entered the reference when I wanted to include it last week. The refernce he now has deleted

I hope you will take some action.

Stavgard (talk) 15:11, 24 February 2012 (UTC) Stavgard (talk) 15:12, 24 February 2012 (UTC) Stavgard (talk) 16:07, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Please read Talk to Grooves (archaeology) and you will understand what Martin Rundkvist alias OpenFuture alias Mrund and alias Bazj

It looks like Martin Rundkvist is not interested in Puplicised litterature but prefere his own speculations

Stavgard (talk) 17:29, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Stavgard, that page is on my watchlist as you can imagine. I don't need to be directed there by you. But more importantly - STOP MAKING ACCUSATIONS OF SOCKPUPPETRY. Judging from editing patterns to seems to me virtually certain that these are three separate editors. (Mrund has declared that he is Martin Rundkvist and is not editing separately under any other name.) You must not make any further accusations on this or any other talk page. I will regard you doing so as further disruptive editing on your part. Your only course of action if you believe they are one and the same person is to go to WP:SPI and make a report, with evidence. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 19:51, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

I am very tempted to begin claiming that Stavgard is my sockpuppet. Martin Rundkvist (talk) 21:13, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Topic ban??? LOL

Reposting in case you're not following my page. Wow that's still going? You didn't look into my case very hard, did you? In spite of all the improvements I've made to acupuncture that consensus has agreed upon and the complete lack of any validated accusations of recent bad editing, you brought out that ban hammer that the POV pushers wanted. You've driven away this editor. Epic fail. --Mindjuicer (talk) 21:01, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

There's no need to feel driven away. There is lots more to edit here. That's the purpose of topic bans. WP:SPAs need to gain more experience, and this is how it's done. -- Brangifer (talk) 21:31, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, but 4 people who bullied me on NLP manage to get a topic ban in spite of clear indication it's so they can POV push? I thought that ANI thread had died. No opportunity to defend myself. This is a failure of this admin, of due process and WP itself. Why on earth would I stay? --Mindjuicer (talk) 21:49, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry you weren't paying close attention to the AN/I discussion but I can't be responsible for that. Many more than four people concurred that a topic ban was appropriate, and nobody at all raised an objection to the ban or defended your editing style. Your opportunity to defend yourself was at AN/I (though more collegial editing beforehand would have rendered such a defence unnecessary.) Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 22:46, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

I miscounted, it was 6 people supported a ban prior to you implementing it. Three of them I was planning to investigate for SPI (wanted to do a usercompare first but the tool owner has been banned ironically). A fourth was someone who was told off for bullying me on a talk page and should not have known about the ANI ie probably a meatpuppet. I'm pretty appalled at Jess Mann and Brangifer for calling for a topic ban but they both push POV on that article.

After the 7th (yourself), [Solomon Asch | Asch ] conformity comes into effect.

Why would anyone object the ban or defend my style (as you generalised it)? I did not know about it and nor did any neutral editor who has seen my contributions.

I stopped watching on the 21st as it became clear that Eraserhead did not condone Famousdog's behaviour.

Your ambivalence about lack of due process is akin to a judge saying "it's not my fault the defendant wasn't told about the second trial".

The only way I would consider continuing in this online banana republic is with a withdrawn ban due to premature conclusion and full due process. But that would require a rather egoless admin, something that almost never happens with people in positions of power. --Mindjuicer (talk) 00:52, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

11 supports and not a single oppose on maybe the most watched page in WP project space. Also, Eraserhead was talking to you about your behavior. You can blame conformity or POV or anything else but all that does is show that you still don't understand how WP works. You didn't get site banned so take this opportunity to learn the ropes and come back after you've gained some experience. Many editors tried to warn you that if you continued acting like you did that you would get blocked or banned, you can't claim this is unexpected. N^oformation ^Talk 01:13, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Mindjuicer: If you wish to demonstrate some good faith, I would suggest you either remove the SPI claim from your user page or open an SPI case. On the face of it, claiming three editors with thousands of edits and years of experience are sock puppets (apparently laying in wait for several years...) is fairly hard to believe. It is reasonably easy to copy all of the edits (or a few thousand samples) from the users, plop them in a spreadsheet and look for patterns that will either support or challenge your assertion. Otherwise, your repeated claim looks like little more than a refusal to accept any responsibility. - SummerPhD (talk) 14:41, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Stavgards sockpuppet accussations.

The accusations continue. In his latest reply to me he calls me "Martin", clearly indicating that he still thinks that Martin Rundquist is behind several accounts including mine. He isn't listening to anyone, not even you. He needs to made to listen. [6] --OpenFuture (talk) 11:22, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	You get a barnstar for your never-ending optimism with regards to getting Stavgard to be a useful contributor. OpenFuture (talk) 20:36, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Don't

Don't be lecturing me about rules and bans and such. This site lost any shred of integrity and credibility when it pulled that stunt a few weeks ago. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:06, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Admin misconduct

I consolidated this here. I will watchlist this and reply here. --Timeshifter (talk) 19:26, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Hello Timeshifter, as you may have guessed I don't think I see as much of a problem of admin abuse as you do, and I didn't think a new noticeboard was the way to solve it even if there were a problem. However I came by to say that next time you do spot something of this sort, let me know and I will try to help if I can. I certainly wouldn't argue that all admins are all good all the time, so the only thing we disagree on is the frequency of bad behavious. I believe admins should behave with the highest standards (higher than other editors get away with) and I'd be happy to help if ever I can in a specific case. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 21:20, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Great! Thanks for the offer. --Timeshifter (talk) 23:24, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

After further thought I feel that a longer reply is warranted. I appreciate your offer, but I frankly would not ask for your help because if you do not really "get" my point of view after over 2 weeks of discussion at the Village Pump then I don't believe you would necessarily get my point of view concerning individual cases that come up. I would go to a different admin for help. I don't want to get into a long discussion here, because you have a right to your point of view, and I to mine.

I don't see how any objective reader of that long discussion can not see that there are many people who agree with me. Even if they are all wrong, a separate admin misconduct noticeboard would go a long way towards addressing the appearance of admin impunity and lack of accountability. I could spend the next few years having individual cases looked at by individuals like you through many admin talk pages, WP:ANI, etc.. But all that accumulated record of admin stuff would not be in one archive on a separate noticeboard. A total waste of a great record and resource. It would soon become clear that there are other problems too, such as some vague guidelines that invite abuse. So a record of that abuse in a single archive would be necessary to clearly illustrate which guidelines are causing the most problems. --Timeshifter (talk) 19:26, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi Timeshifter, thanks for the considered response. I'm disappointed that you think because I disagreed with you on one point, I'm likely to disagree with you on others. From my point of view, just because your argument was unpersuasive on one point does not mean your arguments on others might not carry weight. But of course it's up to you who you look to for support and I can at least promise you that if you bring problems to AN or AN/I I will consider them on their merits. Best wishes, Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 16:59, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Reply to comments several days ago

Dear Kim Dent-Brown:

My apologies for not responding earlier to your actions concerning the removal of material from the talk page of the article on the Revolutionary Communist Party, USA. This was on March 1st. I am only able to log on to Wikipedia and edit periodically so I didn't even see your request that I self-revert (and your subsequent reverting on your own) until just now.

I wasn't sure exactly where this response should be posted; hopefully it was correct to put it here on your talk page.

After reviewing your comments, including the point about how the talk page edits are a commentary upon the article as it stands, I went back and looked more carefully at the article itself. I think the problem I raised actually originate in the article itself.

The paragraph dealing with the LA branch of the RCP is problematic because the entire paragraph was unsourced and speculative. The only reference was to a completely secondary point in the paragraph (the NYPD's views about the activities of the Progressive Labor Party, which is not the subject of this article); everything else was unsubstantiated. My understanding of Wiki policy is that material should be objective and verified with credible references and sources, not simply opinion or unsubstantiated speculation. This, to the extent it is followed, is what makes Wiki valuable as an encyclopedic source. I have edited out that paragraph (and included a note explaining this on the talk page).

There are significant amounts of material available that can be reviewed, evaluated, and cited to if an editor finds them credible. In particular, I know that the RCP itself publishes a weekly newspaper (including an online version), it has published numerous books and articles (the vast majority of which are also available online), etc. It seems to me that the starting point of an objective, nonpartisan article – whether on a group or individual, a scientific theory, an event in history, etc. – would be to start with those types of sources. I don't think it serves anyone's interests (including a simple desire to learn about a given subject, which is the reason people go to Wiki in the first place) to substitute unsourced opinions instead.

I'd ask you in that light to reconsider your decision to restore the comments on the talk page. Given the problems with the paragraph in the article itself, the comments are essentially "speculation on speculation". I'd welcome hearing any thoughts you have on this matter.

Thanks. EnRealidad (talk) 04:38, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

I agree entirely with your view that there are problems in the article, and your solution to remove article content was entirely correct in a way that your decision to remove talk page content was not. Different rules apply in the two spaces. "Speculation on speculation" is permitted in a talk page, as is unreferenced material, digressions and all sorts. The material removed by you certainly didn't break the WP:NOTFORUM guidelines, in my view, and your position was not supported by anyone else on AN/I. So no, I still think you were wrong to remove the TP material. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 16:54, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Hiding the Sandbox?

By Odin, if we are going to have a sandbox to rewrite the Germanic neopaganism article, people have to be able to find it, do they not? And, they have to be able to find it with one click--not a protracted search. So is not a link at the top of the article page the best place? That way, anyone who visits the article will see the construction and join the work. --ThorLives (talk) 23:26, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

It's absolutely not the right thing to do. The sandbox can be prominently linked from the talk page, but it's a firm rule that articles may not have any links that lead away from article space, sorry. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 23:39, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

I understand.

If it is acceptable, I will place the link at the top of the talk page. --ThorLives (talk) 06:39, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Down with wiki!!100

Hi, thanks for blocking User:Down with wiki!!100. I have asked for extending 48hrs -> indef at WP:Usernames_for_administrator_attention. Thought I should let you have your say. Widefox (talk) 18:50, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Warning duly noted

My main contention is that the complainant was acting in an tendentious and unethical manner. I considered it appropriate to point this out in line with WP:SPADE. For clarification:

• Which words constituted the personal attack
• Why there was no justification to highlight the editorial misconduct

While I do occasionally have a hyperbolic and forceful tone, I do feel it was justified in this instance. Obliged
Best Wishes Ankh.Morpork 15:12, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

In order not to have this conversation in three different places, I will reply at WP:WQA. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 15:13, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

On a separate issue, I am usually very amenable to other editors. I thought Wiki editing would be my version of 'storytherapy' but it occasionally can be a most frustrating endeavour. That being said, you won't get rid of me that easily!
Best Wishes Ankh.Morpork 15:44, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Question

1. Hello, as you mentioned here, I don't remember that I have ever made jokes, or been ironic. I'm sure all my edits are serious, correct and acceptable. If I ever did, you shall point it out at my talk page so I can give myself an heart-searching detention.
2. Yes, English is my 3rd Language, and I not in a habit of talking with someone with formal Eng.
3. What shall I do to have this page removed? I'm not sure if you agrees or not, but to me, it is an Ad --B3430715 (talk) 08:22, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Hello B3430715 I think I agree with you about the film article. The way to discuss deletion of such an article is via the articles for deletion process. I see someone has already started that here; you might like to go to that page and comment. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 21:16, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Notice

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:54, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the helpful clarification there Sarek. I've tried to address Andy's concerns. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 21:13, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

ANI re: User:B3430715

Kim, I wanted you to be apprised of this[7] ANI I just started. Since I know your advice is good, and also you had been recommended highly, I make bold to inform you.—Djathinkimacowboy 12:35, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

WP:ANI

No problem. I was going to close it off yesterday but got distracted. I re-read it today and realised that there was no possible way I wanted to read it again. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 19:46, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

ANI re:Easter

My apologies for not notifying the investigated user Bloodofox of the AN/I, I unfortunately was not aware that it was my responsibility (this was my first AN/I). I was also absent from the discussion for several hours, which was not a professional decision on my part (although no replies were added to the AN/I by the time I left). I greatly appreciate your timely action on the matter, and am sorry for the trouble it has caused you due to the fallout. Thanks again for all your help. — FoxCE (talk • contribs) 21:22, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

No problems. The instruction to notify editors is there at the top of the AN/I page in red, and once you've seen it you think "How the hell did I ever miss that!?" But I do appreciate that the first time you make an AN/I report there is so much verbiage on that page it's hard to get it right instantly. TBH I should have noticed that Bloodofox hadn't been properly warned before I made the block. That also would have saved some hassle! Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 21:27, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, that would have also saved me some hassle too. Still waiting on my apology, Fox. :bloodofox: (talk) 21:29, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

[8] but I guess you've seen that by now. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 21:40, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Allie420

ANI discussion

Hi, Kim, I requested speedy deletion of the userpage, but now I'm not so sure it should have been deleted. I thought that the blocked user, User:MuZomikx, had created the userpage without creating an account, but that may be a function of my ignorance of how something like that would work. Thus, it's more likely that MuZomikx created the Allie account and then from the MuZomikx account created the Allie user page. In any event, if you would revisit this just to make sure that the userpage should have been speedily deleted, even if it's for another reason, I would appreciate it (it's hard enough just to write all this out without it being confusing). Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:02, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Wow, my brain hurts just reading that. Will look back and see what I can see... Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 08:34, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

The Allie420 page was created by Allie, and was a WP:VOA with three edits which has been indeffed. I don't think Alle420 and Muzomikx are the same people - the Allie edits were very childish and of a different style, I think Muzo just happened on the account. But I think we can leave the page deleted for now; Allie didn't start it, and is free to do so now at any time as it hasn't been salted. What a mess Muzo caused! Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 08:40, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Heh, sorry about your head, and thanks for sorting it out.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:21, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank you for your support at my RfA. I will do my best to live up to people's confidence in me. Yngvadottir (talk) 18:15, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Germanic Neopaganism

Hello Kim Dent-Brown. I've recently written down a list of (I think) good academic sources on the Germanic Neopaganism talkpage. May you have a look at them? Thank you. I would like to start re-constructing the article on the base of those works. --Bhlegkorbh (talk) 00:03, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

The sources seem chosen not so much to provide a good basis for the article as to provide support for a change of the article name. The bolding of the word Heathen is a bit of a give away... Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 12:06, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

The title is another matter; I think that it should be Heathenism \ -ry because this is how scholars define the movement but it can stay as it is now. Beyond this, the sources are good and reliable works in which one can find quite exhaustive descriptions of the whole movement, so I think they should be used to construct the article. --Bhlegkorbh (talk) 12:40, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Note:

I thought you should be aware of this. I've blocked the account without prejudiced toward a change in settings depending upon a response. Cheers and best, — Ched :  ?  16:02, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up Ched. How very odd! I'm assuming the name was just a coincidence - I tend to be a fairly low-profile editor and admin and don't make a habit of collecting enemies, as far as I'm aware. But thanks for dealing with it so promptly. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 18:18, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

socks or comprimises

Thanks for the block from ANI. However Scientivore (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) reinstated the edit and someone reverted. I'm not sure if it's coincidence, socks, or if someone's gotten ahold of multiple comprimised accounts.--Cube lurker (talk) 14:47, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for keeping an eye out - I've blocked this one too. Weird.... Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 14:51, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Hm

Medication, perhaps?. - Sitush (talk) 10:17, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

I hadn't considered the possibility of meds/alcohol/illness but something like this sounds plausible. This editor's edits over the last 6 hours or so are certainly out of character and borderline incomprehensible. I'm hoping a 12 hour block will be enough to let them come around. If they keep on posting nonsense to their talk page I'll disable that too, though they haven't yet risen to the heights of obscenity they achieved earlier today... Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 12:00, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

The user in question has had spouts of odd behaviour since their very first edits, ranging from actual vandalism to uncivil/trollish behaviour. I refer to the archived ANI thread. My personal opinion is that it is a reincarnated editor with past grievances turned troll, but of course I have no real evidence for that. --Saddhiyama (talk) 13:26, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for reminding us of that - I recalled the username but had not remembered that AN/I thread. It seems it came to nothing, and the user's block log was clean (which was why I went for 12 hours only, as a first step.) If this is typical of their erratic behaviour (rather than a one-off and not-to-be-repeated brainstorm) then I guess it will recur and we can go back to AN/I with more examples of blockable/ban-able behaviour. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 13:32, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

User:Luke 19 Verse 27

I just wanted to let you know that the recent edits of said user do not at all indicate a compromised account, and in fact are very typical of him. Feel free to have a look at the ANI report I started about him some time ago, or this very recent edit (that is blockworthy all on its own, IMHO). I'm surprised the user is still not indef blocked, to be honest. --Conti|✉ 19:00, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, having looked more deeply at this user's contributions (before and after my recent block) it seems likely to me that they are mostly here to have fun at the expense of actually improving any encyclopaedic content. I've posted a request on their talk page which may come across as a Puritanical finger-wagging but I couldn't phrase it any other way. We will see what develops. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 10:30, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, I admire your patience. --Conti|✉ 10:43, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Here's what's developed; he's back at ANI. (link/snapshot). I'm informing you because I mentioned your previous block there, and linked to your attempt to counsel him. Just fyi, I think iloveandra also earned a block for several of his comments on "Luke's" talk, but as Conti says, your patience is admirable. --OhioStandard (talk) 17:32, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Dickmojo

Hi, does adding unsourced info pertaining to alternative medicine on non-alt-med articles qualify as a breach of Dickmojo's topic ban? Famousdog (talk) 08:35, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

The topic ban lapsed on 1st June 2012, as far as I can see, so this is not a topic ban issue. It seems to be being handled via his talk page as a more straightforward issue about reliable citations being needed for the information. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 12:05, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Your opinion is requested.

I have created a rough draft of what could become WP:EASYMONEY at User:Dennis Brown/EASYMONEY for the purpose of helping COI editors actually understand what they are doing wrong, how to fix it, and how to actually become a contributor instead of a liability. I'm trying to avoid all the adhoc speeches given to the growing number of PR and marketing firms that are joining us, and at the same time avoid taking a stand on the policy or politics of the issue. I am interested in your opinion of the wisdom of this. If you like the concept, please feel free to participate or modify in any way you choose. I'm not married to any format or details in this, it is just a rough draft at this point. I will drop this same note to a few other editors whom I feel would be beneficial in considering this page. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 14:45, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Dennis, I'll take a look! Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 15:18, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

McSly

Hi there, you posted two duplicate notices to WP:ANI and WP:AN. I've removed the latter, as it's much better to keep the discussion in one place. By the way, you need to notify McSly about the ANI discussion. There's a template at the top of the ANI page for you to use. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 12:13, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi. Thanks for your message. I just notified McSly. Sorry for the two duplicate, actually I don't know the best place to post it. Please do not hesitate to move it if you think there is a better place. 80.13.85.217 (talk) 12:15, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

TUSC token fd9dc9b1cea75d40a8197b4331615093

I am now proud owner of a TUSC account! Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 22:39, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Incivility

I haven't run across him very often, but is incivility just a common theme with Uncle G? [9] Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 21:20, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Haven't come across him much myself, but my only interaction has been around him being rather vague and (I thought) patronising, rather than rude. I can think of much worse offenders.... Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 22:08, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Oh, so can I, I just noticed your comment on a thread to the same effect and wanted your perspective is all. Thank you. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 22:32, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Nokia PureView 808

Please have a look here. Its Absolute Rubbish Macedonia (talk) 04:01, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean. It's not a particularly beautiful article and way outside my area of knowledge or interest - but it certainly isn't vandalism and you were wrong to template it for speedy deletion. Can you explain (ideally on the article talk page) what the problem is? Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 13:21, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Invitation for comment

As the subject seems to be of your interest, you are an experienced editor, and know very well how to deal with uncivil summaries/comments in talks, your opinion and presence would be appreciated in this, as yet, non-consensual and critical talk. Thanks, Excalibursword (talk) 17:13, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

My apologies

I am sorry that I did not accomplish your request of me. As it relates to RfA the point is now mute. If for some reason you would like me to do this simply for your needs, I will but only if it is requested outside the RfA. The internal matters are closed and this is why I haven't reacted to it. Thank you - My76Strat (talk) 02:58, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi there, sorry about the outcome of the RfA and of course there's no need to go through this exercise now! I hope you might be more successful in the future, if you can manage to take on some of the feedback that came your way! Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 11:47, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Help Needed

Hi,

Thanks for your help before with an abusive user. Can something more been done as he is still posting on my talk page and accusing me of being another user. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.242.91.165 (talk) 09:52, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Kim, please note that since your warning I have not re-inserted anything on this editors talk page. I have inserted a new comment and this is what I added:

Please join the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Crusader Union of Australia. With your wide knowledge, and strong opinions, on all things to do with Newington College I am sure you will have useful feedback on the notability of this organisation. Great to have you back. Castlemate (talk) 21:21, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

You have been requested to stay away from my user talk page so the only reason you have to post that was to stir the pot.

If you note this users contributions he has already shown an interest in Newington College and in an way that suggests he has a real history with the article. He also has on that page been guilty of a violation of WP:3RR between 5 and 9 June this year. I stopped after three when he reverted for a fourth time. This user has not come out of nowhere and been blocked already - he has a long history of trouble making. I will leave this in your hands and trust that you will keep an eye on this editor. Castlemate (talk) 10:30, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

As you have been guilty of WP:3RR on my talk page. I was blocked because I responded to your bullying messages. Why does Kim need to keep an eye on me? You have already shown your love for stalking my edits.

This editor has now commented on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Crusader Union of Australia and his behaviour is self-explanatory. Castlemate (talk) 10:37, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

You invited me to comment on that. Why did you ask me to if you did not wish for my input?

Sorry, I have just realised that you haven't posted a further comment on my talk page but that it was reverted by 60.242.91.165 (talk). I'm sorry I suggested that you had re-issued your warning. Castlemate (talk) 11:25, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

When will I get an apology for your behaviour towards me?

Castlemate, the post you left on the IP's talk page (this diff) was unnecessary and its superficial civility does not mask the fact that you were, once again, baiting this IP editor. S/he had made no further edits to the articles in question and your "Great to have you back" comment was a straight repetition of something you've been asked to stop. You may be in the right on the editing of the article in question, but you're not behaving well towards this IP. Leave them be. Any editing disputes can happen at article talk pages - not on theirs or mine, please. IP - please sign your talk page posts with ~~~~ which will sign and date your comments. Even better, why not consider getting an account? Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 09:56, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Kim, thank you for being so reasonable about this issue. May I just point out that this editor was not blocked because of anything he had said to me or because of anything I had said to him but because of his attacks on others. If you look at his deleted talk page posts this will be illustrated. I am a completely different issue but he, in his different guises, has been behaving this way for many years. Sorry for the passive agressive tone but DXRAW / ExtraDry brings it out in me. I am in this case responding to your message on my talk page but will not address you on this matter on your talk page again. Thanks and I will leave it in your hands. Castlemate (talk) 11:27, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

My unblock

Hello Kim, thanks for having me unblocked; for more please see your e-mail. Ajnem (talk) 13:06, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

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

Hello, Kim Dent-Brown. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.— Ajnem (talk) 10:45, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Wheel of the Year

Greetings!

OK, I'm confused. On the one hand, I've seen you do some really outstanding work on articles related to Wicca and Neopaganism in general, but you have described "Esbat" on the Wheel of the Year page as

the four quarter days, which are based on the astronomical position of the sun, together with the four cross-quarter days which have a more agricultural basis. The cross quarter Esbats, Imbolc, Beltane, Lammas and Samhain, may be less strongly tied to a particular date and may be celebrated at a more convenient weekend, a nearby full or dark moon, or as dictated by a natural event (such as the appearance of May blossom for Beltane.) A Sabbat is the term for a neo-pagan ritual set at a time other than one of the eight major Esbats.

That flies in the face of pretty much everything I've seen on the subject in my twenty-plus years of involvement with Wicca. A Sabbat is one of the eight spokes of the Wheel, while an Esbat is a full or new moon, or other rite. In fact, the article itself says this in the section "Eight Festivals.." So I'm not sure what's going on here. I have substantial respect for your work, so I thought I'd bring this up on your Talk page before I went ahead and Got Bold on you {grin}

*Septegram*Talk*Contributions* 05:02, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

It was late. I was tired. I was trying to clear up what looked like some horrible OR. The Moon was in Cancer. My third eye had a stye in it. The dog ate my homework. I have run out of excuses. I will repair the 180 degree balls-up I made in trying to make things better! And ask my HPS for a thorough $$$ next circle. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 08:39, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

LOL. I suspected it was because you were tired: it just didn't seem like the kind of newbie mistake you'd make. I gave some serious thought to the possibility that your account had been hacked by some smartass vandal.

And tell your HPS that this HPT would ask her, as a professional courtesy, to cut you a little slack. Unless you like the $$$, of course...

Incidentally, I can see where the other poster was coming from on when the cross-quarters should fall. We've actually considered holding our cross-quarter sabbats on the astronomically-correct dates, but the idea never got a lot of traction. But I agree with you that it could be included as a legitimate option if a reliable source can be found.

*Septegram*Talk*Contributions* 15:24, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

WP:LOBU/ AO topic ban

Hi Kim, I saw your edit to the banned user list. That list is only for users whom have been site-banned; topic bans, I believe, are listed at Wikipedia:Editing restrictions. I'll add AO to the list after this post. Best, Dylan620 ^{(I'm all ears)} 01:56, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Ah thank you, I tried to look for the right place and thought I'd found it. I appreciate the correction! I'll have a look at both pages and see if they need a label to direct people from one to the other. (Or maybe there already is one which I missed!) Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 06:57, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Ahem. Something about penises. And apologies.

Well. I guess I should have looked at your user page before addressing you (in my defense, politely) as "ma'am" on such a public forum as ANI. Cause man, dude, I mean like I totally thought you were a chick, and a hot one at that. Instead, you're a balding man with a beard, if that picture is really you. And I was going to ask you out on a date! So I'm like really shocked, besides being embarrassed. Anyway, my apologies. Drmies (talk) 12:52, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes it really is me (though the beard has been gone for a while now.) No worries, if someone is going to assume I'm female I'm only pleased that the assumption includes the word "hot". Yours, secure in his masculinity, Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 12:58, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

"known mainly for his ceramic vases and cross-dressing"--that's one hell of a claim to fame. Drmies (talk) 13:15, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

You weren't the only user thinking of a date. *sigh* I thought we were going to see Mrs. Brown together. *wink* SwisterTwister talk 21:30, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Help with The Odin Brotherhood

I see that you have served as a fair-minded broker on the Germanic Neopaganism page, so I seek your help. The Odin Brotherhood page describes a religious group, but an individual is trying to turn the article into an article on a book. I have suggested that he create a new article, but he seems inflexible.

The editor in question implies in his edits that the Odin Brotherhood does not exist (!!!!), even though it is described in the eighth edition of Melton's Encyclopedia of American Religions, the definitive work on the subject. (Dr. Melton describes only groups that exist!).

Material on the Odin Brotherhood may be found www.odinbrotherhood.com Its 1000-member discussion forum can be found by following the link....

Thank you.

I see also that the editor in question has added innumerable references to racism in the Germanic neopaganism page. perhaps he does not realize that the Odin Brotherhood, which is Odinist, is non-racist.--Heathenguy (talk) 04:39, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

THE ODIN BROTHERHOOD: "In the eyes of gods, there are no chosen peoples and no master races. Higher men and higher women—the elite from all nations—share the proximity of the gods. " --Heathenguy (talk) 04:43, 4 September 2012 (UTC)--Heathenguy (talk) 04:43, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

The Olive Branch: A Dispute Resolution Newsletter (Issue #1)

Welcome to the first edition of The Olive Branch. This will be a place to semi-regularly update editors active in dispute resolution (DR) about some of the most important issues, advances, and challenges in the area. You were delivered this update because you are active in DR, but if you would prefer not to receive any future mailing, just add your name to this page.

Steven Zhang's Fellowship Slideshow

In this issue:

• Background: A brief overview of the DR ecosystem.
• Research: The most recent DR data
• Survey results: Highlights from Steven Zhang's April 2012 survey
• Activity analysis: Where DR happened, broken down by the top DR forums
• DR Noticeboard comparison: How the newest DR forum has progressed between May and August
• Discussion update: Checking up on the Wikiquette Assistance close debate
• Proposal: It's time to close the Geopolitical, ethnic, and religious conflicts noticeboard. Agree or disagree?

Read the entire first edition of The Olive Branch -->

--The Olive Branch 19:12, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Serious concern

Hello, I am very concerned by your comments on Timeshifts page describing me as a 'protagonist' and admitting that their was a suggestion that action be taken against Timeshift. I am wondering why no one, such as yourself has raised Timeshift, but only attacked me? I am also concerned at your bias and taking sides, by name calling on an involved users talk page. Welshboyau11 (talk) 11:45, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

You are each the other's protagonist (or antagonist, if you prefer.) My post to Timeshift was a warning to him/her that if s/he continues to disrupt the discussion at AN/I I will indeed consider invoking a ban against him/her as well. Far from taking your side or Timeshift's, I consider you both to be editing disruptively. The only difference is a marginal one and if Timeshift continues to butt in it will disappear. I strongly advise you to take the high ground, make yourself appear the reasonable one who accepts and adopts Wikipedia's norms and let Timeshift appear as the disruptive troll. Don't engage in a race with him/her to see who can be the most trollish and disruptive. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 11:53, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. But if both me and Timeshift were refered, why am I the only one being disciplined or punished? Or even consideration given to the prospect? I'm trying to edit in other areas see my change to Enfield London Borough Council. Welshboyau11 (talk) 13:08, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Because you're the only one who has descended to calling your opponent racist and fascist. You've both been behaving poorly but in my opinion (and that of most other editors at AN/I) your has been marginally worse. That's the bad news. The better news is that Wikipedia has a short memory and early hiccups in an editor's career are quickly forgotten once they demonstrate they can work constructively and collaboratively. None of your edits disappear and all your contributions remain available to scrutinise (a thing all editors should beware of before falling foul of Godwin's law and other traps.) But as these early errors recede into the past, and as long as they are not repeated, your later positive contributions will outweigh any early indiscretions. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 13:41, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I really appreciate it. I was wondering if there is anyway to stop Timehsift from constanly writing on my talk page and harassing me? See http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Welshboyau11&oldid=511289826#Feel_free_to_remove_this.2C_but... I really am sick of him Welshboyau11 (talk) 03:38, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

i need u to block someone

this is the ip 121.245.5.64 he is giving false information and vandalizing the article Battle of Jamrud u can see for your self WITH REGARDS --(talk/ Shahzadapashtun) 01:24, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

What the IP was doing was not vandalism, in the sense we mean it on Wikipedia. You need to address problems like this on the article talk page and I've written there suggesting that you and others use that page to discuss the disagreements you are having. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 13:04, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Military history coordinator election

The Military history WikiProject has started its 2012 project coordinator election process, where we will select a team of coordinators to organize the project over the coming year. If you would like to be considered as a candidate, please submit your nomination by 14 September. If you have any questions, do not hesitate to contact one of the current coordinators on their talk page. This message was delivered here because you are a member of the Military history WikiProject. – Military history coordinators (about the project • what coordinators do) 09:21, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

WP:ANI follow up

I updated the WP:ANI post regarding Bishop George Ahr High School after another editor removed content from the article. I don't believe at all that the folks are vandals; The people doing the editing all appear to be people employed by or connected to the school who seem to be trying to protect the school's image. I'd much prefer to find some middle ground wording that we can all accept rather than impose sanctions, but I do think that some outside assistance is needed here. Alansohn (talk) 21:05, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks; as you'll see from this at AN/I I have blocked both as socks. If only these people would learn to spell they wouldn't be so hard to spot.... Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 23:16, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Requesting re-opening of Hilo48 ANI

I just began commenting this evening. Are you saying that even with new information about this user from myself is not worth further discussion. I gotta tell you I am not impressed with closing minutes after new posts are made. That was pretty insulting to just shut the door right after I commented. But It is clear that was your point. Did you get just enough of my noise in that door slamming shut to get a chuckle there sir?--Amadscientist (talk) 10:59, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Multiple other editors have made the point that AN/I is not the right place to discuss this. No administrator has shown any inclination to block HiLo. It wasn't my point to insult you or have a laugh, but to humanely put to sleep a discussion that is not going to end in any action against HiLo. You began posting over 3 hours ago and in that time received two responses from other editors clearly stating "no dice". The discussion has run its course in my opinion and the right place to take any action against HiLo is WP:RFC/U. For what it's worth, I agree with you about the unacceptability of HiLo's style. It's just that AN/I is not the place to act against it. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 11:13, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

I appreciate your calm response. I am, however, still not exactly convinced the discussion did not belong there. This is about specific actions being taken by an editor that is disruptive. ANI does not require a consensus of editors for Admin to take action. The only thing that makes me feel in the very least satisfied with this particular situation, is that the editor has made an apology to DR/N for the conduct issue but in looking at their contributions, it appears this is a long term behavior. They are a revert warrior. This is not exactly a content editor and I do have to question if they are here to improve the encyclopedia. However, RFC/U may be something I need to look at closer along with other DR/N pocesses. Question: Since Wikipedia:Dispute resolution does not list any of the administrative noticeboards as an option of the DR process, would you agree that AN/I for conduct issues is innaproppriate or is that painting with too broad a brush?--Amadscientist (talk) 22:18, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

You're right that ANI does not require a consensus among admins to take action; it just requires that one admin be convinced that action is needed. However over two days of discussion, not one admin was thus convinced. ANI can be appropriate for conduct issues that require an immediate block, page protection or similar. Simple rudeness or incivility is almost never been enough to persuade ANI to block. Conduct which is more complex, longstanding and systematic needs a broader perspective than a single incident investigation can provide. RFC/U is not ideal but represents the best avenue for this now. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 22:27, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

OK, I agree with your assesment about AN/I. That seems to be, at least, what takes place there. I am a little confused however. If AN/I is not the location and RFC/U is not ideal, are we basicly saying there is no route or venue for civility and user conduct such as reverting as disruption etc. If a user comes to DR/N and they are engaged in a conduct or behaviorial dispute, we have no location to send them. What is the main purpose of RFC/U? If Arbcom has kicked civility issues back to the community and the community is unprepared to deal with the issue, do I just recommend individuals who are asking for assistance at DR to just use whatever route they like most? AN/I has seen a few disputes from DR/N that were not even recommended by the volunteers. Should we not be advising participants to seek assistance there unless they are asking for admin sanctions and what thresshold would you recommend, or where would I most likely find direction on this?--Amadscientist (talk) 22:39, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

When I said not ideal, I just meant it's not perfect. But very little here is. RFC/U is still the best place to pursue persistent editor misbehaviour. Personally I would be much keener to block immediately and repeatedly for incivility. But the community has decided to tolerate a wide range of behaviour and it's not up to me alone to set the standards; as an admin I just try and apply those that exist. The instructions for what is appropriate at AN/I are at the top of the page there but it also requires an understanding of the culture and recent history there to know what is and is not likely to succeed there. What I would say is that if a request for action is not immediately successful, then dragging the discussion out is unlikely to make it so. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 23:13, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't know....the "Self Determination" ANI (not recommended by DR/N, they just went there after they filed) went on endlessly and ended up with admin sanctions. You see...discussion is the most important part of collaborative editing. If we just shut down discussions without letting them take their natural course we are violationg core principles of Wikipedia. I am not concerned with the culture of AN/I. It is different with individual perception. My main concern is "the community has decided to tolerate a wide range of behaviour" How did we do that and where can I see the consensus discussion that conculded such?--Amadscientist (talk) 23:34, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm not describing the community decision as a formal one after consensus was reached deliberately. What I mean is that the cumulative effect of the many incivility discussions we have at AN/I is a de facto unwillingness to block for incivility alone. There was a more formal discussion here about one part of civility enforcement and that too seems to indicate an unwillingness to press down too hard. As you'll see, it too recommends using RFC as a forum to debate civility issues. I'm not saying I think this is the right system - just that it is the system we currently have in place. For what it's worth HiLo has recently vowed not to use bad language any more and if that commitment holds up then the system hasn't worked too badly after all. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 08:14, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Help please

Thanks again for your involvement in my recent AN/I dramas. As promised, I have done all I can to avoid Pete/Skyring, but I get the distinct impression that he is not on the same page. An example is here, where he directly responded to a post I made only eleven minutes after I made it. Is he stalking me? It's in no way a controversial post, but it's obviously a response to mine.

I know he is currently compiling a massive dossier of all my sins since the beginning of time too.

While I am trying to move on, his actions are clearly displaying the obsession he has with me. All of my recent swearing outburst was directed at him (a fact not recognised by many), especially when he tried to offer me what I see as his pointless platitudinal advice. I don't want to engage with him. I'm trying not to engage with him. I want to move on. But he is making it very difficult.

Even posting again in the thread above could be seen as a form of engagement with him.

What can I do? HiLo48 (talk) 21:23, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

HiLo, I can see it's disconcerting when Pete follows a post of yours immediately and also when he seems to be compiling a dossier on your editing activity. However as he points out, several people advised him to go to RFC/U rather than AN/I to pursue a complaint about your language, and going to RFC/U does require some preparation.

However. This is not a problem for you if you can say that as from the date of the inconclusive AN/I discussion you have modified your editing style and there have been no further examples of which Pete can complain. If there has been a commitment from you not to use further bad language, and that commitment has been stuck to, then however many examples can be dragged up from the past they are of no relevance. Indeed, if there is an RFC/U debate and you have stuck by your promise I'll happily show up and defend you.

Your best defence is a lengthening record of squeaky clean editing as proof that you really have taken the feedback to heart. The great thing is you don't even have to agree with the feedback! As long as you have done recently nothing of which people can complain, there's no way they can get you! Keep your head down, don't be provoked and keep to the moral high ground. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 23:42, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, that's all good. The dossier is really a bit of a joke. Some of the content and his approach to preparing it really demonstrate more an obsession he has with me, rather than with uncivil behaviour. I have successfully got in the way of some of his political goals here on Wikipedia, so I know I have annoyed him. But I'm still concerned about how to handle those situations where he posts immediately after me, in a discussion he's previously shown little interest in. Funny he turned up there, isn't it? I've made a commitment to not engage with him. I hope nobody objects if I post again. HiLo48 (talk) 05:41, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't think anybody could possibly object to you reposting in a discussion where you already posted before him. But I suggest not responding directly, and certainly not posting immediately after him. Let other people continue the discussion with him, you comment on the general topic rather than being seen to respond directly. If you play by those rules, you're putting yourself in the clear. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 09:50, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

ANI

Responded on my talk page. Till 10:46, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

ANI - Apparent competence issue, round N

Thanks for looking into the record and for your help. We'll see how it sorts out - JohnInDC (talk) 13:43, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

No problem John. Your attempts to help this user and then to negotiate the vagaries of AN/I have been exemplary and I hope you get an outcome that you can live with!! Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 16:01, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Rangers fc

hiya,

can you not puta ip block on that ip range because that ip user will jsut keep coming back and makign new threads etc because thera celtic fan who having fun at this club dismiss, ive try explaining to them that a consensus is there and reliable sources state it but because they dnt believe it they will keep coming back a ip range block would be best it be on my mind recently to report and ask for it--Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 10:27, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

I'll do that temporarily Andrew it's a good idea. Unfortunately I don't think we can make it permanent unless it's causing very frequent high leevls of disruption - which it's not, it's just a nuisance! Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 11:23, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

it seems because they cant now edit on that talk page witht here proganda and pov there now taking to editing other rangers articles to there own pov see 2012–13 Rangers F.C. i think the ip range really needs a block can you advise where i best to take this to and i will do it i think the time has come there being disruptive and using wikipedia asa forum rather than being constructive to help improve the rticle or prove there case with reliable sourcex.Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 13:36, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm not an expert on rangeblocks but the block calculator here suggests that over 65,000 users would be affected if we blocked the full range this user edits from. I think this is too broad and instead what we need to do is to watch for and insta-revert any further tendentious edits from the 101.113.XXX.XXX range. The link you provided above was red - but feel free to let me know of any further disruption and I'll intervene. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 14:27, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

will do, i do think range block is extreme when i brought up the fact all the rangers articles would get like this i was basically laughed at, unfortnally i know where the root of this problems lies and it with scottish football supporters from both sides of the old firm and there religious hatred that is causing this. hopefully can keep on top of it and the ip user will take the hint go to a forum and have fun there and not here as it doesn't belong here. the annoying thing is this ip edit wanted me banned from wikipedia because the consensus on the article was achieved by me but i have told them many times i believe there pov is the same as mine but i take npov so dnt put my own pov onto the article only go by wikipedia primary foundation principles verifiable, reliable sources and npovAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 15:17, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

the ip user has started again and now complaining about the banning. i really think the only way this user will get the hint that wikipedia isnt a forum is ip range block which would very severe hopefully you will have some other ideas on how to maybe sotp him without taking the veyr harshiss routeAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 09:38, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Agent00f

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.

---

What's the procedure to re-open this ? Mtking ^(edits) 05:01, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

I guess the procedure would be to open a new RfC in the same way as the last one (with appropriate diffs etc for new material) and with a clear link to the old RfC embedded in it. For what it's worth, I have warned Agent 00f] that I consider the editing style being used at the AfDs is disruptive. I won't hesitate to block if the disruption continues and will ask WP:AN/I to review any block I do make. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 13:19, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

FYI: It should be noted that they've still been primarily editing the non-article spaces, which was latched onto as a primary and significant cause of concern in regard to the "building an encyclopedia" discussion. Hasteur (talk) 19:57, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Since I left the warning I linked to above, Agent00f has only made 5 more edits and while none of these were to article space, none of them were remotely tendentious or disruptive. If Agent00f goes on and on asking why the page/s were deleted after receiving full and detailed answers that would be another thing. If he (I'm guessing it's a he) starts accusing others of lying or bad faith that would also be an issue. But thus far I don;t think anything egregious has happened and I prefer to think least said, soonest mended. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 21:45, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Looks like he did just that, and continues his talk page behavior.Mtking ^(edits) 00:27, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Let's discuss what happened. MtKing linked a couple long FIA docs (which more or less directly refute his own claims) in a seeming attempt to intimidate another editor, ie assuming they wouldn't bother to look into the details. This is not in dispute. My choices here are to keep refuting these rather disingenuous statements (given this is hardly new behavior) which seems unreasonable given the low cost of repeating them. Or I can ask for the editor to stop this behavior, which seems rather more fair. Perhaps I can be convinced to keep doing the former, but on the surface at least it appears the latter is the more appropriate approach. Agent00f (talk) 09:41, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Btw, I was informed that Hasteur decided to do an unofficial quasi-AMA on reddit, perhaps based on the reference to /r/mma in the brief chat with Kim on my talk page. The link to it on /r/mma itself apparently stayed front page there for quite a while. Though I didn't bother to comment, the reddit mods have contacted me for possible AMA of my own. So depending on how things shake out, we can be internet 15min famous. Also noteworthy is that the replies' prose seems rather opposite of the stereotype of "MMA fanboys" some have tried to construct. Agent00f (talk) 10:15, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

How is my trying to extend an olive branch valid to this discussion? Please feel free to reconsider your deliberately disruptive post above and do the right thing by striking the entire post. Hasteur (talk) 11:55, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

I felt it was worth the heads up since it's born of a previous chat involving the talk page owner; it's not really an invitation for other parties to elaborate esp if they're already aware of its existence. Agent00f (talk) 13:31, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Folks, this extending thread is not really what my talk page is for. Please take this discussion elsewhere or (ideally) just stop having the discussion and use the established Wikipedia processes to resolve your differences. As an administrator, I have no view on what level of detail is appropriate for MMA articles or what constitutes a reliable source. But I DO have a view on disruptive behaviour and its effect on Wikipedia. Disagreeing with someone is not disruptive. Ad hominem attacks, incivility and repeated failure to AGF are all disruptive. I'm happy to receive requests to judge whether or not disruption is occurring, but I can't decide the editorial question of what level of detail is appropriate so don't ask me. If this thread lengthens much more I'll hat it. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 12:30, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

I do have a quite serious question about what you consider behavior "disruptive" to wiki. For example on the face of it it seems that abusing a rather asymetric AfD process very much disrupts wiki content. Namely, if AfDs were systematically filled one by one against a large cohesive set of articles, it's at the very least an effective waste of other editors' time and even more disruptive should any of them succeed. From the start I naively assume it's the role of administrative staff to use their better judgement to close any such abusive loopholes in the system, rather than focus attention on those seeking to end this massive disruption to a topic, but the former never happened. This is a very real concern to me, and I'd definitely appreciate your perspective.

I'm also skeptical that pointing out bad behavior (and I consider dishonesty bad behavior) much like you do at times constitutes a de jure or even de facto violation of anything. As I understand it, policy asks us to assume good faith when evidence is lacking, and this is most assuredly sound policy. However, when assumption is unnecessary in clear view of history and facts, it seems rather disingenuous to keep assuming something which is false. Again, this greatly puzzles someone from my background, so any explanation to clear up this confusion would be excellent. Agent00f (talk) 13:31, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

This isn't really a topic for my talk page. If it's a discussion worth having it needs to be somewhere more visible so I'm closing this after my reply here. My rule of thumb is that the kind of behaviour I want to see more of is a collaborative, give-and-take, mutual respect kind of thing. I regard behaviour that's confrontational, my-way-or-the-highway and attacking or aggressive to be at best unproductive and at worst disruptive. At its very worst, it may merit a block to stop the disruption at source. In your case I think you sometimes stray towards the edge of what's tolerable - eg accusing other people of being shameless liars is just not on. Even if you firmly believe this to be true other people may not put the same construction on the same set of facts. You spend almost all your time on talk page arguments and my advice would be to spend more time improving the articles you wish to defend so that there is no reason to delete them. Please note that I would have the same critical things to say of those opposing you in this debate, should they start slinging accusations around in turn. On the larger issue of whether WP admins have one set of rules for MMA articles and another for articles on other sports, this can't be resolved here. You'll need to open up a discussion - eg on WP:AN - with some very good diffs to make your case. Please can we leave this discussion now. I'll delete any further contributions from any quarter on this general topic. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 14:20, 16 November 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.