Jump to content

User talk:Dennis Brown/Archive 7

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7Archive 8Archive 9Archive 10

Child?

Child, corrupt friend, etc... Joefromrandb is going too far for my taste, and his comments are blockable on the sheer face of them. I'm not going to push this point any farther, but more such comments (unrelated to that ridiculous ANI thread) should lead to a block. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 17:13, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

We may disagree about things here, but I sincerely give you credit for asking Dennis to block me out in the open; others e-mail their requests. Joefromrandb (talk) 23:49, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
One last thing: the "child" remark was not directed at you personally. I often hear admins referred to as "the children who run this site". I was speaking collectively and did not mean to infer that you are a child, either physically or emotionally. Joefromrandb (talk) 23:53, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Got another one

79.182.246.39, more block evasion of Jimbo's troll. Ian.thomson (talk) 14:50, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Ian.thomson (talk) 14:56, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

SPI school

I was reading one of your diffs mentioning SPI trainees. Am I correct in assuming that one would need admin rights before trying to volunteer assisting the SPI team? Fasttimes68 (talk) 22:09, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Why would they need admin rights? I thought anyone could help in an SPI investigation. Robby The Penguin (talk) (contribs) 22:25, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
    • You don't need admin rights to be a clerk. You can go to the SPI/Clerks page and ask to be a trainee. There is a little bit of a line due to a shortage of full clerks to train. I imagine there is a limit to the number of spots of non-admins, but I can't see us being at that point. There are some limitations, since you can't view deleted contribs, do blocks, and a few other tricks, but there is plenty of ways to help without the tools. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © (WER) 00:04, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Some WikiLove for you

All Around Amazing Barnstar
I wasn't sure which barnstar to pick, sorry about that. Thanks for your review and I hope to continue to work with you on Wikipedia. -- Luke (Talk) 23:43, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Protedted page and deletions

This is not a complaint about you, just a heads up. I posted at AN/I about a talk page that was vandalized; part of the vandalism was the deletion of another editor's comments. You protected the page right after, but those comments have yet to be restored. 71.234.215.133 (talk) 01:19, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Personal attacks at an article talk page

There are numerous personal attacks against me at the Sgt Pepper talk page. Other editors have tried to "hat" them but one or two users keep restoring them. It is my understanding that personal attacks can and should be removed from the talk page. Can you offer any advice in this regard, Thanks. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 00:51, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

  • I'm not sure what to do here. This is one big, ugly hornets nest but it looks like Avanu has come in with some wise words and they sections have stayed collapsed. It is a bit late, and reading through all if it will take more time than I have to do it justice. Since collapsing sections doesn't remove them, I don't see the big deal with letting them stay collapsed, and you can point them here if you need. Personally, I get called everything except a child of god, daily, in one venue or another and I've learned to overlook it, but I understand it isn't as easy in the middle of a poll. Part of the problem is having two polls at the same time, which is always going to be problematic. Not sure who started the second poll, but that seems to have added some fuel to the fire. I gather there is mediation going on as well (Again, I've briefed through the pages only) and honestly, I hesitate to get overly involved where there is already a few venues covering the event. If worse comes to worse ([wince]) ANI is always an option, but if you can overlook it, overlook it. Just taking a brief look convinced me there is a lot of deep rooted issues going on that can't be addressed with a single paragraph or two. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © (WER) 01:41, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for your thoughtful reply Dennis Brown, I appreciate that you took the time out to do so. What I am asking is, can't, indeed shouldn't the personal attacks against me be removed? I have seen this done many times before. I don't mean just collapsd but deleted, afterall, why should these personal attacks get archived? They should be removed from the page as inappropriate and disruptive. Thanks again, and I agree, it's a hornet's nest for sure, and Avanu seems to have restored some civility, for now anyway. I really would like to see the personal attacks against me there deleted by an admin. I think it would go along way toward encouraging civility, adn sending a message that article talk pages are not a place that allows personal attacks against an editor. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 01:54, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
I think your best bet is to simply ignore them and act like an Englishman about it. Stiff upper lip and all that rot. Focus on moving forward, make some new sections and move into new debates, take some time off, and if archiving is not turned on, let Dennis or me or someone turn it on and sweep the page a bit faster. But part of civility sometimes is simply letting uncivil things pass on by without comment. After all if you hold someone's feet to the fire too often, you might burn your own fingers in the process. -- Avanu (talk) 01:58, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
You can always quietly and politely replace them with (redacted). If someone raises hell about it, you politely go to their talk page and just say "I'm not trying to change the context of your comment, only to remove the personal attack portions." I've found that calm, rational discussion goes a long way around here. Getting defensive always puts them on the defensive. If I thought I could jump in and make a comment and fix things, I really would, but it is way too far gone for a quick comment, and it's late and I'm fading fast... Dennis Brown - 2¢ © (WER) 02:01, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Right, I hear the both of you, but I've been told one should never redact someone else's comments, indeed it came up at my RfA and it was made quite clear I thought. I'll ignore it, but I still think it's not right to allow the attacks to be archived with the rest of the material, they shold be removed by an admin, but oh well, I guess WP:NPA is a situational policy. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 02:08, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Also, even if I could redact the comments myself, I think that would constitute a violation of the IB in some instances. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 02:12, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Ok, it is morning. Are you talking about the section where you are accused of canvassing being a personal attack? That isn't a personal attack, it is an unsubstantiated claim, which is different, and it looks like someone else corrected him on it. People throw around the word "canvass" a lot when they want to choke off discussion, it is really of no consequence. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © (WER) 11:38, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Right on Dennis Brown. Thanks for taking the time to make helpful suggestions, I appreciate your efforts here! ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 22:24, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Gabe, have some big cuddlesome Granny Hugz. The more I looked at that, the more I saw it as some seriously mega-misunderstandings all around, more than real wossnameness. I didn't want to get involved ... I chickened out .... but have the Hugz anyway. A good hug always makes things feel better, I find. Pesky (talk) 04:45, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks

for cleaning up the big lot of Hertfordshire1234 sockpuppets. A new account incarnated last night and I zapped it. Meant to get around to the big lot today, but thank you for getting there first. Choess (talk) 18:58, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank you for the kind manner in admonishing my !vote at RfB. I am glad you were able to help me see that error. 76Strat String da Broke da (talk) 22:22, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

  • I just try to treat people with the same respect I would like to be treated with. I'm old enough to know that people will consider your ideas if you are nice about how your present them. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © (WER) 22:27, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
I am really starting to like this guy! Dennis Brown, you set an excellent example for all of us, thank you! ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 22:32, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Admin's Barnstar
For setting an excellent example for all of us to follow. You are kind, patient, helpful and knowledgeable, and you show us these assets with a high standard of civility and without ego. Thanks for all you do here! ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 22:36, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Thank you, I really appreciate the kind words. I've stored a copy in my Ronco Barnstar Vault ® for safe keeping. I'm human, I goof or can be a little pissy sometimes, which is why I try to be patient with others when they do, too. I really do try to practice what I preach, and always invite anyone to drop me a line if I'm not as civil as I can be, and I promise I will listen. We are all on the same team, after all. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © (WER) 22:45, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
It is my pleasure Dennis Brown, and it is truly deserved. I've noticed how you interact with others and I am most impressed. Nobody is perfect, and nobody should expect perfection, however we should expect a high-level of behaviour from all editors IMO. You set a fantastic example of decorum on a regular basis and I wanted to let you know how much myself and the community at large appreciates your efforts (not that I am implying that I speak for the community in anyway, but I do think many, many editors would completely agree with me on this particular point). Cheers! ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 22:52, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

WikAdvisor

This user needs to be indef blocked for Sock puppetry.--Anderson - what's up? 04:28, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Guitar

Check out this. I think most electric players would be humbled.♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:47, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Try working on a few articles then and ignore wiki politics for a bit or listen to this!♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:21, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Wiki politics I find can trap myself at times. A couple of replies and heated responses and before you know it you're involved in some intense and potentially belligerent discussion and usually involves at least one editor getting the wrong end of the stick. And in my experience proposing anything is usually a waste of time as some people like it, some don't and it never gets anywhere. Anything which is productive in sorting out real problems (like your wikiproject hopefully) though is different. I try to ignore as much of it as I can and try to focus as purely on content as I can as that's what we're really here for! SOmetimes people like you though are needed to provide the voice of reason amongst all the madness. You should check out others by Keali'i, this is good as is this. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:11, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

  • Well, your timing is impeccable. Feel free to drop links to music anytime. Overly produced commercial music leaves me cold in my old age, and you appear to have good taste in music. Listening still now. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 21:45, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
Did you know that he got me just in time to wonderful guitar+ music live? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:59, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

What can I say, my taste in music is impeccable! Another of my favourites, Bolivian classical guitarist Pirai Vaca. Might not be your cup of tea but Yo Yo Ma (cellist) playing Ennio Morricone is sheer beauty in my opinion as is this. I wouldn't want to listen to it all the time though, depends on your mood! ♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:42, 21 July 2012 (UTC) Pure common sense would dictate that I'm right that unverifiable apparently popular internet terms with no google hits should be speedy deletable but there's almost some smart alec who turns up to argue otherwise. What was I saying about its pointless proposing anything on wikipedia? Sigh♦ Dr. Blofeld 22:08, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

  • I ran into this at my RfA, was rewarded with 3 months of mentoring on CSD for it, as an unenforceable condition for votes (being a man of my word, I complied completely anyway). Speedy criteria is tough, as it is much higher than AFD, and I get the feeling that will be a tough road to hoe. We still don't have a criteria for songs, either, which used to be an AFD clogger. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © (WER) 22:12, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

You've got mail!

Hello, Dennis Brown. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added 15:34, 20 July 2012 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Even more mail Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 15:34, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

  • You guys have no idea how much email I actually get since most don't post here. Suffice it to say, many, many, many per day. It's a wonder I can ever edit articles. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 16:08, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Other encyclopedias

On the discussion page for the Editor Retention WikiProject, you referred to Britannica as a "failed paper encyclopedia". Perhaps it's just the brevity of your aside, but the statement gives the impression that you are calling the Encyclopedia Britannica a failure in general. The literal interpretation (that Britannica no longer publishes a paper version) is of course true, but as I understand it, Britannica has done an excellent job in shifting its revenue streams away from the paper encyclopedia, transforming itself as an online source, and has remained a respected standard for information. So the implication that Britannica has failed isn't, as far as I know, accurate, and feels a little like an unwarranted put-down. isaacl (talk) 20:35, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

It most certainly is a dying breed. The decision to take it out of print exemplifies that. It is relying purely on its name now to keep running and drawing on the fact that wikipedia is amateur.♦ Dr. Blofeld 06:12, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

In the age of electronic media, most reference works are going to go out of print. Even books might one of the days, but I probably won't be around then. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:35, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Tata Consultancy Services

Hello Dennis Brown, Could you please semi-protect Tata Consultancy Services article since User:Ragamuf12 is constantly removing materials which are provided with proper source. He is very adamant and not listing to me at all. I hope you could pursue him.--♥ Kkm010 ♥ ♪ Talk ♪ ߷ ♀ Contribs ♀ 04:18, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

  • I've left him a message. Odd SPA account to be just deleting sections like that. If they aren't one of the largest anymore, it would be changed to "was one of the largest", and with new cite and info. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © (WER) 11:41, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
I agree with you. Now if you look at the history of TCS article, another new user came and just deleting facts which are provided with credible source. I'm quit sure User:Ragamuf12 has created another new a/c with new name. Please do something Dennis Brown, it would be better if you could semi-protect this article if not full protection at least for some time. I'm unable to control this adamant guy.Thanks--♥ Kkm010 ♥ ♪ Talk ♪ ߷ ♀ Contribs ♀ 15:20, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
I came across this and did some anti-promotional trimming. User:King4057 (EthicalWiki) 22:37, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
I haven't forgotten about EASYMONEY, I've just been mulling it over and working on other stuff, like nominating two admin candidates in two weeks, which is actually busier than you might think. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © (WER) 22:50, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
I wasn't pestering - just enjoy Talk page patrolling. I like the idea of finding little problems I can fix. User:King4057 (EthicalWiki) 06:19, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
Thanks Dennis Brown. Without your it would be difficult to control this guy. If I would face any further problem I would catch you later. Now some experience editors are actually editing the article. I'm quit hopeful admin will definitely catch Ragamuf12. Thanks a lot buddy.--♥ Kkm010 ♥ ♪ Talk ♪ ߷ ♀ Contribs ♀ 04:11, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

@ Wiki Culture (over discipline)

👍 Like ```Buster Seven Talk 21:48, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

  • Also, this morning I was trying to remember where I had seen a wonderful new way to handle situations. And then...I just found it. Right above. Sometimes the best option is to remove the ability of an editor to get blocked. It doesn't matter how many people are on each side of an argument, only that there are two sides. Protecting the page is the least aggressive, least damaging way to force discussion and let things cool down. Blocking him so he will cool down would be counter to the goals here. I always recommend taking the option that creates dialog, and reduces the chance of a good editor getting blocked over a singular judgement issue. Genious! ```Buster Seven Talk 21:55, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
  • I'm flattered, but you give me too much credit. It wasn't without controversy and some may disagree with my perspective, which is their right, but I have to follow my heart. I do appreciate the kindness in your words. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © (WER) 21:59, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
Well blocking a page is a lot less bitey than blocking an editor. And generally I think it creates less controversy too. -- Avanu (talk) 22:02, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

WP:RFPP

There is a request for you at RFPP, James Eagen Holmes. Armbrust, B.Ed. WrestleMania XXVIII The Undertaker 20–0 08:12, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

SPI fix

Can you fix Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Unkown? I really botched that. Ryan Vesey Review me! 17:11, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

  • I explained it in the clerk section. Will probably just wait til we know who the master is, so we don't keep moving it time and again, and there is a user "Unknown", which would be even more misleading, so I can't do that. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 17:16, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
  • What is the proper way to do this in the future? I just used Twinkle to create the report and typed Unknown into the puppeteer section because I had no idea who it could be. We did some minor checks with the "alternate account" of Amy, but concluded that nothing more was necessary unless it happened again. Ryan Vesey Review me! 18:06, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Good question. I've only seen it a couple of times, typically the master is "I have no idea who the master is" or similar, and we just clean it up later. Not that hard to fix afterwards, but we prefer to do it just once since we don't leave redirects behind. Masterless socks aren't that common, every week or two we see one, I think. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 18:10, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
    I just want to know who the master is and why they are doing it. It can really hurt someones reputation. What is apparent is that the sockmaster is attempting to frame someone. For this incident, I thought it necessary to step in, noting that I am working on a college paper.—cyberpower ChatTemporarily Online 18:13, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
  • I think the commonality is Cyberpower. The puppeteer must have been aware of Cyber's dispute with Amy, which is what caused the first account. I initially felt that the puppeteer was targeting Amy, but it is just as likely that the puppeteer is targeting Cyber. Ryan Vesey Review me! 18:18, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
    What have I done to deserve this? I consider myself civil, kind, and patient. Why would someone try and block me. Going through that socks contributions, I find no commonalities at what those users have to do with Amy and me.—cyberpower ChatTemporarily Online 18:24, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Cyber, just yesterday someone started doxing me on my userpage. (Look at the oversighted history) That doesn't mean you or I did anything to deserve these. In my case I rolled back some vandalism. It could be a similar case in your event. Just let it pass, obviously nothing is going to happen to your account as a result. Ryan Vesey Review me! 18:26, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
    (edit conflict)A checkuser confirmed that the two accounts are related but cannot discern who the sockmaster is.—cyberpower ChatTemporarily Online 18:27, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
    A few of my schoolmates outed my real name in a couple of articles as practical joke once.—cyberpower ChatTemporarily Online 18:30, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
    I've tagged with blank master for now. That would seem to mean that the master uses a different IP for real work, and went to the library or something for the socking. If it continues, there are ways to match up based on finding a match in previous contribs of all involved, and if it matches the general geolocation and behavior matches, but it is time consuming. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 19:07, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Review my revert?

Hey Dennis, I invite you to review my revert here. Do you believe I was correct in this reversion? Ryan Vesey Review me! 20:54, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

  • Not a revert, I'm not sure why I called it that. Talk page section deletion. Ryan Vesey Review me! 20:55, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
    • Slightly bold, might be slightly controversial, but I would agree that it didn't belong there, and hatting wasn't sufficient. I would back you on that redaction. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 21:22, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
      • Thank you for looking over that. What action do you think I should take if I am reverted? Operating under the assumption that a revert is on the grounds that I shouldn't have deleted it? Hatting might be the easiest solution at that point. Ryan Vesey Review me! 21:39, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
        • If you are reverted, feel free to simply drop a note pointing them to our conversation here. What I hope is that whoever reverts you will then revert themselves, and respects the reason for the redactions. It isn't necessary that they agree with it (hey, we all have different opinions), but this admin's opinion is that your redaction was proper and you were polite about it. They didn't do anything to be sanctioned over, and I trust their comments were in good faith, but they don't belong there, and are a bit inappropriate. It happens, best to just redact and move on without making a big deal of it, for all of us. Hopefully, they will trust both yours and my opinion in the matter. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 21:46, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

IP's personal attack to Wikipedians

Hi Dennis,

Sorry to bother you, but I was hoping you'd be able to cast a second opinion on an edit summary that an IP has wrote which to me looks like a personal attack to the entire Wikipedia community. The edit summary in question is this one. I have posted a note on their talk page about refraining from making such comments, but I'm not sure if it qualifies a revdel or even more serious sanctions. Thanks, Wesley Mouse 11:23, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

  • I don't see the need. Honestly, the world is full of rude people, at least this one cobbled together a cogent sentence, even if it is dripping with sarcasm. I don't see that as a personal attack at all, and not over the line, just a little rude. You have to thicken the skin around here a little. You should see some of the email I get after I protect a page or block a troll. Best not to empower people by letting their words affect you. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 11:30, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
  • True, true - I see a good point there. I suppose I should look at it as not everyone thinks us Wikipedians are orges, just the odd few misfits who probably feel it best to lash out some sarcasm when they just don't get what an encyclopaedia is all about lol. Hope you're doing well, not spoken to you for a while. You remember about the loss I had a few weeks ago? Well we had another one in the famil at the end of June, but then we had a birth in the family last week, so it made life happier all around. Right now, I'm in London doing my Olympic volunteering. Done two shifts so far, got a day off and back on duty tomorrow (the day it officially begins). Wesley Mouse 11:38, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Dennis Brown. You have new messages at Electriccatfish2's talk page.
Message added 11:36, 26 July 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

I've done 15 or so DYKs, and it looks perfectly fine to me :) Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 11:36, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Narayana Murthy

I have been offline for some time and by the time I got to your request to provide secondary sources for some awards/honors, the list had been significantly shortened and finalized. I have now posted the list of awards with secondary sources for those awards that need them. Please see the talk page for this article. -- Tib42

Adding time stamp for the archive bot. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 09:58, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Need more eyes and editors on this

Having a hard time keeping the two parties focused on a positive resolution, seems to have begun at a somewhat uncivil An/I thread and moved on into Wikiquette. Would love it if you have a moment to drop in at Wikipedia:Wikiquette assistance#AndyTheGrump's accusations

Thanks. -- Avanu (talk) 23:25, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Its not a problem at all. I wasn't getting anywhere and from what I can tell several of the editors in the original thread at AN/I were being less than AGF and less than civil and this is now at Wikiquette and not getting all that better, I think in some part because Andy isn't the sort to just work hard at de-escalating this. I don't Andy was the central problem at AN/I, it was just a long thread and weary editors who were looking at a newly registered editor like he couldn't possibly be for real. -- Avanu (talk) 02:02, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
You know I'm disappointed with my fellow editors on that thread now, except for Guy Macon. At the end of the thread as it stands now, they essentially all acknowledge that Andy's attitude amps these things up, and yet give him a pass on it, and blame the other editor for asking Andy to stop being uncivil. -- Avanu (talk) 05:00, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
As a question, what type of solution were you looking for? Wikiquette assistance doesn't result in binding decisions and nobody is forced to participate. In this case, I felt the best solution was for everyone to leave. What good is wikiquette assistance when it results in more arguing? In any case, I'm not entirely sure that a checkuser isn't necessary. The user did display abnormal editing habits for a new user and it seems like they were flaunting the idea that checkuser would catch nothing to discourage a checkuser. Ryan Vesey Review me! 05:09, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
Actually Ryan, if it were simply left at your comment, I wouldn't have been too disappointed. I asked you to weigh in and you weighed in as you felt proper, and I commend your involvement. And you actually ended your comment with a positive statement... 'go edit productively'. The problem I see is in the sort of snowballing that happened subsequent to that. This is the same problem that the AN/I thread had. This guy Iamthemuffinman got involved at an AN/I thread and his stated reason for knowing about how Wikipedia works is that he's been an unregistered IP for some time. Now, he could be lying, he could be a sockpuppet or a meatpuppet, but Andy didn't just say something polite, like "I question how a new user can know so much." He called Iamthemuffinman a liar. Other editors in that thread altetendekrabbe, VolunteerMarek, and Darkness Shines piled in with personal attacks on the various editors (including Iamthemuffinman).
User:Iamthemuffinman is SOMEBODY's sock.VolunteerMarek 18:38, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
I doubt it is a sock, more likely a meatpuppet. Darkness Shines (talk) 18:41, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
So Iamthemuffinman puts up with that, asks people to stop and yet they don't. No wonder ItsZippy later said "This is getting us absolutely nowhere, generating more heat than light. Please remember that, if we are to find a resolution here, we need to work together and not treat Wikipedia as a battleground."
Finally Iamthemuffinman takes it to Wikiquette because Andy has gotten like a dog with a bone in this, and Andy continues the bad attitude over to Wikiquette. So, that's why I'm disappointed. We had a massive amount of bad faith and incivility and yet few editors stood up and said, 'enough is enough!' Johnuniq and Anthonyhcole essentially blame Iamthemuffinman for being a new account. I thought everyone was familiar with Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers. I tried very hard not to label Andy (during this Wikiquette) as the problem in this Wikiquette discussion because the goal there is conflict resolution, not attacking. But when so many people are willing to ignore that goal and our Civility pillar, I'm at a loss for why we even have Wikiquette. If we have a legitimate suspicion about an editor being a puppet, we file an SPI request, otherwise we don't need to bring it up in debate, period. It is simply a personal attack that poisons the debate, and if the person is innocent, unduly tarnishes them and puts them on the defensive, which is pretty much exactly what we have here. I don't believe anyone has actually filed an SPI request, yet we let these personal attacks roll by and blame the newbie for being too aware. -- Avanu (talk) 05:35, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
Do you know what saddens me about Wikipedia? Here we are a bunch of (often times grown) men and women taking part in writing and maintaining the world's most important website. I would have always assumed that Wikipedia's biggest problem would be the people who write on the bathroom stalls, you know, all of those friends of gays. Instead, Wikipedia's biggest problem is incessant bickering, arguing, and name-calling. While I'm not naive enough to think that similar things don't happen in real life work situations, Wikipedia goes way beyond what would ever normally be seen. If I went to work tomorrow and called someone an asshat, I'd probably lose my internship, especially if I called them it to their face. Yet on Wikipedia it is rampant. I've been an opponent of civility blocks, and still am, because I generally want to focus on article contributions; however, I think the community does one thing poorly. It doesn't discourage incivility to the extent that is necessary. If someone could create a surefire way to discourage incivility that would be great. Who knows, maybe my opinion on civility blocks is incorrect. Maybe we should institute a zero tolerance rule of sorts. I've long based my opinion on them by concluding that the article contributions were always more important; however, we've lost editors like Fastily as a result of incivility. It seems that issues like that are some unintended consequences of the way I look at things. I might chat with Fastily about this sometime soon. Ryan Vesey Review me! 05:54, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
Yep. -- Avanu (talk) 13:45, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

My Welcome

Of course, firstly, its not mine. I pieced it together from here and there, mostly from a welcome User:Chaosdruid used when we were Wiki-guides. Secondly, it's not a template. (Not yet anyway). I have a bunch of Welcomes saved at User:Buster7/Welcomes. When I welcome, I change the date, copy, and then paste at the newbies page. Can you assist me to make it into a template? Or send me to someone? (I know you are extremely busy). Thanks, ```Buster Seven Talk 03:50, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

  • I've not been very involved with templates before, but I want to start with this one, that is for sure. I just woke up, having a coffee, but later today, I want to asks someone about it, what kinds of options, etc. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 11:05, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
    • I see User:Wolf's Welcome @ WER. I prefer the color scheme @ "WikiGuide Welcome" (WGW)...the black and grey @ Wolf's are drab and unstimulating. Support adding "Copyvio" per dougweller, and up-dating the links as Wolf mentions. I think the lower section @ WGW is friedlier and gives us the Pesky "One-stop manual" option. ```Buster Seven Talk 11:41, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
See User:Buster7/WER Welcome. I'll work on melding the two. I'm slow but methodical. I need the practice on working with "stuff". Would that be Two Rock soup? ```Buster Seven Talk 12:42, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
Just realised I'm the "wolf"! I quite like that :D I wasn't keen on the black and grey either, but I did it for a specific reason, so that it matched the teahouse welcome when I used that (It would look like this in those cases). I look forward to seeing your end product Buster! WormTT(talk) 12:55, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
A combination Welcome is on the drawing board as we speak but how do I add The CopyVio as Dougweller asks? Also, once Pesky's mini-manual gets a little edited, it can replace Poet Gal's How to. Thanks! ```Buster Seven Talk 13:25, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
WOW! Worm/Wolf....I just noticed my mistake. All this time Ive been reading "Wolf". Sorry...but glad you like it. Buster Seven Talk

I still say to start it as a subpage at the project, with its own talk page of course, and ask dougweller for help. We aren't in a rush, maybe this will inspire Pesky to write faster ;) This is certainly in line with the goals of "editor retention", as a way to bite new users less, so the project is a perfect home to develop it. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 13:29, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Dennis. As for how best to add copyright, I'd suggest add it in under style guide, and add Pesky's manual into the new gap on the right and side to keep symmetry. I also think you've got too much text at the bottom, and you're repeating your name - but hey, I can mention these things on the talk page! And don't worry bout the name :) WormTT(talk) 13:37, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
 Done by a passing mad scientist. Buster Seven Talk
See Wikipedia:WikiProject Editor Retention/Welcome. ```Buster Seven Talk 13:50, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
Excellent. This is how we do it, one small step at a time. I have some project that have been going on for many weeks, but they all get implemented in time, and they all add up. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 19:12, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

User Fastballjohnd

You were a participant in the ANI discussion[1] about what should be done in regards to this user. I'm just letting you know that he may have created yet another sockpuppet account. I have opened an investigation[2] and have asked for a check user to be done. This message is a heads up. If you have any reply for me, write it here or at the ANI . I will keep a lookout....William 14:34, 26 July 2012 (UTC)


NC

You have new message/s Hello. You have a new message at Gilderien's talk page.--Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 18:10, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

DYK

See Template:Did you know nominations/Yadkin-Pee Dee River Basin and make any changes if necessary.--Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 20:14, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks!

For getting me involved in DYK again! Electric Catfish 21:53, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

You ask an interesting question

So I'm interested in what you will do - feel free to leave it till they've replied, or to spring in to action at once, or to completely ignore it. Or you can email me with the rationale behind the question. Whatever makes sense basically, but I'm just intrigued by the entire thing. Ta, Egg Centric 01:40, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Hard question is right Dennis, personally I didn't have the foggiest how to answer that one (pretty please don't desysop me)--Jac16888 Talk 14:43, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
Honestly, I bet half the admins don't have a clue, which is fine, and why we all depend on each other. That was the key behind the question, as everyone admin needs to know when he is over his head and needs advice from someone else. His answer got my vote. And don't worry, I don't think any 'crat is going to bit-strip you for not knowing that one ;) Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 15:11, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

GENERAL NOTICE

For anyone that voted at my RfA 3 months ago but had concerns about CSD tagging, and supported me based on the promise that I would seek mentoring for a period of time: The mentoring is complete and two administrators have signed off. While it was unenforceable and I could have blown it off without consequence, that isn't how I roll. I listened to your concerns and I made a solid effort to comply with the wishes expressed during the RfA, with the help of Boing! said Zebedee and DGG. Thanks again to those that gave me the benefit of the doubt, and I hope I've earned it. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 14:04, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Virginia

Hey Dennis, do you have the names of those two counties of Virginia into which the Yadkin-Pee Dee River Basin extends? I think that would be useful to add. LadyofShalott 17:01, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Brief response

You hatted an open discussion, then added further comments. On the candidate's talk page you said "I think Leaky is missing the point in his minutia, perhaps looking for the cloud in the silver lining." followed by "Sorry if my questions have caused Leaky to get rather pointy and disruptive with his." Finally you make successive postings to my TP without reply culminating by telling me you hope I will do the honourable thing, implying that I have somehow not acted honourably thus far. Your repeated determination of bad faith on my part is obvious (and wholly unacceptable). My questions to the candidate are real world examples of the issues that Admins. face and I'm entitled to ask them. The fact that you initiated the saga that led to them being asked now in his RFA rather than in later life as an Admin. is an opportunity to demonstrate his competence in dealing with people who have opposing views on the interpretation of issues as well as the behaviour that some of us show to each other. He can answer them honestly, dishonestly or not at all. That's his prerogative, not yours and he has now answered them to my satisfaction. Maybe you should take a look at your own interactions here and "do the honourable thing". Leaky Caldron 17:28, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

  • Yes, I hoped you would do the honorable thing, but he has chosen to answer anyway. If you have a problem with my comment, take it here, take it to ANI, take it to ArbCom, but holding him responsible for it is not right and you know this. It isn't a matter of good or bad faith, it is a matter of not holding a third party responsible for my opinions. It is about fundamental fairness. If you know anything about me, you will understand this.
  • I replied on your talk page about hatting, but it would be clear to anyone that I was simply trying to take a good faith discussion by you and I, and move into a quieter corner, WITHOUT making it inaccessible. Technically, you don't edit after you hat but you and I both are know to IAR on these things and I expected that you and I would have a comment or two afterwards, and hatting freed us a bit from the restrictions since it didn't bloody the page. But you could have just asked me here, everyone knows I will answer any question brought here. The header should have been very clear that I wasn't discounting your opinions in the least. Yes, I do think you are nitpicking, yes I think you are very mistaken, yes I think you could handle the whole situation much better than you have. You chose the most confrontational way possible to deal with this, when you could have reverted and added a comment, came here, or chosen a number of other viable options. That is pointy. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 18:06, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Basic errors urgently need correcting

Hi Dennis –

I've extensively corrected, and brought up to date, the Respiratory System part of the Bird Anatomy page. As will be apparent from the Talk page both there and on the Avian Lungs part of the Lungs page, there is more that needs to be done. The first two sentences of the final paragraph of the Avian Lungs part of the Lungs page must be removed since they are completely wrong (apart from saying that misunderstanding is common): air most definitely is retained in all airsacs even after full exhalation, and most air also moves around the system for two full cycles before being exhaled, in the vast majority of birds. All this has been abundantly clear since Bretz and Schmidt-Nielsen '71 & '72 (online ref in Respiratory system part of the Bird Anatomy page).

The Avian Lungs part of the Lungs page needs to be unlocked, or at least made editable by me.

We also need references at the start of these two pages on bird breathing, to each other. Strangetruther (talk) 18:21, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Actually I've just discovered that I appear to be autoconfirmed now, and I'm making those edits. Strangetruther (talk) 18:29, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

  • Hi again Dennis – surprised you got back so quickly! I'll liase with whoever you pinged. Cheers Strangetruther (talk) 18:33, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
    • Strangetruther, I'm glad you took care of this life-and-death matter. Next up: find a more attractive picture to replace that horrible pig lung at the top of the page. Dennis, have you ever eaten lung? I haven't--though I've eaten tongue (on a tortilla). Drmies (talk) 20:28, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

CU check request

Hi Dennis. User:The_Bushranger, an administrator, instructed me to write you about doing a user check (or whatever you call it) on 76.189.114.243 (me) and User:Schpinbo. User:TennisAnalyst004 has maliciously accused us in multiple pages of being the same person.

I contacted Schpinbo on his talk page today, introduced myself, and made him aware of the the accusation. As you'll see, he indicated he'd be fine with a CU check when he said, "I have to imagine that all a Wiki-admin has to do is check my IP (which I'm sure they have some way of confirming) against yours (which you leave open for all to see) to be satisfied that you and I are different people."

Tennis made the accusation on the following three pages, plus Schpinbo replied to one of them:

[3]
"You've been trying to get rid of the phrase "greatest of all time" ever since you (Schpinbo) showed up here a few weeks ago. I think it's pretty obvious what's going on here."
TennisAnalyst004(talk) 09:36, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
[4]
"User 76 -- aka Schpinbo? -- is stalking me on Wikipedia."
TennisAnalyst004 (talk) 16:59, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
[5]
Schpinbo commented about the accusation in the same thread just above:
"Just to confirm: I am not 76 in disguise; nor is 76 me in disguise."
Schpinbo (talk) 18:58, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
[6]
Here he talks about me (implying it was me as Schpinbo) doing something 2 weeks ago. (Keep in mind that I didn't start on Wikipedia until about 4 days ago):
Bushranger, I strongly suspect that User 76 is Schpinbo. He tried 2 weeks ago to get the "greatest of all time" reference deleted in the opening paragraph, but failed to do so. It's very silly of User 76 to pretend that I've had issues with others when in fact I've only had an issue with him.
TennisAnalyst004 (talk) 10:36, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

The reason I want this done is so that once you confirm we're not the same person you can, at the very least, warn Tennis about ever doing it again (to us or anyone else) unless he has proof. And, if permitted by the rules, blocking him from editing for awhile. Thanks. --76.189.114.243 (talk) 00:59, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)A CheckUser can't disclose whether you two are related, since you are not logged in.--Jasper Deng (talk) 01:05, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
Jasper is correct, CU can't link IPs and names. And while I'm flattered that Bushranger thinks I'm a checkuser, I'm just a lowly admin. For a private check, you would need to contact a Checkuser directly, as I don't think this would fly at WP:SPI. Contact a Checkuser at Wikipedia:Functionaries, in the check user area. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 01:08, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
Yeah, he said you're a checkuser. Haha. Can you help me out and contact a checkuser on my behalf, and maybe just link to this thread? It will carry a lot more weight coming from an administrator. Thanks, Dennis. :) --76.189.114.243 (talk) 01:13, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
That is something you need to do yourself, unfortunately, as it is email and I can't really endorse. This is a bit of an unusual request, and while I do clerk at SPI, I'm not experienced enough in this particular type of request to be of much use, sadly. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 01:14, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
Jasper and Dennis, I feel I should be heard briefly. I made the statements I did when, after a period of two weeks, it became transparently clear to me that these 2 users, Schpinbo and 76, turned up on the Federer page to get rid of an important sentence in the opening paragraph, and also to harass and ridicule me. I would encourage you or any other admin to read their replies to me over the last two weeks and draw your own conclusions.
You do know, do you not, that even if they have different IP addresses, those two names/accounts can still be used by the same person? For example, that one person could be using two different computers or be using some sort of anonymizer program. Whom shall I consult at Wikipedia to report User 76's harassment and stalking of me? I'd really like to know. Thanks for your consideration in this matter, TennisAnalyst004 (talk) 01:18, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
I'm quite aware of the details of socking, even if I'm not a CU, but I will note that my personal policy is that you do not call someone a sock unless you are willing to back it up with a report at WP:SPI, which is the proper venue for reporting sock puppets. I haven't checked your contribs, but I will just let you know that editors that call other editors "socks" regularly without filing, tend to get blocked for being disruptive. It is like calling someone a troll, or a liar. You don't do it without backing it up. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 01:21, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
Understood. User 76 has harassed, stalked, and ridiculed me now ever since he started posting to the Federer page, which was all of about five days ago. I've been on the Federer talk page for over a year and have gotten along with everyone else there. That guy Schpinbo ridiculed and harassed me in very much the same way, within so many days of 76's arrival, which is why I suggested those two may actually be one guy. Anyway, whom at Wikipedia do I consult to report him for stalking and harassment? Please let me know. TennisAnalyst004 (talk) 01:28, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
Dennis, I should've warned you that he would show up here. Whereever I go, he follows. (And I'M the stalker and harasser?) Just read Schpinbo's talk page and that'll give you a great snapshot of Tennis's behavior pattern. By the way, that would be a great trick if our IP addresses (Schpinbo's and mine) were in different cities, states or countries, and we were the same person. Haha. Take care and thanks for the info. --76.189.114.243 (talk) 01:33, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
Wrong, it's the other way around. You follow me all over, and then spam other people's talk pages. I will not let you get away with what I see as a total misrepresentation of fact. TennisAnalyst004 (talk) 01:40, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Dennis, User 76 called me a liar just this morning:

TennisAnalyst, unlike your continued whiny, unsubstantiated claims, I provide proof with what I say. You never do. Haha. Everyone knows exactly what you've done, so repeating your lies endlessly will not help your cause.

This is from the Federer talk page this morning, 11:05, 27 July 2012 (UTC). TennisAnalyst004 (talk) 01:40, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Being in different cities is meaningless. Checkuser isn't magic pixie dust. I can log in here right now and post from three different cities in two different states, and I am not particularly clever, so the geolocation alone doesn't disprove anything. This is why CU information alone is used to determine "socking". Other information, including behavioral, is. While I don't have access to CU data, I do understand behavioral analysis pretty well, which is what I mainly do at WP:SPI. Take it to SPI and file it there. I don't prefer my talk page being turned into a battleground for a pissing match. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 01:42, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
Interesting stuff. So I don't get how they prove two accounts aren't the same. But anyway, I'm just making this request because an admin instructed me to do. In any case, I doubt a real sock would ever request a CU check on himself. That would be sort of dumb. Haha. Take care. --76.189.114.243 (talk) 01:51, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
You would be surprised. Very often a sock will say "then run a CU on me!" and we do, and it matches, and we indef block. People don't fully understand how matches are made, and I'm not inclined to explain the whole process and help socks evade detection. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 01:54, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
Wow, they essentially challenge you and then they end up getting banned? Now that's funny. It sounds like those "dumb criminals" stories you see on the news. You sound like you know a lot about the process. You should be a checkuser. And yeah, you should definitely not give away your trade secrets. ;) --76.189.114.243 (talk) 02:03, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Danceking5

Since you made a post to Danceking5's user page about his current issue at ANI, I figured I would let you know that his response at ANI is a pretty unambiguous legal threat. -Niceguyedc Go Huskies! 01:28, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Holmes

Based on the history, I think locking the article is not the right way to go. The only problem is RedPen. To lock the article based on one editor's disruptive behavior is unfair to those who want to edit the article. I had left a final warning on RedPen's Talk page that one more revert and I would block him. Neither is possible after the lock. Despite my feelings in the matter, I'll leave this to your best judgment.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:41, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

You mean you can't lock the article, then block someone? Then how come...?Joefromrandb (talk) 20:07, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
I've replied on your talk page. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 20:17, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
  • And it appears to be locked in the consensus version. Sometimes the best option is to remove the ability of an editor to get blocked. It doesn't matter how many people are on each side of an argument, only that there are two sides. Protecting the page is the least aggressive, least damaging way to force discussion and let things cool down. Blocking him so he will cool down would be counter to the goals here. I always recommend taking the option that creates dialog, and reduces the chance of a good editor getting blocked over a singular judgement issue. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © (WER) 01:47, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
I think locking the entire article for one person's vandalism isn't productive. RedPen's edit summaries make it clear there was to be no discussion. "Nothing to discuss" was the specific phrase used. Ajoykt (talk) 02:30, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
Please read WP:VANDAL. Red Pen's edits were clearly not vandalism. You are of course free to disagree with my decision, but I suggest precision in your wording in that argument. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © (WER) 02:32, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
The problem I see with locking the article is that a lot of information about Holmes is coming out at the moment, but nobody can add it. All the while there are people who are arguing for merging, because the article is not long enough in their eyes and there's not enough info to change that. The best way to prove them wrong would certainly be to make the article more comprehensive, but it's difficult to do that when you are not allowed to edit. (Lord Gøn (talk) 18:38, 24 July 2012 (UTC))
@Ajoykt, the phrase "Nothing to discuss" was a reference to our BLP policy, not necessarily RedPen's willingness to discuss. WP:BLP says "Contentious material about living persons (or recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion." Just FYI for you. -- Avanu (talk) 19:06, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
Lord Gøn, I understand that can be frustrating, but at the same time you have to remember that we are an encyclopedia, not a newspaper, and the goal is accuracy, not timeliness. The page was only locked two days, a very minor blip in the big scheme of things. Articles are locked regularly, which is a minor inconvenience, but a necessary one sometimes. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © (WER) 09:58, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

re: "Isn't that special"

apologies for my attempt at humor via. text. Chedzilla (talk) 06:30, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Back when I was a yonker, calling myself a "boob" was slang for "an idiot", or "fool" - so it was a bit of self-deprecating humor, and apparently spot-on in this case. Unfortunately "humor" doesn't always play well over the written medium. Chedzilla (talk) 13:58, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
I figured that was how you meant it, but wasn't completely sure. Again, never apologize for good nature humor :) Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 14:00, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Operation Musketeer (1956)

Dennis, I don't have time to deal with this. IF you can, please do.

See this discussion. 92.10.140.17 is the IP I blocked for edit-warring. 92.7.20.126 is probably the same person trying to evade the block. I don't see either IP on the long list of sock puppets of Harvey Carter.

One Night is the user with an attitude, as you can see from his response to my post. I don't understand why editors act this way and never will.

Anyway, you know more than I about SPI and those issues, but, as I said on One Night's Talk page, the IP, whoever he is, provided a reasonable source (I'm not familiar with the source but I believe it's probably reliable) for an otherwise unsourced section. He also provided the source on the article Talk page (and you can see One Night's lovely comments just above that). Improvement of the article should be a concern for all of us.

If you don't have time, I'm sure it'll take care of itself one way or the other. I'm outa here.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:07, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

  • I left him a message. He is correct about how we treat banned users, but very wrong about how we treat each other. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 17:08, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Some people are just that way. I don't think it is smart, but it's not my place to tell others what to think. Anyway, I blocked the sock at SPI, it is a banned user so anyone is pretty much authorized to wholesale revert, and WP:DENY credit. K is decent at spotting socks, even if his table manners aren't the best. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 20:09, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Please review

Hi Dennis, sorry to bother you again. I wondered if you could take a look at my close here and give an opinion? Background is a months-long dispute between Epipelagic (talk · contribs) and Stemonitis (talk · contribs) at Talk:Shrimp over what exactly the respective articles at Prawn and Shrimp should contain. I spent a long half hour reading over the arguments in detail and proposing a way forward, but now Stemonitis is querying the impartiality of my close because, as he says, the way I was notified was not impartial. I believe that I am capable of overcoming any bias inherent in the way the notification was conducted, and I also believe that the important thing now is to move forwards with a solution, however imperfect it may seem to those involved in the dispute. Any input you can give would be appreciated. --John (talk) 08:36, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

  • Let me get some coffee in me and I would be happy to take a look. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 11:18, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
  • I spent an hour reading and reviewing, and have replied at the talk page discussion. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 12:27, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
    • Thank you for your thorough and conscientious review. I would have been fine if you had disagreed with me, but it is gratifying that you thought my close was ok too. --John (talk) 12:36, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
      • When I review, I try to do it properly and comprehensively, so that the community can have confidence in the result. To be sure, if I had disagreed with your close or found any fatal flaw, I would have stated as much and asked for yet another party to reclose the discussion. This is why it took a full hour to review, but in the end I felt your close was a reasonable read of the consensus. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 12:53, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

aswer please

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

I don't understand, I am not allowed to edit if not logged in account? see this example on this page, all edits with IP 188.25... on this page are mine. Steaua what is the problem if im not logged in account? why you say that my edits are suspicious? please look again, only I improved page. please explain to me clearly, I am not allowed to edit if not logged in? if so, why?

second problem is not mine — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.25.179.243 (talk) 13:07, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

edit - what is the problem with this page in this format? i don't understand — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.25.179.243 (talk) 13:09, 29 July 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.25.215.109 (talk)

You are evading a block, you made a legal threat, you are only allowed to log in to your named account and address the legal threat. If you don't, you will be blocked forever. I don't care about your edits, I don't care how wonderful they are, once you make a legal threat and act like a sockpuppet, you are a liability to the community. Address those problems or be blocked forever. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 13:43, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

thanks, i will make another account. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.25.235.176 (talk) 13:59, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Message from Shylocksboy

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

Hello There was an article in a national newspaper last week or the week before saying that the number of editors here had dropped greatly. Various people commented that they had stopped contributing because the site was overseen by too many pedants and single issue fanatics. I noticed yesterday that you have blocked me from editing and also blocked my IP address (which obviously hasn't worked since I'm leaving you this message) because you say I have two accounts (why it's given the ridiculous name of sock puppetry I have no idea but we'll let that pass). I am or, rather I should say, was an enthusiast for Wikipedia. The vast majority of my thousand or so edits have been correcting information, editing appalling writing and removing vandalism. I have more than twenty years' experience of writing on national newspapers so, as I said on my talk page, I do know more about many subjects that most other editors have forgotten or didn't know in the first place (more likely). I have a thorough grounding in the laws of libel and slander so despite what one "editor" (whose name mercifully escapes me) says, I have never added contentious material. I would defend totally every edit I have made. One other editor made the point that very little on here is necessary now and that much can wait, which I now see and agree with. However, there are so many mistakes and so much bad writing on here (I despair that schools are turning out more and more illiterates) that I want it altered now. If other genuine editors/contributors get some of the frankly absurd comments I have faced in the last few weeks, I'm not surprised that contributions are dropping off. Shylocksboy — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.74.76.236 (talk) 13:38, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

  • Obviously, I've blocked this IP, due to policy. The only way you are going to be editing is to log in as Shy, address the concerns, use the process. I've been polite enough to actually answer you here, as I normally just blind block and revert, but I don't think you "get it". As to your credentials, it doesn't matter as this isn't a newspaper, it is an encyclopedia, and I don't think you actually understand how sourcing works in a tertiary source, rather than a secondary source. Oh, and then there is the whole sockpuppeting issue. Don't bother replying, it will just get you blocked and I will just revert it. I've told you how to deal, now deal with it. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 13:57, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Help needed

Hi Dennis. Per the ANI discussion about the Scholarism article, the author is now edit warring to re-introduce the content into the second article here. It seems like an obvious attempt to circumvent AfD to me, but I'm not going to get embroiled in it all, so could you provide a third opinion and warn the appropriate user/take action as necessary? Thanks Basalisk inspect damage⁄berate 14:33, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for taking care of that. Regards Basalisk inspect damage⁄berate 14:47, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Moral and national education

Have you read the aricle closely? It describes a social issue, not a protest group. The issue itself qualifies for wikipedia policies. Some user accused one sentence of the article is a recreation of a previously deleted page, but the page is itself nothing similar to the deleted page on the other parts. The issue will make newspaper headline on almost every newspaper in Hong Kong. If you need comparison, look into the previous version of Scholarism before it was deleted.--Jabo-er (talk) 14:48, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Obvious

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

""obvious ducks, match previous patterns. Blocked, closing. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 01:52, 28 July 2012 (UTC)" Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments [7]

How does that work? Don´t you have better tools than stating "it is obvious"? What is obvious? That people from the same cultural background write the same things? Amazing! Try to go as far a the editor who entered the data for the terminology section. Who entered the data was an IP. I said I was an IP for 9 years. Try this: some of my first edits. on hispanics [8] that goes back 5 years. Still an IP. Try to geolocate. And by the way from all the nonsense that editor may have writen or said there is one other thing I have to say: that page Lusitanic has been sitting there for years, the USA ceated a new meaning for the term hispanic, but wikipedia created a new meaning for the word lusitanic. I just find it an historical relic. 89.214.96.84 (talk) 15:19, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Archiving ANI

Denis, please could you have a look at this.[9] Was it appropriate that Item 13 gaming of my 1-rr restriction by user ankhmorpork should have been archived? Would it have been better if an uninvolved admin such as yourself had closed it first?--Toddy1 (talk) 18:57, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

  • Wow, that is a very large and contentious thread. Normally, I would want to have one of the uninvolved admins who was actually participating and can determine if letting it archive is best or not. User:GiantSnowman or User:Future Perfect at Sunrise Since it archived, that means no one has participated in 24 hours, which might just mean they were beating a dead horse. It is hard for me to come in cold and tell if it should unarchived, but those admins would have a better idea on it. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 19:13, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Request for Admin Sanctions

Rather than rehash it here, this is a live proposal in WP space, based on the same ideas expressed at WP:WER and other places. (and owes a debt to everyone, it is really YOUR ideas). It is a compromise that I think Arbs, Admins and Editors all will find is not perfect, but very workable, flexible and adds zero new bureaucracy. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 22:03, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure if you intend to allow edits to be made directly to the proposal, or for them to be discussed on the talk page first. I'd like to make some minor copy edits, to avoid the use of the word "vote" where possible, to avoid the implication that the process is strictly based on votes (if I understand correctly, the decision is weighed following the usual Wikipedia consensus guideline). Would you like me to draft the changes first and put them up for discussion? isaacl (talk) 23:51, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
I haven't put a formal policy up before, but I'm thinking that if the edit is to fix grammar or minor points that don't change the meaning, then make it. If it more an opinion or changes anything substantial, use the talk page to propose a change and let others voice their opinions on it. Obviously, this is a consensus issue which is why discussion is a good thing. I've already made a few changes where my wording wasn't clear. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 23:58, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
Thanks; I've made some minor copy edits to the proposal. isaacl (talk) 00:19, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Snowwatcher (talk • contribs) 01:37, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

other reading

Hi Dennis, I was thinking it might be useful to look at somethings along these lines that worked for a while but then went to MfD. WP:CSN was one such. I think a number of the issues raised in its MfD might be worth thinking about with regard to the above too so that it avoids these pit falls--Cailil talk 02:33, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Sorry for editing your user page

I was looking at a popup window and clicked on a link just as the window disappeared. I thought "I rolled back what?". Very, very sorry. BusterD (talk) 00:23, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

  • Oh hey, don't worry about it. I give permission for others to edit it. If they make it better, I will leave it. If not, I will revert with no hard feelings. I don't own it, I just have the lease :) Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 01:00, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
I think a high database lag makes my Twinkle act funny. I'll go shower the egg off my face (and dump the crumbs from my keyboard). Love your work! (Apropos of nothing: isn't the the "July miracle at RfA" an unexpected and pleasant turn of events?) BusterD (talk) 01:09, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
I'm particularly thrilled that I was the nom for two of them! It was a very positive experience. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 01:10, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

WP:WER User Box templates

I have created a few userbox templates. This was my first one a while back:

SOPA/PIPAThis user supported the SOPA/PIPA blackout!

.

I will begin work shortly to create a template page for your user box and image and create others using the suggestions from others on the discussion page and place them all on the Project userbox page.--Amadscientist (talk) 21:46, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

  • I would like to see that new image in a mock up userbox as well. Not sure the color, I'm guessing white back on white. Maybe on the main userbox page on the mainpage. That is a good graphic, and I hope it looks good when reduced. some don't, you dont' know til you reduce it. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 21:51, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
  • The good thing is, it can be altered in anyway (actually most can) so if there are visual problems with the reduction we can discuss ways to improve the image just like prose.--Amadscientist (talk) 22:47, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Need an admin

At the very bottom of this page. Noun and I worked together on a bunch of new templates for the {{request edit}} process that's very similar to AfCs. He says we need an admin to move them. Would love if you could chip in really quick. User:King4057 (EthicalWiki) 00:18, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

  • Gosh, I just started a proposal for a major change in admin sanction policy. Let me look and see if I can figure it out. I never mess with templates, so I'm not an expert there. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 01:07, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
  • I've moved it, but it broke something in the template. I assume this is something you can fix.

Template:Request edit/request Normally, you can just move it yourself, then blank and CSD the old page as user request, and get the same result. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 01:12, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the help. Unfortunately, it seems we need another small change made (as I understand) by an admin. Template:Request edit and Template:Request edit/request are in the wrong place and need to be swapped with each other. (The broken bit is where the page at /request tries to grab the existing code, which it expects will be sitting at /request. Thankfully, the wiki has a sanity check which just displays the error message when the template calls itself.) As I understand it, that requires a move without creating a redirect (or overwriting a redirect after it is created). The associated talk pages would also have to be moved. I could try to fix it with copy and paste, but that would probably get me some administrative attention of a far less desirable sort. :) Thanks again for your help. --Nouniquenames (talk) 03:18, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
I'm not sure I understand all of this, or what the problem is with copy/paste, but I did a copy/paste move. If it attracts some kind of complaint, than so be it. :-D User:King4057 (EthicalWiki) 20:04, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
Be bold. If no one ever complaints, you aren't taking enough risks ;) Sorry, I have been mega swamped with the new proposed policy at WP:RAS Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 20:36, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Query

Dennis Brown, do you mind weighing in at User talk:Boing! said Zebedee#Question? Flyer22 (talk) 19:20, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Kind of an ANI notice

I saw WP:ANI#User:Penyulap and thought you'd be interested in it. I'm still formulating my thoughts. Ryan Vesey 21:26, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Taking a bit of a break

Someone falsely assumed that I was somehow 'eager' for the sh** you have to put up with. Considering the wall'o'crap that has lead up to this, I'm asking you, do you think I actually want to be an admin ? I'm dumb sure, but not that stupid. You know the equation, and time shall prove me right that the project can't be saved, despite our best, earnest efforts. So, it's off to work on something better. Penyulap ☏ 22:22, 30 Jul 2012 (UTC)

  • And I will stay here, trying to create it from within. I don't claim to understand you, but not even you are capable of that. I only know enough to understand that I would understand if I knew enough. You aren't happy when you are here, and even when you aren't, but happiness is a choice and not a place. I wish I had more to offer you, but I'm at a loss. I wish you well. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 22:54, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
  • I'll add that "time shall prove me right that the project can't be saved" has been said by very many people repeatedly since at least 2003, probably in exactly those words on occasion. Whatever doom awaits Wikipedia, it sure isn't really good at getting there in a timely fashion to prove any of them right. — Coren (talk) 23:12, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm Used to It

You mentioned in the DreamMcQueen thread that you were "impressed by the amount of restraint [I] was showing", it's actually cause I am pretty used to the insults by now. The ones I heard from DreamMcQueen are ones I have heard numerous times before. Even though I was diagnosed with Aspergers at age 22, I have had it all my life. So, I have always been this way, always will, so I am used to the insults. :) It isn't restraint, but my usual nonchalant attitude when it comes to people who insult me. :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 02:27, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

after (edit conflict) That's too bad. Sorry to hear that. There's not much we wiki users can do about the real life bullying/insults, but if this is going on onwiki? If so we may be able to help.PumpkinSky talk 02:31, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
When you have Aspergers, you develop a thick skin. Some things still get through, but DreamMcQueen's insults weren't one of them. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 02:48, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
  • You might think I was a bit generous with the block, and I agree, but I was so offended, and obviously so, that it was necessary that I block for a "logical" period, and since the last block was 96 hours, 1 week was the next logical step. I will not take any offense if the community overrides this generosity, but I felt that the block needed to happen when it did and he clearly wasn't going to back off his attacks. I accept that the attacks were because of a gross ignorance, but attacks are attacks, just as disruption is disruption, regardless of the reason. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 02:30, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Ahh, OK. I'd only linked the two by following (would you believe?) some link, somewhere ... hehe! Whichever way they go, ideally they should be in one archive. Rollosmokes, by the look of it ;P Pesky (talk) 14:20, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Editor retention talk page and Penyulap

Do you think the block should be mentioned there, or do you think everyone will know why P is no longer participating. I have to admit that I was getting tired of Penyulap's posts and they were driving me away. Dougweller (talk) 06:57, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

  • I don't know, to be honest. Penyulap isn't banned, he was just taking a break, backed by a community block. I'm guessing he will be back but not sure how long. He is a complicated and likable pain in the ass if you get to know him a bit, but the block was strongly backed by the community and he was on a destructive and downward spiral. Just woke up after only a few hours sleep, need to coffee up and think about it. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 09:10, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
    • The other thing to think about is his behavior in article and article talk page space. Maybe I've misunderstood, but it did look like the sort of behavior that drives editors away. Dougweller (talk) 14:38, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
    I really don't like the idea that one editor drives another away, however we do need to remember that this is a volunteer project. There are many reasons that people volunteer, but they all boil down to "because they want to". If they didn't want to, they wouldn't do it. If an editor is causing enough of a problem that other editors don't want to deal with them, then yes, that behaviour is driving other editors away. WormTT(talk) 14:44, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
      • I agree that sometimes editors do. If people are edit warring and it goes unnoticed, you can drive away good editors that are trying to comply with policy. If someone constantly attacks or harasses another edit, you can drive them away. This is why part of editor retention involved even, fair and consistent actions by admins, so people know what the rules are, and what is expected if they breach them. I have seen editors driven away by the maddening process of dealing with disruptive or obstructive editors. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 15:19, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

WP:RAS

Regarding WP:RAS, I've added it to this navbox for easier navigation. If I've misrepresented it, please do feel free to change what I've written, and add any other links that you think should be included. WormTT(talk) 16:12, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Cash prize.

Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 19:52, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Friendly discussion regarding block policy

In no way is this a request for soliciting a block. This is simply an editor asking a question of a successful RFA candidate.

I have a question regarding the Blocking policy. As I read through the page to help me get a firmer grasp on the intricacies of the policy, I am having a hard time reconciling "Blocks should not be punitive" coupled with "Blocks should be used to ... encourage a more productive, congenial editing style within community norms." In my mind a block that is enacted to get a editor to edit within community norms is a punishment to that editor for not following the norms. Could you please help me understand the difference? I wanted to discuss this here with a practicing admin prior to asking at a place like the village pumps, the talk page for blocking policy, or the talk page of AN for fear of being shouted down for the contemplative navel gazing. Thank you for your time. Hasteur (talk) 21:08, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

A large number of blocks are punitive and I've recently come to the decision that at times they should be. For the longest time I argued against civility blocks because they were strictly punitive. Many editors justified them by saying a civility block here prevents incivility in the future. It's a loophole, but a poor one. Perhaps the best thing would be to remove the "blocks should not be punitive" and replace it with "blocks should be made in regards to ongoing or very recent actions". I feel the entire purpose of blocks should not be punitive is to keep someone from being blocked for an action they took yesterday or last week. If we tore down the wall, it would be possible to remove those editors who cannot behave in the manner expected by the community and retain the editors who can but are unwilling to be part of this oftentimes terrible environment. Ryan Vesey 21:19, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
Blocks can't be given for punitive reasons. This is why if an editer really upsets me and deserves a block, I will get another admin to do the block, as they are more neutral. Last night is a good example. I was upset at an editor, so I had to really sit back and think, and ended up blocking them for a week, their 3rd block, even though I wanted to indef them. As it turns out, at ANI they had a discussion, and they decided to indef him, overriding my block (with my prior approval, as always). Because I had my own emotions involved, it was difficult to separate, but I did and erred on the conservative side. This time, I felt I could override my own emotions and make a reasonable call, and did. Other times, I have asked other admins to come in and make a determination because I knew I was too biased, had too strong of emotions to make a rational decision that was fair. (he who shall be nameless).
There is an incidental degree of punitive in all blocks only because they stop someone from editing, but the basis has to be in prevention. Let's say Bob is edit warring. I block him for 24 hours. Two days later, he is back edit warring. Obviously, the 24 hours wasn't sufficient to prevent disruption, so I try 72 hours. He comes back and does the same thing, so 1 week, then 2 week, and eventually indef. The key here is that I'm not trying to "punish" Bob, even if it feels that way. I'm not trying to "educate" Bob, but I hope that the break makes him think twice next time. What I am really doing is trying to give the other editors a peaceful time editing, and the only way I can do that is to remove Bob. It isn't about Bob as much as it is about maintaining peace. An admin's primary role is to foster a fair and equitable environment that allows all productive editors to create and maintain content in peace, by cleaning up messes, settling disputes and creating needed structure. We are servants of the community, not bosses of the community. (my words) Blocking as revenge or as purely punishment is abuse, and a pattern of it demands the admin lose his bit.
And I disagree with civility blocks, because they look good on the surface, but they end up causing more disruption in the long run. I used to think they were good, but now realize how mistaken I was. I've found that I have better luck using my words in those cases, but it isn't easy and takes practice and doesn't guarantee results, but neither does blocking. Being an admin is one hell of a lot more than using the tools, anyway. Personally, I don't judge my success by the number of blocks I give, but rather by the number of blocks I manage to avoid, by reducing the drama and getting both sides to draw a truce and deal with the underlying issues. And to be clear: These are wonderful ideals, and I don't claim I can live up to them every day, but I always try. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 22:59, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Answer to old LD50 question

Hello. I was perusing the Median lethal dose article and ran across your question about ionizing radiation. I attempted to answer there.--Wikimedes (talk) 06:55, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

SPI

I need to add an editor (Wrothscaptcha) to a SPI request for checkuser you recently approved. Can I add the user and my evidence to the existing SPI or do I need to open a new request? Thanks. CorrectKnowledge (talk) 16:37, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Weird checkuser stuff

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

Hey, DB, could you take a look at User:Cparkos? What appears to be a new editor put checkuser block templates on the user and talk pages; I removed them, since they appear not to have ever been blocked, and I don't see them in any open SPIs (and they have no edits, either, for that matter). Am I missing something? Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 20:21, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

LET'S BE CLEAR. HE IS SOCK YOU BLOCK HIM NOBODY CARES.( HE IS OBVIOUS SOCK SITTING BEHIND ME AT NET CAFE) Lokitecho (talk) 20:48, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
Out of curiosity, what other account names have you edited under? Obviously you aren't new, and 2 accounts doesn't mean socking by itself, I'm just wondering.

Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 20:54, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm evading six moths block..but I bet 200 $ DB that you can't find the person behind this account...I'm using TOR man..Mwahaha..Lokitecho (talk) 20:56, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
Fortunately, I don't need to. Indef blocked. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 20:59, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Are you Online?

I need help of administrator...GiantBluePanda (talk) 21:30, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Hiya Dennis!

Are you open to trouting? Arcandam (talk) 01:50, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Admin's Barnstar
Thanks for indef blocking WikAdvisor. Anderson - what's up? 02:27, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Roswell UFO incident?Sunrise

More than enough time had been spent on this issue. Please move along. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 11:26, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Dennis, Could I thank you for your help in protecting the Roswell UFO page from spamming from various IP's. Much appreciated. Regards, David. David J Johnson (talk) 17:50, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Hey Dennis, you are not helping at all. Quite the contrary.

Could I not thank you for protecting the Roswell UFO page from people who are trying to contribute a serious scientific discussion on the case. If you are able to accept Annie Jacobsen's book titled "Area 51" as a worthy item to include on the Roswell case, then include SUNRISE's "Roswell Revealed - The New Scientific Breakthrough in the Controversial UFO Crash of 1947". Your scientific abilities clearly don't extend to checking the references provided by SUNRISE Information Services by reading the book and downloading the documents available from the SUNRISE web site where you can verify the facts (which is more than a number of people can say about the book, Area 51) before going ahead and locking down the page. If you accept the word of one person who claims someone is spamming without checking the facts, you should not be the admin editor of Wikipedia. Plain and simple.

  • Discussions happen on the talk page, not the article. If you are serious about discussion, go there instead of spamming. If you keep spamming, we can start blacklisting URLS to the book, but that would actually affect your Google rankings since they do monitor our blacklist (oh, and I do marketing for a living, trust me on this one). Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 10:52, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Hi Dennis, Sorry to disturb you once again. But it appears having read the SUNRISE website tonight - that they are intimating that they will change the Roswell UFO page as soon as it becomes available for editing by unregistered users on 31 August 2012. Whilst it may be advisable to wait and see, I am also concerned that they will try another edit war with the usual offensive, unsigned contributions to individual Talk Pages (as has happened in the last two days). They seem to have no respect for the Wikipedia conventions and rules, the case for blacklisting is even stronger. With best wishes, David. David J Johnson (talk) 20:42, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi Dennis. Please ignore the previous comment. It is clear there is an irrational fear by this individual that someone from SUNRISE is going to change (or destroy) the entire Roswell UFO Incident page because of one important contribution entry they wish to make. This individual is clearly focussing on some other aspect of the SUNRISE web site that they cannot see the relevance and high level importance of the contribution. If anything, I sense the individual is afraid to have new and significant scientific research entering the discussion on the Roswell case on this guy's page. If the real issue is more to do with so-called advertising of any book (I do note the page does advertise the existence of various other books from other authors), then modify the SUNRISE contribution to reduce the advertising aspect if you feel it is appropriate. This should not be a case of one person thinking one organisation is going to be nasty and bring down one page or change everything just so he can stop the important contribution of one research group from reaching Wiki readers.. The purpose of Wikipedia is to "encourage people to contribute" important (and verifiable, may I add) information and to help improve the quality of that information to readers. It is not about censorship. It is about open-mind and healthy discussion of the topics on Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.170.213.61 (talk) 22:54, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

  • Well, I did notice this tidbit:

Updated wikipedia page on the Roswell UFO Incident page under "Further Developments" to explain the latest research work. However, please note that this information is being regularly by other people (dates when our information has been removed include 28, 29 and 31 July 2012). It would appear someone is assuming the entry is advertisement. But instead of editing it to ensure it meets the standards, it is better to remove the entire entry discussing the latest scientific results. SUNRISE will endeavour to regularly re-add this information for the benefit of the public. Currently put across into dispute resolution, the next date to add the information is on 31 August 2012. cite

This really makes it pretty clear that there the intention to edit war. But I'm not going to change the protection at this time, since protection is usually not for a single spammer, blocks are. Of course, if it keeps getting spammed after protection is up, I will add the domain to the blacklist, which is way more effective, although not good news for their google results. Or complain to unlimited-space.com/dedicatedservers.net.au, or simply block their ranges. Lots of network engineer's here, it isn't hard to calculate the ranges. What is interesting is the type of connections the 101 IP uses each time, which is an odd location and proxy, and I see a lot of spamming traffic coming from this organization, many that are already blacklisted on other sites. If needed, I can rangeblock for a year or two here, so it is easy to see there are several tools at our disposal. So Mr. IP, if I haven't made myself clear before, you should limit yourselve to the talk page, and try to actually work with editors and provide them with information about the book and take a more humble attitude here. We don't tolerate spammers, but we are willing to consider the possibility that the book is worth mentioning, in a discussion, on that article talk page, not here. And David, feel free to ping me here anytime regarding this issue. I'm typically highly available. I trust that if they act in good faith, you will take a look and be open minded as to the appropriateness of the link, or book mention. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 23:25, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Dennis, Agree with everthing you say. I am sure you realise that I'm open to good faith edits and Talk Page contributions. What I dislike is the tone of the unsigned contributions and the lack of respect for Wikipedia conventions. Thank you for all your help. David. David J Johnson (talk) 23:43, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Interesting. I can see what's been written. Clearly not SUNRISE fault. It is making an important contribution. And clearly wants to let people know where to find more information. From the discussion so far, it is clearly not a question of advertisement through the contribution by SUNRISE (and I can see something important by SUNRISE to contribute), but rather whether the people at SUNRISE is following Wikipedia conventions as well as the way people at Wikipedia are taking a negative interpretation on the SUNRISE suggestion that it will have to re-add the information. Sounds like someone at Wikipedia doesn't want the contribution to go ahead (making any funny excuse not to allow it, and especially since we've now evolved from the advertising explanation after realising the Roswell UFO Incident page just happens to discuss some Roswell books to something else), let alone make contact with SUNRISE through its easy-to-see email address on the preferred approach to submitting contributions. Happy to find anything people here don't like, but not willing to help SUNRISE with an email. Rather it is better to run off to someone else in Wikipedia recommending a block on someone from SUNRISE. I disagree with Dennis on the issue. Focus on the content, not the rules (or conventions). Want to focus on conventions? Fine. You need to make clear to everyone what are the conventions? Because I've just started to look at Wikipedia for the first time (yes, I'm young, but I want to learn new things), and on first glance of a typical Wikipedia page I see the links for editing. The natural interpretation for this by anyone is that individuals anywhere in the world can make reasonable edits to improve the content and contribute new information for the benefit of Wikipedia readers. Once the changes are done, the main editor(s) of the page can review the changes and if it is verifiable and backed up with solid research, and the improvements does significantly improve the writing to make things clearer and more accurate, then it will be accepted. Or he may make further edits, whichever is appropriate at the time. However the preferred convention being suggested here is to take on the traditional magazine or newspaper etiquette of expecting people to figure out who is the editor of the page, make a suggestion in the Talk discussion page of the editor or whoever is checking the WIkipedia pages (and hopefully he is the right one) and, if the editor considers the contribution relevant, may put it on the wikipedia page. If this is the preferred approach, then all Wikipedia pages should always be locked and a link provided direct to the editor for people who want to contribute. Wikipedia's page design for allowing people to edit is clearly stating a new way of contributing (with the usual checks by other editors). So which do you prefer? Contribution in Talk discussion, or contribution direct on the Wikipedia page? Choose and design the Wikipedia page to ensure people do follow your conventions. Extraordinary excuses I am seeing here. Just put the contribution in so I and others can learn something new and interesting. Cheers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.170.213.72 (talk) 08:57, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

  • Read WP:COI and WP:Five pillars. To put it bluntly, Wikipedia is overrun with people who are trying to add links to their webpages, books, products, etc. We are very aggressive about filtering this spam. If you act like a spammer, you will treated like one. If you can admit you have a conflict of interest but can work with people, we are all exceedingly willing to consider any idea. When you just force your book into an article when others have doubts, and use inappropriate methods (by our accepted guidelines), then you waste our time. Right now, you are taking up MY time that I could be using to write articles, but instead I'm having to explain over and over. We all are biased in one way or another. I sell products, too, and I don't edit the articles that relate to the products I sell now, I use the talk page. I'm saying you should do the same thing. I can't be any more fair than that. This insures the content is decided by a neutral party. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a blog, forum, fashion magazine or social network. The criteria for including information is well documented here if you look. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 12:05, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Its not my book. I'm just interested in seeing the fascinating results of what I've just read get put on Wikipedia. However, I'm not going to copy all the text of a book and put it on a Wikipedia page just so it seems like it is not "spam". And I will only get in trouble with SUNRISE who I see are legitimately selling a book to support their research activities. I consider myself to be "neutral" after receiving this contribution and reading the book. And I'm happy to help. So what next? How many "neutral" people do you need before the contribution is added? I take it you have informed SUNRISE that someone has made a contribution and is being checked? Not sure how long it takes (I can see SUNRISE has been told nothing). Surely by now you should know what the situation is. As for whether it is spam (or advertising), the contribution is not a solid, throughout advertisement saying, "Hey guys, buy this book!" and that's it. The contribution focuses significantly on presenting the essential facts from the research. The only tricky bit is when a reader asks, "Hmmm, Where can I get more information?" If you don't at least mention the main source where the research is published, readers will be scratching their heads, picking out of their bums and wondering what to do next. From looking at this contribution, I see one piddling paragraph at the beginning that has to highlight where to find more information, the 90 per cent or more of the contribution is the core facts of the research. This brings me to the question of, what constitutes advertising? From my understanding, anything that highlights a subject, a person, or anything else in a slightly disproportionate way compared to the surrounding or accompanying text (or other type of information) can be considered a form of advertising. Even the mere mentioning of a person's name on Wikipedia is a form of advertising. And I see book titles on the Roswell UFO Incident page — clearly must be advertising too. Yet somehow they have gone through as okay. Perhaps I should ask SUNRISE to give me more references to make the contribution "look" more like an encyclopaedia entry. Well, I'm not putting in the bells and whistles of flashing lights and lots of colour everywhere, or that would definitely be advertising wouldn't it? It seems like the right contribution to make to Wikipedia. So what now? Well, I am glad to see more "neutral" people from Wikipedia (oops! Sorry, I shouldn't mention the word, as that's advertising; and, of course, I assume Wikipedia is indeed a "neutral" party and not in the game of censoring important contributions) are checking it out (and hopefully focussing on the research facts in a neutral way). Better than a kick in the face I would say with the possible blocking of someone for contributing something and being worried about SUNRISE re-adding the information (I imagine they must be seeking other "neutral" people just like me). Except, from what I have seen so far, other people helping to re-add the contribution if they think it is alright is clearly not helping the cause, is it?

  • I don't have time for silly games. I see thousands and thousands of spammers per month, I've been here 6 years and edited over 25000 times. I have a well developed bullshit detector. I've given you the information you need to get your book considered. You would be wise to not treat people like fools here, admit your conflict of interest, your relationship, and not try to be so clever, because we have seen it all. Honesty is rewarded, deception is blocked and locked and listed with Google as spam, period. Now please move along, I need to help people who actually want to build an encyclopedia and you have exhausted all the good will I have on this subject. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 21:50, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

What game are you talking about? Just admit that there are independent people out there wanting to build your encyclopedia with quality information. The people to focus are the readers of Wikipedia. What aspect of the contribution I am providing for SUNRISE is bullshit? Certainly not spam. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.172.127.233 (talk) 09:27, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi

At this point, we are focusing more on style than substance and I don't think I can explain any better than I already have. As my time is limited, we just need to move ahead on what really matters, a solution, and accept differences for what they are. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 06:53, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Ok I'm really getting the impression that your pride is hurt or something.

You appear to talk about "JC and me" recently in several straw polls, and we've been friendly on the past. But suddenly I don't support a proposal you make, and try to explain the issues that I feel it has, and you suddenly seem upset with me?

Anyway, to address your recent comments (which I hope you will refactor), let me give a bit of a timeline: I started this de-adminship discussion theme at WT:RFA. And then I posted a proposal stemmed from that discussion. after that WTT started an RfC, and he dropped me a note about it before it went "live". And at one point he said to me that he hoped I would add the WT:RFA proposal to the RFC. I did.

I've commented throughout. And discussed with many people, including you. And I have expanded/developed the proposal.

In the meantime, in the middle of that timeline somewhere, you created your proposal. Great!. So I started to talk with you about it, making some suggestions based upon some things I have seen and was seeing. About halfway through I realised (through discussion with you) that I wasn't looking at the title closely enough (request for admin sanctions) which made it clear that your focus in this proposal was broader than I had thought the process was; than what I had thought it was when I first went there. I even tell you that I'll show you what I mean (by using my earlier proposal).

After that someone asked for debate/comparison between the two proposals. Which I thought wasn't a good idea. and tried to explain why, and also reiterated my concerns with that proposal because they asked.

And since then I've gotten the impression that you're upset with me. "more proper" definitely being an indicator. I started to respond there, but then decided that a page as highly watched as that was probably not the nicest place to ask you about this.

Incidentally, crossposting to noticeboards and asking some individuals to help with or to comment on your proposal prior to starting an RfC on it is very common practice. Indeed, I note that you have as well. (I'm not bothering with diffs here, I'm fairly certain that you're fairly aware of all of this.) So appearing to be snarky about it, is surprising. This isn't a competition. Up until now, I thought we all (individually, in small groups, and in community-wide discussions) were working on ways to try to figure out what is for the betterment of Wikipedia. But apparently you see differently? I don't know, I can only guess now.

I believe that most people know me as someone who is more than happy to engage in discussion on most wikipedia topics. I do so freely and forthrightly and collegiately. On Wikipedia, I've always been a strong believer of AGF, but with the caveat of "until lack of good faith is shown".)

I don't think lack of good faith has been shown here, but I do think that there seems to be an issue. If you feel I am mistaken, please clarify.

Now if you have no problem with there being an issue, that's up to you, and I'll leave you be. Otherwise, I would rather we returned to being friendly.

If you thought anything different of me, you have my sincere apology. - jc37 02:41, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

  • Sorry about the length, but I respect your concerns enough to be detailed here, and being over 3 hours past my usual bed time, I am likely not as concise as I would normally be.
  • You and I do share a lot of the same ideas, Jc37, but we also diverge greatly on many issues as well. We also have very different methods that are a bit conflicting. As to who started first or not, that isn't a big deal to either of us really. I understand if you haven't, but if you looked back at my history here, my comments, my actions, my decisions, you would likely understand my perspective more, and see a very focused individual. I'm an old fart who has spent a lifetime in the business world, not academia, so I tend to do things a bit differently, such as presenting an idea and let it stand on its own, and taking every project and yes, turn it into stone soup. That is actually a huge part of who I am, a life philosophy, not an off the cuff remark.
  • But I'm not mad at you, even if I think you let your exuberance get the better of you at times. Boundless energy isn't a bad thing, it just isn't as effective as focused energy. If you notice, my comments about linking to the larger project it isn't about putting my ideas first or pushing it in front of yours (it should be quite clear I've never done that) it is about getting people to look at everything, not just mine, not just your idea. If someone has a better idea, I would be happy to put my support behind them. I was a bit surprised, however, at your participation at RAS. Your comments seemed to be trying to pick it apart, and obviously you weren't interested in improving it because you had previous made it crystal clear that you didn't and couldn't support the proposal. That might be perceived as badgering, attempting to discredit a "competing" idea, and some of your comments were quite misleading. I try to assume good faith, but it is quite inappropriate, which is why I never would have considered doing the same on your proposal page. I thought I was rather gracious about it, to be honest, and I'm known to not hold a grudge.
  • I think that our motivations must be different in these designs, as evidenced by our comments at RAS about admins and being subject to blocks and other sanctions fairly. I have no idea what yours are, and honestly, I haven't given it much thought as I've been focused on my own. The whole purpose of RAS is that the current system is NOT fair, but in order to achieve equality, we must be fair to EVERYONE, including the admin accused of something. There is a great undercurrent of resentment among a sizable minority of editors, much of it undeserved, but some of it well earned. This is why I have remained firm on the idea that the system can't be binary, for the admin's own sake, and to be fair to the community as well. Other proposals have failed because they don't properly address the human element. Not your proposal, but past ones.
  • The reason I stopped discussion wasn't about your comments, it was because I know that if you and I bludgeon the discussion, it makes others less willing to participate. I actually wrote an essay on a different type of bludgeoning, the kind that happens at AFD in particular, back in 2008, so I'm aware of the stifling effect when two people dominate a discussion, and I'm quite interested in the community response.
  • If the community decides that they want only binary options, that is fine, and I will go work on other projects instead. Had you not had your own proposal and had taken the time to ask a great deal of questions, as to understand some of the details that are not so obvious, I can imagine you would have supported it. There is more than meets the eye, and my gut feeling says they want more options.
  • The big (and perhaps irreconcilable) difference is how we view people. I believe that an admin can screw up and still doesn't need to lose the bit. Again, WP:WER has confirmed much of what I've already known, that harsh sanctions make us lose good people, and an admin that is screwing up isn't a bad person, they are usually a good person using bad methods. From my experience, I have an incredible amount of faith that people can change their behavior when properly motivated, and I would rather push an admin into a 3 month break, with some mentoring, allow them to experience an epiphany, and come back a better admin. You seem to think that won't work, yet I have decades of real world experience that knows it most often can. You come across as having a more pessimistic view of people in general than I, which is discouraging.
  • "Being a sysop is no big deal" simply isn't true anymore. We are one of the largest websites in the world and the tools are very powerful. While we don't need to make it "a bigger deal", it is still a big responsibility, and demands flexibility in how we deal with admins, or you make it an even bigger deal. Most of the old timers will tell you the same, for good reason. Learn from your elders.
  • Neither of us should be "selling" our ideas, only putting them out and letting others take part in developing them. Honestly, I couldn't give a damn about the "credit" for the plan. I've been blessed in life and little things like that don't affect me so much. What I do care about is the result, and it is easy to see that I'm focused like a laser on making sure that some reasonable plan becomes policy this year.
  • As to working together, I am sure we will cross paths in the future. If you really looked at this deeper and wanted to ask serious questions about the whys and hows that made up this plan, then IRC would be a good venue (this is too slow and verbose). If not, I understand as well and it really doesn't bother me if you disagree, I expect several will but I'm not easily discourage. It is my desire that the discussion be driven primarily by the community rather than us, since we are the ones presenting the ideas and we should answer to them, not the other way around. But in the end, I want the discussion to be neutral, looking at every idea, every plan, every comment and every option, bar none because in the end, that is the only way anything will get done. And getting something done is what I am focused on. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 05:08, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for responding. It will obviously take me a bit to try to respond. So in the meantime, obviously please feel free to head to bedtime  : ) - jc37 05:42, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Email is likely a better option as well. And for highly watched, don't be surprised if more people watch this page, but I do agree it doesn't belong there. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 14:05, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
Well, I made the mistake of taking my own advice, getting some sleep. And following that, RL repeatedly called. My apologies. I'll attempt to respond shortly. - jc37 11:31, 2 August 2012 (UTC)


I'll try to address each of your points in order.
"We also have very different methods that are a bit conflicting... I tend to do things a bit differently, such as presenting an idea and let it stand on its own, and taking every project and yes, turn it into stone soup...I was a bit surprised, however, at your participation at RAS. Your comments seemed to be trying to pick it apart..."
Apparently we do. First, none of these proposals are in "final form" yet, as we both have affirmed, I believe? The way to address any multi-faceted proposal is to break it into fundamental parts and "delve in" examine and discuss. With any of these types of proposals, we need to look close at the details, look at how they interact with each other while focused in on the details, and at the same time, we need to stand back and look at these things with a "wide angle lens" as well. So this is what I did. Looking at the component parts, I saw/see issues, and tried to discuss that with you. Later realising there was what I considered to be a few fundamental issues (broadness in allowable types of sanctions - I'll cover that below). And incidentally, that is what I think WTT was trying to do with the RfC: get opinions on some general fundamentals. The only time I suggest a stet proposal to the community is when I think it's ready for a straw poll/RfC.
"As to who started first or not, that isn't a big deal to either of us really... If you notice, my comments about linking to the larger project it isn't about putting my ideas first or pushing it in front of yours (it should be quite clear I've never done that) it is about getting people to look at everything, not just mine, not just your idea..."
Normally I'd agree with you, I only said that because of how I was interpreting several comments I'd seen you make. I was getting the impression you felt that I was attempting to in some way bypass standing discussion, when actually, those discussions stemmed from the discussions I began, and the bulleted list/proposal that stemmed from those initial discussions. The whole thing was just coming across "odd" to me. to where I finally was wondering (as I note above) that your comments may be reflecting injured pride in some way. Your comments suggesting that it would be "more proper" to link to a subsequent discussion of these things just come across oddly. Why would it be "more proper"? I'm working on a proposal, it's still in discussion mode, and I'm asking editors for their insight. How is this different than anything else we're doing? And for that matter, you started posting such notices to noticeboards and the like concerning your proposal (this, for example). So, based upon your assertion, why didn't you link to the RFC rather than merely your own proposal? Out of all your comments, these really seem like the most difficult to support. As I said above, I hope you will give that some thought and refactor, based upon your own comments.
"I was a bit surprised, however, at your participation at RAS. Your comments seemed to be trying to pick it apart, and obviously you weren't interested in improving it because you had previous made it crystal clear that you didn't and couldn't support the proposal. That might be perceived as badgering, attempting to discredit a "competing" idea, and some of your comments were quite misleading. I try to assume good faith, but it is quite inappropriate, which is why I never would have considered doing the same on your proposal page. I thought I was rather gracious about it, to be honest, and I'm known to not hold a grudge."
I was indeed trying to discuss with you. And I am known for being open minded. This being a type-written environment, clarification through discussion is not just an option, it's a necessary way of life. And if you'll note, I actually edited your proposal to try to help. And when I formatted my previous proposal at WT:RFA to the RAA page, I essentially was trying to show you what I was talking about. Ideology of what you would like to see in the process aside, there are a lot of phrasing "fixes" that I personally think could help your proposal.
And I'll note that your suggestion that discussion is "badgering", and feeling you should be "gracious about it", suggests to me that you were not seeing this as open discussion, and possibly were seeing my delving into your proposal as a personal attack upon you. Which of course it is not. A proposal is just that. A proposal. We can be proud of them, but in the end, it's just a bunch of type-written words. Look to scotty wong's comments at WP:AN concerning my proposal. I WP:AGF that he is commenting about his feeling of such proposals in general, and is noting parts of my proposal which he feels concern about. I don't see them at all as attacks upon me. Everyone is going to have opinions on this. We're discussing something which people have STRONG opinions about. So the best we can do is try to address as much of everyone's concerns, while trying to create a workable process.
"The reason I stopped discussion wasn't about your comments, it was because I know that if you and I bludgeon the discussion, it makes others less willing to participate. I actually wrote an essay on a different type of bludgeoning, the kind that happens at AFD in particular, back in 2008, so I'm aware of the stifling effect when two people dominate a discussion, and I'm quite interested in the community response."
Regardless of whether I agree with your essay, this isn't AFD. I have no doubt that when it comes to topics which involve RFA and/or involves adminship, people will break down any barrier to come comment. I say this from personal experience. The only thing I think will prevent people from commenting is that they think a proposal has no chance, so they don't bother. You are, of course, welcome to disagree.
'If the community decides that they want only binary options, that is fine, and I will go work on other projects instead. Had you not had your own proposal and had taken the time to ask a great deal of questions, as to understand some of the details that are not so obvious, I can imagine you would have supported it. There is more than meets the eye, and my gut feeling says they want more options."
You're right in that I do not support it as it stands.
As for my "opposition", through discussion, I can be persuaded of many things. As long as we stay within Wikipedia's long standing fundamental foundations, I'm persuadable of an opinion, and at worst, discussion can only help those discussing more clearly understand their own opinions. The fundamental problem I see with your proposal is how it (seems to me) to broadly duplicate an arbcom case. the only change I am proposing is to allow the community a clear process for de-sysopping. While still leaving the fundamental concept of "arbcom review" in place. Yours seems to me to be reducing arbcom to a hand wave. Arbcom is a political entity, as much as we'd like it not to be. So just like any body elected by the community, if given any chance to not have to decide something (to not be "blamed" or to be seen as "the bad guys") they will leap at the chance. This is simple human nature. So your process, while well-meeant, will have rather wide ranging consequences.
As for stating that "an admin is just another editor", they are. Admins have advanced editing tools, and project policing tools. And just like the world outside the wiki, people can have issue with those who police what they do. What helps a community have better faith (trust) in their police is knowing that problematic individuals can have that removed in a timely manner. I firmly believe that much of the problems currently at RfA is because the community really doesn't have that faith in the process. Just having a working community-wide de-adminship process in place should help with the tone at RfA.
This process shouldn't be blocking, even topic banning. Those should be applied to the editor, not merely their use of admin tools. If we want to "block" admin tool usage due to disruption, the way to do that is to remove the tools.
"The big (and perhaps irreconcilable) difference is how we view people. I believe that an admin can screw up and still doesn't need to lose the bit."
I do too.
" I would rather push an admin into a 3 month break, with some mentoring, allow them to experience an epiphany, and come back a better admin. You seem to think that won't work, yet I have decades of real world experience that knows it most often can. You come across as having a more pessimistic view of people in general than I, which is discouraging."
I don't disagree with the principle, I disagree with the implementation. I think creating the idea of a 'suspension" will help cement the mindset that having the tools is a huge deal. (I really did not like your suggestion that having the tools removed is "execution".) The more people are used to the idea that tool gaining and removal should be considered no big deal, the better it will be tone-wise.
"Most of the old timers will tell you the same, for good reason. Learn from your elders."
Nice.
Anyway, I'll just hand wave to Manning's recent comments. (Sorry to pick one person out of many.) I think opinions in the community are very varied. But that aside, besides commenting that you really clearly do not know me, I think the proper answer to this is - :P
"But in the end, I want the discussion to be neutral, looking at every idea, every plan, every comment and every option, bar none because in the end, that is the only way anything will get done."
Neutral discussion? We have policy regarding WP:INVOLVED for good reason. I think you meant open discussion. But regardless, I would suggest that you aren't neutral on this, and have fairly clear opinion, as you have stated.
As I said before, this doesn't need to be a competition. From what I am seeing, these things are not mutually exclusive. And even while noting your past stated opinions, I would love to hear your thoughts on my proposal as well.
As for off wiki discussion, I tend to prefer transparency of on-wiki discussion. That said, if you feel you would like to talk through email, I suppose I am not opposed to that.
I obviously didn't copy/answer every single sentence. If there is something you feel I didn't address, please let me know.
As before, I do wish you well. - jc37 13:08, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Please consider my talk page. Thank you

Please check my talk page at the following link, and please leave a comment about what you think of Bearian's "Final Warning" alleging that I was in any way "disruptive" or "vandalizing" - on my own My Talk page. I respect your opinion and will follow your recommendation. Also, MART2012 is a unique person, with her own ideas, and not a sock puppet. Please consider restoring her account. Thank you. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Inetcafebooth6&pe=1&#Your_tone...._again Thank you University Internet Cafe Booth 6 (talk) 16:40, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

  • I am a little confused as to the entire sequence of events there. I suggest just politely asking Bearian for clarification on his talk page. That is usually a good place to start. As to socking, I would need more info. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 16:57, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Non admin closure of my ANI on the MICH IP sock

Hi Dennis,

I was caught up short to see that a non-admin closed my ANI proceeding. The guidelines for nonadmin closures do not mention this context as an appropriate place for non admin closure, specifically, and I'm hoping you'll un-close the discussion.

While blocking a range of IPs is problematic, it is (A) less than 12 hours since I opened the ANI, (B) the IP themself should get a chance to answer, if only for future reference, and (C) other impacted editors (mostly climate page editors) should also get a chance to sound off. Perhaps out of this airing some approach other than page protection will emerge. And perhaps, after due discussion, it will still be closed for the reasons the non-admin editor cited.

Thanks for your consideration, I'll be glad to abide by your timely judgment on re-opening the discussion on basis of premature closure. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 18:31, 2 August 2012 (UTC) Nevermind. Another admin converted the non admin closure into a one-month soft block of the range. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:07, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Youreallycan

He's causing problems on WP:BLPN and Stephen M. Cohen, again. Would you please speak to him, because I have a feeling he will not accept any sort of argument from me (he's already reverted content 3 times under the pretense he is protecting a BLP).—Ryulong (竜龙) 00:31, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

He has been edit warring with me because I will not allow him to add a link to the comment I posted on Coren's talk page. I have reported him to AN3 for this.—Ryulong (竜龙) 01:59, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

You've got mail!

Hello, Dennis Brown. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added 04:06, 3 August 2012 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

MJ94 (talk) 04:06, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Catfish

So where should I have reported it, if not at ANI? Especially, as it turns out, since he had already been warned before about this kind of thing? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 13:05, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

  • Talk to him, talk to an admin that works at AIV. Revert him if he makes a mistake, and if he balks about it, just ask an admin. Try the talk page at AIV itself. The problem with ANI is it is often like killing flies with a shotgun, and it is easy to cause more damage than the result is worth. This is why it should be the last result. I don't think you intended for it to get out of hand, but ANI is that way. To many drive by comments that ramp up the drama, which is why it is better to keep in the areas where people care about the subject, like the talk pages of the venue where the mistakes are being made. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 13:14, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) Generally, I either remove reports that have been declined by an admin and have been sitting there for a few hours, or comment on reports. Usually, an admin clears out the reports that I comment on at 00:00 UTC. Also, had you reverted my an used an edit summary saying why I was wrong, I would've stopped and not objected. However, comments such as this are very rude and not appreciated, and are what made me retire: Well shit. It looks like JamesBWatson warned them in June, as well. We got trouble; we are not getting through to this editor. -- Dianna (talk) 04:26, 3 August 2012 (UTC). Electric Catfish 13:57, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
  • I'm very aware of our subpar methods used for dealing with problems. I've been on that end of the stick before, where I think I'm doing something right and someone bites my head off, when a simple discussion would have sufficed. I truly don't think Bugs meant to bite your head off and instead just didn't know where to take what he legitimately felt was a problm, and the process of ANI itself is a poor one to deal with these problems. This is why I try to jump into issues quickly and resolve when I can. We all need to just back away for a day or two, and then have a real conversation on what is and isn't the best thing for non-admins to do in the venues, so there isn't further misunderstandings. I think everyone knows that everyone here was trying to do the right thing and no one was trying to hurt Wikipedia, so lets just keep focused on that if we can. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 14:06, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
Dennis, I totally agree with you. I've seen many experienced editors leave because of a rude ANI report. Also, I appreciated how many people commented that most of the work I do at AIV and UAA is good. I need a break, though. Best, Electric Catfish 14:17, 3 August 2012 (UTC).
Dennis, Bugs had every right to post at AIV. Your poor perception of AIV aside reporting to individual admins or the talk page for AIV can take hours or days to get a response. To enhance the quote from Dianna that is shoehorned into Catfishes post above a look at his/her talk page shows concerns about his/her activities at AIV expressed on June 12 by JamesBWatson, on June 28 by Luke and by Ponyo on July 8. Yet he was still making errors there yesterday. In other areas on July 6 Ian thomsan had to leave a message about another AIV item that Catfish had misinterpreted and on July 10 Acalamari had to leave a message about his/her actions at Requests for permissions/Rollback. At a guess this is a young and overenthusiastic editor who may be taking in the advice given to them or may not depending on ones POV. Well I am sure that you won't like this post so please feel free to remove it but I have seen far worse things happen here (and in places other than ANI) over the years then occurred in this situation and if Catfish decides to retire that is totally on him/her and should not be laid on anyone elses doorstep. MarnetteD | Talk 14:42, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
I never said Bugs had no rights to post at ANI, he knows that, I hope. I get along with Bugs quite well. I just said it is typically better to exhaust other remedies before going to ANI (I assume that is what you meant). I've made it clear that Bugs had a legit concern. And you obviously don't know me very well, I do not suppress different opinions from others here (and really, I don't have any issue with your post), but it would be helpful if you understood the relationships involved. I personally like all the players here, and my goal is to find a solution with the least drama, that is all. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 14:49, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
Marnette, that comment offends me a bit. I appreciated that Dennis was trying to lift me up and you didn't help me out with that. Electric Catfish 14:48, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
I'm also going to fully retire because of that comment. Electric Catfish 14:49, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Hey MarnetteD. I think Dennis is under the same impression as I am, that ANI is not a pleasant place to be if you view it from the perception of the "target". There's a number of reasons why it's problematic, for one thing, there's a crowd of onlookers baying for blood, many of whom are not willing to look into the case in depth, then there's the fact that you have to have come there looking for sanctions and people are so willing to block over smallest things. We have many different areas for dispute resolution, ANI should be used for emergencies, where there is no other option. Now, Catfish has cause a few problems in the past, and I've signed up to mentor him. He does an awful lot of good too, and I'm sure he'll go from strength to strength with a bit of guidance. WormTT(talk) 14:52, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

DB's point was that there are better ways to handle a situation than blast someone at ANI. I do not appreciate your statement. Electric Catfish 14:53, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, Dave. Electric Catfish 14:54, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
Catfish - you've told me you're going off wiki for the weekend. Let's start that now. Just close the browser. I've got it from here. We'll chat about things on Monday. WormTT(talk) 14:55, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
Bye! Electric Catfish 14:56, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
You know, when you say you're going to "fully retire" because of what MarnetteD said, methinks you're a bit too sensitive for your own good. Like the boy who cried wolf. Listen to your mentor. Doc talk 14:58, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
I got edit conflicted with Worm, but it turned out to be a good thing as he summed it up better than I was going to. And MarnetteD, I respect your concern for Bugs and desire to protect, but I actually think highly of them so my words were just advice to prevent drama, not a scolding. Most of these guys know they can come here and get a neutral point of view in a less drama filled environment. That is one of the ideas behind WP:WER, the project I advertise in my sig., a Project I founded. To me, it is all about keeping good editors here and working out issues without pointing fingers when possible. And Doc, the heat of the moment makes us all want to do that sometimes. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 15:02, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
Sometimes, yes. "I'm also going to fully retire because of that comment." may not send up any flags for you, but it does for me. We need new editors, but we don't need to coddle them like babies. As I said on your talk page, Catfish: toughen up. It's a big, bad world out there... Doc talk 15:11, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Worm and DB thanks for your responses. I do understand the heavy drama at ANI. DB while we have never had previous interactions I have watched the good efforts that you put in trying to make things work around here. This statement "There is a proper way to deal with these issues, and ANI is not it." read to me as though you were saying that Bugs did not have the right to post about this situation there. My apologies if I misread it. Then later in the same post you state "but needless to say I will not be amused if he really does retire over this". I have seen so many editors claim that it was other people who were "forcing" them to retire (including in this thread) when that is just not the case. We all have to be willing to take criticism as well as praise around here to make things work. That is just my 2 cents so apologies for any offense caused and I hope everyone has a nice weekend. MarnetteD | Talk 15:14, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Note there were at least three edit conflicts so some of what I just posted may be OOD. MarnetteD | Talk 15:16, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
I understand how my directness could be misunderstood, but I wouldn't blame Bugs, we are all responsible for our actions. I wouldn't be amused because I hate seeing ANI run people off, regardless of who brought it there. The process itself is a bit ugly, and yes, since I founded WikiProject Editor Retention, I hate to see good people go. Most people know that I think ANI is an ugly place, which is why I work it very hard every day, to try to keep the drama level down, and not point fingers. And I wasn't offended at all, you felt like you needed to defend a friend and you weren't sure how I meant what I said. Note the link in my signature for my talk page, 2¢, so obviously I expect people to drop theirs off here regularly. We are all on the same side here, even if we have different ideas, that is all that matters. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 15:44, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for your note. Just to clarify while Bugs and I have had conversations over the years I don't know that we would classify each other as friends. My post here was brought about by the fact that - as overly dramatic as it is - a post at ANI can be the only place to get a response in a given situation. I have seen reports at AIV and other places sit for hours before being looked at and reports at SPI can take weeks. It is more than a little frustrating to go through the proper channels and see little or nothing done for the time one puts in trying to protect WikiP. I have not made intiated a report at ANI for over 6 years but I want it to be there when I need it too much drama or not. Thanks again and cheers. MarnetteD | Talk 16:17, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Bizarre message on my talk page

Dennis,

Please could you have a look at the very last thread on my talk page please. Some complete random user has just posted the most unusual thread and literally accused me of saying something that I haven't even said. And not only that their comments looks like a racial attack of some sorts. Thanks buddy Wesley Mouse 13:20, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Actually, ignore that request. I've decided to politely ask the user if they have got me mixed up with someone else, despite the fact that I've been called an "anti-Semitic" - whatever one of them are. Wesley Mouse 13:31, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
On second thoughts, the racial remarks have continued despite my polite post to see if they had got me confused with someone else. It would seem that I am an anti-Semitic (which apparently means I hate Jewish people after I checked up on it) even though I have never stated such a thing. And now I've apparently demanded that the word Jerusalem gets deleted as Israel's capital, and that I am a Palestinian supporter. Where do people get these ideas from is beyond me lol. How are you anyway? Wesley Mouse 14:05, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
I've pinged your page, and left them a clear final warning on their talk page. I suggest ignoring them. If they make another actual personal attack, I will block them. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 14:18, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for that Dennis. I have left a quick note for you on my page, but will repeat here just in case. I'm off out shortly on yet another Olympic shift - working in the stadium this evening from 17:00 - 02:00 (UK time) - yikes! You might want to keep an eye on my talk page though just in case more attacks get posted while I'm gone. Wesley Mouse 14:23, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Dennis Brown. You have new messages at Talk:Tree.
Message added 13:46, 3 August 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Drmies (talk) 13:46, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

  • I've just protected the article. Being a rather mainstream and I assume high traffic article that should be taken to GA status if it isn't, my threshold is a bit lower for protecting. After seeing the rash of reverts, I think this is better than tempting fate for someone to get blocked. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 14:02, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Quick question

Hi. I am concerned about the CSD policy. Regarding this CSD notice on the category Category:Fictional Chairmen of the Joint Chiefs of Staff placed on the category, I think that the rationale has no valid criteria. Can you please let me know what is the appropriate way to deal with the situation? Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 15:32, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Friendly request for Re-Userfication

If you could please move Dolchamar back to userspace. As evidenced on the talk page, the editor who's userspace it was moved out of was not ready for it to be in article space. I think this qualifies as a self userfication request. If you don't feel comfortable we can go around the AfD process wheel to get it re-placed. Thank you. Hasteur (talk) 18:18, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

  • Done. Since it has been deleted a few times, might be good to get an admin to move it to wikispace once it is time, to make sure it passes the bar a bit and isn't so likely to get slammed into AFD. Most any admin should be willing to look and do that. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 20:06, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
I didn't move it to article space, I just caught it in New Pages Feed and saw that someone besides the editor whose userspace it was moved it to article space. Hasteur (talk) 20:08, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
I saw that it wasn't you. You might make a note on the talk page to this effect, that they can ask an admin once ready. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 20:09, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Catcreekcitycouncil

Doesn't appear to be done quite yet. See Special:Contributions/Puppeteerman who exhibited the same auto-confirmed seeking behavior and edited the SPI about them. Shadowjams (talk) 03:53, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

A follow up on Bwilkins

Please see User_talk:Jimbo_Wales#A_follow_up_on_Bwilkins. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:43, 4 August 2012 (UTC)


Fairness is an aspect of our Civility pillar, if you ever feel the need to quote what policy is behind being fair to each other. -- Avanu (talk) 16:38, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

  • I know, but rather than point to a specific page where it is defined via Wikipedia standards, I would rather each person use their own sense of fairness, which should be enough to demonstrate that we need to back off of him. I don't think people are trying to be mean or in bad faith, but it simply isn't a good idea and we need to give him a fair chance to take a break and learn from past mistakes. Having Jimmy call him out was a bigger punishment than you might realize, and we all need to be sensitive enough to not throw salt in the wound, which may actually backfire anyway. And keep in mind, I'm very active trying to get new ways to deal with admin sanctions via WP:RAS, and this demands that everyone is treated fairly, admins and not. Equality is a two way street. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 16:43, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
In my comment there, I asked them to end the thread, which doesn't seem to be helping anyone. -- Avanu (talk) 16:48, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
I know, and honestly, I understand the frustration of the community here. I'm hoping my blunt but (I think) fair assessment of the situation will end it. It is fine if people don't like him, but the idea of fairness is that you hold everyone to the same standard, friend or foe. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 16:52, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Tree

Can you restore Tree move-protection (sysop). I think it was removed by mistake. Thank you. Tbhotch.™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 17:48, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Wnnse Restarted

Hey Dennis, i thought to inform you about Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Wnnse which i have restarted in light of discovering a new sockpuppet. I have given all the information and details on the sockpuppet investigations page. I think you should have look at it. Thanks! TheGeneralUser (talk) 21:47, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

You know Dennis, i was doing random patrolling and going through this sockpuppet investigation for a check on things when i found about this extensive socking a few hours ago. And since then i had started to collect the details and evidence, tagged the IP's and then filed the report. Pretty much kind of hard work for me . Now seeing that it's endorsed now (thanks to you :D), it won't be long when CheckUser finds out everything! TheGeneralUser (talk) 22:25, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
I didn't need the CU to block, just to find his little pretend friends. And yes, SPI work is not exciting work, but necessary stuff. I've definitely learned how to pour through histories and contribs a lot faster in the last few months. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 22:27, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Unsurprising

I'm sure you're probably watching, but 86.29.147.215 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) is a bit of obvious block evasion. 2 lines of K303 14:06, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Reasonable enough thanks. Those types of cases are always difficult because checkusers won't comment on IPs other than in exceptional circumstances, and there wasn't a long history of editing from the IP to connect like you can get in other cases. 2 lines of K303 14:59, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
Why? 86.29.184.68 (talk) 19:03, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
Because I could have instantly blocked you for 2RR on a "Troubles" related article (see talk page of that article and read) but I was feeling generous and decided to use a less destructive method to protect the integrity of the article, the ultimate goal. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 19:12, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
Due to the actions of Hackney, Mo, Domer, OldJacobite and others, coupled with inappropriate restrictions such as 1RR, Troubles articles have no integrity whatsoever. They are used as a method to push an Irish republican POV, and as such, they (the articles) are both useless and a disgrace to this encyclopedia. You and other admins would do well to address this matter rather than tinkering around the edges with pointless blocks, protections and other restrictions. On the article in question the word "incursion" is, apart from being plain wrong, POV at its worst. Guess what? I've never set foot in Northern Ireland and have no allegience to either side in their petty and ugly dispute. I do, however, know system gaming when I see it, and I see it big time with this republican cabal. 86.29.184.68 (talk) 19:39, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

New sockpuppet

User:StrongDraught Puffin Let's talk! 12:58, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Can you block the IP of the sockmaster so that they cant create any more accounts(socks?)..seriously..we are tired of rollbacking! ;) TheStrikeΣagle 13:14, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Notification of RFC/U concerning Youreallycan

I'd like to notify you that I've initiated a Request for Comments/User concerning Youreallycan (talk · contribs), whom you formerly mentors. The RFC/U, which mentions your mentorship and quotes your comments about the user's conduct, can be read at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Youreallycan. Prioryman (talk) 14:34, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Ahem!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#User:SkepticAnonymous

If anyone else can't see the corruption involved in the abusive admin whose act is under scrutiny closing this discussion, I certainly can. This pretty much proved the case made by another person that administrators are not acting in a fair or impartial manner. Belchfire also created an abusive SPI fishing expedition against Still-24-45-42-125, the user who stood up for the abused user first in this matter. What we have here is a user who stepped out of line because they were seriously provoked, and who instead of finding a kind and leading hand found a group of thugs who wanted to find someone to beat down. Wholeheartedly disagree with the length of the block, wholeheartedly disagree with the complete lack of scrutiny to the misbehavior of Belchfire and his friend Lionelt, wholeheartedly disagree with the dismissive attitude of admins who are far too willing to let abusive personalities play wikigames and get away with it. That's the truth and I stick by it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.195.84.153 (talk) 15:33, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Note that the IP was blocked, it appears to be evading some block. IRWolfie- (talk) 18:54, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
Yes, I had already been talking with them on IRC, determined who it was via a /whois, and had delayed blocking while sincerely listening to their perspective. They chose to be militant in their viewpoint after a promising start. It is a shame, since I actually empathize with the LGBT perspective on the issue, so SkepticAnonymous ends up shooting themselves in the foot since they have no self-restraint and removes any chance that I can actually help them. Once people jump on a soapbox and start professing "The Truth®", there is little hope. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 10:45, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Wikiquette issue

Hey Dennis. You recently approved a checkuser investigation for Still-24-45-42-125. That isn't the primary reason for my informing you hear, but issues between he, Lionelt, and some other editors have been spilling all over the various available noticeboards. I'm slightly involved, so I'm hoping you can come in with your clear head and propose a solution with a long term goal to keep all three editors editing in a manner that isn't disruptive, and not blocked. Ryan Vesey 19:51, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

By the way, I apologize for bringing yet another one of these issues to you and the discussion is Wikipedia:Wikiquette assistance#It feels like a pile-on. Ryan Vesey 19:52, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
After watching it actually pile on, I've tried to add a word or two, although there is no simple solution here. I've been very involved with block socks on this topic. I actually empathize with their perspective, but there there is a right and wrong way to go about things, and I'm not sure how effective I can be with just a few words, but I've tried. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 10:37, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Mail...

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

TheSpecialUser TSU 12:11, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! Will ask after 2 weeks :) TheSpecialUser TSU 15:27, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Acorn of Appreciation

Gland chêne vert

Thanks for protecting Tree. Ents like it when admins protect trees. Nobody Ent 21:24, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Response to personal attacks

Hello, Dennis Brown

We worked on an image before, remember? So, people from Wikipedia Feedback (User:Riley Huntley and User:Vincent Liu) have told me that if I feel I am being personally attacked, I must contact an administrator. Now, unless I am very much mistaken, this is a personal attack by a person who edits disruptively in Windows 8 article.

Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 06:48, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Question

Hi, Dennis. Despite the apparent unbanning/unblocking of HanzoHattori/Niemti, he has seemingly engaged in disruptive behavior again by being incivil, personally attacking other users and disrupting Wikipedia to illustrate a point on talk pages, such as the Square Enix WikiProject, Yuna and at the Video Games WikiProject ([10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15]). It seems that his behavior is most likely the very same thing that got him banned way back in 2008. Since we don't want to cause too much drama, can you please tell me what is the best possible solution to deal with this user? Thanks, Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 20:28, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

  • A good start was bringing to an admin first, which you did here. Let me take a look. I would also suggest dropping a neutral note at the talk page for the unblocking admin, User:Ched Davis (and maybe his alt account User:Chedzilla), pointing him here, since this is likely the most neutral place to discuss it. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 20:36, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
  • First, thank you for including me in this. Although I haven't felt the desire to edit here much in recent days, I have spot-checked the editors contribs once or twice a day since the unblock. So far it has appeared to me that they are attempting to constructively improve the quality of articles, and are engaging in discussion on the talk pages. I saw an unclosed 12-hour ban discussion 4 years ago - the AN or AN/I thread - and looked at their contribs. I didn't see any "attacks" from the (current) editor, I didn't see a consensus to keep him "banned" from Wikipedia, I didn't see the diffs to any "disruption". I spoke with the blocking admin, and with his permission - I made a judgment call to give him/her a chance.
I've looked at the 6 diffs above, and I'm still not seeing anything more than frank discussion about how to improve articles. I also understand that "wiki" is not a forgiving atmosphere, so once an editor has suffered through a "block or ban" of any kind .. then they will forever be held on a much shorter leash than others. (maintaining a "forever" history has a habit of breeding that kind of atmosphere). Personally I think it would show good form to let him/her have their own say here as well.
Now, since my judgment has been called into question on the whole matter, I'm content to consider myself "involved" at this point, and let others handle the situation. I fully admit that I'm much more a "let people in" (that silly second sentence on our main page "the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit." and all.) Yes, there are times when people need to be blocked, and I have done so when needed. I don't see a blatant problem at this point, but concede that I may no longer be objective. So in summary: Thank you very much for including me, and/but I'm content to let others handle it from here. — Ched :  ?  21:31, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
    • What I am seeing here isn't a violation of policy, although it isn't encouraging either. If I am truly objective and I didn't know the editor had been banned, I wouldn't enforce any sanction on them, although I might be inclined to keep an eye out and make sure there wasn't a darker side. It is give and take Wiki-ism, and these diffs are more take than give, although I assume they are justifiably cherry picked to be examples of the concern, which is perfectly valid. Since Ched is removing himself as being involved (and technically, I'm a bit involved since I was quite public in opposing his unblocking) it might be good to have a more objective pair of eyes monitor him as well. I completely understand your concerns, but at the same time we have to be as objective and fair as we can, so a bias doesn't drag someone to ANI prematurely. I may ask someone without any involvement to just monitor.
    • And to Ched, I didn't question your judgement (actually, I supported you even though I disagreed with your decision) and I asked to bring you here simply since I assumed you knew a little more about him, and figured you would want to be in the loop. I'm also on the more generous side when it comes to blocks (and a firm believer in the appropriate use of IAR to break an impasse), even if we didn't agree on the specific procedure in this one event. I hope you know I have no negative feelings on this whatsoever. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 21:44, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
  • That is good. I make allowances for a wide variety of differing opinions in my admining, and I want to both address the concerns here (which I share in part, to be honest) and also be completely fair to the editor. I've pinged Berean Hunter and asked him to monitor the situation. I nom'ed him for RfA recently, and he was unanimously supported due to his fair nature. He is the best person I can think of, Wiki-wide, to monitor and be fair here. I'm hoping and expecting he will do so. It is a delicate situation, to be sure, and this is the best way I can think of to strike a balance. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 21:52, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Further discussion

Dennis, I have provided some additional evidence with regards to the styles by HanzoHattori/Niemti: the SPI archive, as well as this behavioral evidence. Would those be acceptable? By the way, I've never had any interaction with this user before February. Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 00:12, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Mr. Darth Sjones23: Are you sure you've "disengaged" from me "100%", as you have declared few days ago? Also, are you sure you're not stalking me around? Becuase I'm under an impression that you're watching my every move everywhere. And if you actually are, may you tell why, and how does it fit with your claimed "disengagement", and is this a harrasment or not? --Niemti (talk) 21:28, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Niemti, please stay cool, be civil and assume good faith. Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 21:33, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
Haha, good faith with this. Also, how did you "forget" to inform me once again of how you're continously trying to get me banned in how many exactly different threads, all while "disengaging 100%"? Maybe YOU should "assume good faith", and then "disengage 101%" (but this time for real, and not just pretending). --Niemti (talk) 21:39, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
And you failed to answer my questions, like why did you (falsely) claim to "disengage 100%", and is your continous stalking of me constituting of anything they talk about at Wikipedia:Harassment? --Niemti (talk) 21:47, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

And more to the point: I believe Mr. Darth Sjones23 is actively engaging in what they call "Wikihounding". I may be wrong, but that's my impression, and I don't like it at all. Thus, I'd like to officially request that someone enforces Mr. Darth Sjones23's own declaration of "100% disengagement" toward me from now on, because apparently he can not control himself on that matter (if he has officially changed his mind on that, and has declared anywhere that is now "0% disenagagement", I wasn't informed on it, which would be just like he failed to inform about almost any of these multiple threads that he has opened in relation to me - including this very one, and despite it going on for a few days already). Thank you. --Niemti (talk) 22:13, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

I have already changed my mind about the 100% disengaging with the user in the above comments. Dennis, I always maintain good faith. As I don't want to get into another fight with HanzoHattori/Niemti, I am not going to respond to this user's comments or accusations, which I believe that they are unfounded or possibly pointy, anymore. While remaining civil and assume good faith, I am waiting patiently until I have heard from Berean Hunter or you and see what you think about this situation. Would that be okay? Thanks, Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 22:18, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Oh. So, how much are you "always maintaining good faith" towards me? On your scale of 0-100%. And just how many of these different threads you've opened so far? You might give me the (rough) number, and as many links as possible, as you've "forgot" to do it with every but one of them. Now, what is "this situation" about? --Niemti (talk) 22:36, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
And of course, almost-never informing me about anything (but informing others - those who would possibly help you, which is incidentally the only way I even get notice about these threads, because unlike you I'm not into watching people's edits) is sure a good way to not "get into another fight", as I won't be there, to defend myself from you. It's almost as good as actually not opening multiple threads about nothing, one after another (and how many already?). --Niemti (talk) 22:55, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
Are you two done? I mean, I don't want to interrupt anything here on my talk page if you two are busy, since this seems to be so very productive. Otherwise, I've asked an impartial admin to look at the situation. So if you are done, why don't you two just avoid each other, and perhaps this talk page for a bit. I've been rather busy, and so has Berean Hunter, who I've asked to review the situation, but who also has other things going on. Nothing here is so urgent it can't wait a day, and I've been watching this pissing match all day. So both of you kindly stop replying here for a day, even to me, and give it a rest. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 23:20, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Based on these discussions here and here, I have decided that I should disengage with Niemti and will take no further active role with the user in question. With that said, consider the situation resolved. :-) Thank you for your time looking into this situation, Dennis. Best wishes, Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 20:40, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

I found a duck

Care to check ThreeFlavorsOfCheddar (talk · contribs)? Ryan Vesey 17:29, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

  • Got CU looking, will mop it up from here, thanks! Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 17:34, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Thanks for following up on that. There have been a ton of socks recently. I know little about IP blocking, but would a range block with account creation disabled for a month or so be appropriate? Ryan Vesey 17:48, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Too heavy. Range blocks depend on what range. Some ranges are only 16 to 256 people. Others are 1 million. The account is indef blocked, the autoblock will block that one ip for 24 hours. Rangeblocks are tricky and often, won't work, or can't be done. I've been around networks for decades and still learning. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 17:52, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
    • They should really enact a system where my network is associated with a certain range of IP addresses and an individual computer on a network can only access a subset of those. Then they should link those subsets together so if a computer could access only 20 or so IP's, you would know which 20 it can access and block them all. I'm sure this would benefit websites outside of Wikipedia. Ryan Vesey 18:06, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
      • The problem is, or rather one of the problems is, for there are many problems related to IP addresses, and they're all quite difficult to solve and hard to even understand without some background in the field, this. The previous sentence makes sense. That is not the problem. Read it again and you'll get it. Who is "they"? I mean, we haven't even been able to get people to move to IPv6 yet, despite actively kind of needing people to. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 18:17, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

On the related topic of sockpuppets, what is this in your block log? I've not seen that appear. Ryan Vesey 18:12, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Interesting...when I first saw that, I thought it meant Dennis had been blocked for socking :/ --Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 18:20, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
I'm guessing that the account name was sufficiently offensive/disruptive to warrant a redaction of the default block log message (which of course would normally include the account name being blocked). Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 18:24, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
Appears to have been oversighted. Wasn't aware, not surprised. I'm sure it happens every now and then, just as Writ says or more likely via WP:DUCK, or legal reasons via WMF or ArbCom. They don't bother to tell me about it, no need anyway. And thankfully, the govt isn't charge of IPs, ICANN is I believe, although only with the large chucks. Each segment owner can use as they please, and they do so as cheaply and simple as possible. Logic and ease for us isn't a factor. Remember, this is a system that was designed originally in the 60s, then the current IP system from the 1980s. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 18:46, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
Nobody picked up on my HHGttG reference and now I am sad. :( Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 19:17, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
The problem is, as always, change. And you're only pretending to be hurt to throw your mean, callous, heartless exterior into sharp relief. Zad68 19:40, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
"Writ lolled." Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 19:47, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
HHGttG came up at least 1000 times in my knowledge bowl career and I never got a chance to see or read it. Ryan Vesey 19:49, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
Oh, man, you should! They're so good. You'd think they wouldn't live up to the hype, but they do. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 19:51, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
What medium did you read use? If it is reading, I'll be entirely honest and say I don't believe I've finished more than 1 book since I started editing. It's incredibly sad because I used to read all the time. Ryan Vesey 19:56, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
A giant book with HHGttG through Mostly Harmless. I've always been curious about the radio fits, but a bit puzzled about them. (And I'm a big fan of actually reading actual books; I don't really like listening to them, nor reading them on tablets or whatever). Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 20:03, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
I know what you mean. I need to be able to turn the pages. Ryan Vesey 20:08, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
The original BBC series is the one to watch, a bit dated yet not. I never bothered with the movie, too astray from the original. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 20:17, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Y'know, I thought that about the movie at first, but it's actually quite good. Not as good, but good. It helps that Martin Freeman is almost as good an Arthur Dent as he is a Bilbo Baggins, IMO. Plus Alan Rickman as Marvin. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 20:28, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Transcripts of the radio productions are available, and they include material that was cut from what ended up being aired. Listening to the actual radio shows is a treat, as a lot of effort was put into the sound production (the foreground voices as well as background sound and effects) to immerse you into the scenes. isaacl (talk) 22:17, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

More SockPuppets found!

Hey Dennis! I have found out two more possible sockpuppets! Please have a look on Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Wnnse. I believe it is more than enough information and evidence to run a check seeing the editing history of both the accounts. Regards. TheGeneralUser (talk) 21:39, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

You have new message/s Hello. You have a new message at LadyofShalott's talk page.

Jeffwang SPI investigation

Hi, Dennis. If you have some time, can you please take a look at this SPI investigation? Thanks, Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 03:13, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Another barnstar!

The sockpuppet investigation barnstar
For you excellent work dealing with sockpuppet investigations  Ryan Vesey 04:02, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Revdelete

I sort of circumvented process here, but can you revdelete Electronic Instrument System? See the talk page. Ryan Vesey 21:12, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

So, you can't be emailed?

So, you can't be emailed here? Why not?

No matter how stupid or annoying the person you are dealing with is, please try to avoid leaving comments like, "I'm sure that attitude works great for you in the real world, too."

It's a personalisation of them (or you) that delivers nothing.

I was going to email this to you, but I couldn't. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:42, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

  • Of course I can be emailed. I get at least 6 a day here. I just tested, I can even email myself. And you are free to disagree, but the persons comments were more than a little rude, and they needed reminding that here, just like in the real world, when you insult people, they aren't inclined to be as helpful. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 22:44, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Ok, granted that I am usually a little nicer, but I felt the situation warranted it. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 23:11, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
Hmm, the "email this user" link didn't seem to be there yesterday. Although possibly I just missed it or my crappy web browser was being weird. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 10:46, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
    • Looking back a day later, I was a little more pissy than I should have been. I don't get that way when people attack me and find those attacks easy to ignore, but not when people attack other editors. Some kind of paternal reaction I suppose. They were still over the line, but I didn't need to be so snippy. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 10:49, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Tree

I look forward to the removal of the editing block on Tree tomorrow. I was responsible for the complete rewrite of the article but took no part in the edit warring. The main protagonist raised certain points about the article some of which were valid and I have tried to address them by editing the version I retained in my userspace here. When I can do so I intend to insert these paragraphs into the article. The alterations are mainly in the lead and first section. I have included a host of references because he was disputing some definitions I gave such as that a sapling was a young tree.

I anticipate there may be further dispute about the article as Mark Marathon stated after his list of objections - "And this is just from the first three paragraphs. The entire article is at least as flawed. Literally two out of every three sentences has a serious problem .... and most of it is stylistically crude." I think it is a pity that he takes this view because I took a lot of trouble writing the article and had already nominated it for GA. I have subsequently withdrawn the nomination as being unlikely to succeed under the present circumstances. I plan to nominate it again if things settle down. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:33, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

  • Hopefully, there will continue to be good faith discussion after it goes unprotected. If it gets problematic, let me know and I can review and perhaps help mediate. As I said, a core article like that should be a GA, we certainly are capable of this as a group. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 10:43, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Dennis_Brown/Archive_7&oldid=1151036334"