Jump to content

User talk:Dennis Brown/Archive 33

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 30Archive 31Archive 32Archive 33Archive 34Archive 35→Archive 40

Not evasion

If the original block was blatantly wrong, then it isn't an evasion. Do a sock puppet check and it is obvious that he was wrong. You can try to shut down all of Virginia if you want but it doesn't make the original block or any subsequent blocks correct. Ryulong was wrong and shouldn't be here. No amount of lying can protect him. 173.153.0.78 (talk) 21:26, 1 November 2014 (UTC) "Perhaps Harris Beckford was just a passing vandal that inserted himself into the reverting? -- Ed (Edgar181) 21:24, 1 November 2014 (UTC)" From the original admin who made the mistake. 173.153.0.78 (talk) 21:27, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

  • I blocked you for evading a block, not socking. If Ed reverses it, so be it. If not, I do know how to range block the entire state of Virginia, yes. My suggestion is to stop being a jerk, which you were to Ryulong from the start. That alone could earn a block. I'm willing to listen to anyone trying to be remotely polite, but I'm not willing to work with someone who is being a jerk to other editors. You are technically evading the block HERE, but I'm willing to hear them out at ANI. Even if he backs up on the original block, again, you are bordering one for accusing someone of libel and calling them a troll. Keep that in mind. You can get your point across without resorting to that. Dennis - 2¢ 21:32, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
Range block the whole state. I don't care. I came to that BLP site because people were adding in rumors about Benedict Cumberbatch that do not belong on Wikipedia. Then Ryulong was begging to be allowed to use as sources two blog posts that abusively attack others. Then he abusively attacked me. If that is what Wikipedia is about, then I'm sure the whole state of Virginia would rather have nothing to do with that. 173.153.0.78 (talk) 21:34, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
Ryulong is the one that said you WEREN'T a sock, so while you question his integrity, remember that. And remember, I'm the one who is bothering to LISTEN. I don't see you as the enemy. If you see me as the enemy, there is no hope. You can argue with him, tell him he is as wrong as the day is long, but you can't throw "libel" around or call people trolls. Dennis - 2¢ 21:36, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
One reasonable statement after a lot of unreasonable behavior doesn't balance out. I don't see anyone as an enemy but as people not using logic. Ryulong claimed he couldn't tell if I had previous edits when it was obvious a close matching IP posted in the section above. He removed multiple edits and kept posting harassing things on my talk page. 8 times before he came up with the idea that he had to post that template. He has an obsessive personality fixated on the incorrect things. It then has him attacking others to put in bad sources that attack others. If people want to defend that, then Wikipedia is a bad site that just exists to foster bullies and aid the bullying of others. BLP says it is there to prevent that but it is clearly ignored. 173.153.0.98 (talk) 21:47, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
I can't speak to his state of mind, but I can say it is very possible to not recognize a new IP is the same person as the old. You go and check contribs, you see nothing, you don't remember the numbers from the old. Not saying that happened, I'm just saying I've done it more than once in my 50,000 edits. It is at least plausible, so I'm more concerned about what he did after that. As for leaving the template about shared IPs, we really do have a policy that says you have to leave them. Again, none of this addresses behavior, but I wanted to clear up those two items. Dennis - 2¢ 21:53, 1 November 2014 (UTC)


Benedict Cumberbatch was reported by one blog site (deadline.com) that he could be entering into negotiations about playing Doctor Strange. It was an anonymous source. [1] Because of Wikipedia carrying it, current websites now list it as fact while more older ones still say allegedly. There has been no official comment from Marvel or Cumberbatch people. [2] I looked and this is the only news they will release. Wikipedia is responsible for this rumor getting out there. Then I see an even more abusive claim below that has someone adamant about putting in regardless of what ethical reasons not to do so. Shouldn't Wikipedia "do no harm"? Why is it the home of rumor and libel? 173.153.0.98 (talk) 21:55, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
First, I know NOTHING about the article. I got involved as an admin, due to behavioral concerns. We don't get into content. But yes, Wikipedia has been responsible for perpetuating a number of falsehoods. I know this. But to get them fixed, you have to work within the system. The fact is, the system favors those who are familiar. Most any system does. This means you have to go in and provide sources, build a consensus and make a change. When you go after stuff like this on your own, you are guaranteeing to fail. When you call people names and such, you will fail. Admin don't judge content, but if we see someone acting in an incivil manner, we will block them. We won't, can't and don't want to get involved in deciding content. Every day people decide content. If you want to build a consensus, you have to dial back the rhetoric, and yes, registering an account is best. Right or wrong, people take registered accounts more serious. See WP:IPs are not human. So I won't get involved in the content, but I am willing to help you be more effective in making your argument, by showing you how we do it here, and what works and what doesn't. Dennis - 2¢ 22:05, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
I haven't been working on my own. I was at a noticeboard. Ryulong clearly acted incivil in his attempt to harass me via my user page in retaliation for disagreeing with him on that board. 173.153.0.98 (talk) 22:10, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Userify request

Could you userfy the RFCU into my space as it existed at time of deletion? I'll CSD it after I've reviewed it. NE Ent 02:14, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

  • I've restored it at User:NE Ent/DP. Shortened the name to make it easier to type and such. I'm genuinely neutral in this, I get along with DP fine but I'm not blind to the concerns nor do I dismiss them. As to procedure, (things to leave out) I would be happy to offer a dispassionate 2nd opinion on the technical aspects before it goes live, if you so choose. Dennis - 2¢ 02:20, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Re:

...your request for specifics, you probably want to look at my second point here. Regards, —Neotarf (talk) 00:31, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

  • I did see your point before, I blocked someone via WP:DICK once out of 1600 blocks and 8 years, and joked with Eric about a "dick ratio", how much of a jerk you can get away with being. My point is you are misunderstanding everything I say. I never said I can't be blunt or even rude sometimes, but you have no idea how much work I've actually done to promote women here, to insure equal access here and in the real world, and even had to watch my wife go through a lawsuit for discrimination. You are confusing my using "dick" to mean "jerk" as sexism, and that just isn't the case. By all means, make any claim you want, but anyone that knows me knows I can be crude at times, but I'm completely intolerant of sexism and go out of my way to mentor females here (three as we speak). I have no idea if it is intentional or you are just grossly mistaken, but you have missed the mark here. I'm a very imperfect person, if you are going to rag on my imperfections, at least get them right, there are plenty to choose from. Sexism just isn't one of them. I didn't want to make a big deal of it there, but I've received a number of "thanks" notifications and email during all this....one from a guy, the rest from women. That alone should say something. Again, say whatever you want to say, I'm not a party there, but you aren't helping anyone by misleading statements about "sausagefest" and the like. Dennis - 2¢ 00:46, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
    Oh please Dennis, it's ensure not insure; you don't have to pay for ensurance. As for Neotarf ... well I guess we'll just to have to wait until the result of the ArbCom deliberations. Eric Corbett 01:03, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
    Oops. I try, but I still make that mistake sometimes. I just always find it so odd to have a small group being so "offended" by someone with a lifetime of doing what they claim they are doing. Like I told Carol, she has a habit out of making enemies out of people that already agree with most of what she is saying, but if someone doesn't agree with 100%, then they are treated as the enemy. This is not helping women, at Wikipedia or more importantly, in the real world. Oh well, it won't change what I do. Dennis - 2¢ 01:08, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
    There's no phallusses in the link I posted, but somehow I'm not surprised to see some in your answer to me. —Neotarf (talk) 04:46, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Telecaster

Dr. Blofeld, decided to upload an image of just my Tele's and hybrids. Not the best photo, but you get the idea. Cheaper stuff, but tasty. Yes, I have a weakness for Fender Teles. Even the Strat looking thing on the left is a hybrid with a Tele neck and dual pickup setup. The one with the Bigsby is still under construction, I need to swap out the bridge pickup and work on the neck pocket a bit. Dennis - 2¢ 20:13, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

  • About to eat: fried thinly sliced and deep fried potato, 2-3mm thick, kind of soft, between a crisp and a chip, with seasoned salt, and Pigs in a blanket, make with hot dogs baked inside a crescent roll. Is that something even remotely close to what you Brits (Dr. Blofeld, Eric Corbett and others) would eat? Dennis - 2¢ 20:29, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
    You mean chips with toad in the hole? Absolutely! Eric Corbett 20:35, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
    I've heard of that, should have put that together myself. Very different, yet very similar: freshed breading with a good but simple sausage. The crescent rolls are just very convenient for us, you can roll them and bake them in 20 minutes using canned crescent rolls. If you think about it, our corndogs are similar, just using a different breading. Around here, kids in particular really love pigs in the blanket as they are easy to eat. Toad in the hole is absolutely something I want to try. Dennis - 2¢ 20:47, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
We're more Curry and chips around here!♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:51, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
Tonight is German fries, with kielbasa and pinto beans. Very popular here, particularly in the southeastern US. We are having a cold snap, 3C now, probably won't hit 10c later, so this is the kind of food that fits the weather. Dennis - 2¢ 13:11, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Request for arbitration

You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Ahmed Hassan Imran and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—

Thanks, BengaliHindu (talk) 17:40, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Energy-Safety and Energy-Economy (journal)

Dennis, I understand that you closed this "no consensus", given the voting tally. However, several "keep" !votes just said "notable", whereas (as you noted in your closing statement) the other "keep" !votes only have a weak case. There is no independent sourcing, it is not covered in any selective databases, none of the "keerp" !votes are even remotely based in policy. Frankly, I'm getting very tired from working hard to improve our coverage of academic journals and then have weak and non-notable journals kept at AfD because of perceived systemic bias against Russian journals (or Chinese ones, or whatever). We're an encyclopedia. If there are good sources, then whether the subject is Chinese, Russian, or Martian, we should cover it and otherwise not. If the sources are biased against Russian journals, it's not up to WP to correct this. Please have another look at this. --Randykitty (talk) 15:00, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

  • I don't think that any vote is required to be so expanded when explaining their policy rationale that they are essentially quoting the entire policy. DGG's reasoning was reasonable, as were a number of others. I stated that that Delete votes were stronger, but were outnumbered 2 to 1, so this was a text-book case of "no consensus", meaning it can be brought to AFD again at any time, although I think waiting a few months to allow improvement is the ethical thing to do. Looking at it again, I strongly feel that "no consensus" was the appropriate conclusion if you look at the totality of the discussion. And this was relisted twice, so there was plenty of time for a more clear consensus to form, yet it didn't. Of course, you can always seek a broader consensus at WP:DRV and I won't take offense, but I think that most people would consider the close reasonable, given the discussion. Dennis - 2¢ 16:03, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Thanks for taking your time to respond and also for closing this discussion, which was indeed tough. You are probably right that DRV will support your decision. I will nevertheless take this to DRV, as I think that the "keep" arguments fly in the face of all guidelines. --Randykitty (talk) 16:28, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
  • No problem. I never mind a good faith examination of my closings. I'm not perfect nor above examination. If you don't mind, just ping me as a courtesy when you do. Dennis - 2¢ 16:40, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
  • @Randykitty: I've pointed you to WP:ATD on previous occasions, but your nomination does not mention WP:ATD.  As for wearing you out, there is no discussion on the talk page of the article, and at this point it is entirely likely that you could have handled all of your concerns with a merge to a tbd topic.  The correct policy-based close here (prior to new comments) was on October 11 a speedy close as WP:SK#1 to allow you to either decide to explain why there were no alternatives to deletion, or take the matter to the talk page of the article.  During the AfD you chose not to take my hint that you were engaged in WP:BLUDGEON, and your bludgeoning continues here.  On further review, I see referencectomy eight days prior to the AfD, diff.  This action is a statement that you felt that your deletion argument by itself needed help and was insufficient on its merits.  Please support our policies and guidelines.  I hope you reconsider DRV.  Unscintillating (talk) 18:54, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

czar RfA

Hey Dennis, having been around AfD for a while, I'd like to help with more closures and take a run at RfA. I know you've been vetting editors, and though I've been considering it for a while, I wanted to do due diligence by running it past AfD regulars like you first. czar ♔ 17:35, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

  • You can always help with closures at AFD, but I will say this: Closing AFDs are helpful and reduce the load for admin, but they don't really give you much of a taste for adminship because you can only close in one direction. How you deal with disputes tells a lot about you, but those aren't that common with NAC "keep" closes. To get a real taste of admin life, look at closing some RFCs, just start easy, read past closes, and be prepared to defend your close as they often stir up a lot of disagreement (the joys of adminship). Of course, you can't close those that require the tools to implement, but you will find a wider variety of issues, policy considerations and such in RFCs. I suggest keeping a log. One or two a week is enough to keep you busy while demonstrating you can handle yourself, and having a dozen or two in your history is worth mentioning at RFA. I would also note that you have enough total experience that I'm guessing you can handle the task. It also forces you to look up policy frequently, which is a great learning tool for policies you don't normally come across in your regular editing. And frankly, we need the help there even more than at AFD. I'm in the middle of a big review as we speak, I would say to hit me up in two weeks for a full review. They take a while as i try to be as thorough as the people at RFA will be. A good place to start is reading my page at User:Dennis Brown/RfA, which has some useful information and a ton of links to all the places you would find handy. Dennis - 2¢ 17:47, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
Appreciate it. I've read through those pages before, so I should be good on that front. Do you know whether there's a tool for finding my previous RfC closures? I know I've closed a number of RfCs and RMs and other discussions, but I haven't been keen on making bragsheets. czar ♔ 19:00, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
Hehe, not sure "bragsheet" fits as well as "proof I can read consensus", but that is just a matter of perspective. If you have done a bunch, I would just hand pick a dozen. Again, I'm not sure what you have done and have not done, and you have enough edits that it isn't as easy to find. Plus, I haven't looked yet. Closing stuff like that is a HUGE plus, it shows the ability to deal with contention and judge consensus. While those aren't "tools", they are duties and the most looked for qualities in an admin. I see you have some GAs as well. Having a list of GAs and FAs is good. Not necessarily complete, just enough for content focused editors to look at, to reassure them you actually understand the work it takes to make quality articles, and that you can be trusted to not look down upon our finest. Keep in mind, the big advantage of complete lists is that people don't think "He is just cherry picking". Oddly, it means they don't look at any of it, as they trust if you have 20 GAs you know what you are doing. If you list 4 of them, they did around to make sure the others meet current standards. Human behavior is an odd thing. You have more AFDs than even I do, which is a lot, and your recent ratio is perfectly fine. With so many edits, I wouldn't expect there to be a lack of experience. Mainly they will look at demeanor. One disadvantage of having so many edits is that is a lot of opportunity to piss people off, that is what takes the real digging to find. Or if there are bad things in the record, I want to know up front, you admit it up front, talk about what you learned from it, etc etc, and people will likely just blow it off as "being human". You always admit flaws up front at RFA. Dennis - 2¢ 19:14, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

name change

I see your request for a name change for an Arbcom case. I thought we had a rule against using editor's name as case name, but I did not find such a rule at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide_to_arbitration or Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Clerks/Procedures. If we have such a rule, I want to add it to both locations.

I also note:

so we've done it in the past.

I have no strong opinion - I wouldn't mind if we did try to use a more generic name, (any suggestions), but if it is a rule, we need to write it down in the right places.--S Philbrick(Talk) 15:26, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

  • I wasn't offended by the current name, and honestly, I'm not a fan of hanging at Arb so the procedural rules are a mystery to me, but the current name is so blasted generic as to be meaningless. He is asking for DP's bit, so adding DP's name in an otherwise neutral title seemed reasonable. And I know we have used user names in cases in a number of times, and as long as the title is neutral as a whole, I don't see a problem with naming the case with the user's name. "DangerousPanda", or "Behavioral concerns of DangerousPanda" are reasonable whereas "DangerousPanda needs to be bitstripped and spanked" is obviously not. That has been the problem with EVERYTHING associated with this situation, proper procedure, which of course distracts from the merits. Thanks for the links, I probably should read those, although I'm hoping to not get involved in more Arb cases. Dennis - 2¢ 15:52, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
I think I see what happened. The name given by NE Ent was "unsuitability for admin role", to which you thought a better name should be chosen. By the time I saw it, someone had chnaged it to "Dangerous Panda" so I thought you were objecting to that. I get it now.--S Philbrick(Talk) 21:45, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Magic wand

If I had one, there's a few things I'd fix around here alright (cf User talk:Allen2). But instead of Midas-like powers, all admins seem to see is the Charmin touch. Sigh... DMacks (talk) 04:57, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

  • I reverted him off my page once yesterday when dealing with an issue. Not sure what to do. You have to remember, even when we do the common sense thing, there are a dozen people ready to scream "abuse" and "show me exactly what policy he broke!!!". That gets old fast. So they end up getting more rope than they deserve, and all I can do is look for solid rationales. CIR should be good enough. Dennis - 2¢ 13:15, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
Saw that here while following up behind this guy. His rope has run out. DMacks (talk) 02:55, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Socks

That's not the great policy and honestly it seems unwritten. It does seem there is encouragement to notify the user. It is on the page before you post the SPI. It's understandable that you would wish to keep the drama low while investigating obviously, but it's not understandable that you wouldn't bring them in on such a weak case. I did suggest that BH contact ARBCOM though expected he would do so thru email thru the block appeals what ever. I actually view this situation quite poorly. The System certainly seems weighed against the party blocked. Any how Best Regards.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 21:20, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

  • It may seem that it was against the blocked party (and in some ways, the system here IS, to be frank), but this is why I jumped into the ANI case, as there are a limited number of people who are familiar enough with SPI to do a full blown investigation, and everyone deserves a review of their block if they ask for it. If I felt it was obvious that Berean Hunter was wrong, I would have reverted the block on the spot. He's a popular guy around here because he is fair, but I know him on a personal level, and know he would not have been mad at me if I reverted him. Again, that doesn't mean he is always right, we all make mistakes, but he wouldn't have blocked unless he was convinced that is where the evidence pointed to. As for "unwritten rules", SPI is full of them. It is an investigatory body, so methods and such are never revealed, or we would be teaching sockpuppets how to be better sockpuppets. Even Checkusers have to speak in code and can't reveal the details to the SPI clerks, to protect privacy. They use "confirmed" "likely" "possible" and other coded messages. Same for methods. I wrote the code for a couple of the tools that I use when chasing sockpuppets, but no one has seen them. The thing is, socks typically get more reviews than regularly blocked users, so there is some balance in the system. Even now, all of Arb is looking at the block. Dennis - 2¢ 12:14, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
Do not get me wrong. I think Berean Hunter was absolutely sound in the original ban. I do not think they actually put any thought or effort into reviewing the case. With an ANI that to is understandable. ANI is a circus generally speaking. In words we say that blocking is not for punishment but actions like this blocking is solely punitive. Yes there is some level of Balance. Both I and you joining that ANI brought some balance with our unique perspectives on the situation. This was an enjoyable conversation-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 22:52, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
I can't speak for anyone else, but I can promise you that I did a very serious review. I treated it like a standard SPI case and started from the beginning. And I have over a year of SPI clerking and 1500 blocks worth of experience. Doesn't mean I'm always right, but by anyone's measure, I'm experienced. I promise that I didn't half-ass the investigation. It isn't my style, but I also knew that my investigation would be subject to inspection, just like it is now by the Arbs. Honestly, it is very, very difficult for a non-admin to do a full investigation because they can't see deleted contribs, and just don't have that kind of experience or know about the tools that are used. It is slightly secretive, but its to prevent us teaching socks how to sock better. Anyway, that is why I jumped in, I know the drill. And I appreciate the chat as well. Dennis - 2¢ 22:59, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Winkelvi again

I'd like to alert you to something in the hopes of nipping trouble and another ANI in the bud.

The uncivil editor who was mutually blocked with me in June — and whom you asserted, wrongly, I believe, that I was "baiting" — has come unasked to my talk page ... and he is not only baiting me but bragging on his own talk page how he told me "fuck off" in June.

I believed back in June that there was something alarmingly angry and antagonistic about this person, and that whole incident as well as what you believed about me made me stay away from Wikipedia until just a few days ago. And now days within my returning, he comes to bait me on my talk page. I ask your advice: How do I handle this harassment? And I ask you to please keep on eye on the situation. There is something not right with this person.

Before he starts cursing at me again and creating more drama, I'd like to alert you in your capacity as an admin that I was minding my own business, not even thinking about this editor, and he deliberately comes to me and starts arguing. If that's not baiting, I'm not sure what is. On my word as what many consider a valued editor for over nine years, who never had trouble before this year, I am sincere in asking — pleading — for your help and advice.--Tenebrae (talk) 05:11, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Annnnnnd the cursing starts again: [3].
Is he going to be allowed to curse me and harass me? I swear I was minding my own business, and he came to my page unsolicited, for no good reason and with incorrect information. I quoted to him the infobox template that shows he is incorrect, and yet he keeps ignoring it while asking me to give him documentation. If nothing else, can we agree he shouldn't be throwing around the f-word with other editors?--Tenebrae (talk) 05:20, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict):Diffs are important here: This edit [4] prompted me to attempt to inform Tenebrae with a good faith effort that his reversion was questionable and why [5]. The article he edited is on my watchlist, and I was about to deal with a pending reversion there, that's why I knew he had reverted the edit to begin with. After reading my post on his page, his response was to not WP:AGF and accuse me in an edit summary of harassing him earlier this year (which I did not) [6]. He then proceeded to my own talk page and left the following [7] and, after reading a communication between me and another editor, took it upon himself to disparage me at another editor's talkpage here [8]. Ironically, he keeps returning to my talkpage to continue accusing me of bad faith actions and harassment [9]. All I did was try to inform Tenabrae of something I thought he might be unaware of. That's it. The drama has come only from Tenabrae. With all of his follow up posts at my talkpage as well as the talkpages of others (including yours), the only harassment I see is coming from the drama created by Tenabrae. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 05:32, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

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

Personal attack redacted

I have redacted your personal attack here [10] -- WV is a human being, not a ham. NE Ent 13:40, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

November 2014

A little travelling music, please....
You have been blocked temporarily from editing for intimidation via typographical "error". If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Drmies (talk) 02:47, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
If you wish to claim that your typographical aggression was unintentional, you may fax your college transcript to the Foundation, and if you have a GPA of below 2.0 and your degree is from either a. a land-grant institution or b. a properly accredited Baptist or military educational institution, your block may be revoked.

Blocked user

Is there any reason to keep userrights of a blocked user? Cheers, Jim Carter 17:02, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

  • It doesn't work that way, you are viewing it from the wrong perspective. The community said "We want this person to be an admin". Until that person voluntarily gives up the bit, they haven't edited in a year (per policy), an emergency (which is really supposed to be done by a Steward), or Arbcom takes it away, the use has the admin bit. Crats have zero authority to decide these issues on their own. Their job is to blindly execute community consensus as it is strictly defined by policy, without injecting their own opinions. If a Crat went in and desysopped someone the way you describe, an Arb case would be filed within minutes to have that Crat bit stripped. The reason that Crats are held in the highest esteem higher, higher than admin, higher than Arbs, is because their job requires they rise above politics and personal opinion. They will not do something using the Crat tools just because it is technically possible. They will only use the Crat tools where there is a clear and obvious policy authorizing them to, and a clear consensus to do such. Like I said, they can't make it up as they go along. This is also why Crats require the highest approval rating to get the bit at RfB, typically 85% . Arbs can slide in with 50% 1, admins with 75% Dennis - 2¢ 17:12, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
I'm talking about reviewer and rollbacker rights, But I know why you're explaining. Hmm. Although in some cases a Crat can use there tools against community consensus but I understand, this is not the case. Btw It appears you haven't checked the user I have mentioned above. ;-) Jim Carter 17:40, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
Sorry, I see a struck link and assumed it was a continuation of the previous discussion. I didn't take away the rights of the user that I blocked because the user didn't do anything that justified losing those bits. I think you are worried about other people's bits more than is healthy. Having rollbacker bits doesn't pose a risk to Wikipedia. The same with Todd's admin bit, there is no risk for his account to have the bits when it is blocked. We don't debit someone at any level just because we can, or out of some self-serving sense of "justice", we do so only when having the bit poses a risk to Wikipedia, or when requested by that user. We desysop after a year of inactivity because there is a small but real chance someone could password hack that account, which is why we have a clear policy that states when and how we do this. If I were to go around and start bit RB stripping editors that were blocked for various reasons, I would expect to be dragged to WP:AN to explain myself. We don't bit strip someone without good cause and/or community consensus. I recommend not worrying about bits so much. Dennis - 2¢ 19:10, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
Wikipedia:User_access_levels#Indefinitely_blocked_users and the RFC linked from there might also be a good read, Jim. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:27, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
Thank you Nikki, I knew we had a policy on that somewhere. I know from experience that if you start removing rights, it tends to cause drama, and if they can't use the rights, there is no point in removing them. Dennis - 2¢ 00:38, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
Damn. I haven't noticed that. Thanks, Nikkimaria. I still think, what is the use of rights when a user is blocked? Rights are given ultimately to improve Wikipedia. But when a user is blocked, he can't improve Wikipedia and hence there is no use of the right i.e. useless. We will keep userrights of blocked user just because it will not do any harm? Keeping users listed in the list of users having xx rights will increase the use of unecessary server resources. Jim Carter 06:36, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
They are user "rights". Wikipedia isn't the government, but we still think of Rights, with a capital R. Everyone has the Right to edit here, as long as they don't abuse that Right. Anyone that has shown sufficient skill and judgement has the Right to use Rollbacker. We don't remove that Right unless we have good cause, ie: they specifically abused that Right. Really, admin is supposed to be the same way. Obviously a much higher threshold, but the same. Some of the Rights, we need to see a bit more need, like the template editor Right. We don't give it out if you can be trusted but you never edit templates, for instance. We never take away Rights without a good reason, specifically tied to that Right. As a community, we reserve the Right to remove those Rights from anyone upon good cause, and specifically, we assign admin and bureaucrats to both give and take those bits on behalf of the community, within a specific set of rules. Removing Rights from a user without good cause is abuse of those tools, and because it is an "admin action", we are accountable to justify each time we add or remove bits. That is why I said you don't need to worry about bits, we have it covered with tons of policies and bots. Dennis - 2¢ 12:50, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
  • I don't understand this proposal. Let's say, speaking hypothetically, that I was to get blocked for 48 hours for telling Jimbo a few home truths. If my rollback and reviewer rights were also removed I'd just apply for them again once the 48 hours was up wouldn't I? And not having abused either of those rights what grounds would there be to deny them to me? Just sounds like jobs-worth busy work to me. Eric Corbett 13:26, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
    Exactly, and taking those bits is actually abusive, it is just trying to punish you, it doesn't prevent disruption. Even if you were indef blocked, that doesn't mean you won't come back, so there is no reason to remove bits that you have shown you can use properly. Using Eric as an example (something we admin love to do), the ONLY bits that might ever be removed from him would be his IP-block exempt bits, and only after he hadn't edited for over a year. If he came back, it would instantly be rebitted, as long as we knew it was him. The justification being that there is a very slight security risk if his account was hacked. Now, if he were blocked for "personal attacks" and an admin removed his IP-block exempt, that admin would rightly be thumped by a large number of other admin. That is punitive. The only way he would lose IP-block exempt is, well, rather complicated. It it involves socking and other implausibilities. The key is, you can't use "removing random bits" as "punishment" for editors. Or you WILL get thumped. Dennis - 2¢ 13:39, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
You should only remove a right if it has abused. If an editor is temporarily blocked for edit warring, say, you might remove rollback if they have been blocked several times before and obviously used the tool in their edit warning. Otherwise it would be inappropriate. If the block is indefinite, the account can't rollback or review by definition, so removing either is pretty pointless. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:33, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Email security check

Hi Dennis. I think I recently received an email from you about a potential instance of socking, but my email client is shrilly insisting that the message is fraudulent and did not come from the sender displayed. Can you confirm here that you sent it, for my peace of mind? Best, AGK [•] 14:40, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

  • AGK Yes, it was me. My client does the same thing, because the "sender" is really the WMF saying it is my email client. I left a null edit summary on your talk, guess you didn't see it. Dennis - 2¢ 14:47, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks much

Thanks very much for your kind words at Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection#Bucko_.28edit.C2.A0.7C_talk.C2.A0.7C_history.C2.A0.7C_protect.C2.A0.7C_delete.C2.A0.7C_links.C2.A0.7C_watch.C2.A0.7C_logs.C2.A0.7C_views.29 — about my historical Quality improvement work on Wikipedia.

Much appreciated,

— Cirt (talk) 04:23, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

  • No problem, you've earned the comments. I left a note on Jack's page. He didn't do anything wrong, I just offered a different perspective. I tend to bend over backwards for anyone that is wanting to create content and has shown they know how to do so properly. In your case, I don't think there is any question of your ability. Being a new admin, I think he is just erring on the conservative and cautious side, which is probably wise. And it is why I didn't step over his opinion, as I want to help him, not stomp on him. He seems like a nice enough fellow, I supported him at RFA. But in my opinion, it is safe to trust anyone with experience like yours without asking a lot of questions. If you had been a <5000 edit user without autoreviewer, I would have done exactly what he did. In the interest of efficiency (and frankly, as a sign of showing trust), I would quickly unprotect for any "obviously content focused" editor. A less experienced editor, I might have watched the page, but I wouldn't have bothered with anyone with a drawerful of FA pips, such as yourself. Dennis - 2¢ 14:55, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Nellychief7

Hi Dennis,

I'm spending so little time here these days that I'm dropping balls left and right. I just noticed you blocked the Nellyhan and Mischief7 accounts one week each for socking, but you only blocked them for the socking that Ponyo said was confirmed via CU. I'm 100% certain that they belong to the same person, based on behavioral quirks. Do you have any objection to me re-blocking Mischief7 (the newer account) indef, and re-blocking Nellyhan for 1 month (as it wasn't serial socking, but actual "pretending to be 2 different people" socking)? Or would you prefer I leave Nellyhan's block alone, as a kind of "double jeopardy" thing? I'll add explanatory notes to the two SPI's. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:19, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

  • No objection at all. I just looked quickly and made the safest block possible. Sounds like you know the case better than me, so I'm happy to defer to you here. I was just trying to mop up before the case got archived due to inactivity. You've clerked before and likely already know how to hist merge the cases, or archive/move. I don't think it matters. Dennis - 2¢ 23:24, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. But I haven't clerked there before, and SPI usually confused me, so I'm likely instead to just make a note in both archived cases to see the other SPI, and that I determined based on behavior evidence they were the same person. I think this is probably enough, but if this is inadequate and makes too big a mess, then I'd appreciate a few minutes of your time explaining the intricacies to me. If you want, wait until I've done my best and then let me know if it was adequate. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:29, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
That is probably enough, just copy all the socks over to the real master's page, then CSD request (housekeeping) the other pages, referencing the master (no redirect, someone else must delete), add a note. I could do a fancy hist merge, but I technically filed the case, so I can't clerk it. The CUs get mad when you do that, understandably. This is so simple and uncontested, I don't think "proper procedure" really matters as long as the result is the same Dennis - 2¢ 23:41, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
I left an explanatory update in each. I was mistaken, they actually aren't archived yet, so I may leave it for a clerk to do anything more complicated if they think it necessary. Unless that seems too lazy. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:46, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
Naw, I don't think they will think it's lazy. Better to do that than do something wrong. Most people don't realize how formal SPI really is, all about accountability. They may just end up archiving them in a rush, but even that isn't so bad. Dennis - 2¢ 23:52, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Reference Errors on 11 November

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:40, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

ENT 70

I was interested in the user's "key point", repeated a number of times, that when us Christian and atheist bigots attack his religion on Talk:Muhammad (something I, for instance, cleverly did without ever posting there), we call that "freedom of speech". I can't find that anybody except the user themselves has called anything "freedom of speech", or even mentioned the concept. Well, except for the users who have told them Wikipedia is a private website and not a vehicle for anybody's freedom of speech, but I guess they never noticed. I'm glad I still retain some ability to be amazed at these things, after all these years, with Flood geology on my watchlist and everything. Hmmm. I should probably start watching Intelligent design, too, give myself a treat. Bishonen | talk 14:16, 2 November 2014 (UTC).

  • I really do understand why some people get confused about "freedom of speech"; they fail to remember that your freedom to speak doesn't mean you can force me to listen on a private website or in my own home. Go speak in your yard or in the public square instead. That is a common theme with WP:DE, the misguided idea that they have "rights" here, when in fact, none of us do. I'm not Christian, Atheist, Jewish, nor Muslim, thus I'm comfortable dealing with those issues and would like to think I can be objective. Pushing POV is pushing POV, the particular flavor is meaningless for our purposes. And I've avoided watching Intelligent design. I may indeed be a fool, but I'm not a glutton for punishment. Dennis - 2¢ 14:27, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
    • @Bishonen: FWIW, I wish more people did watch ID. I have noticed a bit of a tendency on that article to discount even leading academic reference sources (admittedly, in areas other than "science") for no particular good reason. There seems to me to be some rather serious issues on that topic, and I think maybe the only way to resolve them might be to change policy to the effect of making wikipedia an "academic" or "philosophical" encyclopedia, a phrase which is frankly more in line with the 5 pillars, as most encyclopedias that I have seen can be reasonably described as biographical, historical, and philosophical (broadly defined, including philosophy of science, which is more or less equivalent to science), not as "scientific." The area where empirical science, theoretical science, philosophy, and religion (broadly construed) intersect is probably the biggest single area of problems we have here, and I personally think that at least part of the problem is due to that dubious policy of our being a "scientific" encyclopedia. John Carter (talk) 20:57, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gender Gap Task Force/Proposed decision

Regarding Eric: I think one reason this hasn't been tried before is that people imagined this would only shift a big pile of ongoing conflicts to conflicts among admins (which would also pull in everyone else, so nothing would be gained). But I'd like to prove the doomsayers wrong ... my proposal is that we get a handful (3? 5?) of admins together who are on top of the relevant issues, including at least one who's been critical of Eric's detractors (you for instance, if you're willing), so that we can discuss problems jointly as they arise, so that Eric, admins, and everyone else can get a sense that we're actually on top of this, that we're trying to handle things consistently and fairly generate a discussion that's both concise and neutral (in some sense), with the goal of not driving Eric away from the project (and not driving anyone else away, either). How does that sound? - Dank (push to talk) 15:59, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

This might put Eric Corbett in the spotlight more, single him out for special treatment (be that good or bad), something I'm pretty sure he wants to avoid and wouldn't choose willingly. I'm not sure what the larger goal is here. I do know that the problem at Wikipedia isn't Eric, and it's not even "civility". It is about how we frame human interactions on the whole. Some want a very strict guideline in which all editors must conform, others want everything short of a personal attack being acceptable. Most people fit somewhere in the middle. We enforce toward tolerance because that is easier and safer, via WP:BIAS, and because we aren't mind readers, as the English language is easy to manipulate. As in law, it is better to let 10 guilty men go free than to convict one innocent man.
The real disruption isn't the act. Allow me to indulge a bit and use you and I (as non-admin) as examples. I revert you with the summary "Bad source fuckhead". You leave a relatively neutral note on my page warning about civility, I revert it off with the summary "Leave me alone fuckhead", so you take it to ANI. By all accounts, a reasonable act. By the time the discussion is over, I get a 48 hour block, yet the phrase "fuckhead" will have been uttered in that ANI discussion at least 50 times. Plus, several people will argue and be a bit rude, no one will change their minds, etc. I actually counted and commented on a similar case the other day, so I promise this isn't an exaggeration. While you can summarize that as "justice was done", in fact, I would call it a miserable failure as the process of adjudicating the matter was more disruptive than the initial acts, and the forbidden words ended up being uttered 25x more than the initial offense. A conundrum indeed.
My point is that sometimes, you have to just overlook someone calling you a fuckhead. Or to put it another way "I would rather be happy than right.". Some people desperately look for infractions so they can "right that which is wrong". Others just have a low threshold, which isn't a character flaw, but makes dealing with the real world difficult. Others, just go with the flow and overlook singular bumps in the road. Those are the happy ones. I try to be one of those.
In my singular opinion, we should be encouraging more civility and more cooperation. The block tool is not a Swiss Army Knife, and is poorly suited for doing this. At the same time, and in equal measure, we should be encouraging tolerance, and the willingness to overlook singular instances of uncivil behavior. This is the approach I try to use, doing both at the same time. People are quick to notice my request for tolerance and just as quick to overlook my criticisms to the "offender", but they are in equal measure. You can't encourage better behavior by someone by being a bastard to them, or by treating them like a scolded school child, and all too often, we collectively do.
We have plenty of editors, lets just boot the troublemakers, right? If we could instantly block all the people here that can get rude from time to time, we will have blanded ourselves into perfect mediocrity and cut the population by half. Talented people tend to be temperamental, this is not a shocker. Over half of Hollywood acters have bipolar disorder, also not a shocker. If you want people to come and excel, to achieve, to create something truly wonderful, AND do it for free, you pretty much have to expect that they are going to bump heads regularly. I dare say that often an article is better for the headbutting.
What is the solution? I don't know, but I am convinced that most are trying to oversimplify the problem by saying "It is Eric" or "It is our admin not enforcing civility policy", and quick answers to the wrong questions seldom achieve anything. So I would love to be part of the solution, but I don't think the community is ready to really deal with the problems right now: They want solutions that don't or can't exist. They want Eric and other passionate editors to turn into Ms. Manners, lift his pinkie with each sip of tea, yet still crank out the prose. It doesn't work that way, and anyone that says "it can!" simply doesn't understand human psychology. We can trim the rough edges off, learn new habits, but it takes time and patience, and we are better off encouraging a little trimming, rather than blocking them until they raise that pinkie. Whatever the solution, I find many in the community are simply unrealistic in their expectations, and I question the motives of a rare few as well. The issue is large, much larger than our reluctant poster child Eric. I simply do not see any indication the community is willing to make changes to improve the situation, particular when even Jimbo will make pop shots at Eric on a talk page he had banned Eric from defending himself on. The poster "The Last Act of Defiance"[12] comes to mind, with Eric as the middle finger waving mouse.
And I hope you understand that the extremes I use as examples aren't reflective of your mild and well balanced opinions, I just prefer to paint with broad strokes, and use the opportunity to talk to the broader audience. Dennis - 2¢ 17:13, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
You're quite right Dennis, this proposal fills me with horror, and I wouldn't co-operate with it even if it were put in place. My initial reaction to the proposed decisions is that they target me far more than the real cause of the disruption at GGTF. But then I'm an easy target and CMDC apparently less so. Eric Corbett 17:25, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
(ec)"I'm not sure what the larger goal is here": Whose goal? If Arbcom's, then we ask them to clarify, now or later. If mine, I'm trying to be transparent. If the community's, I think the community in general has expressed a preference for less drama. There ought to be a way forward that treats everyone with respect and even affection, though it might take some work to find it. - Dank (push to talk) 17:28, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
Also ... you make a lot of good points, which I'll respond to by email. - Dank (push to talk) 17:33, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Yep, Dennis. The whole thing is rotten. I vaguely recall that there is a way to scramble passwords and I'm looking for that right now. Someone else can finish the FAC, or it will fail for lack of supervision during the remainder of the candidature process. I've just rushed through what I can do regarding the outstanding issues. I'll go have a pint later and bounce my feelings off a couple of non-Wikipedians but this really seems like the last straw. If the community wants to end drama, there is one sure way to remove a lot of it and it doesn't involve Eric. - Sitush (talk) 17:34, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
Go have a pint and think about it Sitush. I'm still considering my position as well, but let's not act in haste as the voting hasn't really started yet. Eric Corbett 17:38, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
I'm sure you mean well Dank, but the truth is that there are some people whose affection would make want to vomit, and I would do anything to avoid it. Good luck with trying to make everyone the same. Eric Corbett 17:38, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
I think it would be good for us all have a pint and think this through. It is still early in the "remedies" and only Worm has voiced any opinions. In particular, I think the "any admin can ban Eric from a page" is folly, and is begging for abuse and more drama. The "that word" segment bugs me as well. First, I've asked Eric to avoid saying "cunt" more than a few times, but when we can't even use the word in context, that makes me fear Arb might be amenable to adopting the Seven dirty words list. I know, they don't want to offend, but at this point it seems obtuse to talk in coded words like you would around a child. To his credit, Worm's statement "A single word, when it obviously upsets so many people, really should be avoided." is reasonable and balanced. It should be avoided. That doesn't justify a block every time it is uttered, but we should encourage avoidance, if only because of the drama of the aftermath with select individuals. One last one, and forgive me for ignorance as I never ventured into the Gender Gap area, as the few times I looked at it, my good judgement told me to go away that I would likely be attacked by one or two people there, but the finding "Eric Corbett has expressed the opinion that the members of the Gender Gap Task Force are pushing a "feminist agenda"[15] and are attempting to "alienate every male editor".[16]" is odd, because that isn't a "good" or "bad" thing in itself. From my little bit of observation, I would agree with Eric, which is precisely why I avoided the place. I'm interested in solutions, not politics. So I find it odd, this statement, as if making the claim itself is a misdeed. I also disagree that Eric's exchanges were without merit. They might be blunt, but they were topical in that they questioned the premise of someone else's assumptions. Ties into the above, where I opine that you can't get useful answers if you don't understand the question. All you end up with is "42".
We are still early into this, I don't want to jump to too many conclusions just yet, and suggest we all do the same. Dennis - 2¢ 18:10, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
Asking the right questions is indeed the only way to get the right answers, but asking those questions is apparently disruptive. The GGTF project has taken on a life of its own, driven largely by one editor on a mission; being topic banned from that place would be no hardship. I've found it rather hurtful to be repeatedly accuse of misogyny and hating all women, when nothing could be further from the truth, yet that's apparently OK. Eric Corbett 18:31, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
Some look for sexism so fervently that they find it where it doesn't exist. The same can be said for any "evil" trait. While Wikipedia isn't perfect when it comes to sexism, it is better than most Fortune 500 companies. Here, you can lie about your sex, or refuse to answer. Most of the time, no one actually cares anyway. Same with being gay, lesbian, bi-sexual, transgendered, socialist, anarchist, whatever. If you get an article to GA or FA or submit a photo and it becomes the photo of the day, you will have done so because your peers recognize your high quality work. It is very unlikely that the color of your knickers made any difference. While individuals may be jerks (and can be dealt with), the community on the whole only cares about results, not gender or political affiliation. Dennis - 2¢ 19:18, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
That is not the impression I have been getting. It might have been true once but the shout-y stuff is changing things. - Sitush (talk) 19:24, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
I agree. There's also a certain asymmetry in the discussion. It's evidently OK to be anti-male but not OK to be even the slightest bit critical of any female editor. Eric Corbett 19:28, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
And the loud minority would have you believe they are going to change Wikipedia to this Utopian vision of perfection, where people like myself, Eric and Sitush are banned, and everyone dances around the Maypole singing Kumbaya. Of course, the reason it will never work is Eric, Sitush and I are radically different people, so it is pretty silly to lump us together. And none of that has anything to do with building an encyclopedia. Their goals fail because they aren't practical, they are political, which is why they are a minority.
Walk downtown in any city. You see the people with signs "The End Is Nigh!", you notice the Harikrishna guy with the tambourine, another guy plays a guitar with an open case, looking for change. You don't really notice all the guys and gals in business suits, or wearing jeans or slacks and sweaters. I mean, you SEE them, but you generally see them as a group, not as individuals, like you do the ones that stand out. Those are the masses, so they blend into a singular fabric. You notice the oddballs, the loud minority. The same is true here. Most people just edit, minding their own business. The vast majority of editors have never seen ANI. Most people here are sane, the regular masses, you have to trust in that. I try to not spend too much time arguing with the guy saying "The End Is Nigh", because I know I can't convince him. The proverbial pearls before swine. Avoidance is harder to do here, but minority views are just that, minority views, something that the masses don't accept as being true. So I wouldn't spend too much time there either. People that have radical, minority views tend to trip themselves up with very little help of others, given enough time. Getting caught up only drags you along for the ride. Again, its why I completely avoided The G Gap, I saw a train wreck coming, I didn't want to be on that ride, and the end result was going to be the same. Next year, it will be someone else, rinse, repeat. Dennis - 2¢ 19:48, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
FWIW, I hope both Eric and Sitush take a bit of a break from the place, including a beer or two or forty (hopefully not all in quick succession, of course) before making any real decisions here. There are some editors who work quietly and almost unnoticed for years developing the encyclopedia, like St Anselm, whom I have considered nominating for editor of the year for some time, given his over 100,000 edits, 85% of them in article space. I think, for better or worse, one of the reasons he can have such a high percentage is because he works well in comparatively non-controversial areas where the academic opinion has become comparatively stable over the years. Then there are other editors, like me, and I think Eric and Dennis, who spend a lot of time trying to resolve conflicts or address concerns when editors not as lucky as St. Anselm find people disagreeing with them, and/or find editors some of whose contributions are at best dubiously described as such, and try to change those situations for the better. Although Eric has gotten some heat over the years because of what some might call occasionally intemperate language, his motivations and actions are I think generally reasonable, even if sometimes his language... . I agree that the proposed discretionary sanctions are excessive, and I wonder how it might be possible to convey that opinion to the arbs.
Again, FWIW, I am trying to get together material for the Bibliography of encyclopedias myself as my main activity du jour to help make it easier for others to find good sources on some of our more controversial and/or obscure topics. I still get involved in some of the bigger controversies, being involved in 2 of the current ArbCom cases, but I do think that making it easier for others to share the burden of finding sources to determine WEIGHT and other matters might be one of several ways to provide some broad help in multiple areas in a comparatively non-controversial way. John Carter (talk) 20:07, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
But if all good people do nothing - avoid GGTF etc - then it will happen. And we should not be a socio-political soapbox in the first place. - Sitush (talk) 20:12, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
  • The Arbs will do as they will, but that they propose to treat me more harshly than CMDC tells me everything I need to know. Eric Corbett 20:17, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
    I have no influence with the Arbs that I'm aware of. At least a couple read here (probably Eric's fault..;) so will see that I think it is a bit lopsided as well, but it would be foolish of me to think I could sway them. Dennis - 2¢ 20:37, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
    The case was accepted, in my opinion, in another effort to deal with me. Nothing at all to do with the GGTF or CMDC. It stinks. Eric Corbett
    It certainly has the stamp of the god-king all over it now. - Sitush (talk) 20:53, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

I struck "handle things consistently and fairly" in my first comment, in favor of "generate a discussion that's both concise and neutral (in some sense)". That may help a little. - Dank (push to talk) 20:30, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

It doesn't. The agenda is very clear to see. Eric Corbett 20:46, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
It's a ridiculous idea, sword of Damocles comes to mind. J3Mrs (talk) 20:48, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Troubled

  • I'm actually quite troubled about the restriction allowing ANY admin to topic ban Eric from a talk page, deeply so. I had an analogy to compare with, one of my favorite ways to make a point as you all know, but it was humorous, and I'm to the point that I don't see the humor anymore. I do not see the humor. I would like to think the restrictions proposal was made in good faith, and frankly, I've always liked Worm, so I'm still going to assume good faith, but it is a horrible, horrible idea. The other remedies, it is how you read the evidence and I'm not trying to debate the merits. My concern is this restriction, that is so easy to abuse, so easy to game, enough so that it begs for abuse. Even if I didn't care about the parties, I know that as soon as it is used, it will cause a flurry of fights and drama across every possible admin and Arb board. It isn't a solution, it is a recipe for drama. I'm not sure what else to do, or to say, knowing this one paragraph is insufficient. Dennis - 2¢ 23:40, 12 November 2014 (UTC)


  • The entire set of proposals is full of pitfalls. Some are being discussed - how to define bans from "gender gap", for example - but other are not. The IBAN one has massive loopholes that a good wikilawyer (ie: someone who has already clearly managed to pull the wool over eyes) can use to their advantage. How do you police inferences in comments that are obvious to everyone but, by definition, not stated? The obvious and much-used recent example is referring to (paraphrase) "people from Manchester" when there is no valid context for using such a term other than sniping. The current proposals are, all in all, a complete mess. - Sitush (talk) 00:06, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
A broader but still obviously snippy example is this. Please don't tell me that wasn't a reference to me. - Sitush (talk) 00:09, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Just because my singular focus is on the one proposal, that doesn't mean I like the others. The restriction can be used as a weapon so easily, with such stealth and efficiency, for either personal or political purposes, and surely the individual Arbs will realize that. Had this been a one sided problem, we could have handled it at WP:ANI. If there is a future one sided problem with Eric or anyone else, we can handle it at ANI. This gives any admin that is daring enough to try to pull the sword from the stone, the ability to change the balance of a discussion on any important topic.....and even if he is reverted three weeks later, it be too late for that particular purpose. As for the editor in question, I quit listening some time ago, once it started sounding like a broken record. Dennis - 2¢ 00:17, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
    If there are any sanctions imposed on me then I'll be out of here. And quite likely even if there aren't given this circus. Eric Corbett 00:22, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
  • I'm losing faith, Dennis. You've more than once said that your preference has been to ignore/not get involved. That is fine in itself but I'll repeat what I paraphrased earlier: "all it takes for the triumph of evil ..." You can't have it both ways. This whole case could have been resolved with one simple remedy. Instead, we've got a legalistic nightmare. Like Eric, I don't see the point. - Sitush (talk) 00:31, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
  • I've spent a few hours today on the phone, in email and on this page, specifically about this Arb case. I think it is safe to say I'm not ignoring or avoiding involvement, but I have no special powers here. I DID try to avoid that case, as editors were trying to draw me into being a full fledged party, which is odd since I've never even edited on that page. So yes, I did try to avoid it as much as I could, I have other things I have to worry about and there just aren't enough hours in the day. And trust me, I have ZERO extra pull at Arb. When I talk, I'm just another editor. If there is wisdom in what I say, perhaps they will listen, but they don't OWE me the privilege of listening to me more than they listen to any other editor. Being an admin doesn't push me to the front of the line at Arb. So I do what I can, which isn't much. Right now, what I must do is spent two hours with Mrs. Brown and the furbabies before going to bed, as it is their patience and willingness that allow to do anything here at all. Dennis - 2¢ 00:54, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
  • I don't think anyone thinks you have any more influence than any other contributor here, Dennis. You're just a sound guy .. and in some respects a sounding-board. Enjoy your time with Mrs Brown and the furbabies, which is far more important. - Sitush (talk) 01:00, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
  • I agree with Dennis about the restriction; I think we're just asking for more random ANIs about Eric if we do this. I would post on the page, but I'm too tired to get involved in the mess of the case itself. --Rschen7754 05:57, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Suggestions

I understand the grumbling and would happily listen to alternatives. Indeed, if someone could come up with a decent suggestion, here or at the talk page, I'd propose it. The problem is, the only other suggestions I could come up with were harsher. We could throw site bans round, but I hate doing that. One suggestion was to stop Eric from editing any Wikipedia: or Wikipedia talk: pages not directly related to content, but again, that is a very harsh remedy - even though it would be more difficult to game and would allow him to focus on what he's exceptional at. I'm open to hearing alternatives, but doing nothing is not one I'd be happy with. WormTT(talk) 11:03, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

  • Sometimes nothing is a better choice on that one singular sanction. I'm not talking about the others. Eric manages to use WP talk pages without issue the overwhelming majority of the time. Sometimes, I find his often blunt observations valuable at WER, for example. It serves a purpose, even if the truth or a perspective is inconvenient. To be honest, especially when it is inconvenient. I'm not comfortable losing that at the whim of one person. This case was about a lot of interactions, not just Eric vs. The World. I respect Arb wants solutions, but you have to trust that when the problem is only Eric, the community as a whole can, and has, dealt with it. Look back two weeks for proof. He is a lightening rod, and just as useful. Single admin don't need that power, nor the temptation it gives. I don't want that power. I trust your faith and goodwill as an Arb. I'm asking you to trust me that less is often more, and less taxing on the community. I can accept other elements I diasagree with, and agree with, and respect the role of Arb as the final word, but that style of restriction is contentious, ripe for abuse, a burden on the community, who is already capable of dealing with those problems collectively. Dennis - 2¢ 12:10, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
    Acknowledging your comment, but I'm afraid we'll have to agree to differ. If the community was dealing with situations effectively, they wouldn't keep returning to Arbcom. WormTT(talk) 12:16, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
    But in truth this particular case had very little to do with me, it was just a convenient coatrack for some, who will likely be rewarded by your restrictions. Eric Corbett 13:27, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
    Arbcom has to deal with the evidence it is presented and a fair amount was presented about you. Personally, I don't put much stock in the "misogyny" arguments and it's painfully obvious that a lot was just throwing mud and hoping some sticks. That said, within the GGTF arguments there were places that your interactions were the heart of the problem. It might have be that you were making the assumption that everyone works on the same level as you, but the way you put forward statements did not make your point clear - and without the point, your comments came across as obnoxious. You have the ability to be more eloquent than almost every other Wikipedian, which can only lead to the conclusion that you choose not to. WormTT(talk) 14:20, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
    But how much of that evidence had to do with alleged disruption of the GGTF? None? As I said, it was an obvious coatrack. Eric Corbett 14:24, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
(edit conflict)What causes a lot of drama is that Eric is very often right and that makes for a lot of enemies. There are occasions where less is more but if you want drama then you're going the right way to get it. You might get a much better result from Eric by withdrawing the proposed sanction, but I doubt you will by pushing on with it. And please remember this isn't a school where promises of better behaviour are extracted like wisdom teeth, you can get far better results in more subtle ways, like trust. Treating editors like naughty children is one way of making sure drama persists. Eric is an adult, treat him like one and maybe things will improve. Sometimes you have to think outside the box, people often think the harshest punishments are best in reality they're the worst and editing the encyclopedia can be a punishment in itself, ask Sitush. J3Mrs (talk) 13:30, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
J3Mrs, I'm happy to hear "outside the box" suggestions. I like to think Eric knows I respect him, he and I have had positive interactions in the past. Indeed, even in our less positive interactions we've maintained respect - I've blocked him indefinitely once and to the best of my knowledge he's never said a word against that action. To remove the proposal, something would have to replace it, otherwise we will perpetually return to this spot. In other situations I might have suggested mentorship or community guided discussion - but I don't believe Eric would engage with either of those. Do you have another way that we can change things? You have my ear. WormTT(talk) 14:20, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Worm, the reason it went to Arb was because it involved many people, and Arb is the best place to deal with complicated and delicate (and politically charged) situation. This one remedy is designed to deal with situations that only deal with ONE person, in a way that entrusts too much power to a single admin instead of the community. There has not been a showing that we can't deal with these issues. If you want proof, look back two weeks ago, where Chillum blocked Eric, and while some debated it, I was quick to not only agree with the block, but to fully support the blocking admin and compliment his restrained and balanced approach. I would have done the exact same block had I seen the problem before him. There was no drama after the block, just discussion, some heated, but reasonable. We can disagree on some point, but both have the best interests of Wikipedia at heart, and I can promise you that a great many people take issue with this kind of sanction. Not because it is Eric, but because it is so easy to abuse and so very likely to cause so much drama in the future. Trust is a mutual affair, if you want us to trust Arb, you have to trust the community, which has shown (recently) it can deal with singular, one sided problem quickly and efficiently. Dennis - 2¢ 13:36, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
    Arbitration is a final step in dispute resolution. The idea is to make the dispute end. Yes, they involve many people - but one way to make a dispute end is to remove key players and allow swift removal of anyone you've missed - that's the typical "ban the worst, discretionary sanction the rest" remedy. I'm happy to see alternatives that will make the dispute end and will push them forward if I think they'd work. But doing nothing... I don't have the confidence that we wouldn't be back here again in a few months. WormTT(talk) 14:20, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Agree. Eric has been turned into a devilish poster child, in particular by someone who will never get blocked for his frequent gratuitous incivility here but whose pulpit talk page should really be cleared and full-protected. That person should be pontificating at Meta, if they must pontificate at all, because their issues are truly global in the project sense.

    Eric has an indubitable command of the language, grammar and the usage of both. I think that alone pisses some people off, sparking some sort of collective inferiority complex. He has, though, also demonstrated that he can step back if someone points out that he is just (yet again) being baited. One problem is that this baiting grows anyway: anyone who sympathises with him (which is not the same as agreeing, nor necessarily even 100% sympathy) becomes another target for the same group of people, hence for example the needling I've had from Mr Urge.

    The whole GGTF mess of recent months has been a direct consequence of a few very vocal "civility" people usurping a project for their own hobby-horse and the case was indeed something of a coatrack. I still find it interesting that the person who proposed the damn thing had very little input thereafter, and most of what they did input was then stricken. "Light the blue touchpaper and retire", indeed. - Sitush (talk) 14:16, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

  • Dennis, there was a particular circumstance around that block: Eric dared it to happen, and accordingly it did. I don't think it is reflective of the various other circumstances where a block has occurred, and then been reverted. isaacl (talk) 16:44, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Worm, admit you were wrong and just strike it I don't see why it needs replacing. Its not about your "respect", its about treating adults like adults, Eric could mentor anybody here and you know it. It's really patronising no wonder he gets annoyed. I was amazed that you only proposed one sanction for Carolmooredc yet considered Eric Corbett worthy of two. It shows how little understanding you have of what actually went on. Eric was a very small part of this whole affair which I have watched from its very beginning. He was accused of misogyny yet that has gone without comment and being married to me in an attempt to sully both our reputations. Thank goodness at least one Arb "gets" what this shennanigans is about but I see you jumped for his proposal really quickly. J3Mrs (talk) 15:47, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
To give credit where credit is due, Worm has upped the ante by supporting a full site ban of Carol "For her actions discussed in this case, Carolmooredc is indefinitely banned from the English Language Wikipedia. She may request reconsideration of the ban twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter." I would say that he DOES see there is a difference in behavior here. This was just added. Dennis - 2¢ 15:51, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
J3Mrs, I wrote the initial proposed decision over a week ago which included a number of site bans as options, but I wasn't the only arb writing it. What I posted was not a final decision, but a proposed one that had been modified - any Arb can modify it further at any time until it is final. If you aren't happy with what I'm saying on a personal level, I suggest you address the committee as a whole at the talk page. WormTT(talk) 15:56, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Also note that the language that empowers Admin to topic ban Eric have been dramatically curtailed. Not saying it is perfect, but it is more of a stick than a mace. Things are shifting to reflect proportionate sanctions, which is a good sign. It is still early in the process. Dennis - 2¢ 15:58, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Arbcom

There seems to be a dearth of volunteers again this year. Could I prod you into taking the plunge? Or at least giving it some thought. Remember arbitrators are not required to be active on every case. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 02:32, 13 November 2014 (UTC).

  • I've been asked a few times in the last week, and I'm flattered and humbled by the trust and faith given by those who asked, but it isn't something I think is right for me. I won't say "never", but I'm really not looking for more responsibility or obligation at this point of my life, and honestly, I just don't have any desire to hold the position right now. Dennis - 2¢ 03:38, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

I've done some reading on both this page and Eric Corbett's talk page. I can see evident frustration with a lot of things, ArbCom included. I won't state my position on the whole GGTF situation, as I haven't studied it especially thoroughly. However, I can see that the positions here and on Eric's page are fairly clear. Since y'all prefer straightshooters, I'll be blunt: put up or shut up. If you (this is a generic 'you') don't like the way ArbCom is doing its business, well, an election is coming up. I only see one candidate right now. Why don't some of you people run? If you don't like the direction Wikipedia is heading, make an effort to stop it. (Quite frankly, I think Eric Corbett would stand a very good chance of winning a seat). I hope I don't sound rude. Regards, Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 04:25, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

How is it that an editor editing since 28 October 2014 has an opinion about Eric Corbett running for Arbcom on Dennis Brown's talk page?  Unscintillating (talk) 05:17, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
Mmm. Fast learner. pablo 12:26, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
I'm not a new editor. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 15:09, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
If you won't say "never", saying "next round of elections, if I'm still am around on Wikipedia by then" would be an acceptable compromise. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 13:07, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
  • It's complicated, particularly when you look at motivations. What I do here is a balance between "what I like to do" and "where I can do good". I'm not sure Arb fits in that picture at all. Being an Arb requires sacrificing almost all of the "what I like to do" (articles on culture and cars, gnoming, helping users) and forces you to spend most of your time, well, doing Arb stuff. You have to stay a bit remote simply because a problem might end up at Arb, so you can't be involved, so you need to avoid ANI and mediation issues, something I've traditionally done a great deal of because it fits into the "where I can do good" portion. Would I be an adequate Arb? I think I can be fair and reasonable, but being an Arb is much more complicated than what you see on the pages of Wikipedia. Most of the work they do never graces the pages here, but I know enough former Arbs to have an idea. That is what makes it a particularly thankless job. And being "adequate" isn't adequate. Do I think I could be a really good Arb and make a difference? That is a pretty bold statement, and honestly, I don't see any way I could justify that claim. It takes more than good intentions, and while I think I could do the job without screwing up, I'm not at all convinced that it is the place that I could make the most positive contribution to Wikipedia. That is why I say "I won't say never". Maybe in 2 or 5 or 10 years, I will think that Arb is where I can do the most good, but I don't feel that way now. I actually like working at the lowest level. I like having the admin tools, moving pages, closing AFDs, settling fights by finding common ground, debating policy issues. I'm already the boss at work more than I care for. I have a very blue collar mentality, I would rather work on the ground floor than be in the ivory tower. The "prestige" has no appeal, nor the power. It simply comes at too high a price, a price that I can't justify right now. So I can't compromise by making promises that I can't keep. I can keep an open mind in the coming years, but I have to temper that with the reality that the job does not tempt me at this time. If it were handed to me on a silver platter without me having to work for it, I would still decline it today. Dennis - 2¢ 13:58, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
    Dennis, you'd make an excellent Arb, but you are right about the price. I've paid it and would rather Wikipedia was fun again. I just hope it was worth it. WormTT(talk) 14:27, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
    In my estimation, the question whether or not you'd be an adequate arb, with the understanding that being adequate isn't sufficient to be an adequate arb can be answered with a resounding yes. However, I completely understand you don't want to run. I'm just selfish enough that I do want you to run and - though I do fully respect your selfish choice not to run - felt I should let you know. Oh, and about that silver platter, the current state of Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2014/Candidates looks a lot like a silver platter to me. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 15:25, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
I'm flattered, but it's still early in the process I think. Honestly, I hadn't even looked or watchlisted any of that until 5 minutes ago. I know lots of people who would make good candidates, and have tried to convince them, but they are as eager for the job as I am. Dennis - 2¢ 15:40, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
Well, badger them more ;). Seriously, in the current position of ArbCom within Wikipedia, anyone who is eager to serve on ArbCom is likely a terrible candidate. What we're looking for is "willing to endure". Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 15:51, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
What about you, Martin? Why don't you run? Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 15:52, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
A variety of reasons. First, I'm really bad at dealing with stressful situations. If I would be on ArbCom I would quite likely disappear for months on end without prior warning. Secondly, I'm not at all in touch anymore with current Wikipedia practice and policy. Thirdly, I'm not that good at dispute resolution. While ArbCom currently doesn't help in dispute resolution at all, I think it's vital for their members to be somewhat good at it regardless. Lastly, I can have security issues at times, and I'm quite certain I wouldn't be elected if a broader field of candidates arises, and I would take that more personal than I should. All in all, I'm quite certain that I wouldn't be a good arb, nor would I be a good ArbCom candidate. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 16:02, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
Pfft, I made 10x that taking bribes to unblock banned editors and overlook socks. Ask any dirty cop, the real money is down on the street. ;) Dennis - 2¢ 16:01, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
  • It would indeed be an interesting year, I'd make certain of that. Unfortunately though the election isn't democratic in any real sense, as you obviously know WTT. For one thing I don't think there has ever been a non-admin member of ArbCom, and for another Jimbo would rather shut the servers down than ratify me as a member of ArbCom. Eric Corbett 16:09, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
    There probably won't ever be a non-admin arb if few ever run. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 16:26, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
    Allow me to be selfish in saying that I would love to see Eric run and get Arb. Firstly, I find him very fair in his dealings with people, more than the tabloids would have you believe. But yes, there is a singular individual who would be dumbstruck. I understand he lives a few hours away, you could meet up halfway in Birmingham, share a pint, swap stories. To be a fly on the wall.... In reality, it would probably be more civil than the average talk page discussion. Dennis - 2¢ 16:35, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
    He is indeed a singular individual, but one with whom I would not enjoy sharing a pint. I fully intend to stand for Arb one day, but not this year. Eric Corbett 16:45, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
  • FWIW I will add my voice to the "Draft Dennis for Arb" movement. Until I saw this, and the related thread above, I don't think I had ever even been to the Arb page. Color me "disturbed." -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:53, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
    • Again, I appreciate, but really, I try to avoid Arb, and I'm utterly and completely ignorant of the processes and procedures and it likely shows in the few comments I've made there in the past. They would likely vote me off the island in the first month. ;) Dennis - 2¢ 17:22, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
      That's where you and I differ, I'd try to rebuild the island. Eric Corbett 17:48, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
  1. No desire to hold the post: Precisely what we need.
  2. Obligation: That is why I remarked you are not required to be active on every case, or even most cases. I think Arbs would do us all a favour if they were selective in which cases they participate in.
  3. One other point: While the positions are mostly 2 year slots, there is no compulsion to serve 2 years. You can give up the bit after a year with no harm done.
All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 01:54, 14 November 2014 (UTC).
  • Worm would know better than most of us how much of a (fill in any number of the seven words here) being an Arb is, but I think the one qualification I look for most is honestly not really wanting to do it, but being someone others think should. If we expanded ArbCom to make it more of part-time task, rather than an eternal effort of reading through seemingly endless pages of comments and revisions (I think Roger said one of the Scientology arbitrations ran to somewhere like 700 or 1000 pages of printout) I think you would maybe be one of the best "part-timers" we could have. Not that that will happen, of course, but it might be nice if we could distribute the load a bit more and maybe not get so many really good potential arbs like Floq burn out because of the demands of the task. John Carter (talk) 02:04, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
  • I forgot to mention that I have a standing deal with Drmies, who promised to indef block me and take away talk page access if I ever ran for Arb, as that means my account has been compromised, or I've gone insane. I sincerely asked him to do that, and he will, too. It isn't the 2 year commitment that scares me, its the 4 years of negativity you have to deal with in that 2 years. I'm afraid it would bring out the worst in me, and even if I wanted to, I'm not sure I have the right experiences or temperament for it. While I usually like being an admin, to be honest, there are often times I wish I wasn't. I can't imagine being an Arb. I would be lying if I didn't admit a fear of simply being overwhelmed. I would like to think I do ok as admin after 2.5 years experience, but I would rather be an ok admin than a crappy Arb. The new business is also a factor. Dennis - 2¢ 03:08, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
    • I don't remember that deal at all, Dennis, and I fully support you running for Arbcom. HA! I have had more dealings with Arbcom recently, though I find the whole procedure so tedious that I tend to lose interest. I think I gave evidence (really, of the negative kind) in the GGTF case, was somewhat involved in the Landmark Worldwide case, and I suppose that I need to have a look one of these days to see what's happening with them. As it happens I wrote up a draft "platform" a few years ago when someone asked me to run, and never filed my application. It's sort of what Worm says--I already do way too much adminning, and that kind of takes the fun out of it. I was being a Really Big Admin in the Gamergate business yesterday, and it's really not that much fun. Carry on, Drmies (talk) 03:21, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
    • Oh, but if we're going to have an Arbcom, I'd rather have one with Dennis, Eric, and Worm on it. But I want Beeblebrox too, and I don't know if Beebs and Eric are allowed to be in the same room. Drmies (talk) 03:22, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Criticism in an article

Hey Dennis, I undid an edit months ago at Christin Cooper citing WP:UNDUE which was an incorrect usage of WP:UNDUE and the original author reverted that edit about a week later. I still feel that the paragraph in question leads a level of undue weight (in the real sense, not the Wikipedia sense) to one small portion of the person's career. It is natural for small events to become "major" issues due to the nature of news media, but that doesn't necessarily make the events encyclopedic. I'd take it up with the editor who originally added the information; however, they are no longer editing Wikipedia, so I thought I'd ask for your opinion before changing anything again. Does Wikipedia have any official policy on how to deal with information that is verifiable and received massive coverage, but is inappropriate for an encyclopedia? In the same vein, do you think this edit was appropriate? Ryan Vesey 22:36, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

  • I'm not sure exactly what "the right way" is, but I know what I would probably do: be bold and remove if I really felt it was not helpful, then go to the talk page and say "I removed a section (link) because $x, $y and $z." You are acknowledging that it might be contentious and giving anyone a chance and forum to discuss it. I don't think you have to talk about the prior mistake of applying a policy as long as your reasons now are sound and you are doing it in broad daylight. We are not forced to publish material just because it is covered by the media, we are allowed to make editorial decisions on a consensus basis. As long as you are making the effort to allow a consensus to form, I can't see anyone faulting you in good faith. And keep in mind, someone might come along with a very good reason it should be included, and you should be open to that possibility. Dennis - 2¢ 22:46, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
  • I'm hoping Dennis doesn't mind me replying also but I think I have something to add to his good answer. WP:NOTNEWS is probably the policy you're looking for; things like what you removed in the Christin Cooper article would fall under routine coverage to me and could at the least be condensed to one sentence. Lots of stuff receives media coverage, and often repeated across many outlets, making some things appear more important than they necessarily are. Sam Walton (talk) 00:33, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Request for Arbitration declined

This is a courtesy notice to inform you that a request for arbitration, which named you as a party, has been declined. Feel free to see the Arbitrators' opinions for potential suggestions on moving forward.

For the Arbitration Committee, → Call me Hahc21 15:36, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm Sorry

I screwed up. In my interest to protect the fairness of a process, I didn't see the forest for the trees. My formal apology is here [13] and I've placed notices where appropriate. I'm putting it here in may talk page because I promised a long time ago I would when I screwed up like this, and I have. I believe the wording was something like "When I make an error, I will apologize in at least as public a manner as I made the error." Its a rather painful and embarrassing thing to do, but serves to keep me honest, keeps an archive in my talk page, and make me a bit less likely to err in the future, so it has real value.

The mistake was unquestionably in good faith and there are merits to my concerns, but my execution was simply horrible. I stomped on Dank in the process, someone who I've been fortunate enough enjoy a meal with in real life and get to know. Someone I can honestly call a friend. Fortunately, the error was simply to reverse, but it still leaves a wound, and I would feel less than a man if I didn't admit that. I'm sorry. Dennis - 2¢ 16:58, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Not a problem, I've replied there. - Dank (push to talk) 19:51, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
I really appreciate your response, and I hope I didn't come across as browbeating you. All I can do now is wait and see if Arbcom responds to my request and has any questions for me. After the case is over, regardless of whether what I'm saying applies to Eric, I want to talk with you here again about my idea above ... that in some cases, getting several admin voices together would be much better than what we sometimes do now, of just blocking or not blocking with a perfunctory response. So many of the problems in this Arbcom case, and others, might have been avoided or mitigated by that approach, I think. - Dank (push to talk) 21:43, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

James S.C. Chao EW

Dennis, Nononsenseplease has continued to EW at James S.C. Chao after being warned that he'd be reported if he did. Would you please either give him a wake up block (his block log suggests that this isn't his first EW block; while that prior block has been awhile, he only has 204 total edits, so it's not like he's had a lot of editing since to prove that he's developed clue). In the alternative, would you consider fully protecting the article in this state, unless you strongly disagree with the argument I've made on the talk page. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 18:11, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Hi, Dennis. The long and short of it is this: One user Byates5637 has insisted on trying to delete the following paragraph from the James Chao article:
Chao's shipping firm, Foremost Maritime Corporation, had one of its freight vessels, the Ping May, impounded by Colombian officials in the port of Santa Marta in late August 2014 after approximately 40 kilograms (88 pounds) of cocaine were found inside. The cocaine was hidden in a shipment of coal bound for the Netherlands.[14][15]
Reading Byates' comments at the Talk page makes it pretty clear from the beginning that he, or she, is trying to have it expunged for reasons of personal and/or political preference. The entry, however, was written in a neutral and encyclopedic tone, and the news itself is verifiable, reliably sourced, and notable - all the more since Foremost Maritime is the subject's personal, privately-held firm. It may not be the most flattering news, but Wikipedia is not James Chao's PR desk. I might add that it's more than likely that he tried to engage in Sock-puppetry here, since "Djv87" was just now created, apparently just for this.
Let me know if you have any questions. Nononsenseplease (talk) 18:34, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
None of that justifies the edit warring, however. You would be better served by coming up with a legitimate justification for both generally edit warring and violating the three revert rule: diff 1, diff 2, and diff 3. — TransporterMan (TALK) 18:56, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
Please note, Transporter Man, that Byates reverted my edit - not the other way around. It had been there for a week without incident until he began this edit-war. He's insisted on edit-warring about this, in fact, even though he can't specifically impugn the content at all. Something to consider, I think. Nononsenseplease (talk)
  • Nononsenseplease, let me explain a couple of things that might help you. You might disagree with some of them, but as the person who has the block button, these are the principles that tell me when and who to block. First, by any definition of policy, I could block you or you and Byates and honestly, it wouldn't require any explanation. Instead, I prefer to try at least once to talk it out. In this case, it is a BLP, one I know nothing of, one I care nothing of. When it comes to negative information, even if sourced, the default is to leave it OUT until a consensus is formed. Better safe than sorry. This isn't saying it doesn't belong, it just says the price of leaving it in improperly is higher than the price of leaving it out improperly. These are real humans after all. Your mistake is thinking it is ok to leave in contentious BLP material while it is debated. It is not. As a sign of good faith, I ask you to go revert yourself, go back to the talk page, and hammer it out. TransporterMan is there mediating, and frankly, he is one of the more fair mediators around, and should be an admin, but I've been unable to talk him into running. While I might have an admin bit, I know that he is more qualified to mediate there than I am, and completely trust his objectivity, and I ask you listen and at least keep an open mind. He knows policy. Or we can do it the ugly way, and I block you (not the other editor, as he is reverted via WP:BLP), and you still won't get your way. I want to assume good faith, that you just didn't understand, and allow you the chance to participate fully, and it starts by you reverting yourself, extending that olive brand, and by all means, go present your case on the talk page, all in compliance with WP:BRD and WP:BLP, and just use some common sense civility. And not to be overly blunt, but if you do revert again, today, tomorrow, anytime this discussion is going on, you will leave me no choice but to block you. Dennis - 2¢ 19:35, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
Hi, Dennis. That's fine; but remember that this investigation is very much ongoing in Colombia, and I trust that if on some later date the subject is indicted over this incident, proper mention of it will be made. Thanks again. Nononsenseplease (talk) 19:55, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
Nononsenseplease: Let me be perfectly honest: I don't think you are wrong. I really have no idea. As admin, I try hard to NOT have an opinion on whether you are wrong or right, I just care about he processes we use to debate each other. To make sure everyone gets a voice. To make sure the subjects of articles aren't falsely blamed, and if we have to err, we err on less info. My concerns aren't a judgement on your interpretation at all. You may very well be right, but we have to do it a certain way. I'm willing to extend 100% full faith, and overlook the edit warring. You are human, we all get overly excited, I have no interest in "punishing" you just because I can. I truly want to see an honest debate there, and I'm willing to bend over backwards to not use the admin tools or force my opinions. All I ask is you revert yourself as a sign of good faith, which is what policy asks. I'm offering you an opportunity to be the bigger man. "Backing down" isn't easy, but read the thread above this one. I know exactly what it is about. I'm not asking you to do anything that I wouldn't do myself. Dennis - 2¢ 20:02, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
My dear fellow, I said "that's fine." Now then, that still leaves the matter of sock-puppetry on the part of Baytes5637 (the "Dvj87" edit here). Could you please ask the good folks at the Sockpuppet Investigations desk to verify this? I'll be happy to if you'd rather not. All the best. Nononsenseplease (talk) 20:18, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
Actually, I worked as an SPI clerk over a year, have 1500 SPI blocks behind me, and most could consider me "experienced" at sockpuppet investigation. I completely understand why you would be suspicious. There is only one edit, however, and it was used in the middle of an edit war, but not so clearly to avoid 3RR. There isn't enough evidence to draw a conclusion (this is usually the case from a single edit), and there is definitely not enough evidence that I could convince a Checkuser to run a CU check. They are strict, and have worked directly with Checkusers on sock cases for a couple of years, so confident in what the threshold is. Often, these types of cases indicate "meatpuppetry", where someone gets their buddy to go in and do it for them, so CU wouldn't help there anyway, and their buddy might be in another town/state/country. Even when filed at SPI, these are the cases we would let sit. To simmer, waiting for more edits. We would monitor and hope for more evidence to make it clear that it isn't likely, or make it clear that it is likely. Taking action and using the tools to block someone doesn't require 100% guarantee of being right, but we do have to show that it is extremely likely and that other possible explanations are not very likely. Most of the time, that is impossible to do with just one edit, so we monitor. Dennis - 2¢ 20:44, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
There was no sock puppetry. What could my motivation possibly have been? I was the one who reached out for a 3rd opinion. Nonesenseplease is attacking me and throwing accusations at me all over wikipedia and it's getting a bit tiring. FWIW - he has not followed your advice to revert the article. Byates5637 (talk) 21:40, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
Though he's not reverted, he's not edited at all anywhere else, either. He needs to be given the benefit of the doubt that he may simply be offline or taking a break. There's no hurry. Thanks, Dennis, for your cool-headed approach, as always. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 22:08, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Question

Dennis Brown, if Eric Corbett is banned from Wikipedia, are you planing:

a)retire b)resign c)go on with the business as usual d)anything else, if "yes" what in particular?

I am asking because I'd like to understand what is the meaning of friendship on Wikipedia and how far one is ready to go to fight something that one believes is unfair? 113.105.93.80 (talk) 20:48, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

An interesting question. Firstly, I don't think it is the most likely outcome, and my gut feeling is that GorillaWarfare has a minority view on that point, but the premise of your question is interesting and thought provoking, so pardon me for being verbose, but I think the question deserves a thoughtful answer.
There is no justice at Wikipedia, just solutions. There are obvious comparisons to Arb and a court of law, but they have a lot more flexibility and the overall standards are much lower. There are less layers of appeal, so they will make more mistakes. This isn't an indictment of the current Arbs, it is just a simple fact due to the practicalities here and the way the system is designed. The only real appeal is Jimbo, who is not likely to get involved unless there is a showing of abuse by the Arbs. So there is logic to our system, rules, protections and usually some fairness. And like the US court system, many flaws.
So would I quit if they ban Eric, assumably as a protest? It isn't likely, but that is due to a number of reasons. I'm simply not a very political person, and tend to be very practical in my approach to problems. My natural inclination would be to stay and try to work towards a solution to where he could soon come back. Not just because I consider him a friend, but because I have plenty of evidence that Wikipedia is a richer place for his presence. To leave in a huff makes a political statement but doesn't create change. I'm interested in making a difference by staying. It would affect me in a negative way, and honestly, I would be a bit depressed. I would probably be less productive for a while. Not by choice, this would just be the natural reaction when someone feels wronged. It would affect the direction of my time spent here and make me more involved in meta discussion of this type, not out of a love for them, but for necessity.
There are other considerations. Institutions are necessary in all communities. Arb is empowered with the authority, granted by us, to decide these things. Looking at Arb since it's inception in 2004, I would say that most of the time, they get it right. Sometimes, I think they miss the mark, and rare do I see them completely screw up. It is required that some instituion be in place to deal with protracted problems that the community can't solve. The community as a whole has chosen to keep Arb, and I have to respect that wish by the community. I can protest and persuade and propose, but I shouldn't undermine the will of the community.
And in the interest of beng fully honest, if I were planning to leave if he were banned, I wouldn't tell anyone in advance anyway. To say "Arb, if you ban Eric, I'm retiring" is to issue an ultimatum. This would be an attempt to undermine the authority of the institution. It would also be incredably arrogant, and would be a gross overestimation of my own importance. I'm simply not that important. Even if that was my plan, I wouldn't tell you here, because that still would be an ultimatum. However, I assure you that this is not part of any plan. Perhaps it is the military background speaking, but I do believe you have to respect the institution, even while you work hard to make changes. You don't break out the pitchforks and torches unless there is clear abuse. Then, all bets are off.
If I may expand on your question: If Eric was banned, some people would leave, and some would be people we really can't afford to lose: exceptional content writers. I'm not saying hundreds, but it would be noticable. No one can say how many or how few with any authority. I would encourge them to stay and help me and other be part of a solution, to spend our energies affecting positive change and finding a way back, but realistically, some would leave, and there simply isn't anything I can do to change that. And lets be honest with ourselves and put egos to the side: losing Dennis would be insignificant compared to losing even one of our best content writers, including Eric himself. After all, we are here to build an encyclopedia. Dennis - 2¢ 22:27, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
Re WP:NOJUSTICE. I recently wrote this in regard the Arb Case..
It is of course quite rational to argue pour encourager les autres, though not against natural justice and fairness. Despite the proclamation "it's not about justice and fairness it's about protecting the encyclopaedia" a moment's thought shows that an unjust or unfair system (or sanction) has a deleterious effect on morale, retention and recruitment.
All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 00:05, 18 November 2014 (UTC).
I had already noticed that. When breezing through pages that contain a lot of garbage, I am much more inclined to stop and read a section if you are commenting. I usually agree, and when I don't, I still learn something. Dennis - 2¢ 00:12, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

November 2014

Information icon Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), such as at User talk:Rotten regard, please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

  1. Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment; or
  2. With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button ( or ) located above the edit window.

This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Thank you. Edison (talk) 01:43, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

  • Yes I did, I just haven't been templated in a while. I laughed when I saw it, I don't get offended or preach "don't template the regulars". I assumed it was a joke, or a fun poke. I've been quite ill, and making lots of little spelling and sig errors, so I'm not shocked. Dennis - 2¢ 02:25, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
There's "Don't template the regulars" and there's "Don't regulate the templators." It was intended as a friendly poke. Hope things start to go better for you soon. Regards, Edison (talk) 23:11, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
I'm able to drink fluids and kept down some baked chicken after two days with no food and almost as long with no fluids, so yes, I'm definitely doing better. Thank you. Dennis - 2¢ 23:19, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

I am

Sorry man, can't really say more than that Darkness Shines (talk) 22:30, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Please ... stop ... "Gender Cap"?? Is that like a wikt:Thiking Cap? NE Ent 02:37, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Seriously

Terribly about the circumstances behind [16]. NE Ent 02:52, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Been there. You are making the right decision. God bless. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:58, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
  • I need the break, even without all the pending family issues, and the new business, and my health has been an issue as well. Sometimes the place is more burden than joy, so I have to give myself the chance to miss it. If I ever quit missing it, well, I guess they will figure it out in time. Dennis - 2¢ 03:05, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Sorry to hear about all of your real world issues. These things happen and taking a break is often a very good idea, much as you will be missed. On the upside, this gives us time to coordinate our plans for the Draft Dennis for Arbcom conspiracy come the next election. Sadly, this one seems to be out of the question. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:21, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Logging of ARBEE alerts not needed

Hey Dennis. Sorry to hear of some issues that probably are not fun for you, in the real world but at least don't worry about logging WP:ARBEE alerts any more. Did this happen when you were inactive? We now have a magic system that uses an edit filter (#602) to track the alerts for all Arb cases. The alert message is described WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts. Find out if someone has been alerted by opening the history of their talk page and entering 'discretionary sanctions alert' into the tag search box. For Spotter 1 you would type this. Alert messages are not to be put in the ARBEE log any more. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 03:43, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

  • You damn kids and your fancy, schmancy robots. No it probably happened while I was watching, I've only issued one DS warning and no sanctions. Thus far, that has been enough. I even have shortcuts to MMA and EE on my user page, I need to add these notes as well. Thanks for the heads up. Dennis - 2¢ 14:59, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Miracle cure

The Grand Order Of Being Around For Us All 1st class
Hear you have been a bit poorly. Glad you are on the mend. Have some original Jewish penicillin. Easy to digest and the Kreplach are very pleasant too. Get well soon ! Lost my dear old mum last year so I understand that pain also. Was my best friend. Now she could make chicken soup! G d bless and hope to "see" you soon! Fondest regards Irondome (talk) 05:13, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Kind of looks like wonton soup. I had plenty of chicken soup yesterday, had a biscuit this morning, so I'm doing better. It was a rather nasty virus, I admit. I had taken a day off for a fun filled 3 day weekend, but life doesn't always turn out like you expect. Thanks. Dennis - 2¢ 15:06, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
Good news mate. Viruses (virusi?) can be buggers. They drain one mentally too. Glad you're feeling better. Regards Irondome (talk) 16:28, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Teach me Master!

previously i hace uploaded a few picture and put in a few articles. But they remove my picture and said that the picture doest have license. can you teach me the easiest way for do it? Thank bro! Meeneunos10 (talk) 07:34, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

  • I would be the wrong person, as I've a full plate and soon to be taking a break. It helps if you start by getting your head around WP:COPYRIGHT. Essentially, if the image isn't YOUR property, if it isn't a photo you took, then most of the time, we can't use it here. You can give away something you don't own. There are limitations for "Fair Use", but these are very strict. For example, if an actor is living, then there is no justification for a Fair Use of someone else's photo. It is there property, and it is possible for YOU to go take a picture of them, which would be YOUR property and upload it. If they have died, however, then you might can justify Fair Use because it is impossible to get a photo of them. It is complicated like this, but it starts with understanding how Wikipedia views copyright. Our policies aren't the same as US copyright law, they are more strict. Wikimedia Commons is more strict, as Fair Use isn't permitted at all. Dennis - 2¢ 15:03, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
I rely on User:Ronhjones as an image copyrights expert from time-to-time. It would help if you provided links to the images in question, as the rules vary by circumstance. For example, a logo can be uploaded without copyright permission, but random images you find online cannot be uploaded without permission from the copyright holder, unless of course they are uploaded to Flickr under a free license, among other exceptions. I'm also told that we can use images of deceased individuals, but not of living ones and so on. CorporateM (Talk) 15:25, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Thank You

Thank You
Thank you for participating in my topic ban. This really is a genuine thank you, no sarcasm is intended. I was in the wrong and I accept that. Rotten regard 23:35, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Rotten regard, I hope to see it lifted eventually. We all can get chips on our shoulders, and I'm not judging you if that is case, but our first duty is to giving guys there a fair shake. It is why I stood up for you to allow your I JethroBT vote. Even while I didn't like the vote, and disagreed with your method, I really tried to give the benefit of the doubt. I didn't want to disenfranchise you. I hated dragging you to ANI over this one, everything about it, but I had to. If some good comes from it, then maybe it will have been worth the effort and pain. Dennis - 2¢ 23:42, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Dennis, be well, recharge those batteries and return reinvigorated. --Rotten regard 00:04, 18 November 2014 (UTC)


RT and neutrality - a thought

While we go "where RS lead us" most of us do not have access to Russian language sources. I remember my father pointing out the swathes of allotments with their little rickety huts by the Great North Road, and telling me "That's what the Russians see as Britain on their televisions." - the implication being that our perception of Russia was equally manipulated. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 00:10, 18 November 2014 (UTC).

  • I lived on a B52 base as a youth, then served under Reagan, so I understand. But we can't second guess bias, we can only work to prevent it. If either side goes into it looking only to prove their preconceived ideas, then we fail as a community. There is no Truth, only facts, and even those must be taken with a grain of salt. Ask 20 witnesses to the same event what happened and see how many different stories you get. It's an imperfect thing we do here. Farmer Brown 05:09, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

AfD question

Apologies, I don't want to intrude on your break but I was hoping to get a quick answer to this question (which I also posted on The Bushranger's talk page). I am a bit confused by the closure at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Elton Dharry. It was not done by an admin but was closed as "no consensus" although no one had voted to keep it (or even argued for it to be kept). Granted only two people voted, but they did both advocate deletion. I didn't vote, but I was wondering if you think that was a proper closure. Thanks. Papaursa (talk) 04:04, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

  • Great question. Short answer yes, but not everyone would agree, which is ok. Long answer, yes because if you look at the words in the weak delete vote, he was really saying he passes but he didn't think it should be included because of the quality of the other fighter. It had already been relisted twice, normally the limit, but really didnt have enough participation to reach concensus. Me, I might have relisted anyway, or researched and voted. Or I might have done what he did, which is follow WP:IAR, and just say no concensus, and make sure it is clear that starting a new afd was fine. Sometimes it is just a bad week to get voters, next week 5 might vote. Using IAR isn't something to do frivolously, but I think he did so here within the spirit of the policy. Rare event, but that is why the policy exists. It isn't the only solution here, but I think it is a reasonable one, albeit contrversial sometimes. Farmer Brown 05:00, 18 November 2014 (UTC) (dennis)
Personally, I have problems with a no consensus vote when nobody tried to keep the article, but I appreciate your opinion and can live with that decision. Papaursa (talk) 05:15, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
Even I had to look it it very closely to decide, as the vast majority of time I would agree. But deleting an article under these circumstances is arguably not the best choice. You can always put it up again, but it is much harder to get it undeleted. Dennis - 2¢ 13:08, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. I was going to share the response I got from The Bushranger: "I'd say that probably should have been a WP:SOFTDELETE - and should certainly have been closed by an admin." Papaursa (talk) 19:07, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
That one was right in the middle. Either way is acceptable, and debatable. It's hard to say exactly what I would done, probably one or the other. ;) Dennis - 2¢ 20:12, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

AN

Information icon This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The discussion is about the topic "Reversing of warning, past sanctions and past blocks". Thank you. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 10:49, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Request

Hi Dennis,

I'd like to ask you please to bring this block to the attention of Commons admins. Darkness Shines is not abusing multiple accounts on Commons. The blocking admin removed his talk page access at the time of the block. It is nothing short of bullying. Thanks. 124.207.175.91 (talk) 16:47, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

  • The better person to take this to would be INeverCry, who is an admin on Commons, and I think he is a CU as well. I've pinged him here. I'm not active enough on Commons to know all the rules there, INeverCry is, and I trust his impartiality to do the right thing. You might ping him on Commons as well. He used to be an admin here, but got tired of the job and handed in his bit, so he is very familiar with both places, much more so that I am. Dennis - 2¢ 16:52, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Biomatters

Hi Dennis. NealeFamily asked me to userify the article to see if they can salvage it, just checking to see if you're OK with that. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 03:08, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

  • I think AFC is a better option, but I will leave that to your discretion. It isn't junk (even if they actually hurt it by adding tons of worthless links) it is just very borderline. I think the odds if it eventually getting to mainspace are reasonable in time, so I wouldn't want to stand in the way. Dennis - 2¢ 03:39, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

DangerousPanda arbitation request opened

You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration and have not been listed as a party. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/DangerousPanda. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/DangerousPanda/Evidence. Please add your evidence by 3 December 2014, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/DangerousPanda/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:36, 19 November 2014 (UTC). Message delivered by MediaWiki message delivery

Sorry

For reverting your comment on Darkness Shine's page. I'm on my mobile, and when I turn off the screen, somehow it ends up 'clicking' and 'tapping' everywhere else. I dunno, it's a bug and I think I'll need to log off of Wikipedia every time I do it. I did not intend to do such and I apologize. Sorry 'bout that. Tutelary (talk) 16:04, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Observation

Has anyone else found themselves sometimes a little sloppy in email, knowing they can just fix it with another edit.....then you remember email isn't a wiki? Just now (again) I was looking to correct myself in an email I had just sent and couldn't find the edit button. I do the same in forums, which generally DO let you edit, like I do at Telecaster.com (same user name). Perhaps I'm just going mad, but I think the wiki format is making me sloppy. Dennis - 2¢ 17:57, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

It is age, mate, honest. I sometimes sign emails with ~~~~ - Sitush (talk) 18:01, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
I have often wished I could edit an email after I have sent it, but alas, the wiki-gods haven't come up with a way to do that. In fact, this has led to a newly defined unit of measuring time, the "ohnosecond" - defined as the fraction of a second between hitting "send" and realizing you shouldn't have. --MelanieN (talk) 18:06, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
I've never tried to edit an email I'd already sent, but I do regularly have moments when looking at BBC News website (and some others) where I see an obvious factual error or typo and immediately scroll up to click Edit, then remember where I am. A fair amount of the crap I contribute to Wikipedia is not much better than the crap on the BBC News website, so the confusion is perhaps understandable.
Microsoft, an American computer company, have long had a belief that their software allows you to delete an email you've sent even after it has reached the recipient's computer, and I was even assured in all seriousness by someone quite senior amongst their staff - I was doing a little face-to-face mocking, you see - that this would work in all circumstances even if the recipient was using email software unaware of the "feature". --Demiurge1000 (talk) 18:24, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
I've got a whole inbox full of emails signed with ~~~~ from editors. I may have sent a few myself, as I've have backspaced over tildes at least 100 times before sending. Yes, and any software that can reach out to another user's inbox and change or modify it, that is usually called a "virus". Then again, Windows 98 used to be jokingly called a virus hosting platform that lets you run applications. And let us not forget Sony root kit "feature".... Dennis - 2¢ 18:32, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
I hope in the next 100 years there will be functions that will let you edit emails even after you clicked "send" or something else will replace "email" just like it replaced hand written letters. Jim Carter
I'm predicting interstellar travel and telepathic communication, making typos a thing of the past. Remember the bad guys in the movie Independence Day? Kind of like that. Dennis - 2¢ 20:23, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
I would be actually rather worried about telepathic communication. Wouldn't there be times when we would rather NOT have people know what we are thinking? --MelanieN (talk) 20:31, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
Rather not? That would be an alien concept to a straight-talker from northern England. We say what we're thinking, sometimes to our cost ;) - Sitush (talk) 20:34, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
I take it they don't play poker where you come from? MelanieN (talk) 21:16, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
  • This whole area of discussion is a minefield of getting slapped in the face jokes. Not to mention that I insist on solitude in the bathroom, and I've been married over 20 years, so that would be awkward having the neighbors and everyone in the next county aware of my every bodily function. Telepathy is a type of privacy invasion that makes the NSA look like a mall cop. Dennis - 2¢ 20:37, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
Have you tried using Gmail's "undo send"? czar ♔ 01:33, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
That's interesting, and I use Gmail for a couple of accounts, but I have to imagine that it only works for a second or two. I've sent from gmail to my yahoo account, my phone pings me for both, so I literally could use a stop watch to time them. It is usually fast. I heard there was a discussion or an RFC (the IETF kind, not the wikipedia kind) for "request to delete unread mail" some time ago, but I quit running my own mail servers 10 years ago, farm it out instead. Speaking of naughty bits, if any of you are a nerd. I mean truly, truly a nerd, then you will be familiar with RFC 3514 [17]. The rest of you will be bored silly, so don't bother. Dennis - 2¢ 14:02, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Czar

Still waiting on your co-nomination, I'm about to finish mine in a hour. Hopefully we can get the RFA up tonight. Secret account 21:52, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

I am glad I did not co-nominate, I am sure 3-7 people would have opposed only out of spite of me. Chillum 05:42, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Dennis Brown. You have new messages at Kudpung's talk page.
Message added 02:14, 22 November 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Just an FYI - you might find it interesting. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:14, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Civility Barnstar
The Civility Barnstar is awarded to any user who excels at maintaining civility in the midst of contentious situations. Hafspajen (talk) 22:18, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
  • I wish to second this barnstar. You exhibit a rare combination of patience with problematic users and a willingness to act when patience is not effective. Chillum 05:46, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Czar

You forgot to support.--Bbb23 (talk) 05:39, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for intervening at Talk:Homosexuality and Roman Catholicism; I hope you'll stick around, as RL circumstances permit. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:44, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

GabeMc socking?

I put a sock tag on Rationalobserver's user page (which they keep removing) because I just have a hunch it's GabeMc back to torture us as a sock. The reverts, the topics edited, the argumentativeness, etc. What do you think? Radiopathy •talk• 17:55, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

  • Per WP:SOCKHELP (yes, I'm biased, I wrote that), the best thing is to not tag them, and instead develop a few diffs worth of case and just file at SPI. You can do this via Twinkle. IMHO, it is usually best if you never even let the suspected sockpuppet know you suspect them. Then if you are wrong, you haven't offended, you've simply asked an admin to review at the proper venue. If you are right....it doesn't matter, the admin will take care of it. I will say this, while I under your spidey sense going off with certain users, I knew GabeMc and I've interacted with this user a great deal, and this isn't ringing that particular bell for me. I recommend removing the tag and focusing energy towards a case at WP:SPI if you are that convinced. Dennis - 2¢ 18:01, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
  • No, sorry, I never blindly block for reverts without a warning first. If he continued, you would have an argument, but you know me, too soft on "crime" ;) I do believe that when someone makes a mistake but does so in good faith, you should extend the palm of your hand, not hit them with the backside of it. Guidance rather than retribution. Policy says blocks and other sanctions should only be used to prevent disruptions, not to dispense justice. I'm clever enough to know when action is needed to stop an ongoing problem, but not nearly smart enough to serve as judge. That is why I linked that sockhelp page, knowledge. If my job is to prevent disruption, I can do that better by teaching than by punishing anyway. Dennis - 2¢ 18:28, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Then he seems to have shown it was necessary. Once I've told an editor "you are mistaken, here is the right way", I really can't block them unless they ignore it and continue. What is the point of giving the advice if you aren't going to allow them the chance to follow it? Of course, that doesn't obligate another admin to follow suit, or even know about my advice, so I don't have any blame there. Rad* came to me, I felt I had to give the advice, as well as clearly say I think the linkage isn't there. I'm not afraid to block, you would be shocked at how often I've done it, but I do believe in 2nd chances once you have provided them with an alternative. And yes, I'm not afraid to snap back on someone once they ignore that advice, I just know they are more likely to listen if I'm polite. As for the "cunt" remark, that was childish and done for "shock" value. As a personal attack, it did justify the extension of the block to an indeterminate period. Dennis - 2¢ 18:43, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure why Rad* reacted so aggressively, as I think this is the first and only time I reverted him. Would you do me a favor? Would you please delete my userpage so that the stuff that Radio accused me of is no longer in the edit history? Rationalobserver (talk) 18:57, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
  • It is a quirk of policy, but I'm not supposed to RevDel edits unless they fit a criteria, but I can speedy delete via your request and recreate the page, which gets the same effect, so that is what I did. Only admin can see the previous versions now. I assume that is more or less what you were wanting to accomplish? Dennis - 2¢ 19:07, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Thanks, Dennis. That's perfect, and FWIW, I hear you on not giving a block when you are in an advisory position in the situation. Thanks also for having the patience to teach me about the project. Rationalobserver (talk) 19:20, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Loaded Questions

I'm really uncomfortable about stepping in and doing something, since my own bias in favor of both candidates is clear, but the questions (now on both RfAs) really rub me the wrong way. What do Nazi killings have to do with... well, anything even remotely related to an RfA? ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 23:07, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Dennis_Brown/Archive_33&oldid=1232839376"