Jump to content

User talk:Dennis Brown/Archive 29

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 25←Archive 27Archive 28Archive 29Archive 30Archive 31→Archive 35

SPI Investigations

I can't find it now, but a while back there was a discussion on Jimbo's Talk page about how feeble our SPI tools are. In particular what came to mind is that we only have access to their IP and it is easy to fool us on that basis. Meanwhile, the technology exists to track users based on their device ID and network ID as well, which is not personally identifiable but could be much more effective. It would take considerably more resources and know-how to use Wikipedia from a different network and device, as oppose to from a different IP. However, I don't know anything about how SPI works. Is this possible? Is there a reason it hasn't been done already? CorporateM (Talk) 05:32, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

  • The problem with battling sockpuppetry isn't technology centered, it's humans and an insufficient will to use the tools we have properly and timely, due in part to a shortage of people with the tools. CU is that tool, but you have to also realize that most blocks are done via behavioral analysis. It is only the serial offender that needs to have CU done. Most admin are not going to analyze any but the most obvious socks, it isn't what they do, not in their comfort zone. I will occasionally work a case if I know the sock, but I don't patrol SPI any more. Got tired of some misc hassles associated with the job. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 11:29, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Race and intelligence

Tired, and tired of the Mikemikev socks, I've semi'd this for 3 months (which of course will attract accounts from him. If you think I need to do something else - range block, page for IP editng, etc., let me know. I doubt we can do a range block. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 20:59, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

  • I will take a look this evening, although at first glance it would appear you are right about the range block. As for protecting, you may get some blowback for the protection, but this is covered under discretionary sanctions, so I doubt that many experienced editors will complain. The IPs of course, will go nuts. Expect an AN/ANI or a less likely RFPP report. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 22:57, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
    • I left a note at WP:SPI main page asking a CU to take a look. Might take a day or so. The results I got were confusing, so it may be possible to rangeblock, I'm just not sure so handing it off to someone more skilled. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 23:12, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
      I have had a brief look, but I am not familiar with Mikemikev, and most of his socks are stale for a fresh CU scan. What I saw is five or so separate South Korean ranges. The hopping pattern didn't tell much due to the low activity, and the fastest hops were on the order of an hour. Long-term rangeblocking is hardly efficient in such cases. Materialscientist (talk) 00:58, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Notice

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is ScottXW and his "deletion heros". Thank you. Yunshui 雲水 08:29, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Egy writer

Egy writer (talk · contribs) continues to add copyvio. I also note there was a mass deletion of his images on Commons. Time for an indefinite block? Dougweller (talk) 16:41, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

  • I have been following him a bit, and I hate it, but if he is still adding copyvio, then I'm not sure what else will work. It may be the only way to force him to discuss the issue, and to get a true idea as to his ability to contribute here. It would be helpful if we knew someone that spoke Arabic, but I don't know anyone right off the top of my head. Looks like your actions have all been administrative only, so I would let you do the honors. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 17:08, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
He's replied on my talk page. He still doesn't get the idea that he can't copy and paste, nor that it is very poor English. Dougweller (talk) 17:59, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
I wonder if you can talk him into NOT editing until a discussion is had. Not banking on it, but if he would comply, it might save him a block. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 18:01, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
Ach, my connection has faded back in again, but I don't know for how long. He has responded on my talk page, and I have tried to explain in Arabic. Maybe Dougweller could try a very simple English explanation, with the assumption he will use some translation program to read it? Unfortunately there is no Arabic translation for the WP:COPYVIO page, although the Commons warning template has it. —Neotarf (talk) 19:03, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
Yes, this is tough. I wonder if we have a copyvio page on the Arabic version of Wikipedia that could help. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 19:09, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
Unfortunately the template only explains deletion process, not copyright. No copyvio page on ar.wp, and that's a really glaring omission, because copyright is not a well-known concept in the Arab world. However there is an Arabic article on copyright, and I have linked him to it. —Neotarf (talk) 19:23, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
I have found the policy page on copyright for Arabic Wikipedia and linked it for the user on their talk page, however I don't seem to be able to add it to the English page through Wikidata [1] —Neotarf (talk) 20:02, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for all the effort. We try to avoid blocks when we can, and hopefully this work help towards that end. If not, then unfortunately, the block button is one of the very few tools we have to prevent more copyvio. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 20:04, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
No problem. The Arabic Wikipedia is really pitiful, needs all the editors it can get. Unfortunately none of the usual WP issues, copyvio, NPOV, etc, are common currency in the Arab world, and have to be explained. —Neotarf (talk) 20:34, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
I've added a note that he needs to talk with you. Otherwise, on the next copyvio, he needs to just be blocked. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 17:25, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Eh.

Hm. You don't like pictures? Pictures is a way of expressing something. It is not written, but it is a way of expressing feelings. I am a big big beliver that a picture say more than thousand words. It is just a convention not to use pictures. And it doesn't hurt anyone. ( Except the person's feelings who posted it and get it removed) Hafspajen (talk) 11:43, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

  • Sorry, no tomfoolery at SPI. It is a formal board that uses a more strict format, like Arb in some ways. At one time, I clerked there for over a year but not now, so I'm familiar with the expectations. SPI is a very difficult thing to do on a good day because you have to swim through an insane number of diffs, use intersect tools, do behavioral analysis, etc. Anything that might cause drama or a distraction is quickly removed and the tolerance for it is pretty close to zero. Worse, it is generally the most backed up board due to a shortage of CUs, clerks and patrolling admin. You see how the CU refused to run a check because the report simply had too many words. That is typical. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 11:52, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

SPI ScotXW

Hello. I corrected the user name in the SPI-case from ScottXW to ScotXW (with a single 't'), so that all links would appear, but apparently additional steps are required to make it appear correctly in the list of SPI cases, so could you please take a look at it? After clicking 'save' I also realised that I probably shouldn't have made any changes there, since I'm not an admin, so I'm sorry if I meddled with things that I shouldn't meddle with... Thomas.W talk 13:50, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Assessment and notability

I would like to thank for your comment on the Afd of Denise Donnelly‎. I've got a few questions. 2014–15 Middlesbrough F.C. season can classified as stub or start? What you think about this article? Subject seems pretty notable to me, but not too sure. OccultZone (Talk) 11:44, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

  • I fixed the one citation that lacked a title, but to be honest, I'm a 50 year old American: that means I know enough about football to fit on the head of a pin. I did used to be a Dallas Cowboys fan growing up in Texas, but that doesn't help. At a glance it looks more of a "start" than a "stub", and had I patrolled it, I would have thought it was notable since it is about a "championship", but WP:FOOTY is your best read to be sure. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 12:25, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
I had patrolled that one, but other article, Baggböle herrgård, requires attention. I had linked it under "about this article" in my previous post, but maybe you overlooked that part. OccultZone (Talk) 12:28, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
Ah, I did overlook that. I slept in for a change, and just now woke up. I've only two sips of coffee in me, so not fully alert. I know the perfect person to ping for that article, User:Hafspajen. He will know if it is notable or not. My guess is yes, but I trust his judgement on this. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 12:33, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
What is the problem? OK; notability. Try to find out. Hafspajen (talk) 12:39, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
Yes, it is. In the Northen parts of Sweden it is quite famous. It was the centrum of the sawmill industries, in the Northen parts of Sweden. There was even a certain expression coined after this Baggböleri, See Sw wiki[2]. which would mean "to cut all trees heedlessly thoughtlessly" or something like that. It is mentioned in the Swedish National encyclopedia... Hafspajen (talk) 12:49, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
Yes I had checked that, there are about 4,000 other results, some of them specifically focused on this particular subject. Patrolled the article. Thanks both. It was good to meet you Dennis Brown. OccultZone (Talk) 12:53, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
@OccultZone: I have started a total rewrite of Baggböle herrgård, based on the original article on the Swedish language Wikipedia, since the machine translated text was totally incomprehensible. The article was created by a young editor in Bangladesh, an editor who seems to have no knowledge at all about the Swedish language and only a limited knowledge of English, so I have asked him to please stop making machine translations from languages he doesn't understand. Because machine translations to English from Swedish, a language with a more complex syntax and grammar than English, are totally worthless. Thomas.W talk 14:02, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
That explains the verbal skills of the Swedish Chef.... ;) Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 14:23, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
Thomas.W, that's good! OccultZone (Talk) 16:57, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

bolding not by ;

Please, ask the experts (RexxS) why bolding by ";" is not a good idea, - it's meant for list formatting, not for headers, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:29, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

  • I know it screws up the page for special needs/autospeech, which is why I wouldn't do it on an article or talk page. Damn, you are on me like a hawk. I just didn't want it to create a new header for the TOC, but I wanted the title. Now you are going to force me to actually NOT be lazy and do it the hard way. Kind of surprised you would watch that page. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 13:16, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
I don't know where the crime was committed (!), so I can't be specific, but we can limit the depth of headings shown in the TOC by using {{TOClimit|n}}. Sometimes, of course this can't work - for example when References is split into Notes and Sources (or whatever) and you don't want those sub-headers showing but you already have level three headings in your TOC. In those cases, the kindest thing to do is to bold Notes and Sources to make them look like headings for the sighted, without introducing incomplete definition lists for anyone using a screen reader. It's not a perfect solution, but it's probably the least bad one. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 20:14, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
Oh, it wasn't a matter of too many headers, I just wanted my barnstar page to ONLY have headers by year, yet some of the stars came with headers that I need to recreate using BIG and bold marks to make them not show up in the TOC. I had used the ; method as a quick, dirty (and lazy) fix, and Gerda called me out for using a method known to interfere with accessibility. She was right, I was wrong. All the women in my life revel in pointing out when I'm wrong, she is no exception... ;) Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 20:44, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
(ec) Nice essay. - I am here for accessibility and improvements (like you for WER), and will consistently do that, - even if some don't like it ;) - I don't want to appear like a hawk, though, and "beating", what can I do? - I watch more than 15k pages, including most with the quality sapphire ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:29, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
If you knew the lies said about me in the hallowed halls of Wikipedia, it would make you blush. I've always felt that if you aren't irritating someone with more power than you have, you probably aren't making much of a difference. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 20:44, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
I am sure I made a difference ;) - admonished not to use Wikipedia as a battleground, causing Easter scandal on the Main page, you name it. "Blushing" is on my talk, look it up, also look for "disruptive" ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:21, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
ps: remember I also pointed out where you were right, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:26, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Rgloucester

I think that given your controversial close of a Ukrainian/Russian matter some weeks ago, which we discussed, and given that Rgloucester quite strongly defended it and you, it might well have been left for some other admin to close the matter of his personal attack. Just my 2 kopeks.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:11, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

  • Wehwalt: Honestly, I didn't even think about that, and didn't even look at the article it was said at. In this case, Ent took care of it similar to what any other admin would have done, just a simple warning for something I've never considered "block-worthy". It was a singular case of calling someone a fool, something we have all done, and I didn't see a need to drag it along. Where it was said is meaningless. It appeared that Ent found the warning sufficient, and I just agreed. I have a history of closing simple issues quickly, to avoid drama, and this is consistent with that. I would have done the same (and have) for any editor without a history of incivility. My action had nothing to do with the topic, and only to do with behavior (which you might notice is the focus of my activities at ANI) I vaguely know Rgloucester from the debates on WikiProject Conservatism, not from any editing in that area, which I don't follow or watchlist, and we don't edit the same articles at all. I understand what you are saying (and I've generally taken your advice), but this is pretty ancillary to the topic. If you want to revert and have it discussed more, you are free to and I genuinely will not take offense to it. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 14:32, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
You are indeed starting to show a tin ear on this subject. I do not say I would have dealt with him differently, but there is an issue of perception. It may be best to avoid East European/Slavic matters in your adminly capacity. No, I am certainly not going to put myself out in this situation by reverting you. It has nothing to do with me, and admins are never required to act, and I will not. But when I have put myself out to support you from the time of your RfA, and I have concerns, I may express myself, and I have.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:58, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
Wehwalt: I completely disagree that I must forever avoid European/Slavic issues forever, if that is what you are implying. I would never agree to that as my sum total of experience in that area is one contentious but policy based close. If others were held to that standard, no admin could deal in any area, as dealing with contentious problems are part of the job. I've never edited in that area nor shown a preference for any outcome and under no circumstance consider myself "involved" in that topic. I've welcomed and taken your advice to temporarily step around the topic as to show there isn't a predisposition to take sides, but this is ancillary and I've no intention of avoiding it forever. There is no evidence a permanent bar is warranted. I've also taken it by suggesting (encouraging, actually) a revert, which I never would have contested. I've went and reverted myself, although I still feel you should have simply reverted for cause if you felt that strongly. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 16:27, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
That which I meant, I said. My concerns have been answered. Thank you.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:26, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
Sorry if that came out pissy Wehwalt. I understand your point (which is why I complied with your suggestion). Not a good day in the real world, and honestly, the "tin ear" comment just struck me wrong. I do listen, even if I disagree with some points. My other points stand, although I could have been a bit less aggressive in stating them. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 18:24, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

A pie for you!

Dennis, thank you for your military service to our country. Happy Memorial Day! (And thanks for nominating me at RfA) God bless, Go Phightins! 21:03, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Very kind of you to say, but there are a few million who are more deserving of notice than this old airman. ;) Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER

Pontiac Firebird

Hi there, I'm wondering if this is true, because here it claims a rare dealer-installed option came with 500 horsepower (without even including a reliable, recognizable source). 99.17.207.105 (talk) 03:27, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

  • That is the problem: dealer installed, which is different than factory option. Some of the dealer installed options weren't sanctioned options, and not all that were sanctioned were available in all areas, if that doesn't make it more confusing. From the research I've done on 60s cars in particular, it is a muddy mess with sources, so many conflicting each other. I think you have to use factory options as the primary numbers, and add dealer installed options as additional material, as long as it is sourced. If it isn't sourced, like this one, AND you can't find a source, then it needs to be removed under WP:V. If memory serves me right, the Super Duty were the most powerful Pontiac V8 engine in 1969. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 14:05, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Unavailable

I'm dealing with some health issues and I have no idea how frequently I will log on for the next week or two. I may have to use my alt. accts. when I do log in. Anything urgent should go elsewhere for now. Thanks. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 21:52, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Get better soon! CorporateM (Talk) 01:35, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

RfC/U

Dear user, I want to inform you that I posted a RfC/U to obtain formal mediation in the respect of the issue I have communicating with user:Director. You tried in the past to mediate and I need confirmation of your effort in the RfC [[3]] to validate the actual RfC/U. --Silvio1973 (talk) 12:29, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your support

Dennis, I would like to take this moment and thank you for the trust you had placed in me and for your support in my RfA that happened a while ago. Although it didn't turn out as I had planned, I certainly appreciated all the comments and suggestions given by you and other people. I will learn from all of them and will hopefully run again someday when I'm fully ready. Thank you. TheGeneralUser (talk) 13:24, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

User: Oglesruins

Hi you don't need to respond to this, I just wanted to inform you that it seems like User:Oglesruins, the person you blocked, has gotten another account. Very similar edits are done with this account that are done with Oglesruins. It has also been warned on the talk page for similar issues as Oglesruins. GoPurple'nGold24 00:55, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

  • Good catch. Looks like a match to me. Feel free to revert all their edits, ask another admin to undo the moves, I will block and file the paperwork on this end. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 01:16, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
  • I've created an SPI report, but only for the archive, and review if any admin wants to give a second opinion. I get the feeling we aren't done here. You should be able to file a report at SPI if you find more, or I don't mind if you leave a note here (or both) since I'm familiar with him. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 01:27, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Any guesses on whether Hartsols is another sock? He sounds like him, but I don't have access to checkuser. Tarl.Neustaedter (talk) 04:41, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

I'd guess Starebube is another sock. Tarl.Neustaedter (talk) 00:11, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

O.k. - I'll try to figure out how to go about doing that. Get better! Tarl.Neustaedter (talk) 16:26, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Filed, and blocked. WP:Sockpuppet_investigations/Oglesruins. Now I know how to do it next time. Tarl.Neustaedter (talk) 01:28, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Excellent. It looked likely, but I'm a bit distracted and didn't want to make a mistake. Normally, I don't mind dropping obvious stuff off, but I've bit very occupied, and may be gone for several days next week, so I didn't want it to just sit here with no action. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 01:40, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
Dennis, See you're not on top form. Just wanted to say get well soon. As ever, David, David J Johnson (talk) 21:17, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

My first few admin actions

When you get a chance, if you would review a few of my first few admin actions, I'd appreciate your input. Thanks, and all the best. Go Phightins! 20:15, 4 June 2014 (UTC)


I went through all the admin actions you have done to date, and here are the unfiltered observations: A few of the AFDs that had one keep, I dug around to see if I could find sources (ie: should you have closed or fixed and voted) but didn't find much. I do wonder a bit about Carolina Rosario since I found this so quickly, and I wonder if it is just because Google filters for English language for us yanks. The rationale for protecting Polygraph was unusual but appropriate enough. Revdel of Queensland seemed proper, etc.

You might have been a bit quick on the trigger and long on duration for User:T4is is not my nam3. Really, he only had one stupid edit, the other was to his user page. Also, you also didn't template him, something I suggest in all cases for obvious or confirmed socks, just to give them the links to get unblocked. I think a strong warning (preferably hand written but level 3 template will do in a pinch), would have been better than an indef block, then monitor. If it was particularly malicious and obvious vandalism, that is one thing, but this looks like a kid who is just clueless. Some of those become admin eventually ;)

Yeah, I know, but not before I was blocked :-) ... point taken there, do you think it's worth unblocking? In my opinion, the fact remains that right now, he's not here to build an encyclopedia, but I'll defer to you there. Go Phightins! 21:59, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
He may or may not be here to build an encyclopedia, the problem is that with only two edits, we don't really know. Unless the edits themselves are so grossly vandal in nature, it is impossible to tell from just two edits. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 22:03, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

As for User:A guy saved by Jesus, I might have reverted it, but I probably would not have revdel'ed it. Others may disagree on that one. It was a personal attack on the editor (which we almost never revdel), but just because someone mentions a religious icon doesn't mean we revdel. RevDel has pretty strict guidelines, more strict than for blocking in many ways, actually. (Since you RevDel'ed and I'm not reverting, feel free to email me if you want to discuss the content more openly)

Well, in regards to RevDeleting, I thought about it, did it, and asked Drmies about it, who thought it was appropriate. To me, the gist of the comment was grossly degrading, which was why I rev-deleted. Go Phightins! 21:59, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

On Jay Carney, protection seemed hasty. Even if unhelpful, edits weren't vandalism, one might even be accurate, and only two IP edits in the last 5 days. That is pretty far under the threshold for protection, to be honest. The WP:5P makes a big deal out "encyclopedia that anyone can edit", which is why we prefer to block users instead of protect if we have the option.

Right after the announcement was made, that page was swarmed, and I was edit-conflicted trying to revert a bunch of times, and I ended up issuing a hand-written warning to one of the IPs involved. Ultimately, for me, the reason I ended up semi-protecting was twofold. First, as soon as I issued that warning, a brand new account popped up, as did a few more IPs. Second, I posted on Drmies' talk page as you weren't around, and he mentioned that it might be warranted with a few more problem edits, which I saw. Point taken there; also, there was a protection I made to Ansel Elgort that someone on Drmies page thought was a little hasty. I'll take a break from RPP for a few days and do a little more watching there before doing any more protecting. Go Phightins! 21:59, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

BTW, if you haven't figured it out yet, block templates are under TW, Warn, then the bottom of the types. It took me a month to figure that out, I was hand typing them.

Really? That'd've been helpful to know ... I was copying the code from that page linked on the page after you successfully block someone. Thanks! Go Phightins! 21:59, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Those are my observations. Only the one block is really worrisome, as those aren't as easy to undo as a protection. Of course, you can ask others to look at those cases I mentioned and offer an opinion here if you choose. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 21:09, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback; points are well-taken, and I offered a few replies in line above. Go Phightins! 21:59, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
Let me know if you have other thoughts/replies. Go Phightins! 00:46, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
I will if I see anything. You will get the hang of it soon enough. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 00:51, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

SPI

Hey, Dennis, I saw that you blocked Grfr12345, after looking at the SPI, presumably. What are your thoughts on the whole situation? I find it a bit weird, and I almost regretted citing Grfr12345 in the block rationale after I did it; I started to wonder about a joe job. Something's not really adding up here; the other account and evidence that Tiptoety brought up makes me wonder if the two accounts (Grfr12345 and Fremantle99) are friends/siblings; perhaps the latter created the account and used it to frame the former. It just seems weird to me that someone would use a sock to transclude their own RfA and then use the sock to vote in it as if it were a different person, all without any edits from their main account and having just had their request for rollback declined. It's so obviously a sock move, if nothing else. Am I overthinking it, or does it seem weird to you, too? Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 22:47, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Unquestionably, the puppet you blocked is a sock. Their edits indicate an absolute pattern, blue linking, holding back, then making some sand box edits to get autoconfirmed (although RFA doesn't require it). This isn't their first sock. HOW could this person even know Grfr12345's RFA existed unless it was the same person or a close friend (meatpuppet) that acted in tandem? Their edit breaks are also similar.
I also note that Grfr12345 asked for (and was declined) rollback. Plus, this feature isn't something a user with 200 edits would know about. Plus take a look at the first two edits ever made [4]: blue linking, just like the puppet. Rarely do you see that outside of socking. It happens, but rarely.
If someone wants to unblock or get an explanation first, that is fine with me. I completely understand the reservation at first glance. The combination of all these coincidences has me pretty confident that Grfr12345 is not only the master, but actually a sock of someone else. Who, I don't know. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 23:15, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
Well, you're confident in your assessment, and I'm not condifent in my doubts, so that's good enough for me. In passing, they did need to be autoconfirmed to transclude the RfA; WP:RFA itself is sem-protected. The account I blocked is a sock, no question; it's a question of whose. But if the pattern makes sense to other people, I'm fine with that. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 00:39, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
Ah, the transcluding. Makes sense. None of the individual elements are enough, but I'm pretty confident looking at the whole. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 00:43, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi guys, if you don't mind me jumping in on this conversation, Dennis did you block ZTE? Thanks! WooHoo! • Talk to me! 01:14, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

SPIs

Hi Dennis, hope all is well. I have a question about SPIs, not an area I am overly familiar with, although I have filed a few. On Constellation Brands there is a recurring edit, adding the same content, the page was previously protected per Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Marcoa1000/Archive, since then the same edits are popping up by various users:

I am sure that all of these could probably be blocked per WP:DUCK, however should the SPI be extended and CU requested? Just not my strong area, and I am not up on the protocol figured I would ask someone who knows the area a little better than I.--kelapstick(bainuu) 23:30, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

  • If it is an ongoing issue and the ducks are popping up regularly, I suggest blocking the ducks, then starting an SPI, show a diff for each, including any unblocked and the blocked as puppets, and ask for a CU to flush out any sleeper accounts and possibly do a range block. Basically, do what you can, organize the whole affair, and ask CU to firm up the rest so it can be cleaned up. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 23:34, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Time for a range block?

Pls see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Oglesruins -- Moxy (talk) 00:49, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

  • Moxy: You probably want to revert yourself on the SPI page, go to the sock's page, then with Twinkle, choose ARV, "Select report type" choose "Sockpuppet", fill in the form including two diffs, one from the master and puppet (this is required), click the CU box and in the text box also add "asking for a CU to consider a range block". I don't have CU access, so I'm not sure what IP range should be blocked. Only a CU has access to enough information to make a rock solid range block. The way you added that comment, it won't get seen because the bot won't report that it is a case. It will just sit there. If I was feeling better, I would just do it for you. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 00:59, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
I have no clue anything about Twinkle all my edits are by hand. What should I do? -- Moxy (talk) 01:01, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
If you have Twinkle active, it will be the TW tab up top. It isn't hard. I do almost all my edits by hand, but reporting vandals, user name violations and Socks is 10x easier with TW. You just fill in the blanks, it does all the work. Otherwise, you go to WP:SPI and fill out the form in the middle of the page. If only for dealing with troublemakers, Twinkle is worth having active in your Preferences. Nothing to install, just check the box: Preferences, Gadgets, Twinkle. Easy peasy. An hour ago, I took more than a few mg of hydrocodone so I'm wisely choosing to only chat, not file reports or make blocks. Once you see it, you will be glad you have Twinkle for those rare times you need it. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 01:12, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
Ok will try but can we at lest block the new account hes just blanking stuff with no explanation even reverting the refs that were fixed. As seen here. -- Moxy (talk) 01:21, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
I bet you can do it, and will be glad for it. If all else fails, you can drop a note asking for help at WP:AN, but this is one of those things that someone as active as you are will find to be a benefit. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 01:32, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Since you are active and AGK's not...

I am just gonna pass this ball to you. I have no vested interest in the article but I thought that merits attention. ~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.69.141.170 (talk) 01:06, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

BAG question

Anyone can comment on Wikipedia talk:Bot Approvals Group? Or only those who are members of the BAG group and those who are admins. OccultZone (Talk) 08:00, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Admin's Barnstar
Thanks for TCOB at ANI. BTW, that's nice, the Gretsch stuff. Keep on rocking in the free world. Drmies (talk) 02:08, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

AN/I discussion

Hi! I am pretty sure I know who the editor is, although my though is that it isn't Morning277. Both Smallbones and I came to the same conclusion independently, and I've spent most of the day tracking down related accounts to see if I can work out the overall picture. It is all pretty ugly, though - at least I'm down to the last few leads on the main account. - Bilby (talk) 16:18, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

I'll probably end up contacting a CU. I have enough to do a number of blocks under the duck test, depending on how you interpret it, but there are likely to be other accounts. - Bilby (talk) 17:11, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
Sounds good. Making the easy blocks first is helpful, gives them dots to connect. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 17:14, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Edit Filters

Hi, Dennis! Glad to see you've "unretired." I see you are an edit filter manager. I am wondering what the process is for proposing a new edit filter? High up on my list of my least favorite phrases is "24/7, 365". There is a particular editor that continuously adds that phrase while adding content about fire departments (most of which is highly undue, but that's a separate point). He never responds to talk messages so trying to discourage it through discourse is unlikely. Cannot see a situation where that particular phrase would add any helpful content. On the other hand, there are some songs and albums that contain that phrase. I am completely ignorant of how filters work, but it seems like there should be a way to allow the phrase as title or section header and allow it if it exists as a title or a section header. Not on regularly any more so please give me a talkback when you reply. Thanks. John from Idegon (talk) 23:14, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

  • I never retired, just took a long break. I gave myself access to the edit filter, but I've yet to really work on filters much, so I'm the wrong guy to ask. I would say ask Reaper Eternal, but I haven't seen him around in weeks. Probably need to find someone who is active there. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 23:16, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Holy...

...shit! I've participated in 3569 AfDs! No wonder I'm such an asshole. Or, really, the other way around: since I'm an asshole, I must have sought out the worst possible environment. There's a lot of green in the matrix, so I'm not all bad. Drmies (talk) 02:32, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

I think it's the latter doc. Wow. I've only participated in 299. I should probably be desysoped. :) --kelapstick(on the run) 03:17, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
  • I've been in around 1400-1500, almost all before becoming an admin. I would imagine the average admin with 40k edits might have 300 is all. Guys like me and Drmies like AFD because you get to call people out and passive aggressively call them idiots, and it is expected.  ;) Like Drmies, the majority of my incivility has been at AFD. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 16:04, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
    • I have the occasional "fuck off" in an edit summary, I'm sad to say. But man it is such a wonderfully appropriate expression sometimes. I'm going to run through AfD and vote with the rest to sweeten my stats a little bit. Drmies (talk) 17:14, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
    • I expect my desysop to be in the mail tomorrow: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lauren Scruggs. I have to admit, though, that the closing admin has a knack for writing. Jimbo Wales should put them on payroll. Drmies (talk) 17:38, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
      • I don't think I've told someone to fuck off in those words, but more than once I have politely let someone know they are an idiot for starting a process or voting a certain way. I'm particularly harsh on admin who do silly things, like start a discussion on a move/rename/content when it has already been defeated 3x in 6 weeks. I just can't pretend to assume good faith at that point. Either they are either idiots or they don't care about consensus and just want to shake the magic 8 ball again. I've never been mean for someone simply disagreeing, no matter how poor their logic. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 20:06, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
        • I thought you already were on the payroll Doc. I can't recall telling someone to fuck off here. Which is surprising since I work at a mine. In the mining industry (as many others do) we tend to it use it both as a term of endearment, and minus the off, in the place of a comma. --kelapstick(on the run) 02:11, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Ghana

Hello Denis, I have worked on the page and removed the excessive repetitions of the Akan groups, but the Ghana and USA match is coming up, during the last world cup the Ghanaian team scored against the USA and if I remember there was some vandalism so please keep an eye on the page as a precaution, if its possible to limit edits on it for a few days, I think it will be helpful thanks Thesunshinesate (talk) 20:10, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Response to msg left on my talk page...."Please hold off edits to the article and go to the talk page first. I'm getting calls for protection but you are the only one editing. I would prefer if you went to the talk page and addressed some concerns there, and developed consensus first. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 22:38, 12 June 2014 (UTC)"

  • honestly I don't need to go on talk page because there is nothing for me to discuss. I've already gone back and fourth with the other editor and said what I had to say about him removing sources and attacking the content yet the hasn't provided anything that discredit or provide a reason that what is written shouldn't be there other than it being about the Akans. I don't have else to say I have said it all. As for you talking about "calls" for protection. I only asked you to look out for the page because of the upcoming game. I've never asked you for anything else and as you said herw and the talk page if vandalism occurs or an edit war arise it will be reportedThesunshinesate (talk) 23:48, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
    • It isn't about me or your request. My job is to prevent problems, which is why I left the note. It was another admin that wanted me to protect the article. I'm not debating the content, I'm saying that when content is being disputed, we ALL are obligated to use the talk page. None of us are exempt. This is how we avoid edit wars and fights, we stop and talk first. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 23:54, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

RfA talk page

Please feel free to delete the whole exchange, including my comments. I should have known better than to feed the troll. --MelanieN (talk) 01:07, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

  • No harm done, I've done the same when I've thought it might be worthwhile. I just took advantage of the opportunity to request page protection and that exchange helped establish the need. 28bytes was kind enough to protect then clean up. It all worked out. If I haven't told you recently, I consider you one of the good ones. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 01:43, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
Thank you, I appreciate that! --MelanieN (talk) 04:59, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

George Marsh (martyr)

Hello, a year ago you were kind enough to help me at George Marsh (martyr) in a little war of reverts that ended in sockpuppetry. The editor has returned and I have reverted his addition. Can ping I you if he reverts me because I'm not in the mood for an edit war. J3Mrs (talk) 17:41, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

I should have thanked you here not elsewhere for your time and patience, my only excuse is the funeral wouldn't wait for me. Thanks again. J3Mrs (talk) 09:55, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Your inappropriate response to my simple question to you

In the Dave Brat article I asked a good faith question to you to get your input on a discussion taking place on the Brat talk page. Your response was an attempt to intimidate me into silence and to threaten me into submissiveness. I did not know that is the way that admins are suppose to act when editing Wikipedia. You can review your snarky, inappropriate response that falsely accuses me of "disrupting" wikipedia here: false claim by an admin of me "disrupting" wikipedia when I was simply asking an admin for his opinion. Is this an issue that I take up with you or with a certain Notice Board? Do you think Jimbo would look at my simple question as "disrupting Wikipedia" like you do? What do you think? It is a talk page. I try to talk to you. If you did not want to answer you could have simply said that. Why did not have to lie and say that I was "disrupting Wikipedia"? That has to be one of most immature, responses that I have ever gotten from an admin. It was truly unprofessional. So, please help me out, who do I talk to about this? Are you the only source?--NK (talk) 20:42, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

  • You can take it to WP:ANI if you feel I did something inappropriate. Your actions on that page are inappropriate, accusing people of POV, putting words into other's mouths, so if you feel I've wronged you, WP:ANI is the place. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 20:45, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
  • I gave you the link for "incidents", but you instead chose drama mongering on Jimmy's page. It's actually a bit humorous, but I digress. If you would stick with the merits on the Dave Brat RFC and less on making points, putting words in people's mouths and accusing others of bad faith, you might actually find more success in getting others to answer your questions. If the question is in bath faith, I'm not interested in answering it. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 21:21, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

User talk: Jimbo Wales

The OP has started a thread at User talk: Jimbo Wales. (By the way, the original exchange did look to me like a hostile question. Maybe the OP is unaware of when a question looks hostile on the Internet.) Robert McClenon (talk) 21:32, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

  • Thanks, I saw. You are correct that my interpretation of asking hostile questions, loaded questions or otherwise is itself a disruptive practice, designed to get someone to back down from their !vote. His later declarations on the page were just as bad. Assumptive questions and an inability to accept that anyone else is as clever as he and just might have a different opinion. Anyway, anyone jumping to Jimmy's page is usually more concerned with creating drama than finding solutions. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 21:37, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
Please. What later declarations are you talking about? And this next question is NOT a rhetorical question and it is a good faith question: Please outline for me the "later declarations on the page" that you are referring to? Please outline this. I am not trying to disrupt Wikipedia. I just want to know what you are referring to. You made the statement please show me what I said as "later declarations." I stopped participating on that talk page after your over the top response to my question. Also, how can you jump to the conclusion that I think that no one is as clever as me? I never stated that and I don't believe that. That is a personal attack. Please do not engage in personal attacks.--NK (talk) 01:27, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
And now you are warning me about personal attacks? I'm genuinely baffled. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 01:42, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
  • As a number of people have opined on your question and follow up, and they universally found it to be pointed and or disruptive, I have collapsed that portion of the discussion without comment. In case you don't know, it is quite common to do that to exchanges that only serve as a distraction in a formatted discussion or poll. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 11:17, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

perhaps

See [5] last section. Cheers. Collect (talk) 15:17, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

old Afd notices

No need to reply. I have placed old afd notices on the talk pages of Expulsion of Egyptian Jews (1956) and CyberBerkut, for which you, today, closed the deletion discussions. No action is required. --Bejnar (talk) 19:16, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Gatwick Airport

Hello Dennis, Could I please draw your attention to unregistered user IP 86.156.53.27. He/she has made the same seven unreferenced/POV edits to Gatwick Airport today and has totally ignored requests from myself and admin. MilborneOne to stop. As you will know, I have no intention of edit warring, but do feel that these actions should be stopped. I have also pinged MilborneOne, but guess he has retired for the night. With best regards, David, David J Johnson (talk) 22:41, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Dennis, Many thanks for your help. Best regards, David, David J Johnson (talk) 22:49, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
Maybe the page will require protection, it is on its way. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 08:07, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Chronology of UFWC

dear Sir,

You have deleted that article. How can I find the information mentioned in it? Կարեն Վարդանյան (talk) 21:31, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Please reblock this user

This 68.81.21.243 is reeking havoc an several pages. I see you have blocked him previously. VictoriaGrayson (talk) 22:21, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

  • IPs are tricky, you never know how fast they cycle into a new IP for each user. Regardless, it is the same blocked editor User:Tenzinwestcoast, and I just put 3 months worth of block on that IP. Feel free to revert any of their edits that need it. You are welcome to ping me here if he comes back. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 22:27, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
Thanks.VictoriaGrayson (talk) 22:31, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Please see the expired semi-protection at Dorje Shugden page, and the current vandalism. Also another IP, 46.44.222.109 restoring the exact edits of the last IP.VictoriaGrayson (talk) 06:33, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

This is a garden variety content dispute, not vandalism, VictoriaGrayson. Vandalism has a very specific and narrow meaning here on Wikipedia. Please don't misuse the term. We may be dealing with tenacious, disruptive POV pushers. But that's not vandalism. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 07:02, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) @VictoriaGrayson: Check WP:ATWV. If other user was a sock puppet, call him that, not vandal. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 08:04, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Whatever you want to call it, he is deleting academic material, and rephrasing text at Dorje Shugden. Bushranger called it vandalism, so I also called it vandalism. Get off my case, respectfully.VictoriaGrayson (talk) 14:03, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

  • As this is a long term problem, I've semi-protected the page for 3 months. If others need it for having ongoing issues, ping me here and I will review each article individually. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 14:06, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

DB, do you want to see the Shugden situation here?. It seems every Admin is on vacation.Heicth (talk) 14:40, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

  • Bushranger unblocked one, [6], so it is better to ask him about it. As for being "on vacation", of course they can't be on vacation, this is a volunteer job ;) I'm at work currently and researching an admin abuse case while doing stuff I'm getting paid to do, it might better be at an SPI case. I will try, but it is Monday 10:44am where I live. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 14:44, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Do you want to see whats going on at Trijang Lobsang Yeshe Tenzin Gyatso?VictoriaGrayson (talk) 20:57, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Uh oh. I think I removed the semi-protection by reverting the article. Is that even possible?VictoriaGrayson (talk) 21:30, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
Nope :) You just removed the little lock thingy that lets people know it is semi-protected. If you go back through the edits, I bet you can figure out which part it is and put it back. Always at the top of the article. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 21:32, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
Oh okay. I thought they made me into an Admin.VictoriaGrayson (talk) 21:35, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
No, you would have a LOT more scars and open wounds if you made admin. :) Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 21:37, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
I can see admining Wikipedia is a pain in the Buttocks.VictoriaGrayson (talk) 21:40, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Unlock request for Mario Ferri article

Hi Dennis Brown: in April 2011 you contributed to this deletion discussion of Mario Ferri, a Canadian activist/organizer/politician; the article's deletion request was vetted by User:Xymmax, who wrote after some discourse:

"The result was delete. The rough consensus in this discussion is that the subject does not currently meet the general notability guideline or WP:POLITICIAN. I or any another admin will be happy to restore the article should the subject win the election or otherwise become notable. Xymmax"

Mr Ferri was actually notable for several reasons prior to his entry into the political arena, and handily qualifies under WP:GNG guidelines as a community activist/organizer going back to the 1980s. I visited some stacks and clipping archives and copied some 80 articles to properly rewrite his story, which now resides in my sandbox over here. Mr. Ferri was the subject of several articles written on him, including the Government of Ontario’s Corps D’Elite Award he received, presented to only a few people annually, with awardees often being cited in the unicameral Ontario legislature's proceedings. This was noted prominently in a half page article on him, "Mario Ferri Receives Corps D’Elite", and in a few other articles as well. Ferri was the object of print media and TV news long before his Wikipedia article was created, and about 30-35 articles feature prominent photos of him at various projects he initiated or at the protest demonstrations he organized, including in front of the home of the Premier of Ontario (an elected position equivalent to governor).

I posted this request to Xymmax to undelete/unlock Mario Ferri's article space, but unfortunately Xymmax has not been active on Wikipedia since mid-February. I would appreciate if you can assist by assessing Mr. Ferri's notability under GNG, and unlock his article space if you agree, so the rewritten article can be posted there. Best: HarryZilber (talk) 14:04, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

  • The article isn't salted, but it would be best to review and then do a histmerg on it (blends the edits histories of both articles into one article). I'm at work, so it might take a while to fully read. If it is borderline, I would say go to WP:REFUND but if it is obvious, we would just boot it over, there is no reason to be bureaucratic about it. First I need to find time to read and research it, to know it passes the "would likely survive another AFD" test. I'm going to ping DGG as well. If he says it passes, that is good enough for me and I would happily do all the histmerg paperwork. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 14:13, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
I think the article is entitled to another try, but I cannot predict the result of AfD2, On the basis of the sourcing and tone of the proposed article, I would probably !vote for deletion--but don't judge by me, for I'm known for a rather deletionist stand towards local people & events. (on the other hand, I support notability for losing major party candidates for national-level posts, but the consensus is otherwise. ) It is justified in such situations to let the article go into mainspace, and see what happens, but my own advice is to wait for further good material, because another rejection will make it harder to try again.
The problem with tone is so pervasive it needs a total rewrite, not just a history merge. There's an overall promotional attitude--the article should describe his activities, not show off his importance. The battle over the waste dump belong in the article on it: the article says "widely credit to" and this is the sort of statement that needs to be replaced with some specific quotations from the best available NPOV sources. The minor community activities should be eliminated: they belong only on his own website. Non-specific statements like "contributed to" , "instrumental in", "a supporter of" etc. are meaningless. The awards are trivial. Quotes from the citation of the award are unreliable, just like book-jacket blurbs. Try to avoid adjective, especially adjectives of praise; try to avoid saying the same thing in several sections. DGG ( talk ) 19:06, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
Thank you DGG. I had to read and search it piecemeal today, but was already leaning in the exact same direction as you are, that the tone is too promotional. I'm generally very lenient on local people, culture and events as it is a bit part of what I write, but I think that DGG is right that it needs cleaning up if it is to stand a chance. Take DGG's advice, tone down the adoration just a bit, and I will review to move when you are done. Even then, it is a 50/50 chance as almost all he is known for is very local, but if we are going to put it out there, lets do it in a way that gives it the best chance. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 21:35, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing out the article's fawning tone. Most of the adjectives are now gone and some material on the waste facility has been removed and will be transferred to the Keele Valley Landfill article instead. I'd missed the basics of reporting just the facts, facts and facts, and have now taken Saint-Exupery's advice more to heart ("a work is complete not when there isn't anything left to add, but when there isn't anything left to remove"). A second reading would be appreciated. Best: HarryZilber (talk) 18:22, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

If it's a hot enough date, you don't need the gym ;-) the panda ₯’ 23:58, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
Perhaps it was a bit too hot and distracting  ;-)
In any event with the extra time I went into an online database to improve the sourcing and pulled out a number major media articles on Ferri and his work, including from the Toronto Star, Canada's largest circulation paper. The database also provided two articles of criticism which are now included for more balanced coverage. Best: HarryZilber (talk) 17:35, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
The draft that Harryzilber has created at User:Harryzilber/sandbox looks like it might survive AfD. If restored to article space it probably needs to be histmerged with the old article now sitting under Mario Ferri. EdJohnston (talk) 18:13, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
History merge complete. I didn't bother with the talk page. Good work, hope it sticks. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 18:25, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
Gracias/Dekuji/Maltsomesc/Spasbo/Merci/Siesiu/Obrigado and thank you, DGG and EdJohnston for the assist. Best: HarryZilber (talk) 21:47, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Your ruining all my fun

Extended content

Come on Farmer Brown, your ruining all my fun and taking Wikipedia too seriously. Its just a website and not a very good one. People treat it like a joke and treat editors abusively so I'm just doing what has been shown to me repeatedly as acceptable behavior on this site. Just write it off as Bold or IAR. If the arbs and admins on this site have no respect for the rules, then there is no reason for me too either. I tried in every way to extend the olive branch and put this little conflict behind us but no one wants too and just wants to spit in my face. So I will continue to just play around and have fun. Cheers and happy editing. K NYBradley (talk) 00:44, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

  • And I'm just doing what I do, if not me, it would be someone else. If I thought it was actually accomplishing something, it would be easy to pass by and do nothing, but it isn't, it's just kind of petty at this point. If you have given up on Wikipedia, that is fine, but I'm still trying to make a positive difference in my tiny corner of the place. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 00:54, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
    • Oh sure I get that, I know its nothing personal. At least I still have some respect for you unlike a lot of the other schucks around this place. Just think if this as my new niche. I am helping the Admins practice their craft and filling a needed position as a training aid to the admins. My hope is that someday someone say you know what, this isn't working and why don't we just unblock this dick and see what happens since the block isn't working anyway. Cheers K El Fairy One (talk) 01:01, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
      • I don't think you're going about it the right way. If you were improving articles and getting blocked, that would be one thing (I've seen it happen, they get unblocked because admin gave up. Rare, but it happens). But not the way you are going about it. You're going to do what you're going to do, but from my perspective, as someone who doesn't have it out for you, who doesn't hate you and even gave neutral votes of moral support at two of your RFAs....it just seems silly and petty, and I'm sorry, but beneath you. If Wikipedia really doesn't matter to you, move on. If it does, move in a smarter direction. Again, do what you want, all I can do is offer an objective (I think) perspective. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 01:19, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
        • There is no doubt your right and I freely admit that its not the right way to go about it and I had wanted to avoid it. I chose to go down this road not to get back on the site but to show what happens when a few members of the community tells a dedicated and high output editor they can't be trusted after years of contributions. Its also to show what happens when admins are allowed to abuse the tools with no ramifications and what happens when a dedicated contributor is banned for a snide comment. One that wasn't nearly as bad as a whole bunch of them that the arbs themselves have made in the past few weeks I might add. Especially when a good number of them abuse the admin tools on a regular basis and nothing is done. Add to that the fact some asshole tried to get me fired. Make no mistake, I know I won't be allowed back so I gave up trying but I'm still not going away until I am unblocked and no one has the balls to unblock my account. Frankly I stopped for three weeks thinking fine I'll just take it and come back later and fight it and a dozen editors were blocked and accused of being me and I was accused of vandalism. So it was then I decided it didn't matter if I edited or not, I was going to get blamed for it anyway, so I may as well go ahead. I also don't expect anyone to understand. So given all that, why would I want to contribute positively? K El Fairy One (talk) 01:30, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
          • Honestly, because I'm not used to seeing you let others control your reactions like this, not for such extended periods, anyway. I just had a different impression of you, it seems out of character to take it this far. Maybe that is my fault. a wrong impression, I don't know. It isn't making my life fun, I feel stuck in the middle, uncomfortable so, to be honest. If things were different and there wasn't all the useless socking, there could be some kind of solution, given enough time. Maybe that is my problem, I'm very much a solution oriented person. I don't worry about justice, just solutions. There is no justice here and seeking it is a fool's game, as you know. So I don't know what to do other than block you when you go to their pages. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 01:46, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

MosesM1017 repeatedly introducing deliberate factual errors in articles

Hello. I noticed an unconstructive edit by MosesM1017 on your user page, so I reverted it. I then took a look at his talk page and contributions, and noticed both the final warning you had given him and that all of the three edits he had made today after being given the warning were vandalism, introducing deliberate factual errors, resulting in him being reported by me at WP:AIV for vandalism after being given a final warning. So either his case waits in line there for whatever time it takes, or you decide his fate... Thomas.W talk 18:44, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

  • Fair enough. It will be a third set of eyes, though, since I took a look at his edits too. And I wouldn't have reported him if I hadn't felt it was blockable... Thomas.W talk 18:57, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Although I haven't said as much, it looks like it is a WP:CIR issue, to be frank. I never decide those alone and prefer at least two admin determine that a block is needed. Those are touchy situations, and I get the feeling that is the problem, rather than just plain vandalism. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 19:01, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
  • It definitely looks like a CIR-issue, combined with a desire to test how far he can go without being blocked. Just so he knows the next time he creates an account. Thomas.W talk 19:06, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Good. It shows that I'm not totally off the mark. Editors like MosesM1017, i.e. editors who deliberately introduce factual errors in articles, a type of vandalism that is often very difficult to detect, cause a lot more damage to Wikipedia than vandals posting four-letter words or replacing whole articles with nonsense characters, since repeatedly finding errors in articles can make readers believe that nothing they read on Wikipedia can be trusted. Thomas.W talk 21:17, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
We were just talking about that at the village pump. Actually, his is CIR, I've seen a stealth vandal that went for over a year, a few edits a week, and once uncovered, created total hell to go back and undo all the little changes they made. That is just malicious. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 21:20, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Dennis Brown. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Roller sport in India.
Message added 06:42, 18 June 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

NorthAmerica1000 06:42, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Admin suggestion

Hi Dennis. You recently wrote "We need more active admin .... but up to date admin". Has anyone asked XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk · contribs) if they're interested in running for the mop? I've seen lots of content work, (15,000 edits, 66% in article space) plenty of activity in GA and FA reviews, often in high visibility articles, and they always seems to offer good advice and a cool head. Their user page says they want to be an admin, so perhaps somebody could enquire about it. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:49, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

As much as I would like to be one someday and highly appreciate such an offer, I feel it's too soon to run. I'm not sure if I have enough experience yet. Snuggums (talk • contributions) 11:54, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
You have plenty of edits, but I understand if you don't think you've had enough time. Actually, it is a good sign. If you think it is something that might interest you in 6 to 12 months, but you want to learn some basics along the way that will help you, let me know. I can do a review and point you in the right direction to gain some experience that might help towards that end. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 12:19, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
Talking about the candidate, I guess your block history is not impressive. I haven't looked about the incident behind your blocks but I just want to add that it is one important point majority of voters on RFA would count. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 12:31, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
Ouch. Hadn't seen that. From my estimation, you need at least 18 months from the last block, and even then, some will oppose. We have had admin pass with block logs, even with unanimous consent (Berean Hunter is one example) but it takes time for old wounds to heal. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 12:38, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
Yikes! I wasn't expecting a block log. However, having looked through it, I think there are very extenuating circumstances, and I also note that Snuggums took the block with good grace, apologising for anything they did wrong and sitting it out after one request. Not the pattern we often see with socks, which tend to leave a trail of declined requests. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:31, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

However, User:Ritchie333 himself has a clean block log, as well as lots of other desirable admin qualities... I seem to recall a conversation some time back where I suggested I'd support you running for RFA, Ritchie, what say you? Still up for it? Yunshui 雲水 12:41, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Admin Acalamari had previously advised me that if I made any attempt to run for admin within a year of being blocked, chances are it would be quickly rejected. This was another reason I (for now) decline running. Snuggums (talk • contributions) 12:43, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
He is correct. Fortunately, it doesn't mean a lifetime bar from betting the bit, just that you have a few things to prove, which just takes time. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 12:46, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
You know I was surprised by this RFA.[7] Though he was blocked like 4 years ago, never again. As my edit count is growing, I am probably more concerned with blocks than ever. Sticking to self-imposed 1rr is best idea. Great editors such as GoingBatty, Ser Amantio di Nicolao and few others haven't got any blocks and they have 100,000s of edits. It is simply amazing! OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 12:47, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
Thing is, edits aren't the key thing as long as you have "enough". I nom'ed Basalisk, he had about 6k edits. I had 18k when I ran. More edits help, and I think that the more edits you have, the more likely they will let little things slide since it is a smart part of the whole, but it seems that demeanor is the key, how you handle disputes, as well as having some experience with admin areas, even if only slight. I'm that way, I'm more concerned about their likelihood of abuse than anything else. Most everything else you learn on the job. You can teach tools, you can't teach demeanor. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 12:52, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
Definitely stick to 1RR, or even 0. It does mean you look at an article and think "but this is wrong" but I find it highly likely that the locus of the dispute, whatever it is, will be lost on most readers. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:22, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
When I've "healed" enough, it is quite nice to know you'd be willing to guide me before I run for admin :). Snuggums (talk • contributions) 13:05, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

The problem I've got with putting myself forward for the mop is that I very occasionally (and it really is only about once every six months on average) get cross with someone and have a pop at them. I think on every occasion it's been somebody else saying or implying something in the US is better than that in the UK (example here) which seems to press my bezerk button (even though my partner is from the US). I've always thought that would kill an RfA stone dead if the target turns up to !vote "oppose". You can dig out other examples in my contributions. Don't know if that'll be an issue. Anyway, Snuggums, I personally think you've got the right attitude and demeanour and even your block actually strengthens your cause to me. Something to think about, anyway. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:31, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

  • I remember seeing that but didn't say anything at the time as I didn't see a benefit in the heat of the moment. I think you took that comment out of context. He was just saying that sometimes a title will point to a UK target, sometimes a US target. Durham is a town near me, a very key city in North Carolina, but it is properly pointed at a UK subject, not the Durham, North Carolina article. I saw it as him just giving an example, to counterpoint the fact that Raleigh should (at least arguably) point to Raleigh, North Carolina. I thought the comment added balance, and wasn't saying anything was better than anything else. I have no idea how that was supposed to be bigoted. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 13:36, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
It wasn't at all - I was just annoyed, and felt the reference to Durham was irrelevant to the discussion. A simple "Consensus has shown that there is sufficient evidence for the NC town to be the primary topic" would have been better. I would have self-reverted if somebody else hadn't got in first. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:42, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
Well, I thought it added an example to show it wasn't a US bias thing, so the reaction honestly confused me. In closing, it is sometimes helpful to compare or contrast so it doesn't look like it IS US bias. I've done similar. One thing about getting the bit, you are a bit under the microscope at all times, so I've found myself biting my tongue a lot more than before. You don't have a choice, in order to tamp down drama. It isn't always easy, and I'm not always successful. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 13:45, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
Thank you very much Ritchie :D, but could you perhaps elaborate on how my blocks strengthen my cause? Snuggums (talk • contributions) 14:09, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
I meant I felt your conduct during your block puts you in more positive light than most editors who get blocked. You showed remorse and remained calm, when it would have been so easy to reply with something like "I did not do this" (which I don't think would have worked). I really don't have a good answer for how we can handle this - if somebody accuses you of editing while logged out and you can't prove it wasn't you, what can you do? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:16, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
Makes sense to me. Snuggums (talk • contributions) 14:46, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Okay, let me conclude by proposing this to Dennis and @Yunshui:. Would you both be prepared to consider filing an RfA for myself (and Snuggums, if they want it) sixths months from now (January 2015) provided you can find no evidence whatsoever of angry mastadons or toy throwing in that time period, regardless of what conflicts or disagreements come up? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:24, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

  • I would. I think we all know what the problems are, you tend to vent a bit more than you need, but 6-9 months of demonstrating that it is a choice and not central to your character should be sufficient. With the bit, you really MUST pull back a little to keep the peace, but I think you are fully capable of doing that. Unquestionably, you have a good grasp of policy and like a hand full of others, even when I disagree with you, I tend to learn something new. I think Snuggums needs closer to 12-18 months due to the block and I haven't looked at his history enough to make a decision, but I would be open minded. I don't think a history with bumps along the way should disqualify anyone from being an admin. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 18:34, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
You can definitely count me in for a co-nom, in both cases. I look forward to seeing you both with the mop this time next year. Yunshui 雲水 08:45, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

New user with good experience?

I was amazed to see a new user joined today with 7 edits starting his life on Wikipedia from AfD! See his contribs; all his edits are at AfD. This makes me concerned that he might be (I'm not sure) a sock of somewhat experienced blocked user (I don't know who). It is very odd (for me) to see a very new user starts from AfD. So, I wanted you to keep an eye on his contribs. Thanks, Jim Carter (talk) 12:36, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

  • I already looked at that first thing this morning, was already keeping an eye out, but I appreciate the heads up. ;) I agree that it is doubtful this is their first account, although I won't jump to conclusions just yet. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 12:38, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Reverted portion of Flathead engine article.

Hello, Dennis. I am new here, so i was not sure if you could see my answer on my user talk page, so I will put it here in whole too. My appologies, if this is redundant message.

"I reverted you on the rather large deletion. In the spirit of WP:BRD, please go to the talk page of that article and discuss why you want to delete such a large section that is referenced. I'm open minded and will listen, but any time we remove 20 percent of the whole article, it is pretty common for other editors to want to at least discuss it first. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 21:45, 16 June 2014 (UTC) Hello Dennis. We have discussed this with the user who wrote that part in Finnish version on the article. In there we come to a conclusion that it should be removed, as it does have personal views about it. Fact of the matter is, that those proposed improvements on the flathead are based on technology that is still on develobment phase, or have not been proven in any way. And it has been discussed in other forum, that is more engine oriented, and determined that it would not make flathead any more potential option in todays world, because engine has fault in its basic design, that could not be overcomed. User who wrote the finnish article and part that has been removed, is the same person who editet part "potentials" to this flathead article. That is why i did not see why it should be discussed again. Heikki Vainionpää (talk) 05:41, 17 June 2014 (UTC)" Heikki Vainionpää (talk) 20:10, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

  • The place to discuss is really at Talk:Flathead engine. As for the Finnish Wiki, that is completely unrelated. We never use decisions from other language Wikis on other wikis. Nothing wrong with introducing the same argument here, but each language Wiki is 100% different with different rules, different standards of notability, verification, etc. The opposite is also true, if we decide to delete an article or section on the English Wikipedia, that doesn't mean any other language Wiki has to do the same. The same is true for other forums. Again, introduce the idea and discuss with others, I would love to here it there on the talk page of the article. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 20:15, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Fair enough. I thought that there would be no need to discuss a matter that is clearly not done in accordance to wikipedia rules. But now i have started a discussion about removal of the articles partition. Thank you from your advise. Heikki Vainionpää (talk) 14:10, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Afd closes

Heya, thanks for helping to close AfDs... it can get wretchedly backlogged. :( Anyway, as a quick heads up, be sure to subst: the {{afd top}} and {{afd bottom}} templates, else the bots won't pick up on the fact that the discussion's actually been closed. Personally, I just use User:Mr.Z-man/closeAFD, because it takes at least 95% of the hassle out of the whole closing process (it even updates talk pages on keeps/merges deals with relists gracefully). Anyway, thanks again, and cheers =) --slakr\ talk / 02:29, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

  • Facepalm Facepalm I just started closing after two years and keep forgetting that. I'm an idiot. Thank you for fixing. I will install that, as I intend to start helping out with a half dozen or so most days, just to keep the backlog under control. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 02:30, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Jeez, Slakr, that script is insanely easy to use, very similar to the SPI scripts. Wish I had found that weeks ago. Thanks again! Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 13:34, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Dennis Brown, Admin-about-town

Wow, you're famous — you have your very own Wikipediocracy thread, with controversy and spilled bile and everything. LINK. Hope you are doing well. I love ya, man, keep up the good work! All the best, —Tim /// Carrite (talk) 01:42, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

  • Its funny how much factually incorrect stuff is there. Like deleting my page...any editor that asks me to delete their user page or any other page other than talk, I do it no questions asked. Always have. There is a reason I deleted it, but it isn't what anyone would think. I just haven't bothered undeleting it, there isn't anything to hide. I probably AM ANI's biggest participant. So what? It isn't by accident, I said I intended to patrol ANI in my RFA, Q1 [8]. And the political stuff is even funnier. I get called a liberal as much as I get called a conservative here. A tool of the Dems, or a patsy for the GOP. Anyone that looked would know I'm neither, although I don't advertise my politics and avoid editing politics (check the Dave Brat article, I've done ZERO article edits...oops, they didn't notice that, did they?). And no one knows my religion here. The "is that his real name? stuff is every funnier. Anyone with the tech savvy of a 15 year old could locate me and verify that its my real name. Tarantino got it right because he bothered to look. I've never tried to hide it, I just don't advertise it in plain site. I've worked there 20 years, plus spinning off my own company currently, which is why I can the COI disclaimer on my user page. Anyway, I appreciate your kind words there, but that thread kind of shows why I don't frequent the website. I personally have plenty of complaints about Wikipedia, but I find people there get it wrong as much as they get it right. Not talking about anyone in that thread specifically, but some users on that site don't really care about the truth, they just want to run people down. And they have less accountability than Wikipedia itself, so I don't see the point, and I can't take it too serious. But thanks for the link, it was slightly amusing, slightly annoying, but not very enlightening. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 02:15, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
    I asked to have my Wikipediocracy account retired some time ago, and I've got no intention of ever going back there. The amount of bitchy backbiting from a few members makes even WP look like Eden. Eric Corbett 14:42, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
    It is a shame, but I DO think that an outside website to act like a watchdog is a good thing in theory, but I've not seen it in practice. There are plenty of reasons to complain about admin, the power structure, or other aspects of Wikipedia. I screw up too, and have been called out onwiki and will admit it. There are real issues at enwp and it isn't always easy to discuss them here. Suffice it to say that not every person of power likes to see others talk about our flaws. That was one of the ideas behind WP:WER, to discuss our flaws, and as you know, not everyone with extra bits is happy with WP:WER. Maybe someday someone will make a website to do what WPO promised, with actual accountability for what people claim there. Then I would love to join a website. Otherwise, it is just hypocritical. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 14:57, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
    I agree. WP is too often intolerant of criticism here, as evidenced by my ArbCom ban on participation at WP:RFA and even of voicing criticism of the way that admins are chosen or of admins in general. So there's a definite need for somewhere issues like those and many others can be explored without it being shut down by the secret police. But unfortunately WPO is very far from being that place. Eric Corbett 15:07, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
    On a similar vein, I got an email off-wiki the other day saying I should look at a particular thread over there. I think with something the size and scale of Wikipedia, that takes in anyone from anywhere no questions asked, it's inevitable that there will be culture clashes, disagreements and criticism just like there are in the real world. The basic premise of Wikipediocracy as a neutral third-party criticism site is a sound one, playing Jeremy Paxman to Wikipedia's Michael Howard, some of the stuff on the site such as problems with Visual Editor and opinions on paid editing can be fair and reasonable comment, and some of the forum posts have made me cheer from the sidelines. But otherwise, yeah, I share your concerns that there's too much heat in there. I remember reading stuff on a forum somewhere where a couple of chaps took exception to something I said once and called me a nazi and worse - you just need to shrug it off. Don't hate the haters. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:20, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
All understood. Take care and don't be a stranger! —Tim //// Carrite (talk) 14:22, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
Same to you. If I ever get passed all this real life stuff, we should work together on bringing an article to GA. If we can work through all that, then we will be true friends ;) Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 14:39, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

A beer for you!

Don't drive, that is the most important thing.
A beer for you. And some extra beer. Hafspajen (talk) 17:16, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
Extra beer.

UFWC page move request

Hi Dennis Brown, I noticed the above editor has recreated the deleted information in the Unofficial Football World Championships article. They are suggesting you gave them permission. Isn't this defeating the object of deleting unencyclopedic information at AfD, only to recreate it elsewhere? Your AfD decision was "delete", not "merge", after all. Sionk (talk) 06:42, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
He didn't recreate it, I undeleted it and put it in his user space so parts of it could be incorporated into the main article. I believe it was originally split from that article then expanded. This would be helping him restore the article to a state before the split. If he was attempting to add all that material, I would object (as others would on the talk page of the article) but he isn't. As far as "delete" versus "merge", a "delete" doesn't disqualify the material from being used, just the material from being a stand alone article. He's added 15k, which is admittedly a big chunk (but less than half of the original article). With all that material, the article is around 51k, which isn't particularly huge. The place to discuss whether or not it should be included would be the talk page of the article. I generally don't get into those discussions and leave it to you guys, who edit the article regularly. He added, you reverted, now according to WP:BRD, he needs to take it to the talk page and you guys can figure out which parts (or all, or nothing) best serve the reader. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 09:45, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Question

Dennis, do contributions of banned users have to be removed even if they improve an article (e.g., [9]). Seems stupid, but I can't find anything either way in my skimming of the banning policy. Go Phightins! 19:44, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

"This does not mean that edits must be reverted just because they were made by a banned editor (obviously helpful changes, such as fixing typos or undoing vandalism, can be allowed to stand), but the presumption in ambiguous cases should be to revert." seems to imply that they can stand, but I don't want to step on any toes. Go Phightins! 19:45, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
Some are slavish to the idea that edits MUST be reverted. "We must not reward socks!" is the mantra, and while I respect that, I don't think cutting off our noses to spite our faces is wise. Personally, if the edits are middle of the road quality or less, I tend to revert but if they do improve the article, I leave them alone. If I'm the one that made the block and someone comes behind and re-reverts me, or reverts where I wouldn't have, I just walk away and leave it to the editors to hash out. I keep the line between editing and admining a bold one. If I'm uninvolved, then I'm not really "admining", I'm just an editor and use my best judgement. Policy does not require that we revert socks, although it encourages it. Thus it is a judgement call, but a judgement of the editors (community), not the admins. We don't enforce policy that uses the word "should" like we do "must" except in the most obvious cases. If the article was created by a sock and almost no one has edited it, then it is almost always deleted under CSD#G5, obviously as an admin. I know I've answered a lot of questions and it might seem a bit confusing, but the right answer depends on the circumstances. And of course, your own judgement may be slightly different than mine in any given circumstance. If I've erred or left something out, someone will correct me shortly :) Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 19:58, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) I was involved in a case of this recently, and my feeling is that if we find ourselves fighting to prevent someone improving the encyclopedia, then something has gone badly wrong - I'm not at all surprised how our performance here is often seen by outsiders as a weird translocation of arse and elbow. My suggestion is that, when you see someone stupidly removing good content just because it was added by an officially-condemned unperson, you revert the removal and comment that you personally take responsibility for it now - that way you are saying "I'm adding this content, which I took from suitably-licensed material written by a third party". -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:54, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) If we'd revert everything banned users have contributed, we would have no "Remember not, Lord, our offences", for example, - we would loose a lot! Please tell me that we can't be so stupid. I keep translating the works of the banned and sing their praises, sometimes silenced, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:58, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Moved from the top of my page...

Mr. Brown, I assure you I take this seriously. I will endeavor to provide diffs as soon as possible. Meanwhile, if you have a moment to look at my talk page history, it is all right there. I'll return tonight for the diffs. --Paisan1 (talk) 20:34, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

WP:BTR#Finding users who misuse their user page for advertisement

Hi Dennis. Just to let you know that I asked for such a list as discussed. --Leyo 10:49, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

  • I added a note and idea for a simple algorithm that won't be perfect, but is super easy and will catch over 80% of them. Simple things are more likely to get approved. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 13:09, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

ANI on Ghana

Thanks for the note, I've replied on the ANI thread. -- Lord Roem ~ (talk) 22:28, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Dear Dennis

What do you think of Limiting case (philosophy of science) having three paragraphs now? Now other user is questioning the whole idea because he/she imagines that it is a "rare and strange" term. Thanks! --Damián A. Fernández Beanato (talk) 22:30, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

  • All that is over my head, but I'm not sure it fixes the original concern. If it ends up deleted, you can ask for a copy in your user space and try building it up to an article, getting it reviewed by people smarter than me, those who know the subject. If they say it is an "article", I certainly won't stand in the way. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 22:35, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
So upon the article's creation you immediately nominated it for deletion and now you don't care much about it any more? If you hadn't nominated it in the first place, before I had time to write more than two lines of text, if think it would stand as a legitimate article now. :( --Damián A. Fernández Beanato (talk) 00:07, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
No, upon the article's creation, I saw that I was (and am) confident is a topic that is likely never to be more than a WP:DICDEF. The solution is to go to AFD, like I did. If you are still confident it could be brought up to article status, I told you that the solution is to take it to your own user space and develop it there. I don't think it will make it, but I'm open minded to the possibility. If other experienced editors that knew the subject better than I did said "yes, it is an article", I would move it back into mainspace myself. And we are also talking about transwiki'ing the article to Wiktionary.org as well. If I didn't care much about it, I would not have replied at the AFD or here. And I wouldn't have even sent it to AFD for that matter, so obviously I care. That doesn't mean I'm always going to give you the answer you want, however. You can always go to the AFD and add a comment: "I've expanded the article, please reconsider your vote" I'm not convinced it is enough, but I won't argue about it there and let others make up their own mind. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 00:13, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
Ok, thanks for your work. Sometimes I think that it is me who cares too much about this... lol. --Damián A. Fernández Beanato (talk) 00:17, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
I understand. That is why I said to put it in user space, or just start one in user space. I can help you with stuff like that. I can't help you with the content, waaaay above my head. My expertise is in more mundane topics, but I've been here for years and know the policies, tools and methods pretty well. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 00:20, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
I know how to do it. But thanks. --Damián A. Fernández Beanato (talk) 00:26, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

YGM

As the title implies, you have new e-mail from me. Please respond by e-mail, as I'm not going to disable Javascript a second time. "My master, Annatar the Great, bids thee welcome!" 01:18, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

DRV - IFFHS best clubs of the 20th century

As you participated in the AFD, you might be interested in the DRV. GiantSnowman 17:29, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Deletion review for The Law of One (Ra material)

An editor has asked for a deletion review of The Law of One (Ra material). Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Immanuel Thoughtmaker (talk) 20:20, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

  • Thanks for the heads up. Unless I'm specifically asked a question, I will probably just sit it out and allow the community to review my close without my interference. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 20:38, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
    • FYI: There is off-wiki canvassing going on about this article: here. jps (talk) 02:01, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
      • The people I see opining at the DRV are pretty much regulars here, for the most part. Its kind of funny, that forum is just as divided as the community here, so I don't see that changing anything. Just like here, if you forced them all to agree on pizza toppings before ordering, they would argue until they starved to death. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 02:08, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
        • From what I read there is one troll who is apparently some sort of ex-believer. Anyway, thought you should know about how involved this thing is. jps (talk) 03:27, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
          • Ignorance is bliss. Glad I knew none of this before I closed. I just put the blinders on and read the discussion. I can understand the disagreement as to the reading, it is all about how you interpret policy, but I'm still glad I didn't know there would be controversy, as I wouldn't want that to color my actions. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 21:46, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

YesAllWomen

Hello, a few days ago I raised concerns on ANI regarding repeat vandalism on page YesAllWomen, and you were helpful with board suggestion of WP:RFPP. We are continuing to have problem on talk:YesAllWomen, but now of a different nature. Is there a board that would be appropriate to gain feedback when an involved editor closes RfC without prior discussion or consensus to close it?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:YesAllWomen#Reopening_old_RfC
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:YesAllWomen#Requests_for_comment.3B_Gender_breakdown

Additionally, is there dispute resolution available when dispute includes more than two editors? The editor who closed RfC is fresh off block for edit warring in another article, and their recent participation has been described by myself and at least one other editor as non-collaborative. Things have gotten kind of crazy on page, and if things continue along these lines, it seems we are going to need an RfC, just to open an RfC.--BoboMeowCat (talk) 16:59, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

  • WP:DR covers our dispute resolution system, but generally speaking WP:DRN is for content disputes. As far as the RFCs, an involved person should NEVER close an RFC, and it can be reverted at the time. Any closer that is reverted should never revert their own close back, which would show they are too involved, for instance. I would have to look closer at these examples and will try later. Or maybe a talk page stalker will do me the favor. Closing can be done by non-admins, but they are held to the same standards as admin or they will be reverted. In some cases, we have topic banned serial closers who did so poorly. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 17:08, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. If you, or any talk page stalkers, get a chance, could you take a look? Additionally, I want to make sure I understand correctly, would it be appropriate for me, as an involved editor, to reopen it? If so, how do you reopen a closed RfC? --BoboMeowCat (talk) 03:30, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
Updating. The editor in question reopened it with drastic changes that make it kind of hard to read or follow. They appear to be in process of editing it further, so hopefully it will improve. Second link above would link to that new reopened version. This is what it looked like when it was first closed. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:YesAllWomen&oldid=614003069#Requests_for_comment.3B_Gender_breakdown This is getting very long and confusing and I'm sorry to bother you with this. I read through WP:DR, and I'm still not sure where to take this for outside input, if things continue to be non-productive on talk page, so any suggestions would be appreciated. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 05:03, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
  • That is a lot of material to read. I've hashed through some of it (no pun intended? 0;-D ), but a couple of things confuse me. It is an RFC about a possible future event, which to me makes it problematic, if not null. Second, the article itself has some notability concerns. By myself, I'm not smart enough to determine since we don't have a ton of previous articles on hashtags, and frankly I'm not a Twitter user, but all this RFC debate seems like a lot of gyrations for little result. I might need to get some outside input on this or find a better forum than my talk page. I'm not sure where to go to contest an RFC, again not something I've done, so give me a bit. This is the point where I ping Drmies, DGG, Bishonen and MelanieN for their input, as I trust their judgement on notability of feminism articles, notability in general, and procedure on RFCs and other WikiGoodies. I don't want to misstep here. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 12:14, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
It's not really an RFC about a future event (or at least it wasn't, but it seems to be subject to ongoing editing and has become somewhat confusing). The debate is whether we should specify the genders of those killed and wounded, in the killing spree which inspired the hashtag. Currently, it is only possible to specify the gender of those killed, because the media never released gender data on those just wounded, but if the gender data on the wounded is ever made available, some want to include it too. Currently, it is known he killed 6 people (4 men and 2 women). Some want to just say he killed 6 people, and link to main article on killings for more data. Some want to say he killed 4 men and 2 women and provide no further details. Some want to say he killed 4 men and 2 women and also refer to a Youtube video he released prior to attack where he said he would enter a sorority house and kill every woman inside. The media has reported he improvised after he was unable to gain entry into the sorority house.
Regarding notability concerns, they have been raised previously. The article has previously been nominated for deletion and also merge. The result was do not delete and do not merge. It's an unusual article that people seem to have strong opinions about and I think that is because it involves the topic of misogyny.--BoboMeowCat (talk) 14:09, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the ping, Dennis. I'm not inclined to try to mediate anything there at this point, because on reading through the talk page I think mediation would be hopeless. Not because the issues involved are intractable - they aren't - but because there is clearly one person who is causing the problems. The battlefield mentality, the non-consensus closure and rewordings, the arbitrary imposing of one person's views on the discussion - these things are all coming from one person, namely Obi-Wan Kenobi. I suspect as long as he is active at that page it will be impossible to reach consensus, and I wonder if anything can be done about that. As for notability, it may be unusual to have an article about a hashtag but GNG has clearly been satisfied. --MelanieN (talk) 14:37, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
I had a quick look and am inclined to agree with Melanie; I can't do much deep digging today anyway. Drmies (talk) 14:51, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
Of the last 100 diffs on the talk page, 52 are by Obiwankenobi. Of the last 250, 101 are. We do appear to have a case of bludgeoning going on. Then he tried to close an RFC that he had participated in [10]. Then he tried to start then close another RFC [11]. So yes, I'm seeing a pattern here as well, and Obiwankenobi does seem to be the common thread. I'm not sure mediating is the solution as well, but I'm not sure which tools in my kit are best to deal with this problem, or if dropping it off at WP:AN for a topic ban or consideration for WP:DE is the solution. The article topic isn't under discretionary or general sanctions that I'm aware of, so my options are somewhat limited here. As for notability, I'm happy to accept the opinion of you two as fact; I just wanted to address that before moving forward. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 14:54, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

received a ping, and just saw the above thread. Dennis I think it's not quite fair to say I closed an RFC - what I did instead was put it on hold temporarily -- I didn't close it in terms of concluding where the consensus lay. Instead, since Tara rejected the RFC question, and felt it was a non-neutral header, Bobo felt the RFC header was insufficient, I felt both her and Tara's additions to be non-neutral, (Bobo's statement, for example, characterized myself and Tutelary as "holdouts", suggested we were unwilling to compromise, and provided no explanation for the positions we held (while providing explanation for HER positions), thus poisoning the mind of the reader.) and Tutelary rejected the additions of Bobo and Tara and finally withdrew the whole RFC. Basically both sides were unsatisfied with the framing of the question, and I felt putting it in abeyance temporarily while we sorted out the framework of the RFC itself would be more beneficial than continuing to argue about the RFC while the RFC was open. I now see that my bold move was too aggressive and it was resisted, so after reflection I undid that change, abandoned my effort to draft a new neutral RFC header (since no-one had shown interest in helping with that) and simply added my own opening statement to match those of Bobo and Tara. I don't think mediation is necessary at this point, as the RFC is now open again, the original statements desired by Bobo and Tara are in place, and I don't plan on closing or opening new RFCs on that page anytime soon, nor arguing further about the language used by Bobo and Tara in their statements. I probably should have started with that option (e.g. adding my own neutral opening statement), vs. the approach I took, and I regret that I caused such drama and apologize for it.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 15:14, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

I understand that we all can get too excited for our own good sometimes. I wrote that essay WP:BLUDGEON as much for myself as everyone else, back in my AFD patrolling days. I do think it is time to place your vote, then walk away, ignore the RFC for a week or two and see how it comes out. Even if you don't mean to, when your comments and activity are equal to half of what is going on, it rubs people the wrong way and makes them feel that their participation is diminished, is being drown out. If they are mistaken in their arguments, let them be. If you have some really good argument against their !vote, sometimes you have to trust that others reading it will already conclude the same thing. Or let someone else reply to it first. Don't let your eagerness to be part of the solution instead turn you into part of the problem. Any time you are participating, you really need to not play cleanup/mediate. It looks like you are trying to force your will. Don't even try. If an RFC has problems in its tone or significant POV concerns, drop off a polite and neutral note at WP:AN (not ANI) asking for a review from a disinterested party. It is a very informal thing. More than admin watch that page, and what is usually needed is simply someone objective and experienced. For now, I recommend editing something unrelated for a week or so and just let the current process do its thing. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 15:29, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
Thanks Dennis, I think it's a good recommendation. The only thing I plan to continue to edit is my opening statement, which Bobo or Tara has expressed some consternation with, so if they have suggestions that make sense to me I will tweak accordingly, but otherwise I will let the discussion flow.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 15:41, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
Hi Dennis, can you take a look at talk:YesAllWomen toward bottom of page? Despite your recommendation to take a break, Obiwankenobi is still very active on page. I pinged you, but shortly afterward, Obi added an “arbitrary break”, way above text where ping was, so if you referred to section where ping was previously, it wouldn’t be there anymore. Removed break, so it should now be in same section as when pinged, but just in case new talk page section headers are added in interim, it’s toward bottom of page.--BoboMeowCat (talk) 01:23, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
Updating, talk page has been re-sectioned again by Obiwankenbi in last few minutes. If it makes it easier to find the section I'm referring to, here are some difs:
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:YesAllWomen&diff=614161239&oldid=614158648
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:YesAllWomen&diff=614167527&oldid=614167050 --BoboMeowCat (talk) 01:43, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
hi Bobo - let's be fair, I have only been responding to questions directed at me. I don't think it was expected I would stop talking entirely. I'm not commenting in the RFC and I made only a single trivial edit to it, basically undoing an undiscussed change you yourself made to my comments. If people stop making requests of me I will stop responding but I don't want to ignore good faith questions and requests. I'm not adding anything to the RFC in any case so editors commenting there won't see my name... Also those 'breaks' are regularly used to make it easier to edit long sections of text. Cheers! --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 01:32, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Obi, I really did mean to just walk away and let everyone figure it out on their own. I got the impression you were only going to correct some grammar, clarity, etc. Questions or not, they already know your opinion. I haven't gotten to all the details of this discussion, instead just looking at the gist but I'm really not up for another large case right now, I just don't have it in me. If it gets dragged to ANI, dominating the discussion is going to look bad to the mob that hangs there. You've been here long enough to know that, which is why I've tried to just stop it here so it can move forward without more drama and the threat of sanctions. I would suggest you simply unwatch the page until the RFC is over, as the amount of participation is likely to be seen as "excessive" by outsiders. The choice is yours, I'm not giving order, just advice. Anyway, we have reached the end of what I can accomplish here, and this week is full of medical stuff so I'm really not up for mediating the RFC. Anything else needs to go to ANI tomorrow if it is required, although I hope it isn't. I know this is long (sorry) but let me end with an expression that has often saved me from myself over the years: "I would rather be happy than be right". Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 02:08, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Dennis you are wise as always. I have already started telling people to ping me on my talk page if they want to ask me questions. And again, w.r.t the RFC itself, I haven't made any edits to it save fixing some indents, and I don't intend to do more. I simply request that Bobo not modify my comments any further. Cheers.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 02:18, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
I appreciate the faith. And can we please do just that, leave the imperfections, walk away and keep this out of ANI? In the end, what I really want is good articles. Sometimes it takes bumping heads a little, but lets all try to get through this RFC the best we can, live with the results (whether we like them or not) and get back to editing articles. It IS all about the articles and the people that read them. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 02:22, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
Obiwankenobi, I never modified your comments, but I may restore the indentations that make it clear they are the comments of one specific editor, and not a general summing up view of all. Although honestly, I won't be making any further changes today as I'd prefer to take a little breather myself. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 02:51, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

MSM blood donor controversy in the United Kingdom

Hi there, could you please move MSM blood donor controversy in the United Kingdom to Men who have sex with men blood donor controversy in the United Kingdom in order to match the main article's expansion of the acronym?

Thank you, Prcc27 (talk)

(I was having technical difficulties moving it..) --Prcc27 (talk) 19:08, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

  • About to sit down to eat for a bit. Can you link to the discussion on it? I shouldn't be moving stuff like that around unless there is a consensus and I need to view it first. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 20:09, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
    • The main article being moved was discussed here but the UK article being moved hasn't been discussed yet; I already brought it to the talk however. Sorry, I thought it would make sense if the main article matched the sub-article... I'm not sure how long it will take to get consensus considering that the last time someone used the talk for that article was last year in March. --Prcc27 (talk) 21:19, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
      • There is no rush, any admin can move it, but there needs to a clear RFC or discussion on it, stating what you are trying to do: merge, overwrite, histmerge, or whatever. I never mind doing so, but just so you know, the best place when you need a utility move over another article (and the discussion is clear) is just asking at WP:AN, the admin noticeboard. There is always someone patrolling around, stuff like this tends to get done in a matter of a few minutes if all the paperwork is done. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 21:42, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Dennis_Brown/Archive_29&oldid=1153330753"