Jump to content

User talk:Dennis Brown/Archive 23

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 20Archive 21Archive 22Archive 23Archive 24Archive 25→Archive 30

clarification request

Could you clarify which part of the contribution you reference here is the BLP violation? NE Ent 16:21, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

  • The term used was false statement, which is, in fact, supported by the article itself Ping_Fu#Memoir. It's a difficult situation because we have both a responsibility to the subject and a responsibility to the reader and there are multiple reliable sources indicating the subject has made untrue statements. Is it a BLP to reference that fact? What I'm observing is an editor who has not followed multiple Wikipedia policies until informed of those policies e.g. as far as I know they haven't socked since the block for that expired and they haven't edited the article in a while but are participating on the the talk page. I'm not really getting what they were trying to communicate with all the diffs but I'm hesitant to engage the editor at this point lest I inadvertently "entrap" them into what could be perceived as a BLP violation. (By the way, can the sock tag on their user page go away at some point?) NE Ent 16:47, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
  • The tag was put there by an editor, not an SPI clerk. Clerks normally do not tag editors who are not indef blocked, and I frequently discourage non-Clerks from tagging editors at all. I've removed it. As for the BLP violation, I think it was a violation but I trust your judgement and experience with the user and will pull back to allow you to work with them. Like you, my goal is compliance with policy, not a block. If you can help them move forward and stay within policy, I would consider that the best possible outcome. Dennis Brown - 2¢ - © - @ - Join WER 16:57, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Template Needed

Hi Dennis Brown, thank you for your prompt action, i.e., that you have protected the Székelys article. I would like to ask you to put a content dispute warning template to the beginning of the article. Such a template would be beneficial, since the reader should be warned about the ongoing disputes. Namely, several sourced information were removed and some dubious information were added to the variant which became protected. Thanks for your help in advance, KœrteFa {ταλκ} 23:16, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

  • That isn't the kind of template I've used before, as I try to not draw the reader's attention to the fact that there is a dispute. I don't have a problem if another admin decides to add some type of template, but I prefer to leave the dispute on the talk page and not in the header of the article. I did revert back to a version that the last admin protected at, which is certainly the wrong version, but I have no preference of my own. Dennis Brown - 2¢ - © - @ - Join WER 23:48, 19 May 2013 (UTC)~
Hello Dennis Brown, I created new articles and suddenly Mr Koertefa and his team started an edit war. When I asked them kindly to cooperate and start writing, the proposed my articles to be deleted. I don't think this is fair. If he has an issue with me we can start a dispute resolution. Hortobagy (talk) 06:12, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
He started an WP:AFD process, which seems reasonable considering the availability of sourcing. Dennis Brown - 2¢ - © - @ - Join WER 12:48, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Hoax - Szekely language

Dear Dennis, It is going to be a misunderstanding. That article is a hoax, please read my comment at AFD.[1] Fakirbakir (talk) 11:20, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

  • I'm not saying it is or isn't, just that there is some doubt, as expressed by an established editor, so we should not use the tag. That doesn't mean it will or should pass WP:AFD, only that the reader shouldn't be assaulted with the tag if the read the article. Dennis Brown - 2¢ - © - @ - Join WER 12:49, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

One month later...

I wasn't going to bother you until now because you said you were busy. It has now been over a month and I'd like it if you would check my contributions and decide if you will support my ban being lifted. --TheShadowCrow (talk) 15:51, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Is there a reason that you have not given me a reply hours later despite that you were editing Wikipedia at the time I created this section and you have replied to other sections here? --TheShadowCrow (talk) 23:19, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

  • Yes, because I'm not a bloody jukebox, you can't just stick a quarter in me and have me pop out a song. How I prioritize replies is my affair. Asking me to explain my reasons is quite rude, and doesn't help your case. Dennis Brown - 2¢ - © - @ - Join WER 23:46, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
(talk page stalker)This is just a guess, but with limited time to spend on Wikipedia, perhaps Dennis decided to do something he wants to do rather than answer your demand for attention. Gtwfan52 (talk) 23:46, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
(talk page stalker)Harassing the person from whom you seek help rarely inclines them to give that help. LadyofShalott 23:59, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
    • Sorry friend, I didn't mean to offend you. I can see how my words could have made me sound dryly sarcastic, but it was actually just a straight forward question. Last we talked you wanted to wait until the month was complete and said, When and if the time comes, I will [decide] then. If you're still busy, you just had to say so. --TheShadowCrow (talk) 00:20, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
      • (restored deleted comments) I expected to look at all your contribs this evening, which isn't a small task, but other things that were more urgent (ie: needed a reply now) came up. To be clear, I don't answer in the order I get questions, plus I get email requests as well, so I must prioritize. It will likely be tomorrow before I can consider. I'm also still feeling quite ill from a respiratory infection, and just took enough drugs to down an elephant, so will likely not do any work that needs "judgement" for the rest of the evening, if I do anything at all. It is a shame so much came up, I just got a new book in the mail and hoped to actually work on Tri-Five, something I've not been able to work on for months. But coming across impatient and demanding isn't doing yourself a favor here. Dennis Brown - 2¢ - © - @ - Join WER 00:29, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

I've taken the time to briefly review your edits over the last month, almost all of your edits have been in your sandbox, and they have all consisted of things you are topic banned for. Filing ANI reports that are found to have no merit[2], and the general impatience you shown during the entire duration of your topic ban are not reassuring. You don't seem to "get it" as to why you were topic banned to begin with, and you have simply moved it over to your sandbox, and focus only on BLP and Armenian related topics there. The topic ban wasn't a punishment that you have to wait out, it was a tool to get you to work on other areas instead of those banned topics. It was to prevent disruption and allow you to continue editing on different topics. If you were working significantly in other areas, I wouldn't mind a little dabbling in the areas you were banned from in your sandbox, but you don't seem to understand or accept the reasons for the topic ban to start with. So no, I can't support lifting the topic ban because your own actions are loudly telling me that you are likely going to storm back into those areas and repeat the same mistakes that got you topic banned to begin with. Based on my experiences with topic bans, I think the odds of you getting it lifted at this time are essentially zero. Even if I were to support, and begged and pleaded, I am confident that my voice would be drowned out in a sea of opposition. Dennis Brown - 2¢ - © - @ - Join WER 14:11, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

You knew I was editing in my sandbox this whole time! You talked about it at the same time you recommended me to wait a month and even told me it would be neater to make seperate sandboxes. You don't seem to get that topic bans from BLPs make it impossible to edit most articles on Wikipedia. These types of articles are the one's I'm here to edit. At no point and time had anyone said I should work on other articles. What in my sandbox tells you I will make the same mistakes again? Did I use Twitter anywhere? If not, it seems you never had any intention of supporting a ban lift. --TheShadowCrow (talk) 16:09, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
I knew you were working in your sandbox, I didn't know that you were only working there. I don't go around monitoring your ever edit, I have other things to do. If you want to show the community that you can edit and get along with others, you have to wander outside of your own sandbox. Otherwise, you are just trying to "sit out" the "punishment", and again, it isn't a punishment. The topic ban wasn't based on Twitter, Twitter was a single element that demonstrated a larger problem, so simply not using twitter as a source isn't going to fix the problem, because that isn't "the" problem. And I didn't have an intention of supporting a ban lift, nor had I promised I would even participate, I only said I would be open minded to consider it. I've been very clear on that, and would not ever promise a result before you put forth the effort. Besides, I don't have the authority to lift any ban, I'm just one voice in that discussion, nothing more or less. It isn't me you have to convince, it is the community as a whole. I didn't impose the ban on you, I was just one voice in a discussion, a unanimous discussion if memory serves me right. You can go ahead and ask to have it lifted today if you like, and I will be glad to simply avoid the discussion. I don't recommend it, but you are free to do as you please. Dennis Brown - 2¢ - © - @ - Join WER 16:21, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
Define "significantly" editing. --TheShadowCrow (talk) 16:39, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
Looking at your last 250 edits[3], which started April 13th, exactly a month go and just after the topic ban was put in place, here is what I find:
145 are in your sandbox
2 are other parts of your user space
52 are on user talk pages, 21 of which are here on my talk page
37 are in Wikipedia: space (Village pump, ANI, etc.)
That adds up to 236 out of 250 edits, meaning you have about 14 article edits in the last 30 days. 5.6% of your contribs. Less than one every two days. By any definition you choose to use, that is not significant article contribution. Dennis Brown - 2¢ - © - @ - Join WER 16:55, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
Then when you said "you were only working there", you were a liar.
I love how you are just suddenly saying I should have contributed elsewhere now. Why wouldn't you say it before? Because this was a trap I bet. I didn't know you were that shady. --TheShadowCrow (talk) 17:12, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
(talk page stalker)There's an old saying: When you've dug yourself a deep hole, the first thing to do is stop digging. DoctorJoeE review transgressions/talk to me! 17:16, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
  • This isn't the first time you've called me liar, even after giving you extraordinary proof. All I can say is that you probably should find someone else to help you, as I've done everything I can, and I'm out of ideas. Dennis Brown - 2¢ - © - @ - Join WER 17:36, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
Why did you not tell me from the beginning to contribute to other articles? Where does it say I should contribute to other articles? You're certainly not a truth-ar. --TheShadowCrow (talk) 19:19, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
Are you kidding me? It was a topic ban, not a block. If they wanted you to not edit at all, you would have been blocked. The entire reason, the only purpose of a topic ban is to allow the person to edit other articles and demonstrate they can be trusted to eventually return to the topic they were banned from. WP:Topic ban covers this. You weren't even supposed to be editing BLP and Armenian related issues in your sandbox, but it was something I stuck my neck out and essentially condoned in addition to working on other articles and demonstrating you can do so without controversy. You seem to be missing the entire reason that the topic ban was given here. I've tolerated being called a liar multiple times, and your impatience all the while I have volunteered to try to help you. I was not obligated to do anything, yet I've tried to help during your block and during your topic ban, but you won't listen, you just demand, pout, and make personal attacks. You are on your own now, friend, you need to get someone else to help you. Dennis Brown - 2¢ - © - @ - Join WER 19:51, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Dennis, I would ask you to please reconsider. Yes, it is true, TheShadowCrow can be rude sometimes. As you say, we are all human. We make mistakes. But please understand that he just wants to be able to edit again pages that interest him. TSC has never vandalized any articles. He has made valuable contributions to Wikipedia, and you can see from his sandbox that he plans to keep making good edits in the future. Topic bans are supposed to be preventative, not punitive. He needs your help. Please, give him another chance. Thank you ... ~ DanielTom (talk) 21:22, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
    • I appreciate your concern and I'm usually the one pushing for lifting of sanctions, but you should probably know there is a bit more than meets the eye here. While he was previously blocked, I offered some guidance to him and have been watching the issue for some time. I supported the topic ban originally simply because he was going to be indef blocked otherwise. I've tried to be supportive since and offer guidance along the way as well, but keep in mind that I'm busy with a great many tasks here, so I don't follow every edit as they happen. The rudeness isn't the issue (look at my talk page archives User_talk:Dennis_Brown/Archive_21#Corrupt_librals.3F, if I was walking away due to rudeness, I would have done it then.) I haven't committed to opposing and I expected to not !vote at the discussion if one was had because I couldn't support. If I seem frustrated (and I am) it isn't because I've been called names. You've seen me called names before, that alone doesn't bother me. It was that I don't think I can help him, after I've tried several times. His topic ban wasn't my doing, and I'm generally against topic and interaction bans to begin with except where they will prevent a block. I am only one person, and there is absolutely nothing I can do to undo his topic ban. Your !vote counts exactly the same as mine in a discussion. Even if I wanted to unilaterally lift the ban, I can't. I don't have that authority, it was community imposed and only the community can lift it. Being an admin is fraught with lots of rules, and I've already stuck my neck out by condoning his using the sandbox to violate the topic ban (that bold act alone is enough reason for me to get yelled at or even sanctioned by the community). I've already gone out on a limb here. The reason I'm backing away isn't because I'm mad at him, it is simply because I can't help him, no matter how hard I've tried. I've failed in this, so it is better if someone else tries. Dennis Brown - 2¢ - © - @ - Join WER 14:07, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
Further proof that Oscar Wilde was right: No good deed goes unpunished. DoctorJoeE review transgressions/talk to me! 14:34, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
  • One quick note: If he complies with the expectations of the community and demonstrates that removing the restrictions is worth the risk, I will still support. I just don't think we are close to there yet. Dennis Brown - 2¢ - © - @ - Join WER 18:50, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
I won't complain, I'll edit some other articles and then appeal in a week or two. I am sorry if I offended you, though that was never my intention.
I feel like I'll continue to be a victim of the Admin lynch mob even if this ban is removed though. I am thinking of appealing the AA2 ban soon, and I see no reason why it won't be lifted since it's been many months since I've had issues on those subjects, yet I can't help but wonder if the Admins will rush to put it back on the moment I have a simple edit conflict (which are inevitable; most Admins have them daily).
I just noticed this guy has been periodically vandalizing articles for four years, yet not a damn thing has been done about it once. Why do Admins abuse their powers on people like me instead of doing their job and punishing people like that instead? --TheShadowCrow (talk) 21:35, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
Admins do not decide your fate here, fellow editors do. An admin's !vote or voice counts no more than any other editors, and non-admin outnumber admin 100 to 1 or better. The ban wasn't imposed by admin, it was imposed by editors. Admin are left with the decidedly unpleasant task of simply enforcing the will of the community, whether we agree with it or not. When I discuss in a topic, I do so an an editor, not an admin. Same when I edit an article, I am just another editor. Being an admin sounds like a lost more fun than it actually is, but the reality is that we are just editors with a few extra tools. We aren't the bosses, even if a few act like they are from time to time. And no offense was taken. You're mad, I understand. I still have no choice but to tell you the truth as I see it, even if it is unpleasant news. We might disagree on things, but I won't lie to you. I do think you need someone to mentor you a bit, and it looks like DanielTom might be a good candidate. We all have mentors, we all mentor. There are two people that I now consider my mentors here at Wikipedia, one for my admin work, one for my work as editor. I act as mentor for a few people as well, even if we don't use that term formally. There is no shame in being mentored. Dennis Brown - 2¢ - © - @ - Join WER 21:44, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
Thanks Dennis. Just a small note: your vote actually matters more (or, I should say, carries more weight) than that of regular editors, such as myself. As you know, you have many friends among admins, you are influential, and most people who read AN are already familiar with you and respect you. To pretend otherwise is disingenuous at best. Yours, always ~ DanielTom (talk) 22:39, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
I think you may be oversimplifying it. If you provide a good rationale in your !vote, backed by facts, and I don't, then your vote should be given more weight. When closing AFDs and other process, I do not give anyone's opinion more weight because they are an admin, and frankly, the best participants are usually not admin. I would like to think that my opinions are given proper weight because I don't just blurt out my opinion, but try to back it with solid logic backed by policy, and try to always do just that. I can only speak for myself, although I don't think I'm alone, and not all discussions are closed by admin. Most of the best and brightest around Wikipedia are not admin, and as an admin, I'm personally not that impressed that someone else is, too. I don't expect you've looked, but I've been very outspoken about admin abuses, authored policy proposals to make admin more accountable to the community (WP:RAS, the current discussion at WT:PP, where Bwilkins is taking the lead on reducing the power of admin to edit fully protected articles), and reducing the "power" in the admin bit, even by breaking apart the tools themselves. You and I might have different ideas about where to draw the line on "civility" (I am notoriously lax about enforcing it with everyone equally), but you would probably be surprised at how active I've been in working with actual policy changes to reduce the gap between editor and admin, in spite of the claims of a few. Things and people are not always what they seem. Dennis Brown - 2¢ - © - @ - Join WER 13:35, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
Dennis, while there is alot of great information in the above for all us stalkers to learn from, I just want to pass along something Ive noticed. In your effort to be best admin that you can (and you are doing an admirable job) you are wasting an inordinate amount of your precious time answering silly questions. And they usually come from some editor that is slightly or overly critical of something you have done. In RL, I have had Art Gallery presentations, with dozens of supporters at a gala. But I will ignore them all and spend hours with the one critic who doesnt "understand" my work. Ihardlythink answering every query is in the Admin Rule Book. You will always have critics. Trying to appease them or explain yourself to them is a lost cause. ```Buster Seven Talk 11:07, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

The Quiet Man (film)

Hello Dennis, Could I please ask you to take a look and your opinion of recent unregistered IP edits on this page? The last thing I want to do is to be involved in a edit war, but this IP user keep inserting the same "Irish Free State" statement - which has nothing whatsoever to do with the plot or the film itself. Both myself and another edit have tried, but failed in stopping these unconnected edits, which have no exceeded the 3 reverts rule. Thank you in advance for your opinion/help. Regards, David. David J Johnson (talk) 14:16, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Dennis, thanks for your help. David. David J Johnson (talk) 14:33, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

And another one.

The Anti-Flame Barnstar
For a remarkable display of restraint. PPP 05:08, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

I guess this is Barnstar Night over at Dennis's place. I know you have a gajillion of these -- an old friend sent me this one after the recent nonsense, but as I told him, you deserve at least 75% of it, and thanks again. Mayonnaise on hot dogs?? Ecchh... Here in NY, ketchup on your dawg will get you booted from Yankee Stadium! DoctorJoeE review transgressions/talk to me! 06:11, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Chronical Editors leaving

Dennis. Ive created Wikipedia:WikiProject Editor Retention/Soliloquies. I also want to save pertinent discussions and editor reader feedback ebout the retirement issue. At the talk page Ive retrieved a conversation from Mast Cell's talk. My question is "Am I required to notify any and all participants in the discussion that their input has been copied and pasted elsewhere." I know it would be good manners, but is it required? ```Buster Seven Talk 10:30, 21 May 2013 (UTC) On a personal note, I'm going White Bass fishing with my 92 yr old dad. 60 years of Spring trips to Fremont, Wisconsin. Can't wait! ```Buster Seven Talk 10:51, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

  • It is early, I haven't had coffee yet and got a ton on my plate already. We have to be very, very careful to not feed the WP:DIVAs with something like this. The core mission is about why, but using a lot of quotes may have some unintended blowback since they often contain claims of abuse or mistreatment that may or may not be accurate. We don't want it to a be a memorial wall for disrupters, and sometimes "mistreatment" is in the eye of the beholder. Dennis Brown - 2¢ - © - @ - Join WER 11:05, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
Agreed. Ive added a note saying i would basically edit "all the crap" out and just get to the core reason without any accusations or fanfare. ```Buster Seven Talk 11:16, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Dealing with problematic IP and through away multiple accounts

Thank you for giving an advice here, however could you please clarify a few more things along the line of my questions [4]?

1. It seems that reporting IPs of banned users on SPI does not make any sense. Is it then OK to simply revert their edits? There are two problems: (a) I do not have a proof this is indeed an IP of a banned user, only WP:DUCK applies, but this is a subjective test; and (b) someone might collect my reverts and present them as proof of my edit wars to WP:AE or WP:ANI;

2. One could argue that editors with floating IP numbers should not edit any controversial subjects and must open named account. If they start being involved in multiple reverts, this falls under WP:SOCK: Editing under multiple IP addresses may be treated the same as editing under multiple accounts where it is done deceptively or otherwise violates the above principles. Is it then OK to revert their edits I consider problematic?

3. When confronted, these people create multiple named throw away accounts (as in example above) and use them for editing controversial subjects. Can their POVish edits/reverts in pages on controversial subjects be reverted as edits by sockpuppet accounts?

Of course I am very much willing to give a benefit of the doubt to their edits (and some of them are certainly valid), however in cases of long-term sockpuppet and multiple accounts I simply can not (and should not) trust their sources because AGF does not apply. Thank you, My very best wishes (talk) 11:20, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

  • This is a slippery slope. If you violate 3RR in reverting a sock, but it turns out not to be a sock, you can end up blocked, and you just bit the user. I'm aware of the throwaway names and all, SPI is what I do, I see it every day. Filing the reports is helpful, but just leave off the IP addresses that haven't edited in three months, and keep it short. Longer explanations aren't necessarily more informative. You are overthinking it. Reverting should be based on the content, not your opinion if they are a sock, so worry about the content and let us worry about the socks. Except in the most obvious of cases, AGF means you have to exercise a little restraint with the revert button and treat them like any other editor until a connection is made. Dennis Brown - 2¢ - © - @ - Join WER 11:27, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
Thank you! Sure, I only reverted content-based. So, if I understand correctly, none of these accounts or IPs should be treated as a sockpuppet until this is decided on SPI? WP:DUCK does not apply. My very best wishes (talk) 11:46, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
Or another admin blocks them. SPI isn't the only place sockpuppeting is dealt with, it is just the primary venue. Sometimes it is very, very obvious, but otherwise, you need to be careful of you mind find yourself edit warring with someone who is actually innocent. This is also why I recommend not notifying the person, often a report at SPI is mistaken, and we don't want to cause the stress of being accused of something when the reporting party was mistaken. Dennis Brown - 2¢ - © - @ - Join WER 12:53, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Sunbeam Tiger (again)

When we've converted the remainder of the Series I table to prose and expanded the lead I reckon we'll just about have met the DYK three-times expansion, something I didn't think we'd ever do to be honest, so maybe that would be the time to go public and invite Andy for his input? GAN can be a pretty frustrating experience anyway, waiting weeks for a reviewer to turn up, so the more pre-GAN/pre-FAC help we have the better. Malleus Fatuorum 20:05, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

  • There are still a number of cites we need to fix, some I think got deleted in the process, but must be done prior to DYK. They are picky that way. I'm guessing we can get it ready in a few days, however. Dennis Brown - 2¢ - © - @ - Join WER 21:05, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
    There are, and we will, but DYK doesn't care about that so long as the hook is cited. Given that even Drmies edited the article in mainspace today I'm getting a little nervous about not going public with our version sooner rather than later. Can we agree to move it over once we've we've met the three-times prose expansion? That still gives us a week to sort out anything else that might crop up at DYK. Malleus Fatuorum 21:21, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
    Not a problem. I left my good book at work tomorrow, but will get on sourcing first thing and should have it moved as early as lunch EST. The boss is out of town, so I shouldn't have too many interruptions, and digging up sourcing is something I am familiar with. Dennis Brown - 2¢ - © - @ - Join WER 21:30, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
    And I can waffle for England, so no problems about getting the article up to the DYK criterion. GA is obviously going to be a lot tougher, and I'd really like to take a car article to FAC. Not certain this would be the right choice for FA though, what do you think? Malleus Fatuorum 21:33, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
    I've never done an FA, so I'm no expert, but I do know that sourcing this has been a challenge due to Chrysler virtually pretending it didn't happen, and the lack of books on the subject, searchable online or otherwise. Of course, it is narrow enough of a subject matter that I think we could exhaust all the available material to make it complete yet not too large. After GA, we can review and see how tall a hill that climb would be. I'm open to it, as I need to learn the FA process someday and I can't think of a better topic than cars. Your skills far outweigh mine when it comes to the work needed to reach FA, so not sure if I would just be dead weight. Dennis Brown - 2¢ - © - @ - Join WER 22:14, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
    There are lots of articles I've worked on where I've thought that GA is as far as it can go, or as far as I want to take it, and the Tiger feels to me like one of those. I'm very pleased with the Manchester Martyrs for instance, but I'd never consider taking that to FAC. I'm really not sure why now I come to think of it, but I think that depth and quality of sourcing is at the heart of it. To take a car article to FAC we'd need to pick carefully I think. Malleus Fatuorum 22:33, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
    Actually, having read the Manchester Martyrs article again I might one day consider launching it at FAC. IIRC I only started work on it as an example of the incompetence of William Calcraft as a hangman, and he's now a featured article. Maybe it's all about connections. I dunno. Malleus Fatuorum 22:41, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
    Just wanted to add this. I'm apparently #12 on the list of Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by featured article nominations, but of those ranked above me half are admins. Who'd have believed it. One day I'll be #1 of course, if I can ever find a way to nobble Ealdgyth. Malleus Fatuorum 22:52, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
  • The question is, do we choose the lowest hanging fruit, or the most interesting car? Some would be easy to source, like the Corvette, although you could easily write too much. The Corvair is an interesting topic, due to its uniqueness as well as Ralph Nader using it as the poster child for Unsafe at Any Speed. The MGB had strong appeal on both sides of the Atlantic, as did the TR7, Opel GT and Karmann Ghia. The DeLorean DMC-12 is an interesting car and story as well. Or reworking a more general topic like muscle car, which is broad enough that it would be a beast. Lots of interesting choices and even more I've not thought of. And BTW, being #12 is an impressive feat, as there are some prolific writers around here. I see Lord Emsworth has seen most of his fall by the wayside....odd. Dennis Brown - 2¢ - © - @ - Join WER 23:06, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
    I had a TR7 myself, and still have an MGB, but I would really like to have had a Ford Mustang. There aren't so many of them over here, but they're an iconic car. The GT40 also comes to mind ... I wonder why all the cars that come to my mind are Fords? Malleus Fatuorum 23:15, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
    Kind of funny, I've always been a Chevy man myself. Would still love a 1969 Impala SS[5]. I've owned a 69 four-door and a 68 Bel Air, also 4 doors. I owned 12 cars before I left high school, I would buy, fix up a bit and sell to make money. Totaled one. The Bel Air I owned less than an hour in 83. I think I bought it for $275 and sold it for $350 to my brother as a favor (He had sold me the 69 Firebird cheap). The Bel Air was clean, one owner and had a 327 and powerglide. I worked on that deal for two months, so the $75 hardly covered my time and gas, but he is family. I could have gotten $600 out of it to someone else. Worth $6000-8000 now. A 69 SS can run up to $30k or more. Dennis Brown - 2¢ - © - @ - Join WER 23:29, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
    It may be inaccurate, but the English perception of most American cars is that they handle like boats, and can't corner to save their lives. Malleus Fatuorum 23:40, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
The old ones, yes, but big has its advantages. It is much easier to upgrade them to 4 wheel disc brakes, better suspensions, insanely large engines, etc. All that extra room makes the job easy with room to spare, and you can even use some truck parts like differentials, engines, transmissions, accessories, etc. Big block 454 Chevy engines are cheap and plentiful but they won't fit in an MGB. Then again, our rides weren't designed for twisty roads, they were designed for quarter mile racing. Straight line speed, off the line, tons of torque, and great for cruising, which used to be an American pastime. That is what makes the Tiger so unique, it was dripping in torque yet handled well, although not enough room for friends. Americans never "toured" as much as we "cruised". Again, part of the culture. You haven't lived until you've been 17 and driving an old four door Impala with 6 drunk friends with you, cruising the main drag and looking for trouble or a race with some other idiot. I have no regrets. Dennis Brown - 2¢ - © - @ - Join WER 00:06, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
We've obviously led very different lives Dennis. When I was 17 I was a mod, riding a chromed-up Lambretta. And I've just been staggered to find that we have an article on the Twisted Wheel Club, somewhere I spent many happy and oblivious weekends. Malleus Fatuorum 00:16, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
Indeed. Early 80s in high school, I worked 30 hours a week for $4.25 an hour after school doing the job no one would do for less, pot washer, so I had cash for gas and beer. You could buy old cars for $500 or less pretty easy. They were almost disposable at that price. I hung with the preppies and freaks (rich kids and pot smokers), although I was decidedly middle class. I was a rebel without a clue, but we partied hard. As for the Twisted Wheel Club, I didn't find any good photos under CC :/ Dennis Brown - 2¢ - © - @ - Join WER 00:28, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
I used to serve what you'd call gas on weekends and evenings to pay for all my mod bling, but I don't regret a second of it. As for the Twisted Wheel, it was so dark in there that I doubt anyone could have found their camera if they'd had one. We only went there after the mainstream clubs had closed at 2:00 am, waiting for the bars to open later in the morning at Manchester Airport; you never pulled any women there ... I may have said too much ... Malleus Fatuorum 00:47, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
In an odd way, I really feel sorry for those who lived an "ordinary" life without a dysfunction or rebellion. I appreciate the stability and relative calmness in my life now but only because my first decade on my own was such a rollercoaster, as was the decade that preceded it. I'm grateful for the mistakes I made then, and for not needing to repeat them now. Dennis Brown - 2¢ - © - @ - Join WER 01:18, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
  • "I used to think I was indecisive, now I'm not so sure." That Robson book I've discovered is an absolute goldmine, so much so that I may even have to buy it if I can't beg borrow or steal it from somewhere. So I'm beginning to think that the Tiger could be a good choice for an eventual tilt at FAC after all. In any event, I'm very confident we can get the readable prose size up to the required 12 kB by the end of the day, so hopefully you can do the move then. Malleus Fatuorum 12:55, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
    • I've done a couple of small things. As to expanding how tight the engine was under the hood, I have very graphic quote on the talk page of the userfied version that may be worth using. I think it perfectly demonstrates how tight it was. Dennis Brown - 2¢ - © - @ - Join WER 13:04, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
      I've added a quote from Shelby about how tight a fit the engine was, but I'm sure we can find a place for the Clarke quote in the Production section. We're up to 11 kB now, so almost there in terms of prose size. Malleus Fatuorum 14:30, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
  • An observation of mine; why are the technical specs hatted by default? It's probably been discussed somewhere, but it is incredibly inconsistent with every other article that I've seen. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 20:45, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
    Are we looking at the same article? Eric Corbett 20:50, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Part of the problem is whatever they've done to the layout recently has fucked things up a bit - images decide to randomly show up wherever they want at times, regardless of where you put them. *shrugs* The infoboxes are much worse than they were before for that reason. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 06:58, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Swedish Gold "Sockadockan"

methinks he doth protest too much
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

I am Swedish Gold.

I have made a comment on the Sockadockan discussion you should read.

mvh Swedish Gold (talk) 10:16, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

  • When someone is thought to be a sockpuppet, notification isn't required and is actually discouraged. Maybe it is because I just woke up after getting only 4 hours of sleep, but that comment is way too long and not on topic. It will be an hour or two before I get to work and take action, maybe you summarize that in plain speak in the interim. Let me be clear: I know nothing about concrete, and don't care to know anything about concrete. We aren't investigating concrete there, or anyone's credentials. All that matters is "Are Jono2013 and Swedish Gold the same person" (likely, using technical and behavioral info) and why would they be using the same account? Any verbage that doesn't clarify why one person is using two accounts isn't useful and is ignored. And please reply there, not here. And please keep it short. Dennis Brown - 2¢ - © - @ - Join WER 11:01, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Another Nickaang sock?

Hi. After I started WP:Articles for deletion/Raj Luhar, created by User:Nickaang sock User:Tanweer Khan, first two IP socks voted against on the grounds of "per norms", then new account User:JayJaykar also voted against on the grounds of "per norms", as well as voting opposite to me with almost no rationale in 3 other AFDs I've been involved with. His other contribution is a spam article for Sundance DiGiovanni (diff) and links to that, in his characterisic style. All of this within 30 minutes of creating his account: his first edit was to create a user page almost identical to mine. I haven't got enough for an SPI yet, but thought you'd like to know all the same since you put a lot of work in on that SPI. Thanks, Captain Conundrum (talk) 15:21, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

I think I'll just go ahead and create an SPI, and quit hassling you. Thanks. Captain Conundrum (talk) 15:26, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
Not harassing, but I agree that SPI is the best venue for a repeat sock. It creates a bunch of useful links for investigating there as well. Of course, any time you create an SPI and you know I've worked the case before, pinging me here is perfectly fine. Dennis Brown - 2¢ - © - @ - Join WER 15:51, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
I did some cleanup. Dennis, I'm at work. I'm having a shitload of fun. Drmies (talk) 15:56, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
You can opine in the bottom section with the CU's, Clerks and Admin. I blocked the two IPs as well, then closed. Dennis Brown - 2¢ - © - @ - Join WER 16:38, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for the quick work, both of you. Captain Conundrum (talk) 16:45, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

User:Qworty

I understand why you blanked Qworty's user and talk pages, but I think it would be fairest to Young to restore his own last comments on both of those pages. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:54, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Why isn't the ban notice still there though? That doesn't make sense to me. Doesn't that remain on pages of banned users, for the record? --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 17:46, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
Tagging isn't strictly required by policy, and this specific type of courtesy blanking is obvious enough that it serves the same purpose. Dennis Brown - 2¢ - © - @ - Join WER 17:57, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
Presumably, you will also now be courtesy blanking all of our other blocked BLP's, beginning with User:JackSarfatti? I'm not at all clear why Qworty was given special treatment over all of our other blocked BLP's. What's going on here? Viriditas (talk) 23:28, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
You are welcome to bring any case up at WP:AN or have an RfC on changing policy to do so. This was based on consensus after discussing at an administration board. Not every case is the same, or we could have hard and fast rules for everything, and get rid of the fifth pillar. Dennis Brown - 2¢ - © - @ - Join WER 23:32, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
I'm bringing it up with you since you were the one who implemented it. Why was Qworty's user and talk page "courtesy blanked" when this is not the standard way of dealing with our blocked BLPs. Do you intend to also implement this solution on pages like User:JackSarfatti? I'm getting the distinct impression that Qworty has been "helped" and assisted by administrators at every step along the way, from the primary contributions to his biography (by an admin) to his 13,000 edit, reign of terror that somehow left him untouched by a positive SPI. Can you think of any other positive SPI's where the offender was not blocked? I can't. Viriditas (talk) 23:37, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
There has only been minor vandalism of his user page and not some bizarre dispute over how badly to shame Mr. Sarfatti for high wikicrimes against our sacred mission. It also isn't linked from his BLP. Not that I wouldn't prefer to see much of this tagging business minimized or eliminated, but the special treatment is a response to special malice.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 23:39, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
On that note, please explain how Qworty's bio meets WP:AUTHOR. The only reason we have this non-notable bio is because admins have been defending it for years. Viriditas (talk) 23:47, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
Again, my actions were based on the consensus at the discussion and supported afterwards by the participating parties on both sides of the issue. As far as SPI is concerned, I wasn't a clerk or even an admin when his first case came up. I was the clerk that worked his case yesterday, and no socks were found, even after two CUs did a sleeper check. I genuinely don't have an opinion about the guy and I had never heard of him before yesterday, which is what made it possible for me to both clerk the SPI and find a solution that was supported by the participants at the discussion. I'm not sure what else to tell you, as I'm not clear on the complaint. If you think I've exceeded my authority or acted improperly in some way, you can ask for it to be reviewed at WP:AN. I won't take it personal, it is part of the job and I expect it from time to time. If you want to change the policy, then WT:BAN would be the right place to start an RfC. If you just want to vent, well, that's fine but there isn't much I can do to help with that other than sit here and listen. Dennis Brown - 2¢ - © - @ - Join WER 23:49, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
That's the second meta-explanation you've given me. Thanks, but I asked a very specific question: what is this consensus that you implemented and what is it based upon? Viriditas (talk) 23:54, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
I assumed you had already looked at the most obvious place, ANI [6]. Dennis Brown - 2¢ - © - @ - Join WER 23:57, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
And a meta-pointer. Thanks, but I'm asking for an explanation from the horse's mouth, so to speak. I mean, you wouldn't want me to think you were just following orders... :) Viriditas (talk) 23:59, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
Viriditas, WP:AUTHOR states: "Failure to meet these criteria is not conclusive proof that a subject should not be included" and Young clearly meets the general notability criteria. He cannot be said to be a low profile individual notable for only one event or any of the usual reasons for deletion. Arguably you could say the controversy over his novel meets criteria 4c of WP:AUTHOR.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 23:59, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
Young does not meet any criteria for notability, and the only reason we have an article on this person is because he has been helped by admins. Viriditas (talk) 00:00, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
Viriditas, you are talking in circles. I've explained my rationale for taking action in pretty good detail there, so what exactly are you asking? Dennis Brown - 2¢ - © - @ - Join WER 00:02, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
You didn't explain your rationale to me here when I asked, a rationale that should be easy for you to summarize in 50 words or less. Anyway, since I'm obviously not going to get an answer from you, I won't bother to keep asking. Viriditas (talk) 00:04, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
I explained it here[7]. Maybe I'm dense, maybe you are trying to be clever and I just don't get what you are driving at, but that diff explains it about as good I know how to. Dennis Brown - 2¢ - © - @ - Join WER 00:08, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
My working theory is that Young is being given extra special treatment because he was in the U.S. Navy, and many of our admins and highly active editors are veterans. Viriditas (talk) 00:35, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for your polite bluntness, something I actually appreciate. As for the theory, I'm ex-Air Force, but honestly, I had never heard of the guy until yesterday, have no opinion of the guy, and if you look at my comments and the SPI and the ANI, treated him exactly the same way I treat everyone. I have no idea what other admin have done in the past. Is it possible? Of course, admins are fallible humans like anyone else, but I have no knowledge of it. My solution was crafted to get both sides to simply agree by compromising, and end the drama, which it did. For the most part. As for "should we do this for every banned user?" I haven't thought of it, but I'm certainly not against it at first blush. Once the village council has banished someone from the village, it is common to strike their names from any statues and rolls, and a ban is just a short word for banish if we are to be honest with ourselves. I don't want people to haunt their talk pages and taunt them as well. Pretend you don't know the guy for a minute and have no opinion one way or the other. Really pretend. That was my perspective. Now, doesn't that solution make sense? It isn't the only solution but it was an elegant solution, if I do say so myself. Either you believe me or you don't, I don't have control over that, but it is the truth. If it benefits one side or the other in some way I didn't understand, it was unintentional. Dennis Brown - 2¢ - © - @ - Join WER 00:53, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Oliver McGee and proxy servers

Oliver McGee (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

When you have a moment, Dennis, I'd appreciate it if you would look at the history of this article and the action I just took semi-protecting the article. I'm WP:INVOLVED, but took the action anyway under the exception about any reasonable admin would have done the same thing. The article has a a terrible history of being edited by what are probably COI IP addresses. Recently, the IPs have acted up again, but this time, at least according to GeoLocate, they are using confirmed proxy servers. Therefore, I semi-protected the article and backed out the latest material. I did not block any of the IPs themselves, although they probably should be blocked. Can you look into this and take whatever actions you believe are appropriate, including undoing mine if you believe I was wrong to semi-protect the article. Thanks much. Added: I forgot to highlight the latest edit summary ("we must respectfully strongly disagree did huge amt of research to legitimately ref. all aspects of the article to Wiki norms of education career awards pls stop"). If ever an edit summary screamed conflict... --Bbb23 (talk) 21:05, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

  • It will take a bit to test them, and the chicken is coming off the grill. Just so you know, a confirmed proxy server isn't the same as an open proxy server. I can configure my server at work to essentially "relay" all my requests here, so it would look like I was actually at work if a CU took a look. That is a proxy server. If I opened it up so anyone else could without logging in and do so anonymously, that is what makes it open. Regular proxy servers are fine, and useful. Open proxy servers are prone to abuse since anyone from anywhere can use them without recourse if they abuse the end service, us. That is why we block them, for being open. But I will look later, I have scripts I've written that makes checking for open proxies a bit easier. Dennis Brown - 2¢ - © - @ - Join WER 21:12, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
  • The 198's are legitimate proxy servers for cell service. 164.67.81.43 is open on 8088 but I think it might be a caching server and I couldn't connect through it. I didn't go back any further than that. It would be very easy for all of those to be the same person based on geolocation. It wouldn't be their fault for having different 198 addresses, since cell service rotates through proxies all the time, but the 164* address is UCLA, likely a pretty run of the mill gateway server, so they are running a laptop/desktop/tablet behind it. I didn't compare to see if behavior is the same, you would know that. Protection is probably the best solution. And yes, that summary sounds like something alright. I didn't check the content of the article and limited myself to a cursory proxy check only. And the chicken was really good. Dennis Brown - 2¢ - © - @ - Join WER 21:45, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
  • I read your message. Unfortunately, it didn't seem to make a dent as he just continued to scream and rant on my talk page. It's hard to believe that someone as educated as he is writes like that; it makes me wonder if he really is McGee, as he claims. In any event, I reverted his latest crap off of my talk page as no sensible discussion will come of it. As always, I appreciate your efforts. I'm off to bed now.--Bbb23 (talk) 03:43, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Strange case

Hi Dennis. Can you take a look at this and give me your opinion? These 2 users, one of them under an autobio username, have been pushing this particular article for quite a while, and now seem to have escalted it a bit. I've cautioned the autobio username acct against creating autobios. I'm not sure how to address the claims about WMF member involvement, (User:Scottgramble has mentioned a WMF member by name), and mention of donorship? Scottgramble has reiterated the WMF member (Josh VanDavier) approval claim on my talk. INeverCry 01:35, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Text from email:

"Thanks for taking the time to reach out, and for your interest in supporting free knowledge. We're here primarily to provide infrastructure and support to the tens of thousands of volunteers around the world who edit and contribute everyday. Thanks for contacting us regarding your case, I took a quick look at your your article and everything looks pretty standard to me. " Scottgramble (talk) 01:39, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

This doesn't mean he endorses your attempt to force the article out of AFC and into mainspace. Also, why did you make the comment "Approval from Wiki Media, as I'm a huge donor"? As for the subject himself, my notice to him about not working on his own bio article is a standard procedure here on Wikipedia. INeverCry 01:50, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
  • If someone from Wikimedia wants to approve an article, they should log on and do so properly, within the structure provided. Releasing email is inappropriate and may violate copyright law. If we assume the editor is being honest about the email, and this is the actual content, this looks more like a person just trying to be polite, and this would be entirely out of process. Because it isn't verifiable, it shouldn't be given any weight in the decision for the article. Trying to get something published under the reasoning that he has donated is a common claim, and is extraordinarily abhorrent and unethical. I did notice a personal attack on your page as well. If the article can stand on its own (I didn't look at the content, you certainly can judge that without me) then fine, but the behavior is unacceptable and worthy of a strong warning. The one or two valid points he makes on your talk page get lost in the vitriol. Dennis Brown - 2¢ - © - @ - Join WER 02:00, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
But Dennis, like I told INeverCry you guys can go ahead and just clear the article space of everything. I don't want anymore stress on myself, over this situation. I will just utilize Wikipedia for it's current resources, and will disregard thoughts of any future donations. What can I say? You guys are doing your jobs, as you think you should be doing them. "If you're gonna move this page again, just go ahead and delete the content at "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jaylen_Bledsoe". I don't want people to see this, when they attempt to create a page about him in the future or when someone looks him up on Wikipedia, because of me. Have a nice night... " INEVERCRY thanks for your "help", and keep doing your job. Scottgramble (talk) 01:52, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
We are volunteers. Most of us are willing to bend over backwards to help someone. Treating someone who dedicates a large part of their free time to build an encyclopedia so poorly is unprofessional, rude, and doesn't endear them to help you. You should read WP:NPA. As for our donations, please don't even mention them. It is uncouth and unethical to try to use a donation to get assistance or acceptance to those of us that are volunteers. Dennis Brown - 2¢ - © - @ - Join WER 02:00, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
You mention personal attacks, on which page do you see this? Can you link to this? Not one person, was treated poorly in any of my rants. I mentioned that a large percentage of the editing community, are narcissistic. In response to the releasing of that email, all replies to emails dispatched from my company, states that we have full right to disclose information in details unless mentioned otherwise. Trying to work with you guys, is like the democratic party trying to work with the republican party in the senate; we get no where. Btw, since the beginning of this process the "BigPimpinBrah" editor was offering very little advice assistance even when I was a noob to the Wikipedia Author Community. Scottgramble (talk) 02:21, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
INeverCry's talk page: " You know you are all a bunch of narcissistic editors who want to be administrators". Nothing I would instantly block someone for (the first time), but it is insulting and unnecessarily confrontational. You assume you know other's motivations, and rather ironically, called a bunch of volunteers "narcissistic". Around here, we encourage people to speak about the merits of other people's ideas, and avoid commenting on them personally. It is ad hominem and is not conducive to a collegiate environment. Don't do that. Dennis Brown - 2¢ - © - @ - Join WER 02:31, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
 Comment: This is interesting too. User:BigPimpinBrah brings the issue to my talk, and an IP comes along and reverts him twice? INeverCry 02:36, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
IP blocked one year as an open proxy. Dennis Brown - 2¢ - © - @ - Join WER 02:44, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
You can honestly go and block my account from editing now! I have absolutely no motivation, to come back to edit or write for Wikipedia. Thanks for your "help" User:Dennis Brown. I wonder how Sue Gardner, would feel and she saw how this brand is being represented by certain individuals. Scottgramble (talk) 02:41, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
I don't know, never met her. Dennis Brown - 2¢ - © - @ - Join WER 02:44, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Scott, I have no dog in this fight, but two things strike me right off here: (1) how much money someone has donated should never influence whether or not an article they have created is kept; we have policies to determine that, and they don't include financial contributions. (2) I don't know who that WikiMedia person is supposed to be, but we don't approve articles by email. That is done on-wiki. LadyofShalott 02:48, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

  • Those were the big two for me as well. I have to admit, there at the end after blocking the open proxy that was reverting the notification, what little good faith I had was exhausted, as that indicates something slightly different than what it was being represented as. The posts are out of order, but he mentions "block" right after INeverCry mentions the proxy server. Dennis Brown - 2¢ - © - @ - Join WER 02:54, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
Here's another interesting edit. ;) INeverCry 03:14, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
I've got to get some sleep, but I get the feeling I'm going to be clerking this soon enough. Dennis Brown - 2¢ - © - @ - Join WER 03:24, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

The Comment about blocking my account was actually started before his comment was made about the proxy server, but unfortunately you can't have it open by 2 different that open and save the article as I get an "Overlap" error. Btw, at this point I could care less about what's going on here. Sorry about tonight, I've been extremely stressed with finals, and the situation with the article triggered an episode, I guess. Scottgramble (talk) 03:02, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

I have dropped a note at User talk:Jvandavier to alert him to this discussion. LadyofShalott 03:13, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
Looking at his contribs, I wonder if you need to email him instead. Dennis Brown - 2¢ - © - @ - Join WER 03:28, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
Yeah, perhaps so. LadyofShalott 03:34, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
 Done LadyofShalott 03:37, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
My thanks to you both for your help on this one. INeverCry 03:40, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Hey guys, Josh asked me to take a look at this for him. As part of that he showed me the email that he actually wrote and I can assure everyone that it was not what was written above. Far from expressing approval for the article to be moved into main space it was expressly about how to contact Email Response Team for more help. As was expressed in the email, and as others have said here, the community is the steward of the content (not the foundation) and any decision on approving an AfC or deleting a page is within the work of the community, not the Foundation. We should not be invoked as the reason for any content change except in the VERY rare circumstances of a legal necessity in which case we will make the change ourselves and make it clear what we're doing . Thanks LadyofShalott, INeverCry and Dennis for reaching out and for trying to figure this out. Jalexander--WMF 05:40, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for the clarification. We expected as much. Now we just need to sort the socks. Dennis Brown - 2¢ - © - @ - Join WER 10:37, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
  • I will let another cut the cord so I don't look single minded and involved. I've found that very often, the most indignant and offended people are really socks. Most people without a financial interest aren't as likely to be an ass. I've seen paid spammers try to use the "donation" angle, which is silly since we don't get the money and is sure to totally offend a volunteer. You would probably do well as an SPI clerk, but there is a waiting list. You have the right demeanor for it. It has been very educational for me. Dennis Brown - 2¢ - © - @ - Join WER 19:50, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
  • I do like to chase socks around a bit. The problem is that the short supply of admins on Commons willing to do deletions limits the time I have to do anything but that. I've also been trying to cut down on the ammount of time I spend on the computer each day. I'll probably end up doing only deletions, and deletion taggings, which would still take atleast 2 or 3 hours per day. INeverCry 20:07, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

User talk:68.50.128.91

Would you mind taking a look at the edit war around the carnage at User talk:68.50.128.91 please? Toddst1 (talk) 20:41, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Maybe it's time to protect that page. Any further drama-mongering can go to ANI. Toddst1 (talk) 20:45, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
If we lock the page, we are effectively revoking talk page access for the IP without actually changing the block log. I think talk page access should have been revoked a while ago, but it's not clear to me whether recent events justify it. I don't have a strong feeling about this one way or the other.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:52, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
Nice neutral notice...since DB has already been at the page and made his opinion clear. --Onorem (talk) 20:49, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
(edit conflict)x2 I'm looking but a bit confused. Closing on another user's page isn't something I've done outside of when they wanted it, so I don't have the policy on that at the tip of my brain, will have to look. I don't think dragging to ANI will be less drama, however. Dennis Brown - 2¢ - © - @ - Join WER 20:53, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
After Onorem tried unsuccessfully to undo Todd's close, now the other IP has undone it and added their usual comments. At this point, I'd like to protect the page, either semi-, which would prevent both IPs from editing the page, or full, which would also prevent Onorem from editing it. I'm not going to do this on my own, although one agreement from either of you (Todd or Dennis) would be enough for me.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:01, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict)x3 again and i've removed the irrelevant chat: I've checked a number of policies and found nothing to indicate how to handle when an admin wants to close a discussion on another users page against their desire. I'm having to assume that the 68* ip wouldn't want it closed either and they are reverting by proxy because he is unavailable. I'm not sure you can make them close the discussion, or at least 68*. If you see something that otherwise qualifies as WP:DE or whatever, fine, but I think we probably need to not force the issue on closing the discussion, unless you are claiming it under WP:IAR (not recommended) or there is some other policy that I'm just not aware of. I'm not sure how protection fits in here either. Dennis Brown - 2¢ - © - @ - Join WER 21:10, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Tangentially related: I've popped a thread up at WT:UP, inspired by that conversation. That's right Dennis, you inspire me. Yunshui 雲‍水 21:19, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, sorry it was a bit late - blame Writ Keeper, he came poking around my talkpage with some nonsense about protecting the ozone layer... Yunshui 雲‍水 21:23, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
Damn hippies. Dennis Brown - 2¢ - © - @ - Join WER 21:46, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Dennis. Toddst1 (talk) 21:51, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Echo

Just wondering, did you get a notification when I mentioned you as the blocking admin on User talk:Volunteer Eddy? (Seeing if actually linking is required or merely having the link be present as an argument to a template is enough.) If not, could you reply? Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:08, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

  • I got the notification but you didn't ask a question, so I generally don't respond unless asked a question. On socks, I generally don't explain in every detail since I was instructed to not teach the socks any methods used, but I did provide the one diff showing the pov and the rest was comparative. Email is fine as well. Dennis Brown - 2¢ - © - @ - Join WER 10:24, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 20 May 2013

To-do list

Hey Dennis, you've just said something like "need to move on from this and get back to writing" in an edit summary. Right on there. And should you ever tire (argh, pun) of cars then BSA Gold Star might be a worthy subject. I have one but am more or less completely incapable of writing about what is one of the most iconic of Brit bikes. Stick it on the back-burner, maybe? Unless, of course, you are strictly a four-wheel man. I just cry every time I look at that article, which in itself suggests a COI of sorts! - Sitush (talk) 00:16, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

  • I will peak over later and see if there is something I can to help a little, but I am a 4 wheel snob, I admit. The wife loves bikes, but they never did anything for me. I like big old cars and trucks that get 5 mpg :-) Dennis Brown - 2¢ - © - @ - Join WER 11:33, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
  • No worries. I've got a few books on the subject and one day the various people I've loaned the things out to will return the things. Was that a pig I just saw fly past my window? Here's a photo for your wife to drool over. - Sitush (talk) 23:19, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
    I was a Mod myself, so I'd like to see the Lambretta article improved. But I'd be prepared to help with the Gold Star article nevertheless. Eric Corbett 23:51, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

Even in Iceland, they know how to eat a proper hot dog
The Barnstar of Diplomacy
Dennis, for a guy, you're a pretty awesome one, and you're doing a great job redeeming us admins since you're so completely not an asshole in any way. I could learn a lot from you and I would if I weren't such an asshole. We'll be camping in NC in a couple of weeks, and maybe we'll be grilling in your backyard. Set the beers cold, and there better be no American "lite" beers in that fridge. PS: my oldest daughter and I like mayonnaise on our hot dogs. Drmies (talk) 05:54, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Email me. Work has calmed down some so I've got some flexibility. I will be in Vegas in June for 4 days, I'm hoping that isn't at the same time. And thanks, as always. And yuck on mayonnaise on hot dogs. :p Dennis Brown - 2¢ - © - @ - Join WER 11:19, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
    Mustard. Hot dogs need mustard like a car needs gas/petrol. Eric Corbett 00:16, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
    What I find disgusting is the North Carolina method of only putting coleslaw and what is colloquially called "chili" here, which is just seasoned hamburger. Every place here serves them like this. They serve hamburgers this way as well. As for my dogs, I prefer mustard as well: brown mustard if you have it, yellow if you don't. Relish or sauerkraut is optional. Grilled onion is also quite good as is real chili with beans. Plus a good beer. Dennis Brown - 2¢ - © - @ - Join WER 00:23, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Dennis, you're a nice guy and you handle a lot of shit. Thanks for doing that. Eric, to each his own. You ever had a bacon-wrapped, deep-fried hot dog? Make you wanna slap your baby brother. Drmies (talk) 03:35, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Article

Toss some topic ideas at me. I'll leave the cars to you and Mall..er...Eric, but I'm sure we can find something fun to work on together. Perhaps something historical in NC? Or...???? LadyofShalott 04:54, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

  • Americana has a big appeal to me, I swear I'm going to retire to an RV and tour the states. On that subject, Lexington Barbecue Festival is near and dear to me since I started it and did all the photography and live there. Sourcing is a little scarce but more exists. It will never be a huge article, but I would love to see it cleaned up to GA quality. Barbecue in North Carolina is another one, but too big a project for two. Roswell UFO Festival is currently a redirect, but I've always wanted to look and see if it is notable enough for an article. I bet the festival itself is a hoot. Coffee is brewing, I'm sure I can throw out some other ideas once I'm adequately caffeinated.

I'd appreciate your collaboration

I've made what I think is an adequate start at User:Timtrent/Relationships with academic editors, but I am starting to get prescriptive. I hope you have the time to work with me, adding such other editors as you see fit to the group, to work this embryo essay up into a worthwhile item to move into the wild. After the experience trying to help a user form academe and seeing my efforts and those of others go to pieces I feel that we need to attempt to start to understand this class of editor and to make their lives here more companionable.

If I'm barking up the wrong tree I trust you to tell me unequivocally. Fiddle Faddle 19:57, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

  • It is definitely interesting, and has some similarities to the end result, but not to the early stages. I agree. Parts of it are useful. I'm standing rather too close to the embryo essay right now to do anything useful to it I fear. Fiddle Faddle 20:28, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
  • The idea is interesting and I can see some merit, but I'm not qualified to empathize from the perspective of the academic, being that I'm far from being one. I think you need to attract some assistance from people who are the Professor types, who can better bridge the issue. Dennis Brown - 2¢ - © - @ - Join WER 20:57, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Where the heck am I going to find a professor? And, to be fair, the perspective of a long haul truck driver in the way we treat the profs is probably more important. Get behind that wheel! ;) Fiddle Faddle 21:03, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
  • This is Wikipedia, the place is thick with academics. You could ask around at WP:WER, as that seems to be the kind of project that the editors there are interested in, and be patient, it often takes a week for everyone who cares to read the news there to do so. Dennis Brown - 2¢ - © - @ - Join WER 21:08, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
  • To find the academics who are more interested in their subject area than in WER etc, you could try the talk pages of one or two "academic subject" Wikiprojects (just found a useful list here). PamD 18:40, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Thanks Pam. I think I'll let academics gravitate to it rather than advertise it hugely, though I'm happy is others invite them. I've fleshed a lot more out since you edited it. Fiddle Faddle 15:03, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Tri-Five

Just a note that I'm more than willing to help you get this up to GA standard :) Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 08:59, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Final comment

I don't think DT really took any notice of what we were all trying to explain to him, and that's why your final cmt was deleted. Kudos to you for trying - again. Don't you ever get fed up? I wish I had your patience ;) Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 16:18, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

My patience is formidable... but it is not infinite. - Scorpius (from Farscape)
I've noted on Drmies page that a couple of RFC/Us are likely overdue. Or WP:AN. I don't mind the comments directed at me, but when I'm discussing a problem with another editor and they jump in the middle and try to derail the process by turning it into a rant against admin in general, then we have a textbook WP:DE problem. I can't tolerate someone constantly injecting drama in events unrelated to themselves solely for the purpose of wreaking havok. Those two have made a habit out of attacking every admin that they cross paths with, I can only assume so they claim that admin is "involved", making it more difficult to indef block people who are obviously not here to build an encyclopedia, but instead to disrupt one. I've had to revert them both off my page more than a few times. Dennis Brown - 2¢ - © - @ - Join WER 16:29, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
Well that's it, isn't it. I took a break these past 2 months, and as soon as I come back it's the same old same old, and still the same handful of admins who are trying to do something about it and taking all the flak. It wouldn't be so bad, but when we are the subject of the taunts and attacks - launched deliberately because they know we are not allowed to do anything about it ourselves - and another admin steps in to quench the fire, we then get accused of cabalism. I don't think I've ever blocked anyone for PA or incivility, but I'd dearly like to teach some of them a lesson. The problem with RFC/U is that the anti-admin brigade and all the proponents for disruption as a sport come out to defend their friends. Remember this, or was that before your time? Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 17:09, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
Not before my time but before I got into the meta areas. Like you, I've always had a healthy skepticism when it comes to admin. Unlike them, we never let it degrade into cynicism, and instead channeled it into activism. That distinction is lost on those who prefer to jeer from the safety of the sidelines, and who can't recognize the difference between a collaborator and a catalyst. Dennis Brown - 2¢ - © - @ - Join WER 17:33, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
Yes, that's it again. They hurl their insults from the safety of the stands knowing just how far they can go without quite giving us enough ammunition to block them - and then we have to tie up human resources for RFC/Us that drag on, and on, and on... (it's 1 am and I'm off to bed). Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 17:50, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
That's not quite the way I see it Kudpung, not by a long chalk. Eric Corbett 18:10, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
And I hate to see that you two can't bridge the differences. I've gone out of my way to actually get to know each of you on a more personal level, more than the sum of your edits, and you both are among my most trusted comrades here. I respect that you have differences, differences that started before I met either of you, but I can still hope you can someday come to some kind of détente. If I can ever help I will. If not, I will step back as I am now. Dennis Brown - 2¢ - © - @ - Join WER 18:46, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
I'm not the one who wants to eliminate all opposition at RfAs. I'm the one who's banned from discussing RfA, or being critical of administrators. That's why Kudpung and I will likely never get along. Eric Corbett 19:28, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
I know, and I personally think the ban should be lifted and will support it being lifted in any venue. I think it has done more harm than good, but many topic bans are known for that. I don't get the impression Kudpung wants to eliminate all opposition, even if you disagreed on one event. He wants less disruption and an easier path to getting admin. I want an easier path to losing the admin bit, so they go hand in hand: You can't really have one without the other or there are new problems. I don't think you are a problem at RfA. Perhaps he does, I don't know, but that is just one of many things he and I disagree on. Just as with you, I prefer to build on the things we agree on, and either persuade or be persuaded on the other things later on. I'm just wired that way. I'm not judging the disagreement between you two, I haven't researched it and I consider you both good enough friends I don't want to research it. I just wish I knew what to do help two stubborn old friends meet in the middle and find peace. I know you are both good guys, I've talked to both you extensively. If you met in bar and didn't it was the other, you would probably find much in common to talk about and enjoy each other's company, trust me. Dennis Brown - 2¢ - © - @ - Join WER 19:42, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
I'm sure you're right Dennis, and I bear Kudpung no ill will. I just don't agree with him about what's wrong with RfA. Eric Corbett 19:49, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
Perhaps some day, the two of you can enjoy an email chat about it, free from the onlookers and normal constraints this system puts on us. Sometimes, it isn't necessary that we agree, but understanding why someone feels differently than us gives us insight. Often, a new-found mutual respect is born in the process, as well as genuine empathy. Those are the seeds of persuasion and compromise. Dennis Brown - 2¢ - © - @ - Join WER 19:57, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
I've been blocked for so many daft reasons that compromise isn't on my agenda I'm afraid. If you call me a wikilawyer I can't block you, and neither would I want to, but apparently that's just about the worst insult you can hurl at someone even if they are a lawyer, and well deserves a block. I'll spare you a repeat of the "sycophantic" saga. Eric Corbett 20:21, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

break

With the absolute risk of someone thinking that Drmies, Dennis Brown and I are in collusion (which we're not), I just saw this rather interesting quote:

Maybe I start taking notice. It's one thing I suppose to make my point, once as per WP:ADMINACCT - but if it becomes an argument, and there's no possible way to actually help someone learn, then it simply becomes a useless argument (✉→BWilkins←✎) 19:20, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Bwilkins, let me share with you most powerful thing I've ever read at Wikipedia; the one quote that caused a light to go off in my head and prepare me to handle the stress of being an admin, well before my RfA. It is on the user page of my good friend and mentor DGG:
I do not attempt to convert my opponents--I aim at converting their audience.
I remind myself of this daily and use it as my personal mantra. It has served me well, kept me from arguing at times, and it reminds me that we are a consensus community. Dennis Brown - 2¢ - © - @ - Join WER 19:31, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

You've got mail!

Hello, Dennis Brown. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added 04:45, 25 May 2013 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Gtwfan52 (talk) 04:45, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Scottgramble, Bledsoe and Vincentjames

I see you blocked User:Scottgramble (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) for sockpuppetry. Another user, User:Vincentjames (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) has created a page at Jaylen D Bledsoe around the create protection at Jaylen Bledsoe. Can you please have a look and see if technical action is merited? Thanks! VQuakr (talk) 10:07, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Nickaang‎

Your friend's back. --Rschen7754 11:11, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

  • Yippee. Thanks for the heads up. We both should keep up with him for a while, looks like it is going to be a while. That was a rat's nest to sort out the first time. It is a small team, not just an individual, but we treat as one. I've worked another like this, User:Morning277. It might actually be them. Dennis Brown - 2¢ - © - @ - Join WER 11:19, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

You've got mail!

Hello, Dennis Brown. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added 13:12, 25 May 2013 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

AutomaticStrikeout  ?  13:12, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

It's time

Hi Dennis. I took your advice, have been contributing to other pages, even resolved an edit conflict on a talk page with out reverting any edits in the meantime. I think it's time to take off the topic ban and I hope you agree. --TheShadowCrow (talk) 20:14, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Mail

You have a piece. Go Phightins! 00:02, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

SPI close

Howdy Dennis! You closed the SPI that included sock-puppet Rasta lørenskog who has now been blocked. That user was responsible for three badly formed AFD's:

All three were missing headings and templates and at least one attacks the subject. I wasn't going to NAC them (given there is at least one with a delete vote) but I thought you might like to take a look at them. Cheers, Stalwart111 13:54, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Feel free to remove the AFD template on the individual pages under the same call, if you haven't already. Dennis Brown - 2¢ - © - @ - Join WER 14:35, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
Will do! Stalwart111 14:41, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for all that! Cheers, Stalwart111 14:54, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Close

This comment is directed at no one. Dennis Brown - 2¢ - © - @ - Join WER 19:23, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Interesting move... someone who participated in the discussions on IP 68's talk page closing the discussion at AN. I'll remind you that it was your fellow admin Barek who advised I take it there. And let's get a few things straight. Your close said, "This is more along the lines of opining, or almost soapboxing. WP:AN isn't the place for personal observations, your talk page is. Within the limits of good taste, of course. No specific action was requested, so closing." First, I was bringing up a legitimate concern, which is why Barek told me to take it to AN. So that in itself is an insult to Barek. Second, there were some important issues being discussed: (1) an admin, with the type of involvement Ymblanter had with the IP, participating in his block, (2) an admin removing a commment from another editor's talk page that in no way violates any rules, and (3) treating a blocked editor in a hostile manner, such as leaving a shouting edit summary. Your notion that "opining" is somehow inappropriate is pure nonsense. When anyone brings a concern to any noticeboard, they obviously opine. As so do those who respond. The bottom line is that I presented legitimate concern and provided many relevant diffs to support my points. I saw no sentiment from the crowd-at-large asking for or even suggesting that the discussion be closed. So your unilateral decision to abruptly shut it down while there was very active discussion taking place, is unbelievable. It's very sad that you couldn't stay out of a perfectly legitimate discussion and instead chose to silence me and other editors who were interested in commenting. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 16:24, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

  • You weren't asking for specific action, you were just complaining. I saw it earlier, watched it go on, and eventually concluded it was just complaining. As for Barek, I don't think he and I have ever crossed paths. As for the IPs talk page, the discussion got moved to my talk page and I told two admin they were mistaken about archiving, so I wasn't jumping on any bandwagon there. My close of that WP:AN discussion was procedural only, and didn't comment on the merits at all. I didn't say you were wrong or right, only that if you want to talk about someone and you aren't asking for specific action, then AN isn't the place to do it. The admin boards are for when you are asking that action be taken, not just to make general comments about someone. Dennis Brown - 2¢ - © - @ - Join WER 16:31, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
  • To add: closing a discussion isn't an admin function. I did see you add a comment after the close, and I chose to not revert it. If you really want to unclose it, you can do so and make a note in that discussion. I don't think anything good will come of it, but it is always an option. Dennis Brown - 2¢ - © - @ - Join WER 16:35, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I said I wasn't expecting any action. I want my comment restored to IP 68's talk page. Bbb23 had no right to remove it, and then to protect the talk page at the same time, which still astounds me. And I was asking for Ymblanter to acknowledge, as Barek pointed out, that he shouldn't have been the one to block the IP. And I don't appreciate your description as "complaining". They were legitimate concerns, backed by diffs. So please kindly knock off the perjorative phrasing. I want my comment restored. I don't plan to add to it, but I want it put back because it was an abuse of admin power to remove it. Please do the right thing and either restore it or ask Bbb23 to do so. I asked him nicely and he didn't even have the courtesy to reply to my request. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 16:38, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
I'll leave the unclose up to you. Your decision needs to stand on its own merits. It sends a message when an admin closes a discussion right in the middle of active participation by several editors. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 16:40, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
Then revert me. I'm not going to be offended by it. I was not mentioned in that discussion, so felt I was uninvolved although familiar (which is often helpful). But just unarchive it and say you reverted me and reopened it. I really felt like nothing positive was going to come of it, but I don't own the place, I just work here. Dennis Brown - 2¢ - © - @ - Join WER 16:42, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
You closed it, so you should be the one to reopen it. That's your choice. But I want my comment restored to IP 68's talk page. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 16:44, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
Rather than have me dig through and verify the statements, you might be better asking Drmies, who is more familiar and whom you say you have a good relationship with. I have long ago learned that I am one of the more tolerant admin when it comes to allowing comments on user pages, but that doesn't make me right. There is no magic line in the sand that every comment can be on one side or the other with. Lots of stuff that other admin do, I would have done differently, but that doesn't make them wrong, only different. Again, the very top of my user page clearly states that anyone is free to revert me if they feel doing so will improve Wikipedia. I'm not sure how it will improve the place, but I don't take it personal. Dennis Brown - 2¢ - © - @ - Join WER 16:52, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) (edit conflict) *FWIW I almost closed that discussion myself after reading up on all the background and 68's edits but Dennis beat me to it. My closing rationale would not have been dissimilar. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 16:45, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Obviously, Kudpung, you don't get it. This is not about 68's edits. Even I have scolded him for some of his editing. But unlike the admins involved, I tried to bring down the heat on the situation, show a little respect to 68, and get things back on track. In any case, if you want to truly understand the point, then I suggest you fully read the relevant discussions. And I'm still waiting for one admin to have the guts to admit that this revert of my comment was improper, and that it should be restored. And restore it. Or get the admin who did it to restore it. This issue is about integrity. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 16:52, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
I had also checked every single one of your edits. Maybe this will help. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 17:39, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
Citing an essay? An opinion? Seriously? It's interesting how some editors will simply refer to an inapplicable essay when they have no real arguments to present to counter the solidly-supported points made. I should remind you that admin Barek is the one who instructed me to take the discussion there. He knew all the details before I did that. More to the point, it was that admin who said that Ymblanter doing the block was "procedurally inappropriate". Apparently, you prefer to choose to ignore the most important points and instead find some random essay to use as an insult weapon against an IP editor. So perhaps you should send your random essays to Barek. Here's an essay for you. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 19:11, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
  • 76.189.109.155, you need to drop the stick and move on. There's nothing particularly wrong with the actions of any of these admins; they closed a discussion that was unproductive and wasn't going anywhere. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 19:17, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
When others drop it, I will drop it. But when someone comments directly to me, the discussion continues. I hope you understand the logic of that. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 19:20, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
76.189.109.155, your cited essay is even more irrelevant. I have nothing against IPs - I was one myself for several years - but your edits, at least under this IP appeared, to me at least, to demonstrate a trend. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 19:25, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
"A trend". How telling. But I'm glad to see that you have acknowledged that your little essay was irrelevant. Apparently, it is you who is unable to drop the proverbial stick. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 20:09, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Your clamping down on me for my edit ot the Beyoncé article

Please read my response on the Beyoncé talk page and look at my referenceS more carefully: Jennie completely mischaracterized my edit and the older one too. I had TWO references on it: Yahoo and Vibe magazine. Vibe is not a blog.--Aichik (talk) 19:30, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

  • Yahoo is a blog. And your first act when coming off the block was to revert, the same act that got you blocked. I can't explain it any more plain than that. If you get blocked for edit warring, you come back and discuss, you don't repeat the same action that got you blocked. I really don't care how right you think you are. The content isn't what got you blocked, your behavior was. And you just repeated it. Dennis Brown - 2¢ - © - @ - Join WER 19:59, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Request for no talk page for banned sock User:Piynathonoj

Hi. I'm glad I figured everything out, but I'd like e-mail and talk page revoked, as most of his trolling occurred on his talk page. Thanks for the help at the SPI, Dennis. WorldTraveller101(Trouble?/My Work) 22:28, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

  • We don't take away talk page access unless that right is abused, and he hasn't abused it. I would also note that I removed the misc. tags as they don't go on the talk page and looked like grave dancing. It is best to leave the tagging to the clerks. We have to walk a fine line when blocking someone, between stopping them from editing, but not disrespecting them. He's blocked and surely has abandoned that account anyway. Dennis Brown - 2¢ - © - @ - Join WER 22:56, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

You've got mail!

Hello, Dennis Brown. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added 01:34, 26 May 2013 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Wanted to make sure you saw this as I left a note in a middle section of your talk you may never have found. Anyway, no hurry, just wanted you to know. Thanks as always, Go Phightins! 01:34, 26 May 2013 (UTC) Go Phightins! 01:34, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

  • I've already replied some time ago :) Dennis Brown - 2¢ - © - @ - Join WER 01:37, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
    • Hmm. That's bizarre that I haven't received your reply yet. Then again, my email has taken as long as 45 minutes to receive some emails on occasion. Would you mind re-sending it if I don't send anything back to you by the next time you are online? If I get it, I will send a quick reply, so you know I did. Thanks! Go Phightins! 01:42, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
      • Um, yes, the next time I'm online I will send it. :) I'm always online, I never sleep and always watching. I'm like Santa Claus; I know when you've been bad or good, so be good for goodness sake. Dennis Brown - 2¢ - © - @ - Join WER 01:45, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
        • Literally got it two minutes after I posted the previous comment. That's a little creepy that you are always around. Will I be getting coal for Christmas? Was I naughty or nice? Go Phightins! 01:47, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
          • hehe, I check in from work (my work that infinite freedom most of the year) and from home from one of many computers, or my tablet on the road. I sleep irregularly as well. It just looks like I'm always here, but often I'm doing yard work and just come in for quick breaks to check up, that kind of thing. Or when watching TV. I have a 60" TV/monitor in the living room that I use, and a TV card, so I can watch TV, be on IRC and still have many windows open at the same time. Uber nerd. :) It stays on 24/7. Dennis Brown - 2¢ - © - @ - Join WER 01:53, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
OK .. that 60" TV thing is something I don't have - gotta get me one of those. — Ched :  ?  13:53, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
I'm watching Bob's Burgers on Netflix while answering this. ;-) Wireless keyboard, but wired mouse due to gaming concerns. I've been using a TV as a monitor since before LCDs, in the 90s. Started due to Terminal Velocity. Dennis Brown - 2¢ - © - @ - Join WER 14:03, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for the kind manner used to address my neutral !vote. Just to be very clear, there is hardly a stigma associated with an admonition. Every definition I am aware of makes it clearly a gentle form of counsel. I never intended to imply anything more. I think people associate it as a form of sanction but that is not automatically assumed.--My76Strat (talk) 02:40, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

  • No problem. I try to not assume too much when addressing someone at RfA, and you might notice I didn't speak in absolutes. I understood your initial reaction, but we both have done RfA, and know a candidate does himself no favors by injecting his opinions in the body unless absolutely required. Dennis Brown - 2¢ - © - @ - Join WER 02:46, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

You have a message!

Hello, Dennis Brown. You have new messages at 117.199.191.39's talk page.
Message added 15:59, 26 May 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

- 117.199.181.151 (talk) 16:00, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Javamen

The edit history of A-1 Express Delivery Service and that if its editors may bear watching. Disclaimer: I am one of those editors, so yes, I realize I'm putting myself in the line of fire here. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 19:12, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

  • How sure are we that Javamen is really a separate individual? One of the characteristics of Nickaang accounts is that they put a brief plausible sounding statement on their user page[8] to justify an interest in obscure topics. Javaman created Peachtree Petals, which was edited by confirmed Nickaang sock User:Madmoron. Run4health created BlockDos, which was edited by known Nickaang sock User:Bhavana.parihar. Unless I'm missing something here, it's pretty darned certain that they are part of the same sock farm. They may not all be the same physical human being, but they are obviously the same article creation company. Meanie=Nickaang=Javamen=lots of others. --B (talk) 21:13, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
    • And we generally treat them as one, but in this case the situation was such that splitting them made sense. It may be different people working for the same corp, and javamen just represents one method used, but it makes checking easier, and javamen is already in the archive for being possibly linked to the others by behavior, just not by technical info. Dennis Brown - 2¢ - © - @ - Join WER 21:18, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
      • Okay, I can see why it makes sense from an ease of checkuser standpoint to look at the separately. From a G5 standpoint, though, it matters. Meanie was informed that he is no longer welcome on January 3, 2013. If Meanie=Nickaang=Javamen, then that means that all of these articles-for-hire created by any of the socks since January 3, 2013 are subject to immediate summary deletion. Under the theory of we don't want to reward bad behavior, this is my preferred outcome. --B (talk) 21:27, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
        • I concur - it if Sock Farm A is suspected of being the same as Sock Farm B and the "ban dates" and article-creation histories are such that G5 matters, then it matters. Now, if recently-blocked Sock Farm B didn't create any still-remaining articles between the ban-date of Sock Farm A and the ban-date of Sock Farm B, then it may not be worth spending resources hunting down. Ditto if any still-remaining articles can be dealt with in a better way, such as AFD or rewriting them from scratch. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 21:58, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
          • What you have to remember is that a "clerk" implies "works for". SPI clerks work for the Checkusers and perform tasks according to the direction of the Checkuser, implied or expressed. As the Checkuser went to the trouble to make it a point that these three were completely unrelated to the other socks, I have to treat them differently in how I "clerk" ie: how I handle the virtual paperwork portion of the report. It really isn't about my opinion, it is more about how I interpret how the CU wants it handled. That is why we have clerks and not just admin there, to directly support the Checkuser and follow their direction. Dennis Brown - 2¢ - © - @ - Join WER 22:09, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
            • That's fine ... I have no problem with it whatsoever - if maintaining multiple cases makes it easier for the checkusers, that's fine. Can you add (presumably to the Javaman/Run4health/Suzannebowen case) a request to look back into Writeindia (talk · contribs)? I don't know what the right procedure is here, but this user was previously blocked for socking based on Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Writeindia and then unblocked after asking nicely. On March 1, this user posed messages to Suzannebowen, Run4health, and Javamen asking them all to look into his (now deleted) article INSZoom. It seems highly unlikely that this user would have picked these three names out of a hat. Suzannebowen only has four contributions (deleted or otherwise) so it's pretty obvious that Writeindia is a part of the farm. I'm guessing/assuming that there's some offshoring going on. Two of the IP addresses that were suspected of being Nickaang in a previous report geolocate to India. I'm guessing Nickaang is Canadian (just like he says) and has a staff from India working for him. --B (talk) 22:35, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
              • You would need to file a report to that effect. Let me clear up something that I think most people don't realize. There are many "masters" who are really the same person. CU is a very, very limited tool and personal observation only goes so far. We know that. Sometimes things are done solely for the purpose of making information more manageable, and not because we are trying to be perfectly accurate in connecting every master. First and foremost is connecting the socks to the current master, and making sure we don't block someone innocent. That is a huge concern. We are good at finding socks, but it is impossible to match up different masters very often because they use web proxies, open proxies, cell phones, coffee shop wireless and a variety of other methods to make guaranteed accuracy impossible. And the logs only go back about 3 months or so, we can't CU anything older than that because the Foundation won't keep the logs longer. I'm not saying this as an excuse, but the reality is that we use a lot of duct tape and bailing wire there, and focus mainly on blocking the sock. If we can clearly match the masters up and combine cases, we hist/merge the cases, but we stay so backlogged, it isn't top of the list. I know it makes G5 easier, but I can't merge unless I've very confident, or the CU says to. Also, if I merge accounts and they aren't related, that can cause us to miss a connection as well, or confuse the case. Dennis Brown - 2¢ - © - @ - Join WER 22:51, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Dots on Watchlist

Hey Dennis, do you know what the blue and green dots (or bullets) mean on the watchlist? I have them beside each entry on my watchlist. Most are green, some are a dark blue. No clue what they mean though. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 21:40, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

@Dennis: I was just curious as to what they were. I know with the different changes being made (like the on-Wiki message notifications) that it was probably related. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 01:19, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

(Belatedly) I didn't even notice the bullets until I read this discussion. They're kinda small, aren't they? And wouldn't it be better if you put your mouse over them they gave you an explanation of what they mean? I mean, not that I care a whole lot ...--Bbb23 (talk) 01:29, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Dennis_Brown/Archive_23&oldid=1146680415"