User talk:Dennis Brown/Archive 10

Archive 5←Archive 8Archive 9Archive 10Archive 11Archive 12→Archive 15

Morning

Hi Dennis,
pointing out this edit vis-à-vis Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Morning277. I can't see a direct technical connection, but this particular edit on this particular article makes a connection very likely in my eyes. You seemed to have a better understanding of the case than I do, any insights?
Cheers, Amalthea 09:10, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

  • Hard to me to tell from just one edit, but worth watching. The COI elements are pretty hard to ignore in that one edit, but pinning down who is more difficult. As I said in the original SPI, I still think that Morning was more than one person, but was impossible to break apart due to the use of webhosts and proxies. The IP seems related but we never had an IPs in that case, so I don't have any geolocation info. Still on my first cup for the day, may look closer later on. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 10:59, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
If you are looking for more, this one is Morning277, or editing on his behalf. - Bilby (talk)
I just sent one of his articles to AfD. He actually did a fine job of writing and formatting, but it is still non-notable spam. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ziptask That might be the best way of dealing with this stuff, removing the financial gain if they can't bother to write about notable subjects. Again, if I learned anything last time, it is that it's hard, or impossible really, to pin down some of these socks without CU data. The COI is obvious, but the styles are very similar in many unrelated COI accounts as well. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 11:50, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
And Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Qais Al-Khonji for that matter. Using reliable sources only for general links to his industry, to hide the non-notability. As I said there, not as clever as it might seem. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 11:57, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
CU data is not as helpful here than you might think, I'm afraid. At least not in the long term, with fresh info like Bilby's above it helps to immediately confirm LifeLongVegas (talk · contribs) and RileyTomTom (talk · contribs), and a couple more candidates that I will keep close watch on. I have not looked at their article creations.
Amalthea 12:14, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
I'm keeping a general eye out for him. I can pretty much confirm User:RileyTomTom based on Dion von Moltke - that fills in one of the gaps I was missing. The problem is that we tend to spot them after they would have been paid, which limits the effectivness. - Bilby (talk) 12:22, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
Oh I know, webhosts and proxies, I am sure. And since half the COI editors use the exact same methods (what, is there a school for this somewhere??) it makes it hard to accurately pin them down to the proper master. You end up making ugly "obviously a sock of someone" blocks. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 12:24, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
A school is an interesting thought. :) Although one thing I've been noticing in the last couple of months is a growing tendency for the freelance paid editors to work together - sometimes as a result of shared contracts, but sometimes it just looks like a bit of informal subcontracting. And more recently some of the bigger players have been formally hiring groups of subcontractors, presumably both to handle demand and to distribute the accounts. - Bilby (talk) 12:35, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
Another batch that are the same, but no direct connection to Morning277 so needs double-checking please:
If you're tired of this hijacking of your talk page feel free to move to SPI ;)
Regarding payment, I know that one person who offered paid editing service also ensured that it wouldn't get deleted for a certain time -- so if we catch them quickly enough it may still be a disincentive. Amalthea 12:53, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
One more possible one, again not really connected technically, only through ... magic: HappyTwoBEE (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki). Amalthea 13:11, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
This is a catch 22, because if we can't make a link to a specific puppetmaster, it is hard to move to SPI. Editing for profit, for all intent and purposes, is not against any policy. Starting with an article in the sandbox is so common, I am not sure that I can link them to anyone. Almost all sockpuppeting COI editors do that, hit and run editing. This is why CU and blocking proxies is so important, as well as shipping the articles off to AFD/CSD. Just looking at the surface, the basic habits, I could link them to any number of COI socks. The only reason we linked so many at Morning277 was not because they all linked to each other, but there was technical data that linked subgroups within subgroups, in the logs. Had I been forced to make the connections purely on behavior, I'm not sure I could have. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 14:37, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
I've sent a bunch to AfD. One of the articles is borderline notable. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 14:50, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
You can always catch some with the job ads, though. If a known sockpuppeteer accepts a contract, and we detect which account was used to complete the job, then we have some pretty solid behavioural evidence. That covers both MiddleMan2127 and RileyTomTom, although the latter has some supporting evidence to cover a less clear contract. I agree that we can't act just because someone is being paid to edit, and nor do I feel that we should. But the contracts can reveal the socks..- Bilby (talk) 14:54, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
I'm sure that I'm not the only one who thinks that we will just have to track these down one by one and delete them. I guess I'm going to have to start working new page patrol again, as I can't believe this fluff is getting by them. I guess they see all the (bad) sources and think they are ok, when in fact they are not. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 14:56, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Just so you know, I'm taking a bit of a break from SPI right now. I may do some minor things, but some recent events off wiki have kind of knocked the joy out of it and admin'ing in general. If not for a few other important issues that I am working on, I would likely take a wikibreak. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 15:11, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Ok, sorry to hear that.
Well, to wrap it up here then, since another potential sock was brought up at SPI I tagged on the above.
I keep checking them and blocking the host companies I see used of course, but there just is no end to it, and some are rather odd. For example, multiple IPs from 193.110.248.0/21 were used by one account; range seems like some kind of service provider, edits from there look like a normal ISP, but one named account is almost certainly a Morning277-sock. I can't do anything there, and he'll probably move on to somewhere else either way.
Amalthea 21:17, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
We all get discouraged every now and then :) I'm not going anywhere long, but I need a reduced admin load for a little while, and a chance to just edit instead of dealing with politics. Besides, I can't empathize with editors if I forget what it is to be one. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 00:41, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
No need to explain, I completely understand. Nonetheless, I'm still sorry to hear it. :) Amalthea 06:35, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

?

Hi. The investigation showed the other three users were related, NOT ME. Yet my username shows I'm "blocked indefinitely" although I STILL seem to be able to edit Wikipedia. Did user:AGK add this tag to my user page by mistake? Thanks. Khestwol (talk) 15:43, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

  • I'm going to assume he did based on the investigation and the fact that he didn't block you. Additionally, since your user page was previously a red link before he mistakenly tagged you, I have deleted your user page with a note to that effect, restoring it to uncreated. It likely started when I mistakenly added you to the original SPI. We use scripts that do the tags for us automatically, so we don't have to go to each page. Your name likely got caught up in the script since it was there originally, an innocent mistake that is now corrected. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 15:52, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

WER venue

Am I being too honest there? Am I just irritating things there too much? Maybe I should just go back to editing until I get blocked and then morph again? I hate to see your efforts turn into a battleground as I attempt to expose some the hypocrasy I see. You have a lot of respect and smoothness and flare-ups are not good. You know I used to edit real articles and did thousands of edits but now my time is all used up defending myself or trying to stop the BS for others in the future. I hate this politics crap. I don't know how you can do it. I spent my whole life defending the underdog and trying to stop lynch mob mentality, usually at the cost of my own health and safety (yeah I spent some 35 years in many martial arts because of it) and now I find myself doing it on WP. yuk! I need to go back to building tube guitar amps, playing with 8 bit accumulators, and writing my own compilers. Did I tell you I invented the wheel? LOL 99.251.149.32 (talk) 14:00, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

  • Don't confuse opinions and honest. You might be honest in your opinions, but they are still opinions, your observations based on your experience. Others, including myself, disagree with you on several points. I can respect someone's opinions, and even empathize with the underlying causes for the opinions, without necessarily agreeing with them. I've been generous in allowing you to express yourself in a situation where others would have blocked you (socking, for starters) out of a genuine desire to gain new perspective, but I don't suggest pushing it farther, as others are not likely to share my curiosity or generosity in this regard, nor are they required to withhold their best judgement in dealing with others. After all, I'm not the boss there. And Berean Hunter is actually a very good admin, I nominated him after spending a while talking him into running. I've actually met in the real world as well. You may have different ideas than he, but you have a very incomplete picture of him. He is quite even handed and no more or less likely to block someone than I am. But again, I think points have been made and I've tried to accommodate you as best as I can, but I do recommend not laboring it too much, as I recommend to anyone making any point. Once the point has been made, nothing is served by repeating it. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 14:25, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
Thanks. The meeting could suggest many WP:negs but I am sure he is a good person. This is the same theory as my "troll" word theory. We all have good and bad actions. I haven't examined both sides of him, just as I accused him for. Can you ask him to turn over? LOL 99.251.149.32 (talk) 14:37, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Ahmad Shah Massoud

FPaS still refuses to discuss and continues to revert to his favored version. I have requested page protection but something has to be done about his reverting and point blank refusal to discuss. Darkness Shines (talk) 16:25, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

  • I'm not sure what I can do here. The differences in your two versions, to someone who is ignorant of the topic, isn't that drastic. Yours is a bit more flowery perhaps, his is a bit more terse. I don't have access to the printed versions you are sourcing from, and to start from the ground up would be very difficult for someone who isn't familiar with the topic. I don't see either version as "offensive", just different. But FPaS has never shown a willingness to even consider my opinion, hasn't crossover into 3RR or any other (ugh...) bright line rule, so my options are pretty limited here. He isn't using the admin tools here, and his behavior (while not a shining example as an admin) isn't actionable by a single admin, nor likely to draw support for action at ANI as it isn't a clear line violation, just a low boil edit warring. Technically, he made the first revert, so in the spirit of BRD, you should take it to the talk page, but I agree that he isn't making any effort to genuinely discuss it and seems to be actively avoiding discussion of the actual content. To be honest, I don't have the whole back story so I can't and wont' jump to conclusions, although I'm always disappointed when any admin refused to engage. Granted, he is acting as an editor and not an admin here, but there is still the expectation of any admin when acting as an editor. Again, looking at him purely as an editor, I wouldn't be taking action and would instead try to talk to them. And again, he has a history of ignoring my comments, so I'm stuck. I'm not sure what would happen at the edit warring board or if this yet qualifies. The level of reverts is not to a level that I would full protect the page yet either. It is an unfortunate situation, but I'm just not sure what the proper solution is. I'm stumped as to what I can do that will have even a chance at a positive resolution here. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 17:25, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
Well I would have thought an editor regardless of his status as an admin would be considered disruptive by point blank refusing to take part in the consensus building process, and instead just revert to their preferred version of an article. It is painfully obvious FPaS got to that article after the big argument over one of the images, which I believe was linked to from the 3RR report made previously. That is hounding, he went there to piss off JcaLA. After I disagreed with him there, and pointed out an obvious error on his part on an ANI thread he began to hound me, the guy obviously has issues. If he continues as he has been then I will have little option but to take it further. Discretionary sanctions have been authorized, and though I have no doubt a great many editors would leap on such a case to ensure it boomerangs on myself I see to other way forward. Darkness Shines (talk) 19:43, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
It frustrates me as well, but you should know that my objective is always a solution, not just action. I wouldn't block anyone, regardless of being an admin or not, for this. Part of the issue is my own admitted ignorance of the subject matter, and again, I really do understand the frustration when any editor refused to discuss. I simply don't have a simple solution at this point in time. I wish I did, believe me. I'm not afraid to apply a solution either, I just don't see what that solution is, and it might take going to a board to discuss and getting input from many people. The key to avoiding boomerangs is to first be calm and neutral in your case, keep your opinions out of it. Two, ping me. I don't think it is one sided, but when someone refuses to discuss, that itself is a problem. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 21:16, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Need more input on this (Rick Hendrix)

Sorry if this is a little long, but not sure exactly about this situation; wanted to have others' input. Evidently (before I was even involved in editing these articles), much information that was merely promotional/uncited was put on the Rick Hendrix and the Order of the Long Leaf Pine articles. One of the primary users who did this was Dalestorian (talk · contribs). I want to assume good faith and I generally give people the benefit of the doubt, but many of the edits have not been sourced with a reliable source. They have ostensibly asked me to help them edit, which I have attempted. Evidently that user has a close connection to the article subject (Rick Hendrix), either being a close friend and/or a business associate. But quite apart from any possible WP:COI issues (which I'm not absolutely, totally against), the main thing is the question of whether Hendrix received the Order of the Long Leaf Pine. I and others have cleaned up the Hendrix and 'Order' articles a good bit, but the user wanted to put that Hendrix was a Kentucky Colonel and had received the 'Order' in 1993 when he was just 23. While this might have been possible, I haven't yet been able to find any sources that say so. The user now wants to have a photo of a document as a source. If you have any time, please see discussions at Talk:Rick Hendrix, User talk:JoannaSerah/Archive 2012#Old Rick Hendrix site, User talk:JoannaSerah#Rick Hendrix, Talk:Order of the Long Leaf Pine and User talk:Dalestorian.

Basically, is this a reliable source noticeboard issue, something that WP:OTRS needs to look at? Or am I trying to assume too much good faith for very promotional editing? (I mean, Rick Hendrix is a music promoter, after all, and for all I know, Dalestorian could be the article subject himself. I doubt it, but possible) The user wants to insist that the 'Order' be mentioned on the Hendrix page. Thank you. -- JoannaSerah (talk) 20:36, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

  • This is pretty straight forward and you don't have to make it more complicated than it is in order to still assume good faith. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof, and a scanned copy of a document fails WP:RS cleanly. For the Long Leaf recipients, we go to the source itself. It might not be independent, and we also want an independent source, but we can trust them since they actually give out the award. They are at http://www.longleafpinesociety.org/roster/a1.html, and the page that should list him is here and it does not list him, so that claim is unfounded.

As for Kentucky Colonels, their website is http://kycolonels.org/ but they don't show a list of recipients online. At this point, it doesn't matter, since it is starting to look like a problem anyway...So unless they can provide 100% rock solid, unquestionable sources, which SHOULD be plentiful, then the material has to go via our BLP guidelines. Taking a closer look at the article, I have a lot of questions about the sources, and the article in general. Good faith is a good method, but it isn't a suicide pact, so pardon me if I'm a little suspicious, enough that I want to see every source on every fact with my own eyes, and judge whether or not those sources pass WP:RS. The source http://sogospelnews.com/index/content/articles/hendrix-nelon-award/ looks like a blog and not a reliable source, thus not trustworthy. Looking at the award itself via http://www.presidentialserviceawards.gov/tg/pvsainfo/dspAboutAwards.cfm raises real questions as to how notable it really is, as they are given by certified organizations that pay for the right to give the award.cite Actually, the more I did, the uglier this gets. Think I will stop by and edit, and dig some more... Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 21:36, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Dennis, I built this page and I continue to build this page. I added a ref to the only citation to my page and added Rick Hendrix Long Leaf Pine back. The founder and Manager of the Long Leaf Pine list Phillip T Fisher emailed us and said Rick Hendrix was going to be added back to the list when it updates in a few months.He stated they do not have the funds or resources to update in the middle of the year. Mr Fisher verified Dr Hendrix did receive the award. It was a clerical error Clair Ennis of the Governors office made. He also stated anyone could email him info@longleafpinesociety.org or call 919-854-7917 and he would clarify Rick Hendrix did receive the award in 1993 from the Governor and would be added back in the next batch of updates. I am loading a ref page for you to view the award as well. http://i1057.photobucket.com/albums/t393/editorreview/RickHendrixLongLeafPine2_zpse3c25854.jpg http://i1057.photobucket.com/albums/t393/editorreview/RickHendrixLongLeafPine_zpsb182d558.jpg

Dalestorian (talk) 21:50, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

  • We can't accept a scanned version as a source, the policy is very clear on that. We also can't accept an extraordinary claim on a biography that isn't sourced by a reliable source. The policy is very strict on that. I will happy to help you get the article up to encyclopedia standards and explain the policies along the way (the can be confusing, granted), but compliance isn't optional in BLP (biographies of living person) articles. I deleted a great deal of information that is generally considered non-encyclopedic and ineligible for inclusion. Being nominated for an award, or thinking about running for office, even if factual, are not considered notable events for an encyclopedia, generally speaking. We are also rather cautious about what we consider a reliable source. WP:RS is the guideline that explains what is and isn't a reliable source. http://absolutelygospel.com would not be considered a reliable source as it is a family owned blog and not professionally vetted. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 21:55, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
I know, I was probably making a mountain out of a molehill. I had a lot of issues with the article and supposed sources as well, before. I realize that I did make it more complicated than it really was. Don't know why. Just guess I thought the person might have been notable, and with the user asking for help, my "sympathy gene" kicked in. But I couldn't really find sources and started to look them up more. Then I got to editing other things and forgot about it. Thank you for your help. -- JoannaSerah (talk) 23:18, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
Oh, not a problem. He is upset, and I'm trying to explain, but he has been here since 2008 and has only edited on this one topic, so not sure how open minded he will be. I always strive to be kind and patient, but at the end of the day, every article still has to hold up to the same standard. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 23:32, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

What have you done to my entry?

What you consider news and what the rest of wiki and the US consider is two different things. If I had worked on Passion of the Christ and Prince of Egypt being from a small town in Alabama-its a big deal. I cant even begin to find where you deleted this to add it back? Everything you left is cited as a bad source.Are you an enemy or angry with me or Mr Hendrix. Billboard Mag wrote about this...Mr Hendrix office provided me news clippings from Charlotte Observer and major papers on the long leaf pine- the director himself stated call him. These articles are not even in archives anymore with the papers online. They are on disc and must be accessed in person or mailed. Again, because it isn't accessible online its unreliable? Mr Hendrix office WILL NOT provide me anymore details. They are tired of me calling them and defending this page. The lady in his office said she would not pass anymore messages to his office concerning wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dalestorian (talk • contribs) 22:15, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

  • I'm not mad at anyone, I'm trying to get the article to conform to guidelines here. I'm quite mellow, actually. As for news paper links, you can use them if they aren't online any more, many people here have paid access to the archives, so they can be verified, but all "facts" must be verifiable, it is one of the WP:Five pillars here. It isn't personal, but not every "fact" is notable enough for inclusion in an encyclopedia article. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 22:22, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
    • I note that you used the source Poff, Jan-Michael, ed. (2000). Addresses and Public Papers of James Baxter Hunt Jr. Governor of North Carolina Vol. III 1993–1997. Raleigh, NC: North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources. ISBN 0-86526-289-6. for the Order of the Long Leaf Pine yet he isn't mentioned in that book, or the other source that was given. All I can do is look at the sources given, and verify the info. If it doesn't exist, I can't verify, it has to be removed. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 22:27, 18 September 2012 (UTC)


I have given several editors the Directors name,email and phone number to verify the long leaf pine. Some have actually called and verified. Then someone still comes and takes it down. And just because you verify doesn't mean someone like you next week isn't going to come and do this to my entry again. I even posted FOX NEWS videos of Mr Hendrix on with Whitney Houston. They still get removed by NC folks. I am not sure.... I might be doing Mr Hendrix more harm than good. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dalestorian (talk • contribs) 22:29, 18 September 2012 (UTC)


Where do I find what you are talking about? I never listed a ref to the long leaf pine award...Tho you say that was your reason for removing it. Mr Hendrix wasn't given the award by Hunt. I wouldn't list that as a ref. Doctors, lawyers, interns, campaign volunteers,teachers flower experts and everything in between the lines have deleted and toyed with this article. Some have VERIFIED sources and then another comes behind and will undo their work. I am starting to see why people are not taking wiki seriously. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dalestorian (talk • contribs) 22:34, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

  • I removed it from the Leaf article because I went and searched the text of the book that was given and the book existed, the citation didn't. The other link was to a block where it looks like you/rick/whoever was being asked why the source didn't exist. Not a cite. I removed it from his article because it had no citation for an award, which we generally do not allow to stand. As for my living in NC, that doesn't color my judgement, but I can't in good consciousness leave in extraordinary claims that have sources that simply are demonstrated false by examining multiple sources that would know or have been used as sources. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 22:47, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
  • As a final note, you can always go to WP:BLPN, the noticeboard for biographies of living persons, if you think I am mistaken here. I don't recommend it as I don't think they will be sympathetic due to the sourcing problems, but that is the proper option in disputes over notability issues on BLPs. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 22:52, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
Just a note about Rick Hendrick taken off of the Order of the Long Leaf Pine list. I added that back. That person is not the Rick Hendrix which we are discussing here. I put back the Rick Hendrick of auto-racing fame who is in the Hunt papers book. Just a clarification as this was mistaken before sometimes. And good to note about the BLPN. I hadn't ever been to that page before. Thank you. -- JoannaSerah (talk) 23:28, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
Ah, thank you for fixing that! And yes, BLPN, like many admin boards, can be heated at times but most of those guys really know BLP issues and policy even better than I do. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 23:33, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

I am reading the bio page

I am reading the bio page and will work with those guidelines. My next step is getting this notability, deletion junk off the article. How do we remove all of these tags? Everything sourced is notable and verifiable. Nothing is a mystery or not pertaining to the biography of Hendrix. I am reaching out to Hendrix office again- its a new staff since I worked for them. They do not seem to care about this anymore.

Dalestorian (talk) 23:32, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

  • The notablity tag refers to the guideline at WP:GNG, which sets the bar. I added the tag. Since you are the primary editor, it is strongly recommended that you don't be the one to remove it and allow someone else objective to do so if they feel it is necessary. Looking purely at Wikipedia policy, the article does a great many problems that might not be apparent to someone who doesn't edit here frequently. The standard for including biographies is rather stringent, and I'm trying to help you fix it, but I'm not convinced it would hold up at an WP:Articles for Deletion discussion. When we say "notable", we don't use MY definition, or YOUR definition, we use Wikipedia's, at WP:N. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 23:37, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

I wouldnt do that

I would not remove another editors tags. I truly wanna have this page represent him not me or you. I started this several years ago due to the horrible wiki pages people were doing on Hendrix. I wish you would help me in your spare time. I will work on learning the rules. I am not a big wig on here like yourself. I only built this one page while I worked for Rick Hendrix in 2008. So excuse my etiquette. I do however feel he meets the wiki guidelines for a page along with other editors. I just need assistance in what is reliable, necessary and what is fluff. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dalestorian (talk • contribs) 23:48, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

  • Ok, I'm not a big wig, just an admin. All that means is that I've stood in front of my peers, they decided that I have enough experience and enough trust to let me have a few extra tools. Admins are more like janitors than bosses. Yes, we have tools to block users and lock pages, but we have to justify everything we most. Most of us are pretty ordinary people that aren't hung up on any "power", and instead just want to help people. For starters, please sign your posts with the four ~~~~ marks. Next, familiarize yourself with the basics at reliable sources and notability. You don't need to memorize them, but you need to get a feel for them, and understand when we talk about "reliable" and "notable", those are the definitions we use. Plenty of worthwhile publications are reliable, using plain speak, but aren't reliable via the policy on reliable sources. Our job is NOT to "tell the truth". We have no interest in The Truth. What we publish are facts that have been reported by independent, reliable sources. Stuff that the Charlotte Observer or News and Record printed, or in a mainstream book. And we don't publish every fact, only facts that talk about why they are notable, and the facts that support THOSE facts. IE: even if the Observer published all his high school report cards, we don't care about them here. A silly example, but you get the idea. Being "important" isn't important. Everyone is important to someone. But start with reading those, use the talk page of the article, and remember that any "fact", any claim, MUST be supported by a reliable source that meets the criteria here. That includes any award. And remember, I'm a volunteer here, this isn't my day job, so I'm off and on as time allows. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 00:52, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Robb

Ref not delete! I ought to show you my google ref tool maker, takes barely a minute to source the lot. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:19, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

You use firefox? Monobook or Vector? Paste this into your custom java script in your appearance/preferences and hold down cntrl shift and r and it'll put the links to google books and ref maker in you itinary. Ref maker is this. Paste in a google book url and click last name to arrange surnames♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:28, 17 September 2012 (UTC) 


addOnloadHook(function() {
addPortletLink('p-cactions','http://books.google.com//','GB','ca-gb');
});
addOnloadHook(function() {
 addPortletLink('p-cactions','http://reftag.appspot.com/','GB ref','ca-gb ref');
 });

What I do though is have google books open in another tab and simply paste a name into google books and retrieve info and then simply click on the google books ref maker and make instant citations and paste them into the articles. I only manage to add a frightening number of sources and info because of this, I used to hate doing it manually, I try to be as efficient as I possibly can. More guitarist links on Kiefer's page BTW.♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:28, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Forgive me if I'm wrong but I get the impression you are not the most technically minded of fellows. Whenever I mention anything technical whether its guitar theory or coding you seem to shut off! I hate computer jargon and complex maths equations and coding myself but I like to do things which stretch my knowledge and I can work hard on. My IQ test told me I have a mathematical brain type and am a methodical thinker though.♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:30, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Heh, I don't think that's it, Dennis seems to be pretty much offline, and you've posted a lot of stuff that doesn't really require a response. But I for one certainly have made note of the reftag script you mentioned, seems useful! :) Amalthea 21:46, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
  • lol, I'm pretty technical :) I'm at home today, lots of things going on, and need to take a little wikibreak anyway. Wife came home, I threw my special Parm. chicken in the oven, finished Black Mesa while it baked. You know, quality stuff. I'm an old fart and do work with linux admin (since 94), perl, html, live sound, wired my last house, bias my own tube amps, etc., etc., although I'm an autodidact and a generalist in a sea of specialists here, so that side of me doesn't show very often as I'm smart enough to know when I'm outclassed. My real world is nothing but different types of technical. And thank you very much, I put it in common.js and will try it out tomorrow. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 22:18, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Ah, I did look at that link you provided, very, very cool. I use ProveIt, but for books, this is clearly superior. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 22:50, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
Er, OK, you're a technically minded fella! Perhaps your attempts to simplify discussions and provide the voice of reason and seeming to lose interest whenever I mention things technical was why I might have thought that... hope its useful anyway. Have a listen of this when you have time for tone..♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:59, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
I don't lose interest, or don't mean to make it look like I do. Being the jack of all trades that I am, I just clam up when someone more expert than I speaks on a topic, and I take notes. My confidence is in being able to do just about anything competently, but I am surrounded by specialists who put my knowledge to shame in any individual area, and I am aware of this. Truthfully, it is humility, not boredom, as I don't want to speak out of place and look foolish. I often feel like an ordinary guy surrounded by brilliance at enwp. I rather enjoy just being a voice of reason, and happy with that role as it suits me. Oh, and Larry Carlton is quite smooth. I really like his techniques to pull the tone out of the guitar without a lot of digital effects. Reminds me of how I (try to) play, straight forward string technique, let the guitar just talk, just gentle pull offs, slides, hammers and feedback. Very legato. On my third listen, very calming as well. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER

Here's the next track.♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:16, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

His ones with Robben Ford are good. This is cool [2]. Fat bassist is actually Larry's son believe it or not!!♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:39, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
I'd love to be in a band with this guy Richie Kotzen [3]!♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:52, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
Nice. That tele sounds just like my 93, with Custom Shop pickups, running through my older Fender Hot Rod Deluxe, neck pickup. I've owned dozens of guitars, but that is my main guitar. Fat with lots of midrange presence at the neck, slightly crunchy midhighs at the bridge, clangy in the middle.[4] Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 15:50, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

I used to have a Royal blue Fender Tele and it sounds like crap and was horrible to play. I traded it in for a Japanese made sunburst strat with dark neck and black pickguard even though I have a Fender Strat sky blue, my main guitar. The tone on teles for clean/crunch blues and country is usually terrific, I hated mine though, but I've tried other teles in the guitar shop and loved the tone on them. I'm saving up for an Ibanez jazz guitar like Joe Pass used to play, looks like an Es-175. I have a 100 watt Marshall amp, whole street can hear it on 0.5 I've been told!♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:53, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

  • hehe, I've had a few dogs as well. I usually end up customizing anything I stick with. I don't care about the pickups, I just look for a guitar that sounds good unplugged, I can always add good pickups later, but you can't replace the wood. This is why I bought this tele. I didn't even bother plugging it in, knowing it had the stock OEM Mex pickups, but it has wonderful tone unplugged with extreme sustain. I've owned a couple ES335s, several Les Pauls, an SG, Ibanez Iceman, many strats and teles, still have a 76 Gretch, a 56 National student guitar and a pair of mid 60s 'stangs, plus have owned many more. Been pretty spoiled, but I worked for and owned pawn shops over the years past, which helps, and had no other habits nor children, which really helps. I had a full Acoustic brown face stack for years, have a Laney LC50 stack now (dual 4x10s), but usually just use the Hod Rod Deluxe, and maybe one of the 4x10 cabs. Even have an old mid 60s Princeton that I just had recapped. Too bad my tendons don't let me play much any more :/ I did pick up a Warwick 5 string bass a few months ago, and have owned several Ibanez basses, which are exceptional. I played clubs for years and owned my own PA system (several over the years) plus a small lighting rig, nice Pearl trap set, etc, but have sold most of it off. I was pretty active until I hit 40, mainly in 2 bit bands, but it was still a lot of fun. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 17:05, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
    • Just drove home, an hour each way so I pay the 14 bucks for XM radio. As soon as I got in the car, I switched from blues to "Watercolors" (contemporary jazz) and literally two seconds later, Larry Carlton came on playing one of the songs I hadn't listened to today, Sunrise. Ironic timing, to say the least. Been a Larry Carlton day :) Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 20:47, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Indeed. Another Kotzen video, this one's better.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:57, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Libelous assertions by IP99

BACKGROUND: Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of 99.251.114.120

Above, in a hatted thread started by 99.251.149.32, the following comment was made. Rather than interfere with that discussion, I'll respond to the disturbing comment below:

  • Trouble is there a few that display horrid behaviour andblock everything that moves. Look at my case for instance. I have over, what? about 50 or 60 IPs associated with my account. I can tell you honestly that about five of them were actually me. The rest are just a scapegoat kick-dog to rid certain editors of contrary view editors that certain editors ie. GabeMc and Evanh2008 are afraid of in a real pissing contest of logic. You have conpletely disruptive jerks like BullRangifer with his multiple sock names and accounts blocking everything that moves. From my POV I can identify about 20 or 30 IPs that are probably socks of accounts that are too afraid to come forward and say anything negative about these fools currently ruining WP. Have a look at the history of say Evanh2008 or GabeMc for some examples. Any person that has ever complained about their behaviour has been punished for attempting to curb their abrsive/battleground behaviours. Then you have admins like Feezo and Mr Stradivarious that promote this behaviour by removing history of a complaintant posted on one of the abuser's pages. I saw it before it disapeared, shortly after Evanh2008 launched an ANI case against the guy and had him banned. The history demonstrated a complete reverse f the result and somebody should have their pee-pee slapped for that one. Yet if I make an edit on a same page that a suspect from five years back did I get blocked for being a sockpuppet? WP is doomed with this attitude and the rise of the sockpuppets are a result of account editors going underground and getting their last hope of correcting things inserted. WP is currently a fucking joke as it is overrun with sock blocking hyenas ad it is about to get a lot worse until it is ruined. Have them keep shooting everything that moves and the guerilla tactic will increase as it becomes the latest sport. Try reading some non-WP websites about this. The tactics are becoming conversation pieces on how to do it best. What does WP do about it? Block the use of any of those website URLs displaying further dishonesty, and it is very apparent to the clear thinking crowd. Good luck. I would love to help but WP wants me to hate it the best I can rght now. Iahevn't proof read any of thisas I only have disgust for this place, right now and don't want to spend another second of my time. /rant off 99.251.149.32 (talk) 18:57, 17 September 2012 (UTC) (diff)

There are a number of problematic aspects to this comment:

  • A blatent battleground mentality is clearly expressed.
  • They are made by an admitted sockmaster (this is just one of his IPs, and he's admitted to having and using registered accounts as well).
  • This is block evasion. We should be ignoring and blocking on sight.
  • Libelous BLP assertions are made.
  • Also violations of AGF and NPA.
  • Many of the problems and objections in the quote above are caused by the IP themselves. If they would register and behave, there would be no problem. They are likely causing collateral damage to a few other IPs, as well as confirming the existing bias against IP editors. There are an extremely small minority of IP editors who do excellent work, and others who still do good, but, while not all IPs are vandals, the great majority of vandalism is committed by IPs. This one IP editor is screwing things up for the good ones, wasting our time, and creating disruption. They seem to love the battle and game of evasion more than editing constructively.

I'll copy what's relevant to me and comment on it to set the record straight:

  • You have conpletely disruptive jerks like BullRangifer with his multiple sock names and accounts blocking everything that moves.

1. I'm a long-standing and respected editor here. Only an ignorant fool would make such charges.

2. While these statistics don't "prove" anything as regards quality of contributions here, I'll still present them, just as a FYI: Status: "autoreviewer, reviewer, rollbacker, 36607 edits since: 2005-12-18". Watchlist: "You have 7,887 pages on your watchlist (excluding talk pages)." I edit ALL types of articles.

3. No evidence of disruption is presented.

4. No evidence of improper use of socks or accounts either. I have one sock which I used for a few days while teaching a college class how to edit Wikipedia. Certain ArbCom members and oversighters know about it because I informed them. It was a totally legitimate use of a sock, and it's not used anymore. It was a one time thing. Also, my nickname "Brangifer" is not a sock.

5. I'm not an admin, so I can't block anyone! Numerous admins are concerned about the activities of this person. They are the ones who have done the blocking, and good for them!

My objections to the activities of the person behind these IPs is purely on behavioral and policy related grounds, so blame the policies, not me.

Improper and disruptive use of multiple accounts is forbidden, and that includes IPs, especially when used for block evasion and to seek to "avoid the scrutiny of other editors", something which is not allowed here. Such use is very evident and has been admitted by this editor. With few clearly specified exceptions, editors are supposed to keep their contribution histories collected under one account, whether it's a registered one or an IP.

When the use of multiple IPs becomes evident because of disruption (as is the case here), then the editor should register (especially when requested to do so my multiple editors and admins) so that their dynamic IP changes won't cause confusion here. IPs who quietly edit without causing any problems aren't harassed or bothered. They can do good work and are left alone. It's only when IPs are the block-evading IPs of problematic editors that they are noted.

The particular POVs of this editor are pretty much irrelevant to me. I don't edit those subjects. I haven't studied them and I really don't care what sides they're on in any particular issues. Their attitude, OTOH, is very disruptive: They despise Wikipedia, its processes, its editors, and its policies. They love to do battle and evade blocks. As such they don't belong here.

If they aren't man enough to stick to one registered account, defend their actions using civil and collaborative behavior, and take the good with the bad, as the rest of us do, they are cowards and unworthy of a place at the table here.

I do add accounts to a list when a number of different editors email me or notify me of more disruption, and that's totally okay. Many are concerned and watching this editor. Because the editor is obviously avoiding the scrutiny of other editors and evading blocks, we have an obligation and right to keep tabs on them.

It disturbs me that they are allowed to vent here when policy requires that they be blocked and ignored. An admin should not keep a safe haven for such editors. That makes them accessories to the crime and jeopardizes their adminship.

Delete, ignore, and block. Escalate blocks if necessary. These short blocks aren't doing any good. Articles should also be semi-protected.

Okay, now I've vented and set the record straight. What will happen to the block-evading IP editor now? -- Brangifer (talk) 21:56, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

  • There are typically reasons why I do the things I do, and they may not always be obvious at first glance. I'm certain of this. Over half the research I do regarding sockpuppets are not done on en.wikipedia itself, although time has been short the last 24 hours. I'm aware of the various policies, guidelines and essays on adminship, and telling me I'm an "accessory to the crime" and that I'm "jeopardizing my adminship" isn't helpful as well, although I don't take that personal as I understand that you are frustrated at his personal attacks, justifiably. This is why I hatted them. He has been blocked numerous times, and yet he comes back time after time, so blind blocking isn't going to end the problem. And by all means, you don't need to justify yourself or your standing to me, or anyone else for that matter. Only the IP was questioning it, so there is no reason to be defensive with me. I'm fully capable of calmly talking to someone while disagreeing with everything they say, and trying to figure out a way to stop the socking for more than the time it takes him to cycle his cable modem. I know it is frustrating, and I really do understand your perspective, but there is a method to my madness. I had already concluded that he would be blocked if he edits more, but my goal is still convincing him to stop playing this game of cat and mouse. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 22:19, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
Perhaps I should just walk away again but I have nothing to lose, anymore, witnessing your relentless stalking and hounding me with your vengence attitude and behaviour. When I look at your list (probably cut'n paste from your repository) I can fit your behaviour into each and every point, also. If I have provoked an emotional response (obviously) from you, I apologize as such was not my intent but let me say the chest puffing was really entertaining. Reminds me of another editor's exact behaviour. I am really only risking myself one more time to attempt to correct some of the long term effects of actions you profess to be so proud of. Look at the list of sockpuppets you have ammased thinking these are all one person. Would any reasonable thinking peron not agree this is probably one of the most ridiculous display of paranoia pages ever dreamed up by a person? Do you really believe I was all those people? I can tell you 95% of those people accused are not me, and you have hurt many, for no reason and they may never come back to WP. Many will morph into more socks and/or go for vengence against you and/or WP in general because they are pissed off with being treated like a kick-dog. Are you attempting to create job security on WP? Also please note that almost every IP address attributed to this ridiculous list was an editor that commented on the negative behaviour of a particular editor and he cried about it, claiming harrassment, hounding and every other non-collaborative negative he could find. He persists in this behaviour today supported by a few admins to do his bidding and keep any arguments against him from appearing. One was bannedandhis edits removed from edit histories to hide the objection. Enough of that. You will not ever win with your attitude and the long term effect will bring WP to it's knees, as the sport of collapsing WP becomes more popular. There are a few websites out there describing how to do it. I cannot give you URLs for them because WP have blocked their existence from them ever appearing on WP pages in more of its HUHAS approach. Why would editors ever take out an account with a name when their toe wetting sample got them kicked in the shins, insulted, and templated. Permanently banned with a note they were disruptive and shit-heads for attempting to change an error as they were taunted all over the Internet to do with the massive WP advertising forced into their eyesite on web browsers. I know you have an axe to grind with IPs, proudly stated on your personal page but perhaps this is a little misguided and paranoid due to some trangression against you, in the past. Perhaps behaviour should be the main consideration for people to receive your wrath and then it would justify kicking their teeth in before they can type a second word? Some edits are good no matter who made them. I have watched you revert edits, to the dismay of other editors kicking and screaming, that belonged to a perceived sock, only because you want to enforce your preferred method of defending WP. Building WP? Sound more like an emotional issue. I appreciate that you have vented here. Did you ever think other editors need to vent after you huff and puff and blow their houses down too? Funny how you can insult people as much as you want but one word you don't like from another and they are labelled abusive editors and banned for it. Perhaps even the histories will disappear again? Is there any point even attempting to light a candle here? Poor Dennis's page.99.251.149.32 (talk) 18:00, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
  • You know you are a blocked user, you know any admin is obligated to block any known banned/indef blocked user, and I have been tolerant to the degree that others will tolerate from me, so I've have no choice but to block here. Against the protests of others, I have listened and tried to understand, but at the end of the day, I still have obligations assigned to the admin bit that must be fulfilled. You have to understand that what you are doing here isn't constructive and is more akin to vengeance than justice. But there is no justice at Wikipedia, only solutions. Hammering users isn't helpful, forcing me to block you and explain this isn't the best use of my time either. I don't want to have to resort to block after block, seriously, I have better things to do but no choice. You've had the opportunity to express, I've listened, now I'm asking you find another hobby. Maybe in the future you can request the standard offer, but for now I'm asking you show the same respect I've shown you, and just stay away from Wikipedia, drop the stick, and find a better use for your time. It isn't personal, I don't know you so it couldn't be, but what you are doing isn't helping, and you sound like an intelligent enough person to realize that it isn't persuading anyone at this point. I'm trying to actually build an encyclopedia, in my own small way. As flawed as it is, it is still my goal. For now, you staying away helps me in that goal. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 18:14, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Removing merge tags before merge proposal closed

User:Viriditas has removed the merge tags on both pages [5][6]. I believe the removal effects listing on the merge proposals page and effects the work being done there. This was done in a very incivil and challenging manner before the merge proposal has been closed and after ingaging in a disruptive discussion on my userpage.[7].

Should we just delete the whole merger and skip the consensus or return the tags? I don't think the merge proposal has run its course but I will leave that to you. If you feel that simply closing the proposal is easiest and causes the least drama- go for it. Frankly I think the editor should at least be warned that merge tags are not removed while the proposal is still in effect for the reasons mentioned as well as the fact that it appears to be an edit war. If I could block this guy for 24hrs to discourage this behavior I would, but my perception is clouded by anger. Thanks.--Amadscientist (talk) 02:56, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Excuse me, there's no way in a million years this page is getting merged. Do you even know how merging works and when we use it? This isn't it. Viriditas (talk) 03:04, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
User:Oakshade has returned the tags, but Viriditas does not appear to be much concerned with consensus, or merge procedure.--Amadscientist (talk) 03:07, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
I'm not sure what exactly Viriditas is playing at. He twice, on my talk page the other day, accused me of being a sock of some account that blocked over four years ago. I'm not sure where that came from, but I'm not really happy with this users tactics and editing style.--JOJ Hutton 03:09, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
Are you User:TDC? A simple yes or no would do. Your account was created shortly after he was indefinitely blocked, and seems to edit the same set of articles with the same POV. That's a lot of random coincidences lined up like ducks, that's all I'm saying. Viriditas (talk) 03:13, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
First of all, I don't need to answer to you about that. If you wish to open up an SPI, then I will answer there, but your evidence is very weak. I have over 19,000 unique pages that I have at least one edit on, and your only evidence is that we have 63 of those pages in common with the other user. Most of which are notice boards or high traffic, high visibility articles. Thats an insult.--JOJ Hutton 03:25, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
I agree. Therefore, I will assume that you are not TDC. What caught my eye is that you were reverting vandalism on pages previously edited by his sock puppets, which can easily be attributed to chance. Viriditas (talk) 04:08, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
Wikipedia isn't a bureaucracy. There's no consensus for any kind of merge and no rationale for any merge, so my removal of the merge tags was supported by evidence and reality. Feel free to keep adding tags for no reason. Viriditas (talk) 03:12, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Viriditas, a couple of things bother me here. First, if someone starts a merge discussion, let it be if there is any contention in removing the tags. If you think that there is no chance that a merge will take place, then what is lost by the discussion? If others are wanting to discuss a merge, it isn't appropriate to just decide on your own that the discussion is invalid. We aren't a bureaucracy, but it isn't anarchy either. The process was started, either !vote your 2 cents worth or ignore it, but don't unilaterally undermine it. Second point is pretty straight forward as it is something I've said 100 times. Don't use the word "sock" unless you can are filing at WP:SPI. Since sockpuppeting is an policy violation that will get someone blocked, accusing someone flippantly is a harsh form of incivility, and is itself against policy. If you aren't sure enough to file a report, don't make the claim or it might be you who gets sanctioned. This "sock" claim stuff is a particular hot button with me and other admins as it looks like an attempt to undermine the value of someone else's comments in a discussion. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 12:27, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
Just to let you know I am making a formal complaint to User:Black Kite tomorrow against Viriditas for continued personal attacks and Wikistalking. I attempted to do it this evening but it was disrupted and I decided to provide diffs in the next late afternoon to allow me my own time to cool down and regroup.--Amadscientist (talk) 08:31, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

AIV

Good afternoon, Dennis. Would you be able to help out at WP: AIV, as it's currently backlogged? Thanks, Electric Catfish 18:13, 19 September 2012 (UTC).

Thanks for pitching in! We can always use some help there. Electric Catfish 18:30, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

SPI advice requested

Hi Dennis. I've just silverlocked 1996 Garley Building fire against what appears to be a single user on several devices (all the IP addresses used geolocate to the same city and are from the same ISP). I'm not sure what the best course of action is here - should I take it to SPI, attempt to block the individual IPs (pretty pointless), attempt a rangeblock (the IPs are very diverse) or just ignore it since their target is now protected?

"What would Dennis do?" is pretty much my watchword in such situations, but since I don't know what you'd do here, I'm asking...

Cheers, Yunshui 雲‍水 10:18, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

  • SPI really won't be helpful. Those are all static, telecom IPs, ie: cellphone. They couldn't tell you anything you don't already know. It isn't their fault that the IP changes every time they use it. Protecting is about the only thing you can do, as there is no way to block that many ranges either, the IPs are on wildly different ranges, 60.*, 118.* and 175.*. The previous 121.6.92.2 is also the same user, from back in June. You might need to consider longer term protection than just a couple days. If they come back, it might need a month, which may or may not discourage them. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 12:13, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
That's pretty much the conclusions I came to, although I didn't spot the lurker from June. Thanks for the advice. I'll keep an eye on the page; if they resurrect, longer protection can be emplaced. Cheers, Yunshui 雲‍水 12:22, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Editor review/Dennis Brown

I have decided that it is time for me to seek an editor review, since I've been here for 6 years and have yet to do this. I ask for participation, and honest feedback. Obviously, I will not take any constructive criticisms personally, and I am looking for real and honest feedback from my peers, who granted me the admin bit 5 months ago. Feel free to log out and edit as an IP if that makes you more comfortable, as the goal is genuine and thoughtful feedback. And of course, if you would rather not participate, that is fine as well. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 15:12, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) FFS - you passed RfA with flying colors, one of the last notable ones to so in recent memory. You've done an excellent job so far on all accounts (no pun intended). What is the purpose of this? Come back after 7 more months with this review. Doc talk 15:19, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Well, actually I had over 30 opposing votes and had to agree to mentoring on CSD by Boing! said Zebedee ;) And I did spend 3 months doing just that, and had DGG and Boing helping me, and two admins sign off, and I still tread lightly at CSDs. Not every admin nor editor will agree with my methods, which are a little different, and this is just a forum for that. But I appreciate the vote of confidence. The goal is to learn how others perceive me now, mid-journey, and find ways to improve. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 15:46, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
You are doing an excellent job, Dennis, and my only fear is that you truly don't realize it. RfA is a desert replete with even less occasional tumbleweeds, and we don't need to have good admins second-guessing themselves after the fact. Keep up the good work! Doc talk 16:04, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
Listen to your Doctor, Dennis. He clarifies what we all see and read. No second opinion needed! ```Buster Seven Talk 16:45, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
Don't worry, I'm not second guessing myself. As much as I scream about admin accountability, I wouldn't be much of an admin if I didn't openly accept criticism. I'm not insecure in the job I'm doing and my doing things differently is no accident, but I still serve as admin with the consent of the greater community. I just think that every admin should make themselves open for review by both admins and non-admins alike, regularly. If I were doubting myself, I wouldn't create a forum for others to comment at, after all. This is more about engaging the community and letting every person be heard. They have to listen to me comment on their actions all the time, it is only fair they get the same opportunity. I expect it to be rather mundane, actually. I'm quite fixed on the idea that every admin should do this yearly, an obligation from my perspective. But again, I appreciate the votes of confidence. We shall see what it brings. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 16:53, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
You've done wonderfully. My only minor complaint is that you gave up too easily in a specific area of editing that we had both previously associated in. The area could have used some tough love and great swinging of the cluebat. Even now certain editors have felt the need to dance over the gravestone after I left the editing space. I've dealt with that editor, but being an admin means having the mop handle and using it (IMO). Hasteur (talk) 17:33, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Microsoft Security Essentials is now a featured article

We did it!
Microsoft Security Essentials is now a featured article. Thanks for your assistance and support in making it possible. Codename Lisa (talk) 22:39, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Ah, I just congratulated you and Malleus for your teamwork on the article. I knew that working with Malleus would be a positive experience for you. You both worked quite hard on the article and deserve the credit. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 22:42, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Bombing and dumping?

Do you really think harshly admonishing a long-time trusted user like myself over a blocked disruptive IP was the right thing to do? Why didn't the blocking admin mention it to me if it was such a problem? Also, your wording sounded abrupt and cold to me. "Dumped", "bombing"? You sound like you're warning a run of the mill disruptive editor, rather than someone who was just trying to help out. I've seen you around here alot, and that post you just left on my talkpage seems a bit out of character for you. That's the kind of thing that pushes folks away from trying to help, as I've always done in my nearly 4 years here. I guess I'll stick to my articles and assessments in future. The warning was read and understood btw, so I hope you don't mind my deleting it. INeverCry 00:53, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

  • My intention was simply to provide information to you, not to be cold, which is why I didn't use a template myself. It wasn't a sanction but it was necessary to bring to your attention. My assumption was that a pithy note on your talk page would be sufficient to get you to be a bit more careful, as I already knew you were an established editor, but that doesn't exempt you from being asked to not do something that is a problem. Calling edits "vandalism" when they aren't is problematic and is incivil. And it might have let to an unfair block. I didn't make a statement on any other edit you have made, just correc~ting a common problem that, yes, leads to editor retention issues as well. His edits were to replace a primary source with a secondary source, which is not a problem at all. Some of his methods WERE problematic, which I made clear on his talk page. But throwing the label "vandal" on edits that aren't is actually damaging and I see us lose good editors on a regular basis for it, so yes, it is something I am going to leave a message about. You did leave 3 of those template on his page. That is a lot of misguided templates. The one about "disruptive editing" was arguable so I had no problem with it, as it deal with his style rather than content. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 01:03, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
I realize I was mistaken and that my handling of this was a bit fudged. My point is that I was acting in good faith and trying to be helpful, and that you could've been a bit nicer and more understanding about it, instead of coming down hard on me like I'm some vandal myself. From what I've seen of you, I had formed the impression that you were one of the best and most gentlemanly people around here... You've certainly made me regret my attempted helpfulness. INeverCry 01:38, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
Don't worry about any of this Deniss. I'll stick to Commons from now on. INeverCry 01:50, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
You are taking my notice much more strongly that it was meant. There was no personal comments, just an assessment of the situation.[8] I assumed you acted in good faith, but it is still harmful to do that, whether they are an IP or not. I didn't talk about sanctions, I just said it was inappropriate, and not "you violated $x policy!". You did put 4 templates on their page, and looking back, all 4 were mistaken, and you did it in 15 minutes time, which is arguably more blunt than my comment. "Dumped" may or may not be the best way to describe it, but it isn't without some merit when they were spaced an average of less than 4 minutes apart, after all. Still, I expected to make the point, then forget about it. You get the point, that is all I was trying to do. So if you were offended, know that it was certainly not my goal, information was, even if blunt. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 02:22, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
I honestly (and mistakenly) thought the IP was vandalizing those articles, and so I warned him each of those 4 times and then contacted an admin to block him, as I've done in several other situations. In any event, you treated me just like I was an IP myself, with no apparant consideration for the dignity of a trusted editor. I wouldn't have left the same message if I was "informing" a trusted user on Commons about such a simple and no big deal mistake. I've removed my George Crabbe from GAN by the way, in case you ever feel like doing something with it. I also want you to know that I have no bad feelings toward you and that you wont hear from me again. INeverCry 02:47, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Then you've learned something. So have I. Lets just move forward with that, and put the other stuff to the side. There is no reason to leave over a misunderstanding. You say you aren't mad, I'm not mad, let's just go edit some articles. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 03:12, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Thoughts?

A couple projects along a similar vein as the Easy Money essay. [9][10] (see context here Would be interested in your thoughts. The premise is largely based on an AfC system for pre-existing articles. Corporate Minion 14:38, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Aw shucks

I thought my closure of the ANI thread was funnier: "{{archive-top|1=Blocked by (Dum-dum-dum in a Law and Order sound type-thingy) [[User:Barek]] ~~~~}}" ... but we EC'd dangerouspanda 22:25, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

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

dangerouspanda 12:00, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Kwamikagami and Lake Michigan-Huron

Based on the cooperative nature at the article, it seems this might just work. To those of you that disagreed with me, I genuinely and truly understand your frustration and even anger at me for choosing an unconventional approach that I really felt was more equitable in this situation. I admit that my methods are a bit different, and I sincerely appreciate you giving them a chance. If they don't work, I will be the first to propose or support the alternative. I have, and always will, listen to dissenting opinions and take the advice seriously, even when I disagree, and I only ask the same from my fellow editors. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 19:30, 22 September 2012 (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.

Hi - you closed this thread with no mention of the topic ban, would it please be possible for you to confirm whether or not a topic ban is in place? Regards, GiantSnowman 12:38, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

It's going to meet with some resistance due to the wrongness of it, not the boldness. A common error, that one, particularly common amongst the UK's present coalition government. This will be back at ANI soon enough. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 13:15, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
I knew it wouldn't be without controversy, and all I can do is look at the totality of the this situation. It isn't as cut and dry as it appears at first glance and while his actions were certainly problematic, I spent a couple of hours reviewing all the information, on the fence the whole time. It was tempting to just ignore and move on, and certainly would have been easier to do so as I know this will piss off more than a few people. I understand others will disagree and I respect and even understand that. In the end, I have to do what I truly think is the right thing, and in this case, I feel that issues sanctions only to kwami, even with a consensus, is against our basic principles of fairness and equity. As I've never evoked IAR against a consensus before, and hope I never have to again, please know it wasn't done lightly or flippantly, and to be honest, rather reluctantly. I've also left an admonishment on kwami's talk page. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 13:26, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

fwiw, a very wise close DB. And, a spot on message on kwami's talk page. I hope he pays attention to it. --regentspark (comment) 13:30, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

If you think this is a problem now, just wait till Kwami turns his attention to the Missouri-Mississippi River situation. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 13:35, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
No need: it's already standard practice with rivers. — kwami (talk) 13:46, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
Dennis - I know there's an WP:Ignore all rules page but I didn't realise there was also a WP:Ignore consensus page... GiantSnowman 13:51, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
That's because you forgot to include the diacritics :) (just kidding!) --regentspark (comment) 16:52, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Correctly done, I think, although it will not satisfy those whose goal is schadenfreude.

I have to wonder now if Kwami is attracting some negative attention just because of his block record. I started to look at Kwami's block record a while back, and I saw one situation where he was blocked for 3R after he had made no edits for several days, and another block where he had (correctly, I think) removed unsourced material from a BLP. (I myself have left unsourced BLP material alone after removing it once, not wishing to be misunderstood.) Up until the Arbcom thing he seems to have just shrugged it off and concentrated on editing, knowing he had acted within policy. But since then, I think he has seen that blocks can damage his relationship with Wikipedia, and has started to take more initiative in defending his actions. If he becomes involved in yet another action, I would not be surprised if some of these previous blocks get a closer examination. Blocking or banning is not going to solve any problems if it appears to have been done against policy. And yet there are plenty of people who look at Kwami and want to get out the tar and feathers. Something else is needed.

I thought what kwami did in getting more eyes from the geology project was a good move, and in this situation at least, it worked. Perhaps this is something that should be encouraged in the future, and perhaps at an earlier stage in a dispute. Something similar was proposed on the ANI discussion. Kwami sometimes regards other editors as "Randys", but there is more than one way to interpret RS. It is possible they regard him as a Randy too, but are too polite to say so. Perhaps the emergence of Randy is a signal that a situation is becoming too polarized, and needs more eyes.

Kwami has an enormous reservoir of good will here, even among those he has quarreled with. He is an astonishingly prolific editor, maybe in the top 25 or so, in terms of numbers of edits per week. When it comes to languages, everyone agrees he walks on water. And he consistently acts for what he believes is the best interest of the project. While he was busy defending himself at ANI, he was also working behind the scenes to save an article he believed in, and trying different creative solutions to make it work. And it does.

The Project needs editors with these skills, but IMO Kwami needs a way to smooth out these other difficulties. I have given what free advice I am capable of, but I have not edited with Kwami except very briefly, and I am a very inexperienced editor with barely a thousand edits. Perhaps someone else could make more concrete suggestions? Neotarf (talk) 23:10, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

I agree that Dennis did the right thing in closing as he did, even though he knew there would be some blow–back. I respect that sort of courage – to do what's right instead of what's easy. Reading the entire discussion distributed over at least 7 different venues, along with the comments in the topic ban proposal (and not just the support !votes), the consensus wasn't as clear as it might have appeared – at best a consensus formed on false pretenses. I would've closed it in a similar manner. You've made some astute observations Neotarf. As I just said on Kwami's talk page, it appears there's a mob of angry Shylocks who want their pound of flesh from Kwami. I hope we can convince him to adopt a less confrontational style, or I fear people will continue to be quick to take him to ANI. Mojoworker (talk) 23:39, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Recognition

The Admin's Barnstar
While you've already received some criticism regarding your refusal to impose sanctions on Kwamikagami, I’m impressed that you opted for an equitable outcome, mindful of the difficulties involved. Mephistophelian (talk) 14:38, 21 September 2012 (UTC).

Unblocking User:RickWilliams75

Hi Dennis. RickWilliams75 latest unblock request seems to show that he's starting to get the picture, or at least part of it. I'm considering pitching him an unblock deal that would involve him a) shifting out of the GWAR territory he's previously edited in, and b) finding a mentor via Adopt-a-user to keep him on the straight and narrow. However, I don't want to step on your toes here, so I'd like your approval before offering him an out. What do you think? Yunshui 雲‍水 12:18, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

  • I appreciate the note. Any admin is always welcome to unblock someone I've blocked if they feel the circumstances have changed. I am very careful to never "own" my actions, and understand that I'm just one more janitor around here. Any time we can convert someone over from being trollish to a contributor, it is a good thing and at the least, is always worth considering. If you feel this situation warrants the risk, then of course I would have no problem with you using your best judgement here. I would only ask you keep a close eye on the situation for a while to insure the good faith you are granting him isn't in vane. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 12:45, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
Well, if he does use the rope to make a noose, I'll happily take a trout to the face (and slap my own indef on him to boot). I'll make the offer, we'll see what he says. Cheers, Yunshui 雲‍水 14:03, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
As you might can tell, I may not be the only one with an opinion in the matter. I'm easy, not everyone else is. You might consider consulting with User:JamesBWatson, who declined the unblock and by doing so, made it clear he has an opinion. He's got more experience than you and I put together, and someone I have come to trust in these matters. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 21:47, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
Agreed; JBW is probably the person I consult most often about admin matters. I've added to Rick's talkpage a simple series of questions for him to answer in order to address JBW's concerns. Yunshui 雲‍水 07:48, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
Looks like Rick's still trying to claim he was stitched up... I've asked for a clearer response, but I'm not holding out much hope. Yunshui 雲‍水 08:16, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
Just FYI, he's now unblocked and under the mentorship of Chris the Paleontologist. I've mentioned your name to Chris as a possible point of contact if he has any need for administrator input, since you're familiar with the case. Hopefully, however, you will never need to hear about this user again. Yunshui 雲‍水 09:12, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Would you mind taking a look at this?

DB, would you take a look at the thread on Johncheverly on ANI? Thanks--Go Phightins! (talk) 03:54, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, I was in the east coast too...I apparently didn't look in the bottom right hand corner of my screen...lost track of time. Thanks again Go Phightins! (talk) 13:42, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

And this

If you get a minute, could you look into User talk:Camoka5 and the SPI Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Camoka4? User:SudoGhost believes that the user may be a block evading sock, having started editing 3 hrs after the block of SP Camoka4. Similar name, and seems to have very similar issues with similar behavior over similar images...on the same and similar subjects.--Amadscientist (talk) 06:16, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

LOL!, OK. I did notice that the Camoka5 account has not been blocked as a sockpuppet and that the SPI has been closed. This is all new to me and wondered if the other account simply could not be linked or if it was just overlooked, as it stands he can still evade the block as the last account is still open. But i know so little about this process.--Amadscientist (talk) 21:12, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
The tag is a bit odd [11], block evasion rather than sockpuppetry, but it points to the SPI case in the block log. If you use this script in your vector.js, or common.js (my choice) ...
importScript('User:NuclearWarfare/Mark-blocked script.js');
...then you will automatically see every blocked user with their names struck and in italics, and when you mouse over their name, you see why/when/who/howlong. All the cool kids at SPI use it ;) It is more of an admin tool, but anyone is welcome to use it. It is pretty handy as you can look at a page, such as ANI, a talk page, an AFD, and instantly see who has been blocked. I think this is the same one that puts up extra info when you go to a user page as well, ie: when they started, number of edits, etc. under their name. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 21:30, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
Yes...I was a little confused but I think I understand what you are saying above. Could you elaborate on these "cooltools"? I like cool stuff.--Amadscientist (talk) 23:40, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Oh, and the one that tells you all the user rights, edits, etc. at the head of their talk page, is actually: User:MastCell/user-rights.js You can look at my common.js and see the code to import, User:Dennis Brown/common.js. Most of those are useless for non-admins, but those two are actually pretty cool for anyone since they just provide info instantly on someone at their user page and on all pages where they use a sig. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 23:40, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
Wow...I have never seen two posts go up at the same time with the exact same timestamp before.--Amadscientist (talk) 23:41, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
  • hehe, for example, with Mastcell's script, at the top of the page under User talk:Dennis Brown, it will then say "28182 edits; autoconfirmed, sysop" telling you my edits and my rights. Or if you want, I can just create it, add it and you will see. You can delete them or whatever if you don't like them, but I am sure you will. Dr. Blofeld gave me a great script for sourcing as well. Just create User:Amadscientist/common.js and copy the two lines in mine that are mastcells and nuclear's. Blofeld's if you want easier google book searches and citations. It takes a bit more to explain, but it is freaking great for gbooks. I use common.js so if you change the skin at WP, it will still load that javascript code. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 23:45, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Add this to common.js, then go look at a user page, and ANI where there are blocked users. Trust me.

importScript('User:NuclearWarfare/Mark-blocked script.js');

importScript('User:MastCell/user-rights.js');

Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 23:49, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Please create it! Perhaps this will provide a better example then what I am reading? I admit this portion of Wikipedia has always escaped me.--Amadscientist (talk) 23:55, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
Done. reload (F5) and look under my name at the top. That is Mastcells. Then go look at ANI at the crossed out names of blocked users, and float your mouse over the name. Or User talk:Camoka5 above in this thread.  :) Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 23:57, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
Uhm....I'm going to have dinner and feed my brain. I think it is going to need it for this! LOL! Be back shortley.--Amadscientist (talk) 00:03, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
No problem :) Best to exit out your browser and restart, so it will load the javascript properly. These two just provide information, no new functions, but it is very good info. Every user's talk and user page will instantly tell you about them, and now every blocked editor in a discussion will be obvious because their name will be crossed out on the page after it loads, and mousing over their name will tell you who blocked them, how long, etc. Think I will go do a little gaming while you eat... Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 00:07, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
HA! I love it! Very cool indeed....and very useful! Thank you!--Amadscientist (talk) 01:53, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
So...is infinity longer than indefinitely? LOL! ;D --Amadscientist (talk) 01:55, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
Funny the difference food makes. LOL! Before dinner I looked at your reply "[R]eload (F5) and look under my name at the top. That is Mastcells"....and thought...what the...? After dinner I looked at that and thought...well of course F5 key to reload page. Although I understand to look under your name and see the info, what is "Mastcells" for clarification?--Amadscientist (talk) 02:53, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
Nope...nevermind. I understand that part as well now! Thanks again.--Amadscientist (talk) 05:04, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
No problem, I knew you would find those two particularly useful. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 12:26, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
Wow, I'm glad I stalk this page from time to time. Those are pretty cool. Another tweak I've found is at User:Adjwilley/common.css. The first one there removes the [Rollback] links that clutter the Watchlist. (This can be useful if you check your watchlist from a touchscreen device and want to avoid accidental rollbacks.)
@Amadscientist: The math person inside of me tells me that infinite is a subset of indefinite, and that infinitely is longer than most indefinitelies :-) ~Adjwilley (talk) 22:23, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Admin with a smile

Hi Dennis, I believe people who smile without difficulty are good people; very possibly also good admins. (I saw a dialogue between you and a Kaz and appreciated very much your goodwill and patience.) After all this introduction I am not going to ask anything from you for myself but for another user, User:Mttll who is blocked, together with another user, for an edit war. I decided to ask your help because while those two were edit fighting, it was me who asked a page protection and thus without intending anything like that I attracted the attention of the admins to the concerned article which resulted in two "harsh-ish" blocks. I feel bad about it and kindly request you to read the user's review request in his TP and if you are not impressed, like me, by his sincereness (I hope this is the case) in expressing his repentance don't do anything. But please look at the case as I know these rv requests must be taken care of by another admin who did not block the user. Thanks in advance for your time and all the best. --E4024 (talk) 21:28, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

  • I've dropped a note on the blocking admin's talk page asking him to offer an opinion here before I consider it further. I tend to be open minded here but there are several things that I would need to make clear, and hear from him before I would unblock him. And if there are strong feelings against it by the blocking admin, I would request input from the 3rd admin first. I will leave a note to this effect on the users talk page. I'm not promising to unblock him, only to diligently consider it. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 21:50, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
  • And if he learns what he needs to learn and can be unblocked without repeating the problem that led to his block, yes, that will put a smile on my face ;) Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 22:06, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
    • To be honest I don't really feel strongly either way...I would much rather an editor learn and improve than to just lock them out hoping they get the message. The way you spelled it out on my talk page works just fine for me. Ks0stm (T•C•G•E) 04:08, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi, I noticed the message you left on User talk:Ks0stm. Just to be clear that Mttll's 1RR applied to Turkey only, and he has more or less stuck to it (more or less meaning there was one borderline case which I decided to ignore because it was borderline). I realise the block log doesn't specify this and reads like he was on 1RR for every article, so that's my bad. I'm happy to endorse his unblock request as long as there's some concrete 1RR agreement. It looks like you have the same idea, so that's good. Thanks. – Steel 01:31, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Please note that E4024 was tag-teaming with Mttll [12] (two quick reverts without any talkpage discussion), which is probably why he is lobbying for him to be unblocked. As for Mttll, he has been editing since 2008 and has been blocked for edit-warring many times, so I find the claim that he "didn't know" he was edit-warring highly disingenuous. Athenean (talk) 11:30, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Final note: I've left a message on his talk page with the requirements. Like I told him, I am quick to forgive, but I hold everyone fully accountable for their actions, and he needs to understand that the next edit warring block will be somewhere in the 3 month to indef time range. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 16:37, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Can you

Auto confirm this account for me please? I currently am unable to edit me main account talk page and wish to remove a personal attack. This is Darkness Shines btw. Nihil Novi Sub Sole (talk) 23:00, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

  •  Done along with rollbacker since that might be handy for an alt account. (after verifying this was really DS, of course) I assume this is a security alt, so didn't see a reason for autopatrol rights. Also had to go look up how to give rights, not something I've done much of. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 23:30, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
Thank you, and will work on what you advise, I get quite annoyed by certain things though Darkness Shines (talk) 08:08, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
The thing is, I don't question your faith or intelligence, but you undermine the authority in your arguments and you lose the power to persuade when you do stuff like that. In short, the gruff (or just rude) manner is literally making you have to work harder and fight more. I don't care about the occasional fuck/shit/goddamn, as in the real world with friends, I swear as much as the next guy. This isn't about me trying to correct you "admin to editor", this is about me trying to make a point and help you, editor to editor. Some words should be used sparingly (hypocrite, fool, etc) if at all, and when you use them all the time, it dilutes your message, as well as reduces the impact of using them in the rare instance it is appropriate. Again, I say this not as a peacemaker, but as someone who thinks you are shooting yourself in the foot, making yourself look less capable and less intelligent than you really are. Speaking clearly and rising above the frustration makes it easier for others to trust your judgement. This will actually help you and make your work here less stressful. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 18:00, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
I get what you are saying, and why you are saying it. But that guy gets on my tits. He along with his socks kept an article a stub for seven years, I rewrite it using academic sources and now I am the bad guy as far as he is concerned. He thinks I am not neutral, he probably thinks me one of the Al-Ahbash group. I had never even heard of the bloody group until it came up on the 3RR notice board. I personally thought I had done a half decent job rewriting it. Stuff like this is beyond me, I should have left it a stub and he and his socks could have continued to own it forever I shall take your advice, and think before I type. You are one of a small group of admins whom I respect BTW, I should hate to disappoint your faith in me. Thank you. Darkness Shines (talk) 20:30, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
Let me share one last tid-bit: One of the reasons I've enjoyed the ears of so many around here is that you never know who gets on my nerves and who doesn't. I keep my cards close to my vest, so outside of vandals/socks/trolls, you really have no idea how I feel about much of anyone. But I assure you, I have no less emotion that you about some people, but I find it serves my purposes better to keep emotion out of it, and in return, others don't discount my opinions due to my personal feelings. If you have a good argument (and you usually do) you would be amazed how how persuasive it can be when there is no question that it is based in logic and reason, and not an emotional reaction. When I learned how to do this, an amazing number of doors opened up for me. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 20:37, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Doncsecz/Archive

I think you moved all the Stubes99 archive by accident. Sorry if I confused the mess at all. Let me know if you have questions. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 15:23, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

this doesn't really belong on Bbb23's talk page anymore, but you should know....

We disagree, which is fine as there is room for all opinions at Wikipedia. I am still forced to act based on my beliefs, however, as I feel it is what is best for Wikipedia. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 16:43, 24 September 2012 (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.

There is no previous consensus that prohibits IPs from hatting AN/I discussions; if it's a legit closure, the account or IP address responsible is immaterial. You don't get to presume based on the IP address or account name responsible. There has been, previously, an explicit consensus to that effect, but I'm too lazy to find it right now. 24.177.121.137 (talk) 23:00, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for removing it from my talk page. On the surface, what you say has some appeal, but if you ever have the energy, I'd love to see the "explicit consensus". As an observed matter, though, I don't think I've ever seen an IP close a discussion at ANI, and I'd be curious to know if it's ever happened, and if it has, how often. Generally, non-admin closures at ANI (and I used to do them before becoming an admin) are done by very experienced editors. Of course, if you have a static IP address assigned to you, and you have a lot of experience, and for whatever reason prefer not to register, then I suppose such an IP could reasonably close a discussion at an administrative board. But it's not surprising that such a closure would be met with some surprise and skepticism. I might add that you do not have a static IP address (based on a Geolocate), and that you did not start using this IP address until a couple of days ago, meaning that whatever experience you have gained at Wikipedia has been either as other addresses or other accounts.
And on a related issue, as you well know, I recently blocked you for violating a 1RR Arbcom restriction. And although you clearly have Wikipedia experience, or you wouldn't articulate things the way you do, some of the things you said at ANEW before the report was decided were, if I recall correctly, way off, i.e., that a reporter at ANEW couldn't be blocked, that any coments about you were off-topic. I might also add that experienced editors don't remove the kinds of material you've removed from your talk page, not that you've violated any policy in doing so, it's just something that isn't typically done.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:30, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
And now it's more appropriate at my talk page, I suppose, but very briefly:
  • I'll try to find the diffs from last time I hatted an AN/I discussion later. There was spirited discussion.
  • I still don't see any reason to restrict discussion-hatting to experienced editors. Either the hat is legit, in which case it doesn't matter who is responsible, or it's not, in which case you should revert.
  • I was trying to disengage from the discussion with that editor, who had repeatedly personally attacked me. I'm aware that my actions are relevent to the EW discussion; however, the majority of the diffs that were provided were not, in fact, reverts. I never said that a reporter at ANEW couldn't be blocked.
  • A lot of them have archive bots to do it. I do it manually. It's all still there in the edit history.
If you'd like to continue this, please relocate it to my talk. Apologies to Dennis. 24.177.121.137 (talk) 23:40, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

(od) For both of you: Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)/Archive_71#Only_admins_should_be_allowed_to_close_discussions_on_WP:AN is directly on point. The consensus was that anyone may close discussions on AN. 24.177.121.137 (talk) 23:45, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

  • You have a dynamic IP, taking it to your page seems pointless. All I can tell you is what I will do, and what others will do, and what will hold up to consensus. Many people only want admins closing discussions and I have made it clear that many non-admins are fully capable. Once in a while an IP will close one and I make no issue of it if they are accurate, but no, in general I don't want IPs closing discussions. They are admin boards for a reason: For everyone to participate in, and admins (and editors shown to be just as effective) to clerk. If an IP starts closing a bunch of discussions, they will be asked to stop by one of many, many different people. If they continue, they will be blocked. If they appeal it, to WP:AN, the proper place for community appeals, it will be upheld. I'm quite sure of this. You might not like it, but admins are responsible for insuring the process is in the best interest of the community, and having unaccountable people continually closing discussions is counter to that responsibility. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 23:56, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
(edit conflict) @24., thanks for finding the discussion. However, first, I wouldn't call it a spirited discussion. It was brief, no IPs contributed, and no one addressed an IP closure, just non-admin closures generally. Second, removing material from your talk page isn't manually archiving it. Archiving is normally done on a dated basis, not on a selective basis. In any event, as far as I know, an IP cannot create an archive - another advantage to registration. And you pretty much said you couldn't be blocked for violating 1RR. You were accused of doing so, and you responded: "This isn't about me. If you can find diffs supporting that contention, they go in a different section."--Bbb23 (talk) 00:07, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
    • An IP can't participate at ArbCom or RfA either. In spite of what everyone has read in that dreadful essay, IPs are not people. They are addresses, used by people. They are no more a "people" than my telephone number is me. They are not anonymous, but actually less anonymous than using a registered account. They can be used by one person for a year, or hundreds of people in a week, which is why they are unaccountable. This is why IPs shouldn't make a habit of closing discussions. When I see an IP close a discussion, I am forced to read through the whole discussion to verify the close. When I see a familiar name, I am not forced to do so. This is one reason why lots of IP closes would be disruptive. WP:DE clearly says that in order to be disruptive, it isn't required that the disruption is intentional, so it isn't a matter of faith. Some of the best edits we get are from IPs, as well as a good amount of thoughtful and insightful input at the many boards, but the role of clerking, maintaining Wikiepdia (mopping up), should be left first to admins, then trusted editors. It isn't about IPs being "good enough", it is about admins being vetted via RfA, and being accountable for their actions. I can't just cycle my cable modem and get a new identity: an IP can, so we can't trust that identity to maintain the place, excepting once in a blue moon. This is a completely different thing than editing, where I completely support IPs being able to edit just like a registered editor. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 00:15, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Bbb23: That wasn't actually the discussion I had in mind, just the most obvious search result. Second, long-established policy allows me very broad lattitude in deciding what stays and what goes as it relates to my talk page. I don't see a point in archiving, when older material can always be found in the page history. Lastly, what I said wasn't that I couldn't be blocked for 1RR, just that I thought his accusations should go in a different section.
Dennis: Your opinion, which I respect, doesn't establish a consensus, and is in conflict with previously established consensus. You may not want IPs closing discussions, but it's not up to you.
Both of you: I don't see that there's anything more to discuss here, so peace out. 24.177.121.137 (talk) 00:22, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Block evasion/socking

And another, block evasion sock. Thanks for all your help with this issue. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 02:16, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
Thanks once again Dennis! ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 02:34, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Invitation to RfC

Hi Dennis. As you are involved in editor retention, I wanted to invite you to participate in an RfC regarding adding color differentiation to Wiki markup, particularly towards references. You are welcome to participate whenever you are able. I, Jethrobot drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 05:20, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Page Curation newsletter

Hey Dennis Brown. I'm dropping you a note because you used to (or still do!) patrol new pages. This is just to let you know that we've deployed and developed Page Curation, which augments and supersedes Special:NewPages - there are a lot of interesting new features :). There's some help documentation here if you want to familiarise yourself with the system and start using it. If you find any bugs or have requests for new features, let us know here. Thanks! Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 12:31, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Shawn Lane

Just been studying Shawn Lane's video on youtube. Some excellent ideas. I've been working out and drawing up a tab for his likes in here, especially the F# harmonic minor lick and the G mixolydian lick nearer the end see this.♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:43, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

  • I wish I had taken the time to study more theory. I learned how to sight read vocally in high school, but not playing guitar or piano, and never used guitar tab (gasp!). That said, I use a variety of different scales (not even knowing the proper names) and spent half my music career doing fill in work in country/rock/blues bands, literally winging it the whole show, by ear. Although competent, I'm the proverbial hack who plays by ear, not ignorant of theory, just not well versed. I used to write down progressions by number relative to the root for instance, so I could transpose them easier. Ok, maybe I am ignorant. ;) I did keep me busy and paid the bills, however. Oh, and I use a lot of triads. Lots. Not sure why, but it is a natural part of my style for some reason. Even when drumming. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 13:01, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Yeah I wished I hadn't have been intimidated by tab when I started too, I used to find it very difficult learning from tab. Still find it difficult to get it perfect but I'm getting better and I think studying and learning pieces is one of the most important things you can do to improve, aside from listening to other musicians themselves and learning from them..♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:58, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Request to look at an WP:ANI discussion

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is User:Urklistre. Thank you. --Indrek (talk) 14:22, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Clarification

re: your post at AN about Zscout: I assume by "accept compensation for being an admin" you mean "accept compensation for being an editor"? I don't think you mean to accuse him of doing the former. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:12, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

It is time (WP:Conservatism).

I think that the discussion at WP:Conservatism has drawn on long enough. If this keeps up, it will simply degenerate into more vitriol, and even more of a waste of time. I think now is the time for official action. Perhaps, then, we can have some kind of civil and useful discussion, using the rigidity of the formal process to keep some kind of order (on both sides). I don’t think it is productive to keep going back and forth as we have. RGloucester (talk) 22:10, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

  • I've already begun drafting an RfC. This takes time, as you have to present an argument, be pithy, and have lots of diffs. I've not crafted an RfC before, although I have some experience with the US legal system. Plus, it is important to state the case clearly and powerfully, without adding irrelevant material. The problem is "what are you asking for?" and I'm starting to think that "change" won't be possible even if it was agreed to, as it can just be ignored until someone thinks no one is paying attention anymore. Too easy to game. I may email you a draft in a day or two, or sooner if you like. When I write, it undergoes a lot of changes, so I prefer the initial drafting and gathering of points to be on the desktop. I agree that at this point, all the good faith that can be extended, has been, particularly concerning the founder. I emailed Lionelt, ygm on his talk page. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 23:59, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Possible sock?

Hey Dennis Brown,

I've seen you around at SPI. However, I'm not sure what to do here. An editor who seems to be a sock has been editing Wikipedia and possibly followed me around, but I don't know who they'd be a sock of to file an SPI report about. I have a possible inkling, but I don't really have much substantive proof for it, and it'd be wrong to get them involved here if it's not really them, and I don't want to be accused of fishing either.

Perhaps you can check out the case, and see what can be done? The editor is User:Smithsonianshouse, their countributions are here. As you can see, besides for 2 edits on their own page, their only other edits consist of commenting on an ANI thread that I opened, commenting on the talk page of an article I'm involved with, and revert an edit of mine on another article.

Thanks. --Activism1234 23:44, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Hey Denis, I hope all is well. Have you gotten a chance to check out the editor? Thanks. Once again, no rush. --Activism1234 16:50, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

My Man Is A Loser

Thank you for responding to my inquiry about My Man Is A Loser below (original post below - with your response.). Actually, we have gotten a lot of third party credible publications in the movie industry to talk about our movie. I was hoping to be able to resubmit it w/o any quotes, comments from the producer website.

Deadline - the movie industry's bible also did a story on it. We have plenty of credible third party sources to site. Celebrity magazines / publications have done stories on the movie - Star Pulse, Yahoo! OMG, Celebuzz!, Indiewire wrote about it, etc. These sites have millions of users.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Dockkcod (talk • contribs)

  • While it isn't the fast way to create an article, WP:AFC is probably the safest, in that they will help point out flaws and shortcomings and is likely the best place for new article creators to begin new articles, plus learn some of the more confusing rules on sources and notability. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 14:10, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

favor

Would you consider protecting Goodenough College please? There's an IP registered to that institution that keeps adding massive unsourced info about living folks. I've reverted the edits a couple of times and tried communicating with the editor, but my explanations were completely ignored. I feel it would be inappropriate to use my admin stick in this case. Thx. Toddst1 (talk) 16:02, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

  • I've left them a warning about adding unsourced BLP material. I can't use semi-protection on the article, as that would be against policy. I can only use protection when more than one IP is vandalizing or causing other disruption. Since this is one editor, the solution it to warn, then block if needed. I know protection is simpler and easier, but it would be considered an abuse of admin tools, ironically, as it would be using protection to favor one party. There are a lot of rules for us admin. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 16:14, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Request for a pre-RFA review

I noticed you listed at WP:RRN and that you have been providing very detailed (and transparent, being on wiki) reviews of editors considering an RFA. Time permitting, I was hoping you would consider reviewing my suitability. Thanks, Monty845 17:31, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

  • Um, I really thought you already were an admin! Never bothered to check. Sure, I will be very happy to review you. It takes several days as I like to dig and be as thorough as possible. I'm still developing it into a better science, but you can see previous examples at User:Dennis Brown/RfA. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 17:50, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Two things that might help right now: 1, you want to enable CSD and PROD logging in Twinkle. 2, what areas in particular do you think you will be stating as the areas you would most want to work in? Obviously no one is bound to this, but it is asked at RfA. I foolishly said CSD and you probably remember how that went over. ;) Also, if there any other projects you want me to take note of or want to explain, ie: work at commons, tell me here. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 18:44, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
Regarding point one, have both logged at User:Monty845/Twinkle log. Regarding point two, if I were to pick a couple areas of initial focus, it would likely include SCV, CSD (With a particular focus on A7, G3, G10 and G12) AFD and AIV. That does unfortunately include many of the hot button areas that spawn RFA controversy. I have pretty limited participation at other projects, so nothing in that regard. I would note regarding AfD: the AFD Statistics tool misidentifies some of my work; I have created the pages where a number of AfD nominations from IP editors (and a few others) were made or moved to, and the tool incorrectly assumes I'm the nominator as a result. Monty845 20:25, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
Actually, previous experience in hot button issues and a known track record of keeping cool is a plus. Very likely, it is what passed me at RfA, working in the MMA dispute area, ANI and just personal disputes, as well as a long track record of AFD work (almost 1600 back in the dark days of AFD drama). It is more likely to win you fans since they have already seen you under less than ideal circumstances. This is one of the problems I have with some candidates, no track record in the heated areas to judge by, so the voters have no clue how they will react in a drama filled dispute. I haven't managed to work my way into SCV yet but it is on my list. I'm still cutting my teeth at SPI, which (for me) will help me in these other venues, but there is a bad shortage of admin help in SCV, so that is a positive as well. I might ask a couple admins there to offer an opinion, if you don't mind. I still have some digging to do, to find anything that someone else would find. Disclosing the bad stuff up front is important, if there is any. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 21:59, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Rick Hendrix

I am not sure how to leave a message for you on this. You say I am mad and upset, I am not angry. I dont care I will delete it now. I have nothing to gain by making this page.This is the only page I have ever built or attempted to run. I guess what I fail to see is everyones opinions of notable or how to write a true biography. I think wiki has too many people that continue to cut and hack this article. Hendrix is a musician and writer with several number one songs and IS on the Order of the Long Leaf Pine website for receiving the award in 1993 ( I just checked)!!! I keep getting called a liar and vandal. I don't personally care about Rick Hendrix, I just do not wanna be called a liar and vandal. Charlotte Observer wrote an article calling him a HERO as one of their reporters witnessed Rick Hendrix homecoming to Granite Falls to receive the cities first key and a gold record from Diamond Rio. Streets were closed,business were closed, WBTV WSOC TV all were on hand for this and ran local news stories about his homecoming. These articles are in Charlotte Observer archives 12/11/1994 Reporter April Spann talks of a Family Channel special about Rick Hendrix by Pat Robertson in Charlotte Observer and his receiving first gold record for promoting Diamond Rio. Washington Post ran Rick Hendrix is the Democratic parties biggest evangelist and strongest arm to seat Obama. This is a guy that sat on Hillary Clintons faith board for her run for US President and it isn't notable? Billboard ran he was nominated for album and song! ALL of this keeps getting removed. I am not sure how to even win with these sources being called UNRELIABLE!! At some point I have to believe its more than just wiki here. One person said being nominated and NOT winning an award isnt news. OF COURSE it is!!!! They all tag if they get a website update banner or sticker on wiki and they think being a top 5 nominee out of 4500 songs in a year isnt news from Gospel Music biggest organization in the world GMA? This guy is the national promoter for Bill Gaither and Gaither Vocal Band and on and on. He was in Country Weekly for bringing Elvis Back to the market and that was removed as fluff. I didn't say it Country Weekly did...What else can I say? I am seriously asking that question. I am at a loss of what to do but delete the page...Thanks

Dalestorian (talk) 18:32, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

  • When I say "notable", I don't use my definition or your definition, I use Wikipedia's, which is covered at WP:GNG. Many notable events don't prove notability as the requirement for that guideline. You talk about great sources, but you haven't actually provided them. I did an extensive search for his name on the Long Leaf website, and didn't find it. You say it is there, but you don't provide a link to it. That alone wouldn't be enough to have an article, btw. We have tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of articles that are biographies here, so we have a fairly strict set of rules that regulate what can and can't be said, both for accuracy, and to protect the individual themselves. It all boils down to sources. If you provide the date and title of the newspaper article, it can be verified. Speaking of verified, we have a policy on that as well, WP:V. I know the policies seem daunting at first, but they exist for a reason. And I personally spent a great deal of time trying to verify the information on him, and while I'm not perfect at it, most would consider me fair experienced at doing so. Yet I found virtually nothing, and even information that contradicted the information in the article, forcing me to clean it up and send it to AFD. It is no different than I would treat any other article: Try very hard to prove notability, then send it off for discussion if I can't. It isn't personal, it is simply that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Would Encyclopedia Britannica have had an article on him? Doubtful. We are more lenient, but we still have bars that must be passed. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 18:41, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
    Why would anyone pass a bar? Hic! Malleus Fatuorum 00:21, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
    Thanks to you Malleus, I'm learning how to communicates more betterer, and better grammar. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 00:28, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
    Some one once called me the reviewer from Hell, and I know exactly what she meant, as I'm quite intolerant of not quite good enough. Anyway, sorry for hijacking this thread; normal service will now be resumed. Malleus Fatuorum 00:35, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
    [talk page stalker]This seems to be a riff off of "raise the bar" [13] a common, fairly recent, and apparently American idiom. Neotarf (talk) 01:05, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
    "Raising the bar" is a common idiom in the country of your colonial masters as well, but not "passing the bar". Malleus Fatuorum 01:13, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
    I always enjoy and take something from the exchange, Malleus. And I had to look twice to make sure he said "idiom". I'm still quite the student when it comes to proper communication. Sometimes I miss a gear when my thoughts travel from my brain to the fingertips. Even I have to laugh at it sometimes. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 01:18, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Passing the bar? Isn't that Dickens? O, wait...that's crossing the bar. Gtwfan52 (talk) 01:52, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

According to my encyclopedic knowledge of American idiom, the phrase you were looking for is probably "make it over the bar". My bill is in the mail; please pay promptly to avoid late fees. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 02:01, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
American law students have to "pass the bar" before they can practice law.Neotarf (talk) 02:10, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

For you're a jolly good fellow and a very good admin

Here: delicious Turkish rice pudding for you
You deserve this and more for being kind and understanding to people and for listening to them and believing in their good faith. Enjoy it... E4024 (talk) 20:06, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Rick Hendrix

NOT sure what you are looking at but here it is in the link below -Rick Hendrix is clearly on this page. Again, everything I prove you find another reason to disapprove. Billboard Magazine,Washington Post, 700 Club, Gospel Music Association,Charlotte Observer, Country Weekly, FOX News,North Carolina GOVERNOR, WBTV News and all are not reliable sources. The guy has served with Hillary Clinton and written 3 # 1 songs and you consider him not a bio. And to answer your question no Britannica would not add Rick Hendrix but they also would not let you edit their content either. This is wiki and it is for somewhat notable achievements and people. I have read and he meets the guidelines.

http://www.longleafpinesociety.org/roster/hawke-henson.html

Dalestorian (talk) 23:58, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

  • I missed that some how. Again, I am not sure that actually qualifies him as "notable" by itself, that is a matter of opinion, but if you add the cite with the fact and make a note of that at the AFD, others can consider it. It doesn't change my opinion but my opinion is only one. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 00:02, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

I have no clue how to add to the AFD site

Not sure how to add any comments. it doesnt show me any talk area?

Dalestorian (talk) 00:18, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

  • The AFD discussion for this particular article is at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rick Hendrix. Don't click the EDIT at the top of the page, click the one below it. It isn't exactly intuitive, I understand. the proper format would be this:


*'''Keep''' your reason here. ~~~~


Just copy and paste that at the bottom, obviously replacing "your reason here" with your reason. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 00:31, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Another review request

I see you've been asked for a review by another user above, so please finish that one first, but I would appreciate it if you could do the same thing for me. I know I'm not ready to run for adminship anyway, just based on an my amount of time as an editor, but I think going through the process of getting some feedback will be a helpful precursor to a possible future RfA and also an opportunity to improve as an editor in general. AutomaticStrikeout 03:40, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

  • Have you considered doing just a standard Editor review? I'm actually there myself under review. I would recommend this first, since you've been here less than a year. It has been a very busy year for you, however, almost 10k edits. I also participate in those these standard reviews for other people when they ask me. It allows for you to put a tag on your user and talk page (some do in the sig "review me") and get feedback from a wide variety of editors, typically over a one month period. The type of reviews I do are pretty detailed and techncial based but you can use the RFA/RFB template {{RfA/RfB Toolbox|USER NAME HERE}} on your user page as well (one of the options requires an opt in for monthly stats). That is the same RFA/RFB template used at RFA, of course, and just provides easy links to your afd performance and other metrics. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 05:44, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
I actually had an editor review recently and only got feedback from one editor, Newyorkbrad. As far as I know, it's not closed, so here's the link. AutomaticStrikeout 13:31, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
  •  Done without digging too deeply into individual edits, I've left you a relatively comprehensive review based on the technicals, which should provide you with some guidance as to preparing for an RfA in the future. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 17:14, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for your time. I appreciate your insightful and rather thorough review and I hope I will be better for it. AutomaticStrikeout 17:23, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
No problem, I never mind helping out when I can. You are definitely pointed in the right direction. I'm getting the technical aspects of the reviews down to a science now, and can generate that part pretty fast and easy. It is always behavior that takes to long to determine, but I've seen you around to know that you are pretty level headed. Again, ping me when it gets to the one year mark, if you will fill in some of the blanks in your experience, I would bet your chances will be pretty good at RfA at that time. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 21:53, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Dennis Brown. You have new messages at Gtwfan52's talk page.
Message added 06:17, 26 September 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Gtwfan52 (talk) 06:17, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Changes at Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources

This post was originally left at User:TParis who is off until Friday

User:Waveclaira began making major changes to Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources [14] that I reverted and attempted to discuss on the talkpage with this new editor. They began to get a little demanding and way off on policy and guidelines...so much that I was VERY concerned about this persons content changes that removed BLP caution warnings among many other things and claimed these changes were minor. I warned the editor several times.

I admit to having reverted over the 3RR and claim the exemption #7. - Removal of libelous, biased, unsourced, or poorly sourced contentious material that violates the policy on biographies of living persons (BLP). This is a weak defense and possibly even incorrect I admit and submit myself to your judgement, but take a look at the changes before you do. I leave this in your hands. Thank you.

The editor has now disrupted DR/N. [15].--Amadscientist (talk) 08:19, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

This is just another example of the issues with this new editor:[16]--Amadscientist (talk) 10:41, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
    • In the future, you really need to not break the 3rr limit and ping an admin earilier. Plus, if it is "wrong" for a few hours, it isn't preferable but it isn't the end of the world. Remember, some are trigger happy at 4RR, and as much as I hate it, policy backs them. I think there is more going on here than meets the eye. The first edits of a new account often are the most telling. I need to do some digging and comparing.... Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 11:27, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
Understood. I let the horse out of the barn and couldn't reign it. I would undstand if you felt it necessary to apply sanctions. While I regret my actions and have admitted my own mistake, it reflects badly on all the projects I work with. If you feel it best, I will voluntarily take 48 hours off Wikipedia as a self applied sanction.--Amadscientist (talk) 11:47, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
Self flagellation is unnecessary and not helpful. We all screw up, just move on and try not to do it again. (Even if an editor does get a 3rr block, they could easily get unblocked with a good unblock request.) Nobody Ent 15:01, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
Nah, you came here, I understand your frustration, you didn't hide or deny or cop an attitude. The other editor's actions explains it, but it doesn't justify it, and you get that point. When it comes to 3rr we try to be blind to the content itself unless it fits one of the exemptions, which this doesn't. We all have crossed the line with 3rr, myself included, I just don't want to see someone else block you for technically breaking a rule when you were trying to do something good, which is why I just noted to bring it to someone earlier, or live with a bad version if you can't find an admin online. Consider this admonishment your sanction, as the goal is to stop and prevent future instances, which has been accomplished. Circumstances matters, and this is very different than a revert war on a POV edit or reliable source on an article. What I'm more focused on is the unusual history of the other editor. I'm at home with severe back pain, so the meds will likely slow me down a bit today, but I will try to do some research on him. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 12:03, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
Have to do this the old fashioned way. I asked him if he had previous accounts. I also added a note on the policy page to stop the warring and get a consensus. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 12:27, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
The phrasing implies you assume they have other accounts. Better to post as a neutral interrogative in the opening ... AGF and all that. Obviously it's not going to matter in this particular case. Sorry about the back. Nobody Ent 14:59, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
  • I didn't assume they have multiple accounts, I'm quite sure of it. Often, someone is unaware of the policies on multiple accounts, which I would have been willing to explain. My goals was to find out the nature of the other account(s), not to determine if they exist. The contrib history alone is pretty clear. That isn't automatically a violation, perhaps they used to edit only as an IP. Possible but not probable. There is other evidence that hasn't been disclosed yet, and other opinions that concur. Their reaction to my question is also quite telling. I can promise you I didn't jump to conclusions without doing a great deal of research first, and I'm still not done connecting dots nor have I drawn a final conclusion, outside of the fact that they aren't "new". That they are being disruptive, however, is a fact, and seems to have earned them a block by another admin. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 16:27, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Oh, and good to see you found some time to help us out here. I know you have been really busy in the real world, and any time you have to help out is helpful. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 16:31, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
Sorry to hear about the pain. I am about to take my Gout meds and watch my eyelids for the next 8 to 9 hours. Night...er morning.--Amadscientist (talk) 12:33, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

If it looks like a duck, acts like a duck and sounds like a duck........then it is probaly Dualus. Certainly fits the behavior, thats for sure.--Amadscientist (talk) 23:42, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

  • I had already contacted a CU, and while Dualus's records were stale, there was enough prior linkage to determine both came from the same geolocation. Even without CU, their contrib history is textbook sockpuppet, without question. Not every request happens on-wiki and an official SPI isn't required. I'm exceedingly careful about throwing around claims and don't ever without reasonable evidence, the same as I expect from others. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 00:04, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
  • I understand the caution, but can't help but agree with the assesment. I am no expert on Dulaus (then again...maybe I am. LOL!) but this fits into his pattern almost like a custom fit. Regardless, the situation for me has been something of a teachable moment. No one has ever gotten my goat so much as Dualus and this editor...and done in almost the exact same way. I see a weakness in my editing that needs major work. So I think I will see (not claim..that would wrong) all editors that act this way as a potential Dualus sock and remember that I should not fall into what well could be a simple trap just to get said goat. So it seems It wasn't a horse I couldn't reign in...but that darn Goat. It sure seems to run fast. Maybe I should just BBQ it. Who needs a goat that be gotten?--Amadscientist (talk) 00:22, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
    • It actually took a fair amount of work to connect those dots, as this person didn't edit any of the same articles yet. It is better to not assume someone is a sock, and of course, never call someone a sock unless you really know what you are talking about. So don't jump to conclusions too quickly, the world is full of trolls. The most telling sign starts with their first edits. If they jump instantly into admin areas, or start by turning their user and talk pages into blue links, you know, trying to draw less attention to their "newness". That isn't proof, but it is a reason to dig deeper. New users are pretty easy to spot by the mistakes they make, just as socks are easy to spot by the lack of newbie mistakes they make. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 00:38, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
      • I certainly did not connect the dots at all. It wasn't until afterwards that I saw any similarites. I am in no way able to identify sock puppets. Sometimes I see things that just appear too similar and that just throws me. I can't believe that anyone would, for example, create a sock puppet acount under a similar name...but I guess it does happen. I have no tools or special abilites in this area so I will absolutely not be claiming anyone is a sock. But for me..I need some sort of "Back of the mind" reminder. If seeing Dualus around every corner (quitely to myself) stops me from "losing it" in the future, then I'll just place his face (yeah, I know who he is, and all because of their public accounts that confirm it. Yes, I had to do some research on this myself some time ago but no outing, I promise) on every potential disruptive editor and use it as that reminder to stop, back up and seek help immediatly.--Amadscientist (talk) 00:54, 27 September 2012 (UTC)


Help

I want to report User:WWE+TNAMustCombine! for violating 3RR on List of Total Nonstop Action Wrestling employees and List of WWE personnel, but I can't find the page that you can report a user for 3RR violations. Can you help me?--Keith Okamoto (talk) 21:53, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I've just finished reporting him. I've also gave him a heads up of being reported.--Keith Okamoto (talk) 22:16, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry on Cheers

I am suspecting sockpupppetry; the same editor makes inaccurate and misleading information about two female leads, Diane Chambers and Rebecca Howe. Here are examples: [17] [18] [19] [20] [21]. These IPs are server accounts of Comcast Communications. --George Ho (talk) 01:40, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Request for pre-RfA assessment/recommendations/etc.

Hi Dennis, among the people willing to be contacted for potential RfA nominations, you're probably the one I've seen and respect most. So, realizing you may be too busy, I'd like to request you give me a lookover for a possible RfA. Checking some of your previous reviews, I'd really appreciate such feedback on where I should focus my future efforts. I think I broadly fit most stated RfA criteria, except that I have a low edit count (~5500, ~55% mainspace). No rush, of course. Best, BDD (talk) 23:46, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Done. Thanks for alerting me to this. --BDD (talk) 20:16, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
Thanks so much, Dennis. This is exactly the sort of feedback I was hoping for. There was only one specific point I wanted to ask you about. Where were you getting the number that I've only created eight pages including redirects and dabs? I've only made a few dabs, but I make redirects quite regularly. I should think I have a few dozen at least. Could it be that I have eight articles, excluding redirects and dabs? That sounds more right.
Also, I had peeked at the page in progress and already read up on permissions. I'd like to go ahead and request rollback. I think I understand the function and could use it responsibly. I'll probably take you up on your offer of requesting other permissions each week as I feel able.
And one more question. What are some good ways I can demonstrate my grasp of copyright? As you can imagine, a working knowledge of copyright is a pretty essential skill for librarians. Should I seek out copyright violations and flag them? Write an essay? Just be prepared for questions at RfA? Thanks again! --BDD (talk) 16:39, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
Poke. I understand if you're busy; no rush. --BDD (talk) 14:16, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
Ack, sorry I simply missed the question earlier. As you can see, my talk page is as busy as a bus station, so occasionally I miss something. It was accidental. The best way to demonstrate a knowledge of copyright is to actually help out a little at WP:CP, WP:PUF and/or WP:CCI. They are shorthanded and it exposes you to a variety of issues, so it is a good training course. You don't have to spend all your time there, just spend some time helping every week and become familiar with the basics and show that you understand through the help you provide there. Copyright is complicated, one of the more difficult aspects for most people to grasp, which is why it is important for admins to at least know when a problem exists, even if they get someone else to review it. I also gave you rollback rights, per your request, so just remember to use them for obvious vandalism or on yourself only. You will see the three options in TW when you are looking at diffs. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 14:25, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
Thanks again for all your help! I may request some of those other permissions in the coming weeks, but I'll do so in a new section. --BDD (talk) 22:19, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

RfC question

The RfC at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ships/Archive 34#RFC: Should ship classes in article titles be hyphenated? has been up for far longer than necessary to achieve consensus. What's the next step? On another note, I apologize for not responding to the last message you left on my user page, Cyberpower adequately covered it but I realized it was fairly rude of me not to chime in. Ryan Vesey 21:40, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

  • 30 days is the typical time, but if no one has commented in a week, they will sometimes close early. Some are open for 3 months, for that matter. But 30 days is the "typical" or preferred length. I don't close a lot of discussions myself. I feel I can, but it isn't my strength, and it takes me twice as long since that isn't in my comfort zone. Eventually, I will take a self-taught "crash course" on it, but I already have a long list of stuff I'm trying to learn. It would amaze you how much stuff there is to learn with the bit. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 21:58, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Take a look at the topic ban discussion on kwamikagami that I closed at ANI the other day. Stretched over 6 pages, and my close (to put it mildly) was controversial since I plainly said "I'm ignoring the consensus here an closing it without action". Part of being an admin is having to do some of those, we all take a turn. I'm not a big "closer" with articles, prefer to handle the controversial/complicated personality issues, but that is a bit of my specialty. I still do close and review closes for some, like the first shrimp/prawn discussion. If you want the bit, you have to be willing to do some of that. Some admins are particularly good at that. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 23:58, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Our discussion has been used on RS/N

An innapropriate mention of my gout and our discussion was linked[22] on RS/N (which I collapsed as discussing the editor and not the edits) by User:Sitush, who has asked me to report him for innapropriate conduct. Now that he has done something to report. I am reporting him to you for innapropriate use of a discussion he was not involved in as a borderline personal attack. I guess he think he can change my mind on my opinion of RS by just undermining my work with a few accusations. I will respect any decision you make.--Amadscientist (talk) 12:57, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

He has now uncollapsed the post and accused me of discussing him.--Amadscientist (talk) 12:59, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
(edit conflict) This seems to be ridiculous, I have been accused of bad faith on several occasions by someone who actually acted in bad faith and seems to me to be continuing to do so. In fact, it is not just me who thinks so, eg: Qwryxian undid Amadscientist's early close of the RSN thread. I am fed up of being accused of these various alleged infractions of policy and do believe that if Amadscientist is so concerned about the points they have raised then they should have escalated the various issues. I am sorely tempted to take this to ANI myself but will give it a few minutes' thought. - Sitush (talk) 13:04, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
Jeez, let me look before we start yet more drama at ANI.... Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 13:08, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
Then you may want to look at this and this also. - Sitush (talk) 13:12, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) Seriously guys, you're making a mountain out of a molehill. Perhaps mentioning the gout bit was inappropriate, but it seems that Sitush himself is a sufferer and his comment was borne on the wings of sympathy. I think both people need to take a deep breath, walk away from this for a while and instead go build the encyclopedia. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:12, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)FWIW, I thought Amadscientist's dismissal of Sitush's perfectly reasonable request and his immediate closing if it to be pretty bad faith, and I would have reverted it if someone else hadn't got there first. When one of our best editors on India-related subjects requests a discussion on the validity of a source, he should not be treated in such an arrogant and condescending manner. Also, several of us have noticed Amadscientist interacting in a less-than-collegial manner in a number of places in recent days, and I think that's all the "gout" comment was aimed at - people here are concerned when we a see fellow editor appearing to be a bit stressed and acting in an uncharacteristically aggressive manner. In reality, I think this is all a storm in a teacup, and I don't think ANI is needed - just a little calming down -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:14, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

The close was a kneejerk reaction to the original statement that even the admin understood my percieving to be a problem (see my tal page) and I went to re-open the discussion but was done just before my attempt while I was editing [23]. I also extended an apology to User:Sitush on their talkpage for it.[24].--Amadscientist (talk) 13:16, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
(edit conflict) (multi) I am being accused of making "inappropriate" and "outrageous" comments etc and on both occasions Amadscientist has summarily closed/collapsed. It is an abuse of process and I know that the pain of gout (and the meds) can cloud judgement. No idea if it has done so in this instance but I'm finding these accusations to be somewhat wild. I've had much worse abuse, of course, but this high-handedness is really rankling. - Sitush (talk) 13:19, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
Thank you F&F, a quick look led me to the same conclusion. Amadscientist, you are a bit intense here. This isn't a violation, nor is my comment an admonishment in any way, it's just an observation that tells me you might be a little quick on the trigger here. On the surface, it looks like both sides have reasoned arguments mixed in with the frustration, so the key is to cool down and focus on the merits of the arguments. And the gout comment was probably in good faith but badly placed. It looks like several intelligent and trustworthy editors are involved already, so I won't get involved in the merits, and simply echo F&F that everyone needs to just cool down. We all get uptight in a discussion sometimes, so it isn't ususual. Everyone needs to go have some tea for a few hours. We are all human after all, and nothing is broken. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 13:20, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
Yes, use the teacup for some tea :-) We're all on the same side here, so come on folks, can we make an extra AGF effort? -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:23, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
And we need to remember that we are going to piss each other off every now and then. It is frustrating, but it is no different than the real world, sometimes we all get invested in an idea and dig in. Usually the cure is just a little time, patient reflection, then come back and everyone try to consider the other guy's perspective. None of us has all the answers, so we just need to assume a little faith and try to open our minds to the arguments of others. I have no idea what the right solution is for the merits, but I'm pretty sure that stepping back a little bit is the right solution for the personality conflict. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 13:29, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
I respect Dennis' assesment. I am no longer going to mention any further personal information and I request Sitush stop speaking of it or me. It was never my intention for my personal discussions and information to be used in any manner or form. Sorry, but I didn't appreciate it, but will speak no more of it. Tea sounds great, but at the same time I certainly feel that I deserve the same respect from him that he demands of me. Thanks Dennis, Zebedee and F&F!--Amadscientist (talk) 13:30, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
And I still want that collapsed.--Amadscientist (talk) 13:32, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
Then I suggest that you collapse yours and mine, then re-post the bit of yours that does not accuse me of some BLP violation etc. Then we're done. - Sitush (talk) 13:35, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
Guess it aint over then. I didn't disuss you but the edit itself. I am concerned and now I have to submit to a trade off in order to keep my personal information from being used and accusations that I have had problems? Sure a long disruptive editor is blocked over disrupting a guideline and I had the problem. I see.--Amadscientist (talk) 13:39, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
I'm done. Sorry Dennis.--Amadscientist (talk) 13:42, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

You both seriously need to just disengage and not put conditions on it. Now would be an excellent time and nothing would please me more than this comment being the last in this thread. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 13:42, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

User:Eric12 violating MOS:IDENTITY and making pedophilia accusations

Dennis, will you help out with this? See User talk:Eric12#September 2012. Flyer22 (talk) 17:28, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

  • I've left them a note. Their perspectives are not that usual, just very uninformed and typical of a lot of people. The attacks, however, are not acceptable. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 17:45, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
    • Boing! blocked him. Had he popped off one more time, I would have, so I wasn't too far behind. I was hoping he would calm down a bit, but Boing! was probably right in that it probably wasn't going to happen. Forever the optimist, I like to give that one last time, but Boing! is also one of those that isn't quick on the trigger. If he continues, I will take away his talk page access, first time. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 18:35, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
      • And he's just carried on screaming and shouting and repeating his grossly unjust accusations, so I've revoked his talk page access. I'm heading off for a long weekend now, so please feel free to restore talk page access after he's had time to calm down if you think that would be a good thing to do. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:28, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
        • Sorry, I got a little distracted. The dogs were going nuts and knocking stuff over. Seems they brought a bird into the house as an offering but it wasn't really dead, so I'm watching him fly around until Olive snatches him out of the air, mid flight, then happily trots off, satisfied with her accomplishment. No matter how morbid the reality is, it's difficult not to laugh at the situation. But as to the block, I think he likely needs to consider using email. I'm simply too tired to swing the cluebat anymore. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 19:43, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
          • Thank you both. This isn't the fist time I've been called a pedophile for expressing the medical, authoritative definition of pedophilia; the same goes for some editors who have worked with me over the years concerning that topic and child sexual abuse. This type of reaction, which I have experienced two or three times now at this site, does confuse and upset me every time, though. In the past, I was more hotheaded when replying about it or regarding confrontation in general and I can still be pushed to that point, but I'm glad that my years of experience on Wikipedia have prepared me for how to better deal with this type of situation. Eric12 wasn't even listening (or rather wasn't even trying to comprehend what we wrote). If he is allowed to post on his talk page again, or decides to post there as an IP or as another registered user, I am certain that we will see more of the same. Flyer22 (talk) 21:47, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
            • The editor has less than 300 edits over several years, so no shocker he wasn't really familiar with policies, but more importantly, he just wouldn't listen and I can't explain to someone who won't listen. Maybe he will slow down, read, and come to his senses. We will see. Regardless, he needs to email to get unblocked. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 22:23, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Casting stones

Ya know, if you're going to make a production of signing someone else's post[25], you really ought to sign your next contribution [26] ;) Nobody Ent 23:43, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Yea, yea. You normally I wouldn't have mentioned it 'cept the back to back nature was too much to overlook. Nobody Ent 23:59, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
Same here :) We are stuck in an infinite loop I fear.... Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 00:03, 28 September 2012 (UTC)


Another possible sock

Would it be possible to check out [[27]] this IP address? The IP address (as of this time) has made a total of two edits to a contentious article which displays an advanced knowledge of Wikipedia markup, including cquotes and reference markup. These are his very first edits. Doesn't seem legitimate.

Thanks. --Activism1234 00:35, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks...

...for the swift response on the IP threat. Just let me know if any further action is needed on my end. I no longer get e-mail through User:Khazar, only through my current account. Cheers, Khazar2 (talk) 01:49, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

That's my take too. Thanks again. Khazar2 (talk) 02:51, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Can you resolve this?

Hi Dennis. I came across this user who appears to be causing a disruption by persistently removing information. Furthermore, he has claimed to be reverting vandalism, although I have called his edits themselves vandalism. From what I can tell, he has not bothered to discuss this, so maybe a block would force him to do so. If not, it would at least make him stop for awhile. AutomaticStrikeout 02:20, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

I was about to ask User talk:CapTruity to stop marking non-vandalism reverts as vandalism but I see you have already spoken to them. I will also keep an eye on their reverts, and if they continue to get it wrong, perhaps recommend they take a course at the CVUA. I can't check anything else because the ToolSever is down.Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:24, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

He's at it again. AutomaticStrikeout 18:34, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
User blocked 48 hours under WP:DE. I checked, and that source he removed exactly stated the information provided, so not sure why he is saying the opposite. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 19:04, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
Thanks. AutomaticStrikeout 19:19, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Your thoughts

Hi.

Per my recent comments at user talk:Jimbo Wales, I'm considering starting a discussion to create a new Wikimedia Wiki solely for persons (BLPs). The basic definition would be that a person is included if they are/were a human being who was alive at some point upon the earth. This would also include categories and templates which specifically deal with persons.

Some things I've already considered:

  • We'd need a follow up RfC to consider how to handle people of legend and/or antiquity.
  • We'd need to define the difference between a group of individual persons and the group as an entity: e.g. Members of the Beatles. And the "entity" the Beatles.

What would you see as the negatives and positives of doing this? - jc37 00:06, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

I have thought about this some, although I had not caught all the conversation there. My biggest concern is that probably 25-33% of the BLP related problems aren't in BLP articles, but in other articles, where people inject problem material about a participant in an event. This wouldn't fix that, and might actually dilute the help we have on BLP problems since it would be in two different places. I'm of the belief that we probably over-police BLP to a degree, erring on paranoid for either the sake "of the poor person" or to protect the Foundation. There is certainly a problem with BLP, and it might have started once we started treating BLPs differently many years ago. The other concern is that I have seen this idea being brought up on several occasions, and it always seems to get a quick positive response, followed by much more cool opposition. I'm not sure you could get a consensus regardless of how you designed it or worded it. It is a tough one.
But again, these are first impressions, and I haven't really analysed them deep enough to be beyond persuasion. Part of the problem is that currently, I think you would have trouble getting everyone to simply agree on what exactly the problem is, they just see different symptoms of a floundering area we call BLP. My gut says we need to get everyone to first agree on the real root cause before we can devise a solution that will pass muster, as there is no momentum in any one direction regarding BLP problems or solutions right now. If there is to be a change, it might really have to be built from the ground up, and that takes a year or more. I'm not one who dabbles much in BLP, so I'm afraid I don't have much more to offer at this time. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 00:25, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
I would guestimate that well over half of that content is only there due to mergist or notability sentiments (the person isn't notable of their own accord, so put the info in another article aka bhtt.
And I've been thinking about editors. I think that, if anything, this might be a bridge to help people realise that other projects exist besides the en.wiki, and SUL allows for simple enough transition between them (linking to here on a same language wiki merely requires adding wp: to the wikilink
Consensus... Nod, this would have to be clearly written, and believe me, I would be asking others for help before it were to go "live".
Nod. Probably unfair to spring this on you when I've been thinking about this literally for years. It came out of an expert retention discussion from years gone by. But with your editor retention work, among other things, I thought asking you would be a good idea : )
The root cause is that, unlike most of the rest of the wiki, BLPs apparently have some legal issues. As such, it's been tying our policies in knots, and is more and more bleeding into how we handle content in general.
With all this in mind, what do you think? - jc37 00:41, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
Again, it all boils down to consensus. Even if you and I agreed and were 100% positive on the problem and solution, it requires a consensus and a large and public one since this would be a huge change. This is why I say you have to start from the ground up. Maybe a project that focuses on it. I can't see most people signing on to radical solution, even if it is the right solution, unless they understand it. Again, I don't know if they would or wouldn't, but I have reservations that you could get such a consensus without building it the hard way. I don't know BLP so much, but I do know people, and people either hate or are afraid of radical change, which is why I'm thinking you will have to build support slowly. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 01:34, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
What would you suggest as the concrete first steps? - jc37 01:45, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
Honestly, I really don't know. In general, I think you need to gather a group of like minded people to develop the ideas, which means the final product will have a better chance of passing because it has already weeded out some weaker ideas and has had review. A Project is certainly one way to do this. It puts everyone on equal footing and gets them invested, although I am not aware of any projects that had a singular goal of changing policy. Part of our goal at WER is policy based, but we don't adopt a singular stand on any policy, we just raise awareness that editor retention should be considered in all policies, meaning we sometimes have very different opinions but at least retention is considered along the way. It isn't about vote stacking, it is about hammering out a change using many eyes and ears, as well as raising awareness of the issue so that even those who don't participate have at least seen the concept before the final vote, and can go back and read the reasoning. it is about consolidating all the different ideas and coming up with a compromise solution, which may or may not look like what you have in mind now. I try to not have any preconceived notions or take any power or credit at WER, I let the people run it themselves and just try to support them, take their good ideas and use my efforts to push them ahead, so our model probably isn't a good comparison. But a Project of some kind will at least let you coordinate efforts and compare notes. Like I said, you likely won't be making any radical changes in the short run no matter what, it takes a slow and steady approach to affect major change here, as we both know. Of course, I'm not saying a Project is the best way, I'm just saying it is one way to organize people, and the only way you will affect change is through organization and planning. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 02:12, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
A WikiProject is an excellent idea. So obvious I missed it : )
Thank you for all your thoughts on this. And if you think of anything else, please drop me a note : ) - jc37 02:24, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
I think that if you keep it broad enough, ie: WikiProject FixBLP, BLPWatch, BLPPatrol, or similar and everyone stays open minded enough as to the solutions (might not be what we currently think it is) then you are likely to get a lot of participation, which means a lot of ideas. If the project looks at the problem holistically, you might find some minor fixes along the way, too. You might try picking the brains of those that work there often, and get them on board before you even start, AndyTheGrump, Bbb23, et al. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 13:51, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Andrea Cardona

Thank you very much!

can we add this link too? http://sierramountaineering.com/blog/?p=1117

SaulObando (talk) 12:47, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

  • That is a blog, which is usually frowned upon greatly. I suggest adding it to the talk page, so it can be looked at later. There are some times when a blog post is appropriate, but I would have to really look at it more closely. Right now, I'm mainly cleaning it up, trying a few formatting things, fixing the quote from her, found the source for it, etc. It would be good if we could find some references from larger publications, newspapers, etc. They should exist somewhere. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 12:53, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

The Faerie Path

Hey you! Do you realize you're one of the first people I ever interacted with? Just check out this article's history. Hey, can you do me a favor? I'm in a bind. I created this article years ago and I'm not sure of it's notability now-a-days. I found sources for it, but would you mind giving it a review? I already db-user'd two other books in the series I created but I think this one might just barely meet WP:GNG. Could be biased though and that's why I'd like your help. Send to AFD if you think it's appropriate. I think there have been too many other editors for me to db-user this one as well.--v/r - TP 02:43, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

  • I'll be danged. That is back when I was named Pharmboy, I changed to my real name two months later. But looking at it, it seems fine to me. I tend to give a little slack to professionally published books, rightfully, since the publisher themselves have already vetted it, and not every site that reviews books is a mega corp. In this case the reviews and coverage clearly show it garnered enough interest to be notable within the intent of WP:GNG. So yes, with the goal of building an encyclopedia, we are better off with the article than without. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 12:18, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

HMS Stork not a DAB page

With respect, the page that I just created is a set index article, not a disambiguation page (WP:NOTDAB), so your cleanup tag, or at least the reasons attached to it, appeared to me to be inappropriate. Stanning (talk) 15:55, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Need Admin Assistance

The thread Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#‎Self-determination has a set of editors who are simply arguing around and around on the same points, raising the temperature of the board without really coming to a useful conclusion. I think it is time that AN/I figure out a process to dump such threads and work out alternatives that will not lead to amped up threads and angry responses from all sides.

I closed the thread and asked for some volunteers to step up and work with the parties on some resolution of the matter that doesn't involve the unfocused approach that we often find at AN/I. I fully expect that my close of the thread will be reverted, but if it isn't, would be willing to assist in finding a 'committee' to help these people work out a solution? Even if my close is reverted, I think this would be a better solution than continuing to watch the debate unfold at AN/I. I typically find the suggestions at AN/I to be centered around who to block or ban, rather than looking for ways to simply fix the problem. Thanks for any help you might be able to give. -- Avanu (talk) 16:44, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

  • Sorry, I took a day off, a rarity for me, and missed out. It looks like it was already closed. If you think it needs review, just ask. On the plus side, I did get a little time off, which I think is healthy every now and then. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 13:14, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

EasyMoney

I was wondering if we were killing the EasyMoney essay? I am not attached to it, seeing that we already have so many conflicting documents on COI (few of them actually being read), but I noticed some parallels in the COI+ effort and it came to mind. Corporate 21:38, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

  • I'm not about killing, we have put it on the back burner as enwp itself is in great flux about the issue. This is why there are so many conflicting documents and a single consensus hasn't formed. I'm still fairly involved with the issue. I was an WP:AN regarding an admin with COI, accepting donation just two days ago. The essay is still in personal space, and part of the reason was to see if there is a consensus, but that taught me that there isn't yet. Eventually, we will have to have a major discussion wiki-wide. I personally think we will have to develop ways for paid editors to fairly work within the system, many others think they just block them all. Speaking as someone who clerks at SPI, I think that is impossible. As a community, we are behind the times when it comes to dealing with COI, that is for sure. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 13:08, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Zero tolerance for incivility

While you guys were debating civility, I discovered that slowly smoking bacon over hickory smoke makes for a decadent treat, particularly when served with cold beer.

What would you think about a change in NPA to make a true zero-tolerance for personal attacks with no preventative not punitive argument applying? If you people were blocked for 24 hours every time they called someone an idiot, soon enough they'd stop calling people idiots. It would take all subjectivity (outside of block length for severe or repeat cases) out of the equation. Do you think it would actually solve the problem and is there any chance something like that would go over? Ryan Vesey 04:08, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

I think that's rather naive. I could call you an idiot in a thousand different ways without ever using the word "idiot". Think about it. Malleus Fatuorum 04:27, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
(edit conflict) (talk page stalker) Zero chance it would go over. But let's say it somehow did: there'd have to be some sort of a master list of "unacceptable terms" used to address other editors. "Idiot", "arsehole", etc... but where does it stop? A very slippery slope, that one. Is saying, "You are a jerk." the same as saying, "You're acting like a complete and total jerk." - same block length? Hint that someone may have WP "competence" issues by pointing out a certain essay, and it's a 24-hr block? What if they are incompetent? You'll just have more people screaming about IAR and BURO and all that stuff for even suggesting such a thing; and I'm sure this has been suggested before somewhere, probably shot down in flames. I agree that such a rule would be a deterrent to those tempted to make personal attacks, but there would be so much needless added drama in the actual interpretation and enforcement of such a blocking standard that it's just not worth even considering a proposal on it. Just me 2p. Doc talk 04:40, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
(talk page stalker)In Ryan's defense, this approach does work well (or well enough) if the langauge domain is sufficiently small and the stakes are sufficiently high. WP:NLT is the easiest example. But the set of language that can be deployed in personal attacks is far larger than the set of language that describes court procedings, so I'm reluctant to deploy an automatic ban to handle that problem.
As an aside, I think it's a strength of the current WP:NPA that acceptable and unacceptable behavior are separated by a wide, fuzzy, crooked line that moves over time. This makes it difficult to walk right up to the edge and demonstrate your mad berating skillz. I'd prefer to keep the line fuzzy. GaramondLethe 05:08, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
The irony is that incivility and personal attacks are what have brought the RfA process to its knees, and if there were to be a bright line for incivility and personal attacks, there soon won't be enough admins to do the blocking! Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:48, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
Sounds good to me. Malleus Fatuorum 07:15, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
[28]. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:23, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
It's sad and upsetting that there are those who take advantage of the ambiguity regarding severity of words to hurl insults against others. If they can't handle themselves, ban them for six months after they've insulted other people twice. By insults I mean aggressive attacks through traditional swear words, or attacks of others' actions and behaviour. WP doesn't need tens of editors having to debate over the actions of a particular user, which obviously would be a waste of human resource and time. If they say they've been provoked, well too bad, they should've acted like adults and raised the issue to a higher body or consulted with other editors on how to deal with the provocation. More to come. --Sp33dyphil ©hatontributions 09:26, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
I take a day off and miss all the fun. I will say that the longer I'm here, the more I dislike civility blocks. Part of the reason, as Malleus has pointed out, is that civility is in the eye of the beholder, and it is easy to be rather mean to someone in a very civil way, which escapes notice. Yet tell someone they are "making an ass of themselves" and someone flies into a rage, which I don't consider actually offensive, just blunt. Part of this is cultural bias. Berean Hunter came over yesterday for a barbecue and we were having a spirited debate on this very aspect, so even people that get along quite well can strongly disagree on the degree systemic cultural bias plays a role.
But to be honest Ryan, I am not a fan of zero tolerance for anything. I respect that a consensus demands it for legal threats and I comply to the best of my ability, but I personally feel the world already has too little tolerance to begin with. What does bother me about the level of rudeness we have here is it makes the place particularly inhospitable for women. On average, women tend to be more cooperative and less combative than we cave men in social interactions, so it does cost us a great deal of good contributors. But still, it is impossible to equitably "police" civility other than at a basic level simply because there are too many culture, too many definitions of what is and isn't over the line. And the potential for abuse is through the roof. "Well, it seemed incivil to ME" would be the battle cry of any admin feeling particularly ham-fisted on a given day. In the end, it would likely lose us even more good editors due to questionable blocks, and lower the trust level between admins and non-admins. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 13:03, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Need the eyes of an uninvolved admin

I'd someone to look at this AfD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tribeco. It seems to my eyes we're being played, as new accounts show up to assert keep based on pagecreator's "shit he's got going on in his personal life right now." Search engines confirm exactly zero sources, and the latest post this morning includes a RL address of some living person. Since it's been relisted twice, and no sources are forthcoming, I'd like to see if this should be closed and deleted ASAP. BusterD (talk) 13:45, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Further, a Google maps search reveals no such address in Fort Worth. All this smells of hoax to me. BusterD (talk) 13:53, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
Thanks. BusterD (talk) 13:56, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
No problem. Ping me if more "friends" show up. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 14:09, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
Will do. It's due for closure tomorrow anyway. Since none of the bounding streets can be found using Google maps, it's becoming clear this is just something somebody made up one day. BusterD (talk) 14:12, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

SPA

User coming back under different names on certain articles, here. Thanks. --E4024 (talk) 21:39, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Ughh, no. Cavann89 (talk) 21:48, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
talk page stalker Agree with E4024, pretty clear it's a sock. First edit is to a talk page - fine. But that edit contains a reference link - more suspicious, but fine. Then second edit uses common Wikipedia terminology, "see talk..." - combined it looks like a sock to me... Which one it is, I don't know, as I'm not heavily involved in the topic area. --Jethro B 21:54, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
Of course I did edit Wiki before, but not the Turkish people page. I do not edit regularly, so I forget my passwords. Cavann89 (talk) 22:02, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
I'll leave this to more experienced people in the area of socks than me... --Jethro B 22:10, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
Good, because I did not appreciate being called "pretty clear it's a sock," especially when I spent my time actually trying to improve the article. Cavann89 (talk) 22:16, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
  • This is another slippery slope. First Cavann89, if you edited under different names but forgot your password, you should likely disclose that on your user page. As long as you don't use that old account, it typically isn't a problem. Another reason you should use an email account so you can recover your password. If you change your accounts regularly because you "forgot your password", then that is still considered a form of socking, as "assuming good faith" isn't a suicide pact and it is misleading and looks like trying to avoid scrutiny, whether it is on purpose or not. (Yes, I've done those blocks before at WP:SPI, so I'm quite familiar with the entire process). I strongly recommend you disclose your prior accounts on your user page, enable email, and don't forget this password. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 22:38, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

I can't honestly remember my previous nicks. Last time I edited Wiki was like 2 years ago. I think it was homosexuality. I started with a tv show years ago. And, no, I do not change my accounts "regularly." Cavann89 (talk) 22:55, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Is that a rhetorical question? If you wanna do an IP check or whatever, feel free to proceed. I'm rather annoyed by this whole convo. Cavann89 (talk) 23:30, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
It was informational. And I didn't start the conversation nor take a side, just gave you the general information since you admitted you have previously had accounts. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 23:35, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Could use a cool head

Would you mind having a look at User talk:Avanu? He's a high-quality contributor in my eyes, and just got blocked for violating Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines and not apologizing afterward (that's my take on it, at least :-). Things are a little heated, and your cool, rational approach would probably help to sort things out. ~Adjwilley (talk) 21:36, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

  • I've left a message. The block was within policy, even if it wasn't what I would have done. I get along fine with Avanu, but in this case, he did go overboard a bit and needs to at least recognize that reverting this way is not only unacceptable, but if he found someone else had said the same thing to another person, he likely would have overlooked it. The whole situation got out of hand and would have been better served with discussion. Elen of the Roads tried, but Avanu just reverted her comment, so Tide rolls likely didn't see that. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 22:31, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for taking the time to comment there. I think everybody respects you a lot, and it probably went a long way toward calming things down. ~Adjwilley (talk) 23:15, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
I concur. I don't think Avanu's having a good couple of weeks: his judgement is a little off, and does not seem to be seeing the effects of his statements/actions these days. Cool heads are good. dangerouspanda 23:20, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
No, BWilkins, I am tired of hypocrisy. Dennis is one of the few people around here in a leadership role who actually can be counted on to behave himself and not act like a jerk. You yourself have some weird fascination with no one knowing who you are (BWilkins/EatsShootsAndLeaves/DangerousPanda), and this other admin has thrown many people into a questionable place because he told a guy to fuck off, in an email, which to me says he knew he was breaching protocol. And when anyone actually asks the admin corps to step up and have some self-administered accountability, there is much whining and excuse making. I'm worn out trying to do my real life job, and I sit and do Wikipedia as a minor hobby, yet when I try and help, people act like you aren't allowed to speak unless you have many thousands of edits. It is utter bull-shit. I can't remove an uncivil comment because heaven forbid we censor someone. But people effectively censor others around here all the time. A timid newbie says "This guy is just reverting me"; Admins respond with, "Dummy, you aren't following the guidelines, shut up, BOOMERANG!" Maybe not in those exact words, but that is generally the process. It gets old. It is government by an unmanaged and uncivil band of warlords who demand accountability from everyone but themselves. And it gets old. -- Avanu (talk) 09:26, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
I rest my case. dangerouspanda 09:34, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
And what changes will you make based on the 'evidence', BWilkins? Will you press for a better admin corps? -- Avanu (talk) 15:31, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
Yes Avanu, I do press for a better admin corps. I do, indeed start with myself first, then try to influence others. I don't make up bullshit like "...have some weird fascination with no one knowing who you are", because false statements that are unproven by evidence are the heart of problems on this project. (In this specific example about me, you have been shown by me - and by others - that you're wrong, yet you now extend your wrong-ness into outright inflammatory accusations). Until you can turn around and look at yourself and your own actions, you have no possibility to influence others correctly, nor will you ever even have the right to try and influence them. Be accountable to yourself first. This past couple of months has indeed been a journey of introspection for me, and has been good for me as a Wikipedian as a whole. Although you're quite right that there are problems, you personally cannot point a finger while there are 3 pointing back at you. So yes, I will push for a better admin corps - but I have to start with myself first. dangerouspanda 10:49, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
FWIW, I always start with the premise that I'm an incredibly flawed person, who is a work in progress. This is why it is easy to be open minded and slow to pull the trigger. It isn't easy for a lot of people to accept what they consider "injustice" around here, and I think it is because they still cling to the idea that there can actually be justice. There can't be. We are all very flawed people, and the ones that recognize that and accept it from others tend to be the easiest to get along with and the happiest. The best we can ever hope for is to find temporary solutions to temporary problems. It isn't ever going to be "fair" here, life isn't fair and you can't change people. Some people I can persuade, others I avoid, yet more I learned to tolerate, but none of them have I ever changed. I think once I realized that I can't change others and focused on changing myself instead, I got a lot happier here. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 11:07, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

TP

If TP will not come to ANI and defend his ban, I believe that is reason enough to overturn it. What can be instated for no reason can be removed for less. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 07:00, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Technically, I don't think the ban can be overturned by a single admin, since it is imposed under a community sanction. I checked the wording at WP:General sanctions. In my opinion the community sanctions are like Arbcom discretionary sanctions in that one admin can impose them, but only a noticeboard thread can undo them. The wording at WP:GS should be slightly more clear than it is. There could be a template made for 'community sanction appeal' that would be the analog of {{Arbitration enforcement appeal}}. The idea of a template hints at regimentation so I don't know how well this would be received, but at least it would make more clear who is supposed to decide the issue (a consensus of uninvolved editors, who need not defer to the original admin). EdJohnston (talk) 16:18, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
Hm, interesting and good to know. I've not been involved in a large number of discretionary sanction cases, so will defer to your greater experience here. Had there been a number of neutral editors that took exception with TParis's actions (even if not a consensus), I am quite sure he would have remove them himself, making the point moot. I know that Still has a bad taste for TParis right now, and because he was on the receiving end of sanctions, I understand why. But all I can say is that from my experience, Tom has been willing to listen to reason and not be defensive about someone changing his actions. This is why I keep stressing the idea of cooling down and a little patience, demonstrating a willingness to participate in a neutral fashion. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 16:25, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Sock

I am pretty sure this [29] is Nangparbat, can you run a check to see if he is editing from BT usually on the 86 range. Elockid usually deals with this guy but he has not been online for a while, I asked Sal also but as you know he is under the weather and not around a great deal. It is certainly not a new editor by any means given this[30] edit summary. Darkness Shines (talk) 18:30, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Problem there is I am not allowed to Darkness Shines (talk) 18:40, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
Ah, I didn't know you weren't allowed to go to SPI, hmmm. I left a message on IRC pointing here. I'm at work, can't dig too deeply, although a quick glance at his tone is suspicious, but not enough to judge off that one glance. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 18:42, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
By the way, it is actually very helpful if you don't tag edit's pages with sock notices. I strongly prefer that if you raise an issue, you do so in the quietest possible way. Email is also acceptable. It causes less drama and makes my job much easier. There are other reasons as well. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 21:41, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

SPI appeal

Hi Dennis,

If you have time and inclination, could you take a look here? The previous editing behavior was spot-on to DeFacto, but I've never heard of a sock puppet coming back after two months with a well-reasoned appeal. I would think if you've already committed to socking then it's going to be easier to drop the blocked account and pick up another.... Honestly, I don't know what to think here. If you're swamped and can't get to it I certainly understand.

Thanks,

GaramondLethe 22:21, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

  • Yes and no, as I have seen socks that I knew very well to be sock protest. That doesn't mean he is, just saying there is a precedent for it. AGK was the CU, and marked it Likely, meaning it is in the same region, a region that is notorious for not geotracking properly, which means the user is located somewhere between very close and in the same house. It would appear other CU features also lined up, ie: user agent, etc. else he would have worded it differently. I will ping a CU and AGK on the matter and in a bit, will review the edits and behavioral information as well. That doesn't mean I agree or disagree with him, only that I will be open minded. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 22:28, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
Thanks, I really appreciate it. GaramondLethe 22:43, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
I've also notified EdJohnston, who was involved. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 22:50, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
I've done a technical comparison, and if the original CU hold up, I'm inclined to think we got it right the first time. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 23:39, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
Looking at the new appeal, I went and rechecked the wall of legalism at User talk:Ornaith#Why have I been blocked again? I don't see any occasion to revisit the original SPI verdict. A truly innocent party would probably find a way to persuade us that they were an independent voice. EdJohnston (talk) 01:23, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
Being forever the optimist, and since it was an official unblock request, I did the footwork in a thorough and (I believe) professional manner, in the interest of fairness. (even if arguably, too much fairness) This was to save the CU the time and allow them to just review the CU logs, which should still be available. Perhaps a definitive technical review (and likely decline) will put the issue to bed, which might justify the position of blocking talk page access and requiring they use their main account to request unblocks, assuming the CU confirms previous conclusions, of course. You should feel free to express your opinions there at the block, unless of course you would prefer wait until after the CU has reviewed, to possibly take action. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 01:31, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

IP Editor Review

Dear Dennis, I know I take a lot of your time, but only as long as you volunteer to hard working. I observed something strange. This IP user (number ending in 169) after making their edits change manually the IP no (to 199 if I remember well). Is this permissible? I asked someone (I hope it wasn't you :-) and said he saw no harm(...) How come? The wrong appearence makes it impossible to follow the IP user's contributions if one simply presses on the number that appears over there. Could you (also) have a look at this issue in your avaliability, please? Thanks in advance and all the best. --E4024 (talk) 23:32, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

  • I have a different stand. An IP can change/remove comments from their own IP, but not of others. Just as an editor can modify their own comments, but not others. There is no way to determine if one IP really was another IP, so it shouldn't be allowed. If they want the ability to remove their own comments without worrying about their IP address changing, they can either get a static IP or get a free registered account here. It is too easy to game the system if you allow one IP to edit another IP's comments, and impossible to police, except by disallowing it. Don't get in a revert war over it, just leave a warning on their page and if they do it again, take it to AIV telling them you don't want to get in a 3RR situation youself, thus you can't wait until they have been warned 4 times. But politely warn them each time you do revert them, telling them they can't modify the comments of others, and we can't know if it is really them, thus it isn't allowed. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 23:38, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Hello Dennis

This Pithy is to accompany you with her songs!
While you continue your hard work... E4024 (talk) 23:53, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

WP:AIV Post

Hey Dennis, could you take a look at the post of mine at WP:AIV, block that account and start a rangeblock is possible? Lots of vandalism coming from that account and range. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 02:14, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Salisbury, NC article.

Dennis, whenever you get a chance, please take a look at some recent edits by various users at the Salisbury, North Carolina article. Interactive Citizen (talk · contribs) has added information, some of which I have taken out with explanation. He then re-reverts some info without explanation. I have left comment on his talk page about this. Then today comes along a new user Eddie Sabato (talk · contribs) who does not use the edit summaries correctly one time and puts back in some info of Interactive Citizen. Unfortunately, compounding the issue and probably fueling Interactive's fire is an IP, 8.25.226.136 (talk · contribs), which takes Interactive's information out without using any edit summaries. I have left a message on the IP's talk page about using edit summaries. I just don't want to get into edit warring and am curious whether this rises to the level of doing an SPI for Interactive Citizen and Eddie Sabato. I haven't made up my mind really about the content or motives of Interactive Citizen's edits relative to crime rate, etc. Some of those sources, I am not sure about, but still looking into. Thank you. -- JoannaSerah (talk) 19:55, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

I've hardblocked the IP for slow edit warring for two weeks (they actually began using similar IPs). No account may edit through that IP currently. I've also watchlisted the article. I'm not sure if this is a case of socking or meatpuppetry but they should be using the talk page as you've pointed out to one of them and it might be a good idea to leave a note for the other one. You could also boldly start the thread on the article talk page about the reversions.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 20:24, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
Looks like Berean Hunter has a plan. I'm also watching the article now. Ping he or I if we miss something. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 20:38, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
Thank you both. I just wanted to see what I could do to prevent a long-term edit war. -- JoannaSerah (talk) 21:58, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

 

Index: pl ar de en es fr it arz nl ja pt ceb sv uk vi war zh ru af ast az bg zh-min-nan bn be ca cs cy da et el eo eu fa gl ko hi hr id he ka la lv lt hu mk ms min no nn ce uz kk ro simple sk sl sr sh fi ta tt th tg azb tr ur zh-yue hy my ace als am an hyw ban bjn map-bms ba be-tarask bcl bpy bar bs br cv nv eml hif fo fy ga gd gu hak ha hsb io ig ilo ia ie os is jv kn ht ku ckb ky mrj lb lij li lmo mai mg ml zh-classical mr xmf mzn cdo mn nap new ne frr oc mhr or as pa pnb ps pms nds crh qu sa sah sco sq scn si sd szl su sw tl shn te bug vec vo wa wuu yi yo diq bat-smg zu lad kbd ang smn ab roa-rup frp arc gn av ay bh bi bo bxr cbk-zam co za dag ary se pdc dv dsb myv ext fur gv gag inh ki glk gan guw xal haw rw kbp pam csb kw km kv koi kg gom ks gcr lo lbe ltg lez nia ln jbo lg mt mi tw mwl mdf mnw nqo fj nah na nds-nl nrm nov om pi pag pap pfl pcd krc kaa ksh rm rue sm sat sc trv stq nso sn cu so srn kab roa-tara tet tpi to chr tum tk tyv udm ug vep fiu-vro vls wo xh zea ty ak bm ch ny ee ff got iu ik kl mad cr pih ami pwn pnt dz rmy rn sg st tn ss ti din chy ts kcg ve
Prefix: a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r s t u v w x y z 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Portal di Ensiklopedia Dunia

Portal : Agama
Agama
Portal : Bahasa
Bahasa
Portal : Biografi
Biografi
Portal : Budaya
Budaya
Portal : Ekonomi
Ekonomi
Portal : Elektronika
Elektronika
Portal : Film
Film
Portal : Filsafat
Filsafat
Portal : Geografi
Geografi
Portal : Indonesia
Indonesia
Portal : Ilmu
Ilmu
Portal : Lingkungan
Lingkungan
Portal : Masyarakat
Masyarakat
Portal : Matematika
Matematika
Portal : Militer
Militer
Portal : Mitologi
Mitologi
Portal : Musik
Musik
Portal : Olahraga
Olahraga
Portal : Pendidikan
Pendidikan
Portal : Politik
Politik
Portal : Sastra
Sastra
Portal : Sejarah
Sejarah
Portal : Seni
Seni
Portal : Teknologi
Teknologi