User talk:Dennis Brown/Archive 12

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 5

←

Archive 10

Disambiguation link notification for October 20

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Tri-Five, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Cid (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:08, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

SPI

Want some help? Maintenance is much easier for me while I'm at school than content creation. If you help me learn to clerk SPI I'll be able to help. Ryan Vesey 00:32, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

You have to sign up there to clerk, and I've been begging for us to take on new clerks but none of the CUs have been willing to. As it is now, my trainer retired, Tiptoety, and I'm still "just a trainee" so I can't train. We are in a catch 22, with not enough clerks and not enough trainers to train new clerks, and the existing CUs are so swamped, I'm thinking that is why they don't want to train new clerks themselves. You can always work it as a nonclerk, nonadmin observer. Adding diffs, offering opinions as to likelihood, etc. Not much different than ANI, except the stakes are much higher, so it takes more caution and a lot more research. That is likely a problem for you though, since each case takes a lot of research. About half the clerking requires the bit, which is part of the problem. The other is that it is a thankless and sometimes tedious job, which is why it is so hard to get admin to volunteer. It is, however, an excellent step toward adminship if you do it well, whether you clerk or just help out with cases. Be forewarned, there is a bit of a learning curve and you have to start slow, which might be why some people don't stick with it. It is also very rewarding work, so it is worth the high price. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 00:41, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
- Dennis, in the absence of a formal mechanism that I know of, I hereby dub you "A clerk". You can take Ryan as a padawan if you want. :-) — Coren ^(talk) 00:48, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
  - You need to grant the same to Berean Hunter, whom I will freely admit is a superior clerk. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 00:58, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
  - Oh, and thank you. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 00:59, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
    - Well, DoRD is still active and Berean's trainer so I think that this particular decision is his to take. :-) That said, he might simply not have thought about it yet. — Coren ^(talk) 01:04, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
      - Ah, you are correct, sir. Thank you. Glad to see you back, I've been looking for you on the back of milk cartons. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 01:05, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
        I'm still trying to fix some things in Real Life that are consuming an inordinate amount of my time. I've been out of work for a year now, this does tend to mess up priorities. — Coren ^(talk) 01:09, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
        Ouch. Real life is the first priority. My wife has been gone for days, family illness, and just got home. That is MY priority right now, just being with the most important person in my life. So I will wish you all a good evening. :) Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 01:12, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

A goof am I

Turns out that, between the last time I check fun-l this morning and my knighting you this evening, there was a discussion started about promotions – so I ended up jumping the gun and overriding everyone else by fiat. :-) I hope you'll forgive me if I say that you shouldn't consider my promoting you as valid until the discussion takes its course. I didn't even know consensus was being build; I was just clearly thinking along the same lines as everybody else alone in my room while the real discussion was taking place elsewhere. :-) — Coren ^(talk) 03:16, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

I've reverted the SPI page and will tell Ryan. I've had one email from my trianer, and none from anyone else. I have no idea who the "real" is, which makes learning and doing rather difficult and confusing. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 11:23, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
- The "real" discussion is ongoing on the functionary mailing list between the checkusers. It really is just my fault: we obviously all perceived the need for new clerks, but I didn't notice the talk starting yesterday afternoon before I decided being bold. :-) — Coren ^(talk) 14:20, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
  - I understand. I've mentioned the shortage to some CUs, who likely already knew that of course, but really had not heard anything but silence on the subject, so I have no idea if they agreed or not. I've noticed some Arbs getting more involved in CU as well. It does look more caught up today than it has been in a while, with just 20 open and 5 pending or closed. We were at over 40 open for a very long time, which means we aren't handling them in a timely fashion. It does come in waves, and I think we are understaffed to deal with even a moderate peak. CUs and clerks need to do more than just work SPI. Not healthy to only spend time there and not edit and work other areas. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 14:31, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

vandal reverting?

Hi Dennis - I was wanting to revert this clear vandal edit - its a BLP - diif - I don't think reverting of vandal alterations such as this would be a violation of my agreed conditions - thoughts? Youreallycan 02:44, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

I think the key would be to make sure it fits the narrow definition of obvious vandalism. swearing, silly things, etc. I would suggest erring on the very conservative side for a bit, making that borderline only because it is possible. The lynch mob mentality has been in full swing in your absence. Take a look at Malleus at Arb, where someone asked for a clarification of a previous rule and it turned into a motion to ban, when the reporter wasn't even complaining about Malleus. He is one vote away from a ban, after following the rules of the previous sanctions.[1] Other examples exist as well. The community has become trigger happy and ham-fisted as of late. It is discouraging. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 11:39, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
- Yes - Right. Very best wishes in your real life. Thanks Dennis. - Youreallycan 13:01, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Wow! Signal

Hello again Dennis, Sorry to trouble you again, but could I ask you to look at the above named page. User Tdp1001 seems intent on causing a edit war with contributions which are unreferenced and appear to be POV. I would be grateful for your advice on whether you consider the page should be protected. With best regards, as ever, David. David J Johnson (talk) 15:54, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

He is a new user, so I don't want to block him off the bat. I left a polite but blunt notice on his talk page, explaining why he can't add the material back without going to the talk page, and explaining he will be blocked if he continues to edit war. Most of the time, this is enough to either start a dialog, or for them to "get it". If it continues, ping me. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 16:05, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Dennis, Many thanks for your help. We'll see how it goes. Best regards, David. David J Johnson (talk) 16:16, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

noindex

noindex - User has reverted my noindexing of his evidence page - I have explained on his talkpage - If he doesn't replace the noindex at his earliest convenience please assist in explaining the situation to him - thanks - Youreallycan 20:24, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

I have to be honest, I agree with you assessment that no index is the best thing for this stuff, but I am totally unfamiliar with consensus on page in user space using them. I also checked the archives and see a bunch of RFC/Us that don't have no index in them. Is this a user space only thing? I'm not sure I can tell him to do this, even if I agree it is the best thing to do. Not sure of the authority of such a statement, simply because I've not run across it before. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 20:47, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks Dennis I have asked at AN - its just common practice as I have experienced, I am also unaware of a link to the exact action - - so lets see what Admins say - Wikipedia:Administrators_noticeboard#NOINDEX-ing_of_evidence_page - Youreallycan 20:55, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
  - Well, then we both may learn something new. It does make sense, but that doesn't mean Wikipedians will do it ;) Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 20:56, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
    - Cool gruel - lol - learning is a tough process - so it seems - (no link though...) - pages moved to process are automatically NOINDEX-ed but pages in userspace are not and need NOINDEX-ing to stop them appearing in google results - Youreallycan 22:00, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

CU

I requested CU then undid myself at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mangoeater1000 because a checkuser was done two days ago. It doesn't seem like that last checkuser was a super in depth one. Should a checkuser be done there? Ryan Vesey 20:45, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

You have two types of CU: A regular CU where they compare two people, and "check for sleepers" where they search the logs to see if any other user has used the same IPs, to pick up new accounts you didn't know about. Checking for sleepers takes longer and is only done when that is likely to be the issue. You have to ask for a sleeper check manually, and they might not run it anyway. CU has final decision on all things CU. I can't even unblock an official CU block (marked as CU block), or I risk losing the bit. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 20:53, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

You could unblock the master, right? To my knowledge, socks are indeffed, never to be unblocked, masters are blocked and treated as any other blocked editor. Ryan Vesey 21:00, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

It depends. But no, if a CU uses a "checkuserblock" I can not unblock them regardless. That is a special type of block, meaning "I know things you don't". Technically, it is just a block, but the summary will indicate that it is a cu block and reversing one can get you desysoped. Also, not every sock is indef. And I can unblock an indef sock if I want to, assuming I have a reason. There are no black and white rules, but there are rules of thumb. So yes, you generally indef a sock, but I see exceptions a few times a week, ie: the Master's name is actually a bad user name, so we just swap them around and indef it, and let them keep the sock after a short vacation. Stuff like that. That is the key, learning the nuances. But the "clerking" part of SPI Clerks is more about making sure the oldest account is listed as the Master, then moving everything if it isn't. Fixing bad formatting. Knowing when you need to do a history merge, and when you need to do a copy/paste. This is mainly when you have a case like "Bob" is the master, "Alice" is the puppet, then CU discovers they are both really socks of "Charlie", so you have to do a history merge (admin bit required). Or you discover that puppet master "Doug" and puppetmaster "Ernie" are really the same person, so you have combine cases. Or you have the same master "Alice" and the sock "Bob", but you find out that "Bob is really a sock of "Charlie", and not related to "Alice", but "Alice already has an archive, so you have to copy page (and attribute) everything to a new page for Charlie. Clerking is mainly paperwork. Much of the blocking and comparing can be done by patrolling admin, although most admin Clerks do both. Some don't actually. We have a couple clerks that mainly shuffle papers rather than make blocks. All Clerks are expected to do more than do the blocks, however, and must shuffle the paperwork. It is not too hard to learn, but there are very specific ways to do it. I wouldn't endorse or decline or do anything "clerky" until you are listed as a clerk. They haven't accepted you as clerk yet, although it is obvious that I think you would do well enough that I was willing to bump you to the head of the line as a trainee. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 21:11, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

There seem to be a few misunderstandings here. Let me clear them up.

In terms of how one uses the checkuser tool, there's no substantial difference between checking two accounts for a relation to each other and checking a single account for sleepers.
Checking for sleepers creates no difference in how long it takes to carry out the check; it might take much more time or may take much less time, depending on the nature of the technical evidence. If anything, checking for sleepers is easier and less time consuming, not harder.
Regarding "in depth checks", the only way a check could not be in depth is if the checkuser on the case decided simply not to look at half of the data returned by the check, in which case he should almost certainly not be a checkuser. This is especially true since the tool can often tell you that some of the data does not need to be examined.

--(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 21:20, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

- Thanks for the clarification. I can't remember where, but I was told sleeper checks took extra time, by a CU. That is odd. But most importantly, I'm glad you corrected my errors Deskana, thank you. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 21:25, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
  - You're welcome. The amount of time it takes to check for sleepers does vary on a case by case basis. Perhaps they were referring to that case specifically. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 21:26, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
    - That is a likely explanation. I can read httpd logs all day long, but have never seen the voodoo tools that actual CUs use, a non-CU can never understand until they have the tools in hand. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 21:28, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
      - Indeed. These misunderstandings didn't actually affect the way you preform your duties as a clerk, so it's not really a problem in my opinion. Still, I couldn't keep my mouth shut. :-) --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 21:33, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

(←) A likely scenario where a check for sleepers might take longer is if socks are found over a relatively wide dynamic range that is also shared by other, unrelated users. In that case, separating the wheat from the chaff might take considerably longer (especially if the range is busy) than if the socks were found in a relatively narrow range or pretty much by themselves – in which case the sleepers stick out like sore thumbs and are easy to see. The point is, the actual actions to be done are pretty much the same in either case; it's mostly just why we're doing them that changes (for instance, we normally wouldn't checkuser on a very transparent duck unless there were reasons to believe that there might be more socks sleeping). — Coren ^(talk) 21:35, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

- Oh no Deskana, never apologize for educating me, I'm genuinely interesting in understanding better for probably obvious reasons. And thanks for your explanation as well Coren. The more I know, the more effective I can be. Often, I will have an idea of the range that is likely to be used by registered users simply by the archives, so that is useful to know. I probably should have deduced that, but hadn't had a reason to before. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 21:39, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Dennis Brown. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Echigo mole.
Message added 10:31, 21 October 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

New socks were added to the investigation. Tijfo098 (talk) 10:31, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Not AOL. Most likely Vodafone mobile broadband or a similar UK service, e.g. http://www.three.co.uk/ (Hutchison 3G) used by Nole in the past. Tijfo098 (talk) 19:10, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

I was being generic, and I am a Yankee, so I'm not familiar with all the other old services. If I were looking at CU data, I likely would learn it soon enough, I suppose. But it was likely and old style service, based on her cryptic response. I have trouble reading Elen sometimes, but CUs have to be cryptic for a reason. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 19:21, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
- Hackneyhond edited from 212.183.128.72 for instance, which is a Vodafone IP [2]. So the magic ball indicates that Nole (as Fancy Smith) now uses that as his mobile provider. I don't know what grannies use wherever Spar Strangled lives... Tijfo098 (talk)

Jesse Cook

Some Arabic flavour Just been playing along with him and have got a sore on my index finger on my right hand from flamenco shredding!♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:25, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Finally getting to listen to it now. Had to down a pair of plum trees, 20 footers, log and stack the brush. Tired now. That is an unusual blend of flamenco, with just a touch of Middle-east blended in, and a nice syncopated beat behind it. Reminds of something I would listen to in my medicinal youth ;-) Hard to describe the emotion it evokes. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 18:59, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
Just in the mood for some stuff from childhood. [3], [4]. Then I had to play Annie Lennox, Why [5], followed by Freddie Mercury's last [6], both of which have always evoked strong emotions. The story behind Freddie's is particularly moving, and I had always considered him the greatest male vocalist of the era. Moody day, I suppose. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 19:53, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

You've got mail!

Hello, Dennis Brown. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added 16:34, 21 October 2012 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Jethro B 16:34, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

FAR of Microsoft Security Essentials

Hello, Dennis

As a party involved in the 2nd WP:FAC of Microsoft Security Essentials, you might be willing to participate in Wikipedia:Featured article review/Microsoft Security Essentials/archive1.

Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 08:01, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

I've replied there. Seems to be a bit of overreactions in a situation where they could just add a touch more criticism if they felt it was necessary, without changing the quality of the article, and without delisting it. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 11:17, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
- Hi. Thanks for the response. I have been expecting this day since this user appeared in WP:FAC and said those things. You guys were also worried but about something else that I don't remember. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk)

Responded

I responded to your comment at the Signpost. [7]. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 01:29, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

I can tell a lot of thought went into your perspective and I respect your opinion, but this isn't the first time I've seen the idea of replacing RfA with a selection committee. I've started WikiProject Editor Retention, tried to get the policy Request for Admin Sanctions moving forward, and do a great many admin reviews, in addition to participating in most RfAs. I'm of the belief that as we grow, we need to shift more power away from the top, and empower non-admins as well. The plan you are supporting would do the exact opposite, by concentrating more power in fewer people. When I said I would hand in my admin bit and retire Wikipedia if that type of policy was enacted, I wasn't being melodramatic. And I wouldn't be alone. Too much power at the top always leads to corruption. Top down management doesn't work very well in a volunteer organization. Redundancy and handling everything at the lowest possible level does work, which is why many organization shun top down methods. They can be inefficient and bad for morale, as people at the lowest level are less emotionally invested in the success of the organization, due to being disconnected from all administrative decision making.

We have some exceptional talent at Wikipedia. Our best authors are not admin. They are people who don't want to be bothered with mopping up, and just want to create content. They depend on a system that allows them to be left alone, yet they can participate at any level if they choose. Once you take away their right to choose admins, you have stripped away their most basic right in a community: the right to choose who gets the tools to block, protect and delete. Cronyism and other forms of abuse will always be present or suspected. It would quickly become more controversial and more hated than the current system. Removing RfA and replacing it with an elected committee who will hand select admin is a bad idea. It is bad for editor retention, the overall level of happiness and trust here, and it is completely counter to everything I have been working toward. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 02:26, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

You assert that electing representatives to select and manage admins will "shift power to the top." Accountable representatives are neither above nor below the community as a whole, they're of the community. In relation to the admins, "above" is a fair descriptor, but in relation to the rest of the community, they're one with.

This will result in a more representative selection process, not less. Presently admins are selected by whoever turns up at RfA, and as far as I can see, most !voters are doing so on flimsy criteria. I rarely !vote because I rarely know enough about the candidate to make a valuable judgment; and that is the case with many others here. If I and they were to put in the time to form a deep and nuanced understanding of each candidate before voting, we'd be wasting an enormous amount of valuable time.

I want the right to democratically nominate a proxy, someone I trust to speak for me in this selection process. That is, I want a say in who becomes an admin, but I don't want to have to put in 5, 10, or 20 hours doing the background research necessary to do that well, and neither should all the other editors here. Do you really think the self-selected cluster of editors who turn up at RfA are doing a good job; do you think they represent my values; do you think they truly represent the community as a whole? --Anthonyhcole (talk) 03:59, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

You already have the right to nominate and vote for the actual admin, but you choose to not do so. It doesnt' take even 5 hours to do a reasonable background search. I do admin reviews all the time. And you do rely on your own searching, the opinions of others you trust who are voting, and the nominators. Do I think they represent the community as a whole? from 150 to 200 people vote in most successful RfAs, less for obviously failing ones, so that is a reasonable cross-section, but again, if you don't vote, that isn't the fault of the community. Adding a new layer of bureaucracy isn't going to make the process less bureaucratic or more fair, and opens up so many layers of abuse as to make the idea dead in the water as the community is not likely to give up what little control they have in the process. Wikipedia is a project, not a government. Unlike citizens of a government, the citizens at Wikipedia are directly involved with the goals, creating an encyclopedia. The only reason we allow a republican style leadership for government is that we don't want to have to deal with all the individual decisions, so we delegate (vote for) that responsibility to someone else. The citizens of Wikipedia don't have that many things to deal with, just individual issues and the "election" of admin, Arbs, Checkusers and Oversighters. Those are already positions that take care of problems so that individual citizens don't have to. Again, feel free to support whatever initiative you choose. No matter how enthusiastic some may be on that Signpost article, I'm pretty sure that the few hundres people that vote semi-regularly at RfA are not likely to endorse it, so it would be dead on delivery. That makes the issue moot. My only point is that moving power away from the average user is always a bad idea, and empowering a few people at the top who have shown only that they are good politicians, well, that is always bad. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 15:02, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

I'll think about what you've said. Thanks. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 16:37, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

And I appreciate the sincere and thoughtful discussion. Even though my opinion hasn't changed on this one proposal, I've gained some experience understanding why some want the AdminCom or similar, so that helps me as well. And of course, you are always welcome to come here and discuss any topic, I appreciate your methods in doing so. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 19:17, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

You may be changing my mind. I'll keep you informed. I've a bit on my mind at the moment.

While I think about that, can I just say we've got a real problem at Wikipedia with the general quality of argument. I'm no expert rhetorician but I've read a little about it and ours is crap. One major element of this is the tolerance for ad hominem on article talk pages. I'd appreciate your thoughts on this if you have the time. It's possibly the wrong venue. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 14:54, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

I've made a couple of minor comments in other areas. Will have to ponder more before adding anything else. Civility is more a concept than a tangible thing, so we have to be really careful how we define what is and isn't civil. The idea that we shouldn't use ad hominem on talk pages I agree with, but should already be covered by policy. I tend to not block over it, and instead hat discussion or try to mediate, unless my hand is forced. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 15:57, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm proposing a change in practice. That is, presently, it is not permitted to remove ad hominem on article talk pages. I would like it to be mandatory. Ad hominem is a universally-recognised logical fallacy; it is inappropriate on article talk pages. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 16:49, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

WP:REMOVEUNCIVIL limits it to the author of the comment, granted, but more than a few times I have replaced the offending comments with <uncivil comment removed> if it wasn't at all on topic. That is only when I'm an uninvolved editor. I think you will always have to have it removed by someone uninvolved (no need to be an admin really) for the concept to be accepted. While it isn't currently policy, I think most admin would support an uninvolved editor redacting obviously rude and unrelated comments that way. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 16:56, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't think it has to wait for an uninvolved editor: ad hominem is very easy to identify: it addresses the motives or competency of the interlocutor. That's about as easy to recognise as a secondary source. Recognising ad hominem is uncontroversial and if we explicitly disallow it on article talk pages, eliminating it will be as simple as pointing at the policy or guideline that disallows it. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 17:54, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Blood in the wiki-water tonight

And the sharks are circling. If you're online tonight, please keep a tight watch on WP:ANI -- you'll see what I mean if you look at the last couple posts. I'm going real life tonight. Nobody Ent 22:28, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Just got on wiki....jeez...Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 22:29, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

It isn't pretty.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:36, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
If you weren't so important to keeping ANI less horrible, I'd tell you to unwatch it. Maybe if you left, the vitriol would rise to a level where it ceases all functioning. Soon enough people would learn to solve their problems without begging for a ban or a block. Ryan Vesey 22:40, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Oh, I'm not so sure that I make that much difference. Drama seems to find its way there just fine whether or not I'm there. I will try to keep an eye out, but have a few things going on here as well. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 22:43, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Heh, none of us makes that much difference, but, collectively, we may have some soothing influence. At the moment, I'm just waiting to see if my close of the latest ANI discussion holds. I probably won't be around tonight, though. All I can do is hope that people will stop piling it on.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:48, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't want to have to get heavy handed if it doesn't, but the drama needs to stop, that is certain. I'm dropping a note here and there, trying to smooth things over. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 22:54, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Anything you can do to help in that regard would be appreciated, at least by me.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:00, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

In part, I blame Jclemens for helping start the latest uproar with his comment "Malleus has never been a Wikipedian, no matter how many otherwise constructive edits he has made." [8] That has to be the stupidest act a "neutral" party can commit, and the most biased thing I've seen come out of an Arb at Arbitration. Jclemens received just 60% of the vote resulting in a one year term last year[9], and he did this right before Arb elections this year, which is unfortunate timing for him as I sincerely doubt that the public will forget this. It is one thing to support the ban, everyone has opinions and I respect that, but to declare him persona non grata and unilaterally declare him a non-Wikipedian just adds to the drama and makes blowups like tonight happen, as it declares "open season" on a fellow editor. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 23:23, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm no fan of Malleus but there's no arguing that he's a first class content editor and perhaps one of the best and most prolific we have. That makes him very much a Wikipedian, and Jclemens comment was beyond the pale. Bit late now, but it might have set a precedent to have taken him to AN/I ! With Arb elections coming up, perhaps it's not only time to get some reforms to RfA, but Arbcom needs a big shake up too. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:53, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

I respect if an Arb thinks the ban should take place, even if I strongly disagree. I do think it should have been a case, not a motion in an unrelated request for clarification, which looks like a backdoor attempt to ban him, even if it isn't. And yes, I completely agree that some changes might be due. Everyone should go give their opinions in the current RfC on the election, particularly the section secret balloting. [10]. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 23:58, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I understand, but at the same time Jclemens's statement has become an unfortunate rallying point, tending to heat things up more than cool things off.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:00, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

I think he agrees. I didn't notice it at the time or I might have been tempted to do what Floq did, put a block template on his talk page for personal attacks, as a shot across the bow. [11]. Exceptional. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 00:02, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
Now SilverSeren is arguing that Jclemens was "right" in the comment at WP:AN. This is the issue that just keeps on giving. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 00:15, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Wow, I just noticed that Floq didn't just template Jclemens, but actually blocked him. Again...wow. She has balls, gotta admire that. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 00:52, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

I have no idea what is happening, but it beats the hell out of real life right now. Jclemens seems to be the subject of at least two major notice boards. WTF?--Amadscientist (talk) 03:54, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

I thought your comments regarding Jclemens' vote were spot on. --Rs chen 7754 06:24, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Agree with Rschen7754. I'm impressed by what you've had to say. I go around sputtering and you've articulated it all quite succinctly. Well done. Truthkeeper (talk) 11:26, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

I have left notices in a number of venues, formally asking Jclemens to recuse himself. As I've said everywhere, it isn't personal, it is about protecting the integrity of the process. He did finally strike the one comment, which is helpful, but doesn't erase the obvious bias. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 14:25, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

MONGO Beck

[12] I'm fine with the redaction, as long as it's done by an uninvolved person. Just to make this very clear though: I understand that my question may be read as an attack of sorts. But it was a completely sincere question. This is the tone of a rightwinger who is listening to too much rightwing talk radio. Obviously MONGO does not like that observation, because it's accurate. He couldn't say that he doesn't occasionally sound like Glenn Beck, and I was trying to give him the feedback that he does, and that it doesn't help his case one bit. Not an "attack", just an honest question and some honest feedback -- pointedly formulated, yes, but at least it's no libelous lie of the sort MONGO likes to tell. Anyway, just wanted to get that off my chest. --195.14.220.127 (talk) 12:58, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

And I'm much more tolerant of pointy discussion on my talk page than at ANI, where my objective is to reduce drama and keep the discussion moving in as positive a fashion as possible. Since MONGO and I have very different opinions on a variety of issues (but no animosity toward each other), I felt that I was uninvolved enough to make that determination. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 13:53, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

You sure were uninvolved enough, and I accept that reducing drama at AN/I is necessary. No argument from me on either of those points. --195.14.220.127 (talk) 14:23, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

NPP

I have been going through and patrolling some of the unpatrolled user talk pages and I was wondering if there is a specific reason that the earliest pages listed there are only a month old? Are pages automatically patrolled after a month? AutomaticStrikeout 21:22, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Good question. I think you may be right, but I really don't know. Would probably need to ask over at WT:NPP, then tell me so we both know. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 21:26, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Well, here's your answer. AutomaticStrikeout 01:15, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

So my instinct was right. Back when I patrolled regularly, the backlog was closer to 15 to 20 days, but I tried to always work from the back to keep any from falling off the fact of the page. You miss the "low hanging fruit", but that was never my goal, it was to cleanup after they had a go at it for a week or so. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 01:20, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Naqshbandi

I came across this article indirectly through CSD. A nightmare. I removed entire sections from it that made me cringe to look at them, and then I stopped before I slashed the article any further. If you're feeling masochistic - or, better still, if one of your page stalkers is an expert in Islam - take a look.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:19, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Out of my league. I would say ask Drmies, but he and about a dozen others are on strike. I'm not very active myself. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 01:20, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Question

I no longer see an email tab when I look at your page. I have something sensitive I would like to discuss with you. I am not sure if it is a matter of settings or what, but I have email enabled so could you drop me a line? Gtwfan52 (talk) 03:13, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

That's odd, I can see Mr. Brown's email tab. Perhaps refresh the screen, or close the browser and reload? --Jethro B 03:39, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

That didn't work, but I found a link somewhere that got me to the email a user screen.

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.

Gtwfan52 (talk) 04:21, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Need Your Opinion on Something

Which of these climate charts look better? This one or this one? I perfer the former as it is less tacky, has more information and is easier to read. The latter is the standard one to use. What do you think? - Neutralhomer • Talk • 17:50, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

When you are asking me for content opinions, this can only mean you are really desperate for opinions. ;) I like the existing one at Stevens city, by a large margin. The colors provide additional information and the compact nature makes it easier to compare months. I've only done a couple of those charts, and wouldn't have even considered using your first example, which is larger and actually requires you to think more in order to glean information from it. The second one seems more intuitive. Might be because I'm used to it, but I think the compact nature and colors are the real reason. "Tacky" isn't a big deal to me if it is more usable. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 17:57, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
- Nah, I have asked User:Drmies, User:Gerda Arendt‎ and User:RexxS so far, but want to get a wide variety of opinions before I go nuts and start editing away. So far it's 1 for compact and colors, 2 for large and intuitive and 1 on the fence. I am thinking of a way to somehow create one that is both large and intuitive, but has the colors...kind of a "best-of-both-worlds" kinda deal. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 18:15, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
  - Keep in mind, many people don't have wide screens, or use mobile devices. There are good reasons for a compact table and contrasting color besides just "looks". Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 19:18, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
    - This is true, but I am different. :) I go against the norm and against the grain. Things like the Ottawa version are cool to me and different from everything else, but then again so am I. :) I figure people will say "don't rock the boat" and keep things as they are, which is cool. I can accept that, I just like being different. :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 19:42, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
      - (talk page stalker) I agree that the second one is much more informative at a glance than the first. Go Phightins! 19:46, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
      - I have to admit that I like consistency in the encyclopedia. Whatever we choose, it should probably be used wiki-wide. That might need a larger discussion once you have fine tuned it on one of the MOS pages, and a bot to change all the cities if your ideas won out. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 19:47, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
        I think everyone would agree with you that consistency is a good thing and why fix what ain't broken. I will put it up for a !vote once I get all the bugs worked out on WP:MOS, but I have a feeling it won't come out on top. :) Thanks for your opinion (you too Go Phightins!). - Neutralhomer • Talk • 19:55, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Updated the Stephens City page with the new climate chart box. What do you think? - Neutralhomer • Talk • 02:41, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't like it as well. The other chart, the colors varied according to the numbers. Higher numbers had different colors, so it showed a gradient. This was true for rain, highs, lows, sunshine, etc. Now it is just flat numbers. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 10:31, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
- That's where the differences lie...some like the gradient, some don't. Leaves me kind confused on what I should do. :S - Neutralhomer • Talk • 19:48, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

"It appears I have little support"

It appears to me you have overwhelming support. I'm sure you're more well-versed in the ins and outs of Wiki-policy than I. What is the correct process to attempt to remove an arb who refuses the requests of the people to recuse? Joefromrandb (talk) 12:50, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

BTW, why is there a picture of Dan Fogelberg on your user page?:) Joefromrandb (talk) 12:52, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

If you concern is about Jclemens, NewYorkBrad, Calisper, SirFozzie, David Fuchs, Elen of the Roads, Xeno or PhilKnight, I think they are up for election in November and the best way to handle it is to vote, as no proceeding would likely be done in time to make a difference. I heard that SirFozzie isn't running again, I have no idea who of those is running and who isn't outside of him. Being an Arb is a thankless job and I'm quite sure it is a pain in the ass, so I try to cut a little slack, but I am frustrated at the choices that a few of them have made recently. In spite of what others may think, Malleus is rather incidental to my frustration and my concern is with the consistency and equity with the system as a whole. It is about the greater principle at work more than this individual case. Outside of elections, I am not sure what the removal process is, although I'm not ready to sign on to removing anyone just yet.

My comment "It appears I have little support" was referring only to the lack of interested parties on that one Arb's page. As to the level of support elsewhere on Wikipedia, I feel very fortunate that many editors have been quite generous in their overall support, as well as very forgiving for my shortcomings. The solution I suggested on that one Arb's page has been taken so far out of context as to dilute my original intent, which was to reduce some drama, not add politics, but seems moot at this point. I don't blame anyone as it is a heated affair with widely varying opinions. Like other heated debates, sometimes a message gets lost in a sea of pitchforks and torches. What affects me most is that many of the people I respect the most have either retired or become inactive due to this debacle. That list includes people I consider mentors and compatriots.

As for Dan Fogelberg, that was worth a smile. I've heard a few comparisons to different people, but I don't see it. At least no on has said I look like Clint Howard [13] :) Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 13:27, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

WP:DENY Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 21:06, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

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

Libel as a synonym for slander

Hey man, I understand there is a good bit of admin politics going on right now, so I hopefully won't take up much of your time. I was just wondering, if a user expresses an opinion in a talk page that one sentence in an article is false and libel, would that user likely become banned as making a legal threat?

Seems to me, saying something is 'libel' is much the same as saying something is slanderous and it's not a big deal.

I could be wrong,

Appreciate if you could clear this up,

Thanks! HafniumDrive (talk) 13:58, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Context is going to be the determing factor. Compare "this is false and I'm concerned it may be libelous" to "this is false and libelous and you must remove it now or face further action". Got an example in mind? Garamond Lethe 14:07, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't have the link, so I'm having to offer an opinion based only on your statement. To me, if someone simply says "that is false and libelous", then that isn't so much a legal threat as a personal attack, and should be removed as such. Calling an action "libel" implies intent, that the statement was made with the sole purpose of damaging a person's reputation. It is also a de jure assumption of bad faith and can result in sanction. This is covered by WP:NPA as well. There are circumstances where the phrase might be used and the totality of the statement could be said to have "a chilling effect" (the standard for legal threat) as well, but context matters. If it is a borderline case, it is better to just handle as a personal attack, since it clearly falls into that classification and doesn't require a debate. The offending party should simply strike or remove the comment and clarify. If they do that, I would personally consider it sufficient to just move on. The goal is to facilitate reasonable conversation, which can get heated sometimes, but using pointed phrases or words is unhelpful and should be avoided and/or corrected. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 14:09, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm not touching on the NLT aspect as others have already done so. However, although I am unsure how it works in the US, here in the UK libel and slander have one principle difference in law: the former is written and the latter is spoken. Either can be defamation of character etc. - Sitush (talk) 14:31, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

It is the same here, libel is written, slander is spoken. Accusing someone of either is incivil or a personal attack if it isn't substantiated, however. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 14:35, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Oct 2012

Hi Dennis. I just wanted to let you know I reverted your revert to GoalRef. The content you reverted was actually a significant improvement over the original content in terms of both formatting and informational value, and was most definitely not a vandal edit. Besieged (talk) 15:08, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Ah, I had reverted because it was a blocked troll sock that had made that edit, but I will trust your judgement if you think it is best to put it back. Thanks for the heads up. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 15:59, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
- Gotcha! I was confused that such an experienced admin would have made that revert, but it makes sense that you were viewing it through a different lens based on data I was not seeing; I do think the content as provided, even by a potential sock, is a huge improvement over the prior content, regardless of source, but no worries, that's why we employ so many eyes, and thanks much for your efforts! Besieged (talk) 16:54, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
  - No problem, I'm always open to explaining my actions, particularly when they aren't obvious at first blush. I generally revert socks/trolls as a rule, and if anyone reverts me, I leave it alone and out of respect for the regular editors of that article. At the end of the day, the quality of the article is more important. I know some admin get defiant about reverting out good material, but I don't. While WP:DENY is a good idea, the quality of the article trumps it. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 17:03, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Admin's Barnstar
	Thanks for everything you do to keep the wikipedia running, relevant and useful! Besieged (talk) 16:59, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for the kindness! I've safely stored the original in my Ronco™ Barnstar Vault Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 17:05, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Uttar Pradesh

Hi,Dennis.I've nominated Uttar Pradesh for GA.Will you please review it.I hope you help me as you said "You are willing to lend a helping hand. Just ask." Thank You and kind regards.25 CENTS VICTORIOUS ^☣ 19:09, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

I am far from the best editor we have here, that is certain, and have never reviewed a GA, but I will be happy to take a look and offer any assistance I can. Even though I'm an old man, I am still a student when it comes to quality prose. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 19:11, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
- I will be very happy,if you review it.25 CENTS VICTORIOUS ^☣ 19:21, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Blocked

Brilliant. --Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 19:14, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Someone had to stop his madness ;) And since I've been dragged into the current Arb debacle by being named as an involved party (really, I wasn't, but I didn't have much of a choice once declared), I guess it is poking a little fun at myself, while reminding us all what we are really here for, creating articles. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 21:11, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, any bit of fun and joy deeply appreciated ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:19, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Nice one, Dennis. The funny part about that is that it's true, that would be a reason to block someone. Go Phightins! 21:22, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

A little silliness is helpful to keep me from taking myself too serious, something we all fall prey to from time to time. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 21:34, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Opinion requested from John D. Rockerduck

I was wondering if you could look at Political positions of Tom Smith were an editor trying to describe Smith's Position on Rape says that "he believes abortion should be banned with no exceptions, including for victims of rape" which seems to me politcally charged language meant to be unfairly biased against his position with the neutral way I tried to include was "he believes abortion should be banned with no exceptions, including cases of rape". As I would not say Mitt Romney is against abortion except for rape victims I would say except for cases of rape. Also If you could check out the talkpage for Tom Smith for that sections other problems it would be great John D. Rockerduck (talk) 21:36, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

I've checked the sources and have added to the talk page as a 3rd opinion. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 22:51, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks man for taking the time to check it out, also our paths did cross once before here 1 — Preceding unsigned comment added by John D. Rockerduck (talk • contribs) 23:58, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

- Ah, well my poor memory insured a neutral reply nonetheless :) Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 12:43, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

You've got mail!

Hello, Dennis Brown. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added 21:38, 23 October 2012 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Ryan Vesey 21:38, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Your reverting of 'socks/trolls' using Twinkle

I took your advice, so please check AN under the above title. Tim98Seven (talk) 01:11, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Requests for clarification

I noticed your comment at the MF clarification request. Requesting clarification of an Arbcom decision has always been risky: here's one where I nearly wound up topic banned from all arts articles because I tried to get clarification on wording.—Kww(talk) 05:49, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it wasn't my idea and I wouldn't have recommended it. The reporting party wasn't sure how to determine "involved", so I kind of listed even though I'm not really involved, per our standard definition. I do believe they have made an enormous jump there, going to a motion because (as one arb put it) there wasn't a stomach to start a case. I don't have a problem with those that take issue with Malleus, but this is not a "brave" way to deal with the concerns. At a glance, your case looks like a "now that we have a foot in the door, lets slam the door wide open" situation as well. Any editor who is not in the public favor, such as Malleus, doesn't stand a chance. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 12:10, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

You've got mail!

Hello, Dennis Brown. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added 10:00, 24 October 2012 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 10:00, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

A cookie for you!

I'm giving out cookies to all of the Admins I see today :3 Enjoy! Meva / CHCSPrefect - (Prefect Helpdesk) 10:31, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

User:Ewawer/Rogr101

Hey, Dennis. Mind giving me your take on this, especially since you deal with double (or multiple/various) accounts all the time? After reverting Rogr101, I decided to look into his contribution history because I figured that, with the nonexistent user page/talk page, he was likely new. And sure enough, the account is newly registered -- registered on the 14th of this month. But when I looked into his contribution history, I noticed a striking similarity between his article interests and edit summary style and that of Ewawer's. On the 14th, Rogr101 made the following edit summary expressions: ‎"(Ce)," "Expand intro," "Tidy up bit," and "More tidy up." These are all expressions that Ewawer uses often. While other editors use these expressions, it is usually sparingly with regard to the last three; I have come across none that use them as often as Ewawer, especially "Tidy up." And although Ewawer doesn't always capitalize his edit summaries, he sometimes does, such as here. There are some users' editing habits that I know so well that I'd recognize them almost instantly and I believe this to be the case with Rogr101, and I commented as much on his user talk page. So where do I go with this from here? It doesn't seem that this needs reporting since the Ewawer account, thus far, has not been editing since the 16th and since this may have been a WP:Fresh start attempt (albeit the wrong way to do it). We can wait for a reply, but Ewawer usually doesn't reply on his user talk page or discuss matters at/take matters to an article talk page. Flyer22 (talk) 10:26, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

The key is looking for either overlap or evasion of sanctions/blocks/scrutiny. If they are the same, not sure I see that yet. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 15:08, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

You mean article overlap? Like I stated, they have that. And per my analysis above, I'm certain that both editors are the same person. Then again, I have been familiar with this editor since 2007. But I don't see anything that indicates that he needs to be blocked. It's just that even though he's been around since 2007, he's unfamiliar with most of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If he participated in talk page discussions more often, he wouldn't be. But there is also the option of just reading up on those things oneself, which I don't believe he's done for the most part. Flyer22 (talk) 15:51, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Overlap is different than Editor A stopping on Monday, and Editor B starting on Tuesday. They have to be intermingled. I'm not saying "no", I'm saying wait a bit. The one has only had one edit since the second editor started. Jumping into an investigation too soon is the primary cause of "might be, but not enough evidence yet" which means a connection isn't made, and you've tipped them off. I suggest waiting a few days to see what happens, but keeping an eye out. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 16:02, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes, again looking at the articles Rogr101 has edited and analyzing the contribution histories of those articles, I see how it can be stated that there isn't yet much of an overlap; that's the only thing that adds doubt in my head that they are the same person, because Rogr101 is editing topics that are in Ewawer's range of article interests and has used edit summary style that is signature of Ewawer's editing. I certainly don't want Ewawer blocked. I was conflicted about what to do on this matter, but didn't even seriously consider starting a sockpuppet investigation because of what I stated above. Although Ewawer's formatting is often "off," Wikipedia-formatting wise, and he often adds unsourced material, his editing is generally beneficial to Wikipedia. I was waiting until Rogr101 responds to decide whether or not to add a Welcome template to Rogr101's talk page. Flyer22 (talk) 16:33, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Just keep an eye out. If I block someone, I have to be able to explain in fine detail why, they they are related, and how I've ruled "coincidence". There is no doubt that you would know better than I here, as you are familiar and "gut instinct" can play a role. If you had the admin bit, you could block and explain it in better detail than I can. That is what it boils down for admin: how sure are you? Kind of sure? Not good enough. Reasonably sure? Not good enough. Better than 80% sure? Probably good enough to block. After all, waiting costs nothing, but blocking (and being wrong) can cost an editor. When you are wrong, that is a real person on the other end of that signature. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 18:24, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, Dennis. I don't want Ewawer blocked, though, as mentioned. Not unless he inappropriately continues to use both accounts, if he is operating both accounts that is. But whether Rogr101 is Ewawer or not, I think it's safe to state that he isn't new to editing Wikipedia. He might have been a different registered user or editing as only an IP before now, but editors who are truly new to Wikipedia don't use "Ce" (which is of course short for "copyedit") in their edit summaries when they edit Wikipedia...unless they learn it; it's something you learn from others while editing here. Flyer22 (talk) 22:22, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Well... Just like I expected (and as noted, it is characteristic of Ewawer), Rogr101 didn't reply. He continued editing after the message, and a few hours after he stopped, Ewawer finally continued editing; I saw this when it was happening, but am just now commenting here about it. Obviously, Rogr101 not responding to my query on his talk page reinforces my suspicion that these two are the same person. But there's not enough evidence for others to go on, and at least, if they are the same person, he's not using both accounts to get his way at an article. Not yet at least. I'll leave you or someone else to add a Welcome template on Rogr101's talk page. Flyer22 (talk) 18:05, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm at work and a bit tied, but filing an WP:SPI account would be warranted if you are confident. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 18:08, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Nah. I meant it that I don't want the guy blocked (unless he resorts to using both accounts to get his way at an article), and, as we've agreed, there just isn't enough evidence. Flyer22 (talk) 18:13, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

One more thing: Before this discussion is archived, I wanted to note here that they are both currently editing film-related articles. So if there is ever a sockpuppet case brought up against Ewawer in the future, that could be presented as evidence. Other than that, I don't have much more to state on this topic at this time. Flyer22 (talk) 15:34, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

dogs ...

Laughed my ass off at the "Has anyone seen my paw". I'm sure it's an old one, but it caught me at just the right time I suppose. — Ched : ? 03:07, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

A skeleton walks into a bar and orders a beer and a mop. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 13:05, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Marcel Leroux

Can you userfy this article for me please, I am quite sure this fellow passes the notability guidlines such as WP:AUTHOR and GNG. I asked Boing, but he is on strike currently. Darkness Shines (talk) 11:39, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

That had a lot of controversy, give me a bit to look at it again, I've been kind of swamped today. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 19:54, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

ANI notice

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. (It's the Fjozk discussion). AutomaticStrikeout 16:03, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

In progress Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 16:20, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
Out of pocket for a while, will see if I can get back to this in a bit. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 17:49, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Requesting reviewer

Hi Dennis, I'd like to ask for another set of permissions, as you suggested in your RfA review for me. Even though pending changes isn't enabled, I think I'd be a competent reviewer. You seem to have given me a good lookover for that review, but if you'd like to know any more before giving me such a permission, I'd be happy to oblige. Thanks, BDD (talk) 18:10, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Done, nothing else to know about that right, you being a librarian is plenty qualification enough. Next, File movers do a lot of things that admin do as well, which is to change the file names from "DCS19293.jpg" to something useful like "Red 1956 Chevrolet Corvette convertible.jpg" and maybe add a category or two, then go back in all the places it was linked and repair to the new name. Reading up on WP:FILEMOVER, then patrolling new files should give you a good idea of the need and the hows, and I would recommend that as a next step. This should be pretty easy for you and I would guess to see you back in a week for the bit so you can work on it. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 19:52, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! Will do. --BDD (talk) 20:02, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Nice to see you again, Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/DeeJermo

Hello Dennis! Happy to see and talk to you after many weeks. I just recently came back after a short Wikibreak of about a month. I have started a quite simple SPI report Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/DeeJermo and have given the required information and evidence there. I believe it would be quite easy for any SPI clerk like you to have a review over it and endorse/approve it so that Investigation completes soon, and we all get the results soon ;) Regards. TheGeneralUser (talk) 19:36, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Excellent detective work, serious. But there is no abuse. Ie: no crossover in edits, no deception at AFD, so I have to assume it really is two editors that share an IP, which is allowed. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 20:06, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks for the compliment. I believe you are right Dennis, it can be freely closed as the actual WP:SOCK policy is not being violated. Thanks again for your review. TheGeneralUser (talk) 20:16, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
  - No problem. I have done the exact thing once or twice as a clerk, outlined a beautiful explanation of how the two editors "must" be the same, to have the CU reply on the investigation page only with the line "Where is the abuse?" That takes the air of your balloon after all that work, so I understand. And that is why I didn't just say "Where is the abuse?" and explained it instead. ;) Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 20:19, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Turkish people

This is very tedious. User:Turco85 is deleting entire sections which have journal article citations. Can you please take a look? I'm writing to you cause I think you are the admin who were looking into this page. Cavann (talk) 21:23, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm assuming this user may be another sockpuppet, judging by their contributions. It's a repeat of past edits on the Turkish people article. I refuse to be dragged into edit wars.Turco85 (Talk) 21:43, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

I've replied at ANI about the issue. You aren't at a stage that you need admin, you need to try to talk it out on the talk page or WP:DRN. ~~The other editor has been here a few years, so~~ talking about socks isn't proper without substantiation, ie: evidence. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 21:45, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
Ok, that was an error, i"m at too many places at once. Still, provide some diffs if you are going to make a claim. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 21:47, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

It's been going on for years now, the history of the article shows all. Plus see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Ledenierhomme. Personally, I've had enough and don't care anymore. Sorry to be so negative on your talk page but it's just annoying when some of us work so hard and then this keeps happening.Turco85 (Talk) 22:04, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

- - - - I understand, I have at least a dozen windows open and searching now. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 22:06, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Besides my edits as Cavann89, I had never edited Turkish page before. Feel free to proceed with any investigation though. Cavann (talk) 22:09, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Sally Season

For some reason you've decided to stay out of this, likely because you're smarter than I am. Atm I am engaged in an edit war on User:Sally Season and it could use some level heading admining from you; I would consider it a personal favor if you'd be willing to mediate. I'm done with it now, better things to do and what not. Thanks if you can offer any help. Sædon ^talk 01:17, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

I see it is at MfD, I've voiced in there. Best to leave it to that discussion. I wasn't sure if we agreed on that point or not, glad to see we do. As a community, we need to stop nickel and diming our editors over minor things. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 11:04, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

Thanks for believing! :)

DeeJermo (talk) 04:49, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

We should give the benefit of the doubt when we can. I don't always get it right, but I will keep trying. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 11:09, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Requesting Wikipedia:Autochecked users for testing

Hello Dennis, I would like to use Wikipedia:Autochecked users user right for testing on pages in Wikipedia:Pending changes/Testing. I already have three other user rights which i do my usual Wikipedia work with them. Technical information given at Special:ListGroupRights gives some info about Autochecked users, but I would personally like to use and see it on my own by experiencing it. Regards. TheGeneralUser (talk) 11:48, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't think that group does what you think it does. There are only TWO editors with that right as of now.[14] That is a left over right that isn't currently active. I've not given, as I don't want it to look like hat collecting with an unusable user right. I still need to read up more about pending changes myself, I'm not sure how any of that is going to work. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 12:40, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Who is John Galt?

This "administrative strike thing" reminds me of the novel, Atlas Shrugged. Which makes me wonder...which one of you is Galt? ```Buster Seven Talk 14:33, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Not sure. I'm not on strike, I'm not protesting, I'm attempting to engage both sides and seek a peaceful resolution, while supporting the right of those that are on strike to peacefully voice their opinions. There is no leadership that I'm aware of, only a group of deeply concerned people who are being mislabeled and reviled for being loyal volunteers. There is room for all opinions here, and the lack of tolerance for them is symptomatic of the larger issues. I feel like I'm the only sane person here, which is the first sign of insanity I have been told. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 14:39, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

You'll be wanting User:Balph Eubank then. Do we have User:John Galt? It would seem not... yet... William M. Connolley (talk) 16:29, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Galt is a "character" (which may be a prerequisite to become a User) but, to date, no one has assummed his moniker. User:Eubank must have read, and enjoyed, the novel. ```Buster Seven Talk 17:03, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Seeing that as a redlink makes me want to change my username this very minute. ~Adjwilley (talk) 19:47, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Nevermind. It's already registered. All the good names are taken. ~Adjwilley (talk) 19:49, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Uh, just because the user page is a redlink doesn't mean the account isn't registered. It has a talk page and even contribs (dating back to 2005, but still). Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 19:50, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

@Dennis. Your comment, I feel like I'm the only sane person here, which is the first sign of insanity I have been told', brings to mind special arrangements that have been made to provide for your well being pursuant to your inevitable mental health issues. A special safe room has been prepared by The Foundation. It is just down the hall, third door on the left side. A palm print scanner will only allow access by yourself and neccesary Foundation personnel (The folks you see with the white lab coats and the golden shoulder epillettes. The folks without the epillettes are Security). Your use of the room is completely self-determined and, once you enter, assistance will be provided within 24 hours (They are a bit short-staffed). Just make yourself comfortable in the middle of the room. The padding and the lack of furniture are for your protection. Someone will be with you shortly. Have a nice day! ```Buster Seven Talk 14:15, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

.

Talk:Highland Park High School (Highland Park, Illinois)

Dennis, could you please take a look at the above (edits this month, from here down for SPI and a revdel on the subsection Rudman? Thanks in advance. There be games afield! Gtwfan52 (talk) 00:59, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

The IP's all WHOIS to Stanford and the User:Joseacosta writes with exactly the same style. Quack. Gtwfan52 (talk) 01:19, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

And now a new IP is adding more defamation. see last section. Not as severe, but at a loss. Can I just delete this obvious nonsense? Silly season applies to more than just the election. Just realized the time back east, so I am just gonna ignore til tomorrow. sorry to bother you so late. Gtwfan52 (talk) 03:53, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

NM, he self deleted.Gtwfan52 (talk) 03:56, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

I've semi-protected the regular page for a month, which should slow down some of the action. Let me know if I need to do more. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 11:07, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

As I have pointed out to GTW, during the protection period, I will be verifying the current information for this HS and for Whitney Young, another Chicgoland HS article with potential vandal presense. I'm not sure if WYHS is protected. ```Buster Seven Talk 21:20, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, Dennis...I reverted all the garbage from the Notable list in that article several days ago, and as of yet, none of it has re-appeared. The only problem I had is the absolute stupidity in the comments at the userpage. Sorry, I know...AGF. The only good faith I can offer is that the editor, and I still think it is just one or a connected group, legitimately feels that these people belong and do not understand the concept of notability, and are apparently ready to lie, fabricate or whatever else it takes to get their people on a list. Gtwfan52 (talk) 23:53, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Arbitration motion regarding Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Civility enforcement

By a vote of 9-1, the Arbitration Committee has passed the following motion:

Remedy 4 ("Malleus Fatuorum topic banned") of Civility Enforcement is vacated, and replaced with the following:

Malleus is topic banned from making edits concerning the RFA process anywhere on the English Wikipedia. As an exception, he may ask questions of the candidates and express his own view on a candidate in a specific RFA (in the support, oppose, or neutral sections), but may not engage in any threaded discussions relating to RFA. An uninvolved admin may remove any comments in violation of this remedy, and may enforce it with blocks if necessary.

For the Arbitration Committee, --Lord Roem (talk) 19:25, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Where would I get some clarification on this? Or Dennis, do you have a thought? Is Malleus allowed to discuss a specific RfA with the person who is or was running? For example, would the comments he left at User talk:Ryan Vesey/Archive 11#Well said be outlawed? Ryan Vesey 20:21, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Appears not, from the look of it, which is somewhat unfortunate, but... I dunno. At least it's clearer than what it was. -— Isarra ༆ 20:33, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

This was ill worded from the beginning. Again. As soon as Malleus mentions someone who is at RfA on his talk page, even if the discussion isn't about the RfA, someone will drag him to Arb Enforcement. That means that anyone who files a RfA will instantly become He Who Shall Not Be Named to Malleus, even if the discussion is about an FA or article, for as soon as someone says "he is at RfA", Malleus must shut up or risk banning again. Why they chose to word this so poorly, when clarity would have been just as easy, I have no idea. Arb has jumped out of the frying pan, and into the fire with this one. New elections are coming up, so a partial fresh crop of Arbs will get to cut their teeth on this one soon enough, I promise. Oh well, no one asked my opinion, and Jclemens never even answered my concern. That he didn't vote (but didn't officially recuse) is not the same, particularly since my concerns were never even acknowledged after politely but directly being expressed on his talk page. You guys know how I am, I'm funny about "respect" that way. But, it isn't my battle, and I hope to not be named as a party again. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 21:22, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Oh Ryan, to answer your question: Yes, if he said something polite as he did to you, it would be grounds to permanently ban him. The wording is quite clear, and doesn't differentiate positive and negative comments. It is a binary test. That they exist is enough to ban him. Actually, the remedy is "block", but it will instantly be at Arb with a ban discussion, the way this one degraded when it was only a clarification request. There are a number of people willing to file it there, of this I am sure. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 21:27, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

This may not be the right venue, but what the heck. First, I'll agree the wording isn't ideal. We may yet (shudder) be facing a clarification request. Back on point, I read it a bit more narrowly. The ban relates to the RFA process, in the first sentence. It is broadened slightly in the second, whether deliberately or accidentally, I can't be sure, but the second eliminates the possibility of too narrow an interpretation of the first. For example, an edit in an RFA stating that so and so is a terrible editor is arguably not an edit about the process. The second sentence covers that possibility. However, if someone asks a question on MF's talk page about a GAN, and MF responds that the main editor does seem to understand English, that should not, IMO, be a violation. If he follows it up by saying, not only doesn't the editor know English, but he shouldn't be an admin, then that crosses the line.--SPhilbrick (Talk) 21:54, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Well, at the last clarification request, they just tightened the noose, with yet more vague wording. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 22:01, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Query

Hello Sir,I recently got rollback rights after some good work related to vandalism and apart from that i want to get reviewer rights too then what to do and where to improve myself so i will able to grab reviewer rights in future.Thanx!---zeeyanketu ^{talk to me} 21:36, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

I suggest Wikipedia:Request for permissions. I rarely give permissions and only to people I've researched a great deal or whom I am very familiar. I'm stingier with them than most, I suppose, and those guys know what to look for and do a much better job at determining than I possibly can. Honestly, I'm so overbooked I can't keep up with the load I have to do more research. I haven't even been able to do any real editing in a week. Sorry. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 21:40, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Until the final outcome of Pending Changes is known, it appears that admins have apparently (and probably wisely) self-imposed a moratorium on granting Reviewer rights. There are already over 5,000 editors with this right so there is no urgency. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:44, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Any news?

I was wondering if there was any news with regard to WP:Conservatism. There is little left to say there, and I’m rather concerned that the discussion will go nowhere, as it has in the past. Do you know anything of interest? RGloucester (talk) 22:06, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

The problem being that it is election season for ArbCom, I fear, and I would imagine a desire to not take on anything for a few months, which is unfortunate. I've emailed a few times asking for guidance, and Elen was kind enough to reply back to ask more info, but I haven't seen anything in reply. :/ Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 22:09, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Dennis, there's only so many ways I can say this - and I seem to have said it several times now. If you want to get Arbcom involved in this, you will have to bring a case. The Committee can't say whether or not it would take a case unless someone lays the evidence out on all sides, and it can evaluate the situation. None of us is going to go look at the project talkpage and say "yes, bring a case". So either bring a case or don't. It is up to you, not up to the Committee. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:30, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Other than ArbCom, the best option seems to me to be, maybe, to propose a retitling or merger of the project with WikiProject Politics, and maybe filing an RfC on the proposal, saying basically, as per RGloucester above, that the basic preliminary discussion seems to have ended, and time has come to make a decision. If, as some projects, including Conservatism, have done in the past, and the Conservatism project talk page is redirected to the WikiProject Politics talk page, I think most of the problems might be at least basically addressed. Maybe. John Carter (talk) 23:13, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

I think if you still feel you've got a community option left to try, it's probably worth trying it. This Wikiproject hasn't been all over DRN/AN/ANI/Jimbo's talkpage, so it doesn't have the feel to me of a major conduct issue (at least not yet). If you want to bring an RfAR, you really need to show that there are some serious conduct issues in there. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:37, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Actually, the members were all over ANI before the discussion started, and then the problems stopped, and the project founder hasn't replied to any email or edited since DGG made his first edit. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER

Yes, I'll take that back, they were at one point. But it really is your move - do you see a community process working, or some alternative tactic, or is RfAR the only resort. Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:30, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

The last two or three weeks, I've been really thinking about alternatives, trying to avoid Arb simply because I prefer to handle problems at the lowest level possible. I've got a couple of ideas, but I need a few days off, then come back with a fresh perspective. Maybe we just need to all join up and become part of the solution, merge the political projects together so they aren't biased. (the others have similar problems, but aren't active). I don't know, but it isn't likely a small thing. The discussion we started actually helped because it stopped the disruption itself, giving us a little time to figure out how to deal with the inherent bias without having to rush. But it is time to make a move, one way or another. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 00:40, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

What we had on the talk page was essentially an RfC. There is no reason to go through the process of starting a formal version. Retitling and merging are a waste of time. These have been tried before (I proposed a retitling discussion about a year ago), and they will not work. The project “hierarchy” will not accept such moves from the community. They’ve resisted multiple good-faith ideas, proposals, &c., and still have not really even accepted that there is a problem. I personally think that ArbCom is the best route at this point, and really the only option that hasn’t been exhausted. Writing a request shouldn’t be that hard, and I’d be certainly willing to help out in the event that that was decided. Either way, action must be taken, soon. I don’t think it is appropriate to let this drift into the past yet again. RGloucester (talk) 00:52, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

I agree, and I promise I won't walk away. We need to figure out which is the best solution this coming week and move forward. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 00:56, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Sock puppet

Sorry to bother you, but an obvious sock (Special:Contributions/76.232.253.147) currently performing mass deletions on Genocides in history. ColaXtra (talk) 22:08, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Dennis is away over the weekend so I hope you'll not mind me answering here. The page has now been full protected by another admin. It does seem as if 76.232.253.147 has more experience than their 24 WP:SPA contribs would have accumulated, but without further evidence I would hesitate to make a case of sockpuppetry. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:51, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

OK, my thanks to you! the IP and I will discuss things on the article's talk until the full protection is lifted. S/he seems amenable enough. Thanks again! ColaXtra (talk) 00:56, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

It looks like you posted in the wrong section

You posted in the section about the interaction ban, but your text seems to about the site-ban. Tijfo098 (talk) 22:47, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Fixed. Farmer Brown (talk) 22:55, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

YRC

In my view you generally get things right, but your comments at ANI and the arbcom request case are surprising. You say, we don't know enough to evaluate. Well, two members of the oversight team saw the material; one suppressed it, the other agreed (posting on ANI) that that was the right decision. The fact that we can't see the material shows that there was a problem; it shouldn't be used to argue that there isn't a problem. (Now, on top of that, I saw it before it was oversighted -- even if one doesn't agree that it was outing, there was an aggressive, taunting quality to it that amounts to a blatant violation of the civility restriction.) Nomoskedasticity (talk) 08:39, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Actually, I've been pretty consistent about these things, that everyone at Wikipedia should be treated fairly and equitably, regardless of how popular or unpopular they are. I haven't given an opinion on whether or not he should be banned, my opinion was based solely on process. The fact that it was oversighted isn't evidence, it is lack of evidence. This is why I said it has to go to Arb. As an admin, I can't even see the edits. I am not going to blindly take the word of anyone, this is a ban discussion, after all. It isn't personal, I'm also not accepting Ironholds or the Oversighters's opinions blindly. Arbs all have Oversight tools. There is some evidence that it wasn't really outing as well. Honestly, I have no opinion on whether the evidence supports banning or not, as I haven't seen it. However, I expect us, as a community, to treat YRC the same as we would treat you or I, and make sure that before we permanently ban someone, that a fair process has been followed. Allowing 100 people who have not seen the evidence to make the decision, some who have personal vendettas, is not optimal. He is already blocked, a short delay while we do this the right way, the fair way, doesn't cost us anything. So I haven't disagreed (or agreed) with your conclusion, I just want us to do this the right way, the objective and fair way, for ourselves. Farmer Brown (talk) (alt of Dennis Brown) 12:41, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

On break

I need a little admin break, so I won't be around much through this weekend, if at all. Can't remember taking a single day off here in 6 months, and I need to get outdoors. You know, go look at that big yellow ball in the sky, do some yardwork, fresh air and all that. If something needs looking at in a timely manner, I would ask you check with another admin until Monday or Tuesday. Thanks! Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 00:44, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

First, there are no other admins - aren't they all on strike or something? Second, you need to clear this with your supervisor. Finally, enjoy your well-deserved break.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:47, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Go. Chop wood, or whatever. Place will still be here when you come back. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:59, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Ignoring all rules, I unilaterally accord Dennis permission to take the weekend off without an RfC to decide. I'm not on strike (yet) and though I can't do it as well as Dennis I will be quite happy to hold the fort alone... Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:40, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

That didn't work out so well. I've received more email in the last 24 hours than you can shake a stick at, plus the YRC/ANI/Arb issue. sigh... Will try to take a break again after the Wikiproject Conservatism case is over, I guess. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 13:42, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Knight's Spider Web Farm

On 28 October 2012, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Knight's Spider Web Farm, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that painted and lacquered spider webs are sold as art at Knight's Spider Web Farm in Vermont? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Knight's Spider Web Farm. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

The DYK project (nominate) 16:04, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Congrats, Mr. Admin! Drmies (talk) 01:13, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
- I was just thinking I needed to thank you for submitting. That is my third, I've upped my ratio to one every two years! I'm still working on the auto articles, which I'm hoping to have to at least GA quality by the time I get them to mainspace. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 01:15, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Tool

Since I've stolen a few tools from your commons.js page, I thought I'd let you know about one that I've been working on. I pieced it together using code from a current Gadget and code from a retired user who wrote a predecessor to the gadget. (I had been using the gadget but didn't like it because it removed a lot of helpful tabs (like watch/unwatch), and I didn't like the older code because it didn't have nearly the same functionality as the gadget.) Anyway if you'd like to take it for a test drive, the code is

importScript('User:Adjwilley/cactions.js');

If it works correctly, you should get "user" and "page" tabs that open up into sub-menus that have links to all kinds of useful things like rights, logs, contributions, subpages, blocks, wikichecker, and geolocate (only works on IPs). It looks like it has extra things in there for admins that I can't see obviously. ~Adjwilley (talk) 20:55, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Ah, sounds interesting. I will give it a spin either late tonight or tomorrow, I like to really debug new scripts so they don't go crazy and block Jimbo or anything. Thanks! Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 20:57, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Ha! That sounds like a good idea. In that case, the pages you'll want to look at are: [15] and [16]. You can copy them into your userspace if you'd like, changing the Adjwilleys to Dennis Browns. (The 1st links to the 2nd once). The second link is a direct copy-paste of [17]. ~Adjwilley (talk) 21:05, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

I just got to thinking...it's a pretty big page to debug, so maybe this might help: Here's the difference between my code and the "official" MediaWiki gadget here. ~Adjwilley (talk) 00:03, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Still haven't tried it yet. I've been so dang busy. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 21:16, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm so offended. Seriously though, no pressure, no rush, oh, and good luck with that storm. ~Adjwilley (talk) 21:57, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Cool album

If you want a cool album to listen to check out this. Last track isn't the best though... ♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 20:35, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

She's good!♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 12:36, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Hoping to give a listen later today. Actually busy for a change. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 14:01, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

[18], great version of Come Together.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 21:57, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

SPI on Logical 1

Could you please reopen the SPI on Logical 1 until Elen has time to respond to the comments just made by IRWolfie and myself? I think you closed it prematurely. Thanks. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 01:37, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Elen has explained it on talk page. She would just open it herself anyway, she is an CU, which outranks a clerk. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 01:48, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi Dennis. I didn't realise you'd closed it. Dominus Vobisdu and IRWolfie have also presented some evidence based on behaviours that a CU couldn't identify as the edits are all too old. In such cases I'll mark it as checked, but won't close it because closer examination of the behaviour evidence may confirm identity - as with Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Leontopodium alpinum where one of the parties was editing thru a proxy, and another admin blocked as a duck. I'll mark a case checked if I've checked but want someone else to look at it - but I have only recently started doing this, I used to leave it as open before, so say if you would prefer me to do that. I'll close if there seems nothing to be done, or nothing else to be done. And occasionally I'll archive if it's better off the board. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 12:59, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

You're the CU, I will adjust as needed. Normally if a CU just says "no technical connection", I do go and try to compare behavior, it just looked like you had already done that step, based on your wording, and that no one else needed to duplicate the efforts. I will give it a look later if someone else doesn't beat me to it. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 14:01, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
Ah, I see they already have and blocked, and it is already archived. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 14:04, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Re: I'm always willing to try "annoying" before I try "aggressive" as a solution

Wanna practice that on another user? User talk:Bull-Doser, editing here since 2005, but no more. Tijfo098 (talk) 23:04, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Kind of late, since he is already blocked. Annoying works with people who are unresponsive when you have tried time and time again to communicate with them, but they won't talk page, AND they haven't been blocked yet....but are about to be. This edit was not only blocked, and it looks like a ban discussion at the boards [19]. Actually, that entire ban discussion was premature and not in good form. The indef seems to have support. If he can "get it", he can request an unblock. I may look it closer tomorrow, I'm likely out for the night. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 23:17, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
- Oy, I've injected myself a bit in this matter, but I'm not ready to go out on a limb. It was all amazingly hasty, was it not? But he is still a problem editor. That doesn't mean he is beyond redemption, however. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 00:54, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Voluntary interaction ban

YRC and I have both agreed to a voluntary IBAN, as proposed on AN/I, and I've offered to withdraw my request for a site ban so that we can move on from this matter. Would you be up for implementing the IBAN and updating AN/I on the result? Prioryman (talk) 07:53, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

I've asked, and so has YRC, for a mutual interaction ban between YRC and Nomoskedasticity. By all means formalise what Prioryman proposes here, but please leave the thread open while we await Nomo's response; and the sub-thread calling for a boomerang is unresolved. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 08:16, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Has anyone asked Nomo about an IBAN? There's no proposal or voting on one on AN/I. I would suggest dealing with Nomo/YRC and myself/YRC as two distinct issues - whether Nomo agrees to an IBAN or not has no bearing on YRC and I agreeing (as we have already done). Prioryman (talk) 08:24, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

I see no reason to agree to an interaction ban, nor should one be imposed. It has been many months since I have said anything rude to YRC, and I have no intention of resuming. As for starting the ANI thread on outing -- that was an entirely proper action on my part: for those (like me) who did not know Prioryman's RL identity, YRC's conduct amounted to outing, a conclusion reached also by two oversighters. (The only way to read my actions otherwise is to believe that I should have known Prioryman's RL identity -- but I take some pride in not knowing about these stupid feuds...) Nomoskedasticity (talk) 09:40, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

I think all that is a bit presumptive, and I'm more inclined to let the community's voice be heard on it. It is at WP:RFAR and I was actually hoping they would take it, even if as less than a full case, so that something with some teeth can be achieved. For now, I would remain neutral on your idea, as it is already at two venues yet that isn't on the table as a remedy at either. Yet. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 11:16, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

YRC mentorship

Hi Dennis. I've read other editors' descriptions of your mentorship experience but I don't think I've read a comprehensive summary from you. If you have posted it, could you please point me to it; if you haven't, would you like to? --Anthonyhcole (talk) 08:12, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

It was at User talk:Youreallycan/YRC2.0 until he removed me as his mentor. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 11:18, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I had read that before. I was hoping for a summing-up from your perspective, but don't feel obliged. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 12:06, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Since he officially "rejected" me as his mentor due to my opining, and the case is ongoing, I would likely hold off. It is in the history of his talk page if anyone were interested. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 12:52, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Editor/RfA review?

I noticed that you stated on your user page that you were willing to give editor reviews to people mildly interested in RfA. I've been mulling over an adminship run for a while and am looking for feedback on how to improve myself in preparation for this. Regardless of whether or not I decide to eventually run, any feedback on how to improve myself as a contributor would be much appreciated. (I know that right now I'm at least six months out from running. This is because of work/personal commitments that have kept me from editing Wikipedia at consistent levels for the time being, and because of a low-ish percentage of articlespace edits that I'm seeking to improve.) Thanks in advance for any response. elektrik SHOOS (talk) 01:22, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm finishing up one right now, but have been tied with Arbitration and other drama filled events as of late. I will try to take a look in the next day or two and see if the basics are there for a full review and respond here. I would rather wait than be sloppy about these kinds of things, and I've put off working the one review as this has been a frustrating weekend at enwp, and I didn't want to do a subpar job on the one I'm working on now.Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 01:31, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! Don't feel any need to rush. I really just appreciate that someone is taking time to look in general. elektrik SHOOS (talk) 23:11, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
I'd be interested too, fwiw. Steven Zhang ^{Help resolve disputes!} 04:00, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

I hate to do this, but I really don't have the time to do either right now. I still have one unfinished, and a ton of other projects that aren't finished, and I just don't want to half way do something. Plus work has picked up a great deal and I don't have as much time to spend. I just don't want to do a half way job, and I know that I'm going to be very busy for the next couple of months. Sorry, but I have to decline, in order to be fair to you both. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 23:58, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Boundarylayer

John was involved when he made the block of Boundarylayer. He appears to not have been given any warning about legal threats before being blocked out of hand. Obviously the editor is a bit clueless, with the block evasion, but it certainly doesn't merit the indefinite block (has anyone actually explained the issue to him, he doesn't know what's going on [20]). IRWolfie- (talk) 12:09, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

He needs to stop using that other account, which is still socking and wait a week. I'm completely sympathetic here, but he is compounding it. I'm out of pocket this weekend (see above), Lexington Barbecue Festival going on, plus I need time off. I popped in with my alt just to make the one observation as I didn't want to leave anything important hanging. Farmer Brown (talk) (aka Dennis Brown) 12:41, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Cheers for the reply, good luck. IRWolfie- (talk) 13:57, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

I left a comment here. Pelarmian (talk) 18:04, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

SPI

Hi. I see that you are away for the weekend so don't worry about replying to this until you get back. I have some concerns about the SPI case I had opened recently. Could you please explain to me why you dismissed this case -- [21]? Some of the IP addresses haven't edited this year, but the others did and more than once, as well as the named user accounts. Even if some accounts are stale, couldn't it be looked at on behavioral pattern alone? And could you also explain to me why you say there is no abuse between the socks? If the socks are reverting to each other's edits to promote the initial edit of one account, is that not abuse of accounts? Also, the fact that one made an initial edit on the Belly Dance article, where they added content that was not in the source they cited, and they also named the source something it really was not (the source was a fiction/fantasy novel and not a factual book as they claimed). And then to have two other accounts say the exact same thing later on, using the exact same source, is that not fraud and abuse of accounts? The reason I feel this is a serious matter is because the pattern is very alike to Plouton2's socks. This person could be starting up again with new accounts, wouldn't that be considered an evasion of block? If you look at the Plouton2 case, there's over 55 sock accounts blocked. The list I provide follows the same pattern (many accounts targeting same articles), same editing style, same interests. The interconnectivity you displayed does not include all the articles or the socks I listed. As shown in the diffs, some of the socks I listed reverted to socks of Plouton2 and not edits from Plouton2's account alone. What are the chances that any random user would say the exact same thing as another user in the exact same article and then to use the exact same source which is fiction? Could you please have another look at the case? I really would appreciate it. Thank you. ProfessionalScholar (talk) 20:27, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Just one more thing to add. The reason I came to the SPI board first was so that the suspected socks could be investigated to see if they are in fact 'one' user. The concerns I have go beyond that - which involve fraud, ethnical/cultural issues, etc. But I had a feeling that if I went to any other board bringing these matters up, I would have to list the suspected socks there, and chances are those boards would send me back here to open an SPI first to see if they should be treated as one user vs many users behaving the same way. And instead of jumping around from board to board, I felt it was best to start with an SPI before reporting the user(s). Please read the 'edit summary' here of one of the suspected socks I had listed [22]. Doesn't that fall under 'personal attack' according to Wikipedia's guidelines? So if this user is in fact using socks, there may be more of those kind of edit summaries and I don't feel that would be considered editing in a civil manner. I may not be available on Monday or Tuesday but I'm not sure yet, so I just wanted to get this in now. Thank you. ProfessionalScholar (talk) 19:39, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Ok, went back and looked. The main reason I closed it because almost all the editors haven't edited recently. Not even in the last few months. This raises two problems: 1. CU can only check back 90 days, so CU would be useless. 2. It would have to be determined solely by behavior. This is a time consuming method when you are trying to connect eighteen accounts. I will go and check the ONE current editor, but you presented a wall of info that was mainly very, very stale. If an account hasn't edited in the last couple of months. No admin is likely to spend the great deal of time needed to establish a link, with the goal of "stopping" the editor, if they have already stopped. It is pointless and CU data is only kept for 90 days, so it is useless as well. Again, I will go back and check the one now. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 20:46, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
- I've looked, and I can't definitively link. It is possible, but I'm not convinced enough to block. I notice they reported you to SPI, and you got a block (later overturned) so I have to wonder if it is a personal issue between the two of you. This would be beyond the scope of SPI. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 21:15, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. If CU can only go back 90 days, I believe a few of these accounts edited within the past 90 days, Koyrda66, Fleris, 212.251.116.91, 212.251.116.20. And then on behavior alone, it is a long list, but the fact that these accounts reverted to the same edits of the others should be taken into account. Not to mention the long history of this user and the past 55 or so sock accounts. I appreciate you looking again. If you don't have the time for this case, maybe another clerk can take a look then? There's also been some new evidence where Fleris has made new reverts that reverted to an IP address located in Greece as well. ProfessionalScholar (talk) 21:16, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

It is not a personal issue. My case was already discussed with the Arb Committee. The case I provided here shows diffs with evidence and has nothing to do with anything else. If you like me to ask another Administrator to look at this, I will. ProfessionalScholar (talk) 21:23, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

You are always welcome to get a second opinion, and no offense will be taken. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 22:00, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Thank you and certainly no offense intended. I am just pretty confident about this case. Thanks for your time. ProfessionalScholar (talk) 02:35, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Something requires your attention

Please see User talk:SarahStierch#Adoption and User talk:Brybry1999 and provide assistance. Any other Administrative Page stalkers are invited. An inexperienced (fill in the blank) new user, User talk:RAIDENRULES123, is insisting on adopting other "fresh from the incubator" new users. Considering assorted factors it can only lead to the detriment of the New Users she adopts. What can be done? This issue deals directly with Editor Retention and how New Editors should be protected from factors they know nothing about. They dont know but they are being fed poisoned food. That may be extreme but only to express my alarm and fear. The new users this editor adopts are, without a doubt, in harms way. ```Buster Seven Talk 05:02, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Not sure what can be added on the talk page, but I agree that this is not a user we want adopting people for a variety of reasons. They don't understand policies or how things really work here. User:Keilana seems to have adopted them, according to their talk page. You might try pinging her. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 13:41, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. I have sent User Keilana a copy of my message to you with the added thought.....{Your adoptee needs advice}.... I assume good faith on the part of Deidra. I also assume poor judgement. ```Buster Seven Talk 13:52, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Just to wrap this in a bow and put it to bed... Editor Cindamuse got involved because of (1) all the hard work that was required to fix the confusion that one of Raiden/Deidras adoptees caused at an article, (2) supported the fact that Raiden/Deidra's improper instructions caused the confusion, and (3) removed the Adoption Box from Raiden/Deidra's page. Her mentor is on the case and I trust that there will be a proper resolution and forward progress. There is a lesson here. If Raiden/Deidra's editing and advice had not been so obviously off-base, where someone noticed right away that she had no business being an adopter, who knows how many new users she would have negatively affected. We are all so fragile and innocent when we first enter Wikipedia's front door. We trust what the residents tell us. But, I'm not sure anything can be done except to be watchful. And, lastly, I certainly don't apologize or feel at all badly about raising a little drama which, according to Sarah and User:slowking4]], is what I did. Both Editor Retention and New Editor Protection are more important than the feelings of one lone editor. ```Buster Seven Talk 06:14, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Buster. I can't believe you would blame me for that. That wasn't even my fault that was someone elses! I realized that you over react and you "alert the media" which I really don't appreciate. You've made me feel threatened and alone. You've been really welcoming and nice, but now, I've realized that I was wrong about you. You're really nice, so don't take this the wrong way, but I can't believe you would do such a horrible thing to me! Dennis,you don't mind, please ignore the issue. If you don't want to, it's okay, but I'd like you to. Also Dennis, Buster7 has accused me under false witness. I did not cause the problem he is talking about, and he has wrongly accused me. So, please ignore this issue he has caused. Buster7- I'm really disappointed that you would do such a thing. I don't want to hear any more of the "why's". Please. I really think that you're nice, but don't spread my business around like dirt. It's insulting and unfair. And stop stalking me. It's uncomfortable. DEIDRA C. (talk) 21:50, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Buster is harmless, a little fuzzball, he just got a little bent out of shape. You shouldn't be adopting people yet Deidra, and the damage it can cause got him upset, maybe a little too much, but his heart was in the right place. Your heart was in the right place by wanting to help people, I understand that as well. We are all human, we all make mistakes. I think both of you meant well, so I'm not inclined to get mad at anyone. I suggest that you work with your mentor, Keilana (who I happen to think the world of, by the way) and in a year, you will be ready to mentor others. I will go flog Buster with a wet noodle. Well, maybe not. But I think you both understand what I'm talking about. We all just need to breath deep and remember that even the best of us make mistakes, including me (all the time, actually). We all good folks, just remember that. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 21:58, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

I think it's time for me to go on strike. Results are the guru. Had I not interceded who knows how many new editors might have been affected. I'm not the least bit interested in the emotional machinations of a child. False witness, indeed. I always admit my mistakes. This fiasco was not one of them. You will find me under the dresser in the corner over there with the rest of the ~~dustballs~~ fuzzballs. Or, maybe I'll retire to that safe room that was reserved for you. The only good thing about all this is to meet Cindaruse and Keindra. Last comment:I did not over-react. Now I'm a stalker. Someone needs to sit this child down and explain how things work around here. I have removed all "hooks" regarding this editor from my watchlist. I'll bet a dollar to a donut that some new miss-step is right around trhe corner. AGF goes only so far. 'nuff said. ```Buster Seven Talk 15:22, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

On behalf of Ryan Vesey

In regards to Tib42, he’s not entirely at fault. He attempted to discuss the issue and we sort of “wikifilibustered” by not engaging in discussion. The discussion wasn’t a long one in which overwhelming consensus was reached after a good discussion on all points. The discussion was closed with consensus for certain awards to be included that everyone agreed on. The remainder were not discussed because Tib42 failed to return in a reasonable period of time. New consensus should easily have been able to be formed for a number of the awards. The problem was that when Tib42 did come back his attempt at discussion was poor. He attempted to re-discuss the ones we already had consensus to include and tried to discuss including ‘’all’’ of the awards rather than choosing the most notable of the remaining ones he wanted to include. I was busy at the time and didn’t desire to dive in to discussing all of those points. Because I was busy, I attempted to “pass the buck” rather than telling him to start with one or two of the awards he felt were most notable; however, nobody else took part in the discussion. He can’t be blamed for reinserting the material when nobody would discuss it with him. I’m having some technical trouble, so I can’t see the revert. But there wasn’t specific consensus not to include a number of the awards that he wanted to reinstate. (On behalf of User:Ryan Vesey) Frood! ^Ohai _{What did I break now?} 02:31, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Actually, he is an SPA who may have a COI and has only continued to add them back, pushing the bounds of good faith to its limit. Granted, it shouldn't have been ignored. I removed the final warning from his page.... Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 11:11, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

In response to this discussion and the note left on my talk page, I have no patience for editors who resurrect content issues that have already clearly reached consensus with a rehash of the arguments they lost before. That said, although I have no problem reverting the changes (within limits), as I did yesterday, I'm not comfortable sanctioning the editor.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:38, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

That is true. If needed, it shouldn't be difficult to get someone uninvolved to look at it. He is a bit bullheaded, but as Ryan pointed out, his question had gone unanswered. To be frank, I am less inclined to be patient with a single minded SPA than I am someone who is generally trying to improve the encyclopedia. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 21:33, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

I am not sure what you mean by SPA and other such comments. I am new to wikipedia editing and I decided to start because I am interested in this particular person since he is a personal hero to several people from India, including myself. I have attempted to put together data for every single award as each one of you have insisted. What I cannot understand is, when somebody else included the Hoover medal, nobody objected and there was no discussion at all. But when I am attempting to include that which is common knowledge and from secondary and tertiary sources, you guys are objecting to it. Surely this is not a positive way forward. What does Bbb23 find so objectionable in what I am saying? I have clearly stated my reasons and you can engage. Furthermore, Dennis I object to an insinuation that I do not belong to the category of 'generally not improving the encyclopedia'. I am trying to improve an article that is important to so many Indians. Others will do the same for other articles. Is that not the spirit in which all of this is supposed to work? -- Tib42