This is an archive of past discussions with User:Dennis Brown. 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.
Hi, Dennis, I'm having a bit of trouble trying to mediate the disputed content in this article. You have locked the article twice now because of edit-warring over content, and I'm trying to get the few editors interested in the issues to talk to each other, but each editor is a problem in a different way. In a nutshell, there are two issues: (1) how many awards should be listed in a table in the article and (2) whether Murthy should be listed as a founder or co-founder of Infosys. User:Tib42 is a SPA and only interested in the second issue. He's worse than the other two because he's actually editing the article with no consensus. I've reverted him once, and he refers back to old discussion on the issue, but hasn't contributed anything new. I'm loath to revert him again because of your understandable edit-warring concern, but I always have difficulty with stubborn, uncooperative editors when it's a content dispute.
As for the first issue, that's a battle between User:Kkm010 and User:Animeshkulkarni. Kkm has trouble expressing himself, and although I understand Anime's concerns, he's being overly demanding. Both editors are reasonably experienced, at least in terms of number of edits. The last edit by Anime, in response to my nudging, was "Fine delete the whole article. I am out of this." Silly, but of course he's not obligated to work on the article if he doesn't wish to, for whatever reason.
At this point, I'm willing to give Kkm what he wants. Not sure I completely agree with his conclusion (he doesn't really have any reasoning, which is partly what ticked off Anime), but I do think there are too many non-notable awards. The harder part is what to do about Tib42.
Any ideas or suggestions, and if you don't have the time to think about this, feel free to tell me, "Sorry, handle it yourself." :-) --Bbb23 (talk) 23:28, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) I commented as well, having run into this issue recently and having unique perspective due to my PR background. However, unlike Dennis, I did not read the entire string. So I apologize if I'm being counterproductive. User:King405702:02, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
I'm tired and don't have the energy to comment on your comments on the article Talk page, but I did read them, and you are not being counterproductive. Your views are welcome, thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:23, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
Dennis, this awards thing comes up often, in particular when COIs are involved and there is always this dispute about using Primary Sources for awards. You presented a very well formulated criteria based on community-accepted standards, but these standards are not documented anywhere. Do you think it should be added somewhere to help resolve all these disputes in the future? User:King405716:10, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Could you make a comment on how good or bad or objective my edits are. A certain user keeps suggesting that in the underage/pedo area I'm biased against lower ages of consent and keeps criticizing my editing. Does she have a point? I was actually surprised by this because last year I was criticized by another user for being to biased in favor of lower ages. Do either of them have a point or are my edits neutral? Also in the Margaret Sanger article another user complained about my calling her associates Upton Sinclair and Emma Goldman socialists and said that was biased and that my portrayal of Sanger was to negative in the article. Was it? --RJR3333 (talk) 06:39, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
Ok, how about my mention of her being involved in Rosicrucianism in the personal life section. Would it be ok to restore that edit as long as I kept it in that section or is that a bad idea? --RJR3333 (talk) 22:02, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
It was not primarily off2riorob/youreallycan I had in mind. It was Flyer22, who claimed I had a bias that the age of consent should be 17 or 18, and Malke2010, who said the opposite, saying I had a bias in favor of a low limit in mind. I don't really know which bias youreallycan believed I had, although I tend to think he was referring to the bias Malke meant based on the context of the conversation. --RJR3333 (talk) 16:47, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
Well, that's not really related to what I'm asking about. What Flyer22 accused me of is that I have an anti-hebephilia bias and a bias that the age of consent should either be 16 or higher, and Malke2010 accused me of having a pro-pedophilia bias, and I think youreallycan meant that I have a pro-pedophilia bias. I'm kind of confused about why Flyer thinks this because all of the other editors who criticized me thought I was pro-pedophilia or pro-hebephilia. --RJR3333 (talk) 02:52, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
Also in terms of the age of consent articles the articles to begin with don't leave much wiggle room for discussion of issues other than ages unfortunately. And I've tried to include info on exceptions such as for marriage between adults and minors and other editors thought it would waste space. --RJR3333 (talk) 03:07, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
Saw you at the Age of majority article and followed you here. Since you are inaccurately characterizing my criticism of you yet again, I am compelled to clarify here that I stated that you are always stressing something about age 18 any time age 16 is mentioned as the default age for anything. So, no, it's not about you thinking that the age of consent should be 16 or higher. You clearly believe that it should be 18 or higher across the board, just as you believe that people should be 18 in order to be diagnosed with pedophilia. I would appreciate that you stop mentioning my name to every editor you come across...if you are not going to characterize my criticism of your edits accurately. Dennis Brown, to see what issues I have with RJR3333's editing, you can view my talk page, where I recently discussed this with him. And, RJR3333, I would rather you not attempt to discuss this with me any further. Flyer22 (talk) 03:29, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
I never once said it should be 18 or higher. I only wanted to add info to the articles about cases where it is. I never expressed an opinion on the issue. You accused me of having a bias that I don't have. I think it should be 16, but we still have to include other viewpoints in the articles. Not once here have I ever said it should be 18. Everyone else who has talked to me about it says I'm to biased in that direction. You're the only person who thinks I have this bias that I don't have at all. If you don't want to talk to me that's fine, but you're the one who is always is criticizing my edits. I understand my reaction has been immature at times, but you still have been constantly nitpicking at my edits. Personally, though I'm tired of arguing with you and with people on the other side to and it happens in every area I edit so I might as well just leave. I'm sad that this happened but I will have to leave. --RJR3333 (talk) 03:36, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
Also if she doesn't want me discussing this with her further I don't she should keep commenting on my edits. Someone else can take of what she disagrees with. Again, no where in any of my edits did I take any position one way or another. --RJR3333 (talk) 03:49, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
I've stated just about all I have to state on this matter at my talk page. I am not the only person who thinks that you have the particular bias I spoke of or the only one who is "always" criticizing your edits. Now, like I advised you before, listen to what WP:DEADHORSE states and stop trying to engage me in this discussion or any other tired discussion we've had. Also, like I advised you before, you should stop stating that you are going to leave when you clearly aren't. Yes, you left for a few months months before, although you were probably editing as an IP here or there on some articles, but you eventually came back under your user name. You will only come back again. And about not discussing this with you any further, that means this particular topic -- whether I believe that your edits are biased in a certain direction or not. You are not going to change my mind on that, so stop trying. Any time I have reverted you or complained about your edits, it has had more to do with your edits being sloppy, inaccurate, unsourced or all of those things than it has had to do with you being biased. Not wanting to debate my opinion of your bias has nothing to do with whether or not whatever future edits you make should be criticized. I can criticize any future edit you make all I want, but I only do so when that criticism is valid. And my criticisms of your edits have been valid each time, usually being backed by one or more editors. You don't know when to drop a discussion/issue and move on. That is one of your main problems. Did you even read WP:DEADHORSE? Read it. Flyer22 (talk) 04:05, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
Malke2010 and off2riorob/youreallycan both accused me of having the opposite bias, in fact Malke and me even had an extensive discussion on his talk page where I argued to him that the age of consent was 16 in most states and he disagreed with me even when I showed him. . Also my family when I do discuss this topic with them have accused me of having the opposite bias. I have not seen one editor other than you accuse me of being biased in the direction you are stating. And I've just told you that I have the opposite. Me wanting to include information about changes in the law/medical definitions changing the way they are is not the same thing as me agreeing with those changes. If you don't want me to communicate then stop commenting on what I write. It was wrong of me to say I hated you and things like that, but you were also rude to me, and frankly you seem to have a level of bias in the articles that is opinionated enough to not be able to contribute neutrally. I have actually argued that the age of consent should be 16 or even lower to my family when I talked about it because I don't like the fact that people don't have any adults responsibilities in our society until they are 18 or even 21. I don't have the bias you are accusing me of, that is the truth. You are the one who has the bias in editing the articles. Now I'm done here. That's my point. --RJR3333 (talk) 04:14, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
Here are some edits I have made in the past that show the opposite bias, to argue against her contention of my bias http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dan_Crane&action=history also my edits here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Age_of_consent_reform&offset=&limit=500&action=history at least when I began editing, would suggest if anything the opposite bias existed, so would this discussion http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Malke_2010/Archive_3#Age_of_Consent_Chris_Hansen. And in this edit even she seemed to be suggesting I had the opposite bias http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Chris_Hansen&diff=prev&oldid=448712414. Also here Malke2010 tried really hard to get me to take down my addition of the term age of consent and my statement that the age range was "those under the age of sixteen" in the To Catch a Predator because she/he accused me of wanting to give a false impression that the age of consent in the USA always begins at 16. And I extensively debated with him and provided him with evidence that, in fact, some states have ages of majority that are below 17. If I really had the bias in this direction this other user has accused me of I would not have fought Malke on this. And yes I understand the point of wp: deadhorse, but she keeps saying I'm biased and this is my response to her contention. The only validity that I personally can see to her criticisms is that maybe after Malke2010 and youreallycan/off2riorob criticized me I tried to get rid of that bias and it looked like I had replaced it with the opposite bias later on because I was trying to be neutral excessively. --RJR3333 (talk) 04:46, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
Nope, no bias on my part. And per above, "I've stated just about all I have to state on this matter at my talk page." Same goes for my comment above here on this talk page. Throughout our interactions, I was only rude to you when you repeatedly refused to listen to guideline or policy-based rationales, especially as far as WP:CONSENSUS was/is concerned, and/or when you were rude to me first. You continue to demonstrate that your ability to digest what is being stated to you is severely lacking, such as your "don't want me to communicate/stop commenting on what I write" line (after I just clarified what I meant about not speaking with me any further), and that you just can't heed WP:DEADHORSE. Oh well. Just know that I will continue to criticize your edits when the criticism is warranted. The way you wanted to "include information about changes in the law/medical definitions changing" is just one problem. First of all, it's only the medical definition I was debating with you with regard to changes in definition (aside from that "late adolescent" squabble days ago). Second of all, it's just a medical proposal, which you never seem to understand, stating things like "They are going to change the definition." Erm, "proposal" does not mean "They are going to change the definition." And, finally, just like you have a problem digesting other things that are stated to you, you had a difficult time digesting why this proposal is not WP:LEAD material. And I highly doubt that "[you are] done here." You never are, which is why you just had to come back to my talk page days later to try and get the last word yet again. Oh, and "people [not having] any adul[t] responsibilities in our society until they are 18 or even 21" has to do with age of majority, not age of consent. If you are going to argue for what it is you claim to argue for, then it's lowering the age of majority you should be citing. And the funny thing about your Malke 2010 debate is that you are now asserting the same silliness that he was, even though WP:CONSENSUS showed that Malke 2010 was wrong and that you are therefore wrong to carry on his belief that simply stating the age range for To Catch a Predator gives the false impression that the age of consent is 16 everywhere. Even though that part of the lead now, very clearly, states in parentheses that "on the program, the range is usually ages 12–15" and even has your silly note to go beside it. So spare me your claims that you understand WP:DEADHORSE; you clearly do not, just like you don't understand WP:CONSENSUS or when an editor has compromised with you enough on a subject. You have seen the validity in my criticism of your edits, having admitted that some of your edits were sloppy, inaccurate, unsourced or all of those things, or biased, so to now act like you don't believe that any of my criticisms of your edits were valid except for what you state about "maybe after Malke2010 and youreallycan/off2riorob criticized [you]" is more of the ridiculousness I have come to expect from you. Flyer22 (talk) 05:29, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
Why can't a different user who has less animosity towards me than you criticize my edits. I admitted some of my edits were bad, but you seem to delight in correcting me and I'm tired of it. You have insulted me time and time again, and I don't intend to put up with it. I don't understand how you can argue I have the bias you said I had when I got the opposite criticism before. You and Malke both aren't objective so you both criticized me from opposite directions. --RJR3333 (talk) 08:13, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
If you make a bad edit, I am going to call you out on it. That's what I'm supposed to do, and it has nothing to do with animosity, insulting you or taking delight in correcting you. You act as though I'm not supposed to correct you and just let your bad edit stay, and hope that someone else corrects it. Nope, that is not the way Wikipedia works or is supposed to work. I have insulted your edits more than I've insulted you (which, by the way, is the way it's supposed generally to be -- focusing on the editor's edits instead of on the editor), and you have insulted me more than I've insulted you (calling me names, wishing I'd die). Why can't you drop this discussion? My perception of your editing is different than your own; that's just the way it is. Stop trying to make me see your point of view on this matter. I've already stated that I will not. I am objective, but objectivity has nothing to do when it comes to correcting your mistakes. I don't follow you around. It's only when you show up to articles that I edit and make mistakes, that we encounter each other. Like I stated, if you screw up, then you can expect me to correct that. Flyer22 (talk) 08:35, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
I never wished you would die. I said I hated you I think but I never said I wished you would THAT IS NOT TRUE. --RJR3333 (talk) 08:37, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
More than once, you have displayed that your memory is faulty. If you want to claim that you did not, then oh well. I'm beyond tired of interacting with you/discussing with you/debating with you, so I'm more than happy to let you have the last word on that. Flyer22 (talk) 09:01, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Your endurance in these discussions is astounding, e.g., blocking policy. Just thought I'd stop by and say that. Cheers.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:12, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
Hello, Dennis! Thanks for the quick action [1] (including changing the master) - this guy is a major pest. We're at 35 socks and counting with this clown, and he is certainly an excellent candidate for banning. As can be seen from diff , there is a darker side to this character than merely trolling for the lulz. The fact that he acts as if he was never blocked (always proudly signing), and that he reinserts the same garbage time and time again, irks me to the point of shutting him down permanently. It takes a very... special kind of editor to do that. Anyway, thanks for the good close, and I'm glad to see your other fine work since you've gotten the mop. Cheers :> Doctalk03:48, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
Hi, Dennis, I have a question if you have a minute. There's another potential sock surfaced on a case on the board at WP:SPI. The case is marked {SPI case status|close}. How do I go about adding another sock? Should I remove the template? the case is Bharat42. Thanks. -- Dianna (talk) 22:38, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
Actually, looking closer, I think the new user, TruthDevine, might be a sock of Lovemankind. So a totally new SPI will be in order. Thanks. -- Dianna (talk) 22:51, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
Dennis, I've seen you around here; I think you do great work and I always find your opinions insightful. This may seem like I'm trying to push your buttons, but I assure you this is a good-faith inquiry. You just (gently) chided me at my talk page for calling Toddst1 "a disgrace". Not long ago, you were quite involved in a discussion at Rschen7754's talk page, concerning his (horrible) block of Parrot of Doom. On that page, Malleus directly called Rschen7754 "a fucking disgrace". And yet you gave no such warning to Malleus. (I'm certainly not implying that you should have; I agreed with Malleus 100%.) I'm just wondering, why the double standard? Joefromrandb (talk) 02:04, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
What would have been the point of warning Malleus? He's way beyond the boundaries of what warnings could ever hope to achieve. MalleusFatuorum02:14, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
Indeed! Not to mention you were correct. I just found it odd that Dennis felt moved to come all the way to my talk page to tell me that I shouldn't be saying something, when he neglected to say a word about a similar, even harsher comment coming from you. Joefromrandb (talk) 03:16, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
I take your question to be in the best of faith, it is perfectly legitimate. Malleus does have a point actually, even if the point was made tongue in cheek. Had I thought a comment to Malleus would have made a positive difference, I would have made one. I did wince when I saw those comments, but figured me saying something to Malleus would only make it worse, honestly. Malleus and I agree on many points, and disagree on just as many, so (right or wrong) I tend to limit my "observations" to times when it might actually make a positive difference. I don't think anyone would consider Malleus and I old chums, but I would like to think there is a degree of mutual respect as many of our goals are the same. In that case, I had called out Rschen7754 and also had private discussions with him, and was myself a bit too strong, which is why I apologized to Rschen on his talk page for questioning his faith, even if I strongly disagreed with his block. I make mistakes, too, and will correct them when pointed out. And speaking of Malleus, he has called me out for being rude in another case as well. I am human, like us all, and I have always made it a personal policy to apologize in at least a public way that I acted inappropriately. This can be seen in my archives and on the talk page (or archives) or Rschen7754's page. I don't expect others to follow this lead, but it is my way to help keep me from repeating those actions, as I don't particularly like eating crow. I'm aware that I'm a deeply flawed individual, but will make it right when my mistakes are pointed out.
To be honest, I didn't refactor anything; that was done for me. I'm not at all keen on that, but it's nothing worth revisiting. I almost left several months ago, after Thumperward's absurd block of Malleus. It wasn't only the injustice done to Malleus; it was the countless hours of editors' time wasted after Arbcom accepted such a foolish case. Then we had the punative block of Parrot of Doom, which still has me seething. He was not only blocked for defending a featured article; Rschen7754 protected the page, then blocked him almost an hour later, flagrantly violating and openly mocking our blocking policy. And now this. It's just too much. Another good-faith editor wrongly blocked, rightly pissed off and contemplating leaving. And again, in addition to the injustice, we had hours and hours of talk page, ANI, and even e-mail drama; hours we all could have spent actually editing. And in each case, the blocking admin waltzes away, as bulletproof as he was before making the block. In any case, thank you for your response. You are quite right that most admins would have simply templated me or blocked me. I did appreciate your note, and I appreciate what you do here, both as an editor and as an administrator. Joefromrandb (talk) 18:52, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
As Dennis suggests above, while his and my methods may be different our goals are probably very similar. But one of the fundamental problems here, I think, is that we're in an internecine war, with all the weapons on one side. All we plebs can do is to make the lives of the entrenched establishment as uncomfortable as possible. Which is why you simply walking away Joefromrandb plays into their hands. MalleusFatuorum22:40, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
A very wise person Iridescent (talk·contribs) once said to me that we should try to write as if our target audience was an intelligent 14-year-old kid, but surely that kid would want to have his or her vocabulary expanded? As a kid myself I always had a dictionary by my side when I was reading ... in fact I do even today. MalleusFatuorum22:55, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
I'm inclined to take the talk page diatribe as a case of venting, and I tend to allow a bit with a blocked user. I'll respond to it, but I'm not going to block at this time.
The legal case is concerns me in the opposite direction: I'm beginning to see Bbb23 as overediting in reaction to the fact that the contribution by Stranded Pirate. I would think that Spahn v. Messner is relevant to an article about Spahn, and don't quite understand the argument that it is not.—Kww(talk) 14:26, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
I have two things to say. First, SP's comments on his Talk page are unacceptable. If Kww wants to overlook the comments directed at him, fine, but I am unwilling to overlook the comments directed at me. Second, the material at the Warren Spahn article was unacceptable, and it's still unacceptable, as SP has restored it. It's commentary and SP's interpretation of primary sources. It has NO secondary sources in support of the material at all. I'd remove it regardless of who added it. As for Kww's issue with my "overediting", I'm doing precisely what I would do with any problem editor, watching their edits for more problems. This is NOT about me, and I resent the accusation. I thought Kww was wrong in his willingness to give SP more rope before the block, and I believe that Kww is still being over-indulgent with an editor who shouldn't be here. Before I read these comments, I was thinking about going back to ANI bcause, frankly, I don't see why Kww's views on this issue should prevail based on SP's history and his continuation of the same behavior fresh off the block. Of course, such a move might go against me, but that's fine - at least it would be aired publicly and others could express their views. However, I'll wait a bit on doing that in case Kww, Dennis, or anyone else watching Dennis's Talk page cares to comment. If it sounds like I'm pissed, it's because I am.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:18, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
While the talk page issue could reasonably be seen as a continuation, the Spahn v. Messner information is not. Not tawdry, not based on an obsession with sex. A quick scan of relevant sources shows that the case is a frequent cite in related cases. It needs cite improvement and I can understand the argument that the comments are original research sans citation.—Kww(talk) 17:19, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
I agree that the Spahn edit is not a direct continuation of the main reason for blocking him, and I never said it was. You, not unreasonably, concluded otherwise because of my reference to it in the same post. At the same time, there is a pugnacious attitude on SP's part ("I'm always right" + reverts), which, I think, is part of the reason he was blocked. Only the Spahn revert would not be enough to justify a new block.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:30, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
Rollback
Thank you for restoring rollback rights on my account. I know you feel it was a good-faith mistake, but this is a blatant example of a poorly thought-out action on his part, hence why the issues are constantly brought up at WP:ANI: the unjustified blocks, the invalid removal of user-rights etc. Till I Go Hometalk16:22, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
Just curious about your edit on 21 June 2012 on Juggling. You removed a link to the Juggling Edge that I'd put up a short while earlier to replace the Internet Juggling Database which has recently closed down. I don't know if you are a juggler or not so I don't know if you are aware that the link that you left at the top of the list (JIS) has not been updated for over a decade. The Juggling page states that conventions & festivals are the 'backbone of the juggling scene'. The festivals page on the JIS http://www.juggling.org/festivals/upcoming/ points to the now defunct IJDb. The JIS clubs page is a major bone of contention in the juggling community because so much of the information is out of date. The IJDb was considered the most important link because it had the most up to date information. All the IJDb festival & club data now exists at the Juggling Edge. I don't understand why you removed a site with up to date info & promoted an inaccurate source?
If anything you should delete Juggling Universe (forum launched last year that never took off) & the instruction links & put in:
Juggling Edge - for accurate event & club listings.
Juggling Information Service - for the old articles.
rec.juggling - the most active juggling forum.
Learn to juggle 3 balls http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T16_BVIFFPQ - all those instructional sites are a bit redundant, this video provides the best instruction IMO. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.189.19.198 (talk) 19:25, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
I appreciate your neutral and reasonable comment on my AN/I. At times I feel there is a certain blowback to questioning admins, and I could feel the heat level increasing a little bit in that discussion. In light of your comments and actually a couple of the others, I think I misjudged OrangeMike and filed this in haste without a full think-through of the situation. I hate to see a new editor struggling just to post a comment get a beatdown by our most experienced editors, even if these experienced guys are just trying to prevent problems. I also don't think de-sysopping is a good response to an honest mistake. But we all end up making honest mistakes, we just don't all have to pay the same price for it. -- Avanu (talk) 01:30, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
You're absolutely right. Unfortunately, there have been times when AN/I or EW end up acting like a 'Hanging judge' where people come in, wide-eyed and expectant and end up getting squished. Its easy to remind yourself that it isn't necessary to be defensive there, but it often requires the patience of Job and wisdom of Solomon to follow through with it entirely. -- Avanu (talk) 02:08, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
I don't mind that you decided to do tib42's work for him, but I am now very confused as to the state of the awards. There is a list of notable awards (I created), which you commented we are accepting barring someone arguing against. But then in the possibly notable awards you included some of the notables with comments. Then, below the ones that have your comments next to them, there is an uncommented list that also overlaps the notable list. I was going to fix it but decided I had no idea what was in your head, so stopped. The two lists should not overlap. If we are going to question the notability of the award, it should be taken out of the first list.--Bbb23 (talk) 09:00, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
I was up last night in the middle of the night because of insomnia. I still don't think I have enough information to fix the Murthy Talk page without your input, although I could guess. I may take a fresh look at it and take a stab it, not sure. If not, it can just wait until you can look at it again as it's not just what tib42 did but what you did subsequently that confuses me. No worries about when - just enjoy your family and your 4th!--Bbb23 (talk) 17:37, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
Your advice is needed
I suggested[2] to the user:Nishidani that this section falls under WP:UP#POLEMIC this allowed but for limited time but this sections exist since 20/06 [3].I will appreciate you input if this indeed a polemic or no.--Shrike (talk) 13:19, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
P.S I have also asked other admin but he declined to comment but said that I am free to ask other admins [4]
I understand that it was in the userspace when it was requested, and that it applies more to users than IP's, but is semi-protecting an RfC page common practice? RyanVeseyReview me!00:21, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
My intent is to discourage the IPs. They are free to comment on its respective talk page but since they can't be committed vandal the way registered users, primarily rollbackers, are, and as they can't be a part of the CVU WikiProject, nor do they have their own user talk page to configure it with, the shouldn't be allowed to vote in this particular RfC. The RfC I am preparing concerning the RfA process will allow IP editors to contribute.—cyberpowerChatOnline00:25, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
I understand that, I just think there are a number of IP's that can fight vandals and some static ones that do have their own userpage. I don't know how many would be interested, I just doubt this would be a highly vandalized area. In any case, is the RfC open for comment? RyanVeseyReview me!00:30, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
(after edit conflict) @Cyberpower: Your intention is to exclude, not discourage, IPs (and I think you mean "committed vandal fighters", seems to be a word missing). I don't immediately see why a user editing from a stable IP address and keen to combat vandalism ought to be barred from joining in such a notification scheme, anyway. Perhaps that could be something for discussion? RfC is "request for comment", not voting, of course. If IP users have something to say in the discussion, they ought to be allowed to participate.
Granted. I had not considered that. You may unprotect it yourself if you wish. It is open to comment on and vote on now.—cyberpowerChatOnline00:36, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
I'm writing an op-ed on COI for the Wikipedia Signpost that I think will be pretty closely aligned with the EasyMoney essay. If you have time, I would be interested in your response/feedback to the draft I whipped up today. Figured it might also be a good way to draw some attention to the essay. User:King405700:48, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
The longer I do COI work, the more anti-COI I become. On one hand the state of these company articles is appalling and many are borderline attack pages or exclusively document controversies, but on the other the company is not the best person to write it for obvious reasons.
I would be interested if you pointed out the areas where there will likely be resistance, so I can hammer them out better. Any position on COI will meet resistance, but...
I too feel like I am well-equipped to help in this area. Most COI businesses have been run by business people out to make a quick buck, but having an honest one help from the other side of things - there's value in that. On the other hand, I have a COI with the subject of COI, so I won't actually edit the COI guideline, which is where we need the most attention. User:King405713:17, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
The thread at ANI regarding a recent block is closed now, but I wanted to follow up one of the comments you made: "To be clear, when a user is blocked, they are NOT restricted to only using their talk page for requesting unblocks." This is an interesting point, as what happens when a user is blocked depends largely on what they are here for and their reaction to the block. If you consider the whole range of users and why blocks (below the level of indefinite) are made, you have:
(1) Throw-away accounts, vandals and trolls who never bother to appeal their block or even say anything, who just move on to either another website or another account; (2) Users who accept the block, wait it out, and then return to editing without saying anything (or leave for various reasons); (3) Users who object to the block, appeal by various means, and if not unblocked then either return to editing or leave; (4) Users who may or may not object to the block, but end up in conversation with a group of other editors during the block (sometimes about the block, sometimes about other matters).
Sometimes such discussions are calm and productive, other times they have an undercurrent of anger or outrage or outright criticism of 'the system' or specific people (this is especially damaging and leads to bad blood in the long run, especially if those being criticised are reading it, as responding to a blocked editor who is criticising you is seen by some, wrongly in my view, as baiting; indeed, the talk page of a blocked editor is one of the places on Wikipedia where people are sometimes freer to say things without fear of rebuttal than anywhere else), rarely such 'discussions while blocked' are about article work or proxy editing (which can be a problem in some cases, perfectly fine in others, depending on the reason for the block).
The concern I have is that when you have established editors 'holding court' on their talk page while blocked, it can lead to a feeling that they are on a soapbox while being 'in prison' and can lead to a feeling or sense of martyrdom. There is something to be said for the view that talk page access should be used mainly for appealing the block, and if that fails, to then go and find something else to do until the block expires (i.e. end up with a point of closure rather than having things drag out for days and weeks). Nobody should be so tied to Wikipedia that they feel they have to post to their talk page and talk with others while waiting out a block (ditto for messages of support, users shouldn't need to be 'supported' through a block).
The other point is that the user talk page should be a space where the blocked user and the blocking admin (or those dealing with an appeal) can discuss things carefully and calmly. This 'space' tends to get impinged on by talk page watchers and others who add their opinions (often with the best of intentions), which can sometimes be really helpful but can also disrupt any attempt to resolve the situation. It can be very daunting to try and talk to some blocked users in amongst a 'crowd' of their talk page watchers. It is rarely a one-to-one conversation, and usually ends up as a group discussion that gets pulled off in various tangents unless you specifically ask others to give space for a quieter conversation. Anyway, those are my thoughts on what I've in the past called 'user talk page dynamics'. Carcharoth (talk) 04:38, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for your thoughtful response. I appreciate discussion that is more than kneejerk responses, from both sides of the issue. I agree that not every situation is the same and there is often plenty of reason to block access, but I've seen a trend lately where admins just tell the editor that they can only use the page for unblock requests immediately and will block if it is used otherwise, even if not really abuse. Users are going to vent a bit, and soapbox a bit but this is on their user page, not main space. No one is required to go there. We should be more tolerant.
You raise an interesting and valid point about martyrs. Where a block user may cry foul over the block on their talk page, but we admins are the ones who create the martyrs if we block access to their talk page without clear abuse. It takes two sides in this. Honestly, I think many admins need to learn the fine art of ignoring a little posturing, and let another admin handle the unblock request. Anyone who has just been blocked is going to be upset and vent a little. I think you allow it as long as it doesn't degrade into personal attacks. My rule of thumb is that if they say something, and had they not been blocked I would have overlooked it, then I overlook it. I don't hold them to an artificially higher standard, and the policy seems to back this idea.
The scenario plays out where Admin block Editor for good cause. Editor says "That was a bullshit block", Admin gets defensive and takes it personal tells Editor to use the page for unblocks only, and soon thereafter gets talk page blocked. I don't question the faith of the Admin, who has been told by other admins that this is proper, but I fail to see where the community has given us this authority and as such, it is perceived by the community as abuse.
Now, obvious trolls and socks are not my concern, I'm talking about established users, known quantities that have been here more than a few months and have enough edits under their belt that we can look and see that they are here to build an encyclopedia and perhaps just took things too far. We should block them to stop disruption, but that doesn't require muting them if they aren't actually violating other policies such as WP:NPA.
Not everyone on my side of the argument is the best example of civility when blocked, which would make it easy for me to switch sides, but my sense of fairness says that if current policy seems to indicate that we tolerate "spirited debate" on user talk pages from unblocked users, then we do from blocked users as well. And silencing them actually feeds into the perception of abuse and is counterproductive. Sometimes when someone throws a tantrum, you let them and ignore it, refusing to reward it. And yes, blocking talk page access is a reward to them if they are out to prove the point of how abusive the system is. You have turned a screaming child into a martyr.
(TPS) Please excuse my intrusion, Dennis, but I think the above is a very useful discussion. Both you and Carcharoth make some very sensible points. I recently added a comment on a blocked editor's Talk Page which tried to express my bewilderment at the current state of affairs. The last thing I wanted to do was to add fuel to a fire. Attempted humour often gets misinterpreted, as that editor found to his cost, I fear. Having both a blocked account and Talk Page must be a lonely and frustrating place for any active editor. But I did, of course, email him too, with the offer of removing my post at any time. I think most editors exercise discretion and say nothing on a blocked Talk Page, while some (even with good intentions) actually manage to add insult to injury. Email is of course still a useful option.
As you suggest, I think an RfC might well be in order. There is a balance to be struck between having a very intricate code of rules and laws and having a simple system which is open to misuse. I think it must be very difficult to police such a subtle and dynamic environment with such a small toolbox. It sometimes looks like a bleak choice between "Cake or death". It's no wonder positions become entrenched. Regards. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:02, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
Not an intrusion at all, all viewpoints are always welcome on my talk page. At an RfA, we could discuss adding to WP:BLOCK:
Generally, blocked users are granted the same rights to use their talk pages as unblocked users unless an admin has restricted the use to "unblock discussions only" as an additional sanction. This type of sanction should not be used except in rare circumstances where a talk page block could be justified but this restriction is the better option. In other rare situations, full protection for just a few hours may be a better solution as well.
That seems very sensible and I think would be well supported. The use/non use of templates (or even a reasoned record) for blocking also seems to vary quite a bit. But that's a whole different area I guess. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:38, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the detailed reply, Dennis. One point that is worth making clear is that I agree totally that blocking talk page access should only be a last resort. If you look at what I said, I never once mentioned removing talk page access. What I was focused on was the negative and self-reinforcing behaviour that sometimes develops on user talk pages, and a seeming inability for there to be any middle-ground between either: (i) throw the book at them if they vent; and (ii) ignore venting altogether. In most cases, ignoring the venting is best, but sometimes there is a real injustice being obscured by the venting, and sometimes the venting is itself increasing the toxicity and bad blood (e.g. if other talk page users encourage the blocked user and egg them on instead of providing calm advice that helps reach a resolution rather than escalating things further). What should be happening is gentle encouragement to avoid this sort of situation. What I'm thinking of is a place where admins can ask others to help defuse potentially volatile situations. I would suggest WP:AN or WP:ANI, but those might, ironically, not be the best places to find level-headed admins or editors (admins tools not needed to exert a calming influence) willing to calm things down (as opposed to trigger-happy admins willing to throw their weight around). Carcharoth (talk) 20:32, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for taking the time to look at it. If either of you feel I have been too lenient then I wouldn't be at all offended if you were to block, but I do see the good edits there and I believe we should work extra hard as admins to avoid blocking mainly-good users for occasional lapses. On the other hand, maybe it isn't occasional enough and the recent socking allegation is very worrying. Thanks again, --John (talk) 17:44, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for all your efforts to improve Wikipedia and befriend your fellow Editors. Sometimes we need a reminder that we are all human after all. Your efforts to bring back the lost is commendable and will assuredly be successful. ```Buster Seven Talk06:53, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
Hi Dennis, I am interested in participating in WikiProject Editor Retention, but it's unclear what we're looking for people to do, other than simply talk about the fact that there is a project. I've never been involved in a WikiProject before... do we have "meetings?" I actually have a lot of thoughts about this topic but I don't know where I'm supposed to discuss them. Cheers... Zad6819:03, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
About contacting retired editors, I'll certainly bring it to the project page, but what would you think about adding a category to {{Retired}} so editors who have placed it on their userpage get added to Category:Retired Wikipedians. It would give people an area to begin looking for editors to invite back to the project. At the same time, you'd have to worry about the same editor being emailed multiple times. Could there also be a way to search for editors with over 1000 edits who haven't edited in the past 3 months? RyanVeseyReview me!19:22, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
Considering the deletion discussions, it might be best to create a table using What links here for the template. Then a cell on the table could be made to check if the editor had been contacted. I could try to find a bot owner if you like. RyanVeseyReview me!19:24, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
Avic is on vacation, so I'll head directly to Bot requests
Having just seen this comment at a current ArbCom Request for Clarification/Amendment I'm wondering if you might not be swimming a little bit against the tide with this initiative Dennis:
Option Alphas - get it over with and indef ban Malleus from The Wikipedia. There'll be gnashing of teeth, complaints about how Courcelles is the new Enver Hoxa (I'm being careful here to avoid violating Goodwin's Law), complaints to Jimbo, people ripping their clothes off in public and wailing like banshees about how The Wikipedia is now ruined for all eternity. But if you just put that little "Do not unblock without permission from ArbCom" (often used on many a less famous user) in the block summary then, after three months or so everyone on this site will be like "Malleus who?". The Wikipedia has short memory and given our current retention rate, as well as all them valiant efforts from Sue Gardner at recruiting new editors, at that point we'll probably have 90% new editors anyway.
I wish you luck with it. I found VM's basic assertion – that Wikipedia's turnover rate for editors is about three months – to be very telling, and if true (although I don't for one minute believe that is) would go a long way towards explaining so much of the poorly written crap on here; basically, very few people would have any idea what they're doing. MalleusFatuorum16:43, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
There's multitude of reasons wiki has turned out the way it has; not a simple issue at all. I am surprised as many stay for the long term as we do have. If people with the betterment of wiki in their mind keep working at it in their own way, maybe, just maybe wiki will be the way it should be one day.PumpkinSkytalk17:15, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
Converting COIs to volunteers
I actually felt that creating and encouraging a structured content submission process would convert more COIs to volunteers (rather than less). It encourages discussion and structured feedback instead of edit-warring, which will inevitably create friendlier interactions and help them become better editors. If the instructions in EasyMoney were provided to me four years ago, I might be where I am today as a Wikipedian three years ago.
But I did ease the Bright Line push on the essay a lot - it clearly doesn't have consensus, but it is good "advice" and I think the best process generally for above-board participation. My 2 cents, but I'm hogging the conversation. User:King4057 (EthicalWiki) 16:10, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
I feel like our conversation has made a lot of progress, but I also wonder if it will have a meaningful impact without more community-wide agreement. Do you think there's something else we need to do to get more editors to come together productively and reach compromise? User:King4057 (EthicalWiki) 18:45, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
Yup. I just left a comment on the retention Wikiproject a bit ago. I might pass on a COI task force. It's just too bad we ended up with PAIDWATCH and COOP, rather than COI Task Force. I started tweaking with this though. I have to look into how to make all the templates and stuff. User:King4057 (EthicalWiki) 20:46, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
You're wisely staying out of this. For the last few minutes I stared at YRC's Talk page and the long comment by Magog. I wanted to say something but decided, right or wrong, not to, mainly because I'm very tired and don't quite trust my own judgment at the moment. I'm still left with a feeling that I should do something, mixed in with a bit of sadness. Oh, well.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:05, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
I have mixed feelings. Ultimate conclusion: YRC deserved a block but not a week. My reasoning: Magog's closure was correct. There was no administrative action required if the only thing YRC wanted was an apology from Wikiwatcher for calling him a vandal. YRC should not have reverted the closure, and he did it three times. He could have opened a new thread if he felt that strongly. Plus, he really was acting up during the thread in the old YRC style where he piles it on (everyone, including me). The final piece was the comment at Magog's Talk page that Todd highlighted where he taunted Magog to block him. Juvenile and stupid. Even with all that, I wouldn't block for a week - maybe 48-72 hours to give YRC a chance to cool off (historically, he needs to come down from his anger). He hasn't helped himself subsequently by requesting a block based on involvement. Regardless of whether it's right, it's just not the way to go (as Future Perfect pointed out in his decline). There's no way around this kind of thing but sincere contrition and a promise to be good. At this point, I don't think the block should be reduced. Block duration is very discretionary and hard to challenge. In addition, if history proves me right, YRC will calm down after some time elapses (much less than a week, hopefully) and ask to be unblocked in the right way (and mean it - YRC is not phony). Anyway, that's my long version, and I'm leaving out my beef with Magog for what he said about me in the ANI thread. :-) You should, of course, continue to do what you think right, as you always do.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:39, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
I don't think they'll reconsider the block, but they or another admin may be more likely to unblock him if he makes an appropriate request. What did you mean by the sentence "The whole situation was suboptimal on my levels and by more than just YRC"? (putting aside the typo) Just curious.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:21, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
PumpkinSky is exactly right, Fair Use is for when a free version isn't possible or likely to be possible. This is a textbook case of failing the criteria for non-free use. Fair Use is when we are borrowing someone else's property, without their permission, and there are only limited reasons, by law, that we can do this. The policy on copyright at Wikipedia is even more strict.
Yep, wiki's idea of "reasonably easy to obtain" is way stricter than what people think it is. To the point that if you live in Canada and want a photo of a church in Croatia, you email that church, contact the people in the category of "users who live in Croatia", etc. You should list this photo at IFD.PumpkinSkytalk11:04, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.
I tried to raise this with you on my talk page, and so have others on ANI, yet you decline to respond. Therefore, I am sorry to write that I feel it is of such an ethical importance that I have raised it on ANI directly.
We have to have ethical standards and admins should be a good example of them. I am perfectly happy to be censured for what I have done but not for something I did not do, nor to have it left on my record prejudicially. I consider it to be an abuse of powers to do so to another individual.
@Dennis, FYI, my comment at AN/I on BridgeBoy's filing was intended to keep things more professional and was in no way aimed toward you. Someone commented right after mine giving a defense of you, so I hope it doesn't seem like I'm expressing a problem with your attitude or anything.
@BridgeBoy, while some of the admins come off very brusque and sometimes demeaning, I haven't yet seen that in Dennis Brown. My impression of him is that he tries very hard to be fair and even handed, and goes the extra few miles for people. You have every right to ask others to review his actions, but I would ask that you first look at the overall situation and see if you did everything you could to do things right, whether you're sure you followed the rules, whether you might be misunderstanding the purpose of some rules, or whether its possible that Dennis made an honest mistake. If you can do all that and still feel that it needs to be pursued this same way, then I wish you well, and hope you can achieve something positive from this. If you do look at all this and find that perhaps you acted too quickly, I wouldn't worry too much, but I would at least let Dennis know. I think you'll find him to be one of the finer folks here at Wikipedia. -- Avanu (talk) 12:10, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
Hi Dennis, I was reading about the Checkuser function you mentioned http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:CheckUser and as far as I can tell, it doesn't mention that it tracks emails that are sent, it only mentions that it tracks IP addresses that edits are made from.
Are you sure the Checkuser function actually tracks emails that are sent?
Basically true. CU tracks any loggable action: edits, emails, photo uploads, etc. BUT can not tell to whom who sent the email as it logs a SID, not the user name. True that they can't read the email. It's obviously a little more complicated than this, but that's the basics. PumpkinSkytalk18:13, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
I've replied to this; I'm mystified as to how you think I was responding to you, when you made your comment (that you think I was referencing) several hours after I made my initial comment. Pedro : Chat 19:38, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
Bridge Boy is Changing Article Names Without Discussion, Again
Hi Dennis,
I imagine you have Bridge Boy's userpage on your watchlist, but in case you missed my recent comment there, here it is. Is this worth taking action? Maybe the change is correct, but I sure wish BB would learn to talk about major changes before he implements them. Thanks, Ebikeguy (talk) 19:09, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
I think that Flyer22 has five primary reasons for wanting to block me/topic ban me. She believes I am combative and unwilling to listen to consensus, she thinks I am biased in favor of the age of consent being 18 rather than 16, she thinks that the majority of my edits are unsourced and sloppy, she disapproves of my having multiple accounts, and she disliked me making jokes on the articles by vandalizing them. I will address her concerns. First of all, her claim that I have a bias in favor of the age of consent being 18 is false. My position is that the marriage age and age of consent should be 16 and that it should be legal for a woman of 16 to consent to sex with a man of, say 35. My editing history would suggest that I do not have the bias she suggests there, and I will show previous edits to argue for my point when I have time later. She says that the majority of my edits were unsourced, but that isn't true and I can prove that, she also says that they are all sloppy, that is debateable and I will look into that. I guarantee that I will stop using the other wikipedia accounts and will stop making jokes here, and will accept consensus. I will provide my evidence with links from my editing history later tonight. --RJR3333 (talk) 01:48, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
Here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ARoman_Polanski&diff=501095209&oldid=501095015 and here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Roman_Polanski&diff=501075126&oldid=500611564 is an area where I have made edits that suggest against me having the bias Flyer22 claims I have, Roman Polanski got in trouble in California for having sex with a child under the age of fourteen, which is the age of consent in California, and I made edits to the talk page suggesting that calling Polanski's sex with the girl "sexual abuse of a child" was not npov that and that it should be changed from "sexual abuse" to "sexual contact" and I also even edited the Polanski article changing "sexual abuse" to "sexual contact" to make it more npov. I also tried to put the term age of consent into the Chris Hansen and To Catch a Predator articles a while ago and got blasted by Malke2010 because he said it was a "pedophile's term" and that it gave a false impression that there were states with an age of consent below 18, and I debated him extensively arguing that there were such states http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Malke_2010/Archive_3#Age_of_Consent_Chris_Hansen, this would also argue against me having the bias Flyer22 accuses me of having. Here is another instance of my debate with Malke2010 that would contradict the bias Flyer22 accuses me of having http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ARJR3333&diff=448640904&oldid=448634034. Here's another edit that would argue against the bias Flyer22 claims I have, I actually added into the article here, when it was not stated before, that most jurisdictions have chosen sixteen years of age as their age of sexual majority. I also made this edit to correct a false impression that the age of consent is 18 everywhere http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Incest&diff=prev&oldid=446477923, so this would contradict Flyer22's claim of bias against me. In this edit http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Age_of_consent_reform&diff=prev&oldid=446744492 I removed a reference to a bill in Georgia raising the age of sexual majority from 16 years to 18 years because the bill had not passed so I did not think it was relevant, this would also contradict Flyer22's claim of bias against me. --RJR3333 (talk) 01:56, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
Also Flyer22 accuses me of being obsessed with her, let me make this perfectly clear. I HAVE ABSOLUTELY NO INTEREST IN FLYER22 AS A PERSON and I WOULD BE HAPPY TO NEVER INTERACT WITH HER AGAIN. The reason I am posting this is because she is the primary person who wants to either topic ban me from the age of consent/age of majority articles, or perhaps ban me from wikipedia, and she has discussed the possibility of doing it, and she keeps attacking my editing. If she wants me to leave her alone, why doesn't she just let other editors correct my editing when needed, then there will be no reason for me to interact with her or discuss her. I am not interested in interacting with her in any way, shape, or form, and I would prefer not to post about her, if she would leave my editing alone, and let a different editor correct it, and stop talking about topic banning me, I would be happy to not talk about her at all. --RJR3333 (talk) 02:31, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
Also, I understand why I am being criticized, and I understand that in order to be able to avoid being topic banned, article banned, or site banned, I have to agree that the bullshit on my part will not continue. I acknowledge that it was my fault and take responsibility for it. I will stop using multiple accounts and stop making jokes. I will not bother other users. I will act mature from now on. I will edit in good faith and act normal. I understand that in order to be allowed to stay on this site, in the topic, and in the articles I have to stop acting stupid, and I understand that wikipedia does not put up with stupidity just because I happened to create good content, I understand that my behavior needs to change, and I guarantee that it will. --RJR3333 (talk) 02:34, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
Also, look at my editing on simple English wikipedia, it has generally been good and there has not been much controversy around it, unlike here, and I haven't made jokes there, which suggests I am capable of being a productive editor. --RJR3333 (talk) 02:35, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) My goodness! No one is threatening to block you for your opinions about marriage laws. This exact mess right here is one reason--you're trying to "win" a debate by overwhelming other people, and you've done this on other pages. Another reason, of course, is your socking. It's not very convincing that you are promising to never sock again when you didn't bother to mention the socking until after you were caught. If you want any hope of not being blocked (or being unblocked again in the near future), I strongly recommend that you stop talking. Every screed you write like this makes uninvolved editors like myself less sympathetic, not more. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:19, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
Dennis Brown said here " I've reviewed this editors contribs in a fair amount of detail at his previous request on my talk page, which was not in dispute so I don't consider myself involved, just informed. Looking at the number of intersects [3] makes the case for abuse quite clear. I will be happy to entertain any arguments why all socks and master shouldn't be indef blocked, but I would recommend making the arguments very quickly." So it sounds like I'm supposed to make the argument here based on what he said. --RJR3333 (talk) 03:24, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
I have two other accounts you might want to know about, LordKitchener16 and KingLeopold'sGhost, but I do not intend to use them anymore. However, LordKitchener16 made many good contributions to the Roman Polanski article. --RJR3333 (talk) 06:17, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
Hi Dennis congratulations on the Editor Retention project - it's off to a great start. Not to be pouring cold water on it but I saw your suggestion of an RFC about Blocking policy - can I ask you to hang on and put through the project first, (so the proposal can be refined) before formulating a question for the community. On the whole I'm seeing a lot of enthusiasm on the talk page, and that's great, but we're putting the cart before the horse if the project is launching in with solutions (based on assumptions) before we have a proper grasp of the actual problem. There's some good peer reviewed research about WP and its editors that I listed here - we should be analysing this and using the other wikimedia initiatives to work on defining the problem *first*. On this wider issue the project page makes a series of assumptions about why ppl leave. Some of these assumptions, such as the "Innocent prisoner's dilemma in regard to blocks" and the insinuation that the "policies on sockpuppetry" need revision, are not based on anything that I can see. Also I realize you're not trying to exclude sysops but the "Suspicion of administrator cliques" in the reasons why ppl leave isn't in Former Contributors Survey Results unless I missed it. My concern is that the project could get off to the wrong start if we don't base its work on find out what the real problem is and having the hard evidence that will convince the wider community. Look at the response to the RFC at WP:BLOCK good intentions aren't enough. Again sorry if I'm coming across as negative - I'm not the project is a great first step in the right direction, but lets not rush in "where angels fear to tread"--Caililtalk17:02, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
BTW if you've got any influence on Penyulap please get him to tone it down. He's using the talk space on the project and at WT:BLOCK (and his own talk page for that matter) for ax grinding and he's had warning to stop from me twice. He's on the edge of WP:DE. I appreciate he's enthusiastic etc but he's crossing the line and he's not listening. I'm not the only one to raise this in the last 24 hours. And there seems to be some serious issues over at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spaceflight#Penyulap--Caililtalk02:37, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
Just by way of explanation about my frustration with the banned users parting comments page, Buster7 is a friend of one of those banned users (a person who I had a good relationship with on WP but who had serious problems with others). If the ER wikiproject is hijacked by ppl who want to valorize their friends who are blocked/banned and agrandize how they "left", it'll be finished before it gets started. Creating a memorial page for banned users is not a small issue. Doing so under the pretence of using it to aid editor retention just makes that worse. I still believe Buster was working in good faith here but I'm genuinely aghast at how blasé nearly everyone else is about the implication that these were good editors - these banned users actually contributed to a lot of editor lost and burnout while they disrupted the site. Honestly I was very close to adding a note to my last comment that the editor I referred to who was lost, due to Buster7 and my mutual friend, was a sysop and a woman - perhaps that's why nobody at the project cares - it's a bit harsh but where I'm standing I'm getting that distinct feeling. It makes no sense to be listening to ppl who caused editor loss with aim of aiding editor retention. I recognize the need to review WP:BITE and help encourage a more personable and counselling tone when deal with new users (and maybe even reviewing the use of tools like Twinkle, Huggle and rollback, to reduce overly quick reverting) BUT right now it's being gone about wrong and will cause damage to how ppl view the project. We need to actually think about proposals like Buster7's before doing something that actually runs contrary to our own aims, and frankly insults a lot of other ppl. I'll echo myself above ppl are rushing in "where angels fear to tread" and it'll just cause problems not matter how well intentioned--Caililtalk13:06, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
Too add no this, I see some concerns appearing with the "reasons people leave" section. I feel that it is just being used to voice frustrations with various aspects of Wikipedia. RyanVeseyReview me!13:18, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
Well we're on the same page Dennis (there's a whole ocean of a gap between site-banned users and ppl with minor blocks or other small issues) - it's really the way Buster7 went about this (portraying 3 banned users as ppl who left and should've been retained) that is problematic if very well intentioned--Caililtalk16:37, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
On a separate point I'm see a lot of evidence in research that how new editors get reverted in their early days here is a significant contributing factor to their leaving. I saw you mention the use of rvv did this come from users or from a piece of research? Either way it's matching up with what the literature I have says--Caililtalk16:40, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
Collapsed per Buster7's suggestion. I've got no problem with this being blanked or sections being refactored to remove names if anyone feels it's appropriate--Caililtalk15:06, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
Just to clarify. The three ANON users at "Discovered reasons" are User:ANON#1, User:ANON#2, and User:ANON#3. I had to start somewhere and those were the 3 I remembered. #1 left before I got here. #2's stay was short-lived. #3 was my mentor and friend.I present this here because I think Cailil is mistaken as to her identification of the banned editors that I "discovered". I have absolutely no intention of creating a memorial page. My intent is as stated....People say things as they are going out the door for the last time. Words shared as an editor leaves a place he loves have the intent to impart understanding. I have no hidden agenda to bring back banned users. And.....what does the editor I referred to who was lost, due to Buster7... mean? You are administrators. Look at my history. There is absolutely no reason to question my motives or to put your own spin on them. ```Buster Seven Talk16:46, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
Just to clarify Buster7 a) I totally acknowledge that you were making a positive and genuinely good faith addition here but you went about it wrong. Banned users don't leave - they get thrown out. We shouldn't be holding their views up as any example - it just wont help us. Furthermore I searched the quotes and correctly identified 2 of the users - I remembered User:#3's (and you might remember I had a number of positive dealings with him and took part in one of the RFARs. I didn't name #3 (and therefore any of them) out of sensitivity for his privacy b) What I said was " the editor I referred to who was lost, due to Buster7 and my mutual friend, was a sysop and a woman. It's a long sentence so I understand my meaning could be lost, plus I missed an apostrophe s - It shoudl read "buster7's and my mutual friend" as in our friend #3. Sorry about that. The sysop I was referring to was User:L who took User:#3 to RFAR and left shortly afterwards due to burnout. I'm not at all inferring that you had anything to do with anyone leaving, and I apologise if it cam across that way. c) I'm sorry if I misunderstood your selection of these 3 users (all of whom are banned) there are a few editors (not your self) using various pages (including the ER project) as soapboxes to change WP:BLOCK etc and I was concerned that this was another one. As I said on the project talk page - the horses mouth approach is fine as long as we exclude banned and indef blocked users. Oh and btw I'm a guy :) --Caililtalk19:48, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
Also no problem with you Dennis. If you feel my little appendage, as I call it, will side-track the project. I'll gladly stop my gathering, if you ask me to. But lets be clear. The conclusion jumping was not on my part. To often, admins have a "villian behind the tree" mindset when, actually, it's just an editor standing in the shade. ```Buster Seven Talk19:04, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
I'm truly glad MR. Cailil and I cleared this up and I wouldn't mind if this part of the conversation was archived to protect the ANON's. I'll cease collecting in the interest of the project. I'm not sure how to cancel it out or even if that is necessary. I'll leave that decision to either of you. ```Buster Seven Talk20:09, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
Hello, Dennis Brown. Please check your email; you've got mail! It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
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.
Thanks, Dennis. I know good mentors in such a complicated situation may be hard to find. Certainly, you've done all you can and that's appreciated. Sometimes letting users in those situations know that others care is all that can be done. NewtonGeek (talk) 00:12, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
WikiProject Editor Retention: You are the "Reform templates, warnings and sanctions" team lead
Hi Dennis, I went ahead and created project teams for each of the general editor retention areas people have expressed an interest to work in. Please review the team lists here: Wikipedia:WikiProject_Editor_Retention#Project_teams. I have assigned you as the leader of the "Reform templates, warnings and sanctions" team. Assuming you are interested in taking on this role, please notify the members of your team, and verify each editor is interested in being on the team. I expect that there might be some shuffling around of roles and teams at first, but once the teams are settled, I will co-ordinate with the teams leads to put together goals and a basic project plan to make sure that the project as a whole is successful and makes a measurable, positive difference for Wikipedia. Thank you for for your involvement... Zad6819:38, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
Hello Dennis Brown, I hope you remember me. I have to ask you have you and other editors came to conclusion about Talk:N. R. Narayana Murthy#Awards, I mean which awards should be there, since am willing to edit the list of awards in the article. So please reply soon. I hope you guys do have reached some consensus.--♥ Kkm010 ♥♪ Talk ♪ ߷ ♀ Contribs ♀15:15, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
Ok I would wait for another 1 or 2 weeks before a final consensus is built. Please keep an eye on that article son that no substantial changes or vandalism occurs. Thanks--♥ Kkm010 ♥♪ Talk ♪ ߷ ♀ Contribs ♀04:16, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
I just closed the shylocksboy section at ANI, since action has been taken, there wasn't much more to say, and he didn't seem to be getting the point at all anyway. But I also noticed he had no block notice on his talk page, shouldn't there be one of those too? (I'd add one if I knew how/can a non-admin do that?). -- Despayre tête-à-tête14:48, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
I didn't know either of those things, but now that I do, my first thought is, that it's a bit dumb to require block notices only for some offenses and not others. It should be standardized, and then everyone would know what to expect/see. IMO anyway. Thanks for that info. -- Despayre tête-à-tête15:05, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
Dennis, this is interesting to me, I searched on keyword "abus" (to pick up both "abuse" and "abusive") on the WikiProject Editor Retention page and got 0 hits. On the project Talk page there were: 1 hit on word "abuses" in context re editors in general; 3 hits in context of abuse of WP in general; and 3 hits in context of abuse of administrators. On the "Innocent prisoner's dilemma" project subpage, there was 1 hit: in context of abuse of a new proposed "review system". On the "Reasons editors leave" project subpage: 3 hits in context of admin abuse of their powers.
There is little point to my voice, if I say abuse by admins of their powers, especially power to block, is IMO a major force that drives away editors. (For, I think User:Malleus Fatuorum would agree. And also a less high-profile editor, User:FleetCommand.)
IMO, this is the pink elephant in the room to the project you've started. (Or, why isn't it discussed more? Or will it be? Have I overlooked it?) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 17:53, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
On a similar note, any modifications to the blocking policy that come out of this, or other discussions, are at least tangentially related. RyanVeseyReview me!18:15, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
The topic isn't limited to abusive blocks themselves. A hostile environment is created (that IMO is equally responsible for driving editors from WP, if not even moreso), when an admin, with power to block, goes around threatening same, under guise of warning, but really to intimidate & dominate another editor(s). (I see that you, as admin, look for resolution, and then warn of block, only after giving up on your best effort to resolve first. Whereas I see some other admins "pull gun out of holster", and "wave the barrel around", at first sniff of something they "don't particularly like". [It's a Wild West environment at WP in 2012 IMO, so IMO the analogy isn't an inappropriate one.]) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 19:20, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
Here is just a random thought. There currently isn't much you can do to sanction the admins who "wave the barrel around". I've occasionally seen an admin get blocked, and adminship is sometimes removed at ArbCom. Perhaps a method of removing specific userrights from administrators that could be applied by a Bureaucrat could be in order. I don't know how exactly to go about this, or even if it is technically possible. Maybe there'd need to be a bureaucrats noticeboard/incidents. In any case, this could allow blocking power to be removed from a specific administrator. It's one of my more far-fetched ideas, but if someone wants to run with it, go ahead. RyanVeseyReview me!19:37, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
I've been amazed that the mop tools haven't been made modular, long before now. Also that Admin status, can't be areas-specific. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 08:13, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
Dennis, could you take a look at this if you have time? My request for help at ANI fell on deaf ears. Specifically I'm concerned that Radiopathy may well not be the sockmaster; meanwhile the 99IP sock/troll is laughing at us all. Thanks. Joefromrandb (talk) 18:38, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
Please hurry! The IP Sock accusations are geetting so bad that this has become a disruption to even the disruptions! LOL. These people need to learn to stay on topic to resolve any of their issues. Many complaint cases have been opened regarding this crowd (even their behaviours) and every time their combative behaviours (on the page) have confused the original issue s bad that the case gets dropped. Admins just won't touch it and it has existed since about 2006?? apparently. This is the worst case of a ship without a rudder I have seen on WP. The hyena attitudes will continue without serious actions, I hate to admit.
I doubt you should find any sock data on me. I may have unknowingly used another IP in the past years, but not intentionally. I certainly do not possess a registered name and probaby never will after witnessing the crap that goes on with WP **sigh**. Its definitely not an easy job for any side. 99.251.125.65 (talk) 13:31, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
While I agree with your philosophy the content dispute has been ongoing since 2006 and will never stop. Also the insulting behaviour from GabeMc has been apologized for, by him 5-6 ties that I have seen. Then he does it again ad then apologizes. Other editors have adopted this behaviour in response (since it is OK and condone by admins excusing out of the conflict) and editing is basically stalled. My feeling is that most of the editors will abide by a firm/logical decision and are all asking/requesting for it. One was offered by Andreasegde, a few years ago and seemed to be abided by, but was a bandaid approach, and fell through as a non-answer. I stumbled in to it with my HUHAS asking questions, and have currently become the latest scapegoat for hostility and excuse not to address the issues with some honesty. Many attempts to keep the wolfpack ontrack, by me, only added fuel to the fires. WP:MOS has contradictory clauses, not helping the situation. Sorry for dumping my frustration here. Need a holiday! 99.251.125.65 (talk) 16:00, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
Hi, Dennis - I'd like to talk to a Checkuser about not outing my other account (I'm not Varlaam by any means) but I'm not really sure how to do that. As the clerk who approved the checkuser, can you point me in the right direction? Thanks - Keep your fork, there's pie (talk) 20:25, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
Thanks. Not worried - there's definitely no abuse. I use this account to edit mostly British-y pages, so naturally there's some overlap with that other British-y editor, but it's all above-board. Keep your fork, there's pie (talk) 20:34, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
Okay... sorry to come off like such a noob, but I don't normally deal with stuff like this... I still can't figure out how to email a CheckUser. Like, exactly where I would click to do that. I can see the list of names, and I can see the userpages, and I could swear that (at some point in history, anyway) there was a link to "email this user" in the toolbox, but now I don't see it. How do I contact someone? Keep your fork, there's pie (talk) 20:44, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
I emailed Newyorkbrad about the checkuser; we go way back (with my primary account) and I'm sure he'll be able to clear it up. I have to log out for a while, and I'm going out of town for the weekend, but I'll do my best to check back in before I leave or while I'm on the road. Thanks for your good faith and patience. With any luck, this will all blow over in my absence. Keep your fork, there's pie (talk) 21:59, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
TFD asserted that Writegeist was an "active editor" in Fascism. Problem is he has never made any edits whatsoever in that area. (I used the "intersecting contributions" tool) The claim that he was "active" was palpably errant and misleading, and the fact is that his appearance was totally related to my mere existence, and not at all related to "Fascism" whatever, thus it is not a "content dispute" on its face. Further, TFD's iterated personal attacks on me are getting tiresome - I try to regard such editors as "gnats" which should be ignored, but making claims about me which are factually false I find worse than tiresome. Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:56, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
I fear you misread the situation. Writegeist and I "intersect" on a trivial number of articles (11) and a small number of article talk pages (18) considering that I have over 2,650 pages watchlisted. He has stalked me now for over three years (see his UT page) and this is not a "content dispute" - it is his ongoing m.o. Consider such statements as:
One of whom, it seems to me and the editor who filed this request, is masquerading as a new user. And while I won't be surprised if/when (s)he turns out to be sufficiently experienced to elude a CU, I'm mindful of someone else who eventually received an indef sockblock despite having passed a CU, and also despite you defending him against checks with a "tenaciousness" that was "interesting", IIRC, according to another user. Writegeist (talk) 20:32, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
Which, I submit, is a gratuitous attack on me per se for having suggested that two people both using a major ISP who do not geolocate within several thousand miles of one another are unlikely to be socks [6]. And not the only one from him. I admit he is a gnat - but even gnats need a swatting at some point <g>. Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:37, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
That's fine. I was led to that case by the Historyfeeling case, and got a bit confused. It's probably a good idea to elaborate a bit when the action taken is against the apparent direction of the CU results, though. T. Canens (talk) 17:07, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
Honestly, looking at the Historyfeeling case (which I just endorsed...8 days after it was filed), a part of me is thinking that maybe indeffing this whole lot is the most cost-effective way of handling this mess. T. Canens (talk) 17:13, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
I'm wondering if it is appropriate/possible/howto withdraw a SPI I have opened. Although it has more than enough merit, upon the closest examination of the editors many contribs, I find one which I consider to be enough doubt for me, to drop the matter (although not enough doubt for anyone else in this place I think). Basically there was an impression I had, unrelated to the SPI which has turned out as being somewhat doubtful, or moves the master's sophistication up a little, and so that makes me think maybe the other calculations made could be a little off as well and need recalculating. Penyulap ☏ 15:08, 12 Jul 2012 (UTC)
Thanks, although now I'm thinking it's just first SPI jitters, wanting to be sure it's perfect. Either way it hardly matters, there are socks causing trouble everywhere, it's just part of the scenery really. But I'll raise it with the editor directly to get some more detail. Thank you for the help Dennis. Penyulap ☏ 15:53, 12 Jul 2012 (UTC)
Sorry to bother you again Dennis, I have rethought this SPI, and the reservation which I had, (the reservation I had was unustified all things considered) I figure to go ahead with the request, as it's improper to half accuse anyone, and my original reasons all still stand, I was simply being reticent and unreasonably cautious as I don't really like this sort of thing, anyhow, I'm going to take a guess that I'd revert the archive ? or maybe it's better to let you do that ? I do not mind either way. But I should give you a link this time, least I can do for all the trouble I cause. Penyulap ☏ 09:22, 13 Jul 2012 (UTC)
Hi Dennis, I have reverted the archiving of the matter, and would definitely like it to proceed, I hope that is ok. Penyulap ☏ 11:33, 15 Jul 2012 (UTC)
well sounds like you had fun and it serves you right :) I could see how busy you were already. Am I able to ask another to handle it ? I don't know how as it is the first I have requested. Also, I am guessing there is a balance between revealing everything and revealing just enough to get the job done without educating the editor in how to be a better sock, is that about right ? Penyulap ☏ 12:18, 15 Jul 2012 (UTC)
I added a note on the page here I don't know if that puts it onto the main page though, should I do that ?
I guess I should 'play it by ear' as I don't want to give away pointers or anything to the editor who the socks belong to. At the moment, I'd rather he was voted off the island, so each time he returns I can smack him over the head with an oar until he starts behaving in a social manner, and then I'll just go back to ignoring him. Although I could lay out evidence down to what he eats for breakfast, I don't want him to get any smarter at socking than he currently isn't :) I'm also not his only target, and his socks go back a long long way, but I see no need to go and find and list all of them, just enough would do. Penyulap ☏ 12:40, 15 Jul 2012 (UTC)
I noticed this bit, and right there is where I say the admins need a freaking dictionary. It's called prejudice. Every admin figures that the applicant asking for help in a legitimate situation has to bow scrape and suck ass to be heard. When editors have been harassed, they are not always gong to be inclined to show their normal cheerful true colours. They are going to be upset, that is the what harassment is. That is the point of harassing someone, to make them upset. So someone comes to ANI because someone else has deliberately upset them. They are meant to be upset, otherwise they wouldn't be at ANI, so these admins who say 'oh you're disturbing my delicate sensibilities with this emotional display, and I'm ignoring your complaint and letting the attacker get away with it' is, by the dictionary fundamental definition, prejudice. Look, I'm not saying prejudice is uncommon, I'm not saying it's a rare thing that is not simply everyday and every editor to some degree or the other, but how are you going to help these people ? How are you going to get an ANI that works properly if they cannot deal with the mainstream issues that the venue is designed to handle ? It doesn't help the non-admins, and it doesn't help the admins either. Tell them one at a time I expect, that's pretty much the most popular solution other people advocate. Pointless. They'll ignore you like they ignore everything else in the overflowing 'I don't care basket'. Pick a clear, solid request based in mainstream policy, give it a measured dose of personality well within and far from any bright lines or community dislike, and then you see it, plain as day, prejudice. Everyone can see the admins who go ahead and act simply by addressing both parties separately, and those who fail to do anything because their delicate sensibilities have turned up the end of their nose and has them looking down their nose over the top of their glasses, not deigning to involve themselves in the actual job they signed up for. Prejudice. That is what it is and it's the cause of the dysfunction. Prejudice pure and simple. As for me, if people want to tell me to fuck off, I am fine with that, I'll leave them scratching themselves at both ends wondering why their little resolution is going nowhere, wondering "why is ANI constipated why is it backed up with no hope of ever dumping this load and moving on.' I have plenty of other people to help, so I'm more than happy to move on. Come back a week later and they are still scratching away at both ends. I'm ok with that. I'm good. No problem. Let em. Penyulap ☏ 00:06, 16 Jul 2012 (UTC)
Hi Dennis, are you still getting CSD reviews (or whatever you refer to it as)? I just did a tricky one that I would be interested to have your opinion on (I am not asking you to delete it, but it is one that might not come up that often, so I thought you would be interested). I nominated أسئلة واجوبة for deletion as not expanding on the topic of FAQ (I left a rough translation from Arabic on the talk page). Just interested to see your take on its acceptability as a candidate (as I am also unsure of the nomination). I posted the question at LoS's talk page as well (as we were on the topic of CSD anyway. Feel free to answer here or there, whatever you prefer. --kelapstick(bainuu) 00:55, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
Precisely my thinking, hence the A10 nom/deletion. Thanks for the feedback, thought it might be one you would be interested in seeing. Cheers, --kelapstick(bainuu) 01:58, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
You've got mail!
Hello, Dennis Brown. Please check your email; you've got mail! Message added 03:11, 16 July 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.
Hi Dennis! I remember you asking him to not to revert good faith edits using Rollback option in twinkle but he did it again. See this: [8]. I don't know what to do so I have left him a talk which he removed: [9]. Your input will be appreciated. Thanks! — TheSpecialUser(TSU)05:05, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) TSU, while he reverted them with Twinkle, the point of this comment was the mislabelling the edits as vandalism. The edit you showed is a reverting, which is not the same as calling a good faith edit vandalism, even if it was done with Twinkle. --kelapstick(bainuu) 05:32, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
I apologize if you somehow offended, but you should understand me, because become Jessica Drew must be with at least two pictures! You can see the Russian version of the article, which I did! You know me I'm the Ultimate Anna!--90.155.142.140 (talk) 07:15, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
Hi, just to make things clearer, the above IP is Ultimate Anna whom you blocked as a sock puppet of Shawnee Smith not long ago. They are still asking me to make the same edits they were blocked for on their behalf, pleading ignorance. BulbaThor (talk) 10:13, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
Okay, I see your revert here; and it seems you want to know why this PNG version is better. (Although I hope you'll excuse me; I am still a bit uncomfortable with Wikipedia, seeing that people who want to know revert instead of asking.) Well, two reasons:
It is of a lower resolution. (See WP:NFCC, item #3)
It has a transparent background that improves article quality
But I have proposition for you: I have a rather high resolution (600px) at hand. You leave the PNG version be in the article and I will increase its resolution to whatever amount you and I agreed upon. Are we cool?
Sorry if the process seems a bit aggressive, wiki's just work that way. Around here, we tend to follow the ideas behind WP:BRD "Be bold, Revert, Discuss". Actually, this is exactly what you are doing, so bravo! The system works! :) You were bold and made the change, I reverted, now we discuss. A revert isn't a bad thing or a personal comment on your edit, it is just another bold move to say "I think the other way was better, but open for discussion".
Because it is a copyrighted image, you can't use a 600px version, that is too large to qualify as fair use (around 300-350px is usually fine). Part of what got me was that the new logo didn't have the 2010 date on the logo, and I thought the product was still branded as such. If they have removed the 2010 part of the official logo and the article just isn't updated, then yours would be ok, even if it is a bit smaller than the one you are replacing. If I was wrong and it HAS had the 2010 removed, just revert me back with the summary "covered on Dennis's talk page", no biggie. Edit summaries are important.
It's done as you wanted: With "2010" and at 300px. It has a bit of white buffer, but if you want, I can downsize the 600px into 300px in a way that it fits the whole 300px length. (I don't prefer it, but I'm fine with it.) Surprisingly enough, finding high-resolution logos without "2010" is much easier.
Please do me a favor and give me a feedback: All in all, which one of the three logos you think should now be in the article right now? My first upload, my second upload or Fleet Command's version?
Sorry to bother you again but it seems DASHBot insists on removing the speedy-deletion tag from File:Microsoft Forefront Threat Management Gateway logo.jpg. Somehow it thinks the file is still in use but reporting tools show no usage. Could please assist? Thanks in advance.
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.
Thanks. I think I've done that. I wasn't sure I was allowed to. I assume it's not something users are supposed to do except under unusual circumstances. NewtonGeek (talk) 15:45, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
Hello, Dennis Brown. Please check your email; you've got mail! It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
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.
Vandalism
Hello, Dennis Brown, you have closed my request for Administrator intervention against vandalism on the article "Autobiography of a Yogi". Could you please check the page I reported? What I have stated is true. The article is using Wikipedia to advertise a book with wrong information and sectarism. The editors in the discussion are the ones who vandalised the page. If you don´t have the time, could you please ask an experienced editor in book articles and Publication Ethics to take a look at it? If you think what I posted is vague, what should I do to make it specific? I am willing to help. Thank you. -- Tat Sat (talk) 20:38, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for your quick answer. I´m sorry to hear that what I did is considered "forum shopping". Of course I did not do it on purpose and it was never my intention to be frowned upon greatly. Content dispute is only one of the issues. The use of Wikipedia for advertising or promotion is not considered vandalism? In the Portuguese Wikipedia it also took me sometime to get an editor to check what I said. I did not give up and finally the editor was very upset with what he discovered. "Boy, he was surprised." This book (the 1946 editio princeps version specifically), is the only book Steve Jobs had in his iPad2 and he read it at least once a year -- as written by Walter Isaacson in his biography. I know you are very busy -- I am also terribly busy -- but I am aware of Wikipedia´s neutral point of view and trustworthiness. I am sure you are an editor of Wikipedia because you want to impart knowlege and education and make this world less uncultured. Besides, I am not asking you to believe me: I am just asking you to verify what I am saying. You may be surprised... However, if you cannot do it, how can I find an experienced book´s article editor to verify what I am trying to inform Wikipedia? Thanks -- Tat Sat (talk) 21:39, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
Dennis Brown, OK, I respect your opinion. In fact, I asked for it. Thank you, it was very enlightening. Could I ask you please to tell me if there is a way to ask for help without breaking Wikipedia´s protocol? Inadvertently I made a wrong start. I would also like to suggest admins in their area of expertise be reached in, in case of doubt. Anyway, in the discussion board about the article, the users who vandalised it have no interest in changing it. Their point of view prevails and is the only one. Mr. Stradivarius, who kindly volunteered to help, is very nice and fair, but he studied music and does not know about copyrights, Ethics in Publications, etc. The matter is complex. For you to have an idea, NestedVariable, said the book has two first editions. SRF´s cover which is in the infobox appears for free in Google Search priceless institutional advertise sponsored by Wikipedia. And the article says Self-Realization is the Publisher of the book even though this information is wrong. PS "They" are Red Rose 13 and NestedVariable. Thank you. Tat Sat (talk) 23:33, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
Thank you. I am going to look for editors in book pages and ask for help. The editors of pages about sects, spiritual traditions, etc, can be terribly sectarian. As you know, there has been more bloodshed in the name of "God" than for any other cause. It is best to take the book as a literary work, since the article is about the book, not about the guru who happens to be the author. As for consensus being against me, I expect it if matters remain as they are. Devotees of a sect nowadays are more militant than devotees and they never come alone. I don´t even know why I am wasting my time if nobody cares. Probably because I cannot see unfairness and always try to correct porportedly wrong information. Besides, I love Wikipedia which I consult frequently as a fountain of knowledge. The issues I want to deal with are not subjective, they are ridiculously simple facts, like informing the correct Publisher, and things like that. As for somoene saying that there are two first editions of a book, among other absurdities, I quote: "This fellow is wise enough to play the fool, and to do that well craves a kind of wit..." William Shakespeare, Twelfth Nigth, Act III, Scene I. Good bye, Dennis Brown and good luck. Obrigada. -- Tat Sat (talk) 01:18, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
If you care to comment, I personally believe this thread has veered heavily off the rails. This is the sort of thread that gives AN/I a bad name where people start picking up stones and hurling them at whomever they might hit. -- Avanu (talk) 00:28, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
Do you want me to bring another possible sock puppet of WikAdviser to ANI? This IP is targeting the same articles.
The IP's contributions are Here.Anderson - what's up? If you believe there has been a mistake, report it on my talk page. 00:32, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
Hello, Dennis Brown. You have new messages at WP:ANI. Message added 02:09, 17 July 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
I've been observing you since I supported your RfA. You're like a breath of fresh air in the admin corps. You're kind; you're approachable; you're rational and reasonable. You may make the odd mistake - we all do. But you don't seem to have an ounce of vice in you. You have far-seeing goals, and they're good ones. And you'd pass my Head of State test with no questions asked, no niggly little reservations. In short, you're fucking wonderful, and I feel privileged to WikiKnow you :D Pesky (talk) 03:26, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
Yeah (grumble) I don't agree with most of his ideas, but (more whining) he does make it awfully hard to maintain an "us and them" mentality. He'll probably ban me tomorrow, but it'll be a good ban I agree with, like that swearing one, he moves the question from 'was it a good ban' to 'was it worth it (good value)' hmm. Yeah, F'n brilliant. (SEE ? I leave the SWEARING to my Auntie nowdays, I learnt my lesson). :P
Yep, find more admins like this one, easy way to build community spirit. Penyulap ☏ 07:18, 17 Jul 2012 (UTC)
On a public terminal and just about to have to head off, but I thought perhaps you might want to look into this: User:Allen (who appears to not exist despite having a userpage), User:Allenlily (who created the userpage for the previous account as a copy of his own), and User:Allen649 (whose talk page is where the first's talk page redirects to)...? - The Bushranger posting as Aerobird from a public computer Talk22:11, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
Dennis, don't you think a one month block on that IP was a little harsh? Especially since the problem is adequately solved through semi-protection. While the IP does appear static, it is entirely possible that the editor used a different computer or a mobile device. They have no choice but to change IP addresses. If that was the case, a 24 hour block would suffice. If they were abusing multiple accounts, I still wouldn't shoot for more than a week. That IP probably has 100 articles created by know. RyanVeseyReview me!04:01, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
1 month? That seems very unreasonably high. Quick scan since I weren't aware exactly the issue suggest edit warring / 3RR violation at École nationale de l'aviation civile? That might well deserve a block, but nomrally in the order of hours especially as a first offence without talk page warning. Also, the block reason given of "Abusing multiple accounts", doesn't that usually involve you know, registered account and not IPs. If this is a case of block evasion by a banned user, then label it as such. At the moment, I am saddened that we've blocked someone who has written tens and tens of articles for Wikipedia through AFC. KTC (talk) 09:46, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
Sockpuppeting is a particularly troublesome problem here, more so than simple vandalism. This user has shown a pattern of doing so. I've never blocked a confirmed sockpuppeter for as little as 24 hours and honestly wouldn't be inclined to do so due to the nature of the offense. This is because what sockpuppets are doing is skewing AFDs or article discussions or editing, so a long period is necessary to insure that disruption will not continue. I feel that 1 month is a "strong" block but there was a pattern of abuse from other Wikis that I could not ignore. I see socking as one of the most offensive and disruptive types of abuse at Wikipedia. By the third offense, I support indef blocks. A look at the contribs for the IP indicate it is the same person for a long period of time. While I don't think it was particularly high given the circumstances (edit warring and abuse of multiple accounts), I have reduced the block to two weeks because of the concerns expressed, which is the least amount of time I usually block someone for abusing multiple accounts in this fashion. As to the labeling, the block links to WP:SOCK, which does fit, even if the wording is awkward. All I can do is use my best judgement here, and attempt to compromise based on the concerns. If the editor uses WP:GAB and requests an unblock, and can present reasonable assurances that he can contribute without abusing the system, then another admin can unblock him and I won't interfere, as always.
Thanks for your response and explanation. I understand your concern and is happy to leave it to your judgement so no I wouldn't be asking aother admin to review it. Regards, KTC (talk) 15:07, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
Hi Dennis, Excuse me if this is not the proper place to comment. I wanted to start a sockpuppet investigation a month or so ago, but I understand you can not do that with IP's. Other puppets are still here, today. I think there are 3 or 4 more IP's involved. I know one went offline last April the same day 80.13.85.217 appeared. This is FYI, for what it's worth. Thanks. :- ) Don16:02, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for giving me food for thought. I have a further question. Is it your impression that no filter discussion can arrive at consensus? Many people are prudish about nudity. At the same time some images are inappropriate for children or in the work environment. I think that's what the filter is supposed to address. NewtonGeek (talk) 16:48, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the perspective. Your link had another link on how images can be blocked by users. I don't understand if using those methods would also block images on every other website. The issue is whether Wikipedia is appropriate for schools, public libraries, and other similar places. I appreciate your having taken the time to explain those things. NewtonGeek (talk) 18:50, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
I noticed you closed the thread I was just about to remove from AN/I. I saw no point in it except being antagonistic toward Nenpog, who is within his rights to file an arbitration case, and while I don't think he should be engaging in that action, it is poor form to mock his grammar on AN/I. -- Avanu (talk) 17:49, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
If I were sufficiently versed in archiving, I would just do it manually. Would it work to just cut from the current page and paste into the most recent archive page? (along with edit summaries indicating the purpose?) -- Avanu (talk) 18:09, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
Figured it would be best to stop the threaded discussion at the RfA, there is already enough of that there. Seeing the co-noms, I'm inclined to suspect he'll be fine. And seeing his other work, I think the same. But this _feels_ like the case of making an error and being unwilling to back down. Maybe it's not an error (as some discussion at my talk page would argue) or maybe he'd like to back down but feels it would be pandering (which I get, but is somewhat troubling itself). In any case, it's enough for me to oppose even though I suspect he won't burn the place down. I think he'd be best off waiting a few months, but if that doesn't happen (and it very much looks like it won't), we'll be fine. Hobit (talk) 21:01, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
Hi Dennis Brown! A special thanks in helping the sockpuppet investigation go smoothly and efficiently well, blocking many socks and resolving the situation as quick as possible with the help of administrative tools. Thanks a lot for defending and protecting Wikipedia :) Regards and Happy Editing! TheGeneralUser (talk) 22:47, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
Dennis, when you have a moment, can you look at this discussion at WP:BLPN? I'm winging it on my limited SPI knowledge. It'd be nice to have someone with more experience review my comemnts. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:01, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
Thanks, much. Tomorrow, I'll try to remember to nominate the category for deletion and adjust everything else accordingly.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:30, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
I see you just reduced the block on Stodieck (Talk). This is just to let you know that I had previously warned this user about sockpuppetry. Their response was pretty much to ignore me. I can probably find the diff if you like (but not until tomorrow, it's my bedtime now).
[Update] Forgot the important bit (for me) - any chance you could reconsider lifting the block, at least until my allegations have been investigated? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 18:33, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
OK, so here's diffs of what I posted in a discussion in which we both took part, on 30 June 2012. First I mentioned and linked to WP:SOCKPUPPET and shortly after I gave a more explicit warning. Stodieck's response was to accuse me of outing: Among other places this accusation was made on the Incident page linked as "here" in my second para above - scroll towards the bottom of the linked section. The original diff itself is here. You can see clearly from the Incident discussion and linked diffs etc. that we had been at loggerheads for several weeks and I had begun to suspect that Stodieck was starting to game the system. Looking through the talk pages linked, one can see Stodieck increasingly throwing policy pages at me to try and counter my arguments. One can also see a devious and increasingly cavalier mind at work - deleting prior censures by other admins from his talk page here and so on (in that diff, note his rudeness about an admin called Dave), I could just go on and on. To me, the idea that the continued sockpuppetry was an innocent mistake beggars belief. I don't know what was in that email he sent you, but I would be astonished if it was all genuine.
Worth noting that the user's first actions following expiry of the block are to go and revert previous articles back to how he/she likes it. I left a gentle note on the user's talk page about edit warring. --Biker Biker (talk) 07:37, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
Hello, Dennis Brown. Please check your email; you've got mail! Message added 07:37, 20 July 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.
that last name isn't my last name, i'm sending emails under that name.--Anderson - what's up? If you believe there has been a mistake, report it on my talk page. 07:40, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
I use User:MastCell/user-rights.js... if you're on a userpage or usertalk page, it will display the date the account was created, # of edits, the account's user rights (sysop, checkuser, etc), and whether the account is currently blocked. I wrote it because I got tired of trying to keep track of whether someone was an admin or bureaucrat or whatever. It only works on userpages, though, so you'd need an extra click at the very least. MastCellTalk22:53, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
The script periodically breaks and fixes itself every few months. I haven't the programming skill to investigate why that might be (as you can see, I simply imported the script from ruwiki). NW(Talk)15:29, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
Hello, Dennis Brown. Please check your email; you've got mail! Message added 01:16, 21 July 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.
Yes the issue is exactly that I've been here too long to give a damn about the hypocritical rules of engagement. Its perfectly fine for Rob to cast aspersions about my desires and point of view with no knowledge about the topic or the history of my engagement with it. From his first comment he demonstrated a complete lack of good faith - despite the fact that I personally brought the issue to BLPN the last time the discussion started. But obviously calling someone who is clearly acting like an asshole an asshole is detrimental to the project. Untill someone starts keeping the kind of behavior with which Rob is destroying the project in check, I'll keep calling them ass I see'em. Thank you.·ʍaunus·snunɐw·18:07, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
He's a human who is acting like a stubborn mule. A series of editors have disagreed with his actions on the article and he will not have allow any changes that he does not seem to agree with. The lede has been changed so many times because he is raising a stink that it's not BLP compliant when he is the only dissenter in the discussion. He is making himself the judge for all issues raised on BLPN and enough is enough. He's angered one editor so much that he's given up on another page and I will not allow him to do it again.—Ryulong (竜龙) 21:12, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
I understand you don't want to see him blocked -- but perhaps at some point it just has to happen. When you worked to get him unblocked the last time, it was of course for entirely magnanimous reasons (as with the rest of the mentoring you have been doing) -- but another effect it has (not one you intend, to be sure) is that it enables and emboldens him. Anyway, I'm not taking it to ANI -- that would turn into the usual disaster. He'll probably keep reverting and someone will take it to 3RRN. (FTR, I agree that Ryulong's wording was unfortunate and I hope my own earlier post here wasn't colored by his.) Nomoskedasticity (talk) 21:50, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
I'm a bit torn here on the AN/I I just filed about MBisanz blocking Nenpog. On one hand, I think Nenpog is not doing himself any favors, and I am reluctant to have hope at this point that he will return to being a positive and helpful contributor. But on the other hand, I am a firm believer in doing things in a way that is fair and even-handed, even when the person we are dealing with seems unlikely to reform. I think when you give respect, you are more likely to get it. Nenpog assured the crowd that he was going to accept the ruling of the community for his topic ban, but made no pretense that he was also going to exhaust his appeal process. SO, do we consider a single appeal out of line and inappropriate? Even if the rest of us believe he's wrong, do we say, no, you can't appeal because we say so? Like I said.... not sure what to think on this because I don't want to waste time on a debate that won't have a good outcome, but I don't like people acting out of line with process and a thoughtful consideration of our guidelines here. Any thoughts...? -- Avanu (talk) 02:05, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
When Kirill weighed in on behalf of the Arbitration Committee, I was more comfortable with the block staying in place. On a side note, we give our Administrators a TON of leeway and sometimes it seems the average editor will get nailed on things almost trivial. On another side note, I am looking forward to fewer hornet's nests so I can actually feel completely at ease ignoring the threads at AN/I. -- Avanu (talk) 13:46, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
For quite a while, AN/I had been lacking any of the very problematic cases that I've been seeing lately. I actually prefer the lack of drama. But lately I've seen a parade of questionable blocks, bad attitudes, and unrepentant behavior in AN/I. Here's another one, Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Request_review_of_block_by_arbitrator_Risker where an admin blocks a guy for "Not here to build an encyclopedia - 2.41% contribs to article space" because he participated positively to an ArbCom discussion. Apparently he has been a participant in Citizendium and knows wikis well, and based on an utter lack of AGF, he was blocked. Frankly, I getting disgusted by the lack of adherence to policy while simultaneously requiring the average editor to not only abide strictly by policy, but also know every 'unwritten' rule. I guess I'm telling you this because I have a degree of faith in your concern for this problem, but these things *must* stop happening. The admin corp needs to shape up and get problematic blocks under control. I realize there is a LOT of Wikipedia to deal with and we don't see 99% of the good that administrators do, but it seems that lately on a daily basis something comes up where an admin acted rashly when they didn't have to. -- Avanu (talk) 16:58, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
Well, that is reasonable. It might be helpful if there was a different venue for things that fall into this kind of murky place. -- Avanu (talk) 17:52, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
Well after some looking it is easy to read between the lines on what it might be, and judging by the coyness of the replies on Newt's page, it seems like he/she was hamming it up just a bit to stretch things out. I don't understand why it would have been difficult to amend the block to say a better block rationale. An analogy here might be a thing I saw on Orangemike's page about a COI editor trying to get an article updated yesterday. She claimed that this model wanted some things removed from her bio page on Wikipedia, and initially was sort of told, you don't control/own the page, so it won't change. I went and took a look at the requests she was making, and on a solid policy basis, I was able to implement almost all of the changes she asked for. So its more a matter of how you do something than what you do. (I see no reason to tell a COI editor 'no', if the requests are reasonable.) So, if that's the case, and I were in Risker's place, I would just look at the actions with a new perspective, or unblock and ask someone else to do the block for me on a better basis. End of drama. (hopefully) -- Avanu (talk) 17:29, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
Done Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 23:20, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
Hello. You have a new message at John Carter's talk page. John Carter (talk) 01:39, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
-- Despayre tête-à-tête 15:05, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
Done--Anderson - what's up? 20:24, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for sorting this out — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 20:16, 19 July 2012 (UTC)