User talk:Dennis Brown/Archive 11

SPI
When you get a moment could you look at this SPI. An editor has filed a DR/N under an IP number that was closed and included the comment "No record that filing editor, 174.48.216.197 (who at least implies that he is neither Jcally66 nor stewaj7..." by the closing volunteer. This was immediatly re-filed under a the username at this SPI.--Amadscientist (talk) 22:13, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Based on previous activity, I would strongly bet it is Stewaj7, including the fact that an IP in the same Class C network was listed in a previous SPI case with him. However, I don't see any "abuse", so he isn't a sockpuppet.  Being logged out and editing isn't a violation of socking.  Using that as an advantage is.  This means voting twice in a poll like RfC or AfD, or using it to bypass 3RR, or in some other way that would make it looks you were two people when you are really one, like in a simple article talk page discussion about content.  Without abuse, then it is just an editor that forgot to log in.  Most of us have accidentally edited while logged out, and I've even redacted a few for people, as to not reveal their location.  If you can show instances of overlap, ie: not just the same article but in a similar time frame, with what is arguably the appearance of trying to deceive, then you have a sock.  Dennis Brown -  2&cent;    &copy;   Join WER 22:32, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh, I didn't file the case. I just noticed it while doing the preliminary look. I wanted you to see if there was anything to be concerned with over the two users in question. One appears to have no real history except at the disputed article and no comments on the talk page aside from the one editor listed at the SPI. I sometimes still end up editing und my IP by accident. Sometimes my computer will keep dropping my sign in.--Amadscientist (talk) 23:09, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
 * No problem. Like I said, the main thing to look for is crossover that might be confusing to another editor, which didn't seem to be here.  That is probably why the IP wasn't blocked in the SPI as well, as I didn't see any abuse there either, although it very well is the same person.  Dennis Brown -  2&cent;    &copy;   Join WER 23:12, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for looking into it. As long as SPI finds that neither registered user is the same person we can call this resolved!--Amadscientist (talk) 23:35, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

FPaS again
He is again edit warring on the Ahmad Shah Massoud article, again he is on 3RR. I guess as he is an admin it is OK to edit war then? Darkness Shines (talk) 21:05, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I do many things, more than my old, feeble memory can handle. You need to provide links to at least the article so I don't have to go digging unnecessarily. Dennis Brown -  2&cent;    &copy;   Join WER 21:31, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Ok, think I found it. He is using the talk page, and he and JCAla are already at ArbCom, so I will probably sit this one out.  The discussion is a bit heated, but it is on topic, and that is all anyone could hope for.  Dennis Brown -  2&cent;    &copy;   Join WER 21:36, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
 * So now it appears I am up for a topic ban as I had the audacity to revert FPaaS and use the talk page, I would appreciate your input over there as I have done fuck all wrong other than piss off an admin with issues. Darkness Shines (talk) 21:50, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
 * To quote you "Fuck off. What we have here is the usual, admin covers admins ass." DS, you shot yourself in the foot yet again. Salvio and regentspark both are already putting FPaS's conduct on the table, which I think is the right thing to do since it isn't about adminship, it is about editor vs. editor and he has verbalized that he won't seek dispute resolution, so there is at least some question involved.  Other than that, I know very little about the situation, nor even the format there as Arb is something I actually try to avoid.  Actively.  But you have to stop telling people to fuck off if you expect them to take you seriously, and honestly, to get me to go out on a limb and do some hard core research in an area I'm not familiar with. Dennis Brown -  2&cent;    &copy;   Join WER 22:16, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Perhaps I have shot myself in the foot, I honestly do not care. I know for a fact that all I writen is solid and backed by the best sources. I do not push any point of view, I push factual historic arguments only. Should I be topic banned then the socks can have free rein, as can the nationalists. I do not ask you delve into a quagmire of which you know little, I ask you look at FPaS edits, and his hideous behaviour, hounding, edit warring, refusing to discuss. You are correct that telling people to fuck off is not on, but sometimes, it has to be said. Darkness Shines (talk) 22:27, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
 * No it doesn't, that is my point, and I'm trying to help you but you have to take responsibility for your own actions, which was the hint I was trying to give you. This is Wikipedia, and whether you and/or I agree or not, editors who are extraordinarily rude will have their arguments ignored.  People also do this in the real world, so it shouldn't come as a surprise.  Whether or not I dive in, I suggest you strike the comment, apologize for the uncalled for comment, and state your case.  Otherwise, it is likely that it will be overshadowed by your tone.  It is human nature to give less credibility to the opinion of those that are overly aggressive, and it is pretty foolish to fight that human instinct. It is also just simply rude, unnecessary and doesn't do anything but satisfy some uncontrolled emotional need to strike out.  Until you get a grip on that, it doesn't matter if you are right, as no one will listen to you long enough to find out. Dennis Brown -  2&cent;    &copy;   Join WER 22:36, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I have left a message here because I haven't been as impressed with jcala or fpas, although fpas has recently at least attempted to discuss more.  The whole thing is a mess that I would rather not get dragged into, but your actions are different. I suggest treading more lightly around ongoing arb cases.  There is an old saying that I try to live by: "I would rather be happy than right", and there is some wisdom to it.  Patience and a little courtesy will take you farther than reactionism. Dennis Brown -  2&cent;    &copy;   Join WER 23:13, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Dear Dennis, the issue which you are probably referring to with "circular argument" has already been resolved, because differently than Fut.Perf. I am willing to accept results of DR which in that case was a "third opinion" by Casliber. This is a completely new issue and like DS I have tried to discuss on the talk, have only presented my argument there once, and backed it up with the most solid historic sources. So, I would like to ask you to strike that as that was a different matter that has already been resolved. What I added to the Massoud article has, except for two unlucky sentences added when I was completely new, been rock solid and founded on the best of sources. I have used only the best of experts, the term "hagiography" is simply absurd. This whole farce is Fut.Perf. trying to impose a supervote on content. In the supposed violations cited by Fut.Perf. there is absolutely nothing there. Like DS I just asked Fut.Perf. to stick to normal DR, in the diff he gave I explicitly mentioned "please wait for the talk page discussion to yield a result". Just remember the endless discussions on Pakistan and the Taliban although the sources were more than clear, none was banned over it. But we shall be banned for following normal DR? I would very much appreciate your input really. JCAla (talk) 12:10, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
 * My comments were general and based on the entire history, not just this one event. There are no innocent parties here and I haven't been impressed with either of the three of you when it comes to genuine, good faith discussion, even if some are worse than others, or if I expect more from some than others.  Dennis Brown -  2&cent;    &copy;   Join WER 12:44, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

MF
You deserve a lot of credit for your level-headed involvement at ANI and related matters. I think you are doing good work related to the MF Mark fiasco. However, while I understand the request to accept a sincere apology, and in may, many cases, would whole-heartedly support it, MF has a point, which hasn't been adequately addressed. Mark did something that would have earned a block for a non-admin. MF responded, inappropriately, but less egregiously than Mark. MF was blocked, Mark was not. When MF complains that the standards of conduct are different for admins and non-admins, how can anyone with a straight face tell him otherwise.

I think the standards should be different, and I'll bet you agree. We'd like an atmosphere of civility from everyone, we are realistic enough to know that some will slip, but we expect admins to set an example, and hold themselves to a higher standard.

It is, of course, too late to block Mark now, and I applaud your attempts to bring this to closure, but I think asking MF to accept an apology is asking too much. I think it is appalling that MF's "reward" for an understandable reaction to an unacceptable email from an admin is to be dragged into an arb hearing.

I'd like MF to moderate his language, but I'd also like a flying pig. However, I would like to tell MF that admins are held to a higher standard, and I can't say that at the moment. I do think this is a "like" that is achievable.-- SPhilbrick (Talk)  14:47, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Certainly not disagreeing, but two points to keep in mind: In this circumstance, I wouldn't have blocked anyone regardless of if they have the bit or not.  Once it became public, an apology was given, blocks would have been punitive rather than preventative.  Sometimes, you need to just let two editors work it out themselves, particularly if they already are.  Interfering is just that, interfering as we are incapable of justice here, and can barely manage to come up with solutions at Wikipedia.  This is why I want ArbCom to stay out, as they can only make the situation worse.    Two, there is a double standard but there is also a higher standard put on admins in some respects.  I actually try pretty hard to hold admins to the same standards when editing but since admins are inherently different than non-admins because of some of the work they do (blocks, protection, etc) it is a bit of a moving target.  It is impossible to be precise in using the same standard, we can only try to approximate.  Like here, Mark sent a rude email.  Again, I wouldn't have blocked a non-admin for the one email, particularly since he sent an apology immediately thereafter and demonstrated he wasn't likely to continue sending rude emails.  Should I block him because he is an admin and should know better, a higher standard than a non-admin?  I would say no in this situation (although other situations might warrant it).  He did apologize quickly, after all.  And blocks aren't the only sanction available.  Without disclosing any other information, I will simply say that I did email Mark about this, more than once, and I'm satisfied that he "gets it" and is truly remorseful about his actions.  He is fully aware of my perspective on the situation, more so than others on-wiki, perhaps.  Had I been disappointed in the response, I would have been more vocal (or active) about his actions, I assure you.  BTW, it is common for me to email editors and/or admin in situations like this, as ANI and Arb are often less than optimal for finding a lasting resolution.  I like both of them just fine and only want to see them get along, but "getting along" can't be imposed from the outside, they have to find some common ground.  A block would not have worked towards that goal, else I would have done it myself. As to asking MF to accept, I would never tell Malleus what he should do, but I feel comfortable enough giving Malleus my opinion, as he has always been respectful to me even when he disagrees. Dennis Brown -  2&cent;    &copy;   Join WER 15:26, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Good points. Many more thoughts jumbling in my head, but I'll leave them there, until, and unless I can organize them.-- SPhilbrick (Talk)  15:56, 1 October 2012 (UTC)


 * My opinion on apologies seems to be widely misunderstood. By and large I neither accept nor reject them, as they're just words, and words are easy to write. Apology or no, I continue to do what I've always done, which is to treat people as I find them, regardless of any past disputes. I can't be bothered with grudges, although that seems to be a major preoccupation of so many here, but if I'm not treated with respect then you have no right to expect me to treat you with respect. If Mark demonstrates by his future actions that he understands he over-stepped the mark then fine, but I'm not some happy-clappy Christian missionary full of forgiveness and tambourines. Malleus Fatuorum 16:21, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
 * It is truly regrettable that the acceptance of a prompt and sincere apology is seen as "irrelevant" to the person to whom has been offered, but highly relevant to a lot of interested onlookers. While elsewhere they see talk of "bollocks flying from a flagpole". It's far easier to forgive the administrator who is very rarely wrong, than to hopelessly try and accommodate the editor who thinks he is always right. 86.150.93.209 (talk) 17:42, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
 * And who the Hell are you to make infantile moral judgements about anyone? Malleus Fatuorum 18:03, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
 * That is a rather judgmental tone, particularly when Malleus is saying "actions speak louder than words" which is an acceptable position. He hasn't said that he is always right, or even without fault.  This is part of the problem here, people are quick to make character judgments regarding others based on what they hear, or from a few comments in a disagreement, and don't bother to dig deep enough to understand the actual situation.  Or simply admit they don't have enough information to "judge" another.  At the very least, this type of drive-by insult is not helpful.  Dennis Brown -  2&cent;    &copy;   Join WER 18:12, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh, and Malleus, I did get a snicker out of your tambourine comment, thank you :). I am quick to forgive, but it is a completely selfish gesture on my part, and since I'm not Christian, isn't philosophically motivated.  It is simply easier and causes me less drama in the future I have found, and less stress in the short run.  It is simply a choice, not an expectation on anyone else.  Dennis Brown -  2&cent;    &copy;   Join WER 18:18, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
 * As I think I've already said to you I never forgive, but I do forget. I leave forgiveness to whatever God you believe in. Malleus Fatuorum 19:28, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Seriously, what's the point exactly? 86.140.45.88 (talk) 22:57, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Dennis, I find you an apologist for bad-acting admins. Your logic doesn't hold, and is totally inconsistent with the rhetoric that an Admin is held to a higher behavioral standard. (If an immediate, even sincere, apology, is somehow an immediate ticket out of such an offense, then hey, every admin has a model of a ticket formuation to justify any verbal reaction to any editor at any time, no matter how across the line.) You are right that a block would just be punative and therefore pointless. The reason a block would be ineffective, is because it is temporary in nature. The solution, is that when an Admin takes the time to write and send an abusive Email to a non-admin editor, then that Admin should immediately lose the bit. Like an immediate SNOW action. And it doesn't matter whether Malleus does or does not accept said apology, or whether others do or don't as well. You are supporting a system where apologetic words, which Malleus has correctly tagged as discountable in comparison to actions, redress an offense which should be a bright line to immediate loss of tools. The right to "get involved" with emailing an admin who has crossed what should be a bright line, is none of your business, and none of your power. (What if theoretically the same Admin sent to *me* an abusive Email, after sending one to Malleus? Is "Dennis" going to get involved and decide if a block is now warranted? You have no business being in the loop, Dennis. What should protect me from an abuisve Admin is policy which enforces without exception that an Admin's conduct cannot include abusive Emails sent to editors. This is a breach if "higher standard" means anything. There should be zero-tolerance for behavior from an admin such as this. The admin can come back and appeal to arbcom in one year, for the right to do an RfA once again, if he wants to regain his status as admin. This would zip the lips of other admins from even getting close to evincing such abusive behavior, since they would know, it would equate to immediately sacrificing their bit. And that is how it should be. Admins are held to a higher standard, and the behavior of sending that Email from this Admin crosses a line which cannot be uncrossed because "Hey! He apologized, didn't he?!" Else you're setting a precedent where this type of thing can be repeated by any Admin, at any time, with "forgiveness" waiting if the Admin just follows the precedent and quickly apologizes. Hogwash. No standards here. No logic. And you're making "higher standard" just a laughable farce, just hypocritical rhetoric. Ihardlythinkso (talk)
 * That said, let me tell you now what I really think. I think nearly all Admins (few exceptions) regard or react to their Adminship status as something valuable and cherished (afterall, it's "for life" right? cool!). Well then, it is no surprise at all that you Admins will do anything and everything in your powers to not lose that precious thing you have. (And don't play the "it's just a janitorial job, 'extra buttons', a lot of work" line -- everyone who reads what you have written since your successful RfA can see how proud you are to have your new status, it's noxiously obvious.) Here's the point: Jimbo has recently stated to solve the problem with Admins who go uncivil, is to make it easier to both gain, and lose the bit. (Hear that? Where do you stand on that, Dennis? I'm with Jimbo. Where are you? Because it seems obvious to me, that you are acting in the reverse way, protecting for life that all-precious jewel called "Admin status" -- even in a clear case where it warrants an immediate sacrifice of the privilege to be Admin.) Repeat: Jimbo wants to make it EASIER to both gain, and lose, Admin priviledge. Your ideas suggested here go COUNTER to Jimbo's! This is a perfect example, IMO, where Jimbo's suggested change could be implemented without contest. (Immediate loss of bit. No drawn-out "case". Nothing to "work out between editors". A bright line. That makes it a reality that Admins go by a higher behavioral standard.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 09:10, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
 * WP:RAS, admin review, etc. so I've actually been doing more than chatting about it on Jimmy's talk page.  You are very alone in this perception and it is based on a lack of information and an unwillingness to look.  You have no earthly idea what I'm actually doing on and off wiki, although you are quick to judge me without even finding out.  Sorry, but I have better things to do.  Dennis Brown -  2&cent;    &copy;   Join WER 10:32, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I resent your false accuse, Dennis, that I have been "unwilling to look" ... at anything. Not true. (If I didn't review something, could it cross your mind possibly that I was unaware of whatever pertinent document you are referring to?) Which goes to show once again, Dennis Brown, you are not the prince of civility which you attribute to yourself, making false accuses. (And BTW, my post here was not an invitation to dialogue with me. I might find that particularly unpleasant, afterall.) I based my comments on what I read here that you wrote. Simple. "You have no earthly idea" -- please keep your insulting hyperbole to yourself, smartass. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 10:46, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Unwilling because it is in plain site and very public, yet you are quick to judge me. "An apologist", "You have no business being in the loop, Dennis.", "hypocritical rhetoric", "noxiously obvious", "smartass". Then you tell me how I'm NOT doing something, when in fact I'm actually very active in supporting it and taking a lead role.  You are welcome to your opinion, just don't be disappointed if it carries little weight because it isn't based on the available facts. And whether or not your post was "an invitation to dialogue" with you or not, by all means I have the right to correct someone posting inaccurate information on my talk page. I believe you are mistaken about a great many things, and your comments here serve only to confirm this. Dennis Brown -  2&cent;    &copy;   Join WER 11:16, 3 October 2012 (UTC)


 * How do you go from picking out those words, which were used to express my opinions about things, to accusing me to being "unwilling to look" at something?! And where did I tell you that you are "NOT doing" something? (I don't believe I said that; you are making that up.) Dennis, you say you are "supporting it". Ok. (What is "it"? The immediate dy-sysop of an Admin who crosses the line with a blatantly abusive Email to an editor? I doubt it. That was my proposal in my post. I don't think you are supporting "it". If you are, then please link to me where you're supporting it. Contrary to your quick, erroneous judgements about me, I'm open to facts, and open to giving credit where it is due. Give me a link/diff so I can read it, too.)


 * "You are mistaken about a great many things, and your comments here serve only to confirm this." More insulting unwarranted overgeneralizations from you Dennis, I've learned to expect that kind of thing from you, you don't seem to be able to control it. (Hey! How about if I return in-kind?! Then we can have a kids' mudfight, won't it be fun!? Let's start: "Dennis, I think you are wrong about a huge number of things [I think 1,000 things; but maybe it's 1,000,000], unearthly wrong, and you are making it plain and obvious everytime you post anything on your Talk." There! Are we accomplishing anything? I love how you attempt to drag down discrete ideas, into overgeneralized nitpicking and mudslinging. Anytime you're challenged. I asked you clearly, twice, where you stood regarding Jimbo's preferred direction how to handle Admins who go blatantly uncivil. You dodged, and started to personally attack *me* instead. [Is that how you win your arguments, Dennis? This isn't the first time you've taken that tactic. It's a cheap and easy ad hominem way to escape challenge. Please do better.]) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 11:47, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually, I linked the wrong thing, I mean to link WP:RAS (corrected above as well), which is linked on my user page. If you were serious about wanting to know where I stand on issues, you would look at my actions instead of my words. I'm not interested in chatting on Jimmy's page when I'm actually working on the problems instead by trying to remove questionable admins and bring new ones into the mix.  Like in desysoping someone just a couple of weeks ago and actually reviewing and nominating quality candidates, as well as researching and participating in almost every RfA. As to who is being incivil or overgeneralizing, I will leave that for others to judge.  Dennis Brown -  2&cent;    &copy;   Join WER 12:49, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Right. But I never suggested or even hinted you should be chatting on Jimbo's page. I asked where you stood re Jimbo's stated direction (make easier to both gain and lose the bit). Why so difficult to say you agree or disagree with that? (I agree w/ Jimbo as earlier stated.) I saw your "intervention" comments to Malleus re the topic here ... if you read this thread, my single idea is that zero-tolerance on admins going uncivil is what I think is consistent with "admins at a higher standard", "look at my actions instead of my words" -- why would one assume your comments (words) to be significantly different from your "actions"? (And, why would you issue contravening words anyway, if they were inconsistent with said actions?) You have a tendency to take any clear issue and immediately put it in a muff-ball of confusion, especially if you find it challenging in some way. (Where the heck do you stand on Jimbo's stated direction? Third time I've asked, I think [or is it four?].) Stick to ideas, please, and not political stuff like "let others judge". That serves divisionist thinking. You seem to be defensive alot. Did I press a tender point or two when I remarked you seem apologist for bad-acting admins? Seems so. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 19:02, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm not going to comment on MF because I don't know enough, but if you don't mind, I'd like to directly address what IHTS brought up here. Yes, the sysop bit should be more lightweight. It should be granted more easily, primarily on the basis of demonstrated good judgement and fairness, not a track record of reverting vandalism or fixing punctuation. It should also be removed more easily; a single bad judgement should cause the bit to be turned off for a few weeks. Repeated bad judgement should cause it to be removed entirely, forcing the once-admin to go through the whole process again, only this time with a strike against them. The end result is that admins will be held more accountable for their actions. I&#39;m StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 19:24, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Not sure about the technicalities of debundling or exactly how to make it more lightweight, but I agree it should be easier to get and easier to lose. WP:RAS was to make it easier to lose, my efforts here reviewing admin is trying to deliver more level headed admin, and my participation at RfA is to do my small part in keeping it peaceful.  One person can only do so much, but I actively involved in those goals, literally every day.


 * And IHTS, honestly, I have no idea what Jimmy thinks. I get pointed there from time to time, but I don't read his talk page often enough to know how he feels on most things.  I already have my own developed ideas and opinions in that area and I am very active in trying to get people together and put those ideas in place.  Frustration with admin was absolutely a cornerstone of WP:WER, for instance, and why I worked to bring in admin and regular editors to talk and work side by side.  It is a small thing, I know, but it is tangible.  I don't think Jimmy's page would be a good environment for real change.  It is archived quickly, no subpages, and rather chaotic.  Fine for the occasional comment, but not deep thoughtful debate.   Talk pages of policies or Projects are better for me.  It allows slower but more thoughtful deliberation with fewer distractions, and can include people that don't edit as often. Honestly, while I respect Jimmy, I don't find myself very influenced by his opinions.  There are several editors here who I actually do listen to quite attentively, although most are are not admin, and I don't list them.


 * And yes, I don't particularly like being called an apologist for anyone. I've also been called that by a couple admin (privately of course) for the "troublemakers" around here, so I suppose I should take that to mean I'm in the center, but I don't try to apologize for anyone. I just try to ramp down drama to focus on the merits of an argument.  How successful I am depends on the given day. It is a little frustrating, but honestly, no more than that.  My tongue is naturally sharper (blunt) in the real world as someone who works in marketing.  Here, I have the benefit to think a bit more as I type, but occasionally it slips through.  No biggie, it is still me, but I wouldn't read too much emotion into a statement that is more likely simply worded clumsily.  I'm no English major, or any major since I never attended college, so being pithy doesn't come as natural and actually requires effort. Dennis Brown -  2&cent;    &copy;   Join WER 21:42, 4 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Actually, we already discussed this on Jimbo's Talk, here. I asked: "Please compare these two divergent concept solutions (because they aren't consistent; they're mutually exclusive):"When an admin 'messes up', don't attack them, engage them. ... We don't want to remove admins, we want to persuade them. ... Forgive in the same manner you would want to be forgiven. -- Dennis Brown"and:"I think that solutions lie precisely in these directions: make it easier to become an admin so that more people can share the burden, and easier to lose the bit when there are problems. -- Jimbo'".You responded: "[...] making it easier to get the bit removed or restricted is a good idea. I've pitched that in a number of forums. But if you can't forgive the occasional mistake or bad judgement, you end up with a monoculture of admins, which I think is the most dangerous situation of all." So in summary, you agree w/ Jimbo, and you disagree w/ Jimbo. Good old-fashioned murkiness that fizzles into nothingness. (And beware the conjunction "but" when you introduce an idea ... more than not when someone says "but" it is unconsciously being used to contradict what just came before it. E.g. "Thanks for your comments, but I have better things to do.") User:GabeMc and User:Avanu and others were in support of Jimgo's idea to make easier to both gain and lose the bit. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 05:43, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I had forgotten about that conversation, diffs do help refresh. As I said, I want to do more than change the words in a few policies, I'm trying to effect a change in the culture here as well. Seldom will you see me completely agree with anyone, Jimmy is no exception.  Now, I'm always ready to compromise, but I still have my own opinion on what is best. Looking back on that page, I gave concrete, bullet pointed examples of what I think, and my actions since have been consistent with those ideals.  Nothing remotely murky about it.  Add that to the actions I diff'ed above that indicate me putting those ideals into action, and it couldn't be more crystal clear.  Dennis Brown -  2&cent;    &copy;   Join WER 12:39, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Community ban discussion might be an overreaction
I don't want you to feel like I canvassed you in, but there is a community ban discussion taking place that I believe is a severe overreaction to a very poor action at WP:AN. Even if you disagree with me, do you care to take a look? Ryan Vesey 14:44, 4 October 2012 (UTC) Could you both please stop maligning good faith editors that you disagree with in this way. Thanks. --Dweller (talk) 15:29, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I saw that while emailing him. Ban discussions are best held when the villagers aren't carrying pitchforks and torches, still steaming mad at the monster.  I've stated as much there. Totally absurd and over the top reaction to him. Dennis Brown -  2&cent;    &copy;   Join WER 14:56, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Right, I think it might be necessary to close the open unblock request on his page. Had I been unblocked the day I was blocked, I still wouldn't have been in the right place to edit productively, and probably never would have been.  I think he needs to wait a few weeks before an unblock request, and I've told him as much. Ryan Vesey 15:00, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I think it is open for a reason....We need to let it air out a bit, let the mob go home to their families, just move slowly and deliberately here. This whole problem started with one rash decision, adding more of them certainly isn't the cure. Dennis Brown -  2&cent;    &copy;   Join WER 15:13, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm assuming you are referring to my use of the term lynch mob, I've modified the section header. Ryan Vesey 15:33, 4 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Sometimes, being blunt is necessary. In this event, it would be disingenuous to describe the event in any less of a fashion.  It isn't the most civil description, granted, but neither is the event which seeks to banish a user forever.  My comments don't speak to you as an individual, but rather to us as a community, to allow ourselves to be so emotionally overcome as to defy good sense.  Banning in the heat of the moment is never a good idea and in this case, it is allowing our baser instincts, as a community, to overrule our better judgement.  Dennis Brown -  2&cent;    &copy;   Join WER 15:35, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
 * To be clear, I'm speaking of the whole event, not the header. Dennis Brown -  2&cent;    &copy;   Join WER 15:39, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
 *  Thank you Ryan, yes, that was the worst of it. Dennis, I believe that someone who behaves in this manner in order to win a petty dispute should not be part of our community. You disagree with me. How that makes my position "emotional" and yours dispassionate is beyond me. Your use of terms like "in the heat of the moment", "emotionally overcome", "defying good sense", "baser instincts" continues to malign me and other good faith editors. It's actually pretty insulting.
 * FWIW, I can count "on the fingers of one finger" the number of times I have previously supported a community ban motion, to the best of my memory. I'm normally the one calling for (and volunteering to do) mentorship. Not this time. --Dweller (talk) 15:45, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Apologies if my words are too strong. I think the timing is unfortunate, and again, my comments were to us as a community, not you as the proposer.  I didn't even look to see who proposed it, and was surprised that it was you, actually, since doing so in the heat of the dispute is always a recipe for drama.  We all are human, and as such prone to get caught up in the moment, which is what I think is happening.  This is why it is better to at least wait until the talk page had wound down a bit, a day or so. I wouldn't be honest if I didn't say that starting such a proposal just a few hours after the event was a mistake. I've crossed paths with homer a few times, but don't have any strong feelings one way or another.  What I do feel strongly about is finding resolution to problems in a calm and collected way, and I'm sorry, but the timing of this proposal, while the talk page discussion was still ongoing, was hasty, which invites hasty responses from the entire community, both pro and con.  Dennis Brown -  2&cent;    &copy;   Join WER 16:02, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Alright, let's leave it here. And I think we're agreed that none of us like losing significant contributors. --Dweller (talk) 16:15, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Family feud/BLP/outing
Talk:Frances Hugle seems to have a bit of a COI family feud brewing. Of concern is the mentioning of the other editor's name that is not a part of their Wikipedia username and I see no way this information was made available anywhere but off Wikipedia through family ties.(see the section "Request for Wikipedia Assistance" I have warned the user and requested them to seek an admin to scrubb it but decided if it needs to go it should go as soon as possible.--Amadscientist (talk) 01:44, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

(Edit) Its in the history now as I felt it should not be left on the open board.--Amadscientist (talk) 01:46, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Sigh. This is why diffs are so important.  I just read through all that droning and couldn't find anything.  Your second comment explains why.  Let me look again. Dennis Brown -  2&cent;    &copy;   Join WER 01:51, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
 * They aren't really hiding much of names, I'm inclined to ignore it unless L complains. If they do, I can redact and cut/paste/etc, but I don't think they are trying very hard to hide their name, and they seem to be working on a book as well. The other party should avoid using the name and a note to that effect on their talk page is fine, but I don't think it was malicious, just habit.  Dennis Brown -  2&cent;    &copy;   Join WER 01:54, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Sounds good. I understand what you are saying. ( I didn't want to direct others who may have your page watched listed with diffs to outing info)--Amadscientist (talk) 02:40, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
 * By the way...have you read the DR/N that was closed?--Amadscientist (talk) 03:02, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Two sips into my first cup of coffee. Diff?  Dennis Brown -  2&cent;    &copy;   Join WER 12:42, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

What do you think about this?
A new user just created a page that didn't fully load on my browser, but I saw enough to know what it was...what do you think of this user page? I wasn't sure what to do, so I thought I'd let you know. Sorry to bother you. Go Phightins! (talk) 02:12, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Indef blocked, page speedy deleted. Obviously a vandalism only account. Likely a sock. Dennis Brown -  2&cent;    &copy;   Join WER 02:26, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

RE: User:Goldentony111
— foxj 11:37, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Notice
Hello. There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is StillStanding-247_discussing_my_murder. Thank you. v/r - TP 13:26, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I've replied there. I appreciate your patience, and I think we have done everything we can, leaving us no other option.  Dennis Brown -  2&cent;    &copy;   Join WER 15:11, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Archiving problem
Hi Dennis. My talk page appears to be continuing to archive to this page even though it says it is full. Also, one thread was archived to my second archive, but more recent conversations have been added to the first archive since then. I notice that your talk page has several archives, have you ever experienced this problem and/or do you know the solution? Regards, AutomaticStrikeout 17:14, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
 * "counter = 1" I changed it to 2.  It should be the highest archive you already have, and should autoupdate from now on.  That should fix it for good.  Dennis Brown -  2&cent;    &copy;   Join WER 18:07, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks. AutomaticStrikeout 18:08, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Edit request regarding new subproject
Could take a look at this edit request please? AutomaticStrikeout 19:43, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
 * You couldn't fill a thimble with what I know about templates. You probably need to ask an admin that has edited it, I'm not sure what they want or don't want on those templates.  Check the talk page and template history, and they will be able to add that, assuming there isn't some issue that I just wouldn't know about.  Dennis Brown -  2&cent;    &copy;   Join WER 20:04, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Very well, thanks. AutomaticStrikeout 20:14, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Beatles sockmaster
Here is another:. ~ GabeMc  (talk 22:02, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
 * User blocked, block evasion. Same user that has been bugging Evan before.  Dennis Brown -  2&cent;    &copy;   Join WER 23:55, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks
 Toddy1 has given you a Pork pie. Pork pies are full of meaty goodness, and are wonderfully delicious! On Wikipedia, they promote love and sincerity. Hopefully, this one has made your day happier.

Spread the goodness and sincerity of pork pies by adding {{subst:Pork Pie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message! Give one to someone you've had disagreements with in the past, or to a good friend.

--Toddy1 (talk) 15:59, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks Toddy! You know, being a yankee, I've never HAD a pork pie.  Its the "cold" portion that kind of throws me, but I've never seen a place sell them in the US southeast.  Lots of pork, but sans pie.  Dennis Brown -  2&cent;    &copy;   Join WER 00:19, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Chao$
See the above thread on my talk. User:NawlinWiki may be able to give you more info, but the page should be speedied. I've also indeffed the editor. – Connormah (talk) 23:57, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I've G5'ed on your blind trust ;) Dennis Brown -  2&cent;    &copy;   Join WER 00:02, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I've deleted another G5 and blocked an SPA I'm assuming is the same user socking, for the discography of same. Dennis Brown -  2&cent;    &copy;   Join WER 00:17, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
 * IIRC the abuse filter should be catching most of these - I remember it caught one a couple days back. I've just been WP:RBIing most of these socks, but I could try and find most of them to get get them tagged if you'd like. – Connormah (talk) 00:44, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, just a list of the socks would be fine, so I can create an SPI and we have something to point the G5 and future blocks against, ie: sock of $x. I don't mind doing the paperwork, but I hate blind G5ing without at least one case ever being filed.  Dennis Brown -  2&cent;    &copy;   Join WER 00:46, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Makes sense. User:Dlekekek is one. has more. – Connormah (talk) 00:48, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Got a checkuser doing a sleeper check as we speak :) Dennis Brown -  2&cent;    &copy;   Join WER 00:51, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Three more from my talk, User:Rlroror, User:Rlror, and User:Rpelrl can be added... – Connormah (talk) 00:52, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Here's the SPI archive so far: Sockpuppet investigations/Jude Enemy – Connormah (talk) 00:56, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
 * CU just nailed User:Dldkdkdkdk as well :) Brewing a cup of tea, then will clean it up and ping you. Dennis Brown -  2&cent;    &copy;   Join WER 00:57, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Ctrl+F'ing NawlinWiki's block log will bring up a few more, some listed at that SPI, some not. – Connormah (talk) 00:59, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Users Qzkdk, Roeoelelel, Dkdkdkdleksedkeke, and Ele,ellxxdddrr, all from the last couple months can be added. Holy crap. I wonder if the last couple socks triggered the LTA filter (58)? – Connormah (talk) 01:21, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Not worried about old stuff, but now we have a solid recent CU, so if a month or two from now we need it, we have some IPs to compare to. Keeping the chain of IPs is important, as all that data is deleted after three months.  As long as we have several to compare behavior to, and to compare IPs and user agent and other data for on the next one, if it is more borderline, CU will be able to clear it up.  It isn't about having all the data as much as having enough to make it easier if you don't catch it but someone else unfamiliar does next time and sends it to SPI without knowing who the master is.  Dennis Brown -  2&cent;    &copy;   Join WER 01:24, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Borivoje Grbić
Please check what I have done with references about Borivoje Grbić, after your warning, and let me know what to do next. --Stripar (talk) 01:08, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Looking briefly, the only one I saw that was a problem was the blogspot one, we don't like to use pure blogs for cites. Oh, and it wasn't a warning, it is just a tag, which tells others "Please help by finding some sources".  I'm not familiar enough to offer an expert opinion, but it looks like you can safely remove both of those tags, as you have obviously added material in good faith to offset the concerns.  Dennis Brown -  2&cent;    &copy;   Join WER 01:11, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

ANI post
Sorry about that, I'll post to the SPI instead. I thought I should post at ANI because I saw on the talk page for ANI it says to "Report incidents such as block evasion" there. AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 02:34, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Not a problem, lots of stuff gets thrown there, and we try to steer folks to the right place. SPI has all the links, the clerks, the checkusers, and none of the drama.  It isn't as fast, but speed isn't the goal, accuracy is.  I just close it so it doesn't start a discussion on something that is better served elsewhere, no harm, no foul.   Dennis Brown -  2&cent;    &copy;   Join WER 02:37, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Fixing an AfD thread?
Hi! I just wanted to let you know that when you closed a section on the AfD for Articles for deletion/Amar Kanwal, you also accidentally included half of the day's AfD discussions, wiping them from the main screen. Is there any way to fix this? It's all listed under the closed section of the AfD for Kanwal.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 04:19, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm confused. I just hatted one section.  I was trying to hide the sockpuppet's comment, not he sockmasters.  It looks more or less fine both before and after Erpert correctly put the SPA tag inside the hat. Dennis Brown -  2&cent;    &copy;   Join WER 11:16, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Dennis Brown
I am User:King Genovese, I have Understood Wikipedia and I am following all rules, I have referenced very well. When I first joined Wikipedia, I had King Genovese and I didn't understand how to Reference, I'm saying sorry and I hope we can leave the past and look onto the future. If you will allow me to creating Mob Related Articles, I'll be out of your hair. Let's be positive about this, and give me another chance to reedem myself.

WAR AGAINST THE MAFIA (talk) 09:54, 7 October 2012 (UTC)


 * I have blocked this self-confessed sock, and in view of the repeated socking upgraded the master account to indef. This person really doesn't get it and will IMO have to make a convincing request to be allowed back in. Favonian (talk) 10:29, 7 October 2012 (UTC)


 * And Genovese, you can't say you follow all rules, then break them by creating new accounts over and over. That is breaking the rules itself, and causing a lot of work for others to clean up.  Maybe you would be better finding a different hobby other than Wikipedia.  Dennis Brown -  2&cent;    &copy;   Join WER 11:10, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

While rummaging in The Foundation's basement...
I found this painting.... The frame had a golden (real gold I think) tag which read, Wikipedia Administrators Convention--Ceasars Palace, Las Vegas-2011 Which one are you? ```Buster Seven   Talk  14:51, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
 * None of the above. I was but a lowely editor in 2011 ;-)  Dennis Brown -  2&cent;    &copy;   Join WER 15:18, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Strange, I could have sworn you were the guy with the yellow shirt waving the grey hat in the background, near the center, standing right next to Jimbo (pouring out wine), fourth person to the right of the imposing figure of Newyorkbrad (sitting, front centre). Fut.Perf. ☼ 05:47, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I've always wondered about that username "Newyorkbrad". Sounds so Rocky Horror like. LOL!--Amadscientist (talk) 06:33, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
 * And what the heck is that waitress to the bringing on that tray? If that's cake with a turkey on it...I'll pass! =O --Amadscientist (talk) 06:36, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm the one in black standing in the foreground on the left talking to  Beeblebrox (sitting behind the drum). Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:45, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, as for myself, I could excuse myself and say I'm not in the picture because I took the photograph, but that would be a lie. Truth be told, I'm the grumpy guy with the halberd on the right, standing next to Giano. I remember I felt slightly out of place that day, not having realized the meeting wasn't supposed to be a battlefield. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:11, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Being the ignorant fool I am I have no idea who any of them are, so the joke is lost on me. Dennis Brown -  2&cent;    &copy;   Join WER 18:11, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

They're all identified in the metadata. DS (talk) 17:34, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Dennis. I have completed some further investigation. I talked to one of the house maids at Ceasars Palace who remembered the event. "One of the wildest parties I've ever seen and I've been here 17 years. I remember there was one young man that was uninvited. Every day he would sit in the hallway, just outside the Grand Ballroom. He would put his ear up to the door and listen to the raucous goings-on". When I showed her your picture she said, "That's him. He was wearing those funny glasses with the big nose, but that's him". Any comment? ```Buster Seven   Talk  12:09, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Shall I take your non-response as an admittance of the housemaid's claim?```Buster Seven   Talk  22:41, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

SPI's...
...as I learned long ago, are a waste of time. They're a pain to set up, and then typically some lazy admin or checkuser will say, "Declined!". That is the real "insult". ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 02:50, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I just spent several hours working cases at SPI, while I really wanted to edit some articles. Just blocked a dozen blocked editors, G5 deleted as many pages, had to get two CUs, endorse several more, with no one filing, because I ran across them on new page patrol.  That was after working on a dozen cases, and getting paid exactly the same amount as you, zero.  To call the very few admin and non-admin willing to devote time to this rather tedious area "lazy" is again, insulting and uninformed.  While I tolerate it because I understand it is based in ignorance of the reality there, that kind of misinformed statement looks very foolish to anyone that actually works at that swamped board.  Walk a mile in someone else's shoes friend, it isn't as easy as it looks when the price of a mistake is very high.  Dennis Brown -  2&cent;    &copy;   Join WER 03:02, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
 * And having to add the last word at ANI? That is just drama Bugs, and I'm there to stop drama, not promote it.  Those kinds of remarks that aren't directly related to the issue at hand are not wanted.  ANI is not your personal soap box, it is not the place where we freely editorialize.  It is where we try to solve problems.  Dennis Brown -  2&cent;    &copy;   Join WER 03:06, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Crimea River. Nobody forced you to be an admin, you volunteered for it. If you want help, change the way admins are selected. I used to get involved in sock-hunting. Once it became clear that "go file an SPI" was just a way to shut the complainant up, I got out of that racket. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:08, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Again Bugs, you are uninformed. It would be hard to be more involved than I am about how admin are selected.  You want to editoralize?  Fine, bring it here or on your talk page, but not ANI which is not the right venue.  Simply putting down every admin or being insulting to them doesn't make you clever, it only makes your opinions less likely to be listened to.  I'm not in love with the SPI system myself, but to say that laziness is the problem is lazy on your part and demonstrates ignorance of the issues.  Dennis Brown -  2&cent;    &copy;   Join WER 03:13, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I am quite sufficiently informed, and I know from bitter experience that filing SPI's is both a pain and a waste of time. The guy went to ANI and said, "This guy looks like a sock." Well, I don't know if he's a sock or not. But a checkuser would easily be able to tell, as the guy was only blocked a day or two ago. In the "old days", a checkuser would take a quick look and say yea or nay without forcing the editor to go through that worthless, bureaucratic SPI process. Now the game is to shuffle the complainant to some other venue, in the hope that he'll eventually get frustrated and leave. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:26, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
 * And the foundation had tightened it up, and it appears jumped onto CUs forcing them to be very tight about criteria. I have my endorsements declined regularly.  Believe me, I can write you a book on it.  Guess what that means?  That means I get to typically spend 30 to 60 minutes doing detailed behavioral comparisons, PER CASE.  Or If 20 new cases come in a day, I have to rush them, which might mean guilty parties get off, or they get delayed days.  Yet I still show up and do it.  If anyone understands the frustration, I do.  But it isn't my fault, or the CU's fault.  Ask any old school CU, they will tell you the standards to justify a CU is much higher now than before.  You are blaming the wrong people.  And the Foundation likely has good reasons why they have to do it.  Or don't, hell I have no idea, I just know that is how it is, so we do the best with what we have. Dennis Brown -  2&cent;    &copy;   Join WER 03:33, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
 * It sounds like the WMF actually wants to encourage sockpuppetry. If they don't want to defend wikipedia against its various enemies, there's no reason you or I should either. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:38, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I think they are freaky about lawsuits. I have no idea if they have had any, maybe that is the problem, but I know the Foundation is thick with lawyers and similar who mean well but don't understand the difficulties.  The work load I talked about, I'm just a trainee.  The other guys work more than I do, they just have limited tools.  That is why the "lazy" term bugged me.  "Worn out" or "worn down" might apply, often, but there is a passion to do the right thing among the guys.  It just isn't easy as you MUST make sure you don't block the wrong person, which is worse than missing one bad guy.  Dennis Brown -  2&cent;    &copy;   Join WER 03:43, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
 * If they are really and truly afraid of lawsuits over someone being blocked here, they have seriously painted themselves into a corner. There is no constitutional right to edit wikipedia. Every other website that allows input requires registration. Yet they still won't budge from allowing IP's to edit, and obviously there's no oversight on new user creation. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:33, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
 * And thanks for reverting. Look, we can bitch at each other, laugh with each other, agree sometimes and disagree others and you know I don't take it personal, but ANI already has enough problems on a good day.  I just try to keep it drama free for whoever gets dragged there.  If you want to come here and bitch about SPI, you might find me agree with several points, but this is the right place to have that conversation, not there.  That's all I'm saying. Dennis Brown -  2&cent;    &copy;   Join WER 03:20, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Tribal44
Dennis, I saw your comment on Mark Arsten's talk page. I had no idea someone reported me until right after I finished posting to Mark. Actually, I'm the one who told Tribal that I was going to have to report what's going on, if she didn't stop inserting vocal ranges into articles. I didn't do it to be mean; just to let her know that what she was doing wasn't right and if she didn't stop then an admin would have to be told about it. I replied to you on Mark's page and I replied in the ANI. I hope someone can stop Tribal44 from continuing to do what she's doing. It's like her personal mission to put the vocal range into as many singer's articles as possible. I'm sure she's a nice person and passionate about singing, but someone needs to tell her to stop doing that. Thanks. :) --76.189.121.57 (talk) 03:01, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Since it is at ANI, keep it at ANI, that was my point. Dennis Brown -  2&cent;    &copy;   Join WER 03:07, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Actually, you falsely implied on Mark's talk page that I knew there was an ANI before I wrote him. I already told you I didn't. So how could I keep it at ANI if I didn't know there was an ANI? I was trying to be nice by not making an official report against Tribal. I wanted to to write to an admin first for help. If Mark had told me to file a report, I would have. It would be nice if you showed some guts and just told Tribal to stop inserting vocal ranges into as many singer's articles as possible. You know it's wrong. And dozens of editors have indicated to her it's wrong by all their reverts of it. --76.189.121.57 (talk) 03:35, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Now you are insulting me by accusing me of falsehoods. My exact quote on his page was "This is already at ANI and the IP was notified 16 minutes before this post.  This does look a bit like forum shopping, and I suggest you discuss it at ANI instead.".  You were notified 16 minutes previously, and I diffed it.  It does look like forum shopping, whether it is or isn't.  I did and still recommend taking it to ANI.  Trying to twist it to be more than the two sentences is a fool's errand.  Dennis Brown -  2&cent;    &copy;   Join WER 03:53, 7 October 2012 (UTC)


 * I said you "falsely implied". That's exactly what you did. I didn't question when the notice was sent to me; this issue is about when I saw the notice. Stop bullying me and acting like a tough guy. You've been nothing but mean and rude to me from the beginning of this incident. All my edits of the "vocal range" content were good faith and I clearly explained them in my edit comments. If you want to do your job, look at Tribal's edit history and see how many editors have reverted her vocal range insertions, and how many times she simply put them back. --76.189.121.57 (talk) 04:01, 7 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Funny, you whine about me supposedly insulting you. Then, what do you do? Insult me (fool's errand). Hypocrite. --76.189.121.57 (talk) 04:04, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
 * You need to look that up. Calling an act "a fool's errand" isn't an insult.  It means "an act that is unlikely to produce results". A snipe hunt. A waste of your time.  And of course, you insult back.  I'm thick skinned, it really doesn't bother me but it does give a clear indication of how you handle your own misunderstanding.  Dennis Brown -  2&cent;    &copy;   Join WER 11:31, 7 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Here you go again with your condescension. I know what it means. Are you really this out of touch or are you playing a game? It is called a fool's errand for a reason. Do you seriously not understand this? Do you seriously not understand why that is an insult? Again, you have failed to do your job and simply tell Tribal why what she's doing in inappropriate. Instead, you've mistakenly turned this into a behavior issue by lying about me making "threats" and being a "bully". I've done no such things. I explained to Tribal that if she continued putting non-encylopedic, poorly sourced (or unsourced) content into hundreds of articles, it would be reported and she could get blocked. THAT is not making threats or being a bully, in the context you are trying to have others believe. Not even close. If anything, the bully is use for threatening me with bans, when I am trying hard to improve this project by stopping what I'm confident is very inappropriate editing by Tribal (because of the huge number of articles it affects). Yet all you want to focus on is these completely out-of-context behavior claims against me, instead of using your admin knowledge for an important and useful purpose - to educate Tribal on why what she is doing is wrong. Non-encylopedic content, no sourcing or unreliable sourcing, and adding content to leads that are very clearly not lead-worthy. You see what's happening and you are choosing to ignore it instead of saying directly to Tribal what the problems are with what she's doing. --76.189.121.57 (talk) 12:26, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I've told you the solution, dispute resolution. We do not decide content issues at ANI.  You haven't even acknowledged the fact that this is the only way you can address this kind of issue.  But if you think calling me a liar, hypocrite, bully, etc. is going to further your goals better than taking the issue specifically to the forum that is designed to handle those issues, then by all means, do what you think is best and most effective.   Dennis Brown -  2&cent;    &copy;   Join WER 12:36, 7 October 2012 (UTC)


 * I would strongly suggest, at this point, leaving this at ANI rather than whatever this is. Dennis is correct that you have been incivil. You can try to construe your comments any way you want, but at the end of the day, threatening to report a user with the intention of a block is not assuming good faith, which is one of the five pillars of Wikipedia. The part where you suggest an admin needs to explain its inappropriate should be discussed on a talk page because it is a content dispute, not a vandalism issue. Thank you. Go Phightins! (talk) 12:37, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Of course you can interject. All good faith edits are welcome.  You don't even need to tag them.  Dennis Brown -  2&cent;    &copy;   Join WER 13:08, 7 October 2012 (UTC)


 * GoPhightins, I didn't know Dennis needed a bodyguard. He seems to be able to handle himself very well on his own. And get your facts straight. I NEVER assumed bad faith with Tribal. In fact, I said multiple times that I believe Tribal's edits were well-intentioned, but just simply wrong. And, most importantly, disruptive. But she has reverted many reverts of other editors for four years now. So she knows there is objection to what she's doing. And there is absolutely nothing wrong with saying to another editor that you will file a report if they do not stop what is believed to be disruptive editing. And she initiated the discussion on my talk page, not the other way around. Instead of constantly sidetracking the important issue here, why don't you spend that time instead on looking at Tribal's edits regarding this issue. Take a good look at her edit history - every time she added the vocal range content, WHERE in the article she added it, what she used as sources (IF there were any sources), and what she did and said to other editors when she was reverted. If you care about this project, you both will use your expertise to stop a big problem affecting a huge number of articles. You are both now fully aware of what Tribal is doing, and has been doing for years. Do you want to fix the problem or do you want to continue focusing on tangential issues? --76.189.121.57 (talk) 13:46, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
 * GoPhightins is always welcome to offer an observation, read the top of my user page. Same with ANI.  Again, you simply don't understand how abrasive you are with your "bodyguard" comment. You can't accept the fact that others disagree with your perspective on the situation so you keep repeating the same thing.  The problem isn't that we don't understand what you are saying, it is that we disagree with it.  You can't seem to accept that others might disagree with you, which is part of the problem at ANI as well. Keep it at the ANI, which was my original message that you didn't seem to understand. Dennis Brown -  2&cent;    &copy;   Join WER 13:53, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
 * More condescension. As expected. You need to stop your annoying habit of telling other people what they do and don't understand. Interestingly, you are choosing to pretend that Voceditenore's comments in the ANI don't exist and that all the reverts of Tribal's edits never happened. And if you actually believe that what Tribal is doing with her editing is appropriate, you really shouldn't be an administrator. --76.189.121.57 (talk) 14:05, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

If you and others are going to comment about me on this page, I have every right to respond. Do you think you can just insult me and it will go unchallenged? Stop addressing comments to and about me and I will be happy to stop posting here. --76.189.121.57 (talk) 14:30, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Again, it is entirely possible to be correct on the merits of your argument, but to be so disruptive in how you present them, assuming bad faith, calling people names, etc. that you get blocked. Like you just were.  Please do not post here again except as required for official notifications.  Dennis Brown -  2&cent;    &copy;   Join WER 14:36, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your help last night
Wrong continent, but clearly a sock. 4 edits in July. Then yesterday, within an hour, 6 trivial edits to game-related articles and then two Ashkenazi related ones. We'll see what happens next. Dougweller (talk) 13:02, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I left a message. I was swamped with several nests of socks, up til midnight, and back at it by 6:30, plus lots of fun at ANI.  What a day.  Dennis Brown -  2&cent;    &copy;   Join WER 13:06, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's what I was thanking you for. Evidently the new editor is editing from a different continent, but there is still something very suspicious going on. Dougweller (talk) 14:06, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Talkback
--v/r Electric Catfish (talk) 16:52, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Also, how do you think I have been progressing since I started getting mentored by Kudpung and Worm? I primarily do NPP, but I participate in areas where you work from time to time. Thank you. --v/r Electric Catfish (talk) 19:07, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I would have to do a full review to really know, and I'm a bit tied. I do try to offer a tidbit of advice along the way when I think it would be helpful.  As to your "net worth", it is clear you are a net plus to the project, of this there is no doubt. Dennis Brown -  2&cent;    &copy;   Join WER 13:21, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

RfA
The entire process sure is a shame. The fact that we subject volunteers who are willing to do extra work to such a ridiculous process is a shame. I've kept WP:RFA off my watchlist for the past month (although from some other conversations I've seen it appears that I didn't actually miss anything). For all that is bad about it, I feel like it is impossible to fix the structure. It's going to take a lot of people who completely change the way they act at an RfA. I never felt like I behaved poorly at RfA's prior to my own, but after I went through mine I discovered something that isn't easily detectable to editors who haven't been through the process. There is a large skew towards negatives at RfA. I think it is very important for editors to realize that when considering the arguments presented and whether or not to !vote at all if they don't have any prior experience with the candidate. On a website where editors are expected to have thousands of edits before they run, it is insanely difficult to give an accurate representation of them as an editor to those who don't know them. Ryan Vesey 21:45, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
 * It would have been helpful if more was discovered and found in the vetting process, but again, more than one person has abused the system. If some of the actors here had been "less popular" (or simply less powerful), they would have been dragged to ANI or Arb by now, which is the most offensive thing to me, the lack of equity in the community response.  Dennis Brown -  2&cent;    &copy;   Join WER 21:58, 7 October 2012 (UTC)


 * There is a large skew towards negatives because we are granting something that simply cannot be removed as easily as it can be awarded. Any failure to fully disclose past indiscretions is immediately magnified by some in the community who feel that they are being duped into making an Admin out of someone less than perfect. Make it easy to recall and RFA problems would be solved. I have less sympathy for the candidates than you. It's all out there and they know what to expect, or their nominators do. Better due diligence and more honest disclosure would help. Apologies for barging in.  Leaky  Caldron  21:59, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
 * No problem barging in at all and I certainly understand your side of this argument. WTT started a discussion on desysopping, does anyone know where that ended up?  I do think you are correct that problems would be solved if it was easier to take the bit back, but it would need to be a process that is based on something other than the lynch mob mentality, which I fear it would become.  Perhaps a system that put taking the bit into the hands of a consensus of crats could help. Ryan Vesey 22:04, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
 * You are welcome to barge anytime. I completely understand the logic and have no problem with RfA being difficult, but I do with people being unnecessarily difficult at RfA.  This is why I try to vet candidates I am considering very, very carefully (see User:Dennis Brown/RfA).  It wasn't that long ago that I walked the gauntlet.  What I dislike is when the process becomes dominated, to the point that it is indistinguishable from sabotase. No matter how unintentional it is, it then is a disservice to the community, resulting in more drama than information, discouraging other who are fully qualified from running, and leads to a pile on effect, causing further disruption.  And Leaky, you know as well as I do that the amount of bludgeoning that is tolerated at RfA is tied directly to how popular you are, something you are often very vocal about.  I expect a lot from admin candidates as well, but I also expect more from participants to keep the process from descending into chaos and becoming unfair, riddled with unnecessarily verbose comments and absurd questions.  I don't care how anyone votes, I'm neutral now.  Equity is something I care about, and I feel like it has been thrown out the window, seemingly with the blessing of the community. Dennis Brown -  2&cent;    &copy;   Join WER 22:12, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's the sad part - the community doesn't bother to speak up, or just doesn't care. "is tied directly to how popular you are" - yes we need to move on from this kind of pathetic popularity contest with the "outsiders" always doomed to fail. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:16, 7 October 2012 (UTC)


 * I think it could be done but it has all been suggested before. Applying to new candidates only (a) same RFA as now (b) 6 months later a simple confirmation !vote (c) 2 years and thereafter the same thing. Remove sysop from Admins missing for their 6 month / biennial reconfirmation. Clears out deadwood, allows a limited initial trial to determine suitability, makes it less daunting to apply since community expectations and associated hostility should be reduced. Leaky  Caldron  22:17, 7 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Seems sensible to me. But I'm very sad to see what has been going on over the last few days as, apparently, a path to forcing the community to feel that they have to make such a change. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:30, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
 * But this is not new. The pillories & stocks have always been set out for any candidate with the slightest whiff of controversy about them. Leaky  Caldron  22:33, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
 * As I've said elsewhere, it's gone way beyond the pale this time. (Even if "well we've always done it this way" were an excuse.) Your canvassing was totally unacceptable. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:37, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
 * That's a straightforward smear. Neither Worm or Reaper had any issue with it at all and you cannot really canvass a nominator. They were asked if they wanted to re-affirm their nominee, that's all. Nothing to do with the community turning against him mainly due to off-wiki issues - which I have not even focused on in my personal oppose. Please stop making false accusations. Leaky  Caldron  22:45, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not making any false accusations. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:53, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
 * For what it's worth, at Requests for adminship/Ryan Vesey, Worm created a large post in the discussion section addressing some general themes that opposers had that he disagreed with. I don't see anything different between Leaky's comments asking people to reconsider their opinions and that other than the fact that Leaky's was stated rather than implied and Worm's was made on the page of the RfA.  While I can understand that some people think those differences were great enough that the edits shouldn't have happened, I think a bigger deal has been made out of this than what it was.  In addition, that should be water under the bridge by now. Ryan Vesey 23:01, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I'd like to see the discussion here stay away from this topic. If anything, there is a constructive discussion here that threatens to be sidetracked.  (Whether the fact that a discussion on this topic is constructive will ever end up leading to something is another matter). Ryan Vesey 22:40, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
 * To me, this is no longer about the candidate. I'm neutral, intentionally, so I have no dog in this hunt.  It is about the process, that we allow the process we have chosen to use in order to thoroughly examine editors, to become a contest of who can be the most verbose or obtuse.  Regardless of what happens with this candidate, if we accept this kind of behavior, we can't attrack quality candidates in the future.  It is the "larger picture" that I find most disturbing.  Try swapping out the names of the parties and the candidate around with others you are familiar with.  It isn't hard to see many scenarios where someone would have been blocked by now.  THAT is what is wrong, friends, US as a community.  No wonder we have editor retention problems.   Dennis Brown -  2&cent;    &copy;   Join WER 22:22, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I have some further thoughts which I will share after the completion of the current RFA, if that's ok. Leaky  Caldron  22:27, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Excellent idea, and excellent timing. Dennis Brown -  2&cent;    &copy;   Join WER 22:33, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Wouldn't it help if we set some goals for getting adminship? Also, maybe we could separate the types of adminship up. For example, some admins focus on usernames, some on sockpuppets, some focus on dispute resolution, some focus on cleaning up pages that need deletion/moves, etc. If there were some clear guidelines for an admin in a specific area, a person could simply focus on meeting the goals, like getting merit badges in the boy scouts or achievements in video games. After you get a collection of these achievements, you would be pre-qualified to be an admin, and instead of having to prove you are worthy with a bunch of silly debates, it could be assumed that you're ready and the crowd would have to prove that you aren't ready somehow. -- Avanu (talk) 00:32, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
 * What matters now that is that conversation doesn't contribute to problems of the ongoing RfA and doesn't add to to either the drama from both sides, or the apparent unfair nature of some of the events. Most of what I really think needs to wait until it is over, as not to influence anyone one way or another.  Again, why I am neutral and will stay so.  Dennis Brown -  2&cent;    &copy;   Join WER 22:43, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi Dennis. I was confused by a comment of yours at User talk:Jimbo Wales. You seemed to be referring to Cunard as an admin who therefore got special treatment, but Cunard is not an admin. Paul Erik  (talk) (contribs) 16:11, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Ah, you are correct. That answers part of my concern, but not all.  The inconsistency in what we allow on a given RfA is still rather glaring.  But you are correct, and I'm not sure why I thought he was an admin. Dennis Brown -  2&cent;    &copy;   Join WER 16:14, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

This is probably a really dumb question, but I'll ask it anyway...
What is the difference between having "rollback rights" and using the rollback feature of Twinkle? This came up at the current RFA whose name I can't find in special characters and don't feel like going to the page and copying (an issue, but that's beside the point for my question). I read about rollback and it said that it allows one to revert with one click, but so does Twinkle...so I'm confused. Thanks for your help, I am sure that I'm completely missing something, but you're the kind of admin who (hopefully) won't roll their eyes at this one. Thanks. Go Phightins! (talk) 01:19, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
 * (Just on the character issue, use Alt+228 to type Σ). Ryan Vesey 01:22, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I tried this, does it only work in certain browsers or something? Go Phightins! (talk) 01:27, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
 * What computer do you use? If it's a PC running windows and you type 228 on the number pad while holding alt, you'll get Σ.  If you're using a mac it is ctrl g ctrl s. Ryan Vesey 01:36, 8 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Hmm, I don't know, lemme look... My two alt accounts both have rollback rights but only one has twinkle, and in TW account, rollback is three options:

[rollback (AGF)] || [rollback] || [rollback (VANDAL)]

The other account only has [rollback: 1 edit]. TW with rollback offer the option to do a AGF, generic or vandal rollback. I use the generic when rollback myself. I use the vandal, well, for vandals. The AGF is seldom used, but is handy to revert good faith series of errors that breaks something. The main difference is in the default summary, which is editable in TW. Both the vandal and AGF will pop up the reverted editors talk page in a new window if you have that option checked in twinkle (Open user talk page when invoking rollback from user contributions). The TW revert without rollback is on the right hand side, with rollback is on top. The other difference is that rollback lets you rollback more than just their last edit. If they have edited 4 times it a row, "real" rollback privs. lets you wipe all those in one click. I think I explained that right, but no guarantee. Dennis Brown - 2&cent;    &copy;   Join WER 01:30, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Well I have Twinkle and I have the three options, when I click rollback normal or rollback agf it gives me the option of reverting however many edits a user has contributed consecutively to an article. I just didn't understand what rollback rights entailed when you have Twinkle already. Thanks--Go Phightins! (talk) 01:33, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I dunno. Can you revert 3+ sequential edits by the same user? rollback can.  You can make 3 junk edits in a sandbox to test it.  Dennis Brown -  2&cent;    &copy;   Join WER 01:36, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
 * That would be done through twinkle's revert to a version feature. That is twinkle, right? Ryan Vesey 01:38, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I dunno. I'm an admin, the whole damn page is full of buttons for me, I have to use the alts to tell.  I still haven't used half the buttons I have. :)  Dennis Brown -  2&cent;    &copy;   Join WER 01:39, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I was just curious because someone criticized him for using Twinkle rather than rollback. Go Phightins! (talk) 02:17, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
 * How do you use the "alts to tell"? Sounds handy. Dougweller (talk) 05:16, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I think he meant using his alt accounts (that don't have the sysop bit set) to figure out what difference the additional rights make. Cheers! --Tgeairn (talk) 05:28, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Exactly. Pharmboy (my original login from 2006) and Farmer Brown are alt. accounts.  I also have DennisBrown but that is a doppelganger account that I just created and blocked.  The alts have rollback rights, only one has Twinkle.  Dennis Brown -  2&cent;    &copy;   Join WER 12:23, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Re: "Can you revert 3+ sequential edits by the same user? rollback can" - Twinkle rollback reverts all of the edits, just like standard rollback. As for what rollback gives you when you already have Twinkle, I think it's really just access to other tools that require it, like Huggle. And apparently it's quicker than Twinkle as it uses the API at some deeper level or something, or at least, it used to be, but I suspect Twinkle can use the same API now - before the rewrite it effectively used to use "screen scraping" and simulate step-by-step user actions. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:34, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
 * That does beg the question of why should you bother getting rollback, except as a theoretical step towards adminship, ie: demonstrating trust. Dennis Brown -  2&cent;    &copy;   Join WER 12:39, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
 * And for Huggle etc -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:44, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I've never used Huggle or Stiki. Am I missing anything?  Dennis Brown -  2&cent;    &copy;   Join WER 13:01, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Dunno about Huggle - it's only for Windows, and I don't do that. I've tried Stiki, and I don't really like it. It's technically very impressive, but can have the tendency of speeding people too fast through vandalism reverts without really examining them properly - and that's been a key factor in the blocking of at least a few trigger-happy "vandalism" fighters that I've encountered. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:10, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't like Huggle either; I used it about a year or so ago, and stopped after ten edits because I didn't like the lack of control over my edits. Twinkle is enough automation for me; sometimes too much.  Anyway, the difference between rollback and Twinkle is that you can use rollback without actually loading the page, since it's an API call.  So, with rollback, you get a link next to each page in, say, your watchlist or someone's contributions that lets you roll back the most recent edits with a single click from there, without having to actually go to the page to do it.  With Twinkle, you have to be actually on the page (either on the history tab or in a diff) to use it, since it doesn't use the rollback API call. Or something like that.Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 13:16, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
 * That used to be the case, but I think since the rewrite Twinkle now uses the rollback API - there is now a Twinkle option to add rollback links to user contribution pages, and they work without first loading the page. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:32, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I just did a sanity check on that, and it's not giving me links in the same places that it used to, so I guess I don't know, after all. Egg on my face! Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 13:35, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Nerds. Dennis Brown -  2&cent;    &copy;   Join WER 13:44, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Hmmm: "[I] have eclectic tastes and interests, including video games, Linux". I call your bluff! Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 13:47, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
 * The proverbial reason for the expression: "When you point a finger at someone else, three more are pointed back at you" ;) Dennis Brown - 2&cent;    &copy;   Join WER 13:49, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

The "real" rollback feature is extremely fast whereas Twinkle takes a bit. Rollback privileges also allow you to do a mass rollback of a persons contributions. Twinkle doesn't allow that. It's a feature that allows anti vandal programs to operate quickly by utilizing rollback.— cyberpower ChatOnline 14:01, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I've heard of this ability (mass rollback) but I've never seen it. Where is it? Ryan Vesey 14:12, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
 * You need to opt-in to it by adding importScript('User:John254/mass rollback.js'); to your .js page. Then head over to the contributions of an editor, select how many edits the user made you'd like to view (aka the edits you like to rollback), look for the rollback all link located where the move link would be located for page moves and let it rip.— cyberpower ChatOnline 14:36, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

New mail
 Ish dar  ian  03:09, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Replied and forwarded as needed. Dennis Brown -  2&cent;    &copy;   Join WER 13:20, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Dennis. I completely forgot about the mailing list. I'll try to stay on the ball next time. :)  Ish dar  ian  08:21, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
 * No problem, I knew it was going there eventually, better to not draw any extra attention to it in the short run. Dennis Brown -  2&cent;    &copy;   Join WER 10:57, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

That rollback button..
...sure is annoying, ain't it? I've undone it, as I'm pretty sure it was an error. Cheers! :) Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 22:32, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
 * - Computer browser has been sticky all day on Wickerpedia. Yes, it was an error, and thank you for fixing it.  I wondered why I had ended up on her talk page a little while ago.  Now I know.  Dennis Brown -  2&cent;    &copy;   Join WER 22:34, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Man...I so want to redo that facepalm graphic.--Amadscientist (talk) 00:37, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I'm a bit non-plussed with the clarity of the current one. Too much detail lost in the anti-aliasing. Dennis Brown -  2&cent;    &copy;   Join WER 00:39, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Disgraceful
What I find disgraceful is that I'm forbidden to comment on any RfA talk page. The process is corrupt. Malleus Fatuorum 00:19, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree. There does appear to be a double standard around here, both relating to the perception of individual editors like yourself, as well as a willingness of the community to overlook real disruption simply because the candidate has fallen out of favor.  There is plenty of disgraceful to go around, it appears.  And I blame the community for it's inaction as much as the individual. Dennis Brown -  2&cent;    &copy;   Join WER 00:26, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Some of your pointed commentary after the fact is a little more than what is required. Certainly you know more quality adjectives and nouns than I do.  Dennis Brown -  2&cent;    &copy;   Join WER 00:44, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
 * My verbal IQ is way off the scale, which may prompt some to ask "then why is he sometimes so 'potty mouthed (a peculiarly American term). To which my answer would be that all words evolved for a reason, and have their place. Malleus Fatuorum 01:16, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I always thought "potty mouth" was a rather descriptive term, drawing a rather vivid picture of the opinion of the person using it. Probably where the term "talking shit" originated from as well.  I can't say my verbal IQ is off the scale.  I'm capable of formulating thoughts that are much more complex than my current English skills sometimes allow me to communicate.  This is the personal gain I get from being here, although the net return is questionable some days.  I did start an article today, dressed weight, which is incorrectly covered in another stub I need to fix.  I've started more articles in the last 6 months than the previous 5 years, even though I edit articles much less.  I've still a long way to go to hone my skills.  Some drama filled days, I genuinely wish I wasn't an admin and could just edit articles. Dennis Brown -  2&cent;    &copy;   Join WER 01:25, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Talkback
FYI Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:48, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Change in block
I have made an amendment to this SPI and removed the CU tags. If you could implement your block over mine since my reason is moot, that would be great. Also, is a  to Mythpage88, and another CU and I agree that it's enough to block for. -- DQ  (ʞlɐʇ)  04:40, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
 * ✅, he's back under the bridge. Dennis Brown - 2&cent;    &copy;   Join WER 10:51, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Greetings Admin
When your account was made is missing from the list of Admins at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:ListUsers/sysop&limit=2000 and I was wondering if you could take out the time to fix it. My thanks. Also I noticed how you handled Avanu at the top of your page, I applaud your levelheadedness and will be kind enough to fix this minor issue. CHCSPrefect (talk) 12:04, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Errr, because that list is generated based on assigned permissions, there's nothing he could fix. Besides, his name is right there between Denelson83 and DerHexer  dangerous  panda  12:10, 9 October 2012 (UTC)


 * It is listed there. If you search starting at my name  you see it.  It doesn't show the create date, but this is a renamed account.  My original account was Pharmboy, which I now use as an alternate account.  It shows creation in 2008  which is actually the date it was moved to the current name, Dennis Brown.  I registered originally on Sept. 6, 2006. Dennis Brown -  2&cent;    &copy;   Join WER 12:12, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Talk to someone
Hi Dennis. User:Cantaloupe2 caught my attention, because he made large cuts (50k & 7k bytes) to the articles I contributed to with a COI on NetBase Solutions and HubSpot. His criticisms of my work are not entirely unreasonable (excessive detail and modest promotionalism), however his cuts are not an improvement.

I reviewed his contributions and noticed this is part of a disturbing trend for aggressive deletionism and anti-marketing. My last four contribs before this one show how I am undoing some of his prior edits along these lines. I suspect he is intelligent and reasonable (not an overt axe-grinder) and could improve as an editor with some engagement from a veteran like yourself.

I have no current financial connection to these subjects, but given the circumstances, I feel a discussion with Cantaloupe about this trend in general or the articles specifically may be an invitation for confrontation. I was wondering if you were willing to talk to him and maybe do a little coaching, discussion and pre-dispute dispute resolution.

PS - After Jimbo's Signpost, Smallbones and I discussed working on a proposed paid advocate policy/guideline. Might be a good opportunity to integrate some of the ideas in EasyMoney, as well as other initiatives. Corporate 13:41, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I will take a look in a bit. I agree work on COI is certainly needed here, but the opinions are all over the place, and I've pulled back simply because I didn't think I could get a consensus.  As I disclose on my user page, I've been in the marketing field for well over two decades.  Of course, I avoid editing in areas where I have an interest now, but some people act shocked when they learn that I'm one of the 'the enemy' and yet an admin.  Or perhaps they just have the wrong impression of the field.  I'm not big on COI editors directly editing articles they are invested in, but there is nothing wrong with editing other articles and the experience of being in marketing offers a good understanding of business in general, a net plus.  I haven't looked here, so I can't say if that applies, but I do understand the knee jerk reaction by some against evil marketing people.  Dennis Brown -  2&cent;    &copy;   Join WER 14:20, 9 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Yup, I do the same thing. In fact, a while back a COI editor busted me making a quick (and incorrect) assessment that their external links were "spammy." This judgement was bias based on the edits coming from a COI.


 * HubSpot is also a unique case. To a certain extent a promotional article is an accurate reflection of their reputation in reliable sources and we would expect (as has been discussed previously between impartial editors) the sources to be heavily reliant on blogs compared to most companies due to the social media angle.


 * In any case, I agree. But many editors oppose our BLP rules or have different interpretations of WP:COI. Even though there is no consensus in the purest sense, the rules exist nonetheless. I think consensus in the purest sense is an impossibility, but if we can create something that is vague enough (but still clearer) and represents good compromise, we can make progress. It's not something every last editor would support, but Wikipedia has overcome this issue where the need is compelling enough. Corporate 14:46, 9 October 2012 (UTC)


 * A quick look at NetBase Solutions, I can see why he deleted all that and would say it was a good edit. Maybe 10-20% of that could be worked back in if it was worded properly.  Most of it is puffery.  A bulleted list of what makes them "great" isn't appropriate, and is just promotional.  Some of the first section might be ok since it is part of the history, but should be inserted only as that purpose, with the editoralizing left out.  I would suggest rewriting a single paragraph to add, post on the talk page for a week, then adding if no one objects.  I think that if you show good will and a desire to add info in a neutral way, and a willingness to discuss (via WP:BRD) on the talk page before readding any material back, you might get a better reception.  At the very least, you will have demonstrated good faith, and hopefully he will join you and work to tweak the info to make it encyclopedic.  Dennis Brown -  2&cent;    &copy;   Join WER 14:30, 9 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Ok, I will take a look if I get around to it. I see there is some promotionalism and the year-and-a-half old article doesn't represent my best work, but was disappointed because I didn't feel the cut was an overall improvement. Since I no longer have a COI, the idea of going through the whole COI song and dance is painful, but I do want to protect my work from degrading. Corporate 14:55, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I understand. Sometimes cosmetic surgery leaves a scar ;)  But since the majority of it really didn't belong, it is arguably better to be less fluffy and slightly less informational, so I can't argue with his choice, even if rewriting that small part would have been preferable. Dennis Brown -  2&cent;    &copy;   Join WER 14:58, 9 October 2012 (UTC)


 * OK, I just finished going through his contribs and restoring articles on SEO topics, re-inserting SEOMOZ as a reliable source, doing a better job looking through external links that were deleted en-masse, and other nick-nacks. I will have to mull over what to do for the two articles. I am not in communication with any of these orgs and they probably wouldn't appreciate me just acting as a free agent. What is your assessment on the HubSpot article? Corporate 16:01, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Will have to look at in a bit, fighting with software on a different computer right now... :/ Dennis Brown - 2&cent;    &copy;   Join WER 16:26, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I didn't look at the first one very close, just the material he reverted out, so can't give an opinion on the article. I looked at the second article as a whole, rather than the changes made.  As it sits, it needs most of the material deleted out, honestly.  Growth strategy stuff, etc.  just doesn't belong in an encyclopedia article.  That is great stuff for a magazine article, but it isn't encyclopedic.  Now, I am no expert author, just a regular Joe when it comes to editing, but here is one on a company I did: D.H. Griffin Companies  It states the facts, it sources the claims, it keeps it simple and provides relevant information without puffery or buzzwords.  It may not be as "sexy", but it is encyclopedic, meaning there is no promotional wording and just raw facts in the form of prose.  Dennis Brown -  2&cent;    &copy;   Join WER 22:29, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Well, that went as expected. I have asked Cantaloupe to leave my Talk page. I suspect I will get quite the bombardment now that I am in his cross-hairs. Corporate 03:34, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

ANI warning
I don't quite understand this warning. I was striking comments of an IP precisely because it was sockpuppetry, per Sockpuppet investigations/SkepticAnonymous. StAnselm (talk) 20:35, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Ah, I was not aware that was an active sock investigation. My apologies.  I've struck my comment and apologized there as well.  Dennis Brown -  2&cent;    &copy;   Join WER 21:03, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

RFA opinion
Before I make any further posts and comments about the situation with RFA, I wanted to get your take. Perhaps it will add some focus for me.--Amadscientist (talk) 05:34, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Not sure the utility of talking at wt:rfa. The same issues seem like they've been brought up there time after time with no change.  Its why I don't really post there any more, seems useless to do so if all that is going to happen is talk.  I've grown weary of talking for sake of talking. Dennis Brown -  2&cent;    &copy;   Join WER 08:57, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Check User
Denis, am I right in thinking that the check user done as Sockpuppet investigations/Kaz/Archive would have detected any other registered editors using the same IP address as Kaz?--Toddy1 (talk) 07:23, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Not necessarily, you would need to ask the checkuser if they did a check for sleepers. They might have just checked those names only.  Looking for sleepers (ie: any other user with the same IP) is an additional step that takes more time, so it isn't usually done unless there is a reason.  Dennis Brown -  2&cent;    &copy;   Join WER 08:59, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Melodic minor
This set of lessons is well worth it. He looks the most unlikely guitarist to be knowledgeable and intelligent, looks more like he belongs in San Quentin, but never judge a book by its cover. You might find something useful from him..♦ Dr. Blofeld  11:32, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Too challenging eh?♦ Dr. Blofeld  14:11, 10 October 2012 (UTC) Dennis the fireman? You look a pretty cool, happy guy Dennis, anybody ever said you look a bit like Don Stroud?♦ Dr. Blofeld  19:15, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Started watching, then real life keeps getting in the way. At work today, lots of small fires to put out :/  Dennis Brown -  2&cent;    &copy;   Join WER 14:50, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Are you hitting on me? ......... (j/k)
 * I hadn't heard that one before, thanks. Actually, now I'm 40 pounds lighter with a short, well groomed beard, so I look skinnier and fuzzier.  As for happiness, I've always believed it is a choice, so sure, I choose to be happy.  I change what I can and accept things I can't change.  It isn't difficult to find people who are worse off, which keeps you humble.  I posted the picture to keep it real and remind myself that none of us is really anonymous. Dennis Brown -  2&cent;    &copy;   Join WER 19:44, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Hehe, well you've got a good set of nashers LOL! Just don't get the David Schwimmer (Ross) Friends cosmetic white teeth treatment!♦  Dr. Blofeld  21:04, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Your email
Thanks for the more extensive comments. I didn't take it as smug; rather, I saw it as a case of you heeding the spirit of WP:BEANS. I wasn't challenging you; my only reason for commenting was to find out if you'd used something such as a Toolserver utility that would be useful for IPs in general. Nyttend (talk) 13:37, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh I didn't take it as a challenge in the least, I just wanted to give you enough info to understand why I was so vague. Your question was a very valid one.  I have no idea how net savvy you are, and there are other considerations that might not be obvious even to those that are, and thought that info might benefit you.  Dennis Brown -  2&cent;    &copy;   Join WER 13:41, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

IP address
Very sorry to trouble you, Dennis, but this person needs a block User talk:207.144.99.102. Thank you for your time. ColaXtra (talk) 16:59, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
 * ✅ ​—DoRD (talk)​ 17:14, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Hey there clerk
Dennis, do me a favor if you will, and quickly if you can: my suspicion on Sockpuppet investigations/Zhand38 is completely incorrect, and the report needs to be nixed. Can you help? Thanks, Drmies (talk) 00:12, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
 * (I WAS editing a nice article, Ball joint, per your demand that I edit articles more, but I guess I will stop long enough.... ;-) Dennis Brown - 2&cent;    &copy;   Join WER 00:18, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
 * NO! Never stop working on the ball joint! Drmies (talk)
 * There is something terribly wrong with us. Dennis Brown -  2&cent;    &copy;   Join WER 00:19, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I just closed it, didn't CSD did it. If you prefer a CSD, probably better to tag it for such and let another 'min nuke it since I clerked it.  I know, I'm funny with all those layers of eyes.  Dennis Brown -  2&cent;    &copy;   Join WER 00:27, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I have to tell you this story, as it related to ball joints: Many years ago when I was 22, unemployment was 11% in my town, I went to apply for a job as a suspension mechanic, not knowing anything.  The manager laughed his ass off at how bold I was to even ask.  He told me to go read up and talk to him in three days, as that is when he was going to hire someone. (basically, he was brushing this ignorant fool off)  Obviously, there were better candidates.  I spent the next three days in the public library from open to close, and literally mastered the theory of automotive suspension.  I went back, he quizzed me, was literally floored.  I got the job.  He said that if I would work that hard to get the job, he knew I would work that hard to keep it.  So yeah, I've seen a ball joint or two.  Kept the job for a year before becoming a disk jockey.  Dennis Brown -  2&cent;    &copy;   Join WER 00:32, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
 * First things first: "Commonly found in automotive throttle linkages, throttle body set ups, these are also widely..." is unclear. What is the relation between throttle body set ups and throttle body linkages? I'll read your story after I change a diaper. ;) Drmies (talk) 00:56, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
 * That stuff was already there, I'm working on that and the maintenance section now, which is a bit "how to". Now that I have three solid refs, I have some material to pull from.  You should see what it looked like before I started, an hour ago. Dennis Brown -  2&cent;    &copy;   Join WER 00:59, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Holy hell we have a lot of photos missing. Guess I need to break the camera out.  Can't believe we don't have a decent image of a grease zerk.  Such a simple thing.  I might have to draw a diagram as well, since it uses a spring and check ball, and you can't tell that from a photo since they are internal.  Dennis Brown -  2&cent;    &copy;   Join WER 01:14, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Ha, that's a fun story. My father would have appreciated it, as a longtime mechanic. Drmies (talk) 01:22, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
 * When you want something bad enough, you work for it. At least I do.  That was an important life lesson for me. Dennis Brown -  2&cent;    &copy;   Join WER 01:24, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Ok, it might not be a Good Article, but it is now a good article. I could go try to get a DYK, but it isn't worth the effort.  Dennis Brown -  2&cent;    &copy;   Join WER 01:44, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Question on deleting media
I'm in a discussion with User:Jennypatrizia and am unsure of the answer to her question. Can files be deleted from the Commons that are fair use. I've never uploaded anything, so I'm not sure. Go Phightins! (talk) 01:25, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Commons doesn't allow fair use, only Wikipedia does. Commons requires they be public domain, GNU or CC attrib.  Dennis Brown -  2&cent;    &copy;   Join WER 01:27, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
 * She's uploaded two files, she may own them, I honestly don't know, but my question was can she delete them in the same manner that an author can blank a page he created? Go Phightins! (talk) 01:29, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
 * She does own the works. Go Phightins! (talk) 01:30, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Not sure, I avoid Commons. I have like 200 edits there, and almost 30,000 here, for example. Technically, she shouldn't be able to, since once you license the use of a photo for anyone to use, you can't revoke the copy you already uploaded for. She can still license it differently elsewhere, but can't retroactively take the license away if she lawfully uploaded and licensed it, from a legal stand point.  She still owns it, but her publishing it under a free license is a contract that she can't revoke, technically. You could ask there, but we have no control over what they do. Dennis Brown -  2&cent;    &copy;   Join WER 01:37, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I'll direct her there. I think I've made one edit there. I have no clue. Thanks for your help--Go Phightins! (talk) 01:39, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

A cup of coffee for you!

 * Going to save the coffee for the morning, I've been trying to get to bed for an hour, and on my way now :) Dennis Brown -  2&cent;    &copy;   Join WER 02:53, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, then I suppose it's good I chose that rather than a cheeseburger. I guess I should probably start considering heading that direction now as well. Anyway, thanks for your help, as always--Go Phightins! (talk) 02:55, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Trolling comment removal
I removed a comment by Andy the Grump as a personal attack. I actually asked Drmies about it first ( I don't like going to you for every issue) but he declined as being tired of dealing with Andy. So I removed the comment per WP:NPA and commented on the talkpage of WP:RSN. I felt I should at least mention it to you as an admin. Didn't seem worth taking to AN/I and I wasn't going to comment directly on it, but felt I was justified to remove it and not just collapse it.--Amadscientist (talk) 02:54, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
 * . That's why. He didn't even get blocked for it. So I'm not going to block for "hey you're a troll"... Drmies (talk) 03:07, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Drmies, I actually understood your point. I laughed because I am aware of how tired you must be of even dealing with civility issues. I wasn't looking for a block. But I won't bother you further with these issues if they bother you that much. But thanks anyway. I do know it doesn't help these situations to counter with more of the same. This seemed the best way to handle it. It got Andy's attention and we both extended apologies for perceptions we both had. He may know more about the subject even if Idon't agree on all of it.--Amadscientist (talk) 03:23, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, all's well that ends well, I suppose. No, it's no bother to me, but I'm not the one to ask about civility in the first place, I think. I got a few "bright lines", and Andy crossed one of them which is why I want nothing to do with him, really--I lost respect for him and will let other admins, or the community, or no one in particular, deal with him. Drmies (talk) 04:41, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Fair enough.--Amadscientist (talk) 04:45, 11 October 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm not the one to ask about incivility either, but maybe on the other hand I am, in a way. I found Andy's posting linked above to be completely and utterly unacceptable, and how the Hell he gets away with that when I get blocked for making a vague reference to "sycophants" is really at the heart of what's wrong here. Malleus Fatuorum 04:50, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh...was that you? LOL! I keep hearing about that! LOL! But yeah, sadly.....he should have recieved some sanction over that and now we have an admin who simply no longer cares what he does. One who is very well respected in my view. That scares the hell out of me to be honest.--Amadscientist (talk) 05:47, 11 October 2012 (UTC)


 * I care. Actualy, I've been trying to keep an eye out for Andy, like I do many people, trying to help him not get blocked but willing and ready if needed.  That diff was back in August, so is beyond stale, so not inclined to chew on Andy's ass for that bit of rudeness.  I expect a little rudeness around here (and usually get more than expect...) but that clearly should have been deleted. Dennis Brown -  2&cent;    &copy;   Join WER 11:53, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

You really deserve this. Sorry there is no monetary reward. You would deserve that as well!
I like the fact that it is animated. I don't know why.--Amadscientist (talk) 05:49, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Very kind of you to say. Right now, I'm feeling more tired-ful than tire-less.  Need more coffee... Dennis Brown -  2&cent;    &copy;   Join WER 12:14, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

User:پارسا آملی is back at Amol
Saw that you reverted an edit made by an IP at Amol. I guess compared to the other edits made by User:پارسا آملی's socks, it is safe to say the user is back to IP hopping at the Amol article now that the page protection has expired. Not sure if it's worth a new SPI investigation page or not, or just leave it be for now... Singularity42 (talk) 10:55, 11 October 2012 (UTC)


 * I did a /19 block on that IP last night, 3 months, witch is about 8192 addresses.  It doesn't show on that one IP page because it was a range block. No reason to file an SPI, nothing new to learn that we don't know. If he comes back, I will protect the page again. Dennis Brown -  2&cent;    &copy;   Join WER 11:42, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Battlegrounds
Hi Dennis,

You might take a look at User_talk:Belchfire in reference to your comments here as it's tangentially a related issue. I bring it up because Belchfire and Still Standing-247 are the two most involved users in the "conservatives vs. liberals vs. everyone else" war going on on conservative pages. Belchfire makes a salient point that there are other editors involved who need warning as well. But it's a big task, and I could certainly use assistance, if you're willing, as well as that of any other uninvolved administrator who happens to be watching this page. The players involved (not necessarily "guilty" but the ones that consistently pop up in this area) are pretty obvious:, , , , , , , , and. There may be others involved, some of the aforementioned may not be breaking any rules -- those are just the names that immediately stand out from a cursory glance. This is no joke one of the most disruptive, widespread series of edit wars I've seen in 7 years and 20,000 edits on this project. And nobody is doing anything about it, other than intermittently looking at the AN/I complaints as they come up. &rArr;  SWAT Jester    Son of the Defender  18:32, 9 September 2012 (UTC)


 * I've left a detailed message there, just I already have with Still, more than once. It appears some mediation is needed.  It is complicated enough that ANI just isn't a viable option for these disputes, either they need to start playing by the rules or sanctions will follow.  While I loathe having to just start blocking or unilaterally issuing other sanctions, I'm not afraid to if it will keep the peace.  I think it will take two or three of us working directly with the parties for a while.  I'm not interested in debating content with them, only conduct, including bias, and I see you agree.  I will start looking at some of the other parties, too.  I have looked at Lionel some, and it wasn't encouraging.  They seem to reworking WP:WikiProject Conservatism from being a project about classical conservative in articles, into more of a political and bias machine, which is likely unacceptable here.  A tool for divisiveness.  You might take a look at that as well. Dennis Brown -  2&cent;    &copy;   Join WER 19:38, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I too have seen this shift; I have boldly done something practical to correct it: & project talk p.   DGG ( talk ) 00:09, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I have echoed your sentiments at the talk page, and a full review by a few uninvolved admin is likely overdue. I appreciate your involvement.  Dennis Brown -  2&cent;    &copy;   Join WER 00:16, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Closure request
Howdy mate. As per advice I received here, I'm here to ask if you might consider closing Sockpuppet investigations/Brainbug666 which I started as a result of some silly stuff at Articles for deletion/Post-Finasteride Syndrome (which was helpfully closed by MA). While I contend there was some serious socking going on, dragging the issue on by keeping that SPI open doesn't really achieve anything. Hopefully now that the AFD is over, the single-purpose-accounts will not longer have a purpose and will simply go away. Cheers, Stalwart 111  (talk) 00:52, 11 October 2012 (UTC).
 * Holy cow, that is an encyclopedia worth of evidence. I can't just close down without investigating (even above, I did a quick investigation, but the evidence was only one sentence, so it was easy.)  You might just add a note that you want to withdraw the claim, but a clerk will still need to at least briefly review all the evidence once it is filed.  I'm a bit tied with an edit, but someone will look at it if I don't get to it first.  Dennis Brown -  2&cent;    &copy;   Join WER 00:55, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Fair call. That's where I was on the fence. Not sure I want to "withdraw" it - don't want there to be any suggestion that sort of activity is acceptable and that if you shout long enough people will just give up. But also don't want to revive the hostilities from AFD by pushing an admin to take punitive action. Ho hum... what to do? Might just leave it and not push either way. Thanks for your advice though - much appreciated! Stalwart 111  (talk) 02:42, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I just had several things I had prepromised to do. I cut my teeth here at AfD, so I'm very aware of the problems of socks.  We are just very shorthanded at SPI and the socks are coming out of the woodworks.  It is not an easy place to clerk.  Dennis Brown -  2&cent;    &copy;   Join WER 02:44, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I can imagine. Knowing the clerks are overworked I try not to raise an SPI unless it seems obvious and doing so would achieve something... In this particular instance, the editor who looks to have co-ordinated the "Keep" campaign at AFD has now recreated the deleted / redirected page in his user-space sandbox and is linking to it from article-space talk pages to "raise awareness" of the issue. He has also taken to tendentiously editing the article of the pharma company that makes the drug - removing run-of-the-mill external links to the company site claiming they are "promotional" and citing arguments made at the above AFD as justification. More disruptive editing. So I might leave the SPI to run its course and let justice be done, so to speak. Stalwart 111  (talk) 03:29, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
 * ...and has now started a very pointy SPI at Sockpuppet investigations/DangerGrouse‎ aimed at one of the less-experienced editors who supported the AFD. Just getting silly. Have asked MA for advice but yours would also be welcome. Cheers, Stalwart 111  (talk) 05:18, 11 October 2012 (UTC).

Thanks for your intervention. Unfortunate end result but entirely justified. Stalwart 111  (talk) 23:18, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Re: Archiving
Hi.

Thanks for the notice. I have already configured archiving. My talk page will be archived as soon as its size hit 64 KB. Currently, it is 62.32 KB. My archiving gadget is not Misza Bot, though I know how to configure it; I did it for K-Multimedia Player talk page.

Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 10:15, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Good. I had wondered.  You seem the kind of person that would want everything archived and organzied.  Dennis Brown -  2&cent;    &copy;   Join WER 11:46, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi. Actually, your note proved useful. I discovered that MiszaBot III archives threat-by-thread not page-by-page. It is a better approach. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 14:40, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
 * One more trick, if you look above, you will see a thread that I changed the year to 2013 on just the very last post. That is to keep the thread on the page and not archive it.  Once I'm ready to have it archived, I will just change it back to 2012.  Another advantage of the thread by thread archiving.  Dennis Brown -  2&cent;    &copy;   Join WER 15:04, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh, yeah, but I prefer Do not archive until. Codename Lisa (talk) 17:41, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Nerd :) I didn't even know that existed. We both learned something today. Dennis Brown -  2&cent;    &copy;   Join WER 17:43, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Question
Hey Dennis, Drmies is offline at the moment so I am hoping you can help. I am working on an very uncontroversial article in my sandbox need to upload the logo for the infobox once I create the article (standard stuff for me), but I am unsure if I can do that. Checked my unblock note didn't mention it, but I want to make sure I am not going to cross a line. -  Neutralhomer •  Talk  • 12:04, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't see a problem adding articles or logos of this type. Obviously, you can't use the logo in your sandbox since it will be fair use, but you already know that.  Dennis Brown -  2&cent;    &copy;   Join WER 12:21, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Yup, I was going to upload the logo after I create the article. Just wanted to make sure first. :)  Thanks! -  Neutralhomer  •  Talk  • 12:24, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Uncontroversial is good. ;) Next stop, DYK--Dennis needs the practice anyway. Drmies (talk) 13:55, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
 * No, DYK is waaaay too much work for one little pip on my user page. If I weren't too busy trying to change everything else, I might spend some time trying to streamline DYK a bit.  Good hearts, good work, not user friendly and focuses on new material only.  Dennis Brown -  2&cent;    &copy;   Join WER 15:11, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

IP abuse
Even after blocking he continues and I fixed it. It looks like denial of talk page access and a lengthening of the block would be in order. -- Brangifer (talk) 14:38, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
 * ✅ Dennis Brown - 2&cent;    &copy;   Join WER 15:06, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Advice sought...
My apologies for asking out of the blue, but could I seek your advice on resolving the tensions here? There's lots of good intentions on all sides, but I'll admit the underlying issues have been running for a while and I'm finding it a little frustrating. Hchc2009 (talk) 18:57, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm probably the wrong person to help when debating citation styles or general MOS issues. It looks like you made an edit, he reverted, you are both discussing on the talk page.  Since there is a great variety of styles of citation that are considered acceptable, it is up to you two to figure out.  If you can't, then I would ask at WP:3RD  Dennis Brown -  2&cent;    &copy;   Join WER 19:55, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Hchc2009 (talk) 20:02, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
 * ( talk page stalker )You might try starting a new thread at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style. There are a number of editors experienced in style issues who monitor that page. --Neotarf (talk) 20:33, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

DRV
Can you semi-protect the Leroux DRV at as mentioned at ANI? IRWolfie- (talk) 22:51, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Someone might override me and call it preventative, but I see it as an extension of the AFD, so protection is warranted. Done.  Dennis Brown -  2&cent;    &copy;   Join WER 22:59, 11 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks, IRWolfie- (talk) 23:15, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * As an aside, how would I go about initiating a CU of this Moshe whatever? It would nice if it could be determined who they are a sock of so that discipline could be meted out to the sockmaster as well. AutomaticStrikeout 02:31, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Simple CUs can be requested at the bottom of the WP:SPI page. You will need to keep it short, supply diffs, and a valid reason.  This is like an SPI report when you don't know the master.  We are very short handed with CUs right now (most of the active CUs are Arbs, actually, which shows how bad off we are) so it might take a day or two to get a reply, and of course, it isn't guaranteed to happen.  And CU isn't magic pixie dust.  It is just technical data.  I know over a dozen ways to avoid CU detections myself, and so do others, so keep in mind that it is just a tool, not the final answer.  Dennis Brown -  2&cent;    &copy;   Join WER 02:35, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Ok, thanks for the reply. AutomaticStrikeout 02:37, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
 * By simple, do you mean a quick checkuser request? It looks to me like those are for requests not related to sockpuppetry. AutomaticStrikeout 02:41, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, I don't have all the details here. If you want to file an SPI and request checkuser, just look up in the form for "checkuser" and change "no" to "yes".  The form will auto fill out, then a clerk like myself will look at the evidence and either endorse or decline.  Of course, CUs are independent, so I've had them refuse to run when I endorsed, and run them when I've declined them.  The endorse/decline function of the clerk is to give them more info, not to tell them what to do. If anything, we answer to the CUs.  Not because they "outrank" us, but because they are accountable for each checkuser they run and they have to justify each one.  This is why short but diff laden SPIs are more likely to get endorsed. Dennis Brown -  2&cent;    &copy;   Join WER 03:02, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Ok. You may be interested in this. AutomaticStrikeout 03:13, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
 * That is fine. Since I made the block, another clerk should endorse or decline.  Besides, it is 11:15 here and I've been trying to get to bed since 10pm.  Got a long day ahead of me, so I'm out :)  Dennis Brown -  2&cent;    &copy;   Join WER 03:18, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm in search of input
Hi, Dennis. I've reverted a couple of IPs at Talk:Bettina Wulff regarding BLP problematical posts. The IPs cropped up on the talk page after the article had been protected. I don't really have a problem continuing to revert, but do you have any input as regards semi-protecting article talk pages? It seemed a bad idea to me when it first crossed my mind. After the first couple of reverts I left messages on the IP's talk and have not received any response. If you look into the particulars and are of the opinion that there is no BLP concern, backing off is an option I'm open to as well.  Tide  rolls  18:03, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
 * For most things, my threshold for talk pages is a little higher than for articles, but when it comes to BLP, it is the same. I just went ahead and semi-protected for a month.  That is strong, but so is the consequences of BLP violations.  Dennis Brown -  2&cent;    &copy;   Join WER 22:15, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Notable?
Do you think this would meet WP:GNG? It's a startup called PoverUp doing microfinancing, but the sources seem to be split between talking about the company and talking about the founder. So far I've got Forbes, an extension of that article in wharton magazine, Inc., fast company, Go girl finance.com (runs on wordpress so it looks like a blog, but I don't believe it is one), Knowledge@wharton, Philadelphia Business Journal, Raising CEO kids (I would have written this website off if it wasn't for the academic credentials of the site creator and the book he wrote), Time Business, another Fast Company (not related to business, but founder is featured). I'll note that Peter Cohan a Wharton Alum, caused a number of these so he was pushing the company out there. What do you think, would it survive AfD? Ryan Vesey 18:44, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
 * The EDU, raisingceokids.com, and biz journal won't pass RS for the purpose of WP:N, the others are kind of weak, but I think the totality of the coverage should be ok, even if borderline. Even the Inc is on a blog, which is weird.  If I were interested, I would make the article, but being careful to not get fluffy with the prose.  Weak refs + fluffy = AfD, every time.  I suggest starting in a sandbox first.  I just did one this afternoon that was a little weak at first, Knight's Spider Web Farm, then found a book cite and a boston globe cite, so you never know til you sandbox it and see.  Dennis Brown -  2&cent;    &copy;   Join WER 22:13, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I plan to use a sandbox. If it's not slam dunk notable when I finish, I'll try to have someone else review it/move it.  On the topic of won't pass for RS for the purpose of WP:N, there's no reason they wouldn't be reliable sources at all, correct? Ryan Vesey 22:16, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Depends on what you are citing for. Be careful not to stack too many weak cites, which makes it look padded.  The raisingceokids really didn't look good for much anything, reliability wise, but I didn't research them individually.  Dennis Brown -  2&cent;    &copy;   Join WER 22:26, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I fixated on the word doctor on the book and looking back at it, the source doesn't seem like much. I got to the point where they wrote she was going to "Warden" and any thought I had of reliability was thrown out.  Thanks for the advice. Ryan Vesey 22:32, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Cebiche - Help request
Dennis, could you please close this Move Request, as I am left totally unsupported by other users? Thanks in advance and all the best. --E4024 (talk) 21:41, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Normally I wouldn't close an RfC early, but since you started it and no one else has supported, I went ahead and closed it. Dennis Brown - 2&cent;    &copy;   Join WER 22:07, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

IP still editing
Hi Dennis. 68.35.160.23 was blocked yesterday per the outcome of Sockpuppet investigations/PoliticianTexas, but something appears to have gone wrong as the IP has returned to continue editing. Could you take a look? Camerafiend (talk) 00:09, 13 October 2012 (UTC) Thanks for getting that sorted out! Camerafiend (talk) 01:15, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Weird. The block log says I did the one month block, and it was current, yet he wasn't blocked.  Software glitch on the backside.  I blocked over the last block, and it looks like it stuck.  Thank you for bringing this to my attention.  Dennis Brown -  2&cent;    &copy;   Join WER 00:35, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I looked again, it said "anon only" which isn't an option I use. I had blocked him with the SPI script, which is a single click to do all kinds of neat and groovy things, so it must have been the script.  I will keep an eye out and report it to the techs if it does that again.  Again, thanks.  Dennis Brown -  2&cent;    &copy;   Join WER 00:38, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Range block
What would the fallout be for a range block re: Talk:Bettina Wulff? Or, do we have the budget to send out Liam Neeson? Drmies (talk) 00:24, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I already protected the page yesterday. If you did block, it would have to be 95.33.0.0/16 if you wanted to cover the whole range, which is coincidentally the largest size block we can make as lowly admin.  That is why I just protected the page.  Of course, if the IPs are bleeding onto other pages, then the block would make sense.  Dennis Brown -  2&cent;    &copy;   Join WER 00:33, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Forgot to add, that would be 65,536 residential addresses in northern Germany, which is a moderate amount of damage. Dennis Brown - 2&cent;    &copy;   Join WER 00:53, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
 * These are the only German IPs that have recently edited that  article:
 * 95.33.9.54 - Bremen, Am Wandrahm/Contrescarpe
 * 95.33.20.6 - Langwedel (near Bemen), Achimerstrasse
 * 95.33.27.236 - Langwedel (near Bemen), Achimerstrasse
 * 109.192.252.63 - Pforzheim, Haldenweg
 * 92.73.89.126 - Bonn, Am Hof/Windeckstrasse


 * Probably low collateral to en.Wiki for the 95.33 range. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:42, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
 * The issue with that one had been the talk page as well, which is why I protected it, as I think Tide rolls got the article. It still seems that protection is more effective than blocks here.  Dennis Brown -  2&cent;    &copy;   Join WER 11:33, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Who do we have in that area? I have a friend nearby, but he's a real academic so he's not on WP. Can we at least administer a kick in the nuts? Drmies (talk) 21:08, 14 October 2012 (UTCP
 * I think  probably an anon block for the three Bremen IPs might have an effect. If  more improper edits from  that range crop up, then a range block  might be the solution. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:32, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Again, none have edited in days, they were only interested in that one page, it is semi-protected. 92* and 109* are static and the most recent, the others have dynamic and haven't edited in almost two weeks, and have likely cycled. Semi-protection just seems the best choice with the least damage, particularly since it is a BLP issue.  Dennis Brown -  2&cent;    &copy;   Join WER 12:23, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Knight's Spider Web Farm
Hello! Your submission of Knight's Spider Web Farm at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Miyagawa  (talk)  10:42, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Dennis Brown - 2&cent;    &copy;   Join WER 12:05, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

AdminCom
You might find this interesting. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 22:00, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Concentrates way too much power in way too few people. Snowball chance in hell getting something like that through.  I can't see I would support that.  Dennis Brown -  2&cent;    &copy;   Join WER 22:05, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Power corrupts. Absolute power is kind of neat.

John Lehman, Secretary of the Navy, 1981-1987 -- Gilderien Chat&#124;List of good deeds 22:08, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Duck test
Can you explain why the SPI I filed does not satisfy the duck test? <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">' Ankh '. Morpork  23:28, 16 October 2012 (UTC) quack <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">' Ankh '. Morpork  23:45, 16 October 2012 (UTC) "He did the exact same thing" - he didn't. The extent of his contributions, both to the article and the talk page, was a single revert; contrast that with the multiple reverts and talk page indignation of the other editor. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">' Ankh '. Morpork  23:59, 16 October 2012 (UTC) Thanks for looking into it. 'Insufficient evidence' is more comprehensible than stating other editors are "just as suspect". Could you semi-protect the article page to prevent reoccurrence? <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">' Ankh '. Morpork  00:16, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Without a diff, I will have to dig it up. I've worked two dozens SPIs this afternoon.  Dennis Brown -  2&cent;    &copy;   Join WER 23:42, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I told you there, the IP wasn't the only one edit warring. Why didn't you name Anthony Appleyard?  He did the exact same thing, so he is just as suspect as a sock or master. Most of the time, it is impossible to link socks on one edit anyway. Dennis Brown -  2&cent;    &copy;   Join WER 23:53, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
 * My point is that it could have been Anthony Appleyard as the puppetmaster just as easily. No matter what, CU is not going to run a check on a reg'ed user and an IP.  They don't do that, we have no choice but to decline.  Not negotiable except in very, very rare cases that this clearly doesn't fall into.  And no, I'm not going to go and block a registered editor over one revert made by one ip that was also made by another user.  The evidence isn't strong enough.  If you disagree, contact a CU and ask them to review, you won't hurt my feelings, but I'm not going to block here due to of a lack of sufficiently convincing evidence.  Dennis Brown -  2&cent;    &copy;   Join WER 00:04, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I would get my head bit off if I did, as only one IP has edited, and the rules say it needs to be two or more doing vandalism or other disruption. If it keeps getting reverted, I'm likely to full protect the page to stop the edit warring.  Ping me if more show up or if more reverts take place in the next day.  Dennis Brown -  2&cent;    &copy;   Join WER 00:18, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
 * While you two were talking, I actually turned and fully protected it, so that should solve the IP issue for now. I know that it is frustrating sometimes when an IP does this, but, without some conclusive link we can't do anything, and the privacy policy ties my hands from taking a CU action here in this case. If you need any more CU assistance, like an account shows up after the protection clears, give me a ping on my talkpage. -- DQ  (ʞlɐʇ)  00:29, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Iamthemuffinman
I'm confused. Can you explain, on or off wiki, or should Elen be contacted and asked to explain? --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:44, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I've emailed you. It's complicated.  Dennis Brown -  2&cent;    &copy;   Join WER 00:00, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Facepalm I
--Amadscientist (talk) 02:54, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
 * It's early, and I thought you were saying I did something stupid :) Not bad, maybe bolder outline so it has more contrast when reduced.  That is a hard one to do unless you just go all cartoon on it, which is always an option.  Dennis Brown -  2&cent;    &copy;   Join WER 11:59, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Thank you
Thank you for taking the time to participate in my RfA. I hope that I will be able to improve based on the feedback I received and become a better editor. AutomaticStrikeout 03:36, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Involved
Is confusing. How do you determine if someone is involved in something or not?

That said, you may or may not be involved in this thingy. I have no bloody idea. -— Isarra ༆ 23:30, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm probably not very involved, but I did have to hat a discussion, so semi. Yeah, better to notify too many rather than not enough.  Had I known it was at Arb, I would have commented the same regardless.  Dennis Brown -  2&cent;    &copy;   Join WER 23:56, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Right, administrative actions aren't involving, or so that page says. Why do people so often treat them as if they are? Well, anyhow, thanks. -— Isarra ༆ 04:03, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
 * "Involved" is a tricky thing, and to me, means more than just admin. Some editors might be considered "involved" but not in the WP:INVOLVED sense.  That guideline is more about when an admin should or shouldn't act in an administrative fashion, not so much when they are "involved" in the standard use of the word.  Yes, it often confuses me as much as you when it comes to notifications.  It isn't always clear who should be notified of events, and if you notify too many, someone might start screaming "canvassing!!!"....oy.  Dennis Brown -  2&cent;    &copy;   Join WER 11:57, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Ghaaah. Such madness, this place. -— Isarra ༆ 23:29, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Its why I avoid arbcom when I can. Too much politics, too many politicians. Dennis Brown -  2&cent;    &copy;   Join WER 23:39, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

RfA
If your concerns remain primarily about my edit count, please see the comment I left in the oppose section just after you moved to oppose. I understand completely if that doesn't change your mind. Gigs (talk) 14:51, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
 * The period I looked at was 18 months, however, and the other concerns are still there. This doesn't mean I would never support you at RfA, but the totality of the concerns leaves me unable to at this time.  There is still time, and I'm never beyond changing my mind.  Dennis Brown -  2&cent;    &copy;   Join WER 14:55, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
 * 18 months has my illness right in the middle of it.  If you don't mind me asking, why do you look for high monthly edit counts at RfA?  I don't ask this to badger you over your vote, I'm curious. Gigs (talk) 15:04, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Just as an outsider on that matter, it might be that Dennis isn't looking for high monthly edits, but he may see that your edit count is low. Consistancy is an important factor for administrators, as it ensures they are around to see the changes that happen on the encyclopedia. Since the end of 2010, you haven't made more than 150 edits per month (except this month), which many would consider to be quite low. I'm always a little concerned when 1000 edits puts me in the middle of the previous year. <span style='text-shadow:0 -1px #DDD,1px 0 #DDD,0 1px #DDD,-1px 0 #DDD; color:#000;'>Worm TT( talk ) 15:10, 17 October 2012 (UTC)


 * I don't look for high edit counts, and having a few month gaps do not bother me. What I look for is a history (typically over the last 12 months) whereby the candidate is active most months, and they participate often enough to not only understand what they are doing, but to understand the changes that are going on, as Wikipedia is in constant flux.  Today, the expectations for admins is very different than 2 years ago, and certainly different than 6 years ago when I started.  To me, any candidate needs to have 12 months experience and 5000 edits to even be considered.  That is an average of over 400 edits per month (just over a dozen a day).  While you exceed that, your track record over the last 18 months doesn't.  It isn't a matter of holding an illness against you, it is simply not granting special exception for it either, and I think extending the "recent" period to 18 months is reasonable, or even generous.  Had I just limited it to 12 months, the result wouldn't have been much different.  We need admin, but we need admin who actually do something, and if you don't have the time to contribute more than an average of 2 edits per day over 18 months, regardless of reason, then I just can't see the benefit of having the tools. I don't just look at who can be trusted, but at who can be expected to do good things with them, which requires actual participation.  There are other concerns as well, but to me this is enough by itself.  And I'm just one voice, so I wouldn't worry too much about my singular opinion. Dennis Brown -  2&cent;    &copy;   Join WER 15:20, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

And now for something completely different

 * If feeling the wiki stress listen to this, you'll feel like a cool cat in no time at all!♦ Dr. Blofeld  15:30, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
 * As always, the good doctor knows what to prescribe. :) Nice blend of old school funk and modern jazz. Dennis Brown -  2&cent;    &copy;   Join WER 15:38, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Bah. I vote this. Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 15:41, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
 * That has a kind of Carlos Santana vs. Girl from Ipanema vibe to it. Dennis Brown - 2&cent;    &copy;   Join WER 15:48, 17 October 2012 (UTC)


 * is a good un, Particularly the guitar solo from 1:55 onwards. Ghostbusters plagiarised it. I'm into Torcuato Mariano at the moment, have a listen. ♦ Dr. Blofeld  20:25, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Efik language AFD
Following your observations earlier regarding my editor review, I’ve attempted to correct the Efik language AFD, although I’m also aware that the NAC statistics will nevertheless continue to list the closure as contradicting the majority. Regards, Mephistophelian  (contact).
 * Excellent. I was hoping you would get the hint.  Good summaries as well, have to always be careful when doing that so you don't confuse people.  I am going to try to get to the rest of the review this week.  Dennis Brown -  2&cent;    &copy;   Join WER 17:59, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

One month block
Hello. Please see the persisting drama at Sockpuppet_investigations/189.148.186.149, as well as my talk page. As you are the original blocking admin I'm making you aware of what I've said. I don't mean to compromise the authority of your block, which I think was a bit harsh, but I intend only to get this resolved in all our interests with the minimum of drama. I am sure there are formal rules and procedures someone will feel need to be followed, but I hope you can simply see where I'm coming from as I appear to ignore your admin action. Thanks. -- zzuuzz (talk) 19:16, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm always open to someone changing a decision or taking it to WP:AN to contest it, but if someone is evading a block and this hasn't been done, then they should be blocked for evasion. Keep in mind, this is a person that outed someone to a degree that revdel wasn't sufficient, and requiring oversight.   As such, I've blocked their current IP address and closed the SPI. The only reason I blocked for just a month is because they were an IP, had they been a registered user I would have indef'ed, until a period of time that they had sufficient clue.  Since they are IP hopping without remorse or consequences, it isn't likely they will get that clue.  I'm exceedingly patient with two good faith editors in a content dispute, but I don't pretend to be with someone sockpuppeting and causing disruption.  My suggestion is to block on sight.  They don't get a free pass simply because they refuse to register an account and can speak eloquently when it serves them. Dennis Brown -  2&cent;    &copy;   Join WER 19:47, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Well I only hope one day you'll understand and loosen up. There is too much drama for me in such pedantry. You are under review - I nearly said as much there. I would rather discuss concerns - particularly when the subject's BLP has been attacked - on a well monitored talk page, not a dynamic range where discussion is distributed and loose talk begins of puppets and breaches or violations of rules no reasonable person could be expected to have heard of. I would rather do without the bureaucratic documentation, the creation of categories labels whatever, the bad press and dent of character which only inflames subjects and pedants and helps no one, usually resulting in an angry OTRS or call to the foundation. Instead I find it is sometimes best to resolve problems instead of helping to create them. Still, all the best. -- zzuuzz (talk) 20:27, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
 * He outs someone, forced an oversight and revdel and has continued to be a problem, and I'm the bad guy? Maybe asking those others who commented at that review would be in order.  They know I'm slow to block and avoid drama.  You do not know me, friend, and you should not presume you do. Dennis Brown -  2&cent;    &copy;   Join WER 20:48, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

User:Iamthemuffinman's unblock request
Hi Dennis. Iamthemuffinman has (finally!) posted a sound-looking unblock request, which I'm inclined to grant. However, you and a number of other admins have been involved with his block in the past, so I'd like to get your take on it too; if you have a moment, please could you have a look at User talk:Iamthemuffinman and leave an opinion? Cheers, Yunshui 雲&zwj;水 12:53, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
 * That is a globally locked account, blocked on all wikis. I do believe that Arb is involved although it isn't documented on-wiki.  I am certain there is more than meets the eye going on.  I would strongly advise against any unblock that doesn't come directly from ArbCom in this particular case.  Dennis Brown -  2&cent;    &copy;   Join WER 13:12, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Advice appreciated, as always. It looks to me as though the account is now unlocked (otherwise it's my understanding that he wouldn't have been able to file an unblock request in the first place) but I've virtually no experience with global locks and defer to your judgement - I suspect I'm misunderstanding the log. Much obliged, Yunshui 雲&zwj;水 13:31, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Yunshui is right. This verifies the account not locked but blocked on a bunch of other wikis though.— cyberpower <sup style="color:red;font-family:arnprior">Chat<sub style="margin-left:-4.4ex;color:red;font-family:arnprior">Offline 19:09, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, if memory serves me, I was tied up two weeks waiting on ArbCom with this for reasons that are hard to explain. A CU might be able to explain better. Dennis Brown - 2&cent;    &copy;   Join WER 19:18, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I've commented there, but there are a few concerns that never made the pages at Wikipedia. Dennis Brown -  2&cent;    &copy;   Join WER 19:18, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi Dennis - just to give you a heads-up, since Elen found no evidence of recent sockpuppetry (nor a link to the suspected banned user) I've unblocked. If you disagree strongly and want more evidence or information, I won't consider you to be wheel-warring should you reinstate the block. Yunshui 雲&zwj;水 07:38, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
 * No, that is fine. The delay in unblocking wasn't my opinion, it was because ArbCom had already injected themselves in the situation and never gave me a final answer.  I never went to them, they came to me, via CU proxy.  Dennis Brown -  2&cent;    &copy;   Join WER 17:31, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

spi
I'd be happy to help, but not sure what you need. - jc37 23:17, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Administrators%27_noticeboard
 * Admin patrolling. The endorsing/declining/closing/archiving should only be done by clerks, but most cases are a matter of comparing contribs and if they are a clear duck, blocking and saying so.  if they are clearly NOT related, then saying so.  It boils down to duck recognition.  If you are comfortable with that, then we need that help.  Supplying diffs is sometimes helpful but usually not needed.  We keep it pithy and try to not tip off the socks why we know they are socks.  Look for cases that just say "open" and don't have a checkuser request tied to them.  Dennis Brown -  2&cent;    &copy;   Join WER 23:22, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Sure, duck watching in the park sounds like an interesting diversion.
 * If I manage to mangle formatting, please let me know : ) - jc37 23:25, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Ok, I think I understand. going to work my way up from the bottom. - jc37 23:36, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Usually, one of us clerks will fix the formatting. It is confusing, but clerks are used to fixing it, no biggie.  Dennis Brown -  2&cent;    &copy;   Join WER 23:42, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Nod. had that impression.
 * On a semi-related note, I've been reading through Template_messages/User_talk_namespace (and Category:Sockpuppet templates), and can't find one for "blocked due to socking" talk page notice. I can use a generic blocking notice, but thought I'd ask in case there's a specific one and I'm not seeing it. - jc37 00:02, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
 * We used the scripts. Check out my common.js file for the two scripts we use. Extremely handy, particularly mastcell's.  Dennis Brown -  2&cent;    &copy;   Join WER 00:05, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

— Berean Hunter   (talk)  13:21, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, it looks like you're getting help - I'm starting to run into edit conflicts : ) - jc37 00:49, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Usually from the person reporting or the person denying, which is why we often work a few cases at the same time. About a dozen is one sitting (plus archives and closings) is all I can handle on a good day, they take time.  Oh, and we generally do NOT notify people who are reported.  Just causes drama, and it seldom sheds light on the situation.  Dennis Brown -  2&cent;    &copy;   Join WER 01:40, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I understand.
 * I can understand the need for it, but the process took a bit to sift through. (Been awhile.) Oh and thanks for the opportunity to re-read block and sock (and related pages) - lol.
 * I think I knocked out the more basic ones (on two, I only commented - I think someone else should confirm on one and the other I'm inclined to think that perhaps a CU might be appropriate for the sock farm). I'll see about maybe tackling more later. - jc37 01:49, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
 * SPI, to me, is one of the trickiest places to clerk and operate out of. Even tougher than ANI, which I work regularly.  CU is helpful, but often is simply wrong, linking people who are really not the same, and failing to link people who are clearly the same.  A nice tool, but not a cure-all.  Having to check times of edits, patterns of summaries, edit styles, continuity of edits (do they edit one at a time, or in a series of several edits in a row?), grammar, structure, etc.  I spent some time as a criminal defense investigator in my youth, which helps, but investigation is something you can not do in a hit and run fashion, which is probably why it is hard to get people to work there full time.  I do find it rewarding, however. Dennis Brown -  2&cent;    &copy;   Join WER 12:27, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Jc37, you may find these procedures to be helpful.

Sock?
I know about AGF and all, but can you look over the contribs of User talk:Rotten regard? His first edits were with twinkle, removing PROD tags and the like. He has now reverted me to restore a non-admin closure he made to Articles for deletion/Flat Bastion Road (2nd nomination). Ryan Vesey 20:36, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Just as a note, I didn't realize that he had reverted me until half-way through this comment so I'm not screaming sock over a content dispute. Ryan Vesey 20:38, 17 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Dennis Brown - 2&cent;    &copy;   Join WER 20:51, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I have literally not been able to contact a CU in three hours. We have too few of them, 4 have left recently. :/ Dennis Brown -  2&cent;    &copy;   Join WER 23:54, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
 * No problem, nothing on Wikipedia is urgent to me right now. I'm hammering away at one of two essays I have due on Friday.  On an unrelated note, you've developed quite a name for yourself. Ryan Vesey 01:40, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm flattered, but I try to be careful to not take it too much to heart. I promise that I'm more flawed than the average bear, and maybe that knowledge helps keep me from screwing up too badly, too often.  Ironically, what he is talking about is exactly the quality I chose admins by, not technical skills.  You can learn technical skills.  Patience and tolerance are things that you either have or you don't.  Old age helps a little with those, I've found, as I was not nearly so patient in my 20s and 30s. Dennis Brown -  2&cent;    &copy;   Join WER 02:10, 18 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Well, an Arb/CU decided to not run a CU on the user. Actually, he called my report "fishing", but then reverted himself.  I assume he realized that was insulting, but the damage was already done in my eyes.  Dennis Brown -  2&cent;    &copy;   Join WER 02:57, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry about that, it is clear that Hersfold has misinterpreted WP:NOTFISHING since it clearly states that "Checking an account where the alleged sockmaster is unknown, but there is reasonable suspicion of sockpuppetry is not fishing, and a suspected sock-puppet's operator is sometimes unknown until a CheckUser investigation is concluded". (Emphasis in the original) In this case, we have a new account using Twinkle, closing AfD's improperly, but in the proper manner, undoing/reverting PROD and CSD tags, etc.  In addition the account was edit warring over the AfD.  Not only is there relatively obvious sockpuppetry, but the user is at least slightly disruptive.  I will note that a majority of the PROD removals I checked were good removals and the editor has reverted vandalism.  Do you want me to make my comment there? Ryan Vesey 03:07, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Not every "group" of editors shares the same opinion of me or my judgement. And no, you don't want to get dragged into that. Dennis Brown -  2&cent;    &copy;   Join WER 03:16, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Dennis, you wrote above, "I have literally not been able to contact a CU in three hours." I think enough is enough, don't you? Is there a place where I (or anyone) can nominate you for CU tools, like an RfA nomination? It'd be such a benefit to the entire community. --<small style="border: 1px dashed;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> Jethro  B  03:26, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
 * On that note User talk:Hersfold. Ryan Vesey 03:29, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I've actually asked an Arb about it before, twice in six months, but they declined to even reply to my email either time.  The policy is actually flexible, but the yearly elections for CU are "safe" for them, so it is doubtful that any of them would want to stick their neck out, and certainly not for me.  If it gets too much, I will just leave SPI to others, but I'm not planning on asking about it again.  And I'm flattered in the faith you both put in me.  It might not be fully earned on my end, but it is appreciated. I just hate being ineffective at my job, and right now, that is how I feel. Dennis Brown -  2&cent;    &copy;   Join WER 03:56, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
 * AFAIK CU elections are called either once a year  or when the need arises for more operators. It's a position that appears to  jealously guarded by the creator(s) of, or those ultimately  responsible  the system, and even innocent  enquiries about it from  experienced admins who  have worked in  that  area  can be met  'go away, get  more experience, and stop  hat-collecting' or words to  that  effect. It  is not  encouraging. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:27, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Yep. I've been turned down for it twice, and the only explanation I can come up with is that they think I would actually use it to block socks.&mdash;Kww(talk) 04:29, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Dennis, want to run for arbcom? Ryan Vesey 04:39, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Hell no. Some days I regret running for admin. Dennis Brown -  2&cent;    &copy;   Join WER 10:50, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
 * That's what I thought't you'd say. I wouldn't touch Arbcom with a ten foot pole.  The entire process is too bureaucratic and complex. Ryan Vesey 12:49, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I have no idea he thinks it would apply to me anyway, and the current Arbs should be able to choose candidates up to the day they leave "office" if they want to. It is fine if they don't want a special election for just one or two users (Berean Hunter would make an even better CU than I would, as would Kudpung) but the whole "lame duck session of Arbcom" excuse is very problematic in my eyes.  Not in his faith, but in practice, as that philosophy guarantees up to 2 months per year of unwillingness to tackle real problems.  And I've had a few people tell me privately that I should run for Arb, and I've told them each the same thing:  No.  Again, I'm flattered, but that isn't where I can do the most good here.  By the same token, I don't want to be forced to spend every hour on enwp doing CU, SPI or even just admin'ing in general either.  You spend too much time mopping up, you lose perspective and forget what it is like to just be an editor.  That isn't good for the system, and can make a person cynical and desensitized to the needs of the average editor. Dennis Brown -  2&cent;    &copy;   Join WER 13:27, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

See User_talk:Rotten regard. There's no conceivable explanation for this sequence of events that doesn't involve Rotten regard being an illegitimate account.&mdash;Kww(talk) 04:29, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I had almost blind blocked myself, was on the fence with only two opinions, Ryans and mine. Hersfold isn't a bad guy, but I wonder if Arbs get removed from the nitty gritty, just like some admins can lose the understanding of just being an editor.  Something I try to fight by actually creating more new articles and subjecting myself to DYK/GA, etc. nowadays.  Experienced CUs who work the front lines can compare the IPs, pull from previous experience, etc., and sometimes find the master.  I didn't expect another editor on the same IP either, I expected a previously blocked/banned editor in the same geolocation.  That takes more than the CU tools to figure out. Dennis Brown -  2&cent;    &copy;   Join WER 10:50, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

EditorReviewArchiver: Automatic processing of your editor review
This is an automated message. Your editor review is scheduled to be closed on 21 October 2012 because it will have been open for more than 30 days and inactive for more than 7 days. You can keep it open longer by posting a comment to the review page requesting more input. Adding  to the review page will prevent further automated actions. AnomieBOT ⚡ 13:20, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

*.111
I've left a further message here. -- RA (talk) 14:26, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Sorry to bother you
A user is revert warring with abandon. He has been warned, but persists. History of article is here. I don't know who to refer this to, so I apologise if this is not within your sphere of admin duties. ColaXtra (talk) 14:33, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I've left them a final warning. They are new, so I've granted a tiny bit of good faith here, but if they revert again, they should be blocked on the spot. My warning makes this clear.  Dennis Brown -  2&cent;    &copy;   Join WER 14:40, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I see you are at the limit as well, so be careful to not get dragged into the abyss. Dennis Brown -  2&cent;    &copy;   Join WER 14:43, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I hear you. Thank you kindly for your prompt attention, and I commend your typical generosity of spirit. ColaXtra (talk) 16:29, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
 * In this case, I really do think he is trying to do the right thing, but he is unaware of the rules. If you can help him understand, consider helping him.  He sounds like he might actually have a point, as the history of that article talk page is pretty ugly and there is reason to think there may be a lot of errors that he could help us fix, if he were steered in the right direction, ie: sources.  Dennis Brown -  2&cent;    &copy;   Join WER 16:32, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Message from Búfalo Barreto
Mr. Brown, I received your warning a few minutes ago and I keep telling that Alberto Fujimori's page is OK as I edit it. It has a lot of errors, I know because I'm Peruvian, and I know my History, please understand my point of view. Many teachers in the US including Peru tell us that Wikipedia is not a good website to get good information. I want to make Wikipedia look better, that's why I'm making look better the Peruvian Presidents pages. I won't continue reverting, but please understand. You can reply me writing a message in my talk page. Best Regards Búfalo Barreto (talk) 14:51, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Then use the talk page. Constantly edit warring is not allowed.  Edit warring is when someone just reverts over and over again.  As an admin, it is NOT my job to tell editors what should be on the article pages.  My job is only to insure that people are acting in good faith, not warring, and trying to work together.  I have no opinion on the edits you made.  I do have an opinion the quantity of edits you made, which is disruptive.  If we did not limit the number of times someone can revert another person's edit, it would be utter chaos at Wikipedia.  Again, use the talk page, discuss this with other editors but do not revert or you will force my hand in blocking you. Even if you are 100% right, you still have to work here in a cooperative fashion. Dennis Brown -  2&cent;    &copy;   Join WER 15:03, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
 * They asked you to reply on their talk page, which, I think, is the "standard" convention (not that many of us use it any more) -- not sure if they'll know to check back here for a reply. Nobody Ent 15:34, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Leave him alone, you worthless nobody! It's really hard being an admin. Everyone is always so mean to them. Go away and write some content, dirtbag! Apologist for admin 16:45, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I've indef blocked this obviously compromised account. ;-) Dennis Brown - 2&cent;    &copy;   Join WER 16:48, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I'm at work, a bit distracted. Was going to put a TB template, but just copied my comment over to them.  Dennis Brown -  2&cent;    &copy;   Join WER 15:36, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
 * He was taken to 3RR, I've asked them to not act and see if my warnings and information will be sufficient. The articles have problems, and I think he is truly trying to fix them but doesn't understand policy, so I hate to see him blocked after he has already been warned and he has complied.  Dennis Brown -  2&cent;    &copy;   Join WER 15:49, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Mr. Brown, I know that you are working right now. I think you understand that I'm trying to make the pages look better. I won't revert, but the problem is the INFO-BOXES. An editor called RJFF told me that it's usually a summary not the whole information, but why does the US Presidents have a lot of information and the Peruvian should not. Sorry for interrupting but I'll try to fit in Wikipedia's policy but I keep telling that you are also reverting the Peruvian President's pages. I know peruvian history, and I'm trying to put the whole information in the INFO-BOXES. I won't discuss this conflict with others. I want to make you understand that my job is to improve Wikipedia articles so people get good information. Sorry for any inconvenience, Best Regards Búfalo Barreto (talk) 16:05, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm going to move this to your page and reply there. Lets just keep the conversation in one place, there.  Dennis Brown -  2&cent;    &copy;   Join WER 16:07, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Thank You for the Advice. Have a good day. Búfalo Barreto (talk) 16:33, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Problematic editor
Hi Dennis, I am wondering whether your impressive calm could be put to good effect in relation to edits made by at Indian Postal Service. They have gone well beyond 3RR today and have chosen to continue on their merry way despite warnings and explanations both on their talk page and on mine. They are enthusiastic/knowledgeable (to the point of having a COI) and I'd rather try to avoid the blunt instrument that is WP:3RRNB. If we can get the guy onside then he could be a real asset in this niche area. - Sitush (talk) 17:02, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
 * ✅ - I've left a personalized, clear (and respectful) message that I think was appropriate in the situation, directing him to the teahouse, informing him of the problems with reverts, and pointing to WP:BRD. Hopefully that will work, otherwise, the boards will have to deal with it.  Help if you can, because I am betting he has a lot to offer us, he just doesn't know how to do it properly yet.  Dennis Brown -  2&cent;    &copy;   Join WER 17:20, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks, and I agree with the "help" sentiment. I've not bothered checking whether he was the person responsible for all the copyvios etc and, to be honest, if I can get him to follow the norms without hitting him over the head then it would be far better because making sense of the website from which those copyvios were taken is a nightmare for me but would be easy for him. That is just one of the many points where his expertise would come in. - Sitush (talk) 17:25, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Exactly! This is why putting up with some behavioral problems at first (due to not understanding the rules) is always a good trade-off.  The guy is obviously smart and could be a tremendous asset.  Dennis Brown -  2&cent;    &copy;   Join WER 17:29, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

COI rewrite
Well, all this talk lately about COI has motivated me. You seem to understand where the problems in our current guidelines are judging by your comment on AN/I, so I'd appreciate your collaboration (and that of any of your Jaguars that would like to pitch in). Conflict_of_interest/draft Gigs (talk) 22:14, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Was I out of line here?
Would you mind taking a quick look at the "edit help" section on my talk page? The user was upset that I added a ' to make the subject of an article he'd created bold rather than italic with an extra apostrophe. I tried to assume good faith, but he was quite perturbed, and I just wanted to know if his "perturbedness" was justified, in your opinion. No hurry, just curious. Go  Phightins  !  02:20, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Go   Phightins  !  02:39, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I've left a note on the new editor's talk page. He's being unnecessarily confrontational, but I think that's because of a misunderstanding. Ryan Vesey 02:41, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Yup, you and Dennis make a great team! He replied to the thread on my talk page and you replied on his. Thanks for your help, both of you. Go   Phightins  !  02:42, 19 October 2012 (UTC)


 * You are talking over each other. Honestly, this is one of those situations where it is best to say "Ok, sorry about the misunderstanding.  If I can help you, feel free to drop me a line on my talk page" and walk away.  Right or wrong isn't the issue.  He was frustrated from trying to edit a new article and getting stepped on with edit conflicts.  New article editors aren't used to having someone look over their shoulder, it is a little disconcerting, so I try to leave new articles that aren't obvious problem alone for 15 minutes or so.  And this isn't saying you did anything wrong, it is just about remembering what it is like being very new and someone POPS IN on you.  You and I are used to it, they aren't.  It is about empathy, that is all.  Dennis Brown -  2&cent;    &copy;   Join WER 02:42, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Way past my bed time, I'm out.... Dennis Brown - 2&cent;    &copy;   Join WER 02:44, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Sleep well :) Go   Phightins  !  02:46, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I understand, and I probably should have apologized in the initial exchange. I remember what it was like, Ravendrop and Paulmcdonald were the first editors I encountered and I was particularly upset at Paul because he tagged a page I created for AFD. It made me mad, but I got over it, and now Paul is one of my most highly regarded editors. Thanks. Go   Phightins  !  02:45, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

talkback
User_talk:Nobody Ent Just wanted to follow up on the policy conundrum (putting aside the admins-are-evil tangent) Nobody Ent 02:50, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Edit war IPS
need to stop for a minute on Indian Postal Service, Mr. Postmaster.

Sir, thanks for the guidance, I assure you to be abide with the rules & polices of editting. G C GOYAL SENIOR POSTMASTER (GAZETTED) JALANDHAR CITY PUNJAB INDIA--Postmasterjalandhar (talk) 13:13, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
 * No problem, we are happy to have someone with your experience here, and we understand how confusing the rules can be sometimes, but there really is a good reason for the methods we use. If I can help you in any way, by all means, just ask here on my talk page.  Dennis Brown -  2&cent;    &copy;   Join WER 13:17, 19 October 2012 (UTC)