User talk:Dennis Brown/Archive 37

Wheel war AN
You state none of the three have complained; I'd classify this as a complaint. NE Ent 13:56, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Weakly complaining at best. Typically, if admin can work it out without interference, I prefer they at least try, then AN, then ARB.  When I wrote that, I don't think they had tried to deal with it admin to admin (to admin) yet, which is why I wanted to see what each had to say, where the lines were drawn.  Three admin in a button pushing contest is kind of rare, after all.  I think the one editor (I forget who) talking about Arb was amazingly premature.  It belongs at AN of course, but until they speak (and WP:ADMINACCT pretty much demands it, they have no choice or they will face Arb), my comment was designed to just slow down the speculation and drama. Your link is interesting, but not exactly a smoking gun when it comes to complaining in an official way, and more like "well hell, I wish he would just explain". Like you (typically), I prefer to stay somewhere north of "naive" and south of "presumptuous", although I can't say I always get it right. Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 19:32, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for being level-headed
I'm not really sure how to use wikipedia very well, but I do often lurk around ever since GG started a year ago. That being said, I'm glad to see you pointed out the battleground mentality in the BenMcLean case. It isn't just the usual editors on the GG page that make the whole thing bothersome, it's people that take minor conflicts and escalate them to somehow prove themselves "right" that makes this whole thing a mess. And that's only the tip of the iceberg! So once again, thanks for being rather calm and collected throughout this ordeal. And this is coming from a "GamerGater," haha. 65.78.150.19 (talk) 22:59, 19 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Appreciate the show of faith. For me, it is about helping preserve a good editing environment for editors who wish to follow policy and take a rational approach to writing. I've never edited there, didn't participate in the Arb case, and haven't even read the article to be honest, so I don't have a bias or "side" in this.  I trust our editors to hammer the issues out and make the article as balanced as it can be, if they are given the chance.  Removing tendentious editors (regardless of their POV) is the only way to give the process a fighting chance. Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 23:16, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Concerns to not be archived

 * and, closed ANI at

Your e-mail
Without a target, it's tough. Nothing pops up. That doesn't mean you're wrong, of course, just that the limited technical data doesn't lead anywhere. Take care.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:31, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for taking the time . Obviously you saw why I had questions, but I understand that .  Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 14:17, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

That problem
I don't think the existing "final warning" applies to other editor's user talk pages, does it? If it doesn't, I think User talk:Sturmgewehr might contain information of interest to you. Personally, although I regret seeing such comments, I don't see them as rising to the level of sanctionability. Personally, I have to think that some of the comments made in the first discussion linked to seem to contain comments of a type which could be seen as being disparaging of Hijiri, and to at least my eyes could be seen as being within the bounds of the final warning you imposed. So, although he might not believe this, in this case I don't myself think Hijiri has necessarily done anything sanctionable to raise the concern on Sturmgewehr's talk page, but I do think that the disparaging comments directed against him might qualify. You are, of course, free to ignore this comment from me altogether, if you so see fit, but thanks for basically being willing to take on this matter. John Carter (talk) 18:58, 20 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Sturmgewehr has one edit, . Wrong link? Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 19:01, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
 * How the hell did I miss that? It's Sturmgewehr88, not Sturmgewehr. The discussion is at User talk:Sturmgewehr88. Sorry about that, he said sheepishly. John Carter (talk) 19:05, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I found it. I wonder if I can just delete the whole article and make them start from scratch, making me the common enemy, and maybe they would join forces instead of bickering?  If only it were that easy.  It is pretty obvious at  that CurtisNaito is using ad hominem, but I'm wondering if Hijiri 88's timing of the GA review was to antagonize rather than solve a problem.  Not saying he is wrong (I have no idea, never read the article) just curious if there were better solutions and why he chose a GA review, as those are always drama fests.  If I was confident H was antagonizing, then I could overlook C's reaction.  I may be forced to just bring them both to AN and get a topic ban, which I think is more effective than blocking.  I'm reasonably confident I can get a consensus, as everyone is sick of hearing about them.  Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 19:13, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Dennis this is starting to look like a pattern of Hijiri88 using other editors to continue his bad behaviour. There is also this post on Curly Turkey's page by Hijiri88. To me it looks like a 3 way tag team is forming and if one gets caught, the rest will show up at AN/I to defend the accused.  AlbinoFerret  21:25, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
 * AlbinoFerret has had issues with Hijiri and myself separately and has been trying to paint us as a "tag team" ever since he found out we both happen to work frequently at WP:JAPAN. You'd be hard pressed to find us collaborating on anything but defending ourselves from AlbinoFerret.  For the record: yes, I'm accusing AlbinoFerret of bad faith. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 21:50, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
 * actually, he had asked CurlyTurkey and I personally, and an open request on the article talk page, to file a GAR specifically because he didn't want others to claim it was filed just to continue "harrassing" CurtisNaito. He filed it because the original GA assessment was poorly done and shouldn't have passed in the first place, and he probably felt that someone had to do it if no one else was willing or able to.
 * The article in question was completely rewritten by CurtisNaito, who has a history of WP:SYNTH and misrepresenting sources. Even after blatant evidence of his mistakes/wrongdoings are thrown in his face, he repeatedly deflects or denies/ignores it. Even after I warned him on his talk page that I would be monitoring his behavior for violations of your final warning, he thrice now denied that there were ever any sourcing issues when direct evidence was presented, and soon after basically said that it doesn't matter that there were sourcing issues "then" because there aren't any "now" (that has yet to be proven). He and TH1980 have gone so far as to even blame Hijiri for the sourcing issues which CurtisNaito introduced. I think this more than warrants sanctions, since it is now obvious that he isn't going to change his behavior anytime soon.  ミーラー強斗武   (StG88ぬ会話) 03:54, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I regret to say that Hijiri88's latest comment, at User talk:Curly Turkey, seems to show a continuation of the habit of rather petty vindictiveness which seems to have been at least somewhat apparent since he decided to trash Catflap on the Editor Retention project talk page. I definitely think, given his persistent, rather purposeless, use of abusive language towards others who might disagree with him for no obvious purpose or benefit other than indulging that habit, that perhaps either ArbCom or maybe a broader "final warning" to Hijiri might be called for, because it does seem to be an ongoing habit of his. John Carter (talk) 18:30, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
 * The mail was a notice about AlbinoFerret's bad-faith accusation above. Why is AlbinoFerret not being called out on his vindictiveness and drama-fomenting? Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 21:55, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
 * how is "AlbinoFerret's tinfoil kettle" any worse than you reffering to Hijiri as "That problem"?  ミーラー強斗武   (StG88ぬ会話) 21:57, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
 * It wouldn't be, if that is in fact what I had done, which it is not. I was actually referring to the ongoing Hijiri/Curtis Naito dispute, and, honestly, I wasn't thinking of either party individually. In fact, if you had bothered to read my comments, which you rather obviously refused to do before making your unsupportable ad hominem accusation above, I said that I personally didn't find much fault with Hijiri. Having said that, allow me to very sincerely thank you for demonstrating that your input in these matters is rather obviously driven by your own partisan presumptions, and not by any apparent review of the situation being discussed before throwing in wildly unfounded personal accusations against those whom you prejudicially judge. John Carter (talk) 18:16, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I apologize, and I've struck my comment. I had read your comments of course, however, although you said Hijiri wasn't in the wrong this time, you've stated a few times at ANI that Hijiri is a problem and needs to be sanctioned, so I wrongly thought "that" referred to him. Partisanship has nothing to do with my involvement, I just see CurtisNaito as a disruptive editor who's damage needs to be controlled, and who has gotten away with it more than enough.  ミーラー強斗武   (StG88ぬ会話) 18:35, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
 * And you also "just" seem to make irrational, unsupportable judgments regarding virtually anyone who ever disagrees with Hijiri. I am beginning to think, myself, that the allegations of a team effort to support Hijiri at almost all costs is, unfortunately, becoming more obvious. While I can and do understand that some editors would be willing to bend over backwards to defend someone who has been described as "brittle" and "paranoid" by others, including admins, I have to wonder whether the frequency with which they might do so, and the rapidity with which they chime in to such disputes, may be at least as disruptive, if not at times more so, than the problem they might be acting to address. John Carter (talk) 18:46, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
 * actually I made a rational, supportable judgement that happened to be mistaken, but aside from that, no one on this "team effort" agrees with Hijiri 100%. This conspiracy theory that there is a cabal supporting Hijiri "at almost all costs" is completely unfounded. Did anyone show up to defend him when he just shot himself in the foot at AN? Is anyone going to blindly follow him into the darkness if that's the path he takes? I support him when he's right, oppose him when I don't agree, and walk away when he's wrong, just as I would with any other editor.  ミーラー強斗武   (StG88ぬ会話) 03:41, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Or, for that matter, AlbinoFerret posting, with reference to my "bad behaviour" of starting a good article reassessment (!), Dennis this is starting to look like a pattern of Hijiri88 using other editors to continue his bad behaviour. There is also this post on Curly Turkey's page by Hijiri88. To me it looks like a 3 way tag team is forming and if one gets caught, the rest will show up at AN/I to defend the accused. Referring to this a tinfoil hat theory, and lampshading the fact that AlbinoFerret and John Carter are the last people who should be talking about "tag-teaming", is not a personal attack even approaching the gross assumption of bad faith that inspired it. The only reason


 * I'm just curious how far this will go. This isn't ANI, after all.  My first question would be "is the GAR of the article  a reasonable action?", and no, I don't want to hear from ANY interested party, but instead by someone completely outside the article, including stalkers.  is very high on the list of people whose judgement I would trust in such a manner, although I wouldn't blame him if he didn't want to volunteer to look only at the merits of the GAR, and ignore the drama.  and  are other obvious choices, and lord knows there are plenty more who know GA well enough to objectively judge if the GAR is a reasonable response. That isn't the answer, that is just the first question. Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 22:12, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
 * User:MSJapan is pretty uninvolved and neutral, and he agrees the article should be delisted. It seems inappropriate for someone to claim that an article should not be delisted as a GA unless they themselves have examined the article. But I agree, some even more outside input would be welcome, and I very much hope one or more of the users you name will show up on the GAR.
 * And no, my timing was not a violation of your last warning, because I was already drafting the GAR several weeks earlier. None of my comments on GAR have violated BLUDGEON, IDHT, V, OR, NPA or AGF: Curtis, on the other hand, has now violated your final warning at least three times without so much a wrist-slap.
 * Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 01:12, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Commented here. Yes, an inadequate GA review, but on the surface it does seem to have the basics and is well sourced enough for GA. The question is whether the sourcing issue is as extensive as H88 suggests. That does need to be sound for GA. I do think given its importance that editors should work hard in good faith towards retaining it as a GA instead of an immediate delisting, but it depends on whether it'll take days/week or two or months to really fix. ♦ Dr. Blofeld  06:43, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
 * If the editors focused their efforts on working out the problems I imagine it would be fixed in a reasonable amount of time. The disputes at the article go far beyond those between Hijiri and CurtisNaito, though—different editors have different ideas about what needs to be there and are bickering about it rather than working towards solutions.  There have been 240 edits by 35 editors to the article since the promotion less than a month ago and still a lot of criticism from knowledgeable editors on the talk page—concerns about bias and missing key names and events, etc. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 07:54, 22 September 2015 (UTC)


 * I suggest working on a draft at History of Japan to avoid edit warring and then a neutral admin can review the changes and update the article once there is general consensus. Might be difficult seeing full agreement on such an article though.♦ Dr. Blofeld  09:10, 22 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Let me be clear about my intentions: My first goal is always to find a resolution that doesn't use any of the admin tools or authority. That is a given.  Second, I raise this question because I can concerns that 's choice to go to GAR might have been unwise (best case scenario).  It does seem the timing wasn't exactly brilliant, considering it would cause a lot of drama and there are other options available.  This isn't about rules or policy, this is about judgement.  I'm going to take the good doctor at his word and assume that GAR was one option but not the only option.  I have no interest in delving into the content here, that is outside of the scope of my role.  The objective is finding a solution, not one that is best for Hijiri88 or, but one that is best for everyone else trying to edit that article, because I'm more concerned about that, and general fairness, than I am individual editors here.  Dr. Blofeld has offered a suggestion, taking it to a neutral area and rewritting major sections while leaving the current version more or less intact.  Technically, it can be done as a subpage of the talk article, but where isn't so important.  I'm interested in hearing what the two parties think is a fair way to start building a consensus.  If we can't find common ground and at least start working in the same direction, it kind of forces my hand here, because the drama is piling up too deep with this topic.  We are reaching the edges of what is proper to deal with on my talk page, and approaching an WP:AN discussion.  Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 13:12, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I hesitate to post this, because your talk page may not be the best place to go into details. But Hijiri88 has posted to Dr. Blofeld's talk page. That post is directly on point to past negative behaviours "TH1980, a long-time enabler of the nominator and longer-time wiki-stalker of me". AlbinoFerret  17:17, 22 September 2015 (UTC)


 * @Among the many problems with the good article review, the biggest problem is that all the issues which Hijiri pointed out in his introductory statements are issues which he already changed before bringing the article to good article review. Hijiri made minor clarifications, and I disagree they were serious problems, but ultimately good article review should be about correcting problems that exist in an article, not problems which no longer exist. Hijiri did not mention one single problem with the article which had not already been changed. I doubt the article will be delisted based on nonexistent problems, so the good article review is not particularly useful. I think the best solution would be to cancel the good article review and discuss any remaining issues, if there are any, on the article talk page.
 * However, it's true that there are some trust issues. I verified the citations in the article, but Hijiri doesn't believe me. The user TH1980 also verified the citations, but Hijiri doesn't believe him either. TH1980 and I have both read the book written by Kenneth Henshall, whereas Hijiri has acknowledged that he doesn't actually have access to the source he is criticizing.
 * We could certainly redraft the article, but I have to ask Dennis Brown and Dr. Blofeld, who will do it? I could do it, but I'm not sure if Hijiri would accept that. has read and verified the sources cited in the article, and he says that he wants to do "a thorough copy-edit" on the article. Therefore, he could probably play a major role in the redraft, but would Hijiri accept that? Hijiri just yesterday called TH1980 "a long-time enabler of the nominator and longer-time wiki-stalker of me" which doesn't seem to indicate a collaborative attitude to editing with him.
 * Hijiri himself has said that "my involvement with redrafting might be minor", so he apparently isn't going to do it. Curly Turkey says, "I've withdrawn my services", so he apparently isn't going to do it. Like I said, I have time to volunteer my services for this project, but if my participation isn't acceptable, then we need to know, who will write the redraft?CurtisNaito (talk) 17:27, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
 * The sourcing concerns which were raised don't appear to have any merit, but one other user did mention the need for a copy edit of the article. I don't really want to redraft the article myself, but I will copyedit it and once I finish my copy edit redrafting probably won't be necessary. I would like Hijiri to not make any further personal attacks on me like the ones he made yesterday, but this post was also brought to my attention, and if Hijiri has something he wants to say to me I'd rather he say it to me directly rather than ask another user to speak for him.TH1980 (talk) 20:25, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm the one who called for a copyedit. Actually, I had begun one before I was chased off.  I also don't trust TH1980. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 21:15, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Give TH1980 credit for volunteering to handle the copy editing. I personally prefer action to talk. Besides, he wasn't the one who "chased you off". Still, having two copy editors is not a bad thing, and since you are still actively commenting on the talk page, you should really consider helping him out by contributing some additional copy edits of your own.CurtisNaito (talk) 21:27, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I personally prefer action to talk.: I can see that—every attempt I've made to open a disussion has been shut down. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 22:05, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
 * The two people who you accused of shutting down discussion have not edited the article in a week or more. I think we already have ideas down on the talk page, and if someone thinks the ideas are good, then they might as well go ahead and make an attempt to translate ideas into article edits.CurtisNaito (talk) 22:26, 22 September 2015 (UTC)


 * To be clear, I do see as the primary problem here, but not the only problem.  As far as the GAR, it has already started, I'm not even sure the process to reverse or whatever (I'm not a GA specialist) but maybe you can ignore the opening statement and just use it as an opportunity to verify anything that really isn't, and to clean up the copy where needed.  You both put me in tight spot.  The easiest thing is to push a topic ban for your both at WP:AN, and given all the problem, I don't think it would be that hard to do.  What I would prefer is if you find a way to work together.  The personal comments by everyone (yes, Hijiri88 in particular, but everyone) needs to stop.  I'm not remotely thinking about short term blocks here, it will either be long term or topic bans.  At the end of the day, my job is to help make the article a pleasant place for everyone to edit.  It isn't to verify who is right or wrong on content.  That is YOUR jobs, all of you.  Work with what you have.  And when this is through, and perhaps anywhere else, avoid each other.  I have a quote from one of my favorite shows Farscape on my user page, by Scorpius. "My patience is formidable.... But it is not infinite."  All this fussing over what should be simple has exhausted the patience of everyone.  Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 21:09, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, if you have a good idea for working together tell me about it. I can redraft whatever portions of the article need to be redrafted once we know what criteria are supposed to be used for redrafting. TH1980 has been kind enough to verify the sources and start some copy-editing. If anything else is necessary, I might be able to handle it once I know what it is.CurtisNaito (talk) 21:22, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Dennis Brown, please point to a single personal comment made by me since your final warning. We all know CurtisNaito and TH1980 have been resorting almost exclusively to ad hominem remarks, but where have I done so? Where have I violated IDHT and V and NOR? Why have you not blocked CurtisNaito for repeatedly violating your final warning? Why are you repeatedly threatening to block me for supposedly violating your warning even though no one can find any evidence of me doing so? If you really want to make editing the page better for everyone but me and CurtisNaito, why don't you do what they would all request and block or TBAN CurtisNaito, who is the one disrupting everything? Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 01:08, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Your comment at WP:AN, which continues your ongoing tendency to gratuitously insult others while at the same time displaying your remarkably poor grasp of basic conduct guidelines, is I think a very good example of it. At no point did Dennis say he could find no evidence of misconduct. He didn't. Please refrain from this other rather silly habit of yours, attempting to put straw man arguments in the mouths of others for no other purpose that I can see than distraction. Dennis, I believe the obnoxiously insulting comments made by Hijiri at AN are themselves grounds for a rather longish block, particularly considering your prior warning, but believe that decision is best left to you. John Carter (talk) 01:27, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

FYI, you may or may not be getting an e-mail from another editor in the next few days regarding an early matter marginally related to this incident. If you don't, let me know, and I can forward to you what I have. John Carter (talk) 23:08, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

On strike
Hi Dennis. I can't see why you saw the need to go on strike. At least it's still there and users can read it. Though it does reinforce my assumption that a great many participants at Wikipedia discussions are very poor readers of others' comments; not even an allusion has been made by any of the other voters to my earlier subtle reference to that page in my own oppose vote, which if anyone had taken the trouble, and put two and two together, they would see that it was practically my main reason for opposing. Anyone who defends the notion of incivility with impunity for prolific content providers and FA reviewers, or who maintains that Wikipedia's record holder for block logs never issues unprovoked PA and back-stabbing, or who regularly joins forces with the AAB, does not, IMO, merit the admin flag. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:45, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
 * If you're referring to me then you've got a lot of explaining to do. Let's start with "back-stabbing" shall we? Eric   Corbett  01:59, 21 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Two people I respect complained, one publicly, one privately. I disagree with them, but respect them enough to at least compromise.  Of course, none of this was Eric's doing, it was her own choice.  If it were a non-RfA editor, then I could overlook a bit, but while someone is at RfA, I hold them to the standard of admin in their conduct, and had I done the same thing, I would expect both friend and foe to hold me to account for it and at least scold me.  Whether it was truly canvassing or just bad judgement I can't say.  I honestly have little interaction with Montana and never have had a bad experience or impression as editor, so all this stuff at her RfA has been surprising.  The couple of times I've chatted privately with her, she seemed quite likable, but that isn't the criteria. Striking was easy enough because I don't think there is a very strong chance it will pass anyway.  I don't expect to move from neutral, although the incident obviously made me ponder it. Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 06:56, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your input on my RfA blunder
I wanted to express my gratitude for you taking the time to comment on the unfortunate incident I caused by inadvertently voting in an RfA process. As a new user who had already publically embarrassed himself, the extremely intense and cold treatment from the anti-sockpuppet editors was almost completely disheartening. An encouraging edit was a welcome sight. Thank you, Jasphetamine (talk) 14:36, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Not a problem. Best to avoid meta areas like ANI, AFD, RFA and all the other acronyms until you get a feel for the place.  it is a bit rough and tumble, and frankly, articles are way more important anyway.  The WP:Teahouse is a good place to start with questions, lots of very nice people there willing to help. Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 15:00, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Yulia again
Disruptive editing has resumed on Yulia Tymoshenko which you semi-protected on 30 August 2015. I reverted two disruptive edits by Gal777, which were suspiciously similar to the previous ones. Could you, please, have a look? Againstdisinformation (talk) 16:22, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm kind of stuck, that is one person and he is likely autoconfirmed by now. At this stage, I recommend calmly explaining to him why you reverted on his talk page.  A show of good faith.  Taking action too quickly is dangerously close to an admin deciding content, something that we have always avoid.  Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 16:57, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Good day! The user:Againstdisinformation has deleted the information about the decision of the European court, as well as information about Russian aggression. It is no secret that Russia is at war against Ukraine. Therefore, I believe that the user:Againstdisinformation is working against Tymoshenko.--Gal777 (talk) 17:39, 22 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Jesus Christ, you have got to be kidding me. So he's a KGB agent now?  If you are here to right great wrongs then your career is going to be a short one.  Use the talk page, edit less, stop accusing people of being agents for Russia, or you will end up blocked.  If you can't work with people you disagree with, you can't edit here. Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 20:59, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I just do not want to Tymoshenko on page removed important information about the European Court, political persecution.--Gal777 (talk) 21:09, 22 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Then take it to the talk page. See what a consensus (kind of like a majority) of other editors think about it.  Then live with that consensus.  This is how we do everything here: slowly, deliberately, with consensus.  We are an encyclopedia, not a newspaper.  Our job isn't to get it fast, it is to get it right.  Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 21:11, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
 * thank you! The fact that information about the European Court very important information on the page. I will definitely discuss this topic.--Gal777 (talk) 21:18, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, he reinstated his edits without discussion. I will explain to him on his talk page why his edits are not constructive. After that, I am afraid I will leave the matter to you. I hope you won't mind, I have already been accused of edit warring, even of being paid by the Kremlin, for pointing out inaccuracies (euphemism) on this article and another one. However, I think we cannot leave the claim that ECHR recognized Tymoshenko was tortured on Wikipedia. It is simply not true. Againstdisinformation (talk) 22:04, 22 September 2015 (UTC)


 * You may have to leave it to ANI, I might be gone a few days, not sure yet. Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 03:25, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

ARCA appeal
You are involved in a recently-filed request for clarification or amendment from the Arbitration Committee. Please review the request at Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the Arbitration guide may be of use.

Thanks, Soham321 (talk) 19:59, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!
Thanks Dark. I don't get preachy about it here, but I'm a supporter of all those who serve. Having done so myself, I understand the sacrifice involved. Having been a military brat and having a father gone most of the time before I was 5 while he was in Asia, I understand that sacrifice as well. It isn't an easy life, either way. Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 19:23, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Thank you
I appreciate your good faith efforts on my case. Brad Dyer (talk) 19:15, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
 * No problem. Politically charged cases are tough, and I'm sure I will catch hell for it from a number of people, but all I can do is follow my conscience, which said that it was past time.  Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 19:21, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
 * In the future, before you unblock an editor who was part of the crux of an arbcom case, can you please tell the list. -- Guerillero &#124;  Parlez Moi  20:11, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
 * There was no action on the case and no Arb had spoken on his page during his 30+ day long block, nor as an Arb at the SPI, so I assumed there was nothing unknown to me, but by all means, I will do so in the future, User:Guerillero. Anyone looking at the page knew I was considering it, and if Arb didn't want him unblocked, it would seem *some* kind of notification should have been given in public on his page.  Even Floq, a former arb who extended the original block, made it clear that any single admin could unblock without permission.  So you can see why this is a puzzling message for me.   Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 20:17, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
 * In the future, if ArbCom wants to be able to veto an unblock, can they please tell everyone else? --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:26, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
 * (I am not speaking for the arbs.) The account was tagged as a sock and the SPI was quick closed as a DUCK case. I would have liked for a CU to confirm that this isn't NorCal before unblocking. This is especially true because I, and I think most people did too, assumed that Brad was a sock before the case was accepted. Now, we need to reexamine if our outlook on the case needs to change because our assumptions were false. I'm sure you remember this yourself, Floq, how difficult cases become when things shift in the middle. A heads up would have been nice. However, what is done is done and I am not going to run a CU to look more into this.  -- Guerillero  &#124;  Parlez Moi  20:52, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
 * The SPI was archived, I'm the one that reopened it, just to be sure, and tried to get evidence so a CU would look at it. There was no evidence presented in that SPI, it was a promise of email.  At no time during that case, there was never any evidence presented outside a vague claim by the reporter.  It was open 36 days before a CU closed it due what I imagine is a lack of evidence presented.  The case can still be reopened, for that matter.  This is one reason I made the call on the block, as I knew the SPI rules, having spent a year as clerk and have 1500 SPI blocks behind me, thus familiar with the case fully.  As an admin, I can't keep him blocked due to a pending SPI (even tho I did), there is no policy that supports that.  He satisfied the other requirements for an unblock.  Still now, I see a routine case, even if it started as a politically charged one. I promise, I will contact CU, Arb, whoever, if the situation warrants it, and I did in this case: CU.  Arb never asserted a right to review in the block log, where I would expect it to be.  Again, you message caught me off guard, since I had already put it in front of Functionaries. Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 21:33, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I didn't realize that the email of evidence never came. (I must be going mad because I don't remember this on functionaries-l or CU-l at all.) Please ignore me then. -- Guerillero &#124;  Parlez Moi  21:39, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I understand . It is easy to make mistakes in these cases, so I was careful, and slow.  In the end, someone uninvolved has to make the call, yes or no, and ignore how popular or unpopular it will be.  So I did. Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 22:13, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I am rather shocked to see you didn't bother to notify me that you re-opened the SPI. I didn't archive this willy-nilly, at the time I did so I had checked the account twice, and found it consistent with everything I could find to NoCal100.  (Admittedly this is not an exact science with old data, but the data does line up as it exists.) Courcelles (talk) 02:15, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

This is twice now that an Arb has piped in. Vanjagenije closed with case with the comment "Already blocked. Closing the case", and removed the CU request in the process. You archived with no comment. (note: normally, a CU that ran a CU didn't used to close or archive, leaving for uninvolved persons to do) I reopened it and notified the clerk, who then came to Brad's page saying he closed it due to "procedural grounds", ie: Brad being blocked for other reasons (when did we start dropping cases for this reason?). No evidence was presented. Vanjagenije previously put a tag on Brad's page, but later admitted that the case had zero evidence and wasn't pursued, so that can't be used as "evidence", it is just a template, and the clerk should have spoken up if there was more to it.

There is no public record that you ran a CU here or did anything with this case. You mashed the "archive" button, the most mundane thing a person can do at SPI,, that is all I can see. It is unreasonable for you to come here now on my talk page and say that I should have contacted you, and the same for. I've tried to be very careful with the case, and respectful with the above concerns, but this is ridiculous. Look at the time frames, This review was very public and drug out over a month, using all the public information available, multiple pings to the blocking admin included. I followed policy as closely as you can do here, I do NOT have to contact CU or Arb unless there is a block summary or other notice in an obvious place, yet two Arbs are on my page telling me I fucked up because they didn't tell anyone they had more info (it sounds like Guerillero didn't even know about your CU). No one marked/reblocked his block log as a CU block, which is absolutely standard operating procedure, we all know this. Admins aren't mind readers and it is unreasonable to come here and tell me I should have been. If you guys have CU evidence that he is a sockpuppet, why haven't you blocked him with a CU block now? That part makes the least sense of all. Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 06:59, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
 * When a CU is doing the archiving, it is not without looking through to make things are in order, and to make a general once-over that things are running well. I load them all up, see what went on, often run sleeper checks, and only then archive them away. It was my edit and action you reverted, not the clerk's, and yet it was only the clerk you made aware of the action.  If I had been so informed, I would have reblocked. Courcelles (talk) 17:58, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
 * It is odd that CUs archive differently than admin or non-admin clerks, but I will take you at your word. I did revert your close, but you wouldn't have unblocked, as that was almost a month before I unblocked.  I notified the only name that communicated in the case that was associated with SPI in a formal way.  If CU archives are so very different, it would seem your clerk should have notified you.  I get why Yunshui might not see what you see (pixie dust and all) but I'm still confused as to why the block then, but no block now.  This is just a prime example of the confusion that takes place when things are publicly announced.  Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 18:52, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
 * The public record of the checks is here, Dennis. I'm speaking only for myself (no Arb hat), but were I considering unblocking in a case where the user had been checked that many times (and not unblocked) I think I would have asked for a CU's opinion first. I don't want to pile on here, and I do appreciate that you're trying to act fairly, but in a case where private evidence has been submitted and multiple CUs have been run (and none have listed an "unrelated" result anywhere), unilaterally unblocking may not have been the best idea. I accept that you got very little input from others on this unblock, and I think we (Arb hat briefly on head for the pronoun) could have done more to monitor this case. Going forward, you may want to put this up at AN for community review, since it's clearly a divisive issue. Sorry that it's come down on your head. Yunshui 雲 水 07:21, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Yunshui, that "public record of checks" is not public. Non-checkuser's (myself included) cannot see it. Unless there is something at an SPI, non-checkusers have no idea if an individual has ever been checked - let alone "that many times". WormTT(talk) 07:39, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Exactly, I get a permission error, I can't see that log. A CU could/should have reblocked "Non-CU block, but please consult a CU before unblocking", or something to give us lowly admin a heads up.  You guys have no idea how much homework and consideration I put into this, leaving it going for over a MONTH.  Had anyone paid attention, there was plenty of time to protest.  Floq did, but for non-CU reasons, and weighed heavily into why I waited so long.  Once I had what appeared to clearance by a CU, Mike V (at the SPI), I felt he HAD to be unblocked if we were to be treating him like any other editor.  It isn't my fault I didn't know about the CUs, you guys kept it secret.  This is why I don't appreciate being spanked on my talk page.  It seems like no one has actually bothered to look closely at the sequence of events, something that Arbs are supposed to specialize in. Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 08:33, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I do apologise, I honestly had no idea that log wasn't public. In that case, forget I said anything; you were acting on the information you had available and ought not to be hauled over the coals for an unblock made in good faith. Yunshui 雲 水 08:54, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
 * No problem Yunshui, I never doubted your intent here. This is really a case where the CU made an innocent enough mistake and didn't reblock with some kind of note.  In all honesty, these things happen and I can completely accept that, no one is perfect, it isn't even troutworthy, but now is the time to fix it if it needs fixing.  It was just the sudden arrival of a gaggle of Arbs on my talk page telling me that I screwed up (without having the full story) that is disconcerting.  Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 09:06, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
 * FWIW, I've now done some CU investigation in the process of reviewing this issue. I'm not familiar with the NoCal100 case and so could conceivably have missed or overlooked something, but going purely on the technical evidence available at this time I would conclude that is ❌ to the NoCal100 group. Yunshui 雲 水  09:24, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
 * You're of course making an accurate conclusion given the 90-day data retention. I just think you're mistaken on a (significantly) longer timeframe. Courcelles (talk) 17:58, 25 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Hey Dennis, I don't have the heart to wade into this complicated mess too deeply, but just want to confirm here what I said on the blocked editor's talk page a week or so ago; I wouldn't have unblocked myself, but knowing what we knew at the time, I don't think you did anything wrong in unblocking; you can't take into account what you don't know. To the extent that my comment "any single admin can unblock" put you in an awkward position, I'm sorry about that. --Floquenbeam (talk) 13:47, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Not a problem Floq, your comment only serves to demonstrate that both the blocking and reviewing admins were under the impression that this was a run of the mill block. Technically, I had every bit of authority to unblock him pending the SPI, but good judgement said it was better if I didn't.  And I completely understand you were against the unblock, which made it difficult to do because I respect your opinion in these matters, even when we disagree.  In the end, I followed my conscience and granted a 2nd chance after considering his appeal.  Whether or not I was a fool to do so, only time will tell.  Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 14:00, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Y'know, I have a really strong feeling you could get CU rights yourself rather quickly and easily, if you wanted them. I dunno when the appointments are done, though, and evidently it is only about once a year. John Carter (talk) 18:05, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I appreciate the vote of confidence John. I applied one year, a couple years back.  Not sure I would want it now.  I have the base skills, but not sure I would want the hassles.  Besides, for all intent and purposes, CU's are hand picked by Arb, the community just signs off on Arbs choices.  Somehow, I get the feeling I wouldn't top their list.  Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 18:52, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Just for the halibut
You've had a rough week, and you should get something for all your hard work. — Ched : ?  06:05, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks Ched. All too often, trying to do the right thing gets you kicked in the teeth around here, that is certain.  Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 12:04, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Arbitration Request
I have filed a request for arbitration over my last block:

Arbitration/Requests/Case.

jps (talk) 14:36, 27 September 2015 (UTC)


 * I've commented, but will be on Wikibreak for a while. I don't think it will, but if my participation is needed further, someone please do me the courtesy of emailing me, as I won't be checking in here regularly starting in the morning.  Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 22:12, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

India-Pakistan arbitration amendment request archived
The India-Pakistan arbitration amendment request, which you were listed as a party to, has been archived to Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/India-Pakistan. Thank you. For the Arbitration Committee,  Jim Car  ter  05:30, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

FYI
Hi D.B. – Chili mac received 8,644 page views after being a DYK entry on main page on October 1. Thanks for the suggestion about creating an article about it. Cheers, North America1000 01:08, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

I know, you've got work, but....
I mentioned your name at the AN thread regarding Reguyla in the context of some of my own recent discussion with him, and in terms of maybe a limited block lifting for a specific field of limited range which he might be able to help the project in. I would be very interested in your input there, both whether what I have seen is similar to what you have seen from him, and regarding your opinion regarding my proposal there. And, although no one says this enough to you, or, or the others who work to bring back our prodigals, thank you. John Carter (talk) 23:37, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Whatever else happens, I hope you get this note of thanks. It was good to have someone on my side and especially someone I trust. Enjoy your break. WormTT(talk) 06:08, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Honestly, I'm done with the topic. Swarm's comments were helpful at the end.  Reguyla's actions after the unblock speak for themselves, and his comments in email had me asking him to simply never contact me again.  He blew the opportunity that Worm gave him and dragged me along for the ride.  Right now, I'm more than a little disappointed in a great number of people here.  You aren't one of them.  And to any readers, no, I don't want to discuss it further.  I'm going back on wikibreak now, no replies are needed by anyone.  Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 01:13, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
 * You do that, though I hope I wasn't one of the disappointing ones either. Enjoy your break and come back when you feel ready to.  I certainly will still be here. :-)—cyberpower  Chat:Online 01:27, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Not a problem Worm. We both thought the risk was worth taking, and WP:AGF is core to what we do here.  Unfortunately, he didn't live up to his end of the bargain, and a few have behaved poorly.  We tried to do a good thing, and were slapped in the face from two directions, it would appear.  I'm thinking about driving up to the mountains for the weekend, do some fishing, get away from internet access completely.  I've grown a bit weary of all this drama.  It makes my ongoing divorce pale in comparison.  I'm looking at several options, to be honest. Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 15:06, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm eating a banana. Did you know that consuming more than 600 bananas in one day would be lethal? I think I'll stop at just the one. Last week I made a banana curry sauce, absolutely delicious served with chicken on a bed of rice. Ever tried it? Eric   Corbett  15:27, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
 * You do have a thing for curry, I've gathered. Sounds good though.  I made some roasted pork, diced with pineapple chunks in a ginger glaze, and served over rice just the other day.  Had a Hawaiian flare to it.  Then again, Hawaiians are known to eat fried spam and pineapple sandwiches, so I'm not convinced their dinner choices qualify as haute cuisine.  Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 15:34, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
 * We Brits invented the curry, to disguise the flavour of rotting meat while ruling over India. Unless you've been to England and seen it for yourself you wouldn't believe the number of curry houses we have here. As for the Hawaiians, I could probably handle the fried spam, but I'd draw the line at pineapple sandwiches. Or indeed pineapple anywhere, except on top of a gammon steak. Eric   Corbett  15:43, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Spot on about the curry houses - have a wander up Brick Lane at some point. Interestingly enough now, what is traditionally a vindaloo is not the "blow your head off" strength its notorious for over here. I used to love making traditional pork vindaloo from a recipe in a Madhur Jaffrey book; big mix of ginger, tumeric, onions, coriander, all sorts of things. Can't remember how to make it now and I'm mostly veggie these days. Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  17:53, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I've eaten in Brick Lane many times, as I used to work nearby. In recent years though I've come to prefer Chinese curries, although I'm not sure what the difference is. Eric   Corbett  18:04, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
 * If only more men knew how attractive it is to women when a man knows how to cook. That's all I'm saying. Liz  <sup style="font-family:Times New Roman;"><b style="color:#006400;">Read!</b> <b style="color:#006400;">Talk!</b> 18:20, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Truth! RO <sup style="color:blue;">(talk)  22:56, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Mom taught all 7 of us to cook at a very early age, plus sew, clean and be self-sufficient in all things. Putting false modesty aside, I am a respectable cook with a few tricks up my sleeve. If that doesn't work, I wash the dishes then vacuum the place.  No woman can resist that. ;)  This is probably why my girlfriend tolerates my less charming aspects. Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 22:27, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm actually fixing our vacuum cleaner as we speak, a stuck beater bar. Eric   Corbett  22:52, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I have some experience in preparing multi-course dinners... North America1000 23:35, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
 * There's also this food preparation option in cuisine. North America1000 00:03, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Search for "Blue Apron" for an interesting option in the United States: recipes and fresh ingredients delivered to your door, with the precise amounts required. isaacl (talk) 00:18, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I've seen that. That is cheating.  Real men have their own spice racks and even prepare their own spice mixes.  I even order "Spike" and other hard to find blends and herbs on the internet.  Nope, don't want a "cheat in the box."Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 00:25, 8 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Here's Marge Simpson's spice rack for NorthAmerica. "What, it has room for EIGHT spices? Well, obviously there must be some duplicates." --MelanieN (talk) 18:10, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
 * "You might say the secret ingredient is....salt. - Marge" One of my favorite quotes from her. Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 19:24, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Arbitration/Requests/Case/Catflap08 and Hijiri88
You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Arbitration/Requests/Case/Catflap08 and Hijiri88. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Arbitration/Requests/Case/Catflap08 and Hijiri88/Evidence. Please add your evidence by November 4, 2015, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Arbitration/Requests/Case/Catflap08 and Hijiri88/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Liz  <sup style="font-family:Times New Roman;"><b style="color:#006400;">Read!</b> <b style="color:#006400;">Talk!</b> 18:20, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Please stop
"Not that you will listen"??

I'm sorry your real life sucks now, and do encourage you to focus on that. You stirred things up in the Reguyla block discussion with misrepresentations and accusations, and then said you 'didn't want the drama.' You don't seem to be getting that you're bringing the drama with you. The goal should be to get KL to change his mind. I knew when I posted it was a long shot, but I don't mind playing a long shot if it might benefit the project. But to open with "Not that you will listen" is to practically guarantee failure. NE Ent 03:01, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you're right. That was as filtered as I could make it, and I can't help but to see what I see in this whole affair.  Not all of it is real life, I've really grown weary of the power struggles and games here as well.  It's always been here, maybe it's worse now, maybe my patience for them is lower, I don't know.  I used to think that most people were here to build an encyclopedia, but for whatever reason, that isn't how it feels right now.  I will just leave it at that. Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 03:11, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
 * FWIW, I obviously agree with you that I think the politics, or, maybe, fear of legal action, are a hell of a lot more prominent today than they were in the past, at least in part because with 5 million articles already it is becoming harder to find new topics and to determine how best to build the content we already have. IN a sense, if I am given the chance to make one more comment at ANI regarding a matter of internal politics, which might take ten minutes, or try to review the recent freaking huge 10-volume Encyclopedia of Hinduism to see where to place summary sections of a new article, or how to structure a new article, an act which may well take two or three hours, I know pretty well what I am going to do first. And I think to an extent the same sort of maybe slightly overwhelmed uneasiness might be affecting quite a few of the other more senior editors around here, who to an extent probably still think the same things about content and its development as they did years ago, even though the content may well have expanded beyond their ready capacity to understand and account for it all, even if sometimes rather smallish topic areas. John Carter (talk) 14:49, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
 * They are: : 0 If you count, there are actually very few involved in wikipolitics. NE Ent 14:53, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
 * AGF, remember you are considered by many as a role model here. Many people learn from you, you have more responsibilities than you might think. Cheers!   Jim Car ter  12:55, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Why AGF? Loads of people think as Dennis does and, which is more unfortunate, they're right to think as they do. It is not just this one instance. As I've said in the past, one of the very first things that could be done to improve en-WP is to deactivate Jimbo's talkpage, which is nothing but a cess-pit that he uses (both actively and by omission) to corral people to his "morally ambitious" cause. Without that talk page and the inevitable perpetuation of misrepresentations there by people such as MarkBernstein/Lightbreather et al, this situation would likely not have arisen. The most significant systemic bias on en-WP is politicised contributors from the US. - Sitush (talk) 13:00, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Loads of people, yes, I know since I'm one of them. There maybe umpteen number of instances, but this is the only time KL is involved. Remember, what we say, what we do, are the things by which younger editors learn the ropes and that same NOT AGF behavior starts growing inside them. The circumstancial evidences, here, are not enough to blatantly not AGF. You say "Many people", I've seen "many people" who were rude at User talk:Eric Corbett, throw personal attacks etc.  Does that mean Dennis, you or I should do the same? Yes,  we can do it! But I don't think it's a good idea. On the other hand, I agree with you, it will be a net positive if Jimbo's talk page gets deactivated, but alas, that is practically impossible.   Jim  Car  ter  13:29, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
 * This is a case when COMMONSENSE says yes, but AGF says no!  Jim Car ter  13:35, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I suspect that Kirill is pretty much embedded in the "fight the gender gap" cause. He will likely have come across vociferous misrepresenters and shit-stirrers at DC meetings, in which area he has held office for some years, and is a member of the Women Scientists project. Nothing wrong with trying to reduce the gap, of course, but Eric Corbett is wrongly perceived by the nuttier elements as being somehow central to doing so - it is bollocks of the highest order and no-one will convince me that Kirill is uninvolved. - Sitush (talk) 14:06, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Where were all you folks a few years ago, when I got AE blocked for 1-month? ;) GoodDay (talk) 15:03, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Amicus appeals...
To get reviewed, I think Eric has to start the discussion at WP:AN, per the latest Arb ruling, which is ironic since he can't by virtue of being blocked. Well, not exactly. In our latest ruling, we clarified that, when an editor is sanctioned by an administrator enforcing one of our decisions, it is up to the sanctioned editor to decide whether to appeal or not, and where to appeal. Once an editor has decided to appeal, anyone can help him with the formalities, including by opening a discussion for him. The only thing which is no longer permissible is for other editors to file an appeal on behalf of the blocked editor on their own initiative. Salvio Let's talk about it! 15:19, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
 * That is kind of what I meant, he can't literally go there, but someone can go there by proxy, at his request. We have had cases where people asked for an unblock and the party DIDN'T, which is understandably a problem.  So we are on the same page I think.  My clarity isn't so clear as of late. Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 15:35, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I understand you perfectly: I have recently been asked to rephrase a vote of mine, because it was difficult to parse what I meant... Sigh. But, yes, I'd say we are on the same page. Salvio Let's talk about it! 15:39, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
 * It is an unfortunate situation when an admin follows the exact letter of "the law" but it isn't the only choice, nor the best choice. This comment wasn't disruptive and he gets 30 days in the hole.  I've seen Eric say much worse and nothing happens.  Inconsistency in enforcement is a cancer at projects like this, it has editors second guessing themselves and serves to inhibit the free exchange of ideas.  Dramah is caused by these inconsistencies, which of course, you already know.  I'm not going to start second guessing people's motivations, but there are some very different ideas about Wikipedia among different "classes" here, and it really has nothing to do with Eric, who is a symptom, not the cause. Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 16:08, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I've mentioned at Eric's talk page that I think it might be not unreasonable to allow for exceptions to sanctions in the case of comments which themselves might be seen as violations of WP:LIBEL. Maybe, in this case, it might not be unreasonable to maybe suggest at ANI that DS be imposed on anyone here who either seeks to provoke someone by such comments, or, maybe, allowing for at least potential violations of otherwise sanctionable topic or discussion bans in the event of such potential false misrepresentation? John Carter (talk) 16:16, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

I Want to Create My New Account Please Don't Block It
I'm Will Create Me a New Account — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.243.166.178 (talk) 10:03, 24 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Good luck with that, whoever you are. Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 12:22, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Vested contributors arbitration case opened
You may opt-out of future notifications related to this case at Arbitration/Requests/Case/Vested contributors/Notification list. You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Arbitration/Requests/Case/Vested contributors. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Arbitration/Requests/Case/Vested contributors/Evidence. Please add your evidence by November 5, 2015, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Arbitration/Requests/Case/Vested contributors/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, L235 (t / c / ping in reply ) 01:19, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Vested contributors retitled Arbitration enforcement 2
You may opt-out of future notifications related to this case at Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arbitration enforcement 2/Notification list. You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arbitration enforcement 2. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arbitration enforcement 2/Evidence. Please add your evidence by November 5, 2015, which is when the evidence phase closes. For this case, there will be no Workshop phase. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Liz  <sup style="font-family:Times New Roman;"><b style="color:#006400;">Read!</b> <b style="color:#006400;">Talk!</b> 12:40, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Arbitration evidence
The Arbitration Committee has asked that evidence presentations be kept to around 500 words and 50 diffs. Your presentation is 952 words. Please edit your section to focus on the most relevant evidence. If you wish to submit over-length evidence, you must first obtain the agreement of the arbitrators by posting a request on the /Evidence talk page.

For the Arbitration Committee, Amortias (T)(C) 19:35, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Well, considering you said "probably not" in your talkpage message...
And considering the timing of your decision, I guess I will play the probabilities, that perhaps you may wish to respond to this message. Your name came up in a discussion about who ought to run for arbcom in 2015. If you were willing, that would be great, in my book. Even if you do not wish to run yourself, to become an arb, would you consider suggesting some names that you believe would make good arbs? Thanks, for your past work as well as for reading this note, and o'course feel free to remove it without comment, if you prefer. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 21:52, 7 November 2015 (UTC)


 * I don't think I would make a good Arb this year or any to be honest. The real world has been unpredictable for me (divorce after 22 years) and this hasn't been my best year at Wikipedia for being patient or effective. I'm sure there are better qualified and supported candidates out there. As for potential candidates, I don't really have any in mind, a couple elected last year were high on my list, but I haven't really given it any thought, so I don't yet have anything to offer in suggestions. Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 22:31, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Modesty will get you nowhere. ;-)      You are a long-haul wikipedian of solid character, widely respected enough to get the votes, if you can only be convinced to run.  Arbcom casepages, as you well know, are not particularly well-known for being patient places (effectiveness is also up for grabs in specific instances).   Since you are sure other candidates exist, it should be easy for you to WP:PROVEIT, by naming them. </eyes spring open!>
 * Apologies for taking the hardline stance here, about extracting some wisdom from you, but self-noms begin in a few hours, and will end the 17th of November. If not you, who?  If not now, when?  ( Insert other propaganda here. )  In any case, I do truly understand why you might be reluctant to be on arbcom, or even to consider the wiki-political stuff.  That said, I've made a list of active-in-the-past-month admins with 50k edits who have not yet run for arbcom, if skimming those 244 names will help bring forth any potentials, please feel free to comment here, or over there on Hafs's page.  Best, 75.108.94.227 (talk) 22:53, 7 November 2015 (UTC)


 * I don't think that 50k is a good cutoff. I know someone with 10k who is admin that would do a great job, although most admin already have 20k behind them.  I think being admin two years is beneficial just to be familiar with the tools, system, but not a hard line in the sand. I'm not against non-admin getting Arb, I just don't think it is likely to happen so I focus on admin. They don't need to be ubercontent people, but I think it helps if they have been involved in one or two GAs or DYK or at least a taste of peer review.   was a good arb who fit that.  Even when I disagreed with him, I felt like it wasn't politics that motivated him but his real beliefs.  Maybe he's ready for another term.  I'm sure he's going to love me saying that. :) Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 23:12, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't think 50k is a good cutoff either, I just stopped there because it was already over 200 usernames. :-)     I'm working on whittling that down, by doing some searches on the arbcom-case-pages (people who have posted there less than half a dozen time prolly won't make strong arbcom candidates), and the multiple-years-as-an-admin also makes sense to me.  Once I do the whittling, I will then immediately expand the list to 5k edits or so, which is prolly close to the bare "pragmatic" minimum, statistically speaking, for an arb-candidate.  Agree about multi-year-adminship also not being necessarily Good as a threshold-requirement, but pragmatically speaking, those are already people who've been vetted, and thus have a 3-to-1 or better advantage in the arb-bangvoting.  My main goal is to get people thinking seriously about who ought to run, especially folks who may not have been considered (or re-considered).  There are now 9 slots, per User_talk:Yunshui, which is an unfortunate turn of events.  75.108.94.227 (talk) 23:35, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the heads up on Yunshui. I really, really hate to see that, but in some ways I'm not shocked.  It is part of the reason I don't want to run: there is always a small chance I could win, and become the next chewed up victim of the system.  There is a lot of stuff that goes on behind closed doors, things they deal with that no one knows for privacy, that are very stressful.  The Foundation should be doing more of that stuff, not volunteers.  It is one of the reasons I'm frustrated at the place, too much is asked of volunteers and most editors don't really know, can't know, what it all is.  Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 23:58, 7 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Pretty much. Can sympathise with RL crap of which I've had loads - been pretty turbulent since early 2013. Keep thinking each year will be better but more stuff keeps happening. Content-writing relaxes me. Arb stuff generally doesn't. Only thing that would make me run is if I felt the candidate pool was such that the running of the committee could be compromised if there weren't some folks with a perspective like mine around....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:04, 8 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Dennis, I sympathise, but this year of all years, I hope you do wind up running so I can vote for you., looking at your "crossroads" essay, I would urge you to run again, too. Yngvadottir (talk) 01:11, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm flattered, but all this real life chaos has me asking the question, "what really makes me happy?" Wikipedia doesn't make the top three right now.  Not sure it makes the top 10.  I've been too busy seeking that joy, which is why I haven't been around much. Went crazy and bought a new Taylor guitar, simply because I've played electric all my life, yet never owned a fine quality acoustic.  Been playing my fingers to the bone this week.  I've played since 1970 because it brings me joy.  Debating civility and the importance of "content" doesn't. Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 01:19, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
 * If you do run for arb, or even if you just make some kind of candidate-recommendations or a voterguide, I strongly strongly suggest you do it for the fun of it. Does this make sense?  Part of the *problem* with wikipedia is too many people have lost sight of the redlink-status of WP:WEAREALLSERIOUSHERE and especially WP:WEAREALLIMPORTANT.  Don't want to participate in a debate about civility?  Refuse to do so, just "recuse" if you think arb-speak is fun, or just flat ignore the issue.  Put it in your nom-statement:  "as an arb, if elected, I will only work on arbcases I think will improve the 'pedia, which does not include things I do not find fun, such as civility-debates and abstract fights about how 'content' is important. Such things will receive the silent treatment from me.  My platform is that wikipedia should be a fun place, because otherwise, good wikipedians will get disgusted and leave."
 * Sheesh, you'd be elected in a landslide. Wikipedia did once have fun-appeal, to a certain subset of humanity; but wikipedia as a whole has been growing steadily more quarrelsome, and hence, arbcom has become steadily more powerful and central, which of course is a big problem for folks that appreciate the old-school trifecta approach.  Every BLP is under discretionary sanctions.  Every political article, not just Israel-Palestine and Yugoslavia and Kvenland.  Dennis, you are old-school, and you know wikipedia can be not just a top-ten website, but a top-ten source of happiness.  The trouble is, who can we sucker into being an arb?  I don't want to get people chewed up by the system, I want people who go in refusing to get chewed up, and with some chance of changing the system so others won't be chewed up either.  So if you run, don't play that game where you end up getting chewed up.  Don't wanna answer 100 questions about how you would arb?  Say right in your nom-statement, "I will only answer candidate-questions, that I personally see as fun."  And then stick to what you said.
 * p.s. Candidates are announcing, see WP:ACE2015/C, with User:Salvadrim getting the most civility-debate internet points for saying fuck as the very first word in their self-nom. :-)      But look at they way they are running their contingent-campaign:  they will only continue to stand for arb, until and unless 9 people they trust appear.  So far three (including Salvadrim's contingency candidacy) are listed.  75.108.94.227 (talk) 10:50, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I think you flatter me too much. To be honest, my real life reads like the first half of a Dickens novel right now, but I've learned to find the humor in it. A dark comedy bordering on surreal.  It will pass, but it will take a couple of years to dig out of the mess she created.  It doesn't help that the govt. has regulated my job of 22 years out of existence via bureaucrats, not Congress, and my new business is doing ok, but the federal red tape makes it extremely difficult to grow and punishes success. I've yet to draw a penny from it. This is a lousy time to be a entrepreneur in America, but that is what I do.  So I truly don't have the energy to even attempt an Arb run, and I don't think I have the patience if I was unlucky enough to actually get elected.  I was half-joking at WPO that we should all just oppose all candidates, good and bad, so no one gets 50%, no one gets seated.  If we did that two years in a row, it would force reform.  Half-joking, mind you.  Most of the Arbs are pretty decent people, it is the system that is flawed. Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 13:49, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Dennis, your real-life concerns, I cannot assuage. But just like the Great Chuck says, these are the best of times AND the worst of times, for earth broadly construed, and for wikipedia as well.  (Not to mention Linux.)  I fear that if the extant arbcom system was abolished, something even more broken could easily grow into place, to replace it.  Human nature is a hard problem.  So sure, the system is flawed, though most of the people are good-faith trying their hardest to improve things.  Wikipedia isn't an experiment in any sort of self-governance ... allegedly.  Though of course, in true wiki-ironic fashion, not only is there a cabal, we're all in it!  :-/      75.108.94.227 (talk) 01:15, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Don't forget, Arb isn't something the community decided upon, it was thrust upon us by Jimbo. I understand that something was needed, and as far as institutions go, I guess he did ok as a first attempt, but the system is impossible to change by the community and once elected, Arbs find it impossible to change significantly from within. More importantly, real life challenges are pushing me to the limit. It is why I gave up the admin bit for a while. Primum non nocere. Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 02:59, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Dennis, I feel horrible trying to arm-twist you. I'm glad we've got you back at all. And of course I'm being an utter heel not running myself, but I can't. The thing is, yes, it was imposed on the community, and it's now warping everything: having this Imperial Star Chamber in place overbalances us badly towards an authority-driven model. I did not consider myself better than other editors when I was an admin, and I do not consider the arbs better than anyone else either, and I don't give a fig for the WMF's preferences except to wish they would butt out so we could get on with writing the encyclopedia that enables them to get the money for their salaries. But since I most emphatically do not view an WMF Star Chamber as an improvement on the current Star Chamber, I very much want to be able to vote for some candidates who will walk into Mordor and resist. Refuse to be Imperial. Deescalate. Reduce the workload and the tension by solving problems in other ways. You're good at that and so is, and so are some others I am being pushy and nasty towards by urging them to run. Basically I trust you to remember why we are all here and to remember you don't like being a judge and have better things to do. I disagree with you about Jimbo having made the best possible decision at the time - I believe one of his few decisions/opinions with which I agree was in the Infobox Userbox Wars, when he declared that infoboxes userboxen declaring allegiances, rather than interests, were divisive - if we could go back to that principle of deprecating the importation of political and religious positions into the Wikipedia community (and resist the WMF's push for real names), we'd be a lot better off. But one thing we can do and I think we really really need to do is reject his lack of trust in the community and its selection of admins as represented by Arbcom, and reform it. I believe it can be done this time and needs to be done this time. Yngvadottir (talk) 22:39, 9 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Yet I look over the last few cycles at several really good people elected, some served, some left premature, few really talk about the experience. All were reform minded, and frankly better than I at this whole Wikipedia thing.  There is nothing like walking up to the Imperial Star Chamber and finding the path littered with skeletons of better warriors than yourself, to borrow your metaphor.  And I don't want to war, I want to cooperate, work with people excited about new ideas, new things, new ways, and I don't see that as a reality with Arb.  I don't see that in admin for the most part, most just plod along and do what they think they are supposed to do, not interested in big changes.  There's nothing wrong with that, but it makes for a consensus that is simply anti-change, and the higher you go, (or so it seems) the worse it gets.  Stubbornness on an institutional scale.  There is no way to know what can and can't be fixed until you are actually there and learn the system, so you have to go in blind. I can't imagine you can fully learn the system in just two years, no less improve it.


 * And honestly, my real life really is not in a good place. I'm pretty open about my issues just short of it being a burden to readers, but suffice it to say, I'm understating things.  These troubles are temporary, as is life itself, but for the next year, I doubt I will do much except piddle on a few articles and block a random vandal.  Temet Nosce, and know your limits.  I need less drama in my life right now.  If I ran, and if by some fluke I actual won, I fear it would be hell because I couldn't really do any reforming, like the others before me, and it would just make my stress level even higher.  If I ever run (never say never, but it is doubtful I would), it will be when I feel I can go in and cooperate, pursude, be part of a team that will help fix some structure and make it more community friendly.  Without the cooperation of some others, there is no chance for positive change.  Confrontation won't fix this, only cooperation will.   Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 23:21, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Since we're talking arbcom, Latin deserves more Latin in return: "Nosce_Alios?" which is roughly, know any others?  You suggested Casliber, and they actually didn't say no, but gave a bit of a hedging strategy ("if I felt the candidate pool was such that the running of the committee could be compromised").  So maybe they need some more arm-twisting, or maybe they prefer to wait until the 15th, for any last-minute-entries.  Who are the best-respected compromisers?  Who are the most-skilled persuaders?  Dennis, you and Yngvadottir feel you cannot run, both for your own reasons.  But you two, betwixt yerselves, must know hundreds if not thousands of wikipedians.  Who among them, can do the job, that needs doing?  75.108.94.227 (talk) 00:19, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Honestly, two people who I think would make exceptional Arbs, but probably wouldn't run are and, both of which I've known a good while, and unquestionably would make better Arbs than me anyway. They are both no nonsense types, remarkably calm, slow to anger, slower to judge, and just good people.   And now they are going to hate me for recommending them. Regardless, I would go door to door handing out leaflets for either of them if I thought it would help. They probably think they aren't ready, but they are as ready as they ever will be. Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 00:28, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Dennis, I hate you for recommending me. Kidding! You are very kind and those are very nice things to say, but I would be all wrong for the job. I am absolutely the worst at making a judgement against anyone. I don't know how judges do it. All those considerations on both sides. Plus, all that reading and those logical entanglements and lawyering. When two kids come to me fighting over a toy, I just think, You ninnies, just work it out. Anything is better than lose-lose fighting... But thank you.  Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:40, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Those are EXACTLY the reasons you would make a good Arb. You aren't a judge or lawyer, but you understand how to find solutions, which is what a good Arb should do.  Arb isn't supposed to be a court. And declining a case because "You ninnies, just work it out" is often the best solution.  Seriously Anna, you are so perfect for the job, and I am confident it is yours for the asking.  You would be a breath of fresh air, as you typically are in most discussions. That you are a woman isn't a qualification, but it is a bonus as women are underrepresented as admins and as Arbs. The fact is, it takes a good, even demeanor and a willingness to listen to all the issues, and that is an area where you shine. I don't blame you if you don't want to, but make no mistake about it, you would do well, you would be heavily supported, you could do good things: you could make a difference. Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 00:50, 10 November 2015 (UTC)


 * (Why are there at least two marsupials in a mammals photomontage?, help me out, I had a terrible science education.) ... Exactly. To both of you. It isn't supposed to be a court and both of you would refuse to be tempted to treat it as one and would do anything possible to find other solutions for the good of the encyclopedia. Yngvadottir (talk) 01:28, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I count four, including the monotreme. Marsupials are mammals too. And that is quite possibly the nicest photo of an American possum I've seen, though Australian possums remain far cuter. I would vote for any and all of you. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 19:05, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm chewing on the whole thing. And it is very unkind to refer to Nixon as a marsupial. He got a lot of that in college, so lay off! :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 01:31, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
 * He deserves everything he got, for masticating in public! Yngvadottir (talk) 01:34, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Yngvadottir, that wasn't his fault either. He constantly had to chew on fibre. His doctor prescribed it to alleviate a condition. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 22:31, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I do hope you do consider it Anna, that is all I can ask. And the same for Awilley.  I didn't throw both your names out randomly, I've thought about this a great while, about who I thought would benefit from the tasks, and who would be good at instilling faith in the institution.  You both are very different editors, but you share some common traits that would be beneficial.  You underestimate your popularity Anna.  You aren't flashy, but you aren't bland.  You aren't grumpy, but you know where to draw the line.  You have balance, Yin and Yang, and that is needed.  You know me, I wouldn't have recommended you if I wasn't positive you were right for the job.  Still, the choice is yours, all I can ask is that you think about it, and perhaps take a chance, accept a new challenge.  Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 01:39, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
 * +1 for . Cant say much about Awilley though, haven't really crossed paths before I don't think. --kelapstick(bainuu) 01:53, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you kelapstick. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 22:31, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you too, Dennis Brown. I will definitely give it some thought. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 22:31, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Dennis, I'm flattered that you thought of me, but I don't think I'm right for the job, and I'm certain that I wouldn't have the time to do it well. Like you I'm self-employed, and I'm throwing most of my free time (and money) into a second venture that needs more attention than I can give it. Equally important is that I've noticed that I tend to ruminate on Wiki-problems more than I should. A tough problem will sometimes keep me up at night, and I don't want to risk what might happen in my personal life and relationships if I had to deal with messy conflict every day. I would turn it back on you saying you should run—I've thought so for a while as well—but I feel like I at least partially understand why you don't want to. ~Awilley (talk) 04:43, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
 * We keep tossing this hot potato around, don't we? Self-employment and higher office don't really go together well.  I've never let Wikipedia get in the way of my marriage, which is now moot, but there is a real risk when you accept higher office, so I understand.  I've been up since 4:30 am, about to hit the shower, grab a cup of coffee, do my 50 miles commute to work, where I basically have two jobs, one being self=employed. Plus, I do devote some time in the pursuit of the fairer sex.  It is all about priorities. Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 09:57, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Arbcom takes a lot of time. But remember, there is a rule which says, arbcom-candidates must be singular humans.  Thus, I suggest that Dennis_Brown and Awilley run for a single seat on the arbcom, as a joint ticket.  Dennis is responsible for Mon/Wed/Fri, Awilley is responsible for Tue/Thu/Sat, and nobody works on the sabbath.  Or more pragmatically, Dennis is responsible for the 1st/3rd/5th/etc arb-cases, Awilley is responsible for the 2nd/4th/6th/etc arb-cases.  This type of arrangement guarantees that the hot potato will be sliced in half, and both members of the hypothetical joint ticket will only have to deal with drama every other day.  p.s. Drmies is still waffling, but User:kelapstick has stepped up to the plate, and Drmies has endorsed them via usertalk. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 16:29, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Not everyone's Sabbath/Shabbat/Jumu'ah is on Sunday, you know. How culturally insensitive of you ;). Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for someone to convince me to run for Arb. Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 23:57, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Umm, 75, is that you, 74? Simon Irondome (talk) 00:14, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I was wondering hoping the same. "74" is firmly ensconced in my "Top 3 Wikipedians". - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 08:16, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

ARB-itrary break (get it?)

 * Dennis, I know you well enough to know that no amount of arm-twisting will get you to run for Arb. You would of course make a perfect committee member because your sometimes unconventional and controversial snippets of wisdom are the things this community needs to be told. But Arbcom work would stuff a rag in your mouth for two years. I'm also getting a lot of emails again ordering me to face up to my responsibilities and stand at this upcoming election. I nearly did last year but because I made a last minute decision to join the rather short queue of candidates I messed up my transclusion and was 'saved' by the bell. I'll probably leave it until the last minute again before I decide, after having a look at who is in the running. It's neither a goal nor a challenge and I don't care if  I become a member of that committee or not. If I do, I will of course put my back into it and if I don't, I'll just continue to make everyone else's life a misery! Those with whom I would have liked to have shared the bench with, such as    and  have been and gone while  is still soldiering on with anther year to go. There are still some users like  and  if they could be pressured into giving up some of their time being some of the best admins on the project. One last  thought though: I think you and I would have made a great team on Arbcom. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:10, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
 * It's a trap. That phrase just keeps repeating itself in my head over and over.  I know it has to be bouncing around in your skull as well.  Like a moth drawn to the candle.  I think you would make a good Arb, and as a friend, I have to admit it would probably be funny as hell at times, but not sure that is the best role for either of us.  We are different, but I think we both do our best work when someone else is being irritated, it seems, and I'm not sure that gagging us for those two years (and to a degree, afterwards) is best for us.  The candidates I recommended were quieter, calmer types, with level heads and more patience than we have.  It takes all kinds.  Impatience isn't a bad thing, as you know, sometimes it is the spark that pushes things forward.  Working at Arb pace would drive us crazy.  Anna, on the other hand, would do well and feel more at home.  Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 01:55, 11 November 2015 (UTC)


 * By a strange process, the best and the most clear headed members of the community, who would make (I believe) the finest candidates have gravitated to this conversation. I would add Harry also. In my opinion, arbcom should have less members who are "activist", and more who seek to pragmatically help to enhance the project, through good and wise governance.NewyorkBrad is a wise and levelheaded former member and DGG is an outstanding existing member IMO. A healthy dose of individualism and WP:IAR would help to make this a saner and less drearily dogmatic, politically correct space to do the real work. "Just the facts ma'am" a la Dragnet would be refreshing. Of course, I would add myself also, the representative voice of the CIR challenged, gnoming silent majority. The user on the Clapham omnibus. Not! Simon Irondome (talk) 01:44, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Not really wanting to do it is part of what makes a good arb, to a point anyway. It is a big commitment, and the reason we former arbs don't talk about it much is because it's mostly both boring and depressing. I don't think I was a particularly effective arb, but I don't think I totally sucked at it either. Maybe if I'd served a two-year term I might have felt more like I accomplished soemthing, but I didn't want to run again and end up being on for three years. Some people, like NewyorkBrad or Roger Davies, can put up with that sort of thing for years and years (it's a little known fact that Roger actually does a huge amount of work behind-the-scenes for the committee) but I'm not one of them. I think we should keep trying to draft if Dennis won't cave in, and I certainly think Anna or Harry  would be a good choices as well.  Beeblebrox (talk) 01:49, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Anna, yes. She doesn't realize it, but she is perfect, and the pace is right up her alley.  She likes to deliberate and take her time before jumping off to a conclusion.  Even when you disagree with her, it is easy to respect her for taking the time to listen.  She isn't perfect, and she knows it and has humility.  She isn't activist in attitude, she just wants to do the right thing, but she isn't afraid to take a stand.  Admirable traits, which is why she is at the top of my list of favorite editors. Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 01:59, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
 * no one has to be perfect. To merit election, you just have to e better than the other candidates. The problem is that to be better, you need to have worked on articles, not just process. You have some o both, and though you may think that you are not ideal, yo basically have have just the right background and , you're badly needed there. NUYB has done a much a one person can be expected to do, and his term ended last year. Now is the time for other sensible people to join. (I agree thee is some discomfort to be expected in dealing with the less-than-sensible people, but that's part of any activism.  This is the year where you could make a difference--here's the opportunity. There are not that many times at WEP where one or two people can one of them.  Because of the number of people to be elected, there has never been a better time.  DGG ( talk ) 08:25, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I simply want to say that I am pleased that the "best of the best" among us are having this conversation. Thank you to those who have served on ArbCom, and those who take a serious look at that tough and thankless work. <b style="color:#070">Cullen</b><sup style="color:#707">328  Let's discuss it  08:55, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Actually DGG sums it up well. I felt like that in 2008 and 2010. And ran. And was happy with time served really. I think anyone who has parented teenagers will find this a walk in the park by comparison really....or been a manager at work....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:05, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Or to put it another way, one who is adept at herding cats? --kelapstick(bainuu) 11:13, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
 * or put it to music  Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:49, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Sigh
I wasn't expecting that,. I still consider you my mentor, so your words have a strong impact with me. I'm actually moved by both the insistence, the experience and sincerity of all of you. I'm still concerned that I couldn't give it the time it needs. I could work most cases, but the other stuff consumes more time than I have. That might not go over well with the other members. More importantly, I'm concerned that I wouldn't be up to community expectations, that I would fall short even after doing my best. I am not a NewYorkBrad or a DGG, I am my own man, sometimes too blunt, plenty of flaws, but well meaning. I agree that my overall experience is sufficient, I've sampled most aspects of Wikipedia and have enough time behind me, with and without the bit, and I've done a good deal of mediating and mentoring, so that isn't the concern: Time and temperament is. Better men than me have been elected and left early. I'm not sure what the expectations or demands really are. I would rather do a few things well than do many things poorly.

I can't promise anything, but after hearing all you, DGG, Kudpung, Casliber and the rest of you as well, I will reconsider it over the next few days. I can't change my real life situation overnight, and if I run, I can't do all the things I would like to do, but if I can answer three questions in the positive, I will run.
 * Can I make a positive difference, even if have to serve part-time?
 * Will the experience have a net positive effect on me personally?
 * Is this the most effective use of my time to benefit Wikipedia?

Whether or not I think I could get elected isn't the issue, there simply is no way to know until you run. These are deceptively simple questions, the devil is in the details, and it requires some soul searching. I have zero hunger for the power or bits, but I do have strong attachment to our core mission, to create a free encyclopedia to educate the masses. Many don't know that I am 50 but have no college experience. I'm completely self-taught in a number of disciplines, and this is why Wikipedia holds a special place in my heart. Not everyone gets to go to college, but now anyone can educate themselves thanks to our joint efforts. What we do here is very personal for me, I know exactly how difficult it is to self-educate, having done much of it before the advent of the internet.

Again, please don't assume this means I'm running, it only means that I will take your requests seriously and give it the consideration and respect it deserves. I may need to log off for a bit while I ponder this, so pardon if I'm not quick to reply here on my talk page. Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 13:01, 11 November 2015 (UTC) — Berean Hunter   (talk)  14:15, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
 * As much as I'd love to see you run, Dennis, because I think you'd make an excellent committee member. I've been there and as a friend (if I may be so bold), I can't condone it. Dennis, you've had a tough year, you're on the road to recovery and you really shouldn't put pressure on that you don't need. On top of that, you are far more valuable to the community as you are (an admin who will weigh in on issues and advocates Editor retention) than as you would be on the committee. The chances of regaining any passion for the project would dwindle. It's awful there - don't run. <b style="text-shadow:0 -1px #DDD,1px 0 #DDD,0 1px #DDD,-1px 0 #DDD; color:#000;">Worm</b>TT(<b style="color:#060;">talk</b>) 13:26, 11 November 2015 (UTC) That's not to say never run. I've suggested you run in the past and I expect I would in the future
 * ↑ What Worm said. I think that you would make a great arb when things are normal for you. Go back one year ago to that positive cheery Dennis that we all know and love and that Dennis undoubtedly makes for a great candidate. If I speak to what is best for the project in the short term, I would say run. If I speak to what is best for both the project AND Dennis in the long term, I would suggest holding off for now until more pieces of your real life fit into place. The last thing that I would want to see is your time in Arb becoming the catalyst for your retirement. I've watched over the months hoping that your need for wikibreaks to get away from the drama and dysfunction would subside. Some of the perennial dramas here seem to have been having an adverse effect on you. The less vulnerable Dennis from a year ago wouldn't let them affect him. I also have that "It's a trap" in my head. Dennis, I think you are more effective not being on Arb right now. I want you to find happiness in your work with the project so for me I'm hoping with more time that you will continue healing. That said, if you run, I will support you.
 * I've never really worried too much about Arbcom, but I think Worm has got it right - you are expected to do the job of senior manager on a 40-hour week for no pay. The WMF should do it as a paid position, it's a shit job and as the old saying goes, "where there's muck, there's brass". Personally I'd make a terrible arb, I'd ignore all emails as "dramah", list 50 things that are more worth my time (starting with family, progressing to paid employment, and deteriorating from there) and dismiss all cases as "haven't you lot got an encyclopedia to write?" so I can only tip my hat to those who would do a good job, but feel it's a good way to turn a productive editor into a retired one in the long term. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  16:31, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Reply
As promised, I took some time and considered an Arb run, mainly because my friend persuaded me to consider it, but also because so many asked me to, so I considered it more seriously than I had before. It didn't take as long as I thought it would. Whether or not I could possibly win the election wasn't a consideration. To those that have been supportive, I appreciate your faith and I'm truly flattered that you put so much trust in me. To the quiet ones reeling in horror at the prospect of me being an Arb, worry not. I won't be running for Arb this year, and that is my final decision.

I received a surprising amount of supportive email from friends old and new. They were concerned about the negative effect it would have on me during this difficult period in my life, and while they think I would do a good job, they fear it would have a negative impact on me. I appreciate their honesty and genuine concern, and took their opinions to heart. probably knows me better than anyone here (real world and online), and I think his comment probably summarizes it best. I am not fully myself right now, and running is not in my own best interest.

Timing is obviously a key reason. I'm in the middle of a complicated (but somewhat amicable) divorce, my work situation is more fluid than it has been in 15 years, I've started a new business less than two years ago, and frankly, I am not at my best. The last year, I've been more snippy than usual, impatient and irritable. I'm more mistake prone, and it wouldn't be fair to be in such a powerful position. It is one reason I've been only part time here, and why I gave up my admin bit for a few months earlier this year, to prevent any damage I might do through mistakes or bad judgement. I've moved a few times this year, with everything in storage except two frying pans, one computer, a bed and a TV. To be honest, living Bohemian has been liberating in some ways, but it is also inconvenient and unsettling to someone who has spent the previous 20 years in a very normal, married and mundane lifestyle. Before I take on more challenges, I need to spend the next year getting back to a normal lifestyle, and get my personal and work life back to a dull roar. There is a real risk that I might do more harm than good right if I ran this year, and that isn't a risk I'm willing to take.

There is also the question of how can I best serve the goals of a Free encyclopedia. I'm still not sure that Arb is the best way, this year or any year. The power and prestige means nothing, I'm self-employed, so isn't like it will go on a resume. I'm not an activist, but I feel most comfortable when I am an advocate. I believe in the original ideals that built Wikipedia, that the reader is the most important Wikipedian of all, but if I were elected, it would put me farther from the reader. I can't help but think I would better serve Wikipedia if I just edit, publicly expressed my concerns along the way, and remain unrestrained by the "hush hush" requirements of being an Arb. At least for now, my place is here with the rest of you, on the bleachers, trying to make a difference one edit at a time. Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 15:42, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
 * You do us proud, sir Dennis. Tho' I am sad you cannot seek the brass ring this go-round, I expect sitting arbs and the new crop will muddle through.  Appreciate your thoughtfulness and honesty, as always -- wishing you smooth sailing in life, and on your travels across the 'pedia.  :-)      Best, 75.108.94.227 (talk) 02:10, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
 * What I really think is that we need to reconsider changing the ArbCom from an elected body to an ad hoc group of individuals assembled on a case by case basis to resolve these matters. Doing so would I think reduce burnout, probably help guarantee retention, and maybe get more people involved in a productive way at ANI and elsewhere. I have no clue how to go about setting up such a system of course. But if there were to be "task force" arbitration of that sort, I think that there is also a good chance that at least some of those involved would be pinged regularly because of the degree of trust they have earned in the community, and that you would probably be included in their number. John Carter (talk) 20:51, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

November 2015 newsletter
– Sent by Northamerica1000 using mass messaging on 23:45, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

I am miffed ...


That IP 75.108 got to throw his hat in the ring for ArbCom, but, despite ringing endorsements from you and others, is firmly holding hers down over her ears, tuning out my blandishments and entreaties. Can you, or your talk-page stalkers, get her to reconsider so that I can vote for her? Yngvadottir (talk) 12:26, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm under the sofa and staying here till this whole thing blows over. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 12:35, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
 * There is always next only this year. Please please please run!!111! --kelapstick(on the run) 12:45, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
 * User:Yngvadottir: nyah nyah!  :-)      User:Kelapstick:  don't be a chicken, Anna will bump your arb-candidacy down a notch on the arb-election-list, sure, but no fair trying to discourage her!  ;-)      Oh, and Kelapstick, I noticed a typo in your comment, hope you don't mind me correcting your mistake.  ( whistling nonchalantly )   User:Anna_Frodesiak:  you can hide, but you cannot run?  That is not the aphorism.  You can run for arbcom, but you cannot hide under the sofa.  Dennis and Yngvadottir are going to grab your ankles and drag you to the self-nom, despite Kelapstick's piteous caterwauling!  :-)      Because they like you, and want you to enjoy arb-ship.  Uh, wait a minute... that can't be right?  Hmmm.  No, I think they are nudging you because they trust you, and they are worried about the 'pedia, and they know you will do great at the job.  Please consider it.  Best, 75.108.94.227 (talk) 13:57, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Isn't the solution obvious, 75.108.94.227? ACE should allow for write-in votes. Then she'll get elected and the pressure to serve will be impossible to resist! Liz  <sup style="font-family:Times New Roman;"><b style="color:#006400;">Read!</b> <b style="color:#006400;">Talk!</b> 20:02, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Liz, my preference is blackmail -- tell Anna that if she won't run, you'll add new embarrassing categories to all the articles she works on, once a day for the next two years. Surely arbcom is a fate less awful, right?  User:Casliber claims that having a teenager, makes arbcom seem like a picnic, but then, Cas Liber is in the psych business, so probably they are just using reverse something something mumble mumble.  ;-)      75.108.94.227 (talk) 21:06, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm jumping up and down on my sofa pretending that some of those question posers are under it. Two out of four have arrived whom I expected, one more mght turn up, but the fourth has such a long block log they'll probably not be able to drag it the distance to the interrogation room., you'll have to run because in all likelihood I now no longer have a cat in hells chance so I will now withdraw leaving a place free but not before the closing bell for candidates rings. You'll do well, I'm sure. You won't have to defend yourself against those who are accusing candidaes of being mysoginists, and yu can hardly be accused of being a pederast. You'll certainly not only have my vote, but also a glowing entry in the voter guide I'll publish when I have withdrawn. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:19, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I cannot find a wiki-guideline on WP:SOFA, but wiktionary tells me that a poseur could be construed as a personal attack.  ;-)       Don't let the bad stuff get you down, User:Kudpung; just calmly point out the truth, stick to the civility pillar like glue, and let the voters see fortitude.  Besides, running for arbcom builds character, even User:Drmies is learning about transclusions for the first time!  ;-)      It is templates all the way down, doktor.  75.108.94.227 (talk) 21:06, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

You are all very sweet, but that's it. Now I'm getting into the crawlspace. I can live here off dust bunnies and pipe condensation for years. Seriously, as I just posted here, right now I have off-Wikipedia things that are preventing me from reading up and would prevent me from being a good member. Plus, there are other reasons why this may not be for me. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 20:52, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
 * So you won't come quietly? In that case, take a look at the *new* picture. ;-)  Of course, you don't have to run personally, just find us an equally qualified arb-candidate, who will run in your place.  75.108.94.227 (talk) 21:06, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Oh nohz! Over on the kudpung page, Anna uses a long series of not-signs to defeat the draft-anna-for-arb?  Sheesh!  Checkmated at the last minute.  :-)      Okay, enough grumbling, out of me at least.  Thanks for being a good sport Anna, and the same for our host Dennis.  75.108.94.227 (talk) 21:14, 17 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Jeez, I leave for a day and there's a cat stuffed in the computer, people passed out on the furniture and beer cans everywhere. Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 23:40, 17 November 2015 (UTC)


 * As a general comment, the more good people who get on arb the easier it will be for them to work there. By "good" in this context, I mean people concerned with solving problems in a way that is good for WP, not just for settling things between the immediate parties.  DGG ( talk ) 05:00, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Please watch
I saw an interesting video today, here. I will leave you to draw your own conclusions and parallels, but it left an impact and I felt I could identify with the protagonist in many aspects of my reality. Rarely do I suggest watching a video, but I strongly suggest watching this. I prefer not to have a drawn out debate here, we are all grown ups. Dennis Brown - 2&cent;

Arb
I was forced to comment again at AE2, life sometimes works that way. Just wait folks, AE3 will be summer blockbuster in 2016. This one is ending in a way that forces it to be a trilogy, in a fashion as obvious as Return of the Jedi or Back to the Future II.

Now that Arb voting season is upon us, my "half joking" suggestion of convincing other to oppose everyone so that no one gets 50% sounds better and better. The Arb system was thrust upon us, and while it does work sometimes, just as often it makes situations worse. The raw power often attracts the wrong people to run. The sheer workload and hassles dissuades the best from running. Arb wasn't a community creating, it was dictated from above, perhaps well meaning, but faulty since day one, and history bears this out. It doesn't need scrapping but it does need overhauling, for the community's sake for even for those serving.

We also need something other than the now deprecated (and ineffective) RFC/U between ANI and Arb, but it has to be something with teeth, with the ability to impose sanctions, and it should be community run at the lowest level, formal in layout but without the mountains of paperwork like Arb. It should empower the community instead of lording over it, and be staffed by admin and non-admin alike, perhaps serving a year, and each case overseen by a just a few of the many serving, who read the consensus of the community and apply policy. This wouldn't replace Arb or ANI, just fill the void between the two, for complicated cases that deserve more than the firehose of ANI. Each case can be listed at ANI while open. A Mediation Noticeboard, where a case starts at ANI and is moved to a subpage (with a stub left at ANI) and resolved, sometimes with sanction, sometimes with understanding, sometimes by someone simply filing an Arb case, all in about a week. Or go propose your own system, I certainly don't have all the answers.

Anyway, the politics of this place are choking me right now. We seem to be drifting farther and farther away from our core objective. Life is that way, the pendulum swings both ways and maybe it is temporary, but maybe it is not. It is a big part of why I'm seldom here now, I have enough drama in my real life, and it makes the drama here look down right silly. Anyway, back to the shadows for now. I will get back to full time, just not soon.

Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 12:35, 22 November 2015 (UTC)


 * What you've said above has been said by many folks who spend alot of time on the dispute-related pages. There's alot of good stuff going on too. If folks paused and examined stuff in more detail at AN/I, then maybe it'd cover the gulf better. Last thing we need is more forums....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:01, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
 * We have two less forums than three years ago, and I completely understand the reluctance. This might be an extension of an existing forum, to slow things down and empower the non-admins more.  I do think we've become a bit lopsided with power, and that many non-admin are more qualified than some admin when it comes to finding solutions.  The admin bit might mean some vetting, but it never raises someone's IQ.  And like I said, come up with a better idea to move out the complicated stuff that works, and I will support it.  Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 13:27, 22 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Dennis, I strongly agree with your first post, and I hope we can start a central discussion somewhere (e.g. Requests for comment/Arbitration reform). We need wholesale reform, where nothing is off the table. started a discussion here, and I left suggestions, but it didn't get much traction. There's also a discussion on my talk page. SarahSV (talk) 00:42, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Funny you say reform can only come from without. I was suspecting the opposite was true. Some things I definitely agree with, like a single "deliberation" page instead of an "evidence" and workshop". Where did our deadminship discussions end up anyway....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:28, 23 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Cas, if it were going to come from within, it would have happened by now, but instead we see the committee become less effective every year. When the mailing list was leaked, a lot of the personality dynamics became clearer. There needs to be some kind of intervention because it's just not working. SarahSV (talk) 02:42, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
 * We'll see. Knowing most of the people who have been arbs I'd say that the environment of the mailing list and arbs has varied greatly at different times. It certainly had between 2009 and 2012. I can't comment for after that but can see by the nature of events over the past several months that some change has to take place. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:51, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
 * It's all trying to paper over two key issues: consensus doesn't scale up well, nor does managing interpersonal interactions by consensus. Even under the best of circumstances, good faith editors can have an honest disagreement deriving from differing principles, neither of which is wrong—just different. And an open membership group inevitably attracts people with their own agendas, which makes governing by consensus nigh impossible. Sooner or later, decision-making mechanisms that are based explicitly on something other than consensus will have to be enacted. In truth, any discussion on English Wikipedia with a few unyielding participants gets resolved by a straw poll, not true consensus. Too much pushback occurs if closers try to judge the outcome of a discussion otherwise. We need procedures to decide on guiding principles and to align the resolution of behavioural issues with these principles. English Wikipedia tries to make everyone happy, and unfortunately it's no longer possible. This will probably mean losing some current community members, but hopefully will help attract new members who agree with a more cohesive direction. isaacl (talk) 03:10, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Eat your mantra now, please
Hey Dennis, you've been a repeated proponent of "No justice, only solutions" for a long time. Please tell me you see the contradiction with your latest. WP is not a court of law, and should not be. But even the pillars vibrate a sense of fundamental fairness to/for all editors, and we all know word "justice" attempts to wrap up even said fairness like a burrito. (Please none of your typical flowery muddifying speechiness to convince any "audience" here that both are true, just admit you've been wrong all along to encourage your above thoughtless and dangerous mantra. Thanks.) p.s. Eric Corbett is too smart for this website. By that I mean, this website does not deserve an editor as talented and hard-working as him. The WP governance structure & implementation is poorly thought out, it is horrendous and demotivating to watch. No one is free here to civilly speak their minds, even the best minds, who are the most interesting to listen to. (Ditto Giano. Ditto Kiefer. Ditto Penyulap.) WP has elements of mob rule everyone knows this already. So many experts avoid this site. Your Editor Retention addresses none of these issues, and has been vacated as a ghost town. And all I'm asking you to do here is permanently put a sock in your oft-repeated stupid & dangerous past mantra, that seems embarrassingly obvious at this point, but which you either don't connect the dots, or are embarrassed to. (Please do it now, thanks.) Kindly, IHTS (talk) 09:39, 23 November 2015 (UTC)


 * I read something today, in a candidate's answer of all places, which might serve as a new mantra: "Readers come first". Made it top of my user page. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:53, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Umm....duh! Is the obvious answer ;) Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:54, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I've said the same forever, it's why I'm lax about sanctioning minor incivility. We are here to create interesting and factual things that people want to read, not to be warm and fuzzy, politically correct drones.  We need rules, but not just for rule's sake.  Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 15:24, 23 November 2015 (UTC)