Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 11:51, 2 July 2012

Question

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Recall my asking on ANI about Mar4d misuse of twinkle, you closed it and said to ask him about it, he never gave an explanation. And he is again misusing the tool, now calling me a vandal. Darkness Shines (talk) 20:02, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Sorry to butt in, and I'll let Dennis deal with the specific problem, but we really need to do something about Twinkle and the fact that anyone can use it, even someone who hasn't even been granted rollback rights. It makes zero sense.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:39, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

I am doing something about it. You can too. As to this specific issue, I've left a msg asking why for now, if he keeps doing it where it doesn't apply, it is a blockable issue, although I try to use that as a last resort only. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 00:50, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the pointer - I've commented. Believe it or not, that's my first time at such a page, and it's mightily confusing. I've put it on my watchlist - maybe some of the confusion will dissipate if I stare at it long enough. :-) --Bbb23 (talk) 01:03, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Go ahead and stare, but it will probably still be confusing. Particularly since the discussion started as looking at the problems with ArbCom, and no one thinks ArbCom is the problem to begin with. It is a more formal RFC type event, but like a town meeting where everyone stands up, says his piece, and others can agree or disagree. It doesn't change policy, but it gives ideas on what direction policy may need to move at the Pump. I don't participate in those events very often either. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 01:06, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

A now Mar4d misused the tool to revert an established editor putting back in blatant source falsifications. This is starting to truely damage wikipedia. JCAla (talk) 15:39, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

• Dennis, you may wish to take a look at this where it has been said in clear words "Participants have agreed to avoid disputes outside of these pages". An editor above comes to an article I created on a terrorist incident and adds a whopping 10,000 bytes of single-agenda POV-enforcing smokescreen under the garb of "removing source falsification" , chunks of which has been simply copy-pasted from other articles (also under discussion on mediation) and with 90% of the information not even relevant to the article. Actions like these are themselves currently disruptive to the project and defeating the purpose of the ongoing mediation process. If the editor above carries the notion that he will not get scrutinised, he is mistaken. Mar4d (talk) 16:08, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Mediation is not a reason to keep blatant source falsifications as they are damaging to the wikipedia project. Mar4d has misused the twinkle feature to restore source falsifications. JCAla (talk) 16:13, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Furthermore, the mediation, in the content discussion of which Mar4d ironically has refused to participate so far, is about whether a majority position needs to be written with attribution. In order not to touch that dispute, everything added by me to the article, has been fully attributed. The relevance of the text has been explained on the article's talk. JCAla (talk) 16:16, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

You yourself have given admission in the above comment that despite being an active party in mediation, you choose to flout the rules and still put things the way that you'd like on articles. That is not how it works. Talking about source falsification, what if I tell you that 90% of what you added very aptly fits this description: WP:COATRACK, which makes it worse. Mar4d (talk) 16:20, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Mar4d added source falsifications to an article. I removed them. Mar4d restored them using twinkle.

The additional fully attributed text added by me is completely relevant per established scholar William Maley see talk for citation. Mar4d may not agree with it, but we go by reliable sources not by Mar4d's pov. JCAla (talk) 16:24, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Sure, let's talk about POV. This is a perfect example of POV. Any neutral reader can conclude that only three or four lines of what you added is related, the rest is the usual BS you've pasted all over other articles on Misplaced Pages. How many articles are you going to quote Amin Saikal on? The Ahmed Rashid quotes say nothing about the embassy attack, the Sharia law sentences are again quoted out of context. Don't get me started on the rest. This discussion is concluded as far as I am concerned. Mar4d (talk) 16:32, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Admin's Barnstar
	For making the tough call on the FishingKing sockpuppet case. I hope he grows up a bit, then comes back with more control. Ebikeguy (talk) 14:14, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. Sometimes, a little tough love is called for. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 14:15, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

That's exactly what I would have done. Good call, Dennis. Keilana| 16:28, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Quick question

Hi, I saw you closed my ANI. Do you disagree that the edits made by the editor was racist? If so, could you explain why? I respect your judgement on the matter, just simply curious. Thanks Leaf Green Warrior (talk) 18:38, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

• What one man calls racist, another calls nationalistic, and another calls neutral. Unless a remark is clearly over the line, using an objective standard, then I ignore it, and allow for a difference of opinion. Personally, I find your threshold of tolerance to be entirely too low, and you are entirely too quick to use the word "racist" in how you describe everyone who doesn't instantly agree with you. Please read The Boy Who Cried Wolf. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 18:42, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Fair enough. Perhaps you're right, and my threshold is too low, but I cannot help my own opinions and feelings on the matter. Thanks for the explanation and straight-forward answer. Leaf Green Warrior (talk) 18:43, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Not a problem. I have strong opinions on many things. I find it serves me better if I don't air them out all the time, because sometimes I might be right but airing them out undermines my arguments. Other times, I find that I was wrong, and it is better to be silent and thought a fool than to speak out and remove all doubt. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 18:47, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Boomerang

Now that it's (apparently?) resolved, just wanted to comment that the mental image conveyed in the above link made me chuckle : ) - jc37 22:42, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

• My brain farted. Should have been "ready to hand to editor" or similar I suppose. Didn't even think about that until you said something :) Just glad it ended without a block. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 22:46, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

  lol Oh I dunno, I kinda like the image of: "There he is, admin at the ready, trusty mop in one hand, boomerang in the other..." - jc37 22:48, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

  I just try to be the admin that doesn't actually get hit by his own boomerang. Gotta remember to not throw it to them, and just hand it.... Dennis Brown - 2¢ 23:15, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

  User:Youreallycan likes this comment - Youreallycan 23:30, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

just a question...

I don't know that it's worth worrying about, or if there's even a problem with it, but since being blocked after comparing himself to a rape victim and the admin to a rapist, WiliamJE has now gone on to defend his analogy on his talk page and write 3 sections on his user page about how badly he's been mistreated, (and I just read all of it, he again repeats that this event was like being raped for him, and the admin was again acting like a rapist, and the rape victim got blamed for it all, that can't be ok to leave on your user page, can it??). What's the "correct" response to that? Nothing, ppl can write whatever they want on their user and talk pages? Is there a policy that covers that? POINT doesn't really seem to be in play, IDHT does, but so what... just wondering. Seems to me the rest of the internet often does a good enough job unfairly judging Misplaced Pages, I don't really enjoy being a platform for it myself. -- Despayre   00:23, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

• BWilkins has already blocked access to his talk page, and I collapsed the rant. Collapsing is generally a non-controversial way to not delete, but still deny easy viewing, and not likely to get you in trouble if you do it politely. It is still there if an admin needs to see to consider an unblock. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 00:33, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

• Well, it was reverted, and BWilkins is trying to work with them on this, so I'm kind of in limbo as it isn't good to step on another toes in a delicate situation. I would agree that having it on that page is not optimal. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 00:53, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

I wouldn't have thought of hatting it (for all the good it did anyway), I guess that's why you get the big bucks around here . Will wait and see what happens, but I do find the rape references somewhat...tasteless, as a comparison to a 24 hour block. -- Despayre   01:06, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

This is only a suggestion, but I think it might be decent practice to not repeat language that you find offensive from others. Better gone and forgotten, I think. - jc37 01:16, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't find the word offensive, I find the comparison between what he went through and what a rape victim goes through as equivalent, to be offensive. -- Despayre   01:28, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Re: ANI -> BLPN_BLPN-2012-06-24T00:58:00.000Z">

Given that I was mainly asking for review of my revdels, an admin action, and only admins could see those, ANI seemed the logical place to me. That said I'm not too bothered as long as I get a second opinion. Dpmuk (talk) 00:58, 24 June 2012 (UTC)_BLPN"> _BLPN">

• Ah, I see your point, I will take a look. I get very cautious with BLPs, and see so much debate on them at ANI, I try to avoid them there. WP:AN has more admins less gawkers, might be better for getting admins only to look. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 01:03, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
• I've gone over it fairly well, and it looks clean. Thinking about it, I would still rather put it an BLPN, as they would tell you any diff, or call another admin if needed (two of the regulars call me for admin action regularly). But any port in a storm and the job is done. Bad case, definitely needed the redaction. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 01:14, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Civility and socks

Hello You advice/insight/guidance will be appreciated.

The WP:ARBPIA is a magnet for socks I myself have filed recently a SPI case .But the problem that veteran users IMO failing to WP:AGF when dealing with new users, I had recently conversation about that with user:Ohiostandard .I think such edits is violation of WP:AGF and WP:NPA if the editor have evidence he should open SPI case.Here is an example:

• Accusing user of socking and reverting him
• Striking new user comments
• Violating article talk page guidelines and accusing other editor of socking instead opening an SPI case.

Do you think that is acceptable behavioral?--Shrike (talk) 13:06, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

P.S I have notified Ohio of this discussion

• I will look at this in greater detail a bit later, I have a few things I must do first, and this will require devoting more than a few minutes to review properly. This isn't something I would want to just give an offhand opinion on, but agree that here is a better place to discuss it than ANI, at least for now. If OhioStandard wants to offer come guidance here as well, that would be appreciated. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 13:12, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

• I'm discussing similar issues with him here, Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 19:17, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

I see this but the problem is the civility issue.If the suspected sock doesn't add any material that need to be reverted right away(vandalism or blp or extreme pov push)why not wait day or two so he could be blocked if he is really a sock and then revert.--Shrike (talk) 06:16, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

I expect to raise the issue, I was just letting you know that we were talking about similar issues. I agree that editors should be careful about how they use the term "sock" when reverting actions and such, and I know he has to deal with a lot of real socks as well, so yes, I want to continue the discussion with all of us later in the day. This is a common concern with many users that do the same thing, call many people socks that may or may not be, in good faith, but sometimes in excess. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 11:16, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Voter turnout in the United States presidential elections

Dennis, I just happened to come across this article, which at first seemed like a good thing - until I started looking for the source of all that data. Only two references are provided, way down at the bottom - the first deals with only the 2008 election, the second has numbers that vary from those presented in the wikiarticle.

Reading between the lines of the long footnote there, it seems to me this is a case of OR, which is foisting unreliable info on readers. And therefore should be deleted. But 1) This is not my area of expertise, 2) I'm not really sure how to navigate the twisting paths of a request for deletion, and 3) It's a lovely Sunday afternoon and I have much better things to do with my time.

So I'm just putting a bug in your ear about this - do with it what you will. Textorus (talk) 18:24, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

• Thanks, I have four windows open and trying to get outside as well :p I will take a look this evening or tomorrow. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 18:33, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
• The topic is actually very worth an article on, but this isn't that article and the sourcing is certainly lacking. I need to make sure an existing article doesn't already exist, in which I would just send it to CSD#A10, but otherwise I may try to recruit a helper or two and clean it up. I can imagine that tons of sources exist. But I appreciate the challenge you gave me here, I bet we can put some lipstick on this pig and dress her up nice with a little effort. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 11:26, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Thanks for looking into it, Dennis, and I hope you get a helper to fix it up nice and proper. It would be quite a worthwhile little "pig" with accurate numbers and reliable sourcing. Textorus (talk) 21:00, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
    • I've handed off to User:JayJasper, someone I've never worked with before, but a little research seems to indicate that he would be perfect for the job. He has said he will see what he can do to fix it up. Thanks for bringing it to my attention, as this is an article that should be worthwhile, particularly in an election year. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 22:27, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
      • Cool, appreciate ya Dennis. Textorus (talk) 16:38, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

AfD closure

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Addobbati (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Dennis, if you have a moment, could you please close this AfD? I've withdrawn the nomination. I'm not sure if the nominator is permitted to do a non-admin closure of his own nomination; otherwise, I'd do it myself. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:29, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

• Ok, now five windows. Give me a few minutes and I will take a look. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 18:33, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

• Poor Dennis. No urgency and it's not even a big deal if you can't get to it. I hate to add to your workload.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:39, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

• Oops, you did it anyway, thanks! And if I had noticed your comment in the section just above this one, I would never have even posted this request. My apologies.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:41, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

• Not a problem, I'm just in high demand today, and I've some personal issues I'm having to deal with, so not as available as I would like, but still don't want to ignore people who need help. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 19:13, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

• I took the liberty of finishing up for you on the article itself per WP:AFD/AI, figuring that what I did was more ministerial than substantive. I said the result was "keep", even though that isn't what you wrote. Feel free to change that if you think I was wrong to label it that way.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:43, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

• oh, I should have thought to do that. I'm a bit out of it today. Our plant manager at the factory several hours south of here died of a sudden heart attack yesterday evening, never had heart issues before. Young guy, in his 30s, been with us for over a decade. I wasn't that close but knew him well enough as I visit the plant from time to time, but it is still a lot to deal with. I'm a bit distracted, checking up on family and close friends down there. Not much I can do for the situation, however. I also don't close many AFDs, likely less than 5 before, so it isn't habit. No one should give you any problems for cleaning up my mess here. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 19:53, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

• Sorry about the personal stuff, must be dreadful for his family. I think the completion of the closure is good enough. I've never done it before, but, just like with so many things at WP, I sat there with windows open following the step-by-step instructions. Perhaps I'll start looking at non-admin closures so I can get some practice, but I feel like I have a fair amount on my plate lately, so not sure.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:57, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Tinga Tinga

Maybe you're watching anyway, but in case you aren't. I've responded to your messages on my talk page. JamesBWatson (talk) 21:08, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

WP:RFPP request

Hey Dennis, I don't normally ask this but, do you think you can look over my request for protection for the Syrian uprising (2011-present) article? It's been almost a day and an half since the request was posted. Thank you very much! -- Luke (Talk) 23:25, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

• Working on it. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 23:29, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
•  Done But can't get Misplaced Pages's CSS to load. Very ugly on this end.... Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 23:40, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Your perspective

There is a really interesting conversation on paid editing in the second half of this string. I find that I learn a lot just by absorbing different viewpoints and I haven't heard yours yet. I was wondering if you would care to contribute to the discussion. If it is of interest to you, I would enjoy getting your perspective. User:King4057 01:54, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

• It has been a rough weekend on many fronts (see above), and I expect to soon but have been swamped with RFPP and SPI backlogs, plus requests on this page, which were urgent. The next day or two I expect to jump back in and reincorporate some ideas I have. I will check your discussion tomorrow morning, 10pm here. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 01:58, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

(watching) repeating in rough times that you are an awesome Wikipedian, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:46, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Nice to see a kind word with the first sip of coffee of the day. Appreciated. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 11:12, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

New perspective ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:39, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

I went and read the entire article. Very good, worthy of FA. And now I'm very flattered that you gave me one a while back! (It is safely stored in my barnstar vault) Thanks again, and for the link as well. I needed to just stop and read a really interesting article, and that one certainly is. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 23:06, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Love to hear that! (I knew why I used it.) Tell the author also, or - perhaps even better - support the nomination ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:15, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, helped ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:37, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Cool! I love articles like this, a part of the culture of that area. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 17:40, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Socks

Check your email, thanks. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 15:32, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

How to change user name style?

How do you change the style of your user name and user talk boxes? Thanks. --Anderson9990 (talk) 01:03, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

• I will answer on your talk page. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 01:07, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

False positives

I was just wondering if you think it is a good idea if i start up a false postives page? Thanks, --Anderson9990 Talk to me False Positive? Report it! 02:38, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

• I don't know, I revert vandalism and all, but I don't organize it. Likely, the guys over at WP:CVU would have some ideas about that, fighting vandalism is what they do most of the time. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 02:41, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Re: Northern Arrow / Factocop SPI

Hi Dennis, re the above SPI I'm inclined to agree with DeltaQuad. I don't think there's enough for any further action at this time - if something more appears then I'd support taking another look--Cailil 12:34, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

• Not a problem, DQ is very experienced SPI clerk, I would defer to his greater experience in this as well. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 12:39, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Requests for Permissions/reviewer

Do you want to take a look at these 2 requests for reviewer? no one has accepted or declined permission. Instead, it is more being used as a forum then a requests page. Thanks!--Anderson9990 - Talk to me - False Positive? Report it! 02:09, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

• Reviewer rights are slow to get doled out because the entire function doesn't exist yet. It was part of a test, but isn't expected to roll out until December. I'm personally not familiar enough with the requirements to grant reviewer rights to anyone. You are still kind of new as well, not sure what their criteria is, as that is out of my normal realm of work. I would just wait, you can't really do anything with it until December, and I don't think it will take very long to get a decision in the proper venue. Under the best of circumstances, it usually takes a couple of days to get rights granted properly. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 02:14, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Strikethrough edit summary?

Hi, Dennis - I regret the edit summary that I made in this edit, for obvious reasons. Is it possible to strikethrough every word prior to "disambig," or those words there, unretracted, for the life of the article history? I don't see a rationale for revdel'ing it, particularly since the edit itself was (I believe) a good one, other than the WP:DICKish summary I gratuitously stuck on it. I don't want to pretend I never typed those words, just make clear they are not to be seen as my considered, rational opinion. Thanks! ☯.ZenSwashbuckler.☠ 13:18, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

• I don't think revdel wouldn't be appropriate. What I would do if I had done that, is go to the talk page, explain the edit and just apologize for the rude summary. We all have bad days, it isn't the end of the world, but an apology is usually the best sign of good faith. Or make a null edit with an apology in the summary. I goof from time to time as well, and I find that if I make myself apologize in at least a public a manner as my mistake, it keeps me from making too many mistakes and keeps me honest. And people are usually quick to forgive occasional lapses in judgement when you admit a mistake this way. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 13:24, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

  Thanks for the advice, and for responding extraordinarily quickly. ☯.ZenSwashbuckler.☠ 13:53, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

  That looked good, and will be obvious from the history. We all have bad moments, and I always have tremendous respect for people who are willing to correct a mistake in this way. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 14:07, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Query about block

Hello, Dennis. I see that you blocked NJ Wine as a sockpuppet, and removed talk page access. That is normally done only when there is a history of talk page misuse while blocked. However, this account had not edited at all while blocked, and the sockmaster has not, as far as I can see, abused talk page access while blocked. Is there a reason that I have missed, or was this a mistake? JamesBWatson (talk) 13:51, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

• My mistake, still not used to all the new buttons and boxes over at SPI. I've corrected it. Thanks for bringing this to my attention. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 14:05, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

You online?

I saw a request on RC for an article to be created but this won't let me, can you fix it please so I may crate the article? Darkness Shines (talk) 19:25, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Ignore, Tom has done it for me. Darkness Shines (talk) 19:32, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

sorry about that, I missed your message or I would have been happy to help. During the day here, around 1200UTC to 1700UTC, I'm at work so it is hit and miss, so I sometimes miss comments. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 19:06, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

--Anderson9990 - Talk to me - False Positive? Report it! 21:19, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

well i just wanted to say thx for all the hard work and good luck and if u want to could u please send me a message it would mean the world to me and once again thx

Wwecenarules (talk) 05:05, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

first blush

I noticed post, and wondered if perhaps you weren't being a bit defensive. I didn't see it as "posturing" by Mastcell, but rather a considered action followed by a detailed reasoning as to why he did what he did. That's not to say that I'm familiar with the situation, I'm not. Just that having seen and known Mastcell for a long time, I have to say that I've never known him to point fingers, make accusations, or step on toes. I /do/ understand that when you take an administrative action which gets changed that you start to question yourself and all (big time .. but I won't go into my own details), but I doubt any slight was intended in the least. You're doing some damn fine work Dennis - don't let the little stuff throw ya for a loop. Cheers. Chedzilla (talk) 18:46, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

• Maybe a little, but since I was the one that unblanked the page, it seemed directed at me. So did the discussion above by another admin, who pointed me out by name. In this case, MastCell didn't need to threaten to protect the page, which to me is posturing: drawing a line in the sand. He could have just said "I've reverted back because $x, discuss before you change back", which would have been fine and inline with the spirit of BRD and all that. But by suggesting that an edit war was even possible, he wasn't exactly assuming good faith and it was a bit improper. I've been accused of many things, but edit warring isn't one of them. I hadn't crossed paths with MastCell before, and to take such a public and defiant stand on an action I took just seems inappropriate and unnecessary. Perhaps later I will see it differently, but his words seem fairly clear. Not incivil, but certainly defiant in declaring how "strongly" he felt. I would like to think I'm fairly responsive and approachable in these types of matters. By the way, thank you for the vote of confidence, it is appreciated. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 19:01, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
  • As I said at WP:AN, it really wasn't intended as a swipe at you. Like you said, I don't think we've really crossed paths, but the vague impression I have of your work is very positive. I certainly don't have any reason to think you'd edit-war over the courtesy-blanking. I do feel strongly about the blanking, and wanted to convey that, but not as an attack on your handling of the situation. MastCell  21:20, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
    • No problem, the target of your comments wasn't clear, so we will just chalk this up to a simple communications issue, no harm, no foul. I agree about either redacting or blanking info in general when it might out someone. Have not looked specifically, been at work, but take your word for it. I had just assumed the blanking was only due to the RTV, as that is standard procedure. The big deal was relinking the account anyway, both for convenience and because he has violated the terms, and a pledge should mean something. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 21:53, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Question on Lionel Richie/vandalism

I noticed your comment on User talk:Anderson9990#Lionel Richie about the IP editing to Lionel Richie not being vandalism. The Lionel Richie page has now been protected by another admin for "persistent vandalism" in referrence to those same IP section blanking edits and perhaps another IP add. I just want to be clear on whether this IP should've been warned for vandalism or not? I reported this to the admin page for vandalism, and no one told me I was mistaken. I notified another admin directly and there was no mention of the case not being one of vandalism. I just want to make sure I'm doing the right thing in the future, and this is a bit confusing. Thanks for your time. INeverCry 04:54, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

PS - There's another Ip who added, in what would seem to be good faith edits, some detail about a Lionel Richie look-alike. This wouldn't seem to be vandalism either would it, as this other IP added what he thought was a relevant detail? INeverCry 05:14, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

I've answered on Anderson's page, to make it easier. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 11:06, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for clearing this up for me. The idea of "erring on the conservative side" makes perfect sense, as does the advice of getting the help of other editors. INeverCry 17:43, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Not a problem, I'm happy to offer advice anytime. We are all players on the same team, after all. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 17:45, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Bullying

I am really fed up with the bullying comments about my editing at this page Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Echigo mole. Another use has chosen to characterise my edits as incompetent, superficial, faked, zero expertise, wrong, lack of clue, tiresome, not a great idea. His comments on Goldie's Theorem (not Theory) being left behind are just plain nonsense. I am only too happy to have my edits checked by an impartial expert, but really do not want to face any more personal abuse, arrogance, bullying and nonsense from this person. Can you please do something about it? Thanks. Gangs of Wasseypur (talk) 14:52, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

• I have endorsed the CU process, so we should wait and see what comes of it for now. SPI's do get ugly sometimes, something I don't particularly like, but sometimes this ugliness bears fruit. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 17:12, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

... and now apparently I'm deluded as well. Evn tought you endorse this "ugliness", I do not have to put up with it. No need to bother to check over my edits, just cancel my account. There's a list of topics I was planning to address on my user page, someone else can do that now. Gangs of Wasseypur (talk) 18:10, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

I only endorsed checking the account, not his statements, due to technical reasons. Accounts can't be cancelled, but you can black both your user and talk page and put only this tag: {{retired}} on each if you wish to leave. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 18:13, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Unfortunately for Gangs of Wasseypur (undoubtedly a troll sock of Echigo mole), in 1977-1978 in my third year as an undergraduate I took Part III of the Cambridge Mathematical Tripos. One of the courses happened to be on non-commutative ring theory, one of my favourite subjects as a schoolboy and undergraduate. It was given by Derek Taunt of Jesus College, Cambridge. The course included Goldie's theorems. In real life I think I have met most of the top academics in the UK in algebra, including Paul Cohn. At least two of them are very good friends of mine. Mathsci (talk) 18:24, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

• Unfortunately for me, the content is incredibly beyond my comprehension, which is why sometimes you have to speak slowly and spell it out, to allow me to use the tools I do have, technical and behavioral comparisons, in order to make the call, while not jumping to conclusions prematurely. The system works, it just isn't as quick as a light switch. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 18:33, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
  • I appreciate that. As with Ansatz, the discussions at SPI are a bit tricky. In this case they made a fatal error ... But again, many thanks for your help. Mathsci (talk) 18:54, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Editor retention

How do you address it, or do you suggest there is none ? Penyulap ☏ 17:37, 29 Jun 2012 (UTC)

• I think editor retention is a very important subject. I've addressed it here , and here and on User:Parrot of Doom's talk page after his block. My sandbox has a pledge in it's early stages , perhaps eventually an essay, about how admins should always warn before blocking. I've been vocal in supporting our established editors, even one or two who can be somewhat disruptive, at the risk of upsetting more than a few of my more "mainstream" admins, at ANI and other venues. When possible, I inject myself early in the process to prevent heavier hands from overreacting, and have received a fair amount of grief for being less harsh than some feel I should. If you look above, I just had a talk on another user's talk page about not templating editors with vandalism tags when it is inappropriate. The idea that my role is to keep good people here permeates every action I take here. I even became an SPI clerk trainee, as sockpuppets undermine the quality work of content creators, and this is a way I can fish out the POV and problem editors, paving the road for higher productivity of the neutral editors.
• I freely accept my role as janitor and accept that the most important role at Misplaced Pages is the content creator, not the admin. I wouldn't expect you to notice as you have more important things to do than follow my contribs, but I've been quite vocal about this in multiple venues, and on a regular basis. I've said it 100x before: People don't use Misplaced Pages because of the great admins, they use it because of the great articles. Our goals are the same, even if our methods aren't. I'm against added bureaucracy because in the end, that actually hurts content by offering new methods of wikilawyering, which the bad guys WILL exploit. I am for changing the perspectives of some admins to my way of looking at our role here, which I think is the root of the problem. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 18:05, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Just a comment since I saw this. Do you think the more important change for editor retention is going to be found in keeping editors from being blocked or by keeping editors who fade away? I see many editors who create an account for one purpose and leave when it is done or who never become involved in the Misplaced Pages community and one day stop editing. Generally, we block editors who would otherwise keep editing, so that may be more important, but there's also the issue of editors like Sebastian Lake or Adambrower. Both of these editors created articles (Sweet Revenge (liqueur) and Herbert Greene (Broadway conductor) respectively) and have discontinued editing since. Do you have any idea how we can create an environment where people want to spend their time here? (This isn't to say that there aren't editors like you, Penlyap, and I who want to spend their time here, but how do we make new editors want to?) Ryan Vesey Review me! 18:14, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure how to keep the very casual dabbler, who creates one or two articles. My efforts have been on keeping older editors who were here when Misplaced Pages was a different place. Both are important, granted, and encouraging dabblers to become full fledged members of the community is a worthy goal, but many have no interest in the community, they just want to add a couple of articles on things they like. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 18:17, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

I see the problem this way, there are many good editors who have a mature thoughtful approach to justice. I see little to no acknowledgment in policy that the 'justice' here is not perfect, and there is an appalling reliance on people investigating themselves. I feel and see that many of the best editors, the most thoughtful, view the system with contempt because it makes no attempt to address these simple issues in a meaningful way. You do not stand in a warzone, it's an uncomfortable place because you know you can be shot or mortared at any moment, and that is the analogue of what they feel and face, that at anytime, someone will take a dislike to them, indef block them, and because of their integrity they will not return. Returning involves telling lies, as is required "I did something wrong, I understand I won't do it again" to the same person who hates them, and they're gone forever. There is no allowance for a difference of opinion between the admin that block someone and that blocked editor. They either agree with the person who has just upset them, bow and kiss arse, or they're out. There is no possible reason why it needs to be the same admin that reviews a block, beyond the admins ego, it assumes that no other admin is capable of assessing an editor re-entering the community.

Side-stepping the issue with the pretense that it cannot happen because there are lots of things to prevent it fundamentally misses the point that it does indeed happen. Even if you want to pretend it doesn't, you have to make the absurd dangerous assumption that it cannot ever happen and lay that on top of ignoring the many people who say it does.

Community strength and admin strength is found not in backing one admin to make the decision and review them-self, it lays in the same message being given to an editor by different admins, or the community themselves saying the same thing as the original admin, while the original admin stays silent. If one person calls you a horse, you ignore them, if ten people call you a horse, you buy yourself a saddle. Admins tend to think that they should 'back up' each other regardless of their poor decisions, rather than each of them being willing to rely on some other admin to come to a similar, or even different, decision. 'backing each other up' leads inevitably to an 'us and them' mentality that divides the whole community. Relying on each other to make similar decisions reinforces every decision as a good reason to buy a saddle.

When admins cannot, or are unwilling to trust each other to come to a similar decision based on the same set of circumstances, it is an admission that the circumstances involved do not speak for themselves. In the eyes of the blocked editor, who sees that someone else would consider the block unreasonable, it's confirmation that it is, indeed, unreasonable. If the first opinion is wrong, and there is no second opinion, then you can justifiably think that you may well have got a bad block. If five people endorse the block, it's less likely, if 30 people endorse the block you are on your own and have to accept that yes, it's just you. The way I see it, if any editor has ever been disliked by one admin, then they may as well leave now, because it's just a matter of time, because regardless of the editor's actions, the system fully supports and backs spite and vendetta and admins reviewing themselves. If broad consensus came into it, fine, if single admin consensus is the standard, then that's that. People will look at wikipedia as having standards the same as any board or forum. I expect not many people try to do high quality encyclopedic work on 4chan, and so the good editors see that wikipedia is simply not up to the task. Penyulap ☏ 20:56, 29 Jun 2012 (UTC)

First, the admin reviewing the block shouldn't be the blocking admin. I review blocks from time to time, but I would never, ever consider reviewing a block I made. I might comment about it below, but wouldn't refuse the request. Technically, each request SHOULD have a different admin, each time. And not all admins think the same. I went and pitched for User:FleetCommand to be unblocked to the admin, and got him unblocked, but he is still upset and yet to come back. If you want to admin's to be independent, then you can't lump us all together. Independence is the number 1 reason I vote for a candidate at RfA. More important than any other quality, and an otherwise perfect candidate will get an oppose from me if I think they are cliquish. We aren't all the same, but if you take an adversarial attitude about all admins, you end up pushing some of them against you. All I can do is what I do, stay independent, I give admins the benefit of the doubt, but I give all users the same, and when I see a mistake by an admin, I ask them about it, politely, since that is the most effective way to get them to voluntarily reverse their actions, and that makes them more likely not to do the same thing in the future. Admins are NEVER going to have a universal blocking system, I will always be less likely to block than others, and some will always be willing to block without notification. Don't waste your time trying to fix that, it is a volunteer force, it won't happen. All you can do is vote in good admins, or become one and lead by example. More rules aren't going to solve this. Keeping things in full daylight will help, however. In the end, that is all I can do, be independent, try to fix bad blocks when I'm aware of them (see my user page, I say I will review admins if asked, btw). Misplaced Pages will never be "fixed". All I can do is try to not make the same mistakes as others, and make my little corner a better place, and maybe others will try to do the same. One person at a time. Again, more rules aren't the answer, accountability is. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 21:41, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't know to what extent I could be considered to be a typical case, but Penyulap's position resonates with me, and is the fundamental reason why my participation here has drastically declined, and will continue on that path unless something changes. Bad blocks are hard enough to swallow, but then to see an ArbCom member arguing that all blocks should be indefinite pending the blockee's self-abasement is a step way too far. Malleus Fatuorum 00:02, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

I agree that the idea that all blocks should be indef is absurd and opens up so many venues of abuse that I would never agree to such a system nor participate in such. I agree with Penyulap as far as the general problems are concerned, but there are two schools of thought when it comes to solutions here. We can reach for the moon, or we can start with the lowest hanging fruit. I tend to start with the lowest hanging fruit, trying to make a difference where I can, and doing so more often. I can speak out early and often, and hopefully persuade others to my point of view. I don't think more rules are the answer, as we have so damn many rules now that after almost 6 years, I'm still finding new ones weekly. I'm more a fan of common sense than rote memory of rules anyway. As for the solution, all I can do is that which is within my own limited skill set, using my own judgement. If we disagree on a solution, it is helpful to remember that we still agree on the problem. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 00:20, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

But of course there isn't just one problem here, there are many. I was reminded earlier today of another factor that plays here, that disruptive newbies are treated with kid gloves while established editors "who should know better" are treated as harshly as a strict interpretation of the rules allow without the blocking admin getting into desysop territory. Does anyone seriously believe that this user didn't know any better after having been warned umpteen times? Blocked now at last, yes, but at what cost to the editors who had to put up with that shit for far too long? Malleus Fatuorum 00:38, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Malleus, unless you know something I don't you're being a little harsh on Arbcom there – you might not agree with every position they take, but they do generally try to have a modicum of common sense. I assume the comment you're referring to with "all blocks should be indefinite pending the blockee's self-abasement" is this thoughtful contribution to the debate from Sandstein – in the unlikely event that Sandstein were ever elected to Arbcom, the job of Misplaced Pages's admins would become considerably easier given that a substantial portion of the editor base would leave Misplaced Pages there and then. 188.28.117.86 (talk) 00:43, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

That was indeed the observation I was referring to, but I see that I was a little premature in attributing it to an ArbCom member, as Sandstein won't be one until the next elections roll around. Malleus Fatuorum 00:47, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Occasionally when I'm bored, I snipe from the sidelines about these issues on admin notice boards. Snipping from the sidelines seems to be the nearest a content editor can get to having a voice. What I say there is routinely ignored or misrepresented by admins and admin wantabees. Other content editors seem afraid to engage, and are probably rightly afraid. Or I guess they are amongst the army that have already abandoned the place. I still contribute here, mostly by trying to pretend the miserable situation doesn't really matter. But that's not really true, and only works up to a point. --Epipelagic (talk) 00:52, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The number of serving Arbs was reduced for a reason, and assuming Brad, Elen and Casliber are shoo-ins that only leaves five vacancies at the end of this year. Regardless, all the deckchair-rearranging discussions on policy nuances whilst the Holy Shit Slide continues unabated increasingly remind me of the scene in Foundation, where every significant part of the Empire has seceded but the Emperor refuses to recognise this and continues issuing edicts to people who no longer even realise he's still alive. If Jimmy Wales really wants the noble title it's occasionally suggested he's angling for (allegedly, and all that), "Holy Roman Emperor of the Internet" has a certain ring to it. 188.28.117.86 (talk) 01:05, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Nine weeks ago, I didn't think that much about retention, as I saw other problems that still motivate me, even if they don't take up as much time. As time goes on, I see more and more simply because I'm seeing it from the other side, so to speak. Below you see an IP that I blocked, yes, before the mandatory 4 warnings, because it was obvious, knowing someone might "call me out", yet knowing it was the right thing to do. So I did. I don't really have my sea legs with the admin bit yet, to be perfectly honest, it takes a while. And I'm still seeing new things because my perspective is literally changing by the week, even while my core beliefs have not. I've never been as involved with the actual process here (politics) as I've been in the last two months so it is often a bit to take in, and often I find myself stretched in so many directions, with only so many hours in the day. I seldom get to edit now, as the demands to resolve disputes and help others, plus learning SPI dominate my day. Malleus, you might feel that little is lost ;) but I still enjoy editing, even if it isn't my best talent. I actually like helping others, likely as much as editing, so I will get over it. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 00:57, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Every other day of the week I think your one of the good guys, and while I can read all through the comments here, and see all the places I agree with you, at the end of the day, it comes down to your oppose vote, bereft of any other explanation I can only guess that you didn't read or understand the reasoning for the proposal, maybe it's poorly formed, or muddied up by other commentary, but any way I look at that page, including standing on my head, I can only conclude that you're part of the problem. I don't care mind you, I mean it makes no difference in the end who votes for what it's just numbers, which in itself is most of the problem, because a puppet counts the same as a well reasoned persons vote, but I just didn't expect that sort of drive-by, it surprises me still. I don't understand, and my response there stands. Penyulap ☏ 02:57, 30 Jun 2012 (UTC)

• I'm sorry you feel that way as I've always respected you Penyulap, even when I disagree with you. All I can do is attempt to fix the problems in my own way. I believe I understand the proposal, but I can see 100 ways for it to be abused as well, so I have no choice but to oppose. It wasn't a drive by vote shooting down your idea, and I felt that I explained it in a fairly detailed way, particularly the first time. Another issue is binary thinking: there are many admins who agree in principal with what you are saying. I would encourage you to work WITH those admins instead of lumping us all together. Swap ideas, allow us to be persuaded without being told that we are part of the problem. Allow us to share our experiences of abuse to help tailor a solution as well. There is no silver bullet here, only incremental changes that will help the culture evolve into something better. If you want to open a dialog and invite open minded admins on a subpage somewhere, maybe that would be better as a first step, so any idea would already have some degree of consensus. Start by identifying the problems, rather than proposing solutions, allow others to see the problems who might not have before. Again, building from the ground up. It might seem slower, but that is the only way I know to actually be successful at creating change, here or in the real world. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 12:59, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes, you are quite right as always, hey, hang on a minute, as *almost* always :D

I guess in some ways it will need to wait, as the information gathered from putting the question to the mob is more interesting. The answer is often the least interesting thing, and the outcome is hardly relevant, but the workings of the interactions is fascinating. Anyhow, something to doublecheck, and I won't ask Auntie, because Auntie will tell me what I think more than what I said, so I'll double check with you, that paragraph that begins "So make a simple route for a third party newbie editor to follow," someone claims something or other about not respecting consensus or some such, which is not what it says, and people often have a tendency to read whatever it is they would like to be reading rather than what is there. So I don't care really if one or two can misinterpret, but I was wondering if more than just one or two can misinterpret that paragraph, what do you think ? Besides Penyulap is bothering me taking up my time when I have a million things to do, btw, sorry about that, and take a week to respond, there is no hurry. Penyulap ☏ 10:09, 1 Jul 2012 (UTC)

Specifically: You are forcing them to abandon empathy for their fellow man, my integrity will not allow me to agree with your demands and I'd sooner be a maytr than do as the rest of you do and go along with this insanity, I will not abandon my humanity, I'd sooner die, or in this case welcome with open arms an indef ban. There is always thewik.net, wikialpha, or any number of Carpathias where people wind back the clock to the better days, and carefully avoid this idiocy.

Well, that is a bit of a line in the sand, at least how I read it, but I don't take it quite as serious as others might. You and I use different version of English and were raised in different cultures, so we might have different ways of being mellow dramatic. In this case, I think you got very emotionally invested in the conversation, something we all do from time to time. Last week Malleus was kind enough to snap me into reality for doing the same, although your comments were more civil than my transgression. Your words could be taken in a couple of different ways, but no one is that upset. After all, most took them in good faith and replied with on topic questions rather than dwell on the wording. I wouldn't dwell on it.

Make no mistake about it, I'm passionate about many things, and don't let my (usually) calm demeanor mislead you about this. I try very hard to keep a cool, rational method of communication here because when people see a bias in your speaking, it has a way of pushing them into playing devil's advocate. It isn't easy, and I'm not as successful with it as I would like to be. As for essays, I started User:Dennis Brown/EASYMONEY which I'm working on, addressing another problem. I posted notices on prominent pages of editors whom I trust, and watching it grow. It isn't exactly going in the direction I intended, but it is interesting to watch it grow. Rock soup, something I quote a lot, applies here, and I find it is easier to get consensus and others on board when I start an idea, invite a diverse group of people to participate, and then get out of the way a bit and see what happens, making it clear that everyone is welcome to edit the essay directly. It is all a great experiment, after all, just like democracy. So I am working on retention in a number of ways, perhaps less grand than your vision, but hopefully in small but fruitful ways. I'm stretched a bit thin right now, but would try to help as best I could if you wanted to start a similar essay project of your own. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 13:13, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Wiki is not what it once was. The way we operate needs a rework from the top down and inside out. PumpkinSky talk 13:15, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

• "People don't use Misplaced Pages because of the great admins,..." ... true; but often good people leave because of poor admins. IJS. (and no .. that's not an implication - I think you're doing a fine job). Chedzilla (talk) 13:33, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

  You are completely right about bad admins pushing people away. Or more often, when good people make bad mistakes as admin. I don't think all the bad actions are intentional at all, some just get so cynical and settled into blocking at first sight. Others are too busy doing other things to research properly. If you want to change the way admins react to situation, you also must acknowledge that improper blocks aren't usually bad faith, even if a bad idea. And that most admins, even the ones making what you and I might call "mistakes", are actually trying to do what they think is best for Misplaced Pages. I know it is often hard to see that side of it, but you must if you want to change what is going on. Like all problems, it isn't so simple. You change the outcomes by changing the culture here, and that takes time, patience, a large group of fellow admins who willing to work within the cause, and steady (even if slow) progress. I get lumped as a "typical admin" by people who are pissed about another admin's action all the time, and it doesn't endear me to their cause. If you want to get admins to change, you have to vocally support the admins who are doing it right. There are several, and many more on the cusp. My idea isn't popular, but that isn't relevant. I know it is the only way to get popular support for these other ideas, by working together and keeping it level headed with reasonable goals. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 14:25, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

  • Part of the problem, which is indeed multi-faceted, is the very nature of wiki: open editing, anonymity, culture clash (ex: Malleus thought nothing of saying "cunt" but it appalled others. Throw cabals throwing power trips around, centuries old religion and ethnic warring, editors who think anyone that doesn't agree with them is an idiot, blocking productive editors, good editors leaving because the bad ones abuse them and are more determined to stick it out til they get what they want, etc. and you have what we have. What happened with Yogo sapphire, which was TFA yesterday, is a shining example of wiki being what it should be--editors coming together to make an article the best it can be, not what it too often is. Cracks in the old way are starting to show, but there's a long long way to go. PumpkinSky talk 14:32, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
    • I believe that to get good results, you have to use the carrot more than the stick. People with good ideas and positive attitudes are successful at getting things done because people like to be around them, will listen to their ideas, and be persuaded by them if they make sense. You seek out and reward the people doing it right, you learn from them and co-opt their ideas and methods into your own. Spend at least half your time doing that, instead of spending all of it criticizing the many that do it wrong, and you have a reward for good behavior instead of only a punishment for bad. We don't need a Cabal of "good" admins, but maybe we need a project that focuses on editor retention, and can be a place for admins to learn methods to help with this. Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Editor Retention would be one idea. So I started it. So let us all put our money where our mouth is, join, actually participate, and develop a real strategy for dealing with the many reasons for editor retention issues. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 15:07, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
      • That's certainly a step in the right direction, but it's only part of the solution. You can't ignore the bad elements; they won't go away because you ignore them or be nice to them. Being nice is going to change some ethnic warrior trying to carry out some 1000 year old vendetta. I will join your project. Check out one some of us formed a few days ago to help with issues with quality articles: WP:QAI. PumpkinSky talk 15:18, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
        • Then we take that step, because it is in the right direction. One at a time. Again, this is why the project makes sense, so we can each take different steps, but in the right direction. Some things, like 1000 year old vendettas, won't be fixed except by traditional methods, but if someone can't edit without being a warrior, then they need to be blocked because they are interfering with quality editors that CAN edit in a collegiate manner. The idea of the project is that we can discuss all these different problems and solutions, in one neutral area. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 15:23, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

I've joined the project, I hope that doesn't completely poison the well, feel free to delete my comment or edit, whatever. I'll reply here later. Penyulap ☏ 15:49, 1 Jul 2012 (UTC)

Of course you joining doesn't poison the well. I did change the wording of the list. If we are going to actively get admins to engage and participate (which IS necessary) we have to be just as neutral there as we would be in any article. We need to work on that with you, just a tad ;) But if you work in this way, I promise you will see more results than if you don't. I can easily promise this. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 15:57, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

arbitrary break

Dennis, your "Anne-Frank-I-really-believe-all-people-are-essentially-good-Rodney-King-can't-we-all-get-along" pablum is a little bit nauseating since it amounts to passive wishful thinking and won't lead to anything concrete to address real ills. How about an admin who throws away his RfA-promised recall-list subscription after only a few months on the job then discovers it's really fun servicing his personal grudges by carrying out revenge-blocks on editors targeted who've not respected the admin's almighty power as they should over any excuse imaginable at an opportune time that can be exaggerated to appear in line of duty fully supported by policy while keeping other admins at arms length by intimidating them by calling them trolls if they interfere or manipulating them using accepted concept of admin corps comradeship ("I-caution-you-to-think-twice-before-butting-in-like-this-and-questioning-a-fellow-admin's-decision") and generally throwing around "fuck this" and "fuck that" in edit summaries whenever the urge strikes and subjugating victims with "I'll unblock you if you promise that you'll no longer be a dick" and routinizing said formula with threat to indef cherry-on-top and so on and so on while avoiding as much as possible obvious evidence of blatant admin abuse knowing that admins are seldom removed by arbcom and to operate under the radar pretty much guarantees a lifelong mop and if anyone wants to mess with them they have their aggressive and equally-brutish admin buddies who'll come through the window to help out immediately claiming uninvolved editor status and then supporting their buddy's decision while adding berating comments to the victim to keep things under control because that's what friends are for, right? And writes an obvious "us versus them" WP essay because they feel safe in the nest they've created here and want to boast to the world how macho they are and how much they should be feared since they know how to operate and don't give a crap. I think you're dreaming pretty pastel colors that any way forward isn't a tooth extraction for the ache that pains – when you are gripping your jaw in pain in the dentist chair does your dentist do a rootcanal or just stand in front of you preaching how someday good and reasonable dental hygiene and further advances in flouride technology will someday make cavities the way of the dodo if we would all just agree to start now by practicing good hygiene habits at home on a daily basis? I can see the need for a recall process mandatory for all admins and I'm only 1+ years editor here; how about working on something concrete like that that will address a real ill? (It'd not only feel better with the toothache gone knowing all admins are subject to mandatory recall, but the entire mouth will smell better too since a bad tooth can really stink a lot.) Thanks for consider; good luck with your effort. p.s. I have some "blood-stained clothes", can you recommend a good detergent that can remove the stains? Ihardlythinkso (talk) 16:11, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

• And I see the glass as half full. Real change will only happen when you have the support of a large number of admins and non-admins alike. It is a long term approach to a problem that has developed over a long time. I can only use the tools at my disposal, and I've a lifetime of experience getting people together using positive reinforcement in a consensus environment, offwiki. I believe you need to provide a positive alternative to the status quo, one that attracts other admins rather than repels them and puts them into defensive mode. You may see my ideas as Pollyanna or unworkable, but I've also a lifetime of experience from doubters who sat on the sidelines while I did what they said was impossible, so I'm not so easily dissuaded. Will this work? That depends on those who participate more than myself. The problems at Misplaced Pages are entirely too large for one man to fix, and I am certainly not qualified to take them on by myself. I can, however, try to organize these ideas and seek to develop a consensus on one issue at a time, one problem at a time, using patience and persistence, and maybe I will get more done than had I just sat on the sidelines and complained about the problems, waiting for someone else to fix them. At the end of the day, even if I can only affect a single, minor change, it is still better than not trying at all. I will leave before I let Misplaced Pages make me bitter. Life simply has too much to offer, and Misplaced Pages is only one tiny option. While I am here, however, I would like to try to make a positive difference, no matter how unbelievable that might seem. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 16:41, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree with both of you, and you are both right, I have the annoying habit of being able to do that, I differ from Dennis's correct view, by having the view that the glass can be either half full or half empty because in the end the glass doesn't need to be the question. Better, I see that change is the law of the universe, and believing that change can only happen given xyz conditions doesn't need to apply. I will happily help with change on all fronts, because it's the law. So while I am here, I'll work with Ihardlythinkso on the innocent prisoner and Dennis on the long term solution, whilst saying Screw you guys I'm out of here, working on the starter projects, as there are solutions, easy ones, to all the supposed reasons why they'll never replace wikipedia. Incidentally, if more than the given percentage didn't understand my passage wherever it was on martyrdom, I'll point out, that just because I think the chef is a moron who cannot cook a meal to save his life, and all the waiters back the chef's view that he can, doesn't mean I have to cause any fuss whatsoever, or make my friends uncomfortable by doing so, I'll pay my bill gracefully, not burn bridges, I'll return to the restaurant quite possibly if friends insist, but I'll only order drinks and I'll be happy to explain to my friends why I'm not eating if I haven't done so over the phone before we ever got there in the first place. So you see, the chef is a moron, the waiters are idiots, and they'll all be happy to see me and take my cash next time (for drinks at most) because that is what they do and what they like about me, I'm a polite customer who pays his bills and gives feedback when asked to do so. If of course I ever go there, I don't care if they stay in business or not, none of my concern. Penyulap ☏ 17:48, 1 Jul 2012 (UTC)

Innocent prisoner's dilemma is an excellent concept to talk about at the project on the talk page. Right now, it only gets brought up at a venue when tempers are high, so it's discussion and application seem rather spotty. Seriously, if you want a solution, you have to start the discussion when tempers are flying, when you aren't accusing someone, when you can point to diffs and say "This is what is broke, this is why, how can we fix this?" in calm voice, and people will actually listen to you. If the only time people see you make a point is when you are on a soapbox, don't be shocked if they only see you as a soapboxer. Misplaced Pages is easier to change from the inside than from bludgeoning it from the outside. I think we have a better chance of success if we calmly discuss ideas and make friends instead of enemies. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 18:14, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

And if it wasn't already clear, I don't live in an optimist's delusional world, but I usually choose to admire the rainbow rather than bitch about the rain. I used to be much more cynical in my youth, but life has a funny way of throwing things at you and changing your perspective, making you a bit more grateful. There is no problem that can't be solved, there is no issue that can't be resolved. If we don't get the result we want today, we can try again tomorrow. Luck may favor the bold, but success favors the persistent, and I can't be persistent unless I keep a good attitude and enjoy the journey a bit. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 18:26, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

+1 because yes I agree, and +1 for making me out to be an eternal optimist who is also an eternal pessimist :D Penyulap ☏ 19:43, 1 Jul 2012 (UTC)

Incidentally, both of you might be interested in this little debate going on presently

• http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Calvin999#For_whoever_sees_this

• http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia_talk:Blocking_policy#Use_of_talk_page_while_blocked

It strikes me as a little heavy handed, although I just saw it and only beginning to look at the background, but this seems like another good case study, so to speak, for the kind of things that demotivate and discourage editors. -- Avanu (talk) 20:31, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

• • It struck me that way at first, but then I realized that he was trying to edit by proxy, so I understood why Bwilkins said he shouldn't have done that, although he does comes off a bit gruff. I think the problem is that there is no clarity regarding proper use of the talk page. I will reply on the policy page. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 20:43, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Remember, we're not a bureaucracy (in theory), and I think we end up sending mixed messages at times because of this. On one hand, we play fast and loose with rules, and simultaneously, we look for exact and particular rules for a situation. So, do we operate by the spirit of the law, or the letter of the law? I think it changes from second to second and admin to admin and editor to editor. 'Editing by proxy' while potentially WP:MEAT seems to imply people getting a big group together to overpower the opposition. Stretching the definition to a blocked user as if they are a mob boss ruling from jail seems a little beyond even the spirit of the law there. Also, I see a problem because Bwilkins warned him, he didn't do it again, but he was still blocked. Not for breaking that rule, but for debating whether it was spelled out clearly to him. (And I checked, if you take out the emotion and read it dispassionately, it could, under AGF, be considered a reasonable question, especially given the lack of clear policy on User Talk Pages.) So, was this a block to prevent disruption and harm to Misplaced Pages, or just because an admin was tired of hearing arguments and said 'you don't get it, so I'm blocking you for not agreeing with me.' Even though admins are not supposed to be any more special than anyone else, and are expected to behave dispassionately, I don't find it surprising if they don't always. Contempt of cop happens because we are human beings and because once we gain authority, we tend to take it personally at times if people don't respect our authority. -- Avanu (talk) 21:01, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

I've left a message on Bwilkins talk page, which speaks for itself. Basically I'm trying to find out if there is more than meets the eye here. Blocked users are not restricted to only use their talk page for unblock requests, I'm not sure where that came from, as I don't see that anywhere in policy. Now, they aren't supposed to use it to edit by proxy, which is what he did, but that isn't why Bwilkins took away his talk page access. I'm hoping it isn't for Calvins last statement, which I don't find particularly problematic, just his opinion of the fairness. Or like I told Bwilkins, maybe I'm missing something, I don't know, but I don't want to jump to conclusions and since Bwilkins made the call, I want to hear it direct from him, to get a better understanding of why the talk page access had to be revoked. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 21:27, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Don't delude yourself into thinking it stops with inappropriate removal of User Talk page access. How about an admin totally and completely removing *Email* access without any justifiable whatever other than personal grudge? The point is, abusive admins are only stopped thru force, they'll take any slack rope you give them. This is nothing to do with attitude or personal philosophy orientation towards life, Dennis, rather simple observation. George Carlin was smarter than any of us and said he saw the glass as neither half empty nor half full but as: "too big". Ihardlythinkso (talk) 07:57, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps I'm not as simple minded as I seem. You speak of using only force, but you are a single person. What force do you have? By yourself, no more than I. So you and I can sit here and just complain, or Give me a lever and I can move the world. I don't think Misplaced Pages is a terrible place. Again, if I get to the point that I feel it is, I would just leave. There are a great many flaws but none that aren't fixable, given enough people and time. I'm only one person and only expect to do small things, but yesterday I reviewed a block out of process, asked the admin about it, posted on the policy page and found like minded people, started a project, got a few ideas moving, contacted a few more, and the lever got just a little bit longer. What did you do about the problems? Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 11:46, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

• • And thanks for bringing that to my attention. I have so many irons in the fire right now.... Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 20:50, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
    • bye PumpkinSky talk 21:31, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

dannikah

dood do u not realize that dannikah is infact a nocturnal animal???? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.28.167.10 (talk) 19:05, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

• Come back in 31 hours if you can make constructive edits. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 19:32, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

N. R. Narayana Murthy

Hi, Dennis, I'm having a bit of trouble trying to mediate the disputed content in this article. You have locked the article twice now because of edit-warring over content, and I'm trying to get the few editors interested in the issues to talk to each other, but each editor is a problem in a different way. In a nutshell, there are two issues: (1) how many awards should be listed in a table in the article and (2) whether Murthy should be listed as a founder or co-founder of Infosys. User:Tib42 is a SPA and only interested in the second issue. He's worse than the other two because he's actually editing the article with no consensus. I've reverted him once, and he refers back to old discussion on the issue, but hasn't contributed anything new. I'm loath to revert him again because of your understandable edit-warring concern, but I always have difficulty with stubborn, uncooperative editors when it's a content dispute.

As for the first issue, that's a battle between User:Kkm010 and User:Animeshkulkarni. Kkm has trouble expressing himself, and although I understand Anime's concerns, he's being overly demanding. Both editors are reasonably experienced, at least in terms of number of edits. The last edit by Anime, in response to my nudging, was "Fine delete the whole article. I am out of this." Silly, but of course he's not obligated to work on the article if he doesn't wish to, for whatever reason.

At this point, I'm willing to give Kkm what he wants. Not sure I completely agree with his conclusion (he doesn't really have any reasoning, which is partly what ticked off Anime), but I do think there are too many non-notable awards. The harder part is what to do about Tib42.

Any ideas or suggestions, and if you don't have the time to think about this, feel free to tell me, "Sorry, handle it yourself." :-) --Bbb23 (talk) 23:28, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

• Since I'm coming in late in the game, let me take a look and see if I think I can actually help before commenting further. Coming in late can be dangerous if you don't read everything first. I always have a few ideas up my sleeve but have no idea which, if any, would be appropriate yet. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 23:34, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
• I think I can help. How should be obvious by now. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 23:58, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I commented as well, having run into this issue recently and having unique perspective due to my PR background. However, unlike Dennis, I did not read the entire string. So I apologize if I'm being counterproductive. User:King4057 02:02, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm tired and don't have the energy to comment on your comments on the article Talk page, but I did read them, and you are not being counterproductive. Your views are welcome, thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:23, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Dennis, this awards thing comes up often, in particular when COIs are involved and there is always this dispute about using Primary Sources for awards. You presented a very well formulated criteria based on community-accepted standards, but these standards are not documented anywhere. Do you think it should be added somewhere to help resolve all these disputes in the future? User:King4057 16:10, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure if it is published anywhere or not, it was mainly me putting what I understand of WP:V into this situation. ie: common sense based on being here for years. WP:NPOV forces us to use secondary sources over primary, WP:V requires us to source each award. The superfluous awards, even if sourced, don't belong via WP:MOS type concerns, although I don't see a specific section for it. If it was added, somewhere within MOS is where it would belong, I would think. A list of awards that is mainly non-notable ones would loosely fall under WP:TRIVIA, as well. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 16:42, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Objectivity

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Could you make a comment on how good or bad or objective my edits are. A certain user keeps suggesting that in the underage/pedo area I'm biased against lower ages of consent and keeps criticizing my editing. Does she have a point? I was actually surprised by this because last year I was criticized by another user for being to biased in favor of lower ages. Do either of them have a point or are my edits neutral? Also in the Margaret Sanger article another user complained about my calling her associates Upton Sinclair and Emma Goldman socialists and said that was biased and that my portrayal of Sanger was to negative in the article. Was it? --RJR3333 (talk) 06:39, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

• I will try but it takes a while to do properly. Could you help me by narrowing it down a bit and telling me the specific articles that are in question? I'm assuming this isn't a concern on every article you work on. A list of 5 or less candidate articles would be helpful. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 13:38, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Articles

• Margaret Sanger

Overall, the edits look fine. I would hesitate from mentioning her friends were "socialist" unless there is some specific reason that this adds context, which I don't see. The term has a lot of baggage associated with it. We generally do not mention political affiliation in non-political articles unless the information is needed to provide context. For example, in the Steve Jobs article, it notes his large donations to political parties (mainly Democrat), but doesn't explicitly state his affiliation as he wasn't a politician. Unless it adds needed context, I would avoid it. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 17:01, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Ok, how about my mention of her being involved in Rosicrucianism in the personal life section. Would it be ok to restore that edit as long as I kept it in that section or is that a bad idea? --RJR3333 (talk) 22:02, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Content should be discussed on the article talk page, not really here, as this is a review for bias. That said, it is very likely that it could be appropriate if this is properly sourced, since it is about her, not her friends. I'm working on the others, but will likely be tomorrow. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 22:06, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

• Age of consent reform
• Ages of consent in North America
• RJR3333 (talk) 15:13, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

I reformatted to make replying easier, and so I can review one at a time. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 17:01, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

• Ok, we will just lump the last two here, after doing a little research off these articles as well. Your edits overall are ok, sometimes a little sloppy in regards to proper weight, but I don't see any evil intent or obvious bias. I think the bigger issue is that you might be getting your feeling hurt when someone makes an observation. Misplaced Pages is a rough and tumble place sometimes, and people will be blunt or opinionated. You talk about Off2riorob (who prefers YouReallyCan, by the way...) making a statement on bias. I am mentoring him on communications. He is a good fellow who sometimes is a bit more blunt than needed, but is improving dramatically. I know him enough to know he is a good guy that just needed a little assistance. You might consider finding someone to mentor you as well, just offer some assistance. Actually, I'm receiving mentoring for a different reason myself. Mentoring is a good thing, and allows for one on one interaction to get a person up to speed in an area that is standing in the way of them participating fully. It isn't a failure, it is support to improve, something we all seek to do. If I could give advice, that would be it, and soon you will find yourself participating with less controversy and with fewer reverts. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 16:40, 1 July 2012 (UTC)]

It was not primarily off2riorob/youreallycan I had in mind. It was Flyer22, who claimed I had a bias that the age of consent should be 17 or 18, and Malke2010, who said the opposite, saying I had a bias in favor of a low limit in mind. I don't really know which bias youreallycan believed I had, although I tend to think he was referring to the bias Malke meant based on the context of the conversation. --RJR3333 (talk) 16:47, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

• I didn't get the impression that you had a bias like this but did notice some other issues that could benefit from a friend, that is all. The "weight" issue might come across as a bias, when instead I think you are editing in a bit of a compartmentalized fashion, rather than looking at the article as a whole. It isn't "omg bad", but it is sometimes a little sloppy. I used YouReallyCan and myself as examples only because we both have mentors, as an example that having a mentor is a good thing, not a bad thing. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 16:51, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't know what you mean honestly. Could you give me an example of my undue weight?--RJR3333 (talk) 16:55, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

This is part of the mentoring I referred to. You seem to put in a lot of material in the once subject area that gets reverted, and that does seem to be the focus of your edits. They they are seeing as "bias" I'm seeing as you focusing on that one issue too much. Personally, I think all of those articles are improperly weighted and provide little context, only giving number and laws to begin with. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 16:59, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Maybe undue weight isn't the right term. Your edits seem to focus only the age, but sometimes you miss some of the exceptions and such, so it looks like you are too focused on the numbers. I don't think you are biased, but we all could use some improvement. Those article, for example, need fewer raw fact points and more context to ME, but that is just my opinion. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 02:26, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Well, that's not really related to what I'm asking about. What Flyer22 accused me of is that I have an anti-hebephilia bias and a bias that the age of consent should either be 16 or higher, and Malke2010 accused me of having a pro-pedophilia bias, and I think youreallycan meant that I have a pro-pedophilia bias. I'm kind of confused about why Flyer thinks this because all of the other editors who criticized me thought I was pro-pedophilia or pro-hebephilia. --RJR3333 (talk) 02:52, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Also in terms of the age of consent articles the articles to begin with don't leave much wiggle room for discussion of issues other than ages unfortunately. And I've tried to include info on exceptions such as for marriage between adults and minors and other editors thought it would waste space. --RJR3333 (talk) 03:07, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Saw you at the Age of majority article and followed you here. Since you are inaccurately characterizing my criticism of you yet again, I am compelled to clarify here that I stated that you are always stressing something about age 18 any time age 16 is mentioned as the default age for anything. So, no, it's not about you thinking that the age of consent should be 16 or higher. You clearly believe that it should be 18 or higher across the board, just as you believe that people should be 18 in order to be diagnosed with pedophilia. I would appreciate that you stop mentioning my name to every editor you come across...if you are not going to characterize my criticism of your edits accurately. Dennis Brown, to see what issues I have with RJR3333's editing, you can view my talk page, where I recently discussed this with him. And, RJR3333, I would rather you not attempt to discuss this with me any further. Flyer22 (talk) 03:29, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

I never once said it should be 18 or higher. I only wanted to add info to the articles about cases where it is. I never expressed an opinion on the issue. You accused me of having a bias that I don't have. I think it should be 16, but we still have to include other viewpoints in the articles. Not once here have I ever said it should be 18. Everyone else who has talked to me about it says I'm to biased in that direction. You're the only person who thinks I have this bias that I don't have at all. If you don't want to talk to me that's fine, but you're the one who is always is criticizing my edits. I understand my reaction has been immature at times, but you still have been constantly nitpicking at my edits. Personally, though I'm tired of arguing with you and with people on the other side to and it happens in every area I edit so I might as well just leave. I'm sad that this happened but I will have to leave. --RJR3333 (talk) 03:36, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Also if she doesn't want me discussing this with her further I don't she should keep commenting on my edits. Someone else can take of what she disagrees with. Again, no where in any of my edits did I take any position one way or another. --RJR3333 (talk) 03:49, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

I've stated just about all I have to state on this matter at my talk page. I am not the only person who thinks that you have the particular bias I spoke of or the only one who is "always" criticizing your edits. Now, like I advised you before, listen to what WP:DEADHORSE states and stop trying to engage me in this discussion or any other tired discussion we've had. Also, like I advised you before, you should stop stating that you are going to leave when you clearly aren't. Yes, you left for a few months months before, although you were probably editing as an IP here or there on some articles, but you eventually came back under your user name. You will only come back again. And about not discussing this with you any further, that means this particular topic -- whether I believe that your edits are biased in a certain direction or not. You are not going to change my mind on that, so stop trying. Any time I have reverted you or complained about your edits, it has had more to do with your edits being sloppy, inaccurate, unsourced or all of those things than it has had to do with you being biased. Not wanting to debate my opinion of your bias has nothing to do with whether or not whatever future edits you make should be criticized. I can criticize any future edit you make all I want, but I only do so when that criticism is valid. And my criticisms of your edits have been valid each time, usually being backed by one or more editors. You don't know when to drop a discussion/issue and move on. That is one of your main problems. Did you even read WP:DEADHORSE? Read it. Flyer22 (talk) 04:05, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Malke2010 and off2riorob/youreallycan both accused me of having the opposite bias, in fact Malke and me even had an extensive discussion on his talk page where I argued to him that the age of consent was 16 in most states and he disagreed with me even when I showed him. . Also my family when I do discuss this topic with them have accused me of having the opposite bias. I have not seen one editor other than you accuse me of being biased in the direction you are stating. And I've just told you that I have the opposite. Me wanting to include information about changes in the law/medical definitions changing the way they are is not the same thing as me agreeing with those changes. If you don't want me to communicate then stop commenting on what I write. It was wrong of me to say I hated you and things like that, but you were also rude to me, and frankly you seem to have a level of bias in the articles that is opinionated enough to not be able to contribute neutrally. I have actually argued that the age of consent should be 16 or even lower to my family when I talked about it because I don't like the fact that people don't have any adults responsibilities in our society until they are 18 or even 21. I don't have the bias you are accusing me of, that is the truth. You are the one who has the bias in editing the articles. Now I'm done here. That's my point. --RJR3333 (talk) 04:14, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Here are some edits I have made in the past that show the opposite bias, to argue against her contention of my bias http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Dan_Crane&action=history also my edits here http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Age_of_consent_reform&offset=&limit=500&action=history at least when I began editing, would suggest if anything the opposite bias existed, so would this discussion http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Malke_2010/Archive_3#Age_of_Consent_Chris_Hansen. And in this edit even she seemed to be suggesting I had the opposite bias http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:Chris_Hansen&diff=prev&oldid=448712414. Also here Malke2010 tried really hard to get me to take down my addition of the term age of consent and my statement that the age range was "those under the age of sixteen" in the To Catch a Predator because she/he accused me of wanting to give a false impression that the age of consent in the USA always begins at 16. And I extensively debated with him and provided him with evidence that, in fact, some states have ages of majority that are below 17. If I really had the bias in this direction this other user has accused me of I would not have fought Malke on this. And yes I understand the point of wp: deadhorse, but she keeps saying I'm biased and this is my response to her contention. The only validity that I personally can see to her criticisms is that maybe after Malke2010 and youreallycan/off2riorob criticized me I tried to get rid of that bias and it looked like I had replaced it with the opposite bias later on because I was trying to be neutral excessively. --RJR3333 (talk) 04:46, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Nope, no bias on my part. And per above, "I've stated just about all I have to state on this matter at my talk page." Same goes for my comment above here on this talk page. Throughout our interactions, I was only rude to you when you repeatedly refused to listen to guideline or policy-based rationales, especially as far as WP:CONSENSUS was/is concerned, and/or when you were rude to me first. You continue to demonstrate that your ability to digest what is being stated to you is severely lacking, such as your "don't want me to communicate/stop commenting on what I write" line (after I just clarified what I meant about not speaking with me any further), and that you just can't heed WP:DEADHORSE. Oh well. Just know that I will continue to criticize your edits when the criticism is warranted. The way you wanted to "include information about changes in the law/medical definitions changing" is just one problem. First of all, it's only the medical definition I was debating with you with regard to changes in definition (aside from that "late adolescent" squabble days ago). Second of all, it's just a medical proposal, which you never seem to understand, stating things like "They are going to change the definition." Erm, "proposal" does not mean "They are going to change the definition." And, finally, just like you have a problem digesting other things that are stated to you, you had a difficult time digesting why this proposal is not WP:LEAD material. And I highly doubt that " done here." You never are, which is why you just had to come back to my talk page days later to try and get the last word yet again. Oh, and "people any adul responsibilities in our society until they are 18 or even 21" has to do with age of majority, not age of consent. If you are going to argue for what it is you claim to argue for, then it's lowering the age of majority you should be citing. And the funny thing about your Malke 2010 debate is that you are now asserting the same silliness that he was, even though WP:CONSENSUS showed that Malke 2010 was wrong and that you are therefore wrong to carry on his belief that simply stating the age range for To Catch a Predator gives the false impression that the age of consent is 16 everywhere. Even though that part of the lead now, very clearly, states in parentheses that "on the program, the range is usually ages 12–15" and even has your silly note to go beside it. So spare me your claims that you understand WP:DEADHORSE; you clearly do not, just like you don't understand WP:CONSENSUS or when an editor has compromised with you enough on a subject. You have seen the validity in my criticism of your edits, having admitted that some of your edits were sloppy, inaccurate, unsourced or all of those things, or biased, so to now act like you don't believe that any of my criticisms of your edits were valid except for what you state about "maybe after Malke2010 and youreallycan/off2riorob criticized " is more of the ridiculousness I have come to expect from you. Flyer22 (talk) 05:29, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Why can't a different user who has less animosity towards me than you criticize my edits. I admitted some of my edits were bad, but you seem to delight in correcting me and I'm tired of it. You have insulted me time and time again, and I don't intend to put up with it. I don't understand how you can argue I have the bias you said I had when I got the opposite criticism before. You and Malke both aren't objective so you both criticized me from opposite directions. --RJR3333 (talk) 08:13, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

If you make a bad edit, I am going to call you out on it. That's what I'm supposed to do, and it has nothing to do with animosity, insulting you or taking delight in correcting you. You act as though I'm not supposed to correct you and just let your bad edit stay, and hope that someone else corrects it. Nope, that is not the way Misplaced Pages works or is supposed to work. I have insulted your edits more than I've insulted you (which, by the way, is the way it's supposed generally to be -- focusing on the editor's edits instead of on the editor), and you have insulted me more than I've insulted you (calling me names, wishing I'd die). Why can't you drop this discussion? My perception of your editing is different than your own; that's just the way it is. Stop trying to make me see your point of view on this matter. I've already stated that I will not. I am objective, but objectivity has nothing to do when it comes to correcting your mistakes. I don't follow you around. It's only when you show up to articles that I edit and make mistakes, that we encounter each other. Like I stated, if you screw up, then you can expect me to correct that. Flyer22 (talk) 08:35, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

I never wished you would die. I said I hated you I think but I never said I wished you would THAT IS NOT TRUE. --RJR3333 (talk) 08:37, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

More than once, you have displayed that your memory is faulty. If you want to claim that you did not, then oh well. I'm beyond tired of interacting with you/discussing with you/debating with you, so I'm more than happy to let you have the last word on that. Flyer22 (talk) 09:01, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

talkback

--Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 12:16, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

...another reply. Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 13:10, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

...more investigation... --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 13:30, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Policy discussions

Your endurance in these discussions is astounding, e.g., blocking policy. Just thought I'd stop by and say that. Cheers.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:12, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

• Appreciate your kindness. Join me over at Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Editor Retention, where I'm trying to centralize some of these discussions and actually work on getting some results. Seriously, you are needed if you are willing. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 02:14, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

................

--SCWA Ladies Champion (talk) 02:13, 2 July 2012 (UTC) -- I don't know wha you are trying do but I was just moving them to the right section.--SCWA Ladies Champion (talk) 02:21, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Veryverser

Hello, Dennis! Thanks for the quick action (including changing the master) - this guy is a major pest. We're at 35 socks and counting with this clown, and he is certainly an excellent candidate for banning. As can be seen from diff , there is a darker side to this character than merely trolling for the lulz. The fact that he acts as if he was never blocked (always proudly signing), and that he reinserts the same garbage time and time again, irks me to the point of shutting him down permanently. It takes a very... special kind of editor to do that. Anyway, thanks for the good close, and I'm glad to see your other fine work since you've gotten the mop. Cheers :> Doc talk 03:48, 2 July 2012 (UTC)