Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 21:26, 20 September 2015

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48

This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Concerns to not be archived

• Hijiri88 and CurtisNatio, closed ANI at

Request for Adminship comment

Regarding this comment on Oshwah's request for adminship: I appreciate your collapsing your comments, as I'm not sure why, given the number of times you've said that being an admin leaves you little time for contributing content, you reacted so strongly to someone saying that content creation is not an important part of adminship. Your own views on administrators being there to perform cleanup duties seem to be in agreement. (*) Additionally, I was surprised you chose to express yourself in a fairly dramatic fashion, which is contrary to your usual approach of seeking to bring editors with disparate viewpoints to a common understanding through a reduction of flamboyant statements.

(*) I agree that the nomination statement is not very clear in its arguments; the first sentence is more related to the contested issue of the degree of article-writing experience an administrator ought to have, rather than the statement made in the second sentence. Many nomination statements, unfortunately, exhibit poor writing style. But in the current environment where there is a paucity of nominations, it may be counterproductive to express strong criticism regarding the writing abilities of nominators on the request page. isaacl (talk) 22:11, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

In the current environment, many editors are voting against people because of sufficient content experience. To be the lead on nominating, and to basically thumb your nose at all those potential votes was a dumb thing to do and I simply pointed out the obvious, that it was an amazingly stupid thing to do. I'm pretty much in the middle of the road when it comes to content creation, you need some. What was most remarkable is how many people jumped on my comment instead of letting it stand on it's own. This is what many "content creators" complain about, if they dare oppose for content reasons (a valid reason even if you and I disagree with their conclusions), they are bludgeoned to death by comments. No one can be allowed to have an opinion that isn't supportive. It was an opportunity for the candidate, but it was squandered by the half dozen people that felt compelled to defend the candidate....and I wasn't even talking about the candidate, except to question his judgement in choosing a nominator. I'm not up to debating the issue, which is why I just hatted it. It was simply a courtesy to the community, not a change of heart. But to be bludgeoned until you capitulate for the crime of taking issue with the candidate or the nomination? That, my friend, is utter bullshit. And no, I'm really not up for debating it further here. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 22:30, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

That's one of the reasons why individual responses to each support/oppose/neutral statement is inefficient: it promotes swamping the discussion with redundant, repeated discussion threads. I really hope that some administrator candidates will volunteer to follow an alternate format that reduces repetition.

Regarding responses to your comment, it comes back to tone, and how it sparked people to respond. I won't discuss it further other than to suggest that you might consider revisiting your comment in a few days to consider alternate ways of expressing the same sentiments. As you are fond of saying, there is no justice, only solutions. isaacl (talk) 00:02, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Seriously? When an editor says I'm not really up for debating it further here the right answer is not to continue posting. No one will mind if you revert your comment and this response. NE Ent 01:46, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks...

... for your help at WP:FPC re this IP user. Sca (talk) 14:59, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Request for (random) advice...

Hello, Dennis Brown! I will admit upfront that I racked my brain on who to run this by, and by happenstance, you drew the short straw!...

OK, so to get to the point, I've been doing some Random page patrolling of late. Which is fine, except that I have little AfD experience (certainly never nominating an article for deletion myself), no CSD experience at all, and only a couple of PRODs under my belt. Anyway, on rare occasions I'll come across an article, and wonder "Should this really be here, on Misplaced Pages?..." Most of the time I'll just shrug this impulse off, but last night I came across Transphotographiques while Random page patrolling, and it set off my Spidey Sense more than usual.

First off, it's completely unsourced (outside of an External link to the official site, which doesn't seem to count to me) – now that I can take care of with an {{Unreferenced}} tag and be done with it. But, in looking at this one, I'm really wondering if it belongs on Misplaced Pages. It seems promotional (to me, anyway). I'm sure it has "significance" (i.e. A7). Finding any English-language sources for it will be somewhere between a chore and impossible. And it was originally authored back in 2010 by an account that only ever edited this article (and wasn't even autoconfirmed?...). It's been barely touched by anyone since, and doesn't look to have been updated since 2010.

So, my question is – when I as Joe-Average editor come across an article like this, what should I do? Or, really, I guess: what would you do?

P.S. If you can suggest some other AfD/CSD "experts" so I'm not always bugging you with questions like these, I'd appreciate that too!

Thanks in advance. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 20:47, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Totally not an expert but I'm generally fearless so I Afd'd it (after looking for sources per WP:BEFORE) ... let's see if anyone yells at me, and then you'll know the answer. NE Ent 01:42, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks NE Ent. I've gone ahead and voted in that AfD. I'm glad that my instincts on this one weren't totally off... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 02:31, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

For god's sake please help me

I'm the guy who made the Universe Sandbox 2 article, remember? The thing is that I had been banned in the past, and I just returned now (a few months later) to wikipedia on another computer so I could start that article. The article is about a software I helped develop. Now some annoying user just keeps deleting my article. Is it a huge problem to just leave the article there even though I'm a "sock" (as you like to call it)? There is nothing wrong with the article and it is pretty useful. I will ping @NeilN: and @Ritchie333: as you requested, just in case you are busy. QqqQ1- (talk) 21:51, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

• Somehow, I had a sneaking suspicion. First problem first: if you've been banned before, you can't just come back under another name. That is block evasion. Technically, you should be blocked right now, but I get the feeling you don't quite get how that works. You have to log into your first account, and then request the unban (or unblock, not sure if you are really banned) from there. You can ping me. From that point, I can look at the totality of circumstances and if possible, try to help. Regardless, there is a process and for now, you need to stop edit warring on that redirect. Stay calm, disclose everything, lets take a look at what is really going on before we get too excited. The article will still be there in the history. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 22:43, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
  • It's Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Tetra quark and they know full well how blocking and unblocking works. They've had ample time to request an unblock: User_talk:John#At_the_risk_of_being_called_a_snitch... Indef blocked the sock and I would strongly oppose unblocking the master given these kind of edit summaries: --NeilN 23:42, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
    • As always, patience pays off and someone smarter than me comes along and makes all right in the Wikiverse. I didn't want to jump to conclusions, although I did take an interest very early and followed him from his first edits. Looks like we're done here. Thanks for batting cleanup, NeilN. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 00:36, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
      • Not smarter. Just happen to catch this at one of the noticeboards earlier today and did the requisite homework. --NeilN 00:39, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

• *sigh* I don't think I'm cut out for this admin job; I'd have restored the article to Draft:Universe Sandbox 2, Universe Sandbox probably scrapes GNG by sources such as PC Gamer so I think the main thing stopping the sequel from being in mainspace is WP:CRYSTAL. I seem to be in a minority of 1 for this next viewpoint, but I have no real interest in our sockpuppetry policy at all; for sure we need to kick the latest Grawp sock du jour out, but I really think we take things too far. I've edited the sandbox while logged out (to find out exactly what an IP editor's user experience is like) - when am I getting blocked for sockpuppetry? I don't like the G5 criteria either - I mean, deleting something based on who wrote it without regard to what it is basically contradicts WP:NPA's mantra of "comment on the content, not the contributor", doesn't it? I'm sure someone like Czar could rescue this article and beef it up to acceptability if he was interested. Ritchie333 10:58, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
  • If you liked everything about being an admin, Ritchie333, I would be very suspect. Can't tell you how many times I've gone to WP:BN, contemplating asking them to remove the bit. Still, at the end of the day, I get more done with it than without it. And I piss off the powers that be by participating in getting some of the policies changed. For the record, I was more dogmatic about a great many things before becoming an admin, including deleting material just because someone was banned, but I've become more pragmatic in my old age and instead focus on just what is best for the encyclopedia. I still estimate a minimum of 20,000 socks here, so it is a losing battle using our current TOU and antiquated methods. They are designed to fail, it would seem. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 11:03, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Hey,Dennis, did you write that or did I? Or did you just plug into my brain with a USB cable and download my thoughts? Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:26, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

In my previous life as head site admin elsewhere on the web, I think we banned about 6-7 people in as many years ... every single one socked. You might as well accept that socking is like software cracks, it's frowned on and you should put up reasonable security against it but the most determined people will do it anyway so you might as well accept it. Ritchie333 11:54, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

After a year and 1500 blocks as an SPI clerk, I gave up. The impression I got from the higher ups was that they didn't take it very serious. The only times I've been privately "scolded" was related to my working on socks. I don't remember any of those blocks being reverted, however. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 13:41, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

• • @Ritchie333: Ignoring socking is a really good way to piss off regular, policy-abiding editors who form the backbone of our community. --NeilN 13:48, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
    • I don't think he's saying to ignore socks outright, but our sock policy is antiquated at best. For starters, any website that allows any IP to edit, they are going to have sock problems. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 13:55, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
      • Given that IP editing seems to be a foundational policy, how would you update our socking policy? Me, I would look really hard at our policy that prohibits linking IP addresses to user names. I think if you're violating our TOU, you are not entitled to have an expectation of privacy. --NeilN 14:26, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
        • This isn't about policy, this is about TOU, which is Foundation. It is outside of, and trumps, the community, as the Foundation owns the place. The community has no input when it comes to TOU. The Foundation has some very strong ideas (read: Libertarian) when it comes to privacy. While I completely agree with them as it applies to good faith editors, our ideas diverge when it comes to repeated troublemakers. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 15:19, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

For all the talk about "the community", I do not think it is or ever will be as important as the real world who read Misplaced Pages articles. Right now, I'm listening to the Grateful Dead's take on Johnny B Goode as preserved on archive.org that has praise and rave reviews, despite musically not being that much different from any zillion number of renditions I have played at jam sessions for the last 25 years. It's all about the audience! And therefore the sockpuppetry policy only matters as much as it does to support improving the enyclopedia for the reader, or you can ignore it. Ritchie333 15:29, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Who exactly produces and maintains these articles that the audience reads? --NeilN 15:36, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

We do. Ironically, some of the best content has been produced by socks as well, since not all socks are vandals or trolls, some are just grumpy ass writers. I've tried to bring back a few from being banned IF they were content creating types, same as I've gone out on a limb to protect those that create tons of content here (much to the chagrin of many others). We have to chase socks, but I still say our policy needs overhauling to both be more efficient and compassionate. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 15:43, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

I'm not as vicious and barbed as some who who think all "non content creators" are scum, but I still think all admins should create some content. Keep the sock-hunting and vandal reverting as your main job, but have some article work on the side you can retire to. I've got User:Ritchie333/Monopoly, which will keep me busy pretty much indefinitely. Or, patrol our list of candidates for CSD A7, find one you don't think meets the criteria, and improve it so it doesn't even go to AfD. As these are often created by new users, you give a great first (or second?) impression to them. Ritchie333 15:57, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

I'm trying to work more on content. To really do so, I need to unwatch everything meta, full protect this page, and give back the bit. Or just use one of my sockpuppets. ;) Dennis Brown - 2¢ 16:00, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

@Dennis: Don't forget about expanding List of alternative names for currency. North America 12:47, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

I haven't, I've mainly been busy trying to expand my currency. ;) Dennis Brown - 2¢ 13:01, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Courtesy ping

Hi Dennis,

RE:

In my first post in the section at WT:CSD, I linked your username, which I thought provides the ping. Was I wrong? Sorry, I certainly meant to ping you. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:41, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

• I can only guess that since you copy/pasted my quote, it didn't. I simply forgot you can't speedy delete in Draft space. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 13:40, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Smokers

Dennis, given your penchant for smokers, I thought I would pass on this beauty. I am trying to decide if I can justify building it, especially since I have never smoked anything before. --kelapstick 21:19, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

That reminded me to post here. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 21:25, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

I assume that uses a steel fire box off to the side, but the idea of cedar is very interesting. Long life, repels bugs, and cedar is used in cooking fish (typically salmon) on the grill. I've done that more than once. Will take some time to get a good coating in that sucker, but that is interesting. I still miss my smoker. It is at the house where the soon-to-be-ex-wife is temporarily living. I offered her the house for 25% under appraisal and she was foolish enough to pass on it, so I guess I will end up with both houses, and mortgages. But at least I will have my smoker back :) Dennis Brown - 2¢ 22:46, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Small victories I suppose. The firebox is brick and mortar (looks like there is some sort of fire brick within standard house bricks), the door looks cast iron, and was bolted. I have done cedar planked salmon before, it's quite good. There are step by step photos of the construction, it actually looks a lot easier to build than it appears at first inspection. It would be a lovely addition to the yard however. --kelapstick 22:57, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

When planking, just be sure not to use treated cedar house shingles...North America 06:29, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Wheel war AN

You state none of the three have complained; I'd classify this as a complaint. NE Ent 13:56, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

• Weakly complaining at best. Typically, if admin can work it out without interference, I prefer they at least try, then AN, then ARB. When I wrote that, I don't think they had tried to deal with it admin to admin (to admin) yet, which is why I wanted to see what each had to say, where the lines were drawn. Three admin in a button pushing contest is kind of rare, after all. I think the one editor (I forget who) talking about Arb was amazingly premature. It belongs at AN of course, but until they speak (and WP:ADMINACCT pretty much demands it, they have no choice or they will face Arb), my comment was designed to just slow down the speculation and drama. Your link is interesting, but not exactly a smoking gun when it comes to complaining in an official way, and more like "well hell, I wish he would just explain". Like you (typically), I prefer to stay somewhere north of "naive" and south of "presumptuous", although I can't say I always get it right. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 19:32, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for being level-headed

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

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

Your e-mail

Without a target, it's tough. Nothing pops up. That doesn't mean you're wrong, of course, just that the limited technical data doesn't lead anywhere. Take care.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:31, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

• Thanks for taking the time Bbb23. Obviously you saw why I had questions, but I understand that  CheckUser is not magic pixie dust. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 14:17, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

That problem

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

• Sturmgewehr has one edit, John Carter. Wrong link? Dennis Brown - 2¢ 19:01, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

• How the hell did I miss that? It's Sturmgewehr88, not Sturmgewehr. The discussion is at User talk:Sturmgewehr88##One week after the moratorium.... Sorry about that, he said sheepishly. John Carter (talk) 19:05, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

• I found it. I wonder if I can just delete the whole article and make them start from scratch, making me the common enemy, and maybe they would join forces instead of bickering? If only it were that easy. It is pretty obvious at that CurtisNaito is using ad hominem, but I'm wondering if Hijiri 88's timing of the GA review was to antagonize rather than solve a problem. Not saying he is wrong (I have no idea, never read the article) just curious if there were better solutions and why he chose a GA review, as those are always drama fests. If I was confident H was antagonizing, then I could overlook C's reaction. I may be forced to just bring them both to AN and get a topic ban, which I think is more effective than blocking. I'm reasonably confident I can get a consensus, as everyone is sick of hearing about them. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 19:13, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Dennis this is starting to look like a pattern of Hijiri88 using other editors to continue his bad behaviour. There is also this post on Curly Turkey's page by Hijiri88. To me it looks like a 3 way tag team is forming and if one gets caught, the rest will show up at AN/I to defend the accused. AlbinoFerret 21:25, 20 September 2015 (UTC)