Misplaced Pages

User talk:Dennis Brown: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 15:43, 4 August 2012 editIan.thomson (talk | contribs)58,562 edits →A follow up on Bwilkins: new section← Previous edit Revision as of 15:54, 4 August 2012 edit undoOne Night In Hackney (talk | contribs)Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers32,879 edits →Unsurprising: rNext edit →
Line 543: Line 543:
:Reasonable enough thanks. Those types of cases are always difficult because checkusers won't comment on IPs other than in exceptional circumstances, and there wasn't a long history of editing from the IP to connect like you can get in other cases. <font face="Celtic">]<sub>'']''</sub></font> 14:59, 4 August 2012 (UTC) :Reasonable enough thanks. Those types of cases are always difficult because checkusers won't comment on IPs other than in exceptional circumstances, and there wasn't a long history of editing from the IP to connect like you can get in other cases. <font face="Celtic">]<sub>'']''</sub></font> 14:59, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
*Exactly. And I think I've taken enough other steps to make it moot, as even the talk page is semi-protected for a couple of days. ] - ] ] <small><b>]</b></small> 15:02, 4 August 2012 (UTC) *Exactly. And I think I've taken enough other steps to make it moot, as even the talk page is semi-protected for a couple of days. ] - ] ] <small><b>]</b></small> 15:02, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
:*Were you planning on blocking the IP above, since his cancerous rants are spreading to other places now? <font face="Celtic">]<sub>'']''</sub></font> 15:54, 4 August 2012 (UTC)


== A follow up on Bwilkins == == A follow up on Bwilkins ==

Revision as of 15:54, 4 August 2012


Holmes

Based on the history, I think locking the article is not the right way to go. The only problem is RedPen. To lock the article based on one editor's disruptive behavior is unfair to those who want to edit the article. I had left a final warning on RedPen's Talk page that one more revert and I would block him. Neither is possible after the lock. Despite my feelings in the matter, I'll leave this to your best judgment.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:41, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

You mean you can't lock the article, then block someone? Then how come...?Joefromrandb (talk) 20:07, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
I've replied on your talk page. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 20:17, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
  • And it appears to be locked in the consensus version. Sometimes the best option is to remove the ability of an editor to get blocked. It doesn't matter how many people are on each side of an argument, only that there are two sides. Protecting the page is the least aggressive, least damaging way to force discussion and let things cool down. Blocking him so he will cool down would be counter to the goals here. I always recommend taking the option that creates dialog, and reduces the chance of a good editor getting blocked over a singular judgement issue. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © (WER) 01:47, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
I think locking the entire article for one person's vandalism isn't productive. RedPen's edit summaries make it clear there was to be no discussion. "Nothing to discuss" was the specific phrase used. Ajoykt (talk) 02:30, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
Please read WP:VANDAL. Red Pen's edits were clearly not vandalism. You are of course free to disagree with my decision, but I suggest precision in your wording in that argument. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © (WER) 02:32, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
The problem I see with locking the article is that a lot of information about Holmes is coming out at the moment, but nobody can add it. All the while there are people who are arguing for merging, because the article is not long enough in their eyes and there's not enough info to change that. The best way to prove them wrong would certainly be to make the article more comprehensive, but it's difficult to do that when you are not allowed to edit. (Lord Gøn (talk) 18:38, 24 July 2012 (UTC))
@Ajoykt, the phrase "Nothing to discuss" was a reference to our BLP policy, not necessarily RedPen's willingness to discuss. WP:BLP says "Contentious material about living persons (or recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion." Just FYI for you. -- Avanu (talk) 19:06, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
Lord Gøn, I understand that can be frustrating, but at the same time you have to remember that we are an encyclopedia, not a newspaper, and the goal is accuracy, not timeliness. The page was only locked two days, a very minor blip in the big scheme of things. Articles are locked regularly, which is a minor inconvenience, but a necessary one sometimes. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © (WER) 09:58, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Admin's Barnstar
Thanks for indef blocking WikAdvisor. Anderson - what's up? 02:27, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

re: "Isn't that special"

apologies for my attempt at humor via. text. Chedzilla (talk) 06:30, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Back when I was a yonker, calling myself a "boob" was slang for "an idiot", or "fool" - so it was a bit of self-deprecating humor, and apparently spot-on in this case. Unfortunately "humor" doesn't always play well over the written medium. Chedzilla (talk) 13:58, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
I figured that was how you meant it, but wasn't completely sure. Again, never apologize for good nature humor :) Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 14:00, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Operation Musketeer (1956)

Dennis, I don't have time to deal with this. IF you can, please do.

See this discussion. 92.10.140.17 is the IP I blocked for edit-warring. 92.7.20.126 is probably the same person trying to evade the block. I don't see either IP on the long list of sock puppets of Harvey Carter.

One Night is the user with an attitude, as you can see from his response to my post. I don't understand why editors act this way and never will.

Anyway, you know more than I about SPI and those issues, but, as I said on One Night's Talk page, the IP, whoever he is, provided a reasonable source (I'm not familiar with the source but I believe it's probably reliable) for an otherwise unsourced section. He also provided the source on the article Talk page (and you can see One Night's lovely comments just above that). Improvement of the article should be a concern for all of us.

If you don't have time, I'm sure it'll take care of itself one way or the other. I'm outa here.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:07, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

  • I left him a message. He is correct about how we treat banned users, but very wrong about how we treat each other. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 17:08, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Some people are just that way. I don't think it is smart, but it's not my place to tell others what to think. Anyway, I blocked the sock at SPI, it is a banned user so anyone is pretty much authorized to wholesale revert, and WP:DENY credit. K is decent at spotting socks, even if his table manners aren't the best. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 20:09, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

WP:WER User Box templates

I have created a few userbox templates. This was my first one a while back:

SOPA/PIPAThis user supported the SOPA/PIPA blackout!

.

I will begin work shortly to create a template page for your user box and image and create others using the suggestions from others on the discussion page and place them all on the Project userbox page.--Amadscientist (talk) 21:46, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

  • I would like to see that new image in a mock up userbox as well. Not sure the color, I'm guessing white back on white. Maybe on the main userbox page on the mainpage. That is a good graphic, and I hope it looks good when reduced. some don't, you dont' know til you reduce it. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 21:51, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
  • The good thing is, it can be altered in anyway (actually most can) so if there are visual problems with the reduction we can discuss ways to improve the image just like prose.--Amadscientist (talk) 22:47, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Please review

Hi Dennis, sorry to bother you again. I wondered if you could take a look at my close here and give an opinion? Background is a months-long dispute between Epipelagic (talk · contribs) and Stemonitis (talk · contribs) at Talk:Shrimp over what exactly the respective articles at Prawn and Shrimp should contain. I spent a long half hour reading over the arguments in detail and proposing a way forward, but now Stemonitis is querying the impartiality of my close because, as he says, the way I was notified was not impartial. I believe that I am capable of overcoming any bias inherent in the way the notification was conducted, and I also believe that the important thing now is to move forwards with a solution, however imperfect it may seem to those involved in the dispute. Any input you can give would be appreciated. --John (talk) 08:36, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

  • Let me get some coffee in me and I would be happy to take a look. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 11:18, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
  • I spent an hour reading and reviewing, and have replied at the talk page discussion. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 12:27, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
    • Thank you for your thorough and conscientious review. I would have been fine if you had disagreed with me, but it is gratifying that you thought my close was ok too. --John (talk) 12:36, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
      • When I review, I try to do it properly and comprehensively, so that the community can have confidence in the result. To be sure, if I had disagreed with your close or found any fatal flaw, I would have stated as much and asked for yet another party to reclose the discussion. This is why it took a full hour to review, but in the end I felt your close was a reasonable read of the consensus. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 12:53, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

aswer please

sock troll
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

I don't understand, I am not allowed to edit if not logged in account? see this example on this page, all edits with IP 188.25... on this page are mine. Steaua what is the problem if im not logged in account? why you say that my edits are suspicious? please look again, only I improved page. please explain to me clearly, I am not allowed to edit if not logged in? if so, why?

second problem is not mine — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.25.179.243 (talk) 13:07, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

edit - what is the problem with this page in this format? i don't understand — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.25.179.243 (talk) 13:09, 29 July 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.25.215.109 (talk)

You are evading a block, you made a legal threat, you are only allowed to log in to your named account and address the legal threat. If you don't, you will be blocked forever. I don't care about your edits, I don't care how wonderful they are, once you make a legal threat and act like a sockpuppet, you are a liability to the community. Address those problems or be blocked forever. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 13:43, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

thanks, i will make another account. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.25.235.176 (talk) 13:59, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Message from Shylocksboy

Deny
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Hello There was an article in a national newspaper last week or the week before saying that the number of editors here had dropped greatly. Various people commented that they had stopped contributing because the site was overseen by too many pedants and single issue fanatics. I noticed yesterday that you have blocked me from editing and also blocked my IP address (which obviously hasn't worked since I'm leaving you this message) because you say I have two accounts (why it's given the ridiculous name of sock puppetry I have no idea but we'll let that pass). I am or, rather I should say, was an enthusiast for Misplaced Pages. The vast majority of my thousand or so edits have been correcting information, editing appalling writing and removing vandalism. I have more than twenty years' experience of writing on national newspapers so, as I said on my talk page, I do know more about many subjects that most other editors have forgotten or didn't know in the first place (more likely). I have a thorough grounding in the laws of libel and slander so despite what one "editor" (whose name mercifully escapes me) says, I have never added contentious material. I would defend totally every edit I have made. One other editor made the point that very little on here is necessary now and that much can wait, which I now see and agree with. However, there are so many mistakes and so much bad writing on here (I despair that schools are turning out more and more illiterates) that I want it altered now. If other genuine editors/contributors get some of the frankly absurd comments I have faced in the last few weeks, I'm not surprised that contributions are dropping off. Shylocksboy — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.74.76.236 (talk) 13:38, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

  • Obviously, I've blocked this IP, due to policy. The only way you are going to be editing is to log in as Shy, address the concerns, use the process. I've been polite enough to actually answer you here, as I normally just blind block and revert, but I don't think you "get it". As to your credentials, it doesn't matter as this isn't a newspaper, it is an encyclopedia, and I don't think you actually understand how sourcing works in a tertiary source, rather than a secondary source. Oh, and then there is the whole sockpuppeting issue. Don't bother replying, it will just get you blocked and I will just revert it. I've told you how to deal, now deal with it. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 13:57, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Help needed

Hi Dennis. Per the ANI discussion about the Scholarism article, the author is now edit warring to re-introduce the content into the second article here. It seems like an obvious attempt to circumvent AfD to me, but I'm not going to get embroiled in it all, so could you provide a third opinion and warn the appropriate user/take action as necessary? Thanks Basalisk ⁄berate 14:33, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for taking care of that. Regards Basalisk ⁄berate 14:47, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Moral and national education

Have you read the aricle closely? It describes a social issue, not a protest group. The issue itself qualifies for wikipedia policies. Some user accused one sentence of the article is a recreation of a previously deleted page, but the page is itself nothing similar to the deleted page on the other parts. The issue will make newspaper headline on almost every newspaper in Hong Kong. If you need comparison, look into the previous version of Scholarism before it was deleted.--Jabo-er (talk) 14:48, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Deletion review for Moral and national education

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Moral and national education. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review.

Hello

How appealing blocks? I don't understand how, don't work to do edits anything....

Obvious

sock
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

""obvious ducks, match previous patterns. Blocked, closing. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 01:52, 28 July 2012 (UTC)" Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

How does that work? Don´t you have better tools than stating "it is obvious"? What is obvious? That people from the same cultural background write the same things? Amazing! Try to go as far a the editor who entered the data for the terminology section. Who entered the data was an IP. I said I was an IP for 9 years. Try this: some of my first edits. on hispanics that goes back 5 years. Still an IP. Try to geolocate. And by the way from all the nonsense that editor may have writen or said there is one other thing I have to say: that page Lusitanic has been sitting there for years, the USA ceated a new meaning for the term hispanic, but wikipedia created a new meaning for the word lusitanic. I just find it an historical relic. 89.214.96.84 (talk) 15:19, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Archiving ANI

Denis, please could you have a look at this. Was it appropriate that Item 13 gaming of my 1-rr restriction by user ankhmorpork should have been archived? Would it have been better if an uninvolved admin such as yourself had closed it first?--Toddy1 (talk) 18:57, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

  • Wow, that is a very large and contentious thread. Normally, I would want to have one of the uninvolved admins who was actually participating and can determine if letting it archive is best or not. User:GiantSnowman or User:Future Perfect at Sunrise Since it archived, that means no one has participated in 24 hours, which might just mean they were beating a dead horse. It is hard for me to come in cold and tell if it should unarchived, but those admins would have a better idea on it. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 19:13, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Request for Admin Sanctions

Rather than rehash it here, this is a live proposal in WP space, based on the same ideas expressed at WP:WER and other places. (and owes a debt to everyone, it is really YOUR ideas). It is a compromise that I think Arbs, Admins and Editors all will find is not perfect, but very workable, flexible and adds zero new bureaucracy. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 22:03, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure if you intend to allow edits to be made directly to the proposal, or for them to be discussed on the talk page first. I'd like to make some minor copy edits, to avoid the use of the word "vote" where possible, to avoid the implication that the process is strictly based on votes (if I understand correctly, the decision is weighed following the usual Misplaced Pages consensus guideline). Would you like me to draft the changes first and put them up for discussion? isaacl (talk) 23:51, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
I haven't put a formal policy up before, but I'm thinking that if the edit is to fix grammar or minor points that don't change the meaning, then make it. If it more an opinion or changes anything substantial, use the talk page to propose a change and let others voice their opinions on it. Obviously, this is a consensus issue which is why discussion is a good thing. I've already made a few changes where my wording wasn't clear. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 23:58, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
Thanks; I've made some minor copy edits to the proposal. isaacl (talk) 00:19, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Snowwatcher (talk • contribs) 01:37, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

other reading

Hi Dennis, I was thinking it might be useful to look at somethings along these lines that worked for a while but then went to MfD. WP:CSN was one such. I think a number of the issues raised in its MfD might be worth thinking about with regard to the above too so that it avoids these pit falls--Cailil 02:33, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Need an admin

At the very bottom of this page. Noun and I worked together on a bunch of new templates for the {{request edit}} process that's very similar to AfCs. He says we need an admin to move them. Would love if you could chip in really quick. User:King4057 (EthicalWiki) 00:18, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

  • Gosh, I just started a proposal for a major change in admin sanction policy. Let me look and see if I can figure it out. I never mess with templates, so I'm not an expert there. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 01:07, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
  • I've moved it, but it broke something in the template. I assume this is something you can fix.

Template:Request edit/request Normally, you can just move it yourself, then blank and CSD the old page as user request, and get the same result. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 01:12, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the help. Unfortunately, it seems we need another small change made (as I understand) by an admin. Template:Request edit and Template:Request edit/request are in the wrong place and need to be swapped with each other. (The broken bit is where the page at /request tries to grab the existing code, which it expects will be sitting at /request. Thankfully, the wiki has a sanity check which just displays the error message when the template calls itself.) As I understand it, that requires a move without creating a redirect (or overwriting a redirect after it is created). The associated talk pages would also have to be moved. I could try to fix it with copy and paste, but that would probably get me some administrative attention of a far less desirable sort. :) Thanks again for your help. --Nouniquenames (talk) 03:18, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
I'm not sure I understand all of this, or what the problem is with copy/paste, but I did a copy/paste move. If it attracts some kind of complaint, than so be it. :-D User:King4057 (EthicalWiki) 20:04, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
Be bold. If no one ever complaints, you aren't taking enough risks ;) Sorry, I have been mega swamped with the new proposed policy at WP:RAS Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 20:36, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Sorry for editing your user page

I was looking at a popup window and clicked on a link just as the window disappeared. I thought "I rolled back what?". Very, very sorry. BusterD (talk) 00:23, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

  • Oh hey, don't worry about it. I give permission for others to edit it. If they make it better, I will leave it. If not, I will revert with no hard feelings. I don't own it, I just have the lease :) Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 01:00, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
I think a high database lag makes my Twinkle act funny. I'll go shower the egg off my face (and dump the crumbs from my keyboard). Love your work! (Apropos of nothing: isn't the the "July miracle at RfA" an unexpected and pleasant turn of events?) BusterD (talk) 01:09, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
I'm particularly thrilled that I was the nom for two of them! It was a very positive experience. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 01:10, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Query

Dennis Brown, do you mind weighing in at User talk:Boing! said Zebedee#Question? Flyer22 (talk) 19:20, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Kind of an ANI notice

I saw WP:ANI#User:Penyulap and thought you'd be interested in it. I'm still formulating my thoughts. Ryan Vesey 21:26, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Taking a bit of a break

Someone falsely assumed that I was somehow 'eager' for the sh** you have to put up with. Considering the wall'o'crap that has lead up to this, I'm asking you, do you think I actually want to be an admin ? I'm dumb sure, but not that stupid. You know the equation, and time shall prove me right that the project can't be saved, despite our best, earnest efforts. So, it's off to work on something better. Penyulap ☏ 22:22, 30 Jul 2012 (UTC)

  • And I will stay here, trying to create it from within. I don't claim to understand you, but not even you are capable of that. I only know enough to understand that I would understand if I knew enough. You aren't happy when you are here, and even when you aren't, but happiness is a choice and not a place. I wish I had more to offer you, but I'm at a loss. I wish you well. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 22:54, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
  • I'll add that "time shall prove me right that the project can't be saved" has been said by very many people repeatedly since at least 2003, probably in exactly those words on occasion. Whatever doom awaits Misplaced Pages, it sure isn't really good at getting there in a timely fashion to prove any of them right. — Coren  23:12, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm Used to It

You mentioned in the DreamMcQueen thread that you were "impressed by the amount of restraint was showing", it's actually cause I am pretty used to the insults by now. The ones I heard from DreamMcQueen are ones I have heard numerous times before. Even though I was diagnosed with Aspergers at age 22, I have had it all my life. So, I have always been this way, always will, so I am used to the insults. :) It isn't restraint, but my usual nonchalant attitude when it comes to people who insult me. :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 02:27, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

after (edit conflict) That's too bad. Sorry to hear that. There's not much we wiki users can do about the real life bullying/insults, but if this is going on onwiki? If so we may be able to help.PumpkinSky talk 02:31, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
When you have Aspergers, you develop a thick skin. Some things still get through, but DreamMcQueen's insults weren't one of them. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 02:48, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
  • You might think I was a bit generous with the block, and I agree, but I was so offended, and obviously so, that it was necessary that I block for a "logical" period, and since the last block was 96 hours, 1 week was the next logical step. I will not take any offense if the community overrides this generosity, but I felt that the block needed to happen when it did and he clearly wasn't going to back off his attacks. I accept that the attacks were because of a gross ignorance, but attacks are attacks, just as disruption is disruption, regardless of the reason. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 02:30, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Ahh, OK. I'd only linked the two by following (would you believe?) some link, somewhere ... hehe! Whichever way they go, ideally they should be in one archive. Rollosmokes, by the look of it ;P Pesky (talk) 14:20, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Editor retention talk page and Penyulap

Do you think the block should be mentioned there, or do you think everyone will know why P is no longer participating. I have to admit that I was getting tired of Penyulap's posts and they were driving me away. Dougweller (talk) 06:57, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

  • I don't know, to be honest. Penyulap isn't banned, he was just taking a break, backed by a community block. I'm guessing he will be back but not sure how long. He is a complicated and likable pain in the ass if you get to know him a bit, but the block was strongly backed by the community and he was on a destructive and downward spiral. Just woke up after only a few hours sleep, need to coffee up and think about it. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 09:10, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
    • The other thing to think about is his behavior in article and article talk page space. Maybe I've misunderstood, but it did look like the sort of behavior that drives editors away. Dougweller (talk) 14:38, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
    I really don't like the idea that one editor drives another away, however we do need to remember that this is a volunteer project. There are many reasons that people volunteer, but they all boil down to "because they want to". If they didn't want to, they wouldn't do it. If an editor is causing enough of a problem that other editors don't want to deal with them, then yes, that behaviour is driving other editors away. Worm(talk) 14:44, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
      • I agree that sometimes editors do. If people are edit warring and it goes unnoticed, you can drive away good editors that are trying to comply with policy. If someone constantly attacks or harasses another edit, you can drive them away. This is why part of editor retention involved even, fair and consistent actions by admins, so people know what the rules are, and what is expected if they breach them. I have seen editors driven away by the maddening process of dealing with disruptive or obstructive editors. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 15:19, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

WP:RAS

Regarding WP:RAS, I've added it to this navbox for easier navigation. If I've misrepresented it, please do feel free to change what I've written, and add any other links that you think should be included. Worm(talk) 16:12, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Roswell UFO incident?Sunrise

More than enough time had been spent on this issue. Please move along. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 11:26, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Dennis, Could I thank you for your help in protecting the Roswell UFO page from spamming from various IP's. Much appreciated. Regards, David. David J Johnson (talk) 17:50, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Hey Dennis, you are not helping at all. Quite the contrary.

Could I not thank you for protecting the Roswell UFO page from people who are trying to contribute a serious scientific discussion on the case. If you are able to accept Annie Jacobsen's book titled "Area 51" as a worthy item to include on the Roswell case, then include SUNRISE's "Roswell Revealed - The New Scientific Breakthrough in the Controversial UFO Crash of 1947". Your scientific abilities clearly don't extend to checking the references provided by SUNRISE Information Services by reading the book and downloading the documents available from the SUNRISE web site where you can verify the facts (which is more than a number of people can say about the book, Area 51) before going ahead and locking down the page. If you accept the word of one person who claims someone is spamming without checking the facts, you should not be the admin editor of Misplaced Pages. Plain and simple.

  • Discussions happen on the talk page, not the article. If you are serious about discussion, go there instead of spamming. If you keep spamming, we can start blacklisting URLS to the book, but that would actually affect your Google rankings since they do monitor our blacklist (oh, and I do marketing for a living, trust me on this one). Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 10:52, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Hi Dennis, Sorry to disturb you once again. But it appears having read the SUNRISE website tonight - that they are intimating that they will change the Roswell UFO page as soon as it becomes available for editing by unregistered users on 31 August 2012. Whilst it may be advisable to wait and see, I am also concerned that they will try another edit war with the usual offensive, unsigned contributions to individual Talk Pages (as has happened in the last two days). They seem to have no respect for the Misplaced Pages conventions and rules, the case for blacklisting is even stronger. With best wishes, David. David J Johnson (talk) 20:42, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi Dennis. Please ignore the previous comment. It is clear there is an irrational fear by this individual that someone from SUNRISE is going to change (or destroy) the entire Roswell UFO Incident page because of one important contribution entry they wish to make. This individual is clearly focussing on some other aspect of the SUNRISE web site that they cannot see the relevance and high level importance of the contribution. If anything, I sense the individual is afraid to have new and significant scientific research entering the discussion on the Roswell case on this guy's page. If the real issue is more to do with so-called advertising of any book (I do note the page does advertise the existence of various other books from other authors), then modify the SUNRISE contribution to reduce the advertising aspect if you feel it is appropriate. This should not be a case of one person thinking one organisation is going to be nasty and bring down one page or change everything just so he can stop the important contribution of one research group from reaching Wiki readers.. The purpose of Misplaced Pages is to "encourage people to contribute" important (and verifiable, may I add) information and to help improve the quality of that information to readers. It is not about censorship. It is about open-mind and healthy discussion of the topics on Misplaced Pages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.170.213.61 (talk) 22:54, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

  • Well, I did notice this tidbit:

Updated wikipedia page on the Roswell UFO Incident page under "Further Developments" to explain the latest research work. However, please note that this information is being regularly by other people (dates when our information has been removed include 28, 29 and 31 July 2012). It would appear someone is assuming the entry is advertisement. But instead of editing it to ensure it meets the standards, it is better to remove the entire entry discussing the latest scientific results. SUNRISE will endeavour to regularly re-add this information for the benefit of the public. Currently put across into dispute resolution, the next date to add the information is on 31 August 2012. cite

This really makes it pretty clear that there the intention to edit war. But I'm not going to change the protection at this time, since protection is usually not for a single spammer, blocks are. Of course, if it keeps getting spammed after protection is up, I will add the domain to the blacklist, which is way more effective, although not good news for their google results. Or complain to unlimited-space.com/dedicatedservers.net.au, or simply block their ranges. Lots of network engineer's here, it isn't hard to calculate the ranges. What is interesting is the type of connections the 101 IP uses each time, which is an odd location and proxy, and I see a lot of spamming traffic coming from this organization, many that are already blacklisted on other sites. If needed, I can rangeblock for a year or two here, so it is easy to see there are several tools at our disposal. So Mr. IP, if I haven't made myself clear before, you should limit yourselve to the talk page, and try to actually work with editors and provide them with information about the book and take a more humble attitude here. We don't tolerate spammers, but we are willing to consider the possibility that the book is worth mentioning, in a discussion, on that article talk page, not here. And David, feel free to ping me here anytime regarding this issue. I'm typically highly available. I trust that if they act in good faith, you will take a look and be open minded as to the appropriateness of the link, or book mention. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 23:25, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Dennis, Agree with everthing you say. I am sure you realise that I'm open to good faith edits and Talk Page contributions. What I dislike is the tone of the unsigned contributions and the lack of respect for Misplaced Pages conventions. Thank you for all your help. David. David J Johnson (talk) 23:43, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Interesting. I can see what's been written. Clearly not SUNRISE fault. It is making an important contribution. And clearly wants to let people know where to find more information. From the discussion so far, it is clearly not a question of advertisement through the contribution by SUNRISE (and I can see something important by SUNRISE to contribute), but rather whether the people at SUNRISE is following Misplaced Pages conventions as well as the way people at Misplaced Pages are taking a negative interpretation on the SUNRISE suggestion that it will have to re-add the information. Sounds like someone at Misplaced Pages doesn't want the contribution to go ahead (making any funny excuse not to allow it, and especially since we've now evolved from the advertising explanation after realising the Roswell UFO Incident page just happens to discuss some Roswell books to something else), let alone make contact with SUNRISE through its easy-to-see email address on the preferred approach to submitting contributions. Happy to find anything people here don't like, but not willing to help SUNRISE with an email. Rather it is better to run off to someone else in Misplaced Pages recommending a block on someone from SUNRISE. I disagree with Dennis on the issue. Focus on the content, not the rules (or conventions). Want to focus on conventions? Fine. You need to make clear to everyone what are the conventions? Because I've just started to look at Misplaced Pages for the first time (yes, I'm young, but I want to learn new things), and on first glance of a typical Misplaced Pages page I see the links for editing. The natural interpretation for this by anyone is that individuals anywhere in the world can make reasonable edits to improve the content and contribute new information for the benefit of Misplaced Pages readers. Once the changes are done, the main editor(s) of the page can review the changes and if it is verifiable and backed up with solid research, and the improvements does significantly improve the writing to make things clearer and more accurate, then it will be accepted. Or he may make further edits, whichever is appropriate at the time. However the preferred convention being suggested here is to take on the traditional magazine or newspaper etiquette of expecting people to figure out who is the editor of the page, make a suggestion in the Talk discussion page of the editor or whoever is checking the WIkipedia pages (and hopefully he is the right one) and, if the editor considers the contribution relevant, may put it on the wikipedia page. If this is the preferred approach, then all Misplaced Pages pages should always be locked and a link provided direct to the editor for people who want to contribute. Misplaced Pages's page design for allowing people to edit is clearly stating a new way of contributing (with the usual checks by other editors). So which do you prefer? Contribution in Talk discussion, or contribution direct on the Misplaced Pages page? Choose and design the Misplaced Pages page to ensure people do follow your conventions. Extraordinary excuses I am seeing here. Just put the contribution in so I and others can learn something new and interesting. Cheers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.170.213.72 (talk) 08:57, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

  • Read WP:COI and WP:Five pillars. To put it bluntly, Misplaced Pages is overrun with people who are trying to add links to their webpages, books, products, etc. We are very aggressive about filtering this spam. If you act like a spammer, you will treated like one. If you can admit you have a conflict of interest but can work with people, we are all exceedingly willing to consider any idea. When you just force your book into an article when others have doubts, and use inappropriate methods (by our accepted guidelines), then you waste our time. Right now, you are taking up MY time that I could be using to write articles, but instead I'm having to explain over and over. We all are biased in one way or another. I sell products, too, and I don't edit the articles that relate to the products I sell now, I use the talk page. I'm saying you should do the same thing. I can't be any more fair than that. This insures the content is decided by a neutral party. Misplaced Pages is an encyclopedia, not a blog, forum, fashion magazine or social network. The criteria for including information is well documented here if you look. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 12:05, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Its not my book. I'm just interested in seeing the fascinating results of what I've just read get put on Misplaced Pages. However, I'm not going to copy all the text of a book and put it on a Misplaced Pages page just so it seems like it is not "spam". And I will only get in trouble with SUNRISE who I see are legitimately selling a book to support their research activities. I consider myself to be "neutral" after receiving this contribution and reading the book. And I'm happy to help. So what next? How many "neutral" people do you need before the contribution is added? I take it you have informed SUNRISE that someone has made a contribution and is being checked? Not sure how long it takes (I can see SUNRISE has been told nothing). Surely by now you should know what the situation is. As for whether it is spam (or advertising), the contribution is not a solid, throughout advertisement saying, "Hey guys, buy this book!" and that's it. The contribution focuses significantly on presenting the essential facts from the research. The only tricky bit is when a reader asks, "Hmmm, Where can I get more information?" If you don't at least mention the main source where the research is published, readers will be scratching their heads, picking out of their bums and wondering what to do next. From looking at this contribution, I see one piddling paragraph at the beginning that has to highlight where to find more information, the 90 per cent or more of the contribution is the core facts of the research. This brings me to the question of, what constitutes advertising? From my understanding, anything that highlights a subject, a person, or anything else in a slightly disproportionate way compared to the surrounding or accompanying text (or other type of information) can be considered a form of advertising. Even the mere mentioning of a person's name on Misplaced Pages is a form of advertising. And I see book titles on the Roswell UFO Incident page — clearly must be advertising too. Yet somehow they have gone through as okay. Perhaps I should ask SUNRISE to give me more references to make the contribution "look" more like an encyclopaedia entry. Well, I'm not putting in the bells and whistles of flashing lights and lots of colour everywhere, or that would definitely be advertising wouldn't it? It seems like the right contribution to make to Misplaced Pages. So what now? Well, I am glad to see more "neutral" people from Misplaced Pages (oops! Sorry, I shouldn't mention the word, as that's advertising; and, of course, I assume Misplaced Pages is indeed a "neutral" party and not in the game of censoring important contributions) are checking it out (and hopefully focussing on the research facts in a neutral way). Better than a kick in the face I would say with the possible blocking of someone for contributing something and being worried about SUNRISE re-adding the information (I imagine they must be seeking other "neutral" people just like me). Except, from what I have seen so far, other people helping to re-add the contribution if they think it is alright is clearly not helping the cause, is it?

  • I don't have time for silly games. I see thousands and thousands of spammers per month, I've been here 6 years and edited over 25000 times. I have a well developed bullshit detector. I've given you the information you need to get your book considered. You would be wise to not treat people like fools here, admit your conflict of interest, your relationship, and not try to be so clever, because we have seen it all. Honesty is rewarded, deception is blocked and locked and listed with Google as spam, period. Now please move along, I need to help people who actually want to build an encyclopedia and you have exhausted all the good will I have on this subject. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 21:50, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

What game are you talking about? Just admit that there are independent people out there wanting to build your encyclopedia with quality information. The people to focus are the readers of Misplaced Pages. What aspect of the contribution I am providing for SUNRISE is bullshit? Certainly not spam. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.172.127.233 (talk) 09:27, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Cash prize.

Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 19:52, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Friendly discussion regarding block policy

In no way is this a request for soliciting a block. This is simply an editor asking a question of a successful RFA candidate.

I have a question regarding the Blocking policy. As I read through the page to help me get a firmer grasp on the intricacies of the policy, I am having a hard time reconciling "Blocks should not be punitive" coupled with "Blocks should be used to ... encourage a more productive, congenial editing style within community norms." In my mind a block that is enacted to get a editor to edit within community norms is a punishment to that editor for not following the norms. Could you please help me understand the difference? I wanted to discuss this here with a practicing admin prior to asking at a place like the village pumps, the talk page for blocking policy, or the talk page of AN for fear of being shouted down for the contemplative navel gazing. Thank you for your time. Hasteur (talk) 21:08, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

A large number of blocks are punitive and I've recently come to the decision that at times they should be. For the longest time I argued against civility blocks because they were strictly punitive. Many editors justified them by saying a civility block here prevents incivility in the future. It's a loophole, but a poor one. Perhaps the best thing would be to remove the "blocks should not be punitive" and replace it with "blocks should be made in regards to ongoing or very recent actions". I feel the entire purpose of blocks should not be punitive is to keep someone from being blocked for an action they took yesterday or last week. If we tore down the wall, it would be possible to remove those editors who cannot behave in the manner expected by the community and retain the editors who can but are unwilling to be part of this oftentimes terrible environment. Ryan Vesey 21:19, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
Blocks can't be given for punitive reasons. This is why if an editer really upsets me and deserves a block, I will get another admin to do the block, as they are more neutral. Last night is a good example. I was upset at an editor, so I had to really sit back and think, and ended up blocking them for a week, their 3rd block, even though I wanted to indef them. As it turns out, at ANI they had a discussion, and they decided to indef him, overriding my block (with my prior approval, as always). Because I had my own emotions involved, it was difficult to separate, but I did and erred on the conservative side. This time, I felt I could override my own emotions and make a reasonable call, and did. Other times, I have asked other admins to come in and make a determination because I knew I was too biased, had too strong of emotions to make a rational decision that was fair. (he who shall be nameless).
There is an incidental degree of punitive in all blocks only because they stop someone from editing, but the basis has to be in prevention. Let's say Bob is edit warring. I block him for 24 hours. Two days later, he is back edit warring. Obviously, the 24 hours wasn't sufficient to prevent disruption, so I try 72 hours. He comes back and does the same thing, so 1 week, then 2 week, and eventually indef. The key here is that I'm not trying to "punish" Bob, even if it feels that way. I'm not trying to "educate" Bob, but I hope that the break makes him think twice next time. What I am really doing is trying to give the other editors a peaceful time editing, and the only way I can do that is to remove Bob. It isn't about Bob as much as it is about maintaining peace. An admin's primary role is to foster a fair and equitable environment that allows all productive editors to create and maintain content in peace, by cleaning up messes, settling disputes and creating needed structure. We are servants of the community, not bosses of the community. (my words) Blocking as revenge or as purely punishment is abuse, and a pattern of it demands the admin lose his bit.
And I disagree with civility blocks, because they look good on the surface, but they end up causing more disruption in the long run. I used to think they were good, but now realize how mistaken I was. I've found that I have better luck using my words in those cases, but it isn't easy and takes practice and doesn't guarantee results, but neither does blocking. Being an admin is one hell of a lot more than using the tools, anyway. Personally, I don't judge my success by the number of blocks I give, but rather by the number of blocks I manage to avoid, by reducing the drama and getting both sides to draw a truce and deal with the underlying issues. And to be clear: These are wonderful ideals, and I don't claim I can live up to them every day, but I always try. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 22:59, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi

At this point, we are focusing more on style than substance and I don't think I can explain any better than I already have. As my time is limited, we just need to move ahead on what really matters, a solution, and accept differences for what they are. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 06:53, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Ok I'm really getting the impression that your pride is hurt or something.

You appear to talk about "JC and me" recently in several straw polls, and we've been friendly on the past. But suddenly I don't support a proposal you make, and try to explain the issues that I feel it has, and you suddenly seem upset with me?

Anyway, to address your recent comments (which I hope you will refactor), let me give a bit of a timeline: I started this de-adminship discussion theme at WT:RFA. And then I posted a proposal stemmed from that discussion. after that WTT started an RfC, and he dropped me a note about it before it went "live". And at one point he said to me that he hoped I would add the WT:RFA proposal to the RFC. I did.

I've commented throughout. And discussed with many people, including you. And I have expanded/developed the proposal.

In the meantime, in the middle of that timeline somewhere, you created your proposal. Great!. So I started to talk with you about it, making some suggestions based upon some things I have seen and was seeing. About halfway through I realised (through discussion with you) that I wasn't looking at the title closely enough (request for admin sanctions) which made it clear that your focus in this proposal was broader than I had thought the process was; than what I had thought it was when I first went there. I even tell you that I'll show you what I mean (by using my earlier proposal).

After that someone asked for debate/comparison between the two proposals. Which I thought wasn't a good idea. and tried to explain why, and also reiterated my concerns with that proposal because they asked.

And since then I've gotten the impression that you're upset with me. "more proper" definitely being an indicator. I started to respond there, but then decided that a page as highly watched as that was probably not the nicest place to ask you about this.

Incidentally, crossposting to noticeboards and asking some individuals to help with or to comment on your proposal prior to starting an RfC on it is very common practice. Indeed, I note that you have as well. (I'm not bothering with diffs here, I'm fairly certain that you're fairly aware of all of this.) So appearing to be snarky about it, is surprising. This isn't a competition. Up until now, I thought we all (individually, in small groups, and in community-wide discussions) were working on ways to try to figure out what is for the betterment of Misplaced Pages. But apparently you see differently? I don't know, I can only guess now.

I believe that most people know me as someone who is more than happy to engage in discussion on most wikipedia topics. I do so freely and forthrightly and collegiately. On Misplaced Pages, I've always been a strong believer of AGF, but with the caveat of "until lack of good faith is shown".)

I don't think lack of good faith has been shown here, but I do think that there seems to be an issue. If you feel I am mistaken, please clarify.

Now if you have no problem with there being an issue, that's up to you, and I'll leave you be. Otherwise, I would rather we returned to being friendly.

If you thought anything different of me, you have my sincere apology. - jc37 02:41, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

  • Sorry about the length, but I respect your concerns enough to be detailed here, and being over 3 hours past my usual bed time, I am likely not as concise as I would normally be.
  • You and I do share a lot of the same ideas, Jc37, but we also diverge greatly on many issues as well. We also have very different methods that are a bit conflicting. As to who started first or not, that isn't a big deal to either of us really. I understand if you haven't, but if you looked back at my history here, my comments, my actions, my decisions, you would likely understand my perspective more, and see a very focused individual. I'm an old fart who has spent a lifetime in the business world, not academia, so I tend to do things a bit differently, such as presenting an idea and let it stand on its own, and taking every project and yes, turn it into stone soup. That is actually a huge part of who I am, a life philosophy, not an off the cuff remark.
  • But I'm not mad at you, even if I think you let your exuberance get the better of you at times. Boundless energy isn't a bad thing, it just isn't as effective as focused energy. If you notice, my comments about linking to the larger project it isn't about putting my ideas first or pushing it in front of yours (it should be quite clear I've never done that) it is about getting people to look at everything, not just mine, not just your idea. If someone has a better idea, I would be happy to put my support behind them. I was a bit surprised, however, at your participation at RAS. Your comments seemed to be trying to pick it apart, and obviously you weren't interested in improving it because you had previous made it crystal clear that you didn't and couldn't support the proposal. That might be perceived as badgering, attempting to discredit a "competing" idea, and some of your comments were quite misleading. I try to assume good faith, but it is quite inappropriate, which is why I never would have considered doing the same on your proposal page. I thought I was rather gracious about it, to be honest, and I'm known to not hold a grudge.
  • I think that our motivations must be different in these designs, as evidenced by our comments at RAS about admins and being subject to blocks and other sanctions fairly. I have no idea what yours are, and honestly, I haven't given it much thought as I've been focused on my own. The whole purpose of RAS is that the current system is NOT fair, but in order to achieve equality, we must be fair to EVERYONE, including the admin accused of something. There is a great undercurrent of resentment among a sizable minority of editors, much of it undeserved, but some of it well earned. This is why I have remained firm on the idea that the system can't be binary, for the admin's own sake, and to be fair to the community as well. Other proposals have failed because they don't properly address the human element. Not your proposal, but past ones.
  • The reason I stopped discussion wasn't about your comments, it was because I know that if you and I bludgeon the discussion, it makes others less willing to participate. I actually wrote an essay on a different type of bludgeoning, the kind that happens at AFD in particular, back in 2008, so I'm aware of the stifling effect when two people dominate a discussion, and I'm quite interested in the community response.
  • If the community decides that they want only binary options, that is fine, and I will go work on other projects instead. Had you not had your own proposal and had taken the time to ask a great deal of questions, as to understand some of the details that are not so obvious, I can imagine you would have supported it. There is more than meets the eye, and my gut feeling says they want more options.
  • The big (and perhaps irreconcilable) difference is how we view people. I believe that an admin can screw up and still doesn't need to lose the bit. Again, WP:WER has confirmed much of what I've already known, that harsh sanctions make us lose good people, and an admin that is screwing up isn't a bad person, they are usually a good person using bad methods. From my experience, I have an incredible amount of faith that people can change their behavior when properly motivated, and I would rather push an admin into a 3 month break, with some mentoring, allow them to experience an epiphany, and come back a better admin. You seem to think that won't work, yet I have decades of real world experience that knows it most often can. You come across as having a more pessimistic view of people in general than I, which is discouraging.
  • "Being a sysop is no big deal" simply isn't true anymore. We are one of the largest websites in the world and the tools are very powerful. While we don't need to make it "a bigger deal", it is still a big responsibility, and demands flexibility in how we deal with admins, or you make it an even bigger deal. Most of the old timers will tell you the same, for good reason. Learn from your elders.
  • Neither of us should be "selling" our ideas, only putting them out and letting others take part in developing them. Honestly, I couldn't give a damn about the "credit" for the plan. I've been blessed in life and little things like that don't affect me so much. What I do care about is the result, and it is easy to see that I'm focused like a laser on making sure that some reasonable plan becomes policy this year.
  • As to working together, I am sure we will cross paths in the future. If you really looked at this deeper and wanted to ask serious questions about the whys and hows that made up this plan, then IRC would be a good venue (this is too slow and verbose). If not, I understand as well and it really doesn't bother me if you disagree, I expect several will but I'm not easily discourage. It is my desire that the discussion be driven primarily by the community rather than us, since we are the ones presenting the ideas and we should answer to them, not the other way around. But in the end, I want the discussion to be neutral, looking at every idea, every plan, every comment and every option, bar none because in the end, that is the only way anything will get done. And getting something done is what I am focused on. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 05:08, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for responding. It will obviously take me a bit to try to respond. So in the meantime, obviously please feel free to head to bedtime  : ) - jc37 05:42, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Email is likely a better option as well. And for highly watched, don't be surprised if more people watch this page, but I do agree it doesn't belong there. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 14:05, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
Well, I made the mistake of taking my own advice, getting some sleep. And following that, RL repeatedly called. My apologies. I'll attempt to respond shortly. - jc37 11:31, 2 August 2012 (UTC)


I'll try to address each of your points in order.
"We also have very different methods that are a bit conflicting... I tend to do things a bit differently, such as presenting an idea and let it stand on its own, and taking every project and yes, turn it into stone soup...I was a bit surprised, however, at your participation at RAS. Your comments seemed to be trying to pick it apart..."
Apparently we do. First, none of these proposals are in "final form" yet, as we both have affirmed, I believe? The way to address any multi-faceted proposal is to break it into fundamental parts and "delve in" examine and discuss. With any of these types of proposals, we need to look close at the details, look at how they interact with each other while focused in on the details, and at the same time, we need to stand back and look at these things with a "wide angle lens" as well. So this is what I did. Looking at the component parts, I saw/see issues, and tried to discuss that with you. Later realising there was what I considered to be a few fundamental issues (broadness in allowable types of sanctions - I'll cover that below). And incidentally, that is what I think WTT was trying to do with the RfC: get opinions on some general fundamentals. The only time I suggest a stet proposal to the community is when I think it's ready for a straw poll/RfC.
"As to who started first or not, that isn't a big deal to either of us really... If you notice, my comments about linking to the larger project it isn't about putting my ideas first or pushing it in front of yours (it should be quite clear I've never done that) it is about getting people to look at everything, not just mine, not just your idea..."
Normally I'd agree with you, I only said that because of how I was interpreting several comments I'd seen you make. I was getting the impression you felt that I was attempting to in some way bypass standing discussion, when actually, those discussions stemmed from the discussions I began, and the bulleted list/proposal that stemmed from those initial discussions. The whole thing was just coming across "odd" to me. to where I finally was wondering (as I note above) that your comments may be reflecting injured pride in some way. Your comments suggesting that it would be "more proper" to link to a subsequent discussion of these things just come across oddly. Why would it be "more proper"? I'm working on a proposal, it's still in discussion mode, and I'm asking editors for their insight. How is this different than anything else we're doing? And for that matter, you started posting such notices to noticeboards and the like concerning your proposal (this, for example). So, based upon your assertion, why didn't you link to the RFC rather than merely your own proposal? Out of all your comments, these really seem like the most difficult to support. As I said above, I hope you will give that some thought and refactor, based upon your own comments.
"I was a bit surprised, however, at your participation at RAS. Your comments seemed to be trying to pick it apart, and obviously you weren't interested in improving it because you had previous made it crystal clear that you didn't and couldn't support the proposal. That might be perceived as badgering, attempting to discredit a "competing" idea, and some of your comments were quite misleading. I try to assume good faith, but it is quite inappropriate, which is why I never would have considered doing the same on your proposal page. I thought I was rather gracious about it, to be honest, and I'm known to not hold a grudge."
I was indeed trying to discuss with you. And I am known for being open minded. This being a type-written environment, clarification through discussion is not just an option, it's a necessary way of life. And if you'll note, I actually edited your proposal to try to help. And when I formatted my previous proposal at WT:RFA to the RAA page, I essentially was trying to show you what I was talking about. Ideology of what you would like to see in the process aside, there are a lot of phrasing "fixes" that I personally think could help your proposal.
And I'll note that your suggestion that discussion is "badgering", and feeling you should be "gracious about it", suggests to me that you were not seeing this as open discussion, and possibly were seeing my delving into your proposal as a personal attack upon you. Which of course it is not. A proposal is just that. A proposal. We can be proud of them, but in the end, it's just a bunch of type-written words. Look to scotty wong's comments at WP:AN concerning my proposal. I WP:AGF that he is commenting about his feeling of such proposals in general, and is noting parts of my proposal which he feels concern about. I don't see them at all as attacks upon me. Everyone is going to have opinions on this. We're discussing something which people have STRONG opinions about. So the best we can do is try to address as much of everyone's concerns, while trying to create a workable process.
"The reason I stopped discussion wasn't about your comments, it was because I know that if you and I bludgeon the discussion, it makes others less willing to participate. I actually wrote an essay on a different type of bludgeoning, the kind that happens at AFD in particular, back in 2008, so I'm aware of the stifling effect when two people dominate a discussion, and I'm quite interested in the community response."
Regardless of whether I agree with your essay, this isn't AFD. I have no doubt that when it comes to topics which involve RFA and/or involves adminship, people will break down any barrier to come comment. I say this from personal experience. The only thing I think will prevent people from commenting is that they think a proposal has no chance, so they don't bother. You are, of course, welcome to disagree.
'If the community decides that they want only binary options, that is fine, and I will go work on other projects instead. Had you not had your own proposal and had taken the time to ask a great deal of questions, as to understand some of the details that are not so obvious, I can imagine you would have supported it. There is more than meets the eye, and my gut feeling says they want more options."
You're right in that I do not support it as it stands.
As for my "opposition", through discussion, I can be persuaded of many things. As long as we stay within Misplaced Pages's long standing fundamental foundations, I'm persuadable of an opinion, and at worst, discussion can only help those discussing more clearly understand their own opinions. The fundamental problem I see with your proposal is how it (seems to me) to broadly duplicate an arbcom case. the only change I am proposing is to allow the community a clear process for de-sysopping. While still leaving the fundamental concept of "arbcom review" in place. Yours seems to me to be reducing arbcom to a hand wave. Arbcom is a political entity, as much as we'd like it not to be. So just like any body elected by the community, if given any chance to not have to decide something (to not be "blamed" or to be seen as "the bad guys") they will leap at the chance. This is simple human nature. So your process, while well-meeant, will have rather wide ranging consequences.
As for stating that "an admin is just another editor", they are. Admins have advanced editing tools, and project policing tools. And just like the world outside the wiki, people can have issue with those who police what they do. What helps a community have better faith (trust) in their police is knowing that problematic individuals can have that removed in a timely manner. I firmly believe that much of the problems currently at RfA is because the community really doesn't have that faith in the process. Just having a working community-wide de-adminship process in place should help with the tone at RfA.
This process shouldn't be blocking, even topic banning. Those should be applied to the editor, not merely their use of admin tools. If we want to "block" admin tool usage due to disruption, the way to do that is to remove the tools.
"The big (and perhaps irreconcilable) difference is how we view people. I believe that an admin can screw up and still doesn't need to lose the bit."
I do too.
" I would rather push an admin into a 3 month break, with some mentoring, allow them to experience an epiphany, and come back a better admin. You seem to think that won't work, yet I have decades of real world experience that knows it most often can. You come across as having a more pessimistic view of people in general than I, which is discouraging."
I don't disagree with the principle, I disagree with the implementation. I think creating the idea of a 'suspension" will help cement the mindset that having the tools is a huge deal. (I really did not like your suggestion that having the tools removed is "execution".) The more people are used to the idea that tool gaining and removal should be considered no big deal, the better it will be tone-wise.
"Most of the old timers will tell you the same, for good reason. Learn from your elders."
Nice.
Anyway, I'll just hand wave to Manning's recent comments. (Sorry to pick one person out of many.) I think opinions in the community are very varied. But that aside, besides commenting that you really clearly do not know me, I think the proper answer to this is - :P
"But in the end, I want the discussion to be neutral, looking at every idea, every plan, every comment and every option, bar none because in the end, that is the only way anything will get done."
Neutral discussion? We have policy regarding WP:INVOLVED for good reason. I think you meant open discussion. But regardless, I would suggest that you aren't neutral on this, and have fairly clear opinion, as you have stated.
As I said before, this doesn't need to be a competition. From what I am seeing, these things are not mutually exclusive. And even while noting your past stated opinions, I would love to hear your thoughts on my proposal as well.
As for off wiki discussion, I tend to prefer transparency of on-wiki discussion. That said, if you feel you would like to talk through email, I suppose I am not opposed to that.
I obviously didn't copy/answer every single sentence. If there is something you feel I didn't address, please let me know.
As before, I do wish you well. - jc37 13:08, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Answer to old LD50 question

Hello. I was perusing the Median lethal dose article and ran across your question about ionizing radiation. I attempted to answer there.--Wikimedes (talk) 06:55, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

SPI

I need to add an editor (Wrothscaptcha) to a SPI request for checkuser you recently approved. Can I add the user and my evidence to the existing SPI or do I need to open a new request? Thanks. CorrectKnowledge (talk) 16:37, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Weird checkuser stuff

Silly rabbit.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Hey, DB, could you take a look at User:Cparkos? What appears to be a new editor put checkuser block templates on the user and talk pages; I removed them, since they appear not to have ever been blocked, and I don't see them in any open SPIs (and they have no edits, either, for that matter). Am I missing something? Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 20:21, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

LET'S BE CLEAR. HE IS SOCK YOU BLOCK HIM NOBODY CARES.( HE IS OBVIOUS SOCK SITTING BEHIND ME AT NET CAFE) Lokitecho (talk) 20:48, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
Out of curiosity, what other account names have you edited under? Obviously you aren't new, and 2 accounts doesn't mean socking by itself, I'm just wondering.

Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 20:54, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm evading six moths block..but I bet 200 $ DB that you can't find the person behind this account...I'm using TOR man..Mwahaha..Lokitecho (talk) 20:56, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
Fortunately, I don't need to. Indef blocked. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 20:59, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Are you Online?

I need help of administrator...GiantBluePanda (talk) 21:30, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Hiya Dennis!

Are you open to trouting? Arcandam (talk) 01:50, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Please consider my talk page. Thank you

Please check my talk page at the following link, and please leave a comment about what you think of Bearian's "Final Warning" alleging that I was in any way "disruptive" or "vandalizing" - on my own My Talk page. I respect your opinion and will follow your recommendation. Also, MART2012 is a unique person, with her own ideas, and not a sock puppet. Please consider restoring her account. Thank you. http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:Inetcafebooth6&pe=1&#Your_tone...._again Thank you University Internet Cafe Booth 6 (talk) 16:40, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

  • I am a little confused as to the entire sequence of events there. I suggest just politely asking Bearian for clarification on his talk page. That is usually a good place to start. As to socking, I would need more info. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 16:57, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Non admin closure of my ANI on the MICH IP sock

Hi Dennis,

I was caught up short to see that a non-admin closed my ANI proceeding. The guidelines for nonadmin closures do not mention this context as an appropriate place for non admin closure, specifically, and I'm hoping you'll un-close the discussion.

While blocking a range of IPs is problematic, it is (A) less than 12 hours since I opened the ANI, (B) the IP themself should get a chance to answer, if only for future reference, and (C) other impacted editors (mostly climate page editors) should also get a chance to sound off. Perhaps out of this airing some approach other than page protection will emerge. And perhaps, after due discussion, it will still be closed for the reasons the non-admin editor cited.

Thanks for your consideration, I'll be glad to abide by your timely judgment on re-opening the discussion on basis of premature closure. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 18:31, 2 August 2012 (UTC) Nevermind. Another admin converted the non admin closure into a one-month soft block of the range. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:07, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Youreallycan

He's causing problems on WP:BLPN and Stephen M. Cohen, again. Would you please speak to him, because I have a feeling he will not accept any sort of argument from me (he's already reverted content 3 times under the pretense he is protecting a BLP).—Ryulong (竜龙) 00:31, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

He has been edit warring with me because I will not allow him to add a link to the comment I posted on Coren's talk page. I have reported him to AN3 for this.—Ryulong (竜龙) 01:59, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

You've got mail!

Hello, Dennis Brown. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added 04:06, 3 August 2012 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

MJ94 (talk) 04:06, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Catfish

So where should I have reported it, if not at ANI? Especially, as it turns out, since he had already been warned before about this kind of thing? ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 13:05, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

  • Talk to him, talk to an admin that works at AIV. Revert him if he makes a mistake, and if he balks about it, just ask an admin. Try the talk page at AIV itself. The problem with ANI is it is often like killing flies with a shotgun, and it is easy to cause more damage than the result is worth. This is why it should be the last result. I don't think you intended for it to get out of hand, but ANI is that way. To many drive by comments that ramp up the drama, which is why it is better to keep in the areas where people care about the subject, like the talk pages of the venue where the mistakes are being made. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 13:14, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) Generally, I either remove reports that have been declined by an admin and have been sitting there for a few hours, or comment on reports. Usually, an admin clears out the reports that I comment on at 00:00 UTC. Also, had you reverted my an used an edit summary saying why I was wrong, I would've stopped and not objected. However, comments such as this are very rude and not appreciated, and are what made me retire: Well shit. It looks like JamesBWatson warned them in June, as well. We got trouble; we are not getting through to this editor. -- Dianna (talk) 04:26, 3 August 2012 (UTC). Electric Catfish 13:57, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
  • I'm very aware of our subpar methods used for dealing with problems. I've been on that end of the stick before, where I think I'm doing something right and someone bites my head off, when a simple discussion would have sufficed. I truly don't think Bugs meant to bite your head off and instead just didn't know where to take what he legitimately felt was a problm, and the process of ANI itself is a poor one to deal with these problems. This is why I try to jump into issues quickly and resolve when I can. We all need to just back away for a day or two, and then have a real conversation on what is and isn't the best thing for non-admins to do in the venues, so there isn't further misunderstandings. I think everyone knows that everyone here was trying to do the right thing and no one was trying to hurt Misplaced Pages, so lets just keep focused on that if we can. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 14:06, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
Dennis, I totally agree with you. I've seen many experienced editors leave because of a rude ANI report. Also, I appreciated how many people commented that most of the work I do at AIV and UAA is good. I need a break, though. Best, Electric Catfish 14:17, 3 August 2012 (UTC).
Dennis, Bugs had every right to post at AIV. Your poor perception of AIV aside reporting to individual admins or the talk page for AIV can take hours or days to get a response. To enhance the quote from Dianna that is shoehorned into Catfishes post above a look at his/her talk page shows concerns about his/her activities at AIV expressed on June 12 by JamesBWatson, on June 28 by Luke and by Ponyo on July 8. Yet he was still making errors there yesterday. In other areas on July 6 Ian thomsan had to leave a message about another AIV item that Catfish had misinterpreted and on July 10 Acalamari had to leave a message about his/her actions at Requests for permissions/Rollback. At a guess this is a young and overenthusiastic editor who may be taking in the advice given to them or may not depending on ones POV. Well I am sure that you won't like this post so please feel free to remove it but I have seen far worse things happen here (and in places other than ANI) over the years then occurred in this situation and if Catfish decides to retire that is totally on him/her and should not be laid on anyone elses doorstep. MarnetteD | Talk 14:42, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
I never said Bugs had no rights to post at ANI, he knows that, I hope. I get along with Bugs quite well. I just said it is typically better to exhaust other remedies before going to ANI (I assume that is what you meant). I've made it clear that Bugs had a legit concern. And you obviously don't know me very well, I do not suppress different opinions from others here (and really, I don't have any issue with your post), but it would be helpful if you understood the relationships involved. I personally like all the players here, and my goal is to find a solution with the least drama, that is all. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 14:49, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
Marnette, that comment offends me a bit. I appreciated that Dennis was trying to lift me up and you didn't help me out with that. Electric Catfish 14:48, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
I'm also going to fully retire because of that comment. Electric Catfish 14:49, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Hey MarnetteD. I think Dennis is under the same impression as I am, that ANI is not a pleasant place to be if you view it from the perception of the "target". There's a number of reasons why it's problematic, for one thing, there's a crowd of onlookers baying for blood, many of whom are not willing to look into the case in depth, then there's the fact that you have to have come there looking for sanctions and people are so willing to block over smallest things. We have many different areas for dispute resolution, ANI should be used for emergencies, where there is no other option. Now, Catfish has cause a few problems in the past, and I've signed up to mentor him. He does an awful lot of good too, and I'm sure he'll go from strength to strength with a bit of guidance. Worm(talk) 14:52, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

DB's point was that there are better ways to handle a situation than blast someone at ANI. I do not appreciate your statement. Electric Catfish 14:53, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, Dave. Electric Catfish 14:54, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
Catfish - you've told me you're going off wiki for the weekend. Let's start that now. Just close the browser. I've got it from here. We'll chat about things on Monday. Worm(talk) 14:55, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
Bye! Electric Catfish 14:56, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
You know, when you say you're going to "fully retire" because of what MarnetteD said, methinks you're a bit too sensitive for your own good. Like the boy who cried wolf. Listen to your mentor. Doc talk 14:58, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
I got edit conflicted with Worm, but it turned out to be a good thing as he summed it up better than I was going to. And MarnetteD, I respect your concern for Bugs and desire to protect, but I actually think highly of them so my words were just advice to prevent drama, not a scolding. Most of these guys know they can come here and get a neutral point of view in a less drama filled environment. That is one of the ideas behind WP:WER, the project I advertise in my sig., a Project I founded. To me, it is all about keeping good editors here and working out issues without pointing fingers when possible. And Doc, the heat of the moment makes us all want to do that sometimes. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 15:02, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
Sometimes, yes. "I'm also going to fully retire because of that comment." may not send up any flags for you, but it does for me. We need new editors, but we don't need to coddle them like babies. As I said on your talk page, Catfish: toughen up. It's a big, bad world out there... Doc talk 15:11, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Worm and DB thanks for your responses. I do understand the heavy drama at ANI. DB while we have never had previous interactions I have watched the good efforts that you put in trying to make things work around here. This statement "There is a proper way to deal with these issues, and ANI is not it." read to me as though you were saying that Bugs did not have the right to post about this situation there. My apologies if I misread it. Then later in the same post you state "but needless to say I will not be amused if he really does retire over this". I have seen so many editors claim that it was other people who were "forcing" them to retire (including in this thread) when that is just not the case. We all have to be willing to take criticism as well as praise around here to make things work. That is just my 2 cents so apologies for any offense caused and I hope everyone has a nice weekend. MarnetteD | Talk 15:14, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Note there were at least three edit conflicts so some of what I just posted may be OOD. MarnetteD | Talk 15:16, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
I understand how my directness could be misunderstood, but I wouldn't blame Bugs, we are all responsible for our actions. I wouldn't be amused because I hate seeing ANI run people off, regardless of who brought it there. The process itself is a bit ugly, and yes, since I founded WikiProject Editor Retention, I hate to see good people go. Most people know that I think ANI is an ugly place, which is why I work it very hard every day, to try to keep the drama level down, and not point fingers. And I wasn't offended at all, you felt like you needed to defend a friend and you weren't sure how I meant what I said. Note the link in my signature for my talk page, 2¢, so obviously I expect people to drop theirs off here regularly. We are all on the same side here, even if we have different ideas, that is all that matters. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 15:44, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for your note. Just to clarify while Bugs and I have had conversations over the years I don't know that we would classify each other as friends. My post here was brought about by the fact that - as overly dramatic as it is - a post at ANI can be the only place to get a response in a given situation. I have seen reports at AIV and other places sit for hours before being looked at and reports at SPI can take weeks. It is more than a little frustrating to go through the proper channels and see little or nothing done for the time one puts in trying to protect WikiP. I have not made intiated a report at ANI for over 6 years but I want it to be there when I need it too much drama or not. Thanks again and cheers. MarnetteD | Talk 16:17, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Bizarre message on my talk page

Dennis,

Please could you have a look at the very last thread on my talk page please. Some complete random user has just posted the most unusual thread and literally accused me of saying something that I haven't even said. And not only that their comments looks like a racial attack of some sorts. Thanks buddy Wesley Mouse 13:20, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Actually, ignore that request. I've decided to politely ask the user if they have got me mixed up with someone else, despite the fact that I've been called an "anti-Semitic" - whatever one of them are. Wesley Mouse 13:31, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
On second thoughts, the racial remarks have continued despite my polite post to see if they had got me confused with someone else. It would seem that I am an anti-Semitic (which apparently means I hate Jewish people after I checked up on it) even though I have never stated such a thing. And now I've apparently demanded that the word Jerusalem gets deleted as Israel's capital, and that I am a Palestinian supporter. Where do people get these ideas from is beyond me lol. How are you anyway? Wesley Mouse 14:05, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
I've pinged your page, and left them a clear final warning on their talk page. I suggest ignoring them. If they make another actual personal attack, I will block them. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 14:18, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for that Dennis. I have left a quick note for you on my page, but will repeat here just in case. I'm off out shortly on yet another Olympic shift - working in the stadium this evening from 17:00 - 02:00 (UK time) - yikes! You might want to keep an eye on my talk page though just in case more attacks get posted while I'm gone. Wesley Mouse 14:23, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Dennis Brown. You have new messages at Talk:Tree.
Message added 13:46, 3 August 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Drmies (talk) 13:46, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

  • I've just protected the article. Being a rather mainstream and I assume high traffic article that should be taken to GA status if it isn't, my threshold is a bit lower for protecting. After seeing the rash of reverts, I think this is better than tempting fate for someone to get blocked. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 14:02, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Quick question

Hi. I am concerned about the CSD policy. Regarding this CSD notice on the category Category:Fictional Chairmen of the Joint Chiefs of Staff placed on the category, I think that the rationale has no valid criteria. Can you please let me know what is the appropriate way to deal with the situation? Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 15:32, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Friendly request for Re-Userfication

If you could please move Dolchamar back to userspace. As evidenced on the talk page, the editor who's userspace it was moved out of was not ready for it to be in article space. I think this qualifies as a self userfication request. If you don't feel comfortable we can go around the AfD process wheel to get it re-placed. Thank you. Hasteur (talk) 18:18, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

  • Done. Since it has been deleted a few times, might be good to get an admin to move it to wikispace once it is time, to make sure it passes the bar a bit and isn't so likely to get slammed into AFD. Most any admin should be willing to look and do that. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 20:06, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
I didn't move it to article space, I just caught it in New Pages Feed and saw that someone besides the editor whose userspace it was moved it to article space. Hasteur (talk) 20:08, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
I saw that it wasn't you. You might make a note on the talk page to this effect, that they can ask an admin once ready. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 20:09, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Question

Hi, Dennis. Despite the apparent unbanning/unblocking of HanzoHattori/Niemti, he has seemingly engaged in disruptive behavior again by being incivil, personally attacking other users and disrupting Misplaced Pages to illustrate a point on talk pages, such as the Square Enix WikiProject, Yuna and at the Video Games WikiProject (, , , , , ). It seems that his behavior is most likely the very same thing that got him banned way back in 2008. Since we don't want to cause too much drama, can you please tell me what is the best possible solution to deal with this user? Thanks, Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 20:28, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

  • A good start was bringing to an admin first, which you did here. Let me take a look. I would also suggest dropping a neutral note at the talk page for the unblocking admin, User:Ched Davis (and maybe his alt account User:Chedzilla), pointing him here, since this is likely the most neutral place to discuss it. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 20:36, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
  • First, thank you for including me in this. Although I haven't felt the desire to edit here much in recent days, I have spot-checked the editors contribs once or twice a day since the unblock. So far it has appeared to me that they are attempting to constructively improve the quality of articles, and are engaging in discussion on the talk pages. I saw an unclosed 12-hour ban discussion 4 years ago - the AN or AN/I thread - and looked at their contribs. I didn't see any "attacks" from the (current) editor, I didn't see a consensus to keep him "banned" from Misplaced Pages, I didn't see the diffs to any "disruption". I spoke with the blocking admin, and with his permission - I made a judgment call to give him/her a chance.
I've looked at the 6 diffs above, and I'm still not seeing anything more than frank discussion about how to improve articles. I also understand that "wiki" is not a forgiving atmosphere, so once an editor has suffered through a "block or ban" of any kind .. then they will forever be held on a much shorter leash than others. (maintaining a "forever" history has a habit of breeding that kind of atmosphere). Personally I think it would show good form to let him/her have their own say here as well.
Now, since my judgment has been called into question on the whole matter, I'm content to consider myself "involved" at this point, and let others handle the situation. I fully admit that I'm much more a "let people in" (that silly second sentence on our main page "the 💕 that anyone can edit." and all.) Yes, there are times when people need to be blocked, and I have done so when needed. I don't see a blatant problem at this point, but concede that I may no longer be objective. So in summary: Thank you very much for including me, and/but I'm content to let others handle it from here. — Ched :  ?  21:31, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
    • What I am seeing here isn't a violation of policy, although it isn't encouraging either. If I am truly objective and I didn't know the editor had been banned, I wouldn't enforce any sanction on them, although I might be inclined to keep an eye out and make sure there wasn't a darker side. It is give and take Wiki-ism, and these diffs are more take than give, although I assume they are justifiably cherry picked to be examples of the concern, which is perfectly valid. Since Ched is removing himself as being involved (and technically, I'm a bit involved since I was quite public in opposing his unblocking) it might be good to have a more objective pair of eyes monitor him as well. I completely understand your concerns, but at the same time we have to be as objective and fair as we can, so a bias doesn't drag someone to ANI prematurely. I may ask someone without any involvement to just monitor.
    • And to Ched, I didn't question your judgement (actually, I supported you even though I disagreed with your decision) and I asked to bring you here simply since I assumed you knew a little more about him, and figured you would want to be in the loop. I'm also on the more generous side when it comes to blocks (and a firm believer in the appropriate use of IAR to break an impasse), even if we didn't agree on the specific procedure in this one event. I hope you know I have no negative feelings on this whatsoever. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 21:44, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
  • That is good. I make allowances for a wide variety of differing opinions in my admining, and I want to both address the concerns here (which I share in part, to be honest) and also be completely fair to the editor. I've pinged Berean Hunter and asked him to monitor the situation. I nom'ed him for RfA recently, and he was unanimously supported due to his fair nature. He is the best person I can think of, Wiki-wide, to monitor and be fair here. I'm hoping and expecting he will do so. It is a delicate situation, to be sure, and this is the best way I can think of to strike a balance. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 21:52, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Catcreekcitycouncil

Doesn't appear to be done quite yet. See Special:Contributions/Puppeteerman who exhibited the same auto-confirmed seeking behavior and edited the SPI about them. Shadowjams (talk) 03:53, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Unsurprising

I'm sure you're probably watching, but 86.29.147.215 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) is a bit of obvious block evasion. 2 lines of K303 14:06, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Reasonable enough thanks. Those types of cases are always difficult because checkusers won't comment on IPs other than in exceptional circumstances, and there wasn't a long history of editing from the IP to connect like you can get in other cases. 2 lines of K303 14:59, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

A follow up on Bwilkins

Please see User_talk:Jimbo_Wales#A_follow_up_on_Bwilkins. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:43, 4 August 2012 (UTC)