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 01:51, 3 July 2013 editSoni (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers10,918 edits YGM← Previous edit Revision as of 01:59, 3 July 2013 edit undoDennis Brown (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, IP block exemptions69,230 edits →YGM: read and acted upon.Next edit →
Line 507: Line 507:


Hey Dennis, could you either block {{user|65.88.88.203}} or semi ], please? We're having another run-out of the "purest race" nonsense on that article, which has caused admin intervention in the past. I'm not sure if blocking the IP is feasible but I guess it would be preferable. - ] (]) 23:36, 2 July 2013 (UTC) Hey Dennis, could you either block {{user|65.88.88.203}} or semi ], please? We're having another run-out of the "purest race" nonsense on that article, which has caused admin intervention in the past. I'm not sure if blocking the IP is feasible but I guess it would be preferable. - ] (]) 23:36, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

==YGM==
{{ygm}}

Revision as of 01:59, 3 July 2013

Requests for adminship and bureaucratship update
No current discussions. Recent RfAs, recent RfBs: (successful, unsuccessful)

Sticking to procedure

Thanks for the correction. As you can see from the part of WP:CBAN that I quoted, I thought I was following procedure. Would you be interested in modifying that particular bit of policy to clarify the necessity of an explicit discussion on banning? As it stands, it implies that an indefinite block that's been sufficiently discussed - without necessarily as a "ban" - is a ban.

Best wishes — Scott • talk 12:09, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

  • I don't question your faith, that is for sure. Over the last couple of years, consensus has shifted a bit, but essentially a de facto ban doesn't need listing, where as a de jure ban does. A de facto can only be established over time, say after a few months with multiple rejected appeals which clearly demonstrate that no admin is willing to unblock. For me, the main issue is that we treat even the most despised among us no differently than anyone else, and allow enough time to pass that we will know that the decision was one based in logic and fairness, not an overreaction. Honestly, it isn't about Russavia, it is about insuring we are fair to everyone and use the same process every time. In other words, for ourselves. I will take a look at that policy in a bit. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | © | WER 12:34, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Thanks. I guess that in addition to misreading(?) the policy, I was being somewhat presumptuous in assuming that there is no possible successful appeal that Russavia could make. I would still be willing to lay money on that probability, but you are entirely right in pointing out that it should be allowed to happen by itself. My concern is always that of the welfare of the project, and I agree that actions made with the aim of protecting it should be based in logic and fairness. I'll bear your comments in mind the next time I encounter such a situation. — Scott • talk 12:55, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Oh, I think you are right and this is inevitable. The process is just to make us slow down enough that we don't make mistakes and overreact, and to help insure everyone is afforded the same opportunity. I didn't jump in to protect Russavia, I jumped in to protect the next person who might be much more innocent by making sure there wasn't a new precedent. No harm, no foul. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | © | WER 12:59, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
  • That's a great thing to do. I'm also going to take the liberty of copying your "fellow admin" statement to my user page, as that's how things should be. — Scott • talk 19:30, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
  • I've no sympathy for Russavia at all, but Russavia is not a vandal and should never be called "a vandal". Many former editors listed in that list have never vandalized Misplaced Pages.This list is Misplaced Pages's shame. This list is absolutely unnecessary, but if so called Misplaced Pages community cannot live without it, "vandal" should be replaced with "userlinks" or something similar, and now you tell me where I've got it wrong? 76.126.142.59 (talk) 16:08, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
    • Anon, I agree with your concern. I've created a template alias as a result; see Misplaced Pages talk:List of banned users. — Scott • talk 19:28, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
      • I've commented there and agree it is a good idea. There is more than a fine line between "politically correct" and "simply fair" and stuff like this falls on the "simply fair" side. Not something I've thought about before but once pointed out, it makes sense. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | © | WER 19:32, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
        • Thanks, guys. It is a small step forward! As a matter of fact most former users listed in the list are not vandals. Vandals usually get blocked by a single admin. Getting banned is a privilege of content creators. Besides listing users who edited under their real name (I am sure there are a few of them in the list) as vandals is a violation of their BLPs. 76.126.142.59 (talk) 22:40, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

A note from me: I've gone ahead and made a few tweaks myself. I've made sure everything is alphabetized correctly, (before, there were a few inconsistencies, with one user having the "The" from their name ignored, whilst others weren't; some were sorted by surnames, some weren't) reformatted the entry for one of them to bring it in-line with the others, and fixed a link for one of them. Hope this was OK! :) Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 16:04, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Battle of Ia Drang

Good morning Dennis, Could I please ask you to take a look at the recent history of the above article. Some time ago (mid-2012 and before) it was agreed amongst editors, myself included, that the fairest outcome of the battle should be described as "Inconclusive - both side claimed victory". However, in the last week or so a person is edit warring by constantly replacing this with "US Victory" or similar and citing sources which are hardly notable or fair. I have no wish to engage in any more warring and would be grateful for your opinion. Regards & thanks, David, David J Johnson (talk) 10:07, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

  • I'm really short on time today, and my internet access is very, very broken. Been on the phone with Timer Warner for hours. This weekend is probably a bad weekend for favors, sorry. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | © | WER 11:54, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
Understand, Dennis. Hope everything turns out OK. Regards, David, David J Johnson (talk) 12:44, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
Went ahead and read up this morning. Gave him a warning, and it will be followed by a short block if he keeps warring. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | © | WER 11:56, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
Many thanks for your help. Regards, David, David J Johnson (talk) 18:09, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

"If Jimmy wanted Fram blocked"

Not sure what you meant by "If Jimmy wanted Fram blocked, Fram would be blocked". If it's "If Jimbo hinted he wanted Fram blocked, some eager sycophant would rush to oblige", I do believe you're right. If it's "If Jimbo wanted Fram blocked, Jimbo would block Fram", I don't think so. Jimbo caught so much flak for blocking me in 2009 that he abjured the use of the block button. Formally, he hasn't kept strictly to that promise, but he hasn't blocked an established editor since, and I don't believe he would. Bishonen | talk 15:20, 25 June 2013 (UTC).

Possible sock/meat issue at an AfD

The author of the article is implying possible issues at this AfD. His assertion appears to have some merit, although his article does not. In general, this AfD is a cesspool. Please take a look when you have the time. Thanks! Gtwfan52 (talk) 16:16, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

  • You could probably tag the edits with SPA tags, but I think it needs to play out a bit before any admin needs to get excited about it. AFD is messy sometimes and I don't want to assume too much here. If there was a bunch of SPAs to keep, that would be more worrisome and likely of traditional meatpuppetry but there is no obvious "meatmaster" here if they want it deleted. I'm thinking the closing admin can deal with what I see so far. Sounds like you are staying directly on merit, which will help the closing admin. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | © | WER 16:54, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
  • I thought that looked familiar, I was the first one to nominate that for AFD. I really can't admin there, but I did participate. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | © | WER 16:57, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Edit warring

Dennis, an IP asked me for some help because I had put a welcome template on his talk page. It appears there is some serious edit warring going on over there but I don't have time to collect diffs and report. Can you take a look at that or refer it someone who has the time? Malke 2010 (talk) 17:07, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. They were going in both directions. Definitely needed an admin tap. I agree, you might need to protect it. Also, I did warn the IP about the 3RR rule. Malke 2010 (talk) 17:39, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
I'm scattered over a few pages on this, the editor calling the IP a "vandal", the IP at 3RR, etc. I am betting I can talk them off the ledge. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | © | WER 17:41, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
Yes, I was counting on you doing that. You've got good 'talk off the ledge skills.' They're very passionate about that topic. Malke 2010 (talk) 19:04, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
Which is why someone like me who isn't smart enough to have an interest in the subject matter can sometimes be handy. ;-) Doc has come in with some formatting changes and an opinion on the talk page, maybe that will help move the talk page to a consensus. We will see. I'm not a fan of blocking in situations like this and prefer heading it off early, so I appreciate the heads up here. Usually, a warning to protect is enough when dealing with intelligent but passionate people. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | © | WER 19:09, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
I've just looked it all over. What a difference you've made. You know I saw your note on the article talk page and I was thinking full protection as well, maybe just for a few hours. They seemed that intense. You've got them all calm and happy now. Glad Doc J was able to sort the RS for them. Also, I'm so glad no one got blocked. They did seem just to have forgotten themselves. Malke 2010 (talk) 20:08, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

An IP writes...

Firstly, I'd like to thank you both for taking the time and trouble to look at this. I do appreciate that.

I felt you might be interested in some feedback from an IP editor:

I have to admit I cannot understand why I was "bordering on 4RR" or why I was "the most active reverter" . The only actual revert I am aware of having made is this one , based on a talk page observation. Also, yes I am passionate about protecting Misplaced Pages from concerns such as "encouraging students to misuse ", but frankly I can't see that I needed to be "talked off a ledge" (I'd already promised to back off ). Also, I believe the "consensus" edits by Doc James were broadly in line with my initial work (eg ) made in response to the concern raised by User:Hildabast and supported by another WP:MED regular, User:Scray.

Why do I think it's worth pointing this out? Basically because given your very constructive interest in editor retention I feel you might be interested in my first-hand experience here of contributing as an IP. My reason for doing this is to avoid getting into personalized disputes, and I think this is the first one of any note I've been in as an IP. I don't know whether my experience in this case is at all representative, but I suspect it might be. My impression is that I've interacted with two Admins / senior editors who have genuinely tried to help me understand the situation, but who unduly influenced (plausibly) by certain assumptions about how I, as an IP, was likely to be editing. You may say I'm wrong, but since many new editors start out as an IP I felt you might be interested in my experience.

Best wishes, 86.164.174.67 (talk) 23:01, 25 June 2013 (UTC) (previously User:81.157.7.7)

  • I appreciate your perspectives here. I took years off and edited as an IP, and still edit once in a while as an IP (but not in areas I edit as a logged in user). It is a different experience. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | © | WER 23:29, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Hello IP, I appreciate your feedback as well. I hope you are not offended by anything Dennis and I said in our exchange above. When you came to my talk page and I looked things over, I took you very seriously and I appreciated what you were going through as an IP. I've actually had an IP come to me twice to move an article he'd written into main space. I do understand what you are saying about admins who are unduly influenced by the fact that you are an IP. I brought the problems to Dennis because I trusted he'd see you were well meaning and sort it for you and he did. I see you have a new IP. I'll explain 3RR on your new talk page. Malke 2010 (talk) 03:23, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
While a registered user I argued at WP:WER that Misplaced Pages has real issues with its working environment, which unintentionally facilitates conflict and naturally selects users somehow better equipped to survive in a conflictual environment.
Only after writing my IP impressions yesterday did it occur to me that the new registered editor would perhaps have a somewhat similar take to my IP's (eg not fully 'getting' WP:VANDAL and WP:MEDRS, just as I didn't 'get' - and still partially don't ("" !) - the so-called "bright-line rule" of WP:3RR). In my case I didn't stop to investigate the likely human history of the page before diving in to implement MEDRS to address a real issue. Yes, too hasty, I agree... But also maybe, like you guys, just human...
  • @Dennis: Thanks for sharing the information that you took "years off" (or out?) as an IP.
  • @Malke: Absolutely no offense taken. Thanks too for the explanation about 3RR. (Though I have to say I'm not sure I don't technically break this "bright-line rule" often while just doing detailed revisions of content.)
Cheers, 86.164.174.67 (talk) 09:23, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
For the record, I'm not a fan of people being slavish to the "bright line" rules. I have blocked for edit warring before 4RR, and I have seen 6RR where I did not block and chose to protect instead. I think judgement is required in these cases. 4RR is commonly a reasonable line in the sand if they have been warned, but unless there are other circumstances, I don't like to see blind blocking at the 4th revert. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | © | WER 12:51, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
Agree, it needs to be fuzzy and I really appreciate the work you've been doing to encourage a thoughtful culture among WP "insiders" (admins, senior/prolific editors, etc). A point I was trying to make is that WP:3RR (and all that...) is far from intuitive to gf "outsiders" (of various hues) who are basically doing their best to do what seems to them to be right at the time. A real challenge for Misplaced Pages, imo. 86.164.174.67 (talk) 14:15, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/B0bsmith354

Hello, Dennis. I notice you just marked Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/B0bsmith354 as closed. As you hadn't commented on them, I was wondering if you'd possibly overlooked the two additional accounts I'd added . The behavioural evidence seems much stronger in these cases, since the accounts were created simulataneously, and the content of their edits or edit summaries were nearly identical to the other accounts. —Psychonaut (talk) 19:29, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

courtesy note:

Hi Dennis,

Since I did mention you by name in one of my RFAR comments, I thought I should stop by and clarify my thoughts a bit. First, you're obviously not the only person that feels that Doc's mentor should be made public, and in fact I agree with that point. (although I personally have no problem with who he's chosen as I consider them to be a respectable and admirable admin. in many ways). The point that I was trying to make, and I probably did so poorly, is that there has yet to be any mandate that Doc even have a mentor .. at least at this point in time. So my saying he doesn't need to disclose it, is simply a technicality issue. Community consensus isn't developed at wp:rfar - but rather in discussions such as RfC or AN. The Arbs haven't made any "official" declarations, either at WP:AN or by motion. I probably shouldn't have mentioned your name since you were hardly alone in your views; but I figured you and I were well enough acquainted that I could take that rare chance to say "I disagree with Dennis" :). Anyway .. I do apologize, and if you'd like, I'll gladly strike or edit my comment. — Ched :  ?  15:28, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

  • Under no circumstances will the Arb make a declaration that a mentor must be obtained. The Arbs are a bit ancillary to the main issue as there is no doubt that Arb will not be taking the case. I'm pretty sure they can't decline the case, then require that any action is taken, by policy. I would assume that Arb would construe my comments as saying "The community can take care of this" and nothing more. My suggestion for a mentor was to find a solution that every single person who was inclined to file an RFC/U would accept as an alternative. It was as much for Doc's benefit as the community's. It was solely to find a compromise that caused the least amount of drama to Doc and the community, and allowed the greatest chance of "fixing" the problems that the community sees. I don't know who he has chosen and I didn't anticipate any objection to whomever he selected anyway, but I think that if he is asking the community "Don't do an RFC/U, instead let me get a mentor", then he should disclose who that mentor is to the very people that can file the RFC/U. Again, it has nothing to do with Arb, who has already made it clear they don't want to get involved. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | © | WER 15:38, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
Ahhh .. ok. That does improve my understanding of your thoughts. Anyway - if you notice some sort of discussion on the RfC/U or mentor subject - feel free to ping me. Also, I'll have a follow up/question when I have a bit more time. Cheers. — Ched :  ?  15:51, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
I'm a naturally verbose individual. In my effort to be more concise at enwp, I sometimes am not as clear as I would be if I allowed myself twice the verbiage. I'm a work in progress. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | © | WER 15:56, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
<placeholder> Not sure how aggressive your TP archiving is .. but do want to continue this convo. Not a good idea to post on wiki after drinking though . so I'll wait until tomorrow. OHHHH ... wait ... wait ... One thing: Hey, I've had people tell me I'm "a real work". Prolly not the same thing though as a "work in progress". — Ched :  ?  03:02, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
Hey Dennis, could you link me up with some of that "Arb policy" stuff you have in mind? Not my area, so I've never really paid much attention to things that didn't concern me directly in that sense. — Ched :  ?  13:11, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
My "Arb policy stuff" is based solely on WP:COMMONSENSE, that they can't decline something, then impose something, in one fell swoop. They can accept and create a case, they can have a motion to make a summary judgement, or they can decline, which means they do nothing. Individually, they may offer advice as fellow editors (like some have) but it doesn't make sense that they could say "We won't hear the case, but you must do $x" They can't have it both ways. The closest real world analog I can think of is a judge summarily dismissing a case, but then requiring the defendant went on probation. I'm happy to read anything to the contrary if someone wants to point it out, but that is what my clue-meter is registering. Arbs have to act within a structure of due process, even more so than the rest of the community. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | © | WER 13:19, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
Note that at one time, I worked within the judiciary system, so I have a basic understanding of how the judiciary system works. I am not a lawyer nor a wikilawyer. ;-) Dennis Brown | 2¢ | © | WER 13:25, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
LOL (and I mean that literally) .. Thank you Dennis - smiles are always welcomed. And no, I didn't know you had any legal background. Cool. — Ched :  ?  18:49, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

IP hopper

How about shorter ranges in the 75.15.218.xx for example? That's only 999 Ips. They are all from exactly the same geolocation. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:55, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

  • I only glanced at the edits, but I'm pretty sure they are rotating UP from there. If I were to make a block, it would be in the *119*-*120* range. A rangeblock of 75.15.216.0/21 for a few hours would be ok, but I'm not seeing the flood at CSD, last I looked. That is about 2k IPs. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | © | WER 16:00, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
Unfortunately it's not just the rampage with the CSDs. He's vandalised the ANI page and caused some mischief elsewhere. I'm not up to playing cat and mouse with him so the only other solution would be to speculate where he's going to edit next and preemptively semi the pages for a very short while. That would be more difficult than a short range block of a couple of 1,000 IP numbers that are from exactly the same geolocation even if they are dynamic. There is always a risk of some collateral with a range block - or any IP block for that matter. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 16:37, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
The interface won't allow us to block anything larger than a /16. (smaller /x numbers means larger networks) If you do block the /21, I suggest just a few hours. There isn't much we can do here as the IPs are not likely to rotate perfectly in order between *.*.x.* ranges. Even with a big hammer, not every problem is a nail. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | © | WER 16:40, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

RFC/U Beyond My Ken

I'm sorry to drag you into this, but you were involved before, and I'm not allowed do what I think would be the most appropriate thing, create an RFC/U. Feel free to create one, as I think I would be able to contribute then.

I'm witness and participant of repeated hassle over very little: White space in front of navboxes. The matter itself is of little importance, but it is trigger for some ugly behaviour by User:Beyond My Ken, again and again, most of all baseless accusations of socking every time an IP turns up. He also routinely ignores any attempt to point out why his behaviour is wrong, even if it includes direct quotes from various policies and/or guidelines.

That recently took a new development when BMK acknowledged that his way of doing things is not the preferred way to achieve these changes. I commented on this with a piece of criticism (because this very fact has been pointed out to him more than once and a long time ago) and a piece of what I think constructive advice (pointing out where he would get the changes he wants). He reacted, predictably, with socking accusations.

What I think is more important is that after he acknowledged the existence of CSS, he made (at least) two further additions of white space. He is well aware that these changes are divisive, and I can't see what good could come out of that.

This has been the topic of at least two bouts in AN:I, and other discussions in other places. Nothing good ever came out of it.

Please consider the matter, and please let BMK know what you think about it. Thanks. --91.10.2.76 (talk) 18:27, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

  • There are a great many other editors who are capable of starting an RFC/U if they choose, but I would decline. I am what you might call "format agnostic". I really do not care what format we use, blank lines, etc. I'm happy to use whatever the consensus is. I consider that and other small formatting issues as minutia and not worth fighting over. I would be the wrong person to get involved in this case. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | © | WER 18:32, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
I'm a bit surprised, since you got involved before, apparently by your own choosing. At any rate, this is not about the formatting issue, which was never really contested on its merits, but about user behaviour. Please read your statements to BMK here and reconsider. --91.10.2.76 (talk) 18:37, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
I got involved before to try to defuse a situation. Staring an RFC/U would require a great deal of time and energy and I have limits on both of those. I'm not arguing against or for, I'm simply choosing to not select that act as how I spend my limited time here. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | © | WER 18:38, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
(ec) Bummer, I think that an explanation from you to him might have been the easiest way to go forward.
Have fun, thanks for listening! --91.10.2.76 (talk) 18:42, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
I suggest that the IP user would be better off editing under his account name, since editing with an IP to avoid scrutiny of one's edits is a direct violation of WP:SOCK. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:39, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Clearly Beyond My Ken you've missed the fact that Dennis has chosen to, properly, engage with the editor who is using an IP address without worrying about blue linking policy pages regarding sockpuppetry. That you (self evidently) think it helpful to do so when the IP editor has raised legitimate queries speaks far more about your, ahem, "character" than that of the IP. Pedro :  Chat  22:04, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
  • (Ahem), Pedro, the "IP" has been harrassing me for years under both his account name and numerous, obvious IPs. He's got a bug up his behind about this issue and has brought it up numerous times in numerous venues and has been slapped down each and every time. Under his account name, he's been told by a number of admins to drop the issue and not to bother me, which he why he uses the IPs. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:50, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
The IP has repeatedly pointed out that you are handling white space wrong, which you finally admitted recently. Your unfreindly reaction to IPs is entirely up to you.
As for the accusation of a blockable offense, CU me and Curb, then we see. --91.10.34.128 (talk) 23:04, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
  • I apologize for cluttering up Dennis's page with this, but he does know more about socking than I do, so it might be constructive. @BMK, if you suspect that the IPs are being used by User:Curb Chain, why don't you file a report at WP:SPI? You're correct that a CU request would no doubt be rejected, but if you provide enough evidence, an administrator may still determine that socking is involved.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:27, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
Please do, especially because my sockyness is now used to keep BMK's POV-pushing in the MOS. --91.10.61.13 (talk) 23:31, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
Whether you are or aren't a sock, your editing is becoming increasingly disruptive. You've been warned by one editor about your MOS edits, and now yet another editor has opened up a topic at ANI on the problem.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:43, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
@Bbb23: Unfortunately, CUs will not connect an account name with IPs - something which used not to be the case - so my filing an SPI would be useless. I wish it were otherwise so.

Dennis, you have extensive experience in this area, please correct me if I am wrong. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:50, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

BMK, please read my post more carefully. Users may be blocked at SPI without a CU.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:59, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
Thanks, I did read it wrong, thanks for that. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:28, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
CheckUsers will check IPs vs usernames but they will not disclose the relationship of the two publicly. Best to email a CU a few choice diffs. In the public view at SPI we clerks "decline" the CU requests of IP v Ed., but that doesn't mean a CU isn't run. CheckUsers have the final say on what is and isn't run and they do not publicly announce every check they make. Much of what they do never hits SPI. It is complicated. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | © | WER 09:08, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Question IV

Den, which notice board does one use if an editor is misrepresenting a source? Is it the NOR one? Darkness Shines (talk) 10:16, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

  • Hmm, it depends. If it is an innocent misunderstanding, DRN is fine. Usually, the talk page of the article is always the best place to start, as any time a problem can be solved without admin getting involved it is the best solution, particularly if the issue is content and not behavior. If it isn't innocent and it is a POV issue, then ANI after you have tried to fix the problem on the user's talk page. WP:ORN isn't a board I normally frequent, but misrepresenting a source doesn't seem to be within the scope, judging by the name. That seems more like a RSN type board. Again, handling at the lowest possible level (and lowest drama level) should be tried first. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | © | WER 10:32, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
    (talk page stalker) DS, which article and which source. I'd be happy to take a look and comment there. --regentspark (comment) 12:02, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
He changed the source and I cannot access it on GBooks. The article and edit is here If you can access the book I would appreciate it. Although as I have again been dragged to the drama board for adding content some do not appreciate it may be a moot point One week a pro Indian POV pusher, the next, an anti Indian POV pusher. Ironic really. I get called all manner of things here, so far I am a zionist and a Nazi, pro & anti Indian wonder what I will be next week. Darkness Shines (talk) 12:42, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
I have access to the book (at a library) but not till I get back to the city on Tuesday (relaxing in the countryside for a bit!). Will take a look and drop a note on the talk page then.--regentspark (comment) 14:24, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
Never apologize, stalkers are welcomed and appreciated. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | © | WER 14:35, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) I read somewhere that if you are being blamed and praised by both sides of a conflict, you must be doing fine. (or something to that effect) :) Anir1uph | talk | contrib 13:09, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

WDUQ-LP‎

Could you keep an on the above linked page, please? I have had some problems with the anon making edits on the page before (I'm pretty it's a person who works for the station or owns it). The anon adds alot of original research repeatedly. Since I am on 2RR (per Drmies, who isn't online yet this morning), I was wondering if you could help. Thanks...Neutralhomer • Talk • 13:33, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

YGM

Hello, Dennis Brown. Please check your email; you've got mail!
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.
.. um, did you still want that article? Cheers. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:58, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
Yes, sorry, I've got 100 things going on all at once, have for a couple of days. Hasn't been a fun week to be an admin, frankly. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | © | WER 23:05, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
I can't image how all of the effort you tirelessly put in here, Dennis, is ever fun! But for you some weeks do indeed seem far worse than others. No worries - whenever is convenient. A 32 year-old magazine article is hardly hot news! Martinevans123 (talk) 23:10, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 26 June 2013

Misplaced Pages:Misplaced Pages Signpost/2013-06-24

Hi

Hi! I'm curious as to why this was tagged? I'm pretty sure that's the guy that Mangoeater1000 is trying to drive away from the site, which unfortunately worked... --Rschen7754 22:53, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

lost

I know I've only been catching bits and pieces lately due to real life stuff. So I do have to ask. Is it me? Or has wiki world turned into Bizarro World? — Ched :  ?  01:32, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

  • It has been a bad day. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | © | WER 01:33, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
  • sigh - you farmer types that are up at the crack of dawn. re: this .. :( ... I had stuff to say. </me pouts, acts like 12 year old that had his gameboy taken away - but knows better than to argue with parental units, mumbles under his breath as he's walking away .. very quietly though> — Ched :  ?  11:08, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
  • I woke up to a banned sockmaster trying to hunt me down in 10 channels on IRC... not a great afternoon. :/ Thankfully I had enough friends who figured out what was going on and issued some bans... --Rschen7754 11:13, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
    • Two people blocked from that one thread, admin are on edge all over, teenagers are running amok all over the drama boards. Sometimes the less said, the better, and since Bwilkins had the final say in that thread, I felt it was best to just close it. Tensions are ridiculously high everywhere at enwp right now. More words are probably not going to reduce that tension. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | © | WER 11:14, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
@Rschen .. good grief. So it's not just wiki then, but the whole internet?
@Dennis .. yea, can't disagree with ya in the least on that. I do have some thoughts on the "rebellious teenager" syndrome, as well as your email. :P. But maybe I'll just take the User:Floquenbeam approach and just wait til all the kids are back in school before I get much involved again. Oh well, busy week and a half ahead - so you folks have a good one. ttyl. — Ched :  ?  11:24, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
The problem being that the influx of new and inexperienced teenagers has a way of creating a lot of new drama and someone calm and tolerant needs to deal with it. As there is a shortage of both calm and tolerant at enwp, I guess I will do what I can to help the others but it doesn't mean that I enjoy it. Everyone is just too excitable lately. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | © | WER 11:29, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
There have been a series of vigilante justice type admin actions as of late.--MONGO 18:52, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
I don't think I would use the term "vigilante", but I have noticed a dramatic increase in the number of "incredibly low threshold" blocks, where a discussion would have been better and a block was (in my opinion) a very suboptimal way to deal with a concern. It is likely more complicated than that, but that is the best way I can think of to summarize it. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | © | WER 18:56, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
That's a flowery way to put it. Bottom line is a few admins have been acting like vigilantes and by doing so all they do is bring disrepute to the vast majority of admins that do a great job and stir up more drama with their overzealous actions.--MONGO 20:39, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
Maybe I've noticed a few more of the blocks that you have, because I know a few that really weren't bad faith, even if they weren't optimal. There have been so many, of varying quality, it makes me look for the pattern, although one may not exist and it might just be a normal fluctuation in an otherwise "normal" period. If I were to be scientific about it, I would probably blame it on the full moon that just happened ;-) Or maybe I'm just looking for patterns where none exist. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | © | WER 20:48, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
I've recently been watching AN/I and AN since my return to en.wiki. It's obvious some things have changed from a couple of years ago - but I don't think too much has changed. There's still some with a poor attitude, but that doesn't mean the entire sysop bunch are rotten apples. I just think the admin role has been tarnished a bit by the actions of others, and trust needs to be restored. Admins like Dennis are fighting an uphill battle, and it's sad - cause they're only wanting to do good. Dusti 21:35, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Talk page bans

Hi Dennis,

I've had numerous admins, editors and even an ANI discussion or two about banning people from my userspace. I was under the impression that this was allowable. In their most recent form, It was a little note halfway down my user page, that jokingly said "Exile for life -User example". I don't really think that is violating policy. What is your opinion on this matter, and could you please recomend a way, if the most recent form is unnacceptable, that I can keep this info somewhere on my userpage? Thanks, ★★RetroLord★★ 18:28, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

  • I think you have the right to say "Please do not post on my talk page" and they should respect it, excepting when they need to, such as regular templates for CSD, PROD, notifications, etc. I think you have to be reasonable about it. Whether you are reasonable or not, everyone is going to consider those, as well as admonishments, warnings, etc. from admin as an exception to that ban. You don't own your talk page, but we try to give you a fair amount of leeway. The way you had the names posted on the page, however, was a bit over the top. You can't "shame" people off your page.
Let me offer you this: I'm an admin that works at SPI, dealing with sockpuppets. This is one of the most contentious places at Misplaced Pages, full of people who want revenge for getting blocked. I also regularly patrol ANI. Same thing. It is very easy to piss people off in the places I regularly patrol, and I'm very active. Yet no one is banned from my page, and there are almost no instances of even semi-protecting my talk page.. If I can do it, you can do it. You can always just revert their edits off your page, but I recommend you do so politely, with an edit summary that is neutral "I'm sorry, but I'm not interested in talking with you". Even if you have to do this a few times in a row. If you have to do this more than a few times, ping me politely. That is the key here, don't get sarcastic, don't start drama and don't call names. Chose to be calm and your problems will often take are of themselves, often by those of us that keep a pretty close eye on stuff. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | © | WER 18:38, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for your reply. Also there is one other question I would like to ask (if you don't mind). User:PantherLeapord is to an extent stalking and wikihounding me, and everytime I get blocked, told off or the like he seems to appear with some overly negative remark about me. I guess part of the aforementioned wikihounding would include the barnstar he gave you for blocking me. I'm not really sure how to proceed going forward about this, I've asked him many times to stop posting on my userspace but that doesn't seem to stop him. You may have noticed the few ANI discussions about him also. What would you recommend? ★★RetroLord★★ 18:43, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
He stalks this page, I believe. I think you both should just avoid each other for a week or two if possible. You seem to have mellowed out a bit, perhaps he has, too. Sometimes, we all can just get on each other's nerves. The best thing is if we chose to just avoid each other for a bit. We all have something to give here. You review GANs, something I'm not good at. I have a way of calming people down and helping them get along with others. We all learn from each other. I would ask Panther to simply give you a wide berth for a while, let you adjust a bit, and just move on. Us old timers are used to a lot of new faces when summer starts, particularly at ANI where good meaning people can actually make life hell for us. This also means more people getting on each other's nerves, which means more work for me. All this can be avoided. I would you both avoid each other's talk pages and articles for a while. An admin shouldn't have to carve it out for you two, just be adults about it and work it out yourself. You can do this. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | © | WER 18:49, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Admin's Barnstar
Great job in working with RetroLord. I have a feeling that that entire situation could have turned out much, much worse for him. Kudos Dennis, Kudos! Dusti 18:29, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
  • I appreciate the kindness. I'm just trying to keep the peace and let everyone do what they do best. Calm is the solution to a lot of problems around here, or at least a good starting point. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | © | WER 18:40, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Dennis Brown. You have new messages at 75.172.12.104's talk page.
Message added 19:04, 28 June 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Though I'm fairly certain you're aware of this response, I would like to observe that now the user is lashing out at you and taking a very narrow reading of WP Standard Operating Procedure (Rules/Policies/Guidelines/Best Practices/Etc.) to the point that it seems to be one of the hordes of MMA-Recruitees who have been coached about how to respond to certain queries and are more interested in their winning the argument than improving Misplaced Pages. Hasteur (talk) 19:04, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

  • He can always drag the issue to WP:AN if he chooses, although he will likely just be the next in line to figure out my way of handling problems is very often more gentle than the community's, on the whole. This is why I was trying to dial back the drama, but if they want to reopen all this and risk getting blocked, then that is their option. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | © | WER 19:13, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
Per WP:GS/MMA I am requesting enforcement regarding IP 75.172.12.104. After attacking me at Talk:UFC 161#Format for this page I requested that they strike the personal attack and gave them a 24 hour window to ammend their comment. They forcefully declined and proceeded to wikilawyer further at Misplaced Pages talk:General sanctions/Mixed martial arts#Non-admins giving "warning" in admin area? and personalizes the debate again. User has had the rules explained multiple times and still refuses to get the point. Per WP:CIR and the lower threshold for applying sanctions authorized by GS/MMA, I formally request that sanctions appropriate for the level of attacks and disruption that this user has caused in the lifespan of 3 Days be implemented. Hasteur (talk) 00:11, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
Not sure they apply, would have to look up. I thought it was just about edits to articles. Not sure it crosses that threshold. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | © | WER 00:28, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
Based on the enacting statement at it seems that talk pages (i.e. Talk:UFC 161), project pages regarding the governance of special sanctions for MMA (WT:GS/MMA), and their attempt to disclaimer all attempts at giving warning to them (User talk:75.172.12.104) that they are repeatedly and seriously failing to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages. As evidenced by their own admission at their talk page they are working in coordination with an interest other than that of the Misplaced Pages community and without regard for compliance with content rules. All these have been the user's own statements and therefore it is only reasonable to show a self ascribed non-wikipedian the door when they refuse to be part of the community. Hasteur (talk) 00:39, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
  • I have given a final topic ban warning. Please note that the general sanction warnings and topic bans can not be given by non-admin, per the actual discussion. A non-admin can't give a final warning because they lack the authority to implement the actual ban. I recommend disengaging as much as possible. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | © | WER 00:52, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

I need your help

Hi, Dennis. I just noticed a new user, User:WordTraveller1O1, who appears to be trying to impersonate me. Based on this edit, I suspect it is Jonathan Yip again, and that he is back, because he and a number of his socks made the exact same edit, not to mention that he is making other bad edits, such as his latest two edits (which I reverted). Is this SPI-worthy or should he just go to WP:AIV and then all should be done? WorldTraveller101Fixes 21:40, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

I was wondering...

Since I am currently looking for a mentor would you be able to take up that role? PantherLeapord (talk) 23:31, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

  • The problem is that I'm so overbooked, I wouldn't do very well as a full time mentor. I haven't even been able to write articles lately. Even here, I'm working at "work" while doing this. My hours may be getting really odd soon due to work. User:TheOriginalSoni would likely be able to help match you up with a suitable mentor, and I would request he please try to if he can. I will still pop in regularly and offer little nuggets of help when I can, and I never mind that. Often, my time is better spent dealing with those individual issues rather than a full time mentoring schedule. And you can always ask simple questions here anytime as well. I am blessed to have over 300 highly helpful talk page stalkers that do a great job of helping people when I'm not around. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | © | WER 23:38, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Holla Dennis,
Thanks for sending Panther over to me. I didnt realise I had become the information headquarters for adoption schools throughout Wiki, but I guess thats a good thing :)
I've suggested him Yunshui, who will make the perfect adopter if he can take any more adoptees. GoP has also suggested Jackson Peebles for him.
I think I'll keep a lookout for Panther, and check if there are any other adopters free enough just in case.
P.S. You dont need to be eternally grateful to me ;)
Cheers,
TheOriginalSoni (talk) 05:11, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Colton Cosmic

He just won't stop trying to trick admins into unblocking him. --I am One of Many (talk) 16:38, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Anna Frodesiak's RFPP actions

Please give me feedback on the following. I promise not to bug you with too many of these:

Duration: 1 month
Rationale: Problem has be ongoing for ages; different users/IPs; apparent copyvios. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:17, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Long answer: The "multiple IPs" , and etc. are all really the same person, or at least company, Cisco. (from the talk page, choose "geolocation" at the bottom for these links). Had I seen it, I would have done a whois in a bash shell to determine the range (in this case, NetRange: 173.36.0.0 - 173.39.255.255, CIDR: 173.36.0.0/14, a huge range) then figured that I had the choice of either determining what portion of that range I can safely block, or I can semi-protect in a slightly out of process way (because I know it isn't multiple people, to be honest). The end result would have been the same as what you did since it would likely cause the least disruption. I just took the long road to it. I might have protected 3 days or longer, but not everyone agrees on longer terms. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | © | WER 23:31, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
      • To add, I don't know how network savvy you are. You don't have to be a pro, but there is always something new to learn that will help you. Interesting stuff. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | © | WER
Fair enough. There was also the 71.139.169.86 IP, but also from California so I guess the same people. They've been at this since April, so what's one of the reasons I thought 1 month protect. The other reason is few other constructive edits. Should I change it to 2 weeks or less and monitor? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:19, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) I could be in the minority, but I'd argue for way longer semiprotection. The article is being repeatedly spammed, as far back as February 2013. The protecting admin might leave a comment on the talk page to explain the situation. This might allow the IPs to explain their thinking, and possibly some dialog might occur. So far as I can tell the only constructive work on this article is being done by registered users. EdJohnston (talk) 01:24, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
(edit conflict)(talk page stalker) I'm not an enwp admin yet, and I do not claim to know any of the cricumstances, but based on what Anna and Dennis have mentioned here: /14 CIDR range, and a "few other constructive edits" I would have likely opted to protect the page with a two week PC1 protection as a starting point. A little less stringent, but would allow the constructive edits in (after review without a {{Edit semi-protected}} request). Just my two cents on this one. Technical 13 (talk) 01:32, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
Duration: 1 day
Rationale: Quite serious BLP vios; 3 different single-purpose accounts. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:17, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
Talk page lurker. Good shouts on both. I look forward to your blocking me, I was running out of admins Darkness Shines (talk) 23:27, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
Talk-page stalker here... I agree with the action on Dumble Amplifiers. I would have gone longer than a day on Conor Maynard (at least 3 days, or a week), as I don't think a day will be long enough to stop the silliness. --Orlady (talk) 23:29, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
I will be the first to admit I'm pretty heavy handed when it comes to protecting BLPs. Most of the time I have to semi-protect, 1 week is the minimum, 2 to 4 weeks is common if it is an ongoing issue. For full protection of BLPs, I do 3 days typically. BLPs are particularly sensitive. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | © | WER 23:35, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
Well ya, but that would depend on the BLP, are they high profile? Caught in a scandal of late? It has to be a judgement call really. Darkness Shines (talk) 23:42, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
I will monitor and do another day if needed. That was the plan. Is that okay? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:19, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
If you intend to monitor it then yes, solid plan. Not sure why you are asking me though, I am just the guy who gets blocked do they not teach indenting at admin school Darkness Shines (talk) 00:29, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
Oh right. One too many indents. Sorry. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:36, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
@ DS. And you wonder why you get blocked? :P — Ched :  ?  00:42, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
Well to be honest I have always assumed that it is due to jealousy over my enormous manhood, I honestly cannot think of any other reasons other than that. Darkness Shines (talk) 00:52, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
Anything to do with sex is just like money: Those that talk, don't have. Those that have, don't talk ;-) Dennis Brown | 2¢ | © | WER 00:55, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
OK, let's talk about money. :) — Ched :  ?  00:57, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I would have done no less than three days on a BLP, serious copyvio 5 days minimum, libel a week... If you are monitoring, I would say that continuation of issues after your initial day is up, would warrant the 5 days imho. Technical 13 (talk) 01:32, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Duration: 2 days
Rationale: Almost all vandalism and no constructive edits on July 30 with relatively little before.

If the subject is a person, is the tag automatically BLP? Most of the vandalism in this case was BLP vios but a bit was not so I tagged it as vandalism instead of BLP. Is that a big deal? Next time BLP? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 11:16, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

  • Not always. If the problem itself is BLP issues, then use the BLP tag. If it is just "poop vandalism" then there is no need for a BLP tag, for instance. The tag isn't a big deal but we try to be accurate. Technically, this was BLP violation. Again, with BLPs, I tend to go at least a week so they aren't prone to wait it out. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 11:24, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
Okay, next time a BLP tag and 1 week. Thank you kindly. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 15:54, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi

Hi, while I agree that it is best for the article to be protected for a while, it should be reverted back to the version as I have explained that the official website says that the info that Bollfooot added was incorrect. 24.212.195.135 (talk) 01:36, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

  • Any time I protect, I'm never sure which is the "right" version. If you can get a consensus to the "right" version on the page, then I will revert to it and lift the protection, but right or wrong, that kind of edit warring is unacceptable. Seriously, I protected it to keep YOU from getting blocked. Most admin would have just blocked you both on site for clear violation of WP:4RR. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 01:43, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
    • Dennis, you must have had a delicious dinner not to block these two cats. Is this good enough for LAMEWAR or whatever it was? Drmies (talk) 02:05, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
    • The UEFA site suggests that the IP is correct on the Astra location. IP, if you start editing those articles again, kindly remove all those kindergarten-style flags per MOS:FLAG. Drmies (talk) 02:10, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
      • This is exactly what I have been saying. The official site that Drmies pointed says the correct info. This url has already been linked in the Report section. Sorry, I do not know anything about flags. I would rather have another user edit it. FYI, I noticed that on MOS:FLAG, under Appropriate use, it is commonly used for sports team. Also, under Avoid flag icons in infoboxes, examples of acceptable exceptions include sports competitions such as this. 24.212.195.135 (talk) 02:16, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
        • I try to never block for warring if protection will do the same job and they aren't famous repeaters. It lets other editors hash it out. I also said that any admin is free to revert me at WP:ANI. Protection was just faster. And yes, a little spicy Italian sausage mixed with zucchini and onions, lightly seasoned with garden fresh rosemary and other herbs, fried up hot and fast in a proper iron skillet, almost stir fry style. Plus most of a bottle of Flint Hill "Crushed Velvet" that I picked up at the Yadkin Valley Wine Festival (working on it). Quite good on all counts. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 02:14, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Ideas

based on a recent discussion, I have quickly drafted this. It is in no way definitive, but the effort is to keep it very simple and on track. You are welcome to develop this further on its talk page or tweak the draft until such times if and when a collaborative effort can be moved to RfC space. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:12, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) O.o I like this idea. — -dainomite   03:16, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Just woke up, no coffee yet, but you might want to look at WP:RAS, a proposal I penned last year with some help from User:Coren. On that talk page is template to many other discussions, which has links to another proposal by User:Jc37. Dave (Worm) was pretty involved in those discussions before as well. My proposal had a larger role for Crats as well. I think it those are worth reading, including main page histories as the proposal changes some over time. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 10:14, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

"The formation" of a new mini-mess

So Omdo has returned after his block.

His copyvio coatrack, The formation of Malaysia was deleted, and an ok little stub has replaced it.

So, he creates Formation of Malaysia instead, and redirects it to Formation of Malaysia (disambiguation), which is not a disambig at all, it seems to be just a new mini-coatrack to hang his new little articles on, and one alternative spelling.

Looking at the 2 linked book stubs, they are the usual, lots of tangential bluelinks, garbled English and any sentence that seems to be in good English is invariably copy pasted from somewhere - The Google Books page, the Amazon page, or newspaper articles he has linked or referenced. The copyvios are each fairly small, but persistent in his style, and need fixing. They are fine to have as articles, and I've fixed up things like this for him in the past - but it's always a "battle". Anyone else would look at the articles and say, meh..., WP:SOFIXIT, and they would have a point, so I've done some of that. I see a rinse and repeat pattern, though, and no end to it. Guess that makes me too involved.

He wouldn't listen to me if I tried to discuss it, I'm sure - and I don't have time to be his babysitter. This looks to me like just another embryo mess for someone to clean up - the book stubs (particularly the Borneo one) need scrubbing for copypaste and rewriting in proper English, the disambig basically just needs deleting, and Formation of Malaysia retargetting to The formation of Malaysia as an alt spelling. I can't do that as a non-admin.

As far as I see it, his English isn't good enough to write without copypaste/bad close paraphrase, and so that's how he creates his content. Add to that the obvious SPA/POV focus and disruptive use of redirects and close titles to "shoehorn" it all and I'm afraid the only answer to that sum is "timesink". Different matter if he'd talk about this stuff, and accept help - the book stubs can be fixed up into ok little articles, but, honestly, it's work, and I suspect he'd fight every change.

Your wisdom and advice, as always, appreciated, maybe I'm just too close to it all and you won't see it as I do, but I'd rather be creating my chart templates for World War II casualties than dealing with this - so I'm basically going to do just that for now. To see how I really feel about this kind of thing, here's a recent discussion with SlimVirgin about similar issues. Cheers, and sorry to bother you again. Begoon  04:22, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

No problem at all. This is far from the biggest fish on your plate, I'm sure, there are lots of people causing much more "trouble" than this at the moment. I left him another note in the meantime, just because I don't think it sends the right message if I ignore the resumption of copy/paste issues after the block, especially when I've fixed them and mentioned them here, which is hardly an invisible place (to your credit, and no doubt occasional frustration). Thanks. Begoon  09:39, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
Ok, sorry, but now he's just getting on my nerves. He's still inserting copyvios such as Creating Greater Malaysia. I've prodded Formation of Malaysia (disambiguation) and Making of Malaysia (disambiguation). He added some garbled nonsense about state formations and removed the prod. I'm not sure if I can CSD them, because G6 says "such as those listing only one or zero links to existing Misplaced Pages articles", and they have links, but inappropriate ones. However, it says "Deleting unnecessary disambiguation pages", and they are certainly that, even if not covered by the example. It's just plain disruptive now, trying to cram as many pointless pages and tangential links in everywhere he thinks he can. Every time I fix or remove a misuse of link templates or hatnotes, he just sticks in a different inappropriate one, presumably to stack up some sort of semi-circular little walled POV garden. I can't keep up with it. The patience you referred to me posessing earlier is now pretty much exhausted. I have to conclude at this point he's incompetent, disruptive and unwilling or unable to discuss anything at all. ( He's "competent" enough to be reading this note, though - because each time I update it, he makes another pointless related edit 5 minutes later...)Begoon  03:42, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
Fascinating how they managed to put wikiproject categories for Malaya, Brunei, Singapore, North Borneo, and Sarawak on Talk:Creating Greater Malaysia, but didn't include Malaysia. The stick clearly hasn't been dropped then. CMD (talk) 08:50, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
I will try to look at this closer today.... Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 10:16, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
Well,if you get time, you could do worse than looking at this first... Glance at the edit request on the talk page beforehand. Looks like I've upset him...Begoon  10:32, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

I've given him a final warning. If he continues to add copyvios and refuse to disengage ( and doesn't count as engaging, his last talk page comment) then I will indef block him. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 12:35, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

OK. Like you, I have other fish to fry at the moment, particularly at Commons, and depending how that frying goes I may not be around much at all - so you could do me a favour and make a note to keep a tenth of one of your many eyes on this from time to time, because it is actually the kind of thing that matters, in the sense of helping to keep an environment that people will want to be a part of. I know you will anyway, because I know that much about you, just from observation. Begoon  12:45, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Another music break

♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 11:56, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Check out this. Probably the most beautiful song I've ever heard.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 17:42, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

AN notice

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:34, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Sock trolls and sleeper accounts abounding

The proverbial feces has hit the fan at Talk:Pink Floyd regarding sock-troll-time-wasters. Can you please provide some assistance per WP:DUCK. Thanks and cheers! GabeMc 20:41, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

  • I will take a look in a bit. We have been shorthanded with CUs lately, summer time and all and I'm not familiar with that article but will see what I can do. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 20:43, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
    • Thanks much Dennis. I don't think you need to know much about the article. This is obviously another batch of trolls related to last summer's fiasco. GabeMc 20:46, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
      • Without knowing who the master is, I can't really compare anything. I've pinged a CU offwiki, although I don't know if they will get the message or not. I can't complain against CUs, there are just too many issues and too few CUs available. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 20:49, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Admin's Barnstar
For always setting a great example for admins! We need more of your kind around here. Thanks! GabeMc 22:18, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Civility Barnstar
For always putting forth your best effort to be civil, even when drama is cast into the spotlight. 155blue (talk) 02:26, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Articles for Creation ease of use

Hello Dennis. I saw your comment about Articles for Creation a few days ago at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Editor Retention where you said "It needs to be easier to promote (by a simple move) or utterly reject (csd tag) articles". I was wondering, have you tried Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Articles for creation/Helper script? It is very simple to use, and it makes accepting a submission require nothing more than clicking "Review" from the drop-down menu, clicking "Accept", then clicking "Accept and move to mainspace". If you need to make any other changes or improvements to the submission, these can be made either before or after accepting it, by just editing it in the usual way.

If an article falls under an existing CSD criterion, it is acceptable to just go ahead and CSD tag it, and nothing additional needs to be done in such a case. So this cannot really be made any easier. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 09:47, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

  • I have used the script, but I find the entire process to be the opposite of a normal article in normal space in a number of ways. It is very unintuitive, which has been what has kept me (and likely others) from participating there fully. Not having a talk page, for example, is a fatal flaw, as it forces short comments at the top of the article and requires too much bureaucracy. I really have tried a number of times, but the entire system is so irritating to me that I just leave each time before getting much done. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 10:48, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
  • (talk page stalker) Hey! I came across this topic while looking at some other stuffs here and would love to discuss this with both of you a little more. I'm in the process of designing a complete overhaul for the afc process from article creation wizard to review to publishing to article space. I'm hoping that by streamlining the creation process in the wizard, some of the automatic fail instant csd submissions will cease to be created (for example, I intend to have the article creation wizard parse the page before each save and run it through an api of a dupdetector/copyvios type bot/tool and refuse to save if it is G12 worthy). Any ideas or concerns that may help with the development of this would be greatly appreciated. Happy editing! Technical 13 (talk) 20:38, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
    • If you aren't doing this in conjunction with the Foundation, you are wasting your time, however, as anything this big has to be coordinated with their developers. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 20:55, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Pss, pss, Dennis :)

You have new message/s Hello. You have a new message at Anna Frodesiak's talk page. Ms.Bono 19:20, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Also, i have created this page User:Miss_Bono/Ali_for_FA, just in case you want to reply at my request there, since we were talking at Anna's talk. Ms.Bono 19:20, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

JamesGannon1

Are you about to block him, or should we just watch him? Robert McClenon (talk) 23:41, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

  • Not only am I watching him, but have already contacted a Checkuser offwiki and in the middle of a more complete behavioral analysis. ;-) There is a method to my madness. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 23:43, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
Okay. At first he said to be a self-promoter, but he may be a troll. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:20, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
That is why I haven't blocked yet, but in case he is he, WP:RBI. Of course, if you find one that looks odd, just ping me here with just the diff, I will take it from there and file any paperwork if needed. This is different than regular situations, since we don't want to reward them. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 00:23, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Faizan vs Faizanhb2

Hi — at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Syed Noor Zaman Naqshbandi Shazli you struck a comment by Faizan (talk · contribs) as being by a blocked sockpuppet. However, Faizan is not listed at the SPI and has not been blocked. Maybe you were thinking of Faizanhb2? Anyway, I have unstruck the comment but I thought I'd let you know here in case this wasn't a mistake and you have some reason beyond similarity of names to think that Faizan is involved in the sockpuppetry. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:16, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Tabs on the top

(If you do not use Monobook, please disregard this message.) In the past, my SPI tabs have always appeared to the right of the Twinkle tabs. However, recently I noticed that they occasionally appear to the left of them. Have you experienced this? Cheers, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:40, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

76.189

I would like to take a moment to try and change your mind about 76.189. I'll be posting this same message on two other user talk pages. If you could consider these relevant facts:

  • The entire thread, including the ban discussion, contains exactly four diffs of 76.189's actual doing:
    1. A comment made after you had just accused him of Wiki-lawyering and not being here for the right reasons. A pretty mild response, I would've been a bit more -fruitful- in my language.
    2. A comment User:Bbb23 said was polite
    3. After Kudpung pointed to a dismissive essay when the IP was concerned about Bbb23's revert that doesn't even make sense to me why he'd revert it.
    4. A silly mistake that was then called defacement by User:Incnis Mrsi, which he later admitted was wrong, but now has returned to calling defacement
  • There have been no diffs presented to support the accusations in the proposal. The diffs that were provided occured on User_talk space and the first two parts of the sanctions don't even deal with those. The third is a given for all users, and the last, as I demonstrate below, is inaccurate.
  • The bad boy list was language Bbb23 introduced, it was picked up by the IP in a humorous tone here because Bbb23 introduced the vernacular. Toddst1 turned around that around as evidence the IP actually had one and said it was classic battleground behavior. There is no evidence of a bad boy list, the comment was made in response to Bbb23 and was meant to be funny.
  • The IP has numerously received accusations of "drama-mongering unless obliged to, or is simply trolling", without diffs, responded rather politely, later with diffs showing the same behavior by his accuser, and for merely defending himself he is accused of more drama mongering.
  • The IP has removed comments from his talk page. The policy, WP:BLANKING, says "A number of important matters may not be removed by the user...For IP editors, templates and notes left to indicate other users share the same IP address." The IP has been using the IP for a solid 2 months, has been the only user to use that IP, and there is no evidence of use by others users. So a "dynamic IP" notice was misguided at best, trolling at worst and the policy quoted is inapplicable. In addition, the policy only covers removing this dynamic IP notice, not any other discussion on the page since the other comments do not "indicate other users share the same IP address". So the removal of comments by others was acceptable and the edit warring, and further warnings, to restore the removed content was a misunderstanding of policy on the part of User:155blue and User:I B Wright.
  • Finally, he has apologized more than once.

Please reconsider your support of sanctions. From an outside perspective, this user has been treated unfairly, reacted fairly mildly, and has had those mild behaviors thrown back at him with very little actual support in diffs. If nothing else, let's encourage the IP to get an account and find a mentor.--v/r - TP 14:12, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

TP, I hope you know I have a great deal of respect for you, but I don't think you should be posting these sorts of messages on the talk pages of supporters of the ban. With a little rephrasing, you could easily post the above analysis at AN itself. As for your comments, I don't feel like addressing them point by point, but it reminds me of a Mary Tyler Moore episode (I've already used I Love Lucy). Mary is depressed about her life generally. In an effort to cheer her up, Ted relates two stories about a typical day in Mary's life that are worded identically. However, in the first, he says it with a gloomy face in a pitiable tone, but in the seccond, he is smiling and his tone is upbeat and happy. In other words, so much depends on your perspective. What you may see as a poor IP being treated unfairly, others may see that he has repeatedly provoked such treatment. What you may see as a faily mild reaction by 76, others may see as a repetitious, grinding stubbornness and a refusal to hear what others are telling him. Remember, too, that the ban would not prevent 76 from editing any articles, which is really what we're here to do, or in the case of many admins, foster an environment in which that can be done collaboratively. It just prevents him from jumping from noticeboard to noticeboard and from drama to drama and from drowning other editors with his opinions, many of which are not even well-founded. Not really a harsh ban, when you think about it.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:40, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
A couple of additional thoughts. Mentoring could be a good option, but it would have to be made clear what kind of behavior is unacceptable; otherwise, what is the mentor trying to achieve? As for registering, I'm always in favor of that, but based my interaction with 76, I don't think he'd go for it.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:12, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
Yes, you're certainly right about perspectives and mine was uninvolved and unconnected when I got involved. It is a mild sanction, but that doesn't change it's demoralizing impact on the person receiving the sanction. Especially when seen through the lens I've seen it through where an IP-user has faced users who call mistakes "defacement" and then report him to AN.--v/r - TP 15:31, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Your previous uninvolvement is a good thing, although you have gone from uninvolved to being a fairly strong advocate (which is your right, of course). However, I was the one who reported 76 to AN, and I don't recall using the word "defacement". You must be talking about Incnis, and I think that whole discussion is a distraction. As for my reporting him to AN, I tried not to. I tried to talk to him first on my talk page. I tried to get him to let it go, but that's just not something he does easily. And it wouldn't be so demoralizing if he didn't so "passionately" (one of his favorite words) cling to things in the first place. The whole thing ends up being way too personal for him.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:42, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
Some of us get passionate when we feel we're against a great obstacle. I'm certainly passionate now, well into the strong advocate arena, and I see a lot of traits in this IP that I share. My real concern at first, the concern I have with you, Dennis, and Toddst, is that the claims haven't been properly substantiated. I've gone through the conversations and diffs and I don't see it. But my bigger concern with Incnis Mrsi and 155blue, and most recently AndyTheGrump, is that they've been baiting this guy.--v/r - TP 15:45, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
Do you want to mentor the IP? :-) ?--Bbb23 (talk) 16:04, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
What, I can't pawn this one off on WormTT like all the others?  :-D--v/r - TP 16:06, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? Misplaced Pages would gain from a mentor, but would loose from an enabler. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 16:18, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
Why me? My only interest in this case is a legitimately imposed restriction. I am not actually concerned about what 76.189.… posts. I am concerned about how and how much does he post. His stuff distracts many users, including experienced and competent users, from solving actual problems that possibly wait for their involvement. There will be few or no social-network-style chatter ⇒ I’ll disengage. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 16:18, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
Actually, you'll disengage either at the conclusion of this AN thread or soon after that. I've got a fairly decent case of baiting from you and I'm prepared to take you to ANI for it. I'm being kind by waiting for you to see your actions through the eyes of 76.189. If you're not concerned "what" he posts, then that seems to me to be an admission that he isn't wrong only that he is verbose and a regular at ANI. Your same complaint could be made about two dozen administrators and three dozen editors. So why are you after the IP?--v/r - TP 16:26, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
Actually, the only your accusation which have any chance to lead to sanctions against me is my persistent problems with WP:Civility. In all other aspects I am rather competent editor and your insinuations about my baiting or whatever will be disregarded or dismissed. I am not an AN/I frequenter, and my negative impression about 76.189.… is based mostly on his user_talk activity, especially on his campaign in defence of an IP edit warrior, his conflicts with Toddst1, and on what I saw at user_talk:76.189.109.155. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 16:43, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
What to achieve? More edits in articles and less chatter on user_talks, of course. Possibly, the person in question should be attached to #wikipedia-en or so – it could solve the problem partially. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 15:34, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
^ This is what we should really be after. This is an unsolicited attack of a user who isn't here. Just because it doesn't use language doesn't make it civil. This kind of baiting is what led the IP into this hole.--v/r - TP 15:37, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
  • This all seems unnecessarily intense. There are a number of people who disagree on the disruptive inclination of the IP. I would maintain that it is entirely possible to support action there without have an ax to grind, being that I am one of those uninvolved individuals. Ramping up the frustration here and beating this dead horse continually isn't really helpful. I've opined at the ANI, I've listened here, but I'm unpersuaded and my opinion hasn't changed. Perhaps we just need to allow others to opine there, then let someone read the consensus and make a determination. This is pretty standard stuff and there really is no need for the side discussions. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 16:34, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
    • Fair enough, Dennis, but it was worth a shot. I don't see the intensity here, and I think I've made the magic tricks by others clear, but if you're not convinced then I'll leave it be.--v/r - TP 16:45, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
      • To be clear, my opinion is based on my own investigation into their editing history. It was not based on anyone else's opinion or any evidence presented in the discussion itself. Being naturally skeptical from working at WP:SPI, I prefer to do my own digging. I can't speak to anyone else's motivations nor how they came to their own conclusions. All I can do is present my observations without bludgeoning anyone, then rely on the wisdom of the closing admin. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 16:51, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
        • Sure, but then it's tough to change your opinion if I didn't know what it was based on.--v/r - TP 16:56, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
          • I think that sometimes the best way to persuade someone is by showing the positives, rather than picking apart the negatives. To demonstrate that the negatives are the exception rather than the rule. In cases like this, "picking apart" individual diffs may look more like a continuation of wikilawyering, the very reason we are there. This leads the discussion to become little more than contradiction, which is neither constructive nor persuasive. I'm happy to hear other people's perspectives on the issue, of the IP's positive contributions, but I'm not as anxious to provide lists of diffs to be picked apart, particularly since my opinion is based on a pattern, not a singular incident. Again, the closer is free to completely discount my opinion if they find it unsubstantiated. Unfortunately, the discussion has become so contentious, long, and focused on minutia that I find little purpose in trying to refute any points there, which is why I have bowed out. I don't think that my adding a lot more text with diffs and explanations will add more clarity to that discussion, or else I would. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 17:46, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Hridayeshwar Singh Bhati SPI

With respect to your closing statement on the SPI case, I have sent them a standard welcome on my part, and an invite to join the IRC help channel so I can potentially help them out.

Cheers, TheOriginalSoni (talk) 14:15, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Ali Hewson

Hi Dennis,

Sorry I am bothering again. Yesterday you posted this in Anna's talk: I also noted a lot of copyvio notices in the hidden comments, 8 of them, that need sorting out. . I need, if possible, that you point out those copyvios. Please. Also, take a look I have fixed a few citations anf its format :) Thanks. Ms.Bono 15:29, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
  • If you look at the page copy and just search for "copyvio" you will see 8 notes in there. I haven't tried to verify them, but they need to be looked at and verified to be incorrect or fixed. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 15:37, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
Thanks! also you have an issue down there ↓. have a nice day! Ms.Bono 15:43, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

As you have commented - CMDC & Specifico

You may want to look into their interactions at the other noticeboards. OR, NPOV, BLP. CMDC raised complaints at all of them (and elsewhere - AN I think) that all pretty much went nowhere. At this point I think Specifico is getting harrassed into taking actions he shouldnt. One common result of being hounded by wikipedia policy/bureaucracy is that editors fall back to template/minimal interaction. 'If they are going to use procedure against me, I will return in kind' etc etc. Short of topic-banning both of them and ramming an interaction ban between them, its not going to go away soon. Only in death does duty end (talk) 20:11, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Duck Sock of Koov (talk · contribs)

Hey, Dennis! I've cornered a quacker of a Koov sock, Tepido (talk · contribs), but I'm on a mobile device and can't really file a SPI right now. Could you or one of your watchers deal with him? Cheers :) Doc talk 22:28, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! Here's the evidence in a nutshell:

  1. Creates his user page just like a Koov sock.
  2. Jumps right into templates on foreign relations, just like a Koov sock.
  3. Removes my post to another user's talkpage, which he had obviously watchlisted. Said user was the last to file a Koov SPI. No new user does this.
  4. He doth protest too much about being Koov, and this is clearly no new user. Doc talk 22:47, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

When he removed my post on Danlaycock's talk page I was surprised at his gall. How would a brand-spanking new user (as he still claims to be) watchlist that page? Thanks for filing that for me! I'll be watching. Doc talk 23:00, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

"You still couldn't prove to me that I am the banned user Koov. So you give up your lies and leave me alone. You are the liar here." I guess it's really not that important that I prove it to him, right? ;) Cheers! Doc talk 23:18, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

He makes it so easy. Like shooting fish in a barrel. To claim to not even know who Koov is at all after an acknowledgement that Koov is a banned user - a guilty conscience poorly feigning ignorance and innocence. I enjoy a good socking mystery once in awhile, but Koov takes all the fun out of it. ;) Doc talk 00:15, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Block or protect

Hey Dennis, could you either block 65.88.88.203 (talk · contribs) or semi Kashmiri Pandit, please? We're having another run-out of the "purest race" nonsense on that article, which has caused admin intervention in the past. I'm not sure if blocking the IP is feasible but I guess it would be preferable. - Sitush (talk) 23:36, 2 July 2013 (UTC)