Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 09:01, 2 July 2015

Archives

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

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

A kitten for you!

Thanks!!!!!!!!!!!

Drjobrout (talk) 06:03, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

A little bit of help understanding the Misplaced Pages process

Thanks for helping me out with the doppelganger issue yesterday. And sorry for bothering you despite your STOP sign, but right now I'm a really frustrated Misplaced Pages editor, and I need to understand what I did wrong. Please direct me to the proper venue if I'm bothering you. Yesterday I tried to bring up an issue about User:TheRedPenOfDoom on the Incidents board. The issue was closed after only two hours and I was accused of acting in a retaliatory manner. Yet only minutes after the issue was closed the same user has an arbitration enforcement sanction brought against him, for only a quarter of the issues I brought forward. I don't want to be seen as vindictive, as I said, I truly don't care about him at all, I'm just trying to do the right thing. Could you please explain to me in which manner I misstepped yesterday or point me in a direction where such questions could be answered. BFG (talk) 23:45, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

• Your issue was his user page being protected. Any user can do that, just ask any admin to help you with it. As for getting help here, the best place is the WP:Teahouse. Very laid back environment, and it is hosted by nice people whose only goal is to get you started in the right direction. One of our finest programs at Misplaced Pages. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 00:07, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Is there justice on Misplaced Pages?

More than 200,000 residents of the London Borough of Hackney have been blocked from editing. Dennis Brown says "there is no justice". Risker is a former member of the Arbitration Committee with intimate knowledge of its workings. Dennis Brown dismisses her view saying "Risker is just another admin, not a judge". 86.183.19.20 (talk) 09:41, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Separation of powers

I've been following yesterday's discussion at ANI and the overspill on individual editors' talk pages. Last night you said

Since I had reverted you, it wouldn't be kosher for me to have blocked you.

It is invariable that an administrator who reverts will then ask another to block, and administrators who revert will also ask another to protect. NeilN does not adhere to this, but then he's only been an administrator for a few days. As it appears that the two of you are close would you consider mentoring him? 86.183.19.20 (talk) 12:19, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

• There are plenty of times an admin will revert and block someone, IP or not. BLP violations, vandalism, clear disruption, etc. This is particularly true at formal boards like ANI/AN/Arb. I could have blocked yesterday and no one would have blinked an eye. I chose to engage a bit instead, knowing someone else would block anyway. Me blocking would have been pointless and could have raised an issue, even though WP:INVOLVED would have granted the exception. NeilN is new, but he's a good guy whose learning what raises eyebrows and what doesn't, but I don't believe for a moment he would do anything shady on purpose. I'm not familiar with all the details, but I get the idea we are talking about blocks that another admin would have made if they had seen them, which is specifically mentioned as reasonable under WP:INVOLVED. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 12:43, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

On 8 June Neil reverted, blocked and protected on Ancient Egyptian deities. That seems to be way outside the guidelines which you have explained above. I haven't looked any further into his blocking record. 86.183.19.20 (talk) 15:00, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

• He blocked a sock, then protected the article. Assuming the block was in good faith, there is nothing wrong with that. Just briefly looking at the edits of the IP, it is very plausible that is was a block evading sock. If we had to file at WP:SPI and WP:RFPP, then nothing would ever get done. Those processes can take days to weeks. Admin are actually encouraged to simply act on their own, on behalf of the community, per WP:BURO. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 15:36, 26 June 2015 (UTC) Dennis Brown - 2¢ 15:36, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Do you see the danger? You start off by saying "he blocked a sock" then qualify that by saying "it is very plausible that is was a block evading sock". Misplaced Pages's quasi - legal structures have not been set up simply to punish the guilty - they are also there to protect the innocent. Take the case of Eric Corbett - doing what you advocate someone could block Eric and keep him blocked forever. If people are not singing from the same hymn sheet - following an agreed set of rules - any group is going to collapse into anarchy.

The Arbitration Committee came down so hard on Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry precisely because he did what you are advocating - he ran the SPI procedure himself from start to finish. 86.183.19.20 (talk) 16:07, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

No, they came down hard because he used the CU tools improperly, plus some other stuff that I can't discuss (what little I know of it). There is a huge difference. I can personally audit anything that any admin does with the admin tools. I can't do that with the CU tools, and very few people can. Apples and oranges. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 16:37, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) FWIW I often revert, protect, and block all in one go. Blatant disruption needs bold, rapid intervention. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 16:25, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

This is what Risker said:

On 21 April 2015 at 1513 hours UTC, Chase me Ladies, I'm the Cavalry (ChaseMe for short) blocked Contribsx (talk · contribs) for abusing multiple accounts. Immediately before that, he had initiated a sockpuppet investigation (SPI) at Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Hackneymarsh in which he alleged that Contribsx was a sock of Hackneymarsh; in that SPI, he states that he was contacted by reporters from the UK newspaper The Guardian. His original statement also implied that the account was managed by or managed at the direction of a specific living person who is the subject of one of the articles edited by Contribsx and also edited several years previously by Hackneymarsh; however, as it was pointed out to him off-wiki that such a statement was a BLP violation (absent direct proof that the living person was directing or responsible for the edits of Contribsx) ChaseMe modified his statement.

What clearer guidance could there be that administrators must not investigate and block on their own without following the normal procedure of giving notice, collecting evidence and passing the matter to an impartial adjudicator for a decision?

Getting back to Neil, his last block on 8 June was 81.154.132.163 which had done nothing more than post an unblock request. Talk about biting the newbies. 86.183.19.20 (talk) 17:32, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Referring to Kudpung's comment I would agree that eventually editors get tired of continually reverting a vandal and would like to do something else. 86.183.19.20 (talk) 17:38, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

• Risker is just another admin, not a judge, and you are taking that out of context, as again, the overwhelming majority of that case was held in private, away from public eyes, for a good reason. Trust me, there is more to the Chase Me case than you know. I'm not up for debating something that is already written in a dozen policies or more, that admin do not have to submit to any board in order to take action. Never have, never will, it would be unworkable for a number of reasons. There is no such thing as "impartial adjudicator" in any shape or fashion at Misplaced Pages, we are not a court, there is no justice. With all due respect, you simply have no idea what you are talking about. That isn't how things get done. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 18:15, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

I happened to stumble across this when reading the section below. I probably don't have to say this, but taking anything the IP says at face value would be a mistake. I am happy to explain any admin actions I have taken to any editor asking in good faith. And no, I do not think the IP (whoever they are) has the best interests of Misplaced Pages at heart. --NeilN 21:34, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

NeilN above assumes bad faith. Something is rotten in the state of Denmark. I just looked at WP:BURO which Dennis cited. It clearly states that regard must be had for the principles of policies, and disagreements are resolved through consensus - based discussion. I am unaware that there is any principle that Misplaced Pages process is designed to produce an unfair result, and the reference to discussion indicates that an administrator is expected to refer to others, not do everything herself. This is a general comment, not directed at anyone in particular, but it does explain why GorillaWarfare is getting flak in the following section. 86.183.19.20 (talk) 10:01, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Discussion transferred to Misplaced Pages talk:Blocking policy#Is there justice on Misplaced Pages? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.149.12.180 (talk) 09:34, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

A procedural question

I'm writing here rather than posting on the AN board because there is a distinct possibility I'm missing something fundamental. I tried to read all the comments but there are a lot it's possible this issue has been raised and I missed it.

I reviewed Arbcoms' enforcement motion

It says in part:

Administrators are prohibited from reversing or overturning (explicitly or in substance) any action taken by another administrator pursuant to the terms of an active arbitration remedy...

While it explicitly refers to action, I don't think it's an abuse of language to say that an AE discussion resulting in a consensus of no action needed qualifies as an action. It would be far too anal to conclude that only actions can be overturned not a decision that no action is necessary.

If I follow the time sequence and I think I do, the AE discussion included a number of participants and was closed with a decision of no action. One can easily debate whether the closure was premature. I'm open to the possibility it should be reopened but that's a different kettle of horses of a different color.

So I think I see an AE action taken: "no action regarding Eric is needed" and an administrator reversing or overturning that decision. While I would not support a desysop of gorrilla warfare for this action why am I wrong in thinking that this is a clear-cut case where it should be overturned?--S Philbrick(Talk) 19:00, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

• You and I think alike. Because it requires that an admin make a determination at AE (consensus or not, that is irrelevant) it is indeed the same as an admin action. Reopening it would have been acceptable, even if some didn't like it, as the typical time hadn't expired. The question is: what constitutes an admin action?

• An example: I tell you "Stop adding that material back in that article or I will block you". I didn't use any tools, but the tools are necessarily to fulfill the threat, and lets say I did so on an article I normally edit, so it is an abusive threat. I would expect to be held to account as an ADMIN, not as an editor, even though I didn't use the tools, I was acting in administrative capacity.

• The reason it isn't so cut and dry is because most people are looking at it as either loving or hating Eric, and they are looking at whether or not he deserved the block, they aren't looking at the process. They are also not looking at the concept of WP:INVOLVED, which at a minimum, is very arguable based her own words and actions in regard to Eric at the GGTF. It's ironic, she didn't say one word to much of anyone in that case until I piped up and made note of it. Silence often speak volumes, particularly when it comes to bias and only one person has the power. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 20:35, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

I don't see a correct interpretation of WP:AC/DS here. When a sanction is requested at AE, any admin in the thread (or any other admin) may unilaterally issue a block. It's only a common practice to wait for others' opinions before taking action, and not required by WP:AC/DS. Closing a thread at AE with no result is not an admin action. The only time you need consensus is when a sanction is being *appealed* at AE. Also there are rules about 'modifying sanctions out of process', which this is not. It would torture the wording to think that by blocking someone who another admin had declined to block, you are modifying a sanction. EdJohnston (talk) 21:13, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm not an AE specialist, but it seems to me that once an admin has made an action (block or not), and that requires the tools (you can't do it unless you have the tools), then the proper action is to reopen, not to say "Well, I'm ignoring your finding and acting on my own". In this case, she was aware of the AE filing and closing before she took action. What is the point of closing the case if it isn't an admin action? And if it was so obvious, she should have been wise enough to let another act on it, not her since her opinions in the very case this covers were very clear. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 21:40, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

The qualifier "(explicitly or in substance)" seems, in my mind anyway, to make this a clear case of overturning a prior admin's action. There would be no need for the wording "or in substance" if the only thing that qualified as an admin action were those that required use of the tools. Closing without action, something only an admin can do, would have to be considered an admin action. That said, even if the consensus agrees with my reading of it and even with the obvious involved nature of the block I wouldn't be for a desysop of GW. That would be just more fuel on the fire. I'd be happy if GW just unblocked and everyone went on their merry way. I've had a WP account for a while now but it was only around two years ago or so that my job allowed the free time to try to do some actual editing. I asked some random people to teach me how to do proper citations and such and found folks helpful. Then when I got down to trying to find something I'd be interested in editing it became stunningly clear that there are very few corners of this encyclopedia that aren't friggin' battlegrounds at some given moment. Be that constant POV battles or old grudges. I've seen arguments, as I'm sure everyone has, over the most trivial shit you could imagine. Tired of that quickly. Nothing as a whole though has been as bad across so many areas as the fallout from the GGTF and surrounding civility drama though. It seems like an ideological line has been drawn and there's no room for grey. You can't agree or disagree with someone without being cast as being on one side of that line or the other. And it seems once a person is perceived as being on one side or the other you're irrevocably stuck there. It's silly and juvenile but this current drama stems from that catalyst while duly allowing for past grudges to have an excuse to reemerge. It's more baffling that all the major players that keep popping up in these conflicts don't even edit in the same areas. It's not about content or edit wars. It's people watching each other and picking fights and pretty much 100% of the time there's an admin action that furthers disruption rather than diffuses it. Though I don't envy the plight of any admin who steps into this hornets nest. No matter what you do you'll seen as a savior to some and a sinner to others. There's no winning a lot of the time. Be lenient and you're an enabler. Be stringent and you're a dictator. I'd like to think there's a middle ground, one that could mostly be found if people simply ignored each other a bit more, as odd as that sounds. I don't see it though. Sorry for the long rambling post. I know you started WER so I thought I'd give you the impression I get from activily following WP from fairly recently and what is, I'd assume anyway, a factor in the difficultly in retaining editors let alone gaining new ones. It's not the initial action by an editor that seems to cause all that much disruption but the ensuing actions by admin's and editors alike that stoke it into a full on conflagration. To me the most sensible way forward in the current mess is GW unblocks, there's no talk of taking her bit, everyone chalks it up to known existing tensions and just goes on their way. I don't have high hopes for that though. Capeo (talk) 22:59, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Can't say I disagree, and in fact, I would say that is a very good read on the situation at Misplaced Pages. As for GW, no one is asking for any sanctions against her. I think she screwed up and underestimated her own level of involvement, but I don't have a reason to suspect malice, just bad judgement. All admin make mistakes, I've made my share. But yes, she COULD have simply unblocked and reopened the discussion. I'm not even saying that a short block is unreasonable (although I don't see the long term benefit it offers), but the process is definitely messed up here. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 23:25, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

• Sphilbrick is one of the most lucid users and admins on Misplaced Pages. Unlike me and Dennis he keeps mostly to himself and mainly reserves his opinions. When he speaks out as he does here, he finds consensus among admins such as me and Dennis where if we were to discuss this issue on its proper venue we would all be shot down by the anti-admin brigade, or if on ANI, by the peanut gallery and wannabe admins. Knowing how prickly Eric is and that he is quite capable of sticking his barbs quite unprovoked into any admin or user who defends the mere principle of management of Misplaced Pages by any system other than anarchy, I don't even watch his talk page which has about as much academic interest for me as Corbett's neighbour, Corrie.

Clearly Corbett's statement was both an undeniable infringement of AE and a deliberate characteristic swipe at an admin in the full knowledge that this kind of toe-dipping into the very edge of the acceptable is likely to be into an acid bath - one that would almost surely dissolve his participation on Misplaced Pages for yet anothr stretch. In normal circumstances, such repeated indiscretion is met with escalating periods of enforced vacation from the project, however, the subject being discussed here is prcklier still. So to get to the quick, I support this block because it is apt while I support unblock because a) the discussion wasn't given time to develop before it was closed (closed?), and b) because one admin overturning another without discussion is inappropriate - just like the analogy of an AfD closed one way by one admin then promptly overturned by another, c) because it does look as if GorillaWarfare felt that as a sitting arb she would be invincible. Unfortunately my vote leaves GW as a rather sitting duck until these vagaries of policy are neatly resolved. I think there is no way out of this without some proper arbitration, with GW recusing herself of course, and Corbett sitting out the block until the committee can return a majority verdict on what to do for Black Kite, GW, and Corbett.

Whether Corbett's current block gets overturned or not is immaterial, he is an intelligent person and sooner or later will get the indef or at least the very long block he is obviously expecting. Of course, it won't happen without a lot of drama claiming yet again that he has been unfairly treated. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:12, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

I agree a block was inevitable and likely justified (although I think an admin could have gotten by with a week block, we aren't forced to escalate and can take the circumstances into account), GW is the larger issue. This is why I made a statement on the Arb case that was filed on her last night. I'm not seeking sanctions, but there needs to be some clarity. In my opinion, it was foolish of her to block him due to her obvious animosity and involvement, which does call her judgement into question. And of course, I would still consider closing an AE action and "admin action", so it does look like flaunting of power, and as Kudpung puts it, an air of invincibility. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 12:31, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

I didn’t want either of you to think I was ignoring your responses. First, Kudpung, thanks for your extremely kind words. I’ll repay them by asking for a favor on your talk page shortly :) obviously, things of progress since I wrote. I’m happy to see that my view of the situation has been shared by others so I haven’t felt the need to jump in. Refer eternal did the right thing and now will have fun at Arbcom trying to sort out several issues. One of which is the interesting point I think made by Dennis regarding wheel warring. I was ready to explain why an action wasn’t wheel warring drop the plan to state it when I saw others making the point and then I saw the point by Dennis that provided an interesting argument that perhaps this should be considered wheel warring. That’s one of a number of things that need to be addressed. Anyway, enough for now I look forward to the evidence phase.--S Philbrick(Talk) 18:20, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Adminship

What do you mean, I won't be blocking anyone? THE POWER IS MINE. I HAVE THE POWER. I...ahem.

More seriously, I wanted to thank you for your vote of confidence over at my RfA. I hope I may do it justice...even if I don't end up blocking anyone. :-) --Ser Amantio di Nicolao_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 02:56, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

• To me, that is funny as hell, although not everyone will get the joke. I'm totally confident you will put the tools to good use, Ser Amantio di Nicolao. We each do what we do best, glad to have you empowered with the tools to make editing easier and better for Misplaced Pages. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 06:06, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks

DB, thanks for your help with the League City IP editor (73.166.187.154). This was tricky. I didn't care for their claims of self-harm, and I didn't want to exacerbate their condition, but it occurred to me that if someone makes legal threats we block them, so shouldn't we do the same to protect this person from whatever triggers they are experiencing. There is, of course, also the issue of them using the self-harm statements as a way to get people to back off, which is manipulative. Anyway, thanks for the help. Just wanted to vent a bit since I couldn't really do it in the ANI. Regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 21:19, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

• No problem. I sat and thought about that one for some time before closing. It isn't always easy, but the consensus was clear, and in this case, a firm hand is likely best for all. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 21:26, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Your ANI comment

Your ANI comment So it is all fixed thanks to your diplomatic skills, everybody happy (and incidentally Resolute's comment on me again proudly displayed on AN, though you don't mention that specifically). And you chatted with Doc9871 offsite because he was "understandably upset" and cooled everything down. Mmm. No loose ends in your opinion? How about this? And I hope you realize it may be some time before we see Floquenbeam again. I feel a little put off myself. This beautiful (at least where I live) season may be better enjoyed with as little Misplaced Pages as possible. Bishonen | talk 14:11, 28 June 2015 (UTC).

• Bish, sometimes there are no winners and no losers no matter what you do, so you try to follow policy as best as you can, and just reduce the drama along the way. If I start giving strong opinions on what either said or did outside of the policy, then I wouldn't be uninvolved. As I saw it, if I didn't know the parties, I can't justify reverting that comment. That is an objective statement that a consensus would agree with. At Floq's page as well as ANI, my goal is and was to just let everyone fan out in their own little circles, without anyone getting blocked. This is exactly as I would do for any other editor if I didn't know who they were. Under no circumstances does it mean I condone any comment. It is a matter of policy, not preference. I could have easily avoided the whole thing, but felt my stepping in would prevent a block, stop the warring, and let things calm down and if needed, be handled some way other than edit warring. If you want to take some action over the comment, nothing is stopping you. My actions were limited solely to the edit warring, which WAS disruptive, and had Floq already at 6RR. Someone else was bound to block him shortly. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 15:01, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
• Resolute has issued an apology of sorts at WP:AN. I will leave it to you to determine the value. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 15:03, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

• (For talkpage stalkers: No, actually on WP:ANI.) Thank you, I have. Bishonen | talk 18:00, 28 June 2015 (UTC).

I haven't commented about this spiraling chain of incidents except to say, it's been one helluva weekend on Misplaced Pages. I think a whole lot of people need a few days away from the drama which, like a whirlpool, has a tendency to suck people in and leave them disoriented. Liz 16:52, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

It has made me regret coming back and recapturing my admin bit, I must admit. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 16:55, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

You can have mine for a nickel. Bishonen | talk 18:00, 28 June 2015 (UTC).

Whether I'm right or wrong, all I can do is try to read consensus and apply it as gentle as I can. Or I can ignore the issue, but there was a reasonable risk it would have blown up bigger than it already has. In the end, perhaps I'm an idiot for trying to calm things down, but I can't say I regret trying. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 19:06, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Step outside

...it's the best damn weather that we've had in ages. Take a camera, a beer or whatever makes you happy. Don't miss the chance because it'll be gone before we know it. De Dramah vill stihl be hier ven ju geht bach.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 19:39, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

In the midst of these dramatic situations, I present to you, a kitten.

AmaryllisGardener 19:50, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Dear Misplaced Pages Admin:

You are all idiots, myself included. The lot have gone mad this weekend. Some of the rantings at Arb would be funny if they weren't so sad. I'm expecting to get blocked now for making a personal attack against a privileged class of super-editors and breaking the blue code, but as a class, admin collectively have looked like a bunch of buffoons over the weekend. Per Berean Hunter's excellent advice, I'm going to go outside, I'm tired of hanging with admin and not sure I like them anymore. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 20:09, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

I haven't been following the goings-on at ANI - and now Arb? - except as they are reflected through people's talk pages. But I gather it's been admin against admin all week. Dennis, I'm sure you were trying to bring a voice of sanity over there and I applaud you for it. I don't understand what's been going on here the past week; it's as if there was something in the air, or the Wiki-water, to turn the admins against each other. Or maybe it's some kind of evil electronic ray. I've recently been working on the Tin foil hat article; maybe I should start wearing one, before I too start drawing swords against fellow admins. Hang in there, Dennis, we love you, and this place needs people like you right now. But yes, definitely get a breath of fresh air whenever and for as long as needed. --MelanieN alt (talk) 21:43, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

That's all right. These things gotta happen every five years or so, ten years. Helps to get rid of the bad blood. Been ten years since the last one.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 22:01, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

For speaking common sense, I have been blocked you indefinitely with talk page access and email revoked :). In all seriousness, to anyone reading this, I would recommend taking a break from drama for a bit. Lift, run a 5k, do interval training, do whatever. Anything to defuse the drama. StringTheory11 (t • c) 23:08, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Heya Dennis, I have been at the fringes of this drama because I was really angry about Eric's block, though hopefully I managed to avoid engaging "Save page" before brain too often, but I agree with everyone else. Let me put it like this, over the weekend one of my favourite musicians passed away at the relatively young age of 67, and it's a shame it took his death to whip his article out of Start Class and get rid of a truckload of unsourced original research on it. When you consider that, it really does put all this silliness at ANI and Arbcom into sharp perspective, if you ask me. Hang in there Dennis, you're one of the good guys, really, and even when we disagree (more of that in a mo), we do so in a civil and respectful manner. Ritchie333 13:49, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

• I missed it all and when I read it, wondered if I should comment. Unfortunately I couldn't see straight because my eyes ached from rolling too much. Unfortunately, now it's in Arbcom's hands - they are going to have to act, a decision is going to have to be made, and it's not going to be pleasant. Worm(talk) 13:53, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

• • It isn't just the 6 admin listed at Arb right now (yes, six), but elsewhere I've seen knee jerk reactions and unusual behavior, sometimes venturing into "asshat" territory. It is like the admin bit has given a group of people ADHD or something. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 13:56, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

    It's the weather and the holidays. Every summer we have a load of stupidity. Every. Single. One. I might put together a list. Worm(talk) 13:58, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

    • Yes, but usually it is the new editors just out of school acting like idiots, not the admin. Well, a little bit of the admin. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 14:02, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

It probably won't make you feel any better, but Misplaced Pages is far from unique in having eruptions of silly drama every now and again. It happens in small village societies and little clubs. For example, about 18 months ago I watched a management team of a website lose their temper with each other over seemingly minor infractions and resign en masse. When Rutland regained independence from Leicestershire c. 1997 the sudden absence of a common "enemy" allowed the council to descend into bickering and infighting. It seems to be human nature. Ritchie333 14:25, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Curious, Rutland had its own Eric, aka “Dirk”. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:52, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

If you look below, you see that I've felt forced to participate in two ongoing Arb cases involving 6 admin and others. Hence why I say all admin are idiots. I've yet to be proven wrong nor have I been blocked, so I can only conclude that I am correct. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 18:28, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

A cup of tea for you!

Herbal tea which is supposed to be relaxing. In my capacity as an editor, I order all admins to take a night off from Misplaced Pages patrol and find enjoyment in the multitude of activities which have nothing to do with a certain encyclopedia project. Liz 20:27, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Nature's bounty

	Happy National Ceviche Day (U.S.)
	Enjoy the bounty of foods that nature provides. North America 23:30, 28 June 2015 (UTC) See also: List of food days Source: Ross, Chris (June 23, 2015). "Karina's recipe salutes Ceviche Day". The San Diego Union-Tribune. Retrieved 28 June 2015. {{cite web}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)

 — Berean Hunter (talk) has given you a bowl of yoghurt yogurt! Yogurt is delicious and promotes memory improvement, awareness and WikiLove. Hopefully, this treat has added some flavor to your day.

Spread the goodness of yogurt by adding {{subst:Yogurt}} to someone's Talk page with a friendly message! Give yogurt out liberally to someone you've had disagreements with in the past, or to a good friend.

Consensus requires patience

It occurred to me that a lot of the escalating events this weekend (and on other days) are rooted in an impatience with letting a consensus develop. Accordingly, I have written an essay, User:Isaacl/Consensus requires patience, to advocate for editors having more patience in working together to find appropriate solutions. I have no illusions about this having any substantial effect on matters, but it's always a fun exercise to clarify your ideas by putting them down in writing. If you have any thoughts, please let me know. isaacl (talk) 23:35, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

• What! I don't have time to read that. TLDR.
   — Berean Hunter (talk) 00:27, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Arbitration motion regarding Arbitration enforcement

By motion, the Arbitration Committee authorises the following injunction effective immediately:

1. The case is to be opened forthwith and entitled "Arbitration enforcement";
2. During the case, no user who has commented about this matter on the AN page, the AE page or the Case Requests page, may take or initiate administrative action involving any of the named parties in this case.
3. Reports of alleged breaches of (2) are to be made only by email to the Arbitration Committee, via the main contact page.

You are receiving this message because you have commented about this matter on the AN page, the AE page or the Case Requests page and are therefore restricted as specified in (2). For the Arbitration Committee, L235 (t / c / ping in reply) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:30, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Arbitration enforcement arbitration case opened

By motion, the committee authorises the following injunction effective immediately:

1. The case is to be opened forthwith and entitled "Arbitration enforcement";
2. During the case, no user who has commented about this matter on the AN page, the AE page or the Case Requests page, may take or initiate administrative action involving any of the named parties in this case.
3. Reports of alleged breaches of (2) are to be made only by email to the Arbitration Committee, via the main contact page.

You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has, per the above, accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arbitration enforcement. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arbitration enforcement/Evidence. Please add your evidence by July 13, 2015, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arbitration enforcement/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. Apologies for the potential duplicate message. For the Arbitration Committee, L235 (t / c / ping in reply) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:43, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Kww and The Rambling Man Arbitration Case Opening

You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kww and The Rambling Man. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kww and The Rambling Man/Evidence. Please add your evidence by July 13, 2015, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kww and The Rambling Man/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Liz 18:20, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

• Goody, I get to participate in not one, but TWO simultaneous Arb cases with a total of 6 admin (plus others) under scrutiny. I'm already compiling my evidence. Looks like we pay the tab for the drunken binge that admin went on last week. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 18:26, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Dennis, while you should certainly contribute to these cases if you feel moved to do so, you shouldn't feel compelled to participate. Sometimes, the best way to set an example when people are behaving ridiculously is simply not to take part. It's also important to protect yourself and to decide how much of yourself you want to give to these aspects of the project. For me, there are a handful of issues where I'm willing to go to the mat—mostly those dealing with the accurate presentation of medical and health information, or with severely obstructive user behavior which noticeably affects article editing. For the rest, when it comes to who-said-what-to-whom and the interminable personality-driven squabbles, why bother? We're volunteers. Our participation here should be enjoyable, or at least meaningful, for us. I don't see how participating in these cases will feel either enjoyable or meaningful. Life's short and the future is uncertain, so don't spend time on this out of a sense of duty. Only do it if it feels genuinely important or meaningful to you. MastCell  20:50, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

• Good advice. I may just limit myself to a couple of minor points that I think are getting lost and leave the politicians to figure the rest out. Sadly, my real life is about as messed up and confusing, so doing much more here surely isn't good for my mental health. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 21:45, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

• Don't forget what Count Rugen said: "Get some rest. If you haven't got your health, then you haven't got anything." Heimstern Läufer (talk) 01:45, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

socks of Futurewiki

please check Mega256. sure looks quacky to me. Thanks John from Idegon (talk) 18:09, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

• I can see why you would be suspicious, but it is short of me being able to take unilateral action. I strongly suggest filing a traditional SPI and asking for CU to look based on similarity of :cats and such. As the edits stand now, that is the best option. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 20:49, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

User:Futurewiki

Hi there. User:Futurewiki is now using User:Mega256. I reported it yesterday to ANI, but he hasn't been blocked yet, and continues to make a huge mess. I've been able to spot each sock because we edit the same articles. Thanks. Magnolia677 (talk) 21:53, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

• I just noticed the message above mine from User:John from Idegon, who also edits many of the same articles. What a mess this vandal is making. Magnolia677 (talk) 21:56, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Hey, Magnolia677. I cannot do an SPI right now (on my phone). Could you?

• • I looked again and blocked. I asked for CU at the SPI, but not sure if they will. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 22:10, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

73.166.187.154

You said to have blocked this IP indefinitely, but you actually just blocked it for 3 months. Did you actually mean to block the IP indefinitely? --TL22 (talk) 23:59, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

• If you go back and read the close, I blocked the PERSON for an indef period. I implemented it by blocking that IP for a few months. If he changes IPs, he is still blocked. If he doesn't, you can get the IP blocked longer next time. IP addresses change regularly, and is only an address, not a person, so we just block it for as long as we think it takes to cycle. Rarely do we block an IP for indef. Again, it isn't a person. See also WP:IP addresses are not people. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 00:02, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Change from announced time table for the Arbitration enforcement arbitration case

You are receiving this message either because you are a party to the Arbitration enforcement arbitration case, because you have commented in the case request, or the AN or AE discussions leading to this arbitration case, or because you have specifically opted in to receiving these messages. Unless you are a party to this arbitration case, you may opt out of receiving further messages at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arbitration enforcement/Notification list. The drafters of the Arbitration enforcement arbitration case have published a revised timetable for the case, which changes what you may have been told when the case was opened. The dates have been revised as follows: the Evidence phase will close 5 July 2015, one week earlier than originally scheduled; the Workshop phase will close 26 July 2015, one week later than originally scheduled; the Proposed decision is scheduled to be posted 9 August 2015, two weeks later than originally scheduled. Thank you. On behalf of the arbitration clerks, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 07:58, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Nationalist IP

Say Dennis, as a well-rounded American citizen, could you have a look at 94.14.212.141 (talk · contribs)? They seem to be rather aggressively pro-US and anti-London; I came across them on Park Lane, Boris Johnson and this unexplained removal of content on Footpath. I'm not going to do anything myself as it's reasonably well known I get annoyed by "my country is better than yours" arguments (from both sides of the debate!), but do you think it's worth telling him to calm down and be a bit more neutral about stuff? Ritchie333 08:26, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Duck

Hello. You blocked an editor for making precisely the same deletions as User:Granty123, who was subsequently created and is now making the same deletions (and is an SPA). --Epeefleche (talk) 09:01, 2 July 2015 (UTC)