Misplaced Pages

User talk:Dennis Brown

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.

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Dennis Brown (talk | contribs) at 12:05, 27 September 2015 (→Just for the halibut: Thanks Ched). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 12:05, 27 September 2015 by Dennis Brown (talk | contribs) (→Just for the halibut: Thanks Ched)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)


My barnstars

Archiving icon
Archives

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


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

Concerns to not be archived

Your e-mail

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

That problem

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

  • I found it. I wonder if I can just delete the whole article and make them start from scratch, making me the common enemy, and maybe they would join forces instead of bickering? If only it were that easy. It is pretty obvious at that CurtisNaito is using ad hominem, but I'm wondering if Hijiri 88's timing of the GA review was to antagonize rather than solve a problem. Not saying he is wrong (I have no idea, never read the article) just curious if there were better solutions and why he chose a GA review, as those are always drama fests. If I was confident H was antagonizing, then I could overlook C's reaction. I may be forced to just bring them both to AN and get a topic ban, which I think is more effective than blocking. I'm reasonably confident I can get a consensus, as everyone is sick of hearing about them. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 19:13, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
Dennis this is starting to look like a pattern of Hijiri88 using other editors to continue his bad behaviour. There is also this post on Curly Turkey's page by Hijiri88. To me it looks like a 3 way tag team is forming and if one gets caught, the rest will show up at AN/I to defend the accused. AlbinoFerret 21:25, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
@Dennis Brown: AlbinoFerret has had issues with Hijiri and myself separately and has been trying to paint us as a "tag team" ever since he found out we both happen to work frequently at WP:JAPAN. You'd be hard pressed to find us collaborating on anything but defending ourselves from AlbinoFerret. For the record: yes, I'm accusing AlbinoFerret of bad faith. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 21:50, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
  • @Dennis Brown: actually, he had asked CurlyTurkey and I personally, and an open request on the article talk page, to file a GAR specifically because he didn't want others to claim it was filed just to continue "harrassing" CurtisNaito. He filed it because the original GA assessment was poorly done and shouldn't have passed in the first place, and he probably felt that someone had to do it if no one else was willing or able to.
The article in question was completely rewritten by CurtisNaito, who has a history of WP:SYNTH and misrepresenting sources. Even after blatant evidence of his mistakes/wrongdoings are thrown in his face, he repeatedly deflects or denies/ignores it. Even after I warned him on his talk page that I would be monitoring his behavior for violations of your final warning, he thrice now denied that there were ever any sourcing issues when direct evidence was presented, and soon after basically said that it doesn't matter that there were sourcing issues "then" because there aren't any "now" (that has yet to be proven). He and TH1980 have gone so far as to even blame Hijiri for the sourcing issues which CurtisNaito introduced. I think this more than warrants sanctions, since it is now obvious that he isn't going to change his behavior anytime soon. ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 03:54, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
I regret to say that Hijiri88's latest comment, at User talk:Curly Turkey#AlbinoFerret's tinfoil kettle, seems to show a continuation of the habit of rather petty vindictiveness which seems to have been at least somewhat apparent since he decided to trash Catflap on the Editor Retention project talk page. I definitely think, given his persistent, rather purposeless, use of abusive language towards others who might disagree with him for no obvious purpose or benefit other than indulging that habit, that perhaps either ArbCom or maybe a broader "final warning" to Hijiri might be called for, because it does seem to be an ongoing habit of his. John Carter (talk) 18:30, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
The mail was a notice about AlbinoFerret's bad-faith accusation above. Why is AlbinoFerret not being called out on his vindictiveness and drama-fomenting? Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 21:55, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
@John Carter: how is "AlbinoFerret's tinfoil kettle" any worse than you reffering to Hijiri as "That problem"? ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 21:57, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
Sturmgewehr88 (talk · contribs) It wouldn't be, if that is in fact what I had done, which it is not. I was actually referring to the ongoing Hijiri/Curtis Naito dispute, and, honestly, I wasn't thinking of either party individually. In fact, if you had bothered to read my comments, which you rather obviously refused to do before making your unsupportable ad hominem accusation above, I said that I personally didn't find much fault with Hijiri. Having said that, allow me to very sincerely thank you for demonstrating that your input in these matters is rather obviously driven by your own partisan presumptions, and not by any apparent review of the situation being discussed before throwing in wildly unfounded personal accusations against those whom you prejudicially judge. John Carter (talk) 18:16, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
@John Carter: I apologize, and I've struck my comment. I had read your comments of course, however, although you said Hijiri wasn't in the wrong this time, you've stated a few times at ANI that Hijiri is a problem and needs to be sanctioned, so I wrongly thought "that" referred to him. Partisanship has nothing to do with my involvement, I just see CurtisNaito as a disruptive editor who's damage needs to be controlled, and who has gotten away with it more than enough. ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 18:35, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
And you also "just" seem to make irrational, unsupportable judgments regarding virtually anyone who ever disagrees with Hijiri. I am beginning to think, myself, that the allegations of a team effort to support Hijiri at almost all costs is, unfortunately, becoming more obvious. While I can and do understand that some editors would be willing to bend over backwards to defend someone who has been described as "brittle" and "paranoid" by others, including admins, I have to wonder whether the frequency with which they might do so, and the rapidity with which they chime in to such disputes, may be at least as disruptive, if not at times more so, than the problem they might be acting to address. John Carter (talk) 18:46, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
@John Carter: actually I made a rational, supportable judgement that happened to be mistaken, but aside from that, no one on this "team effort" agrees with Hijiri 100%. This conspiracy theory that there is a cabal supporting Hijiri "at almost all costs" is completely unfounded. Did anyone show up to defend him when he just shot himself in the foot at AN? Is anyone going to blindly follow him into the darkness if that's the path he takes? I support him when he's right, oppose him when I don't agree, and walk away when he's wrong, just as I would with any other editor. ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 03:41, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
Or, for that matter, AlbinoFerret posting, with reference to my "bad behaviour" of starting a good article reassessment (!), Dennis this is starting to look like a pattern of Hijiri88 using other editors to continue his bad behaviour. There is also this post on Curly Turkey's page by Hijiri88. To me it looks like a 3 way tag team is forming and if one gets caught, the rest will show up at AN/I to defend the accused. Referring to this a tinfoil hat theory, and lampshading the fact that AlbinoFerret and John Carter are the last people who should be talking about "tag-teaming", is not a personal attack even approaching the gross assumption of bad faith that inspired it. The only reason
  • I'm just curious how far this will go. This isn't ANI, after all. My first question would be "is the GAR of the article a reasonable action?", and no, I don't want to hear from ANY interested party, but instead by someone completely outside the article, including stalkers. Dr. Blofeld is very high on the list of people whose judgement I would trust in such a manner, although I wouldn't blame him if he didn't want to volunteer to look only at the merits of the GAR, and ignore the drama. John and Ritchie333 are other obvious choices, and lord knows there are plenty more who know GA well enough to objectively judge if the GAR is a reasonable response. That isn't the answer, that is just the first question. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 22:12, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
User:MSJapan is pretty uninvolved and neutral, and he agrees the article should be delisted. It seems inappropriate for someone to claim that an article should not be delisted as a GA unless they themselves have examined the article. But I agree, some even more outside input would be welcome, and I very much hope one or more of the users you name will show up on the GAR.
And no, my timing was not a violation of your last warning, because I was already drafting the GAR several weeks earlier. None of my comments on GAR have violated BLUDGEON, IDHT, V, OR, NPA or AGF: Curtis, on the other hand, has now violated your final warning at least three times without so much a wrist-slap.
Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:12, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Commented here. Yes, an inadequate GA review, but on the surface it does seem to have the basics and is well sourced enough for GA. The question is whether the sourcing issue is as extensive as H88 suggests. That does need to be sound for GA. I do think given its importance that editors should work hard in good faith towards retaining it as a GA instead of an immediate delisting, but it depends on whether it'll take days/week or two or months to really fix. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 06:43, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

If the editors focused their efforts on working out the problems I imagine it would be fixed in a reasonable amount of time. The disputes at the article go far beyond those between Hijiri and CurtisNaito, though—different editors have different ideas about what needs to be there and are bickering about it rather than working towards solutions. There have been 240 edits by 35 editors to the article since the promotion less than a month ago and still a lot of criticism from knowledgeable editors on the talk page—concerns about bias and missing key names and events, etc. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 07:54, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
I suggest working on a draft at Misplaced Pages:History of Japan to avoid edit warring and then a neutral admin can review the changes and update the article once there is general consensus. Might be difficult seeing full agreement on such an article though.♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:10, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Let me be clear about my intentions: My first goal is always to find a resolution that doesn't use any of the admin tools or authority. That is a given. Second, I raise this question because I can concerns that Hijiri88's choice to go to GAR might have been unwise (best case scenario). It does seem the timing wasn't exactly brilliant, considering it would cause a lot of drama and there are other options available. This isn't about rules or policy, this is about judgement. I'm going to take the good doctor at his word and assume that GAR was one option but not the only option. I have no interest in delving into the content here, that is outside of the scope of my role. The objective is finding a solution, not one that is best for Hijiri88 or CurtisNaito, but one that is best for everyone else trying to edit that article, because I'm more concerned about that, and general fairness, than I am individual editors here. Dr. Blofeld has offered a suggestion, taking it to a neutral area and rewritting major sections while leaving the current version more or less intact. Technically, it can be done as a subpage of the talk article, but where isn't so important. I'm interested in hearing what the two parties think is a fair way to start building a consensus. If we can't find common ground and at least start working in the same direction, it kind of forces my hand here, because the drama is piling up too deep with this topic. We are reaching the edges of what is proper to deal with on my talk page, and approaching an WP:AN discussion. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 13:12, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
I hesitate to post this, because your talk page may not be the best place to go into details. But Hijiri88 has posted to Dr. Blofeld's talk page. That post is directly on point to past negative behaviours "TH1980, a long-time enabler of the nominator and longer-time wiki-stalker of me". AlbinoFerret 17:17, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
@Dennis BrownDr. BlofeldAmong the many problems with the good article review, the biggest problem is that all the issues which Hijiri pointed out in his introductory statements are issues which he already changed before bringing the article to good article review. Hijiri made minor clarifications, and I disagree they were serious problems, but ultimately good article review should be about correcting problems that exist in an article, not problems which no longer exist. Hijiri did not mention one single problem with the article which had not already been changed. I doubt the article will be delisted based on nonexistent problems, so the good article review is not particularly useful. I think the best solution would be to cancel the good article review and discuss any remaining issues, if there are any, on the article talk page.
However, it's true that there are some trust issues. I verified the citations in the article, but Hijiri doesn't believe me. The user TH1980 also verified the citations, but Hijiri doesn't believe him either. TH1980 and I have both read the book written by Kenneth Henshall, whereas Hijiri has acknowledged that he doesn't actually have access to the source he is criticizing.
We could certainly redraft the article, but I have to ask Dennis Brown and Dr. Blofeld, who will do it? I could do it, but I'm not sure if Hijiri would accept that. TH1980 has read and verified the sources cited in the article, and he says that he wants to do "a thorough copy-edit" on the article. Therefore, he could probably play a major role in the redraft, but would Hijiri accept that? Hijiri just yesterday called TH1980 "a long-time enabler of the nominator and longer-time wiki-stalker of me" which doesn't seem to indicate a collaborative attitude to editing with him.
Hijiri himself has said that "my involvement with redrafting might be minor", so he apparently isn't going to do it. Curly Turkey says, "I've withdrawn my services", so he apparently isn't going to do it. Like I said, I have time to volunteer my services for this project, but if my participation isn't acceptable, then we need to know, who will write the redraft?CurtisNaito (talk) 17:27, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
The sourcing concerns which were raised don't appear to have any merit, but one other user did mention the need for a copy edit of the article. I don't really want to redraft the article myself, but I will copyedit it and once I finish my copy edit redrafting probably won't be necessary. I would like Hijiri to not make any further personal attacks on me like the ones he made yesterday, but this post was also brought to my attention, and if Hijiri has something he wants to say to me I'd rather he say it to me directly rather than ask another user to speak for him.TH1980 (talk) 20:25, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
I'm the one who called for a copyedit. Actually, I had begun one before I was chased off. I also don't trust TH1980. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 21:15, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
Give TH1980 credit for volunteering to handle the copy editing. I personally prefer action to talk. Besides, he wasn't the one who "chased you off". Still, having two copy editors is not a bad thing, and since you are still actively commenting on the talk page, you should really consider helping him out by contributing some additional copy edits of your own.CurtisNaito (talk) 21:27, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
I personally prefer action to talk.: I can see that—every attempt I've made to open a disussion has been shut down. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 22:05, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
The two people who you accused of shutting down discussion have not edited the article in a week or more. I think we already have ideas down on the talk page, and if someone thinks the ideas are good, then they might as well go ahead and make an attempt to translate ideas into article edits.CurtisNaito (talk) 22:26, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
  • To be clear, I do see Hijiri88 as the primary problem here, but not the only problem. As far as the GAR, it has already started, I'm not even sure the process to reverse or whatever (I'm not a GA specialist) but maybe you can ignore the opening statement and just use it as an opportunity to verify anything that really isn't, and to clean up the copy where needed. You both put me in tight spot. The easiest thing is to push a topic ban for your both at WP:AN, and given all the problem, I don't think it would be that hard to do. What I would prefer is if you find a way to work together. The personal comments by everyone (yes, Hijiri88 in particular, but everyone) needs to stop. I'm not remotely thinking about short term blocks here, it will either be long term or topic bans. At the end of the day, my job is to help make the article a pleasant place for everyone to edit. It isn't to verify who is right or wrong on content. That is YOUR jobs, all of you. Work with what you have. And when this is through, and perhaps anywhere else, avoid each other. I have a quote from one of my favorite shows Farscape on my user page, by Scorpius. "My patience is formidable.... But it is not infinite." All this fussing over what should be simple has exhausted the patience of everyone. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 21:09, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
Well, if you have a good idea for working together tell me about it. I can redraft whatever portions of the article need to be redrafted once we know what criteria are supposed to be used for redrafting. TH1980 has been kind enough to verify the sources and start some copy-editing. If anything else is necessary, I might be able to handle it once I know what it is.CurtisNaito (talk) 21:22, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
Dennis Brown, please point to a single personal comment made by me since your final warning. We all know CurtisNaito and TH1980 have been resorting almost exclusively to ad hominem remarks, but where have I done so? Where have I violated IDHT and V and NOR? Why have you not blocked CurtisNaito for repeatedly violating your final warning? Why are you repeatedly threatening to block me for supposedly violating your warning even though no one can find any evidence of me doing so? If you really want to make editing the page better for everyone but me and CurtisNaito, why don't you do what they would all request and block or TBAN CurtisNaito, who is the one disrupting everything? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:08, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
Your comment at WP:AN, which continues your ongoing tendency to gratuitously insult others while at the same time displaying your remarkably poor grasp of basic conduct guidelines, is I think a very good example of it. At no point did Dennis say he could find no evidence of misconduct. He didn't. Please refrain from this other rather silly habit of yours, attempting to put straw man arguments in the mouths of others for no other purpose that I can see than distraction. Dennis, I believe the obnoxiously insulting comments made by Hijiri at AN are themselves grounds for a rather longish block, particularly considering your prior warning, but believe that decision is best left to you. John Carter (talk) 01:27, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

FYI, you may or may not be getting an e-mail from another editor in the next few days regarding an early matter marginally related to this incident. If you don't, let me know, and I can forward to you what I have. John Carter (talk) 23:08, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

On strike

Hi Dennis. I can't see why you saw the need to go on strike. At least it's still there and users can read it. Though it does reinforce my assumption that a great many participants at Misplaced Pages discussions are very poor readers of others' comments; not even an allusion has been made by any of the other voters to my earlier subtle reference to that page in my own oppose vote, which if anyone had taken the trouble, and put two and two together, they would see that it was practically my main reason for opposing. Anyone who defends the notion of incivility with impunity for prolific content providers and FA reviewers, or who maintains that Misplaced Pages's record holder for block logs never issues unprovoked PA and back-stabbing, or who regularly joins forces with the AAB, does not, IMO, merit the admin flag. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:45, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

If you're referring to me then you've got a lot of explaining to do. Let's start with "back-stabbing" shall we? Eric Corbett 01:59, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
Two people I respect complained, one publicly, one privately. I disagree with them, but respect them enough to at least compromise. Of course, none of this was Eric's doing, it was her own choice. If it were a non-RfA editor, then I could overlook a bit, but while someone is at RfA, I hold them to the standard of admin in their conduct, and had I done the same thing, I would expect both friend and foe to hold me to account for it and at least scold me. Whether it was truly canvassing or just bad judgement I can't say. I honestly have little interaction with Montana and never have had a bad experience or impression as editor, so all this stuff at her RfA has been surprising. The couple of times I've chatted privately with her, she seemed quite likable, but that isn't the criteria. Striking was easy enough because I don't think there is a very strong chance it will pass anyway. I don't expect to move from neutral, although the incident obviously made me ponder it. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 06:56, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your input on my RfA blunder

I wanted to express my gratitude for you taking the time to comment on the unfortunate incident I caused by inadvertently voting in an RfA process. As a new user who had already publically embarrassed himself, the extremely intense and cold treatment from the anti-sockpuppet editors was almost completely disheartening. An encouraging edit was a welcome sight. Thank you, Jasphetamine (talk) 14:36, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

  • Not a problem. Best to avoid meta areas like ANI, AFD, RFA and all the other acronyms until you get a feel for the place. it is a bit rough and tumble, and frankly, articles are way more important anyway. The WP:Teahouse is a good place to start with questions, lots of very nice people there willing to help. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 15:00, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Yulia again

Disruptive editing has resumed on Yulia Tymoshenko which you semi-protected on 30 August 2015. I reverted two disruptive edits by Gal777, which were suspiciously similar to the previous ones. Could you, please, have a look? Againstdisinformation (talk) 16:22, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

  • I'm kind of stuck, that is one person and he is likely autoconfirmed by now. At this stage, I recommend calmly explaining to him why you reverted on his talk page. A show of good faith. Taking action too quickly is dangerously close to an admin deciding content, something that we have always avoid. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 16:57, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
Good day! The user:Againstdisinformation has deleted the information about the decision of the European court, as well as information about Russian aggression. It is no secret that Russia is at war against Ukraine. Therefore, I believe that the user:Againstdisinformation is working against Tymoshenko.--Gal777 (talk) 17:39, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
Jesus Christ, you have got to be kidding me. So he's a KGB agent now? If you are here to right great wrongs then your career is going to be a short one. Use the talk page, edit less, stop accusing people of being agents for Russia, or you will end up blocked. If you can't work with people you disagree with, you can't edit here. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 20:59, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
Sorry, I just do not want to Tymoshenko on page removed important information about the European Court, political persecution.--Gal777 (talk) 21:09, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
Then take it to the talk page. See what a consensus (kind of like a majority) of other editors think about it. Then live with that consensus. This is how we do everything here: slowly, deliberately, with consensus. We are an encyclopedia, not a newspaper. Our job isn't to get it fast, it is to get it right. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 21:11, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
thank you! The fact that information about the European Court very important information on the page. I will definitely discuss this topic.--Gal777 (talk) 21:18, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
Well, he reinstated his edits without discussion. I will explain to him on his talk page why his edits are not constructive. After that, I am afraid I will leave the matter to you. I hope you won't mind, I have already been accused of edit warring, even of being paid by the Kremlin, for pointing out inaccuracies (euphemism) on this article and another one. However, I think we cannot leave the claim that ECHR recognized Tymoshenko was tortured on Misplaced Pages. It is simply not true. Againstdisinformation (talk) 22:04, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

ARCA appeal

You are involved in a recently-filed request for clarification or amendment from the Arbitration Committee. Please review the request at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment#Imposition of an Arbitration Enforced Sanction against me by Bishonen and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the Misplaced Pages:Arbitration guide may be of use.

Thanks, Soham321 (talk) 19:59, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Real Life Barnstar
My family is also former military. I don't know you, but I know that. Darknipples (talk) 02:52, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Dark. I don't get preachy about it here, but I'm a supporter of all those who serve. Having done so myself, I understand the sacrifice involved. Having been a military brat and having a father gone most of the time before I was 5 while he was in Asia, I understand that sacrifice as well. It isn't an easy life, either way. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 19:23, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Thank you

I appreciate your good faith efforts on my case. Brad Dyer (talk) 19:15, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

  • No problem. Politically charged cases are tough, and I'm sure I will catch hell for it from a number of people, but all I can do is follow my conscience, which said that it was past time. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 19:21, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
    • In the future, before you unblock an editor who was part of the crux of an arbcom case, can you please tell the list. --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 20:11, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
      • There was no action on the case and no Arb had spoken on his page during his 30+ day long block, nor as an Arb at the SPI, so I assumed there was nothing unknown to me, but by all means, I will do so in the future, User:Guerillero. Anyone looking at the page knew I was considering it, and if Arb didn't want him unblocked, it would seem *some* kind of notification should have been given in public on his page. Even Floq, a former arb who extended the original block, made it clear that any single admin could unblock without permission. So you can see why this is a puzzling message for me. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 20:17, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
      • In the future, if ArbCom wants to be able to veto an unblock, can they please tell everyone else? --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:26, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
        • @Floquenbeam: (I am not speaking for the arbs.) The account was tagged as a sock and the SPI was quick closed as a DUCK case. I would have liked for a CU to confirm that this isn't NorCal before unblocking. This is especially true because I, and I think most people did too, assumed that Brad was a sock before the case was accepted. Now, we need to reexamine if our outlook on the case needs to change because our assumptions were false. I'm sure you remember this yourself, Floq, how difficult cases become when things shift in the middle. A heads up would have been nice. However, what is done is done and I am not going to run a CU to look more into this. --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 20:52, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
          • @Guerillero: The SPI was archived, I'm the one that reopened it, just to be sure, and tried to get evidence so a CU would look at it. There was no evidence presented in that SPI, it was a promise of email. At no time during that case, there was never any evidence presented outside a vague claim by the reporter. It was open 36 days before a CU closed it due what I imagine is a lack of evidence presented. The case can still be reopened, for that matter. This is one reason I made the call on the block, as I knew the SPI rules, having spent a year as clerk and have 1500 SPI blocks behind me, thus familiar with the case fully. As an admin, I can't keep him blocked due to a pending SPI (even tho I did), there is no policy that supports that. He satisfied the other requirements for an unblock. Still now, I see a routine case, even if it started as a politically charged one. I promise, I will contact CU, Arb, whoever, if the situation warrants it, and I did in this case: CU. Arb never asserted a right to review in the block log, where I would expect it to be. Again, you message caught me off guard, since I had already put it in front of Functionaries. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 21:33, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
  • I am rather shocked to see you didn't bother to notify me that you re-opened the SPI. I didn't archive this willy-nilly, at the time I did so I had checked the account twice, and found it consistent with everything I could find to NoCal100. (Admittedly this is not an exact science with old data, but the data does line up as it exists.) Courcelles (talk) 02:15, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

This is twice now that an Arb has piped in. Vanjagenije closed with case with the comment "Already blocked. Closing the case", and removed the CU request in the process. You archived with no comment. (note: normally, a CU that ran a CU didn't used to close or archive, leaving for uninvolved persons to do) I reopened it and notified the clerk, who then came to Brad's page saying he closed it due to "procedural grounds", ie: Brad being blocked for other reasons (when did we start dropping cases for this reason?). No evidence was presented. Vanjagenije previously put a tag on Brad's page, but later admitted that the case had zero evidence and wasn't pursued, so that can't be used as "evidence", it is just a template, and the clerk should have spoken up if there was more to it.

There is no public record that you ran a CU here or did anything with this case. You mashed the "archive" button, the most mundane thing a person can do at SPI, Courcelles, that is all I can see. It is unreasonable for you to come here now on my talk page and say that I should have contacted you, and the same for Guerillero. I've tried to be very careful with the case, and respectful with the above concerns, but this is ridiculous. Look at the time frames, This review was very public and drug out over a month, using all the public information available, multiple pings to the blocking admin Floquenbeam included. I followed policy as closely as you can do here, I do NOT have to contact CU or Arb unless there is a block summary or other notice in an obvious place, yet two Arbs are on my page telling me I fucked up because they didn't tell anyone they had more info (it sounds like Guerillero didn't even know about your CU). No one marked/reblocked his block log as a CU block, which is absolutely standard operating procedure, we all know this. Admins aren't mind readers and it is unreasonable to come here and tell me I should have been. If you guys have CU evidence that he is a sockpuppet, why haven't you blocked him with a CU block now? That part makes the least sense of all. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 06:59, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

  • When a CU is doing the archiving, it is not without looking through to make things are in order, and to make a general once-over that things are running well. I load them all up, see what went on, often run sleeper checks, and only then archive them away. It was my edit and action you reverted, not the clerk's, and yet it was only the clerk you made aware of the action. If I had been so informed, I would have reblocked. Courcelles (talk) 17:58, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
    • It is odd that CUs archive differently than admin or non-admin clerks, but I will take you at your word. I did revert your close, but you wouldn't have unblocked, as that was almost a month before I unblocked. I notified the only name that communicated in the case that was associated with SPI in a formal way. If CU archives are so very different, it would seem your clerk should have notified you. I get why Yunshui might not see what you see (pixie dust and all) but I'm still confused as to why the block then, but no block now. This is just a prime example of the confusion that takes place when things are publicly announced. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 18:52, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
The public record of the checks is here, Dennis. I'm speaking only for myself (no Arb hat), but were I considering unblocking in a case where the user had been checked that many times (and not unblocked) I think I would have asked for a CU's opinion first. I don't want to pile on here, and I do appreciate that you're trying to act fairly, but in a case where private evidence has been submitted and multiple CUs have been run (and none have listed an "unrelated" result anywhere), unilaterally unblocking may not have been the best idea. I accept that you got very little input from others on this unblock, and I think we (Arb hat briefly on head for the pronoun) could have done more to monitor this case. Going forward, you may want to put this up at AN for community review, since it's clearly a divisive issue. Sorry that it's come down on your head. Yunshui 水 07:21, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
Yunshui, that "public record of checks" is not public. Non-checkuser's (myself included) cannot see it. Unless there is something at an SPI, non-checkusers have no idea if an individual has ever been checked - let alone "that many times". Worm(talk) 07:39, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
Exactly, I get a permission error, I can't see that log. A CU could/should have reblocked "Non-CU block, but please consult a CU before unblocking", or something to give us lowly admin a heads up. You guys have no idea how much homework and consideration I put into this, leaving it going for over a MONTH. Had anyone paid attention, there was plenty of time to protest. Floq did, but for non-CU reasons, and weighed heavily into why I waited so long. Once I had what appeared to clearance by a CU, Mike V (at the SPI), I felt he HAD to be unblocked if we were to be treating him like any other editor. It isn't my fault I didn't know about the CUs, you guys kept it secret. This is why I don't appreciate being spanked on my talk page. It seems like no one has actually bothered to look closely at the sequence of events, something that Arbs are supposed to specialize in. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 08:33, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
trout Self-trout I do apologise, I honestly had no idea that log wasn't public. In that case, forget I said anything; you were acting on the information you had available and ought not to be hauled over the coals for an unblock made in good faith. Yunshui 水 08:54, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
No problem Yunshui, I never doubted your intent here. This is really a case where the CU made an innocent enough mistake and didn't reblock with some kind of note. In all honesty, these things happen and I can completely accept that, no one is perfect, it isn't even troutworthy, but now is the time to fix it if it needs fixing. It was just the sudden arrival of a gaggle of Arbs on my talk page telling me that I screwed up (without having the full story) that is disconcerting. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 09:06, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
FWIW, I've now done some CU investigation in the process of reviewing this issue. I'm not familiar with the NoCal100 case and so could conceivably have missed or overlooked something, but going purely on the technical evidence available at this time I would conclude that Bad Dryer is Red X Unrelated to the NoCal100 group. Yunshui 水 09:24, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
You're of course making an accurate conclusion given the 90-day data retention. I just think you're mistaken on a (significantly) longer timeframe. Courcelles (talk) 17:58, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Hey Dennis, I don't have the heart to wade into this complicated mess too deeply, but just want to confirm here what I said on the blocked editor's talk page a week or so ago; I wouldn't have unblocked myself, but knowing what we knew at the time, I don't think you did anything wrong in unblocking; you can't take into account what you don't know. To the extent that my comment "any single admin can unblock" put you in an awkward position, I'm sorry about that. --Floquenbeam (talk) 13:47, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
    • Not a problem Floq, your comment only serves to demonstrate that both the blocking and reviewing admins were under the impression that this was a run of the mill block. Technically, I had every bit of authority to unblock him pending the SPI, but good judgement said it was better if I didn't. And I completely understand you were against the unblock, which made it difficult to do because I respect your opinion in these matters, even when we disagree. In the end, I followed my conscience and granted a 2nd chance after considering his appeal. Whether or not I was a fool to do so, only time will tell. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 14:00, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
      • Y'know, I have a really strong feeling you could get CU rights yourself rather quickly and easily, if you wanted them. I dunno when the appointments are done, though, and evidently it is only about once a year. John Carter (talk) 18:05, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
        • I appreciate the vote of confidence John. I applied one year, a couple years back. Not sure I would want it now. I have the base skills, but not sure I would want the hassles. Besides, for all intent and purposes, CU's are hand picked by Arb, the community just signs off on Arbs choices. Somehow, I get the feeling I wouldn't top their list. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 18:52, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Just for the halibut

The Mushroom Barnstar
For being kept in the dark, and being fed nothing but shit, Ched would like to award you this Mushroom Barnstar.

You've had a rough week, and you should get something for all your hard work. — Ched :  ?  06:05, 27 September 2015 (UTC)