User talk:Dennis Brown

My barnstars

Deletion review for The Law of One (Ra material)

An editor has asked for a deletion review of The Law of One (Ra material). Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Immanuel Thoughtmaker (talk) 20:20, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

• Thanks for the heads up. Unless I'm specifically asked a question, I will probably just sit it out and allow the community to review my close without my interference. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 20:38, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
  • FYI: There is off-wiki canvassing going on about this article: here. jps (talk) 02:01, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
    • The people I see opining at the DRV are pretty much regulars here, for the most part. Its kind of funny, that forum is just as divided as the community here, so I don't see that changing anything. Just like here, if you forced them all to agree on pizza toppings before ordering, they would argue until they starved to death. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 02:08, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
      • From what I read there is one troll who is apparently some sort of ex-believer. Anyway, thought you should know about how involved this thing is. jps (talk) 03:27, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
        • Ignorance is bliss. Glad I knew none of this before I closed. I just put the blinders on and read the discussion. I can understand the disagreement as to the reading, it is all about how you interpret policy, but I'm still glad I didn't know there would be controversy, as I wouldn't want that to color my actions. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 21:46, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Question

Dennis, do contributions of banned users have to be removed even if they improve an article (e.g., [1]). Seems stupid, but I can't find anything either way in my skimming of the banning policy. Go Phightins! 19:44, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

"This does not mean that edits must be reverted just because they were made by a banned editor (obviously helpful changes, such as fixing typos or undoing vandalism, can be allowed to stand), but the presumption in ambiguous cases should be to revert." seems to imply that they can stand, but I don't want to step on any toes. Go Phightins! 19:45, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Some are slavish to the idea that edits MUST be reverted. "We must not reward socks!" is the mantra, and while I respect that, I don't think cutting off our noses to spite our faces is wise. Personally, if the edits are middle of the road quality or less, I tend to revert but if they do improve the article, I leave them alone. If I'm the one that made the block and someone comes behind and re-reverts me, or reverts where I wouldn't have, I just walk away and leave it to the editors to hash out. I keep the line between editing and admining a bold one. If I'm uninvolved, then I'm not really "admining", I'm just an editor and use my best judgement. Policy does not require that we revert socks, although it encourages it. Thus it is a judgement call, but a judgement of the editors (community), not the admins. We don't enforce policy that uses the word "should" like we do "must" except in the most obvious cases. If the article was created by a sock and almost no one has edited it, then it is almost always deleted under CSD#G5, obviously as an admin. I know I've answered a lot of questions and it might seem a bit confusing, but the right answer depends on the circumstances. And of course, your own judgement may be slightly different than mine in any given circumstance. If I've erred or left something out, someone will correct me shortly :) Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 19:58, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I was involved in a case of this recently, and my feeling is that if we find ourselves fighting to prevent someone improving the encyclopedia, then something has gone badly wrong - I'm not at all surprised how our performance here is often seen by outsiders as a weird translocation of arse and elbow. My suggestion is that, when you see someone stupidly removing good content just because it was added by an officially-condemned unperson, you revert the removal and comment that you personally take responsibility for it now - that way you are saying "I'm adding this content, which I took from suitably-licensed material written by a third party". -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:54, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) If we'd revert everything banned users have contributed, we would have no "Remember not, Lord, our offences", for example, - we would loose a lot! Please tell me that we can't be so stupid. I keep translating the works of the banned and sing their praises, sometimes silenced, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:58, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

help

Well not sure how to word it but im here again with a request for a standard offer I have had it before twice and I will be going abroad for a several months so today is probably the day when you wont see my ip until december Its just a simple request I know I have broken the rules by removing pov pushers when I am banned but if I can lay of for a long time and be given a chance LAST CHANCE I can make a legitimate and honest effort not to sock ever again I have been doing it since 2008 and I am tired off it so is it possible for me to lay for for whatever time period you agree on and come back in the future? I could of asked another admin and received it but I want you on my side since I have noticed you are close to Darknesshines a user who hates me so please one more chance? 109.145.226.245 (talk) 15:33, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

I know this place can make you crazy and it is easy to get pushed into one side of a POV to counteract what you think is POV from another. For some people, Wikipedia can chew you up and spit you out, emotionally speaking. For some, it is flatly an addiction. Maybe even for me a bit, but I can quit any time I want ;)

I'm all about second chances, for a couple of reasons. One, I know that many "POV pushers" are just as I describe above, good people that get pushed into one side of a POV argument and just decide to live there. It brings out the worst in them. Second, I've blocked you a dozen times or more and hundreds of other socks, and I know you can't "stop" sockpuppetry, you can only slow it down. If there is a chance to bring someone over from the sock side to the productive side, it is a double win for admin, plus a win for the editor. But as you note, it means you have to be able to demonstrate some discipline before the unblock, if you want me to believe you can show discipline after an unblock. I'm only one person, so keep that in mind. A standard offer would require community support in your case. I don't have the full history (and to be honest, I'm ignorant on the topic you edit in) but if put in genuine effort to quality for the WP:STANDARDOFFER, I'm willing to entertain supporting it. Even if it is granted, you would be under close supervisiion for another 6 or more months. It would be more productive that what you are doing now, however. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 15:44, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for those words they mean allot I hope we can arrange something because being a sock for 6 years is getting very tiring and emotionally draining with all the stress and anger I will be back this afternoon or tomorrow and I hope by then we can sort something out. Thank you dennis I can see why Darknessshines thinks so highly of you. 109.145.226.245 (talk) 15:56, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Hey dennis whats the procedure now? 109.145.226.245 (talk) 08:58, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

The procedure is to disappear for at least 6 months without any breach, longer is better to be honest. WP:STANDARDOFFER mentions that specifically, although we all just saw Russavia get denied after 1 year (his case was exceptional, I supported, but twice as many opposed). This is demonstrating you have the discipline to do what you say you will do. You then log in to your original account and use WP:UTRS, leave an email and request that I contact you. They will have to forward it to me, I don't have access. I will then email you, research to see if you have kept your part of the bargain, and if I feel comfortable doing so, make a proposal at WP:AN for the ban to be lifted. It would likely come with editing restrictions, hard ones at first, that could be lifted over the following year. Probably ban on the topics that got you in trouble to start with and 1RR on everything, but they would be lifted in time. If you had problems in those areas, they might never be lifted, that is the reality. Or they may simply refuse the allow you come back, and you have to wait 6 months to try again. I'm not going to lie, it isn't guaranteed and it is an uphill climb, however, if you will do what you need to do, I will do what I can. What you are doing now is pretty fruitless, so this would be better for all concerned, even if a bit painful for a while. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 13:20, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Ok got it I will be using this ip AND ONLY THIS IP I will be back to your talk page in six months and we can take it from there hopefully it will work out. So I make it 22nd december as my come back to email you then we can talk about the other dam long processes peace out. 109.145.226.245 (talk) 18:18, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Is there anyway for me to contact you dennis? I will be away from home from 27th June to October 16th and access to the net will be tight and I may have to use different ip which will sort of ruin it If you need to confirm anything with me or discuss issues with the Standard Offer I would be grateful if you could con~tact me on my email by I do not want to show my email on your talk page is there any other way? 109.145.226.245 (talk) 09:09, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Continuing to post here probably isn't helping. As I said above, the best thing is to use the UTRS system and ask them for forward it to me. It will get to me. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 14:49, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Thats okay I will not message you (or anyone else for that matter) until after 6 months have passed sorry for all those annoying messages and thanks again for another chance. 109.145.226.245 (talk) 16:58, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Just so you know Den, he did not last long. Darkness Shines (talk) 13:43, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

• I will look at it later, but assuming you are correct (you do have a pretty good track record), then that would be unfortunate. I had intended on discussing the matter with you privately at the appropriate time if he managed to stay away, but it may be moot. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 13:46, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Moved from the top of my page...

Mr. Brown, I assure you I take this seriously. I will endeavor to provide diffs as soon as possible. Meanwhile, if you have a moment to look at my talk page history, it is all right there. I'll return tonight for the diffs. --Paisan1 (talk) 20:34, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

WP:BTR#Finding users who misuse their user page for advertisement

Hi Dennis. Just to let you know that I asked for such a list as discussed. --Leyo 10:49, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

• I added a note and idea for a simple algorithm that won't be perfect, but is super easy and will catch over 80% of them. Simple things are more likely to get approved. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 13:09, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

YesAllWomen

Hello, a few days ago I raised concerns on ANI regarding repeat vandalism on page YesAllWomen, and you were helpful with board suggestion of WP:RFPP. We are continuing to have problem on talk:YesAllWomen, but now of a different nature. Is there a board that would be appropriate to gain feedback when an involved editor closes RfC without prior discussion or consensus to close it?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:YesAllWomen#Reopening_old_RfC

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:YesAllWomen#Requests_for_comment.3B_Gender_breakdown

Additionally, is there dispute resolution available when dispute includes more than two editors? The editor who closed RfC is fresh off block for edit warring in another article, and their recent participation has been described by myself and at least one other editor as non-collaborative. Things have gotten kind of crazy on page, and if things continue along these lines, it seems we are going to need an RfC, just to open an RfC.--BoboMeowCat (talk) 16:59, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

• WP:DR covers our dispute resolution system, but generally speaking WP:DRN is for content disputes. As far as the RFCs, an involved person should NEVER close an RFC, and it can be reverted at the time. Any closer that is reverted should never revert their own close back, which would show they are too involved, for instance. I would have to look closer at these examples and will try later. Or maybe a talk page stalker will do me the favor. Closing can be done by non-admins, but they are held to the same standards as admin or they will be reverted. In some cases, we have topic banned serial closers who did so poorly. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 17:08, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. If you, or any talk page stalkers, get a chance, could you take a look? Additionally, I want to make sure I understand correctly, would it be appropriate for me, as an involved editor, to reopen it? If so, how do you reopen a closed RfC? --BoboMeowCat (talk) 03:30, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Updating. The editor in question reopened it with drastic changes that make it kind of hard to read or follow. They appear to be in process of editing it further, so hopefully it will improve. Second link above would link to that new reopened version. This is what it looked like when it was first closed. https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:YesAllWomen&oldid=614003069#Requests_for_comment.3B_Gender_breakdown This is getting very long and confusing and I'm sorry to bother you with this. I read through WP:DR, and I'm still not sure where to take this for outside input, if things continue to be non-productive on talk page, so any suggestions would be appreciated. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 05:03, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

• That is a lot of material to read. I've hashed through some of it (no pun intended? 0;-D ), but a couple of things confuse me. It is an RFC about a possible future event, which to me makes it problematic, if not null. Second, the article itself has some notability concerns. By myself, I'm not smart enough to determine since we don't have a ton of previous articles on hashtags, and frankly I'm not a Twitter user, but all this RFC debate seems like a lot of gyrations for little result. I might need to get some outside input on this or find a better forum than my talk page. I'm not sure where to go to contest an RFC, again not something I've done, so give me a bit. This is the point where I ping Drmies, DGG, Bishonen and MelanieN for their input, as I trust their judgement on notability of feminism articles, notability in general, and procedure on RFCs and other WikiGoodies. I don't want to misstep here. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 12:14, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

It's not really an RFC about a future event (or at least it wasn't, but it seems to be subject to ongoing editing and has become somewhat confusing). The debate is whether we should specify the genders of those killed and wounded, in the killing spree which inspired the hashtag. Currently, it is only possible to specify the gender of those killed, because the media never released gender data on those just wounded, but if the gender data on the wounded is ever made available, some want to include it too. Currently, it is known he killed 6 people (4 men and 2 women). Some want to just say he killed 6 people, and link to main article on killings for more data. Some want to say he killed 4 men and 2 women and provide no further details. Some want to say he killed 4 men and 2 women and also refer to a Youtube video he released prior to attack where he said he would enter a sorority house and kill every woman inside. The media has reported he improvised after he was unable to gain entry into the sorority house.

Regarding notability concerns, they have been raised previously. The article has previously been nominated for deletion and also merge. The result was do not delete and do not merge. It's an unusual article that people seem to have strong opinions about and I think that is because it involves the topic of misogyny.--BoboMeowCat (talk) 14:09, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping, Dennis. I'm not inclined to try to mediate anything there at this point, because on reading through the talk page I think mediation would be hopeless. Not because the issues involved are intractable - they aren't - but because there is clearly one person who is causing the problems. The battlefield mentality, the non-consensus closure and rewordings, the arbitrary imposing of one person's views on the discussion - these things are all coming from one person, namely Obi-Wan Kenobi. I suspect as long as he is active at that page it will be impossible to reach consensus, and I wonder if anything can be done about that. As for notability, it may be unusual to have an article about a hashtag but GNG has clearly been satisfied. --MelanieN (talk) 14:37, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

I had a quick look and am inclined to agree with Melanie; I can't do much deep digging today anyway. Drmies (talk) 14:51, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Of the last 100 diffs on the talk page, 52 are by Obiwankenobi. Of the last 250, 101 are. We do appear to have a case of bludgeoning going on. Then he tried to close an RFC that he had participated in [2]. Then he tried to start then close another RFC [3]. So yes, I'm seeing a pattern here as well, and Obiwankenobi does seem to be the common thread. I'm not sure mediating is the solution as well, but I'm not sure which tools in my kit are best to deal with this problem, or if dropping it off at WP:AN for a topic ban or consideration for WP:DE is the solution. The article topic isn't under discretionary or general sanctions that I'm aware of, so my options are somewhat limited here. As for notability, I'm happy to accept the opinion of you two as fact; I just wanted to address that before moving forward. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 14:54, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

received a ping, and just saw the above thread. Dennis I think it's not quite fair to say I closed an RFC - what I did instead was put it on hold temporarily -- I didn't close it in terms of concluding where the consensus lay. Instead, since Tara rejected the RFC question, and felt it was a non-neutral header, Bobo felt the RFC header was insufficient, I felt both her and Tara's additions to be non-neutral, (Bobo's statement, for example, characterized myself and Tutelary as "holdouts", suggested we were unwilling to compromise, and provided no explanation for the positions we held (while providing explanation for HER positions), thus poisoning the mind of the reader.) and Tutelary rejected the additions of Bobo and Tara and finally withdrew the whole RFC. Basically both sides were unsatisfied with the framing of the question, and I felt putting it in abeyance temporarily while we sorted out the framework of the RFC itself would be more beneficial than continuing to argue about the RFC while the RFC was open. I now see that my bold move was too aggressive and it was resisted, so after reflection I undid that change, abandoned my effort to draft a new neutral RFC header (since no-one had shown interest in helping with that) and simply added my own opening statement to match those of Bobo and Tara. I don't think mediation is necessary at this point, as the RFC is now open again, the original statements desired by Bobo and Tara are in place, and I don't plan on closing or opening new RFCs on that page anytime soon, nor arguing further about the language used by Bobo and Tara in their statements. I probably should have started with that option (e.g. adding my own neutral opening statement), vs. the approach I took, and I regret that I caused such drama and apologize for it.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 15:14, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

I understand that we all can get too excited for our own good sometimes. I wrote that essay WP:BLUDGEON as much for myself as everyone else, back in my AFD patrolling days. I do think it is time to place your vote, then walk away, ignore the RFC for a week or two and see how it comes out. Even if you don't mean to, when your comments and activity are equal to half of what is going on, it rubs people the wrong way and makes them feel that their participation is diminished, is being drown out. If they are mistaken in their arguments, let them be. If you have some really good argument against their !vote, sometimes you have to trust that others reading it will already conclude the same thing. Or let someone else reply to it first. Don't let your eagerness to be part of the solution instead turn you into part of the problem. Any time you are participating, you really need to not play cleanup/mediate. It looks like you are trying to force your will. Don't even try. If an RFC has problems in its tone or significant POV concerns, drop off a polite and neutral note at WP:AN (not ANI) asking for a review from a disinterested party. It is a very informal thing. More than admin watch that page, and what is usually needed is simply someone objective and experienced. For now, I recommend editing something unrelated for a week or so and just let the current process do its thing. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 15:29, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Dennis, I think it's a good recommendation. The only thing I plan to continue to edit is my opening statement, which Bobo or Tara has expressed some consternation with, so if they have suggestions that make sense to me I will tweak accordingly, but otherwise I will let the discussion flow.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 15:41, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi Dennis, can you take a look at talk:YesAllWomen toward bottom of page? Despite your recommendation to take a break, Obiwankenobi is still very active on page. I pinged you, but shortly afterward, Obi added an “arbitrary break”, way above text where ping was, so if you referred to section where ping was previously, it wouldn’t be there anymore. Removed break, so it should now be in same section as when pinged, but just in case new talk page section headers are added in interim, it’s toward bottom of page.--BoboMeowCat (talk) 01:23, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Updating, talk page has been re-sectioned again by Obiwankenbi in last few minutes. If it makes it easier to find the section I'm referring to, here are some difs:

https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AYesAllWomen&diff=614161239&oldid=614158648

https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AYesAllWomen&diff=614167527&oldid=614167050 --BoboMeowCat (talk) 01:43, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

hi Bobo - let's be fair, I have only been responding to questions directed at me. I don't think it was expected I would stop talking entirely. I'm not commenting in the RFC and I made only a single trivial edit to it, basically undoing an undiscussed change you yourself made to my comments. If people stop making requests of me I will stop responding but I don't want to ignore good faith questions and requests. I'm not adding anything to the RFC in any case so editors commenting there won't see my name... Also those 'breaks' are regularly used to make it easier to edit long sections of text. Cheers! --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 01:32, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Obi, I really did mean to just walk away and let everyone figure it out on their own. I got the impression you were only going to correct some grammar, clarity, etc. Questions or not, they already know your opinion. I haven't gotten to all the details of this discussion, instead just looking at the gist but I'm really not up for another large case right now, I just don't have it in me. If it gets dragged to ANI, dominating the discussion is going to look bad to the mob that hangs there. You've been here long enough to know that, which is why I've tried to just stop it here so it can move forward without more drama and the threat of sanctions. I would suggest you simply unwatch the page until the RFC is over, as the amount of participation is likely to be seen as "excessive" by outsiders. The choice is yours, I'm not giving order, just advice. Anyway, we have reached the end of what I can accomplish here, and this week is full of medical stuff so I'm really not up for mediating the RFC. Anything else needs to go to ANI tomorrow if it is required, although I hope it isn't. I know this is long (sorry) but let me end with an expression that has often saved me from myself over the years: "I would rather be happy than be right". Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 02:08, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Dennis you are wise as always. I have already started telling people to ping me on my talk page if they want to ask me questions. And again, w.r.t the RFC itself, I haven't made any edits to it save fixing some indents, and I don't intend to do more. I simply request that Bobo not modify my comments any further. Cheers.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 02:18, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

I appreciate the faith. And can we please do just that, leave the imperfections, walk away and keep this out of ANI? In the end, what I really want is good articles. Sometimes it takes bumping heads a little, but lets all try to get through this RFC the best we can, live with the results (whether we like them or not) and get back to editing articles. It IS all about the articles and the people that read them. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 02:22, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Obiwankenobi, I never modified your comments, but I may restore the indentations that make it clear they are the comments of one specific editor, and not a general summing up view of all. Although honestly, I won't be making any further changes today as I'd prefer to take a little breather myself. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 02:51, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

ANI on Ghana

Thanks for the note, I've replied on the ANI thread. -- Lord Roem ~ (talk) 22:28, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Dear Dennis

What do you think of Limiting case (philosophy of science) having three paragraphs now? Now other user is questioning the whole idea because he/she imagines that it is a "rare and strange" term. Thanks! --Damián A. Fernández Beanato (talk) 22:30, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

• All that is over my head, but I'm not sure it fixes the original concern. If it ends up deleted, you can ask for a copy in your user space and try building it up to an article, getting it reviewed by people smarter than me, those who know the subject. If they say it is an "article", I certainly won't stand in the way. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 22:35, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

So upon the article's creation you immediately nominated it for deletion and now you don't care much about it any more? If you hadn't nominated it in the first place, before I had time to write more than two lines of text, if think it would stand as a legitimate article now. :( --Damián A. Fernández Beanato (talk) 00:07, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

No, upon the article's creation, I saw that I was (and am) confident is a topic that is likely never to be more than a WP:DICDEF. The solution is to go to AFD, like I did. If you are still confident it could be brought up to article status, I told you that the solution is to take it to your own user space and develop it there. I don't think it will make it, but I'm open minded to the possibility. If other experienced editors that knew the subject better than I did said "yes, it is an article", I would move it back into mainspace myself. And we are also talking about transwiki'ing the article to Wiktionary.org as well. If I didn't care much about it, I would not have replied at the AFD or here. And I wouldn't have even sent it to AFD for that matter, so obviously I care. That doesn't mean I'm always going to give you the answer you want, however. You can always go to the AFD and add a comment: "I've expanded the article, please reconsider your vote" I'm not convinced it is enough, but I won't argue about it there and let others make up their own mind. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 00:13, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for your work. Sometimes I think that it is me who cares too much about this... lol. --Damián A. Fernández Beanato (talk) 00:17, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

I understand. That is why I said to put it in user space, or just start one in user space. I can help you with stuff like that. I can't help you with the content, waaaay above my head. My expertise is in more mundane topics, but I've been here for years and know the policies, tools and methods pretty well. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 00:20, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

I know how to do it. But thanks. --Damián A. Fernández Beanato (talk) 00:26, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

YGM

As the title implies, you have new e-mail from me. Please respond by e-mail, as I'm not going to disable Javascript a second time. "My master, Annatar the Great, bids thee ^welcome!" 01:18, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

• Read and replied. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 01:24, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

DRV - IFFHS best clubs of the 20th century

As you participated in the AFD, you might be interested in the DRV. GiantSnowman 17:29, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

• I was already looking at that very confusing DRV when I had to attend a meeting. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 18:26, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

MSM blood donor controversy in the United Kingdom

Hi there, could you please move MSM blood donor controversy in the United Kingdom to Men who have sex with men blood donor controversy in the United Kingdom in order to match the main article's expansion of the acronym?

Thank you, Prcc27 (talk)

(I was having technical difficulties moving it..) --Prcc27 (talk) 19:08, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

• About to sit down to eat for a bit. Can you link to the discussion on it? I shouldn't be moving stuff like that around unless there is a consensus and I need to view it first. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 20:09, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
  • The main article being moved was discussed here but the UK article being moved hasn't been discussed yet; I already brought it to the talk however. Sorry, I thought it would make sense if the main article matched the sub-article... I'm not sure how long it will take to get consensus considering that the last time someone used the talk for that article was last year in March. --Prcc27 (talk) 21:19, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
    • There is no rush, any admin can move it, but there needs to a clear RFC or discussion on it, stating what you are trying to do: merge, overwrite, histmerge, or whatever. I never mind doing so, but just so you know, the best place when you need a utility move over another article (and the discussion is clear) is just asking at WP:AN, the admin noticeboard. There is always someone patrolling around, stuff like this tends to get done in a matter of a few minutes if all the paperwork is done. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 21:42, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
      • Thank you! --Prcc27 (talk) 22:16, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

We're looking for closers in advance for a 7-day straw poll

... and someone at WT:COI#Edit warring, and getting the RfC started mentioned your name. In a section above that, I had asked:

Would anyone object to a widely advertised 7-day straw poll to get a temporary answer to the question of how to structure COI RfCs? Seven RfCs at once (last November) is too many, but we're also going to get a bad result if the first RfC to launch shuts out any other attempts [unless the first RfC allows people some leeway to offer their proposals]. Fifteen proposals in one RfC (last RfC at WP:PC#Timeline), including some about a week before the end, is probably too many, but we also can't expect that every reasonable proposal will be thought up on the first day, or by one person. We need some kind of reasonable limits if the end result is going to be meaningful.

If you have time to read the whole section I linked, that will give you a pretty good idea what's going on. - Dank (push to talk) 21:49, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

• I'm flattered and normally willing to help when asked by my peers, but I'm in the middle of a series of tests after spending a day+ in the hospital. My doctor is entirely too worrisome. I'm very confident that all will be well, but there always exists a possibility that I'm mistaken, which would take me offwiki for a few weeks. Nothing for anyone to worry about, I assure you, but it would be irresponsible for me to make a promise that I might not could keep. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 22:06, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Ugh, doctors. Get well. - Dank (push to talk) 22:25, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Stupid, stupid, stupid

Hi Dennis. Just wanted to let you know that I feel even more stupid today after the edit warring kerfuffle of yesterday. When I went to the BLP noticeboard (that you referenced yesterday at AN/I) and prepared to ask for advice on policy regarding names and such on non-notable minor children, I saw that User:Elaqueate had already started a discussion on the same thing. Yesterday. As the edit warring was starting. Has NO clue that his comment here:[4] contained a link to the discussion itself (found here [5]). If I had realized the discussion was happening, none of the edit warring (at least on my end of things) would have ensued. Yeah, that really happened. Thanks for your help and calm. Wish it had all gone differently. I've never wanted to have the blemish of a block on my record. -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 01:22, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

• I've said this a lot lately, but It happens. We can't change the past, it's all about how we move forward. I've done plenty of silly things in the past, including a few things that could have earned me a block if someone was looking (ok, this was back in like 06-07), so you aren't alone in making mistakes. On a positive note, seeing the problem, acknowledging the problem, those are things that make it less likely to happen again. Not for my benefit, but for your own. And learning some less blunt ways to express your displeasure is also a good idea. Honestly, there are times when I might have an edit summary of "I just don't have time for this" but what I'm really saying inside is "fuck off"....the key is filtering yourself before you put fingers to the keyboard ;) Live and learn, I suppose. Thanks for the note. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 01:40, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

,

This is really a list. List of light novels. Hafspajen (talk) 14:56, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

• I dunno. I see it is a list of mainly notable works, but is "light novel" sourced for each? The whole "big anime eyes" trend is kind of after my time, so I'm not familiar. The closest thing to anime I watched/read when growing up was Speed Racer. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 15:01, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Hello friends

As my edit page notice now says, I'm dealing with some health issues right now. Nothing to be concerned about, but it does mean that my schedule here will be sporadic, and honestly, I'm a bit distracted and not at my best. I will still be around doing minor mopping and hopefully some article stuff for a change (speaking of, have you visited Glore Psychiatric Museum today?) I think it would be irresponsible for me to take on heavy or long winded mop lifting as I'm not at my best right now and it would be too easy to miss small details and make mistakes. Anyway, I appreciate your understanding, and don't worry, it is temporary. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 22:47, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Take care of yourself, much more important than anything here! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:52, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

What she said. Eric Corbett 22:55, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

• Rest up, heal up, be well. My best wishes for a speedy recovery! Jusdafax 23:08, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
• best wishes Dennis for a speedy recovery and thanks for your support and wise words which came at the right time. Cheers --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 23:32, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
• Get well soon. Yours, JoeSperrazza (talk) 23:41, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
• Your health is far more important than WP!, Take it easy & I hope you make a speedy recovery. Regards, –Davey2010 • (talk) 23:45, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
• Take care! After all you know better . OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 07:09, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
• It was good to eventually speak to you recently - put yourself first for once and make getting better your priority! -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 07:15, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
• Take care of yourself Dennis and get well soon fast, we'll pray for you. Science.Warrior (talk) 18:23, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
• Get well soon. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:03, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
• Raise up, heal up, be well. Great crop, by the way. Hafspajen (talk) 01:36, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
• Speedy recovery! Doc talk 02:49, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

DYK nominations

Hi, Dennis! Saw your comment at DYK talk. I am happy to nominate DYKs for other people (I always do a QPQ, so it isn't cheating the system.) Now and then if you have one you think could have a good hook, let me know and I'll see what I can do. I'll take a look at the one you mentioned in your comment. Sure, I sometimes get frustrated with the DYK process - especially right now, when there is so much second-guessing after the nomination is approved, or even pulling hooks out of the queue after they are supposedly good to go - but I'm thick skinned and usually willing to go along with good faith corrections and suggestions. --MelanieN (talk) 20:58, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

• The article I linked is bizarre enough that it belongs in DYK, a museum dedicated to high security mental institutions. We probably wouldn't want to use that third image as a main page photo, however ;) I'm also working on another, currently in user space, that would be very interesting but not ready for prime time: User:Dennis Brown/Articles/The Chair of Thomasville I have 5 DYKs, I'm supposed to review one now to submit more, but I would rather deal with edit warriors at ANI than debate at DYK. Any day. And I'm not exaggerating. Maybe it has changed, but what little experience I have with it has been bad enough that I don't even consider it anymore. That is a shame since I tend to write articles on really off the wall or unique cultural stuff, like Knight's Spider Web Farm (got a DYK), Dinah the Pink Dinosaur, the current Glore Psychiatric Museum, Lexington Barbecue Festival and the like. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 21:08, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

I once stalked away from DYK in disgust - after being told that the criteria for a DYK article were higher than for a Good Article! - but then things got better and I went back to submitting. The folks there can still be very picky but they usually do wind up improving the article. (I almost withdrew a nom recently, when a second-guessing reviewer started insisting on what I thought was an unreasonable condition; however, common sense and a second opinion eventually prevailed.) Your article looks great, definitely weird enough to generate a good hook. I am bumping up the referencing on the strange devices so I can use them as hooks. I'll run the hook by you before I submit it; we've got time. Oh, and the text is just barely long enough; want to add any more descriptions of strange devices? --MelanieN (talk) 21:36, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

I could find and add more description for the "dilator", but somehow I think the image is enough. If the text is adequate, I would just go with it as is, I want to be careful to not artificially pad it. Down the road, I may go in and do harder research and find much more on it. I'm sure someone has mentioned it in more than one book before. It sounds like a really creepy place in most ways. I would loved to have visited back when it was in the original prison like building, which would be a statement on psychiatry in that era. Oh, and thank you for your interest, I appreciate that. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 21:51, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Definitely not the dilators; they made even me squirm. I may add a little about the history of the place - about why he started collecting such stuff. And I will continue to add references, if I can find them, to strengthen the hook. (I want it to include the chair, and also the bath and the swing if I can find more independent sourcing.) --MelanieN (talk) 22:10, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks again. I'm not one that savors working alone on articles, to be honest. I'm not a great writer, but I do find interesting and unusual things that deserve an article, and usually I'm more into research than prose. Some of these articles may never be more than a full page, but that is ok: if someone comes to Wikipedia looking for something that would ever pass WP:GNG, they should always at least find something, and some links to more info. Even little stuff like Eliphante, which sadly, I haven't found CC licensed photos of. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 23:13, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Then we'll make a good team. I called myself an "article geek" but I really haven't created all that many articles, 70 or so. I've done a lot more with improving and expanding articles. By tomorrow I should be ready with a hook. --MelanieN (talk) 00:05, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

That is more than I have created. I've been holding out. I cheat and buy books like "Wierd places to visit in the USA" and thumb through them, dig up sources online and if I can find two or three good ones, I will create. I like Americana as a topic. Short articles, but overlooked topics. The other advantage of these more obscure articles is twofold: they are fun and they don't attract drama. My better work would include 1950s American automobile culture, but I had expert help from one of the finest enwp has to offer. That was still the most fun I ever had editing, got a DYK and GA out of it. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 00:27, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Having things at DYK is fun. That one I mentioned above is on the main page right now. I didn't expect it for a day or two but then I never have understood the prep/queue system. Thank goodness there are people that do! --MelanieN (talk) 00:34, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

What discourages me is all the infighting over things that aren't really the purview of DYK. Honestly, I found it easier to get an article through GA than I did through DYK. That is pretty messed up. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 00:38, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Well, let's see what happens when I nominate your current one. Maybe it won't be so bad. --MelanieN (talk) 00:51, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Since I've opined after being pinged on the talk page, we will see. Personally, I don't worry about it. I'm pretty good at handling myself in a scrappy and pointless fight, and lets be honest, admin get an easier ride more often than not. That is part of what is broke around here. I'm more worried about the newish editors that aren't used to the place and get run off from Wikipedia altogether. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 11:34, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

There's no question that the DYK process is daunting, even for experienced editors. And that the attitude of some of the regulars there can be kind of arrogant and aggressive - coming across as "why don't you know this stuff?" They think they are entitled to be brusque and demanding because it is making the project better; I don't agree that scaring off new editors makes the project better; but I haven't participated in the current discussion, which seems to recur every few months without much effect. I do think the recent trend of second- and third-guessing approvals and even pulling hooks out of the queue is a problem. --MelanieN (talk) 16:19, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Wow, your article is attracting a TON of notice even before it goes to DYK. I have never seen such a lot of interest and activity on the talk page of a brand new article. I think you have a winner here! Check out the draft hook here, see what you think. --MelanieN (talk) 16:10, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

• I trust your judgement on the hook. Since being paged there, I think I've ruffled a few feathers but I find it difficult to be less than honest there. It is reminding me why I unwatched the page to begin with. Whether that brings out the best or worst of me, it is too early to tell, but it forces me against the wall where I have no choice but to put things in plain English. I don't like what I see, not in the least. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 17:53, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
• Oh, and as for all the help. I've been very lucky at Wikipedia that way. I try not to ask for help too often, but when I do ask, a number of people have always jumped in and helped me out. I also find that really unusual articles like this attract attention because people want to learn a little more. Stone Soup really works on these transmundane topics. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 18:11, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

How about that - when I went to nominate the article for DYK, somebody already had! And what's more, it was immediately approved! I added a comment suggesting that we include the picture of the Tranquility Chair; we'll see what happens. --MelanieN (talk) 21:29, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Ironic, if you think about it, oddly so. I think you are right that the image adds, although I wish the contrast was better. I appreciate the help on the article as well. It makes me want to visit the place, you just know it is full of scary and bizarre stuff. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 21:44, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Well, here we go - just as you predicted. I'll see what I can do. --MelanieN (talk) 18:11, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Missed the point completely. As you stated, it is about the museum, not psychiatry. The images are what you find in the museum. The prose tells the history of the museum itself and it's current state without giving opinions, like a museum article should. It would be wise if I stayed out of it and leave it to your generosity, which I appreciate. It's a shame, DYK really could be a good editor retention tool but I'm still convinced that it is more likely to run off editors than anything. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 18:37, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Agreed - let me deal with it. I don't mind this kind of discussion. I made quite a few changes in the article, but you have said you don't mind other people working on your articles. And I have proposed a hook more like the one I was intending to propose, and limited to those devices that have independent confirmation. We'll see where this goes; Wikipedia is (or should be) all about collaboration and compromise, not about one side or the other "winning". --MelanieN (talk) 19:16, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

I never mind others editing articles I start, as a matter of fact, I go out of my way to get them to. Like I said, Stone Soup. I'm used to mediating, its one of the things I do regularly here, but I will admit a strong bias here that brings out my blunt side. The bias isn't about the fact that I've edited the article, but about my obvious opinion of the system there. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 19:37, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

OK, I think it's worked out. Had to dump a paragraph and a couple of sources, but actually, I kind of agreed that those two sources were shaky. That's the problem with discussing things with people - you may wind up agreeing with them! 0:-/ --MelanieN (talk) 02:05, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

<<Scream of frustration!>> I worked everything out, met all of EEng's objections. And now the original reviewer - the one who approved everything less than 24 hours after the item was nominated - now they are raising some obscure objection about Original Research! Dennis, you were quite right about how poisonous a process this has become. --MelanieN (talk) 06:20, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

• It should be a lightweight process for new articles that aren't perfect but don't have huge or obvious flaws, but are interesting. If you see my discussion on that talk page, you might note my opposition to it being considered a "privilege". Same with the discussion on the talk page over the "dilators", which seems to be using original research to make an editorial decision. And people (mistakenly) think I'm exaggerating when I say that DYK is not only user unfriendly, but an actual detriment to editor retention. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 14:36, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Above you said The other advantage of these more obscure articles is twofold: they are fun and they don't attract drama. Nowadays it looks like DYK is a guaranteed way to attract drama! Maybe I should think twice about using DYK at all - as you have already done. Way too much unnecessary drama over this article. (Although I have to admit EEng's suggestions made the article better. The hook too, if we can ever agree on one.) --MelanieN (talk) 15:46, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
    • I feel that you are being talked at rather than talked with. Judged instead of "worked with". I would never send any editor there, and instead I would strongly discourage them from participating, again, out of editor retention concerns. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 15:51, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
      • "Talked at" is a good description. EEng and I were able to talk things out and reach agreement, with the result that the article and hook are better. The current reviewer, not so much. Strange, since their initial review was so quick and simple, while their followup review is so - well, fill in your own adjective. --MelanieN (talk) 17:18, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
        • MelanieN, the "Bath of Surprise" was sourced to the original book source in the article, the one I have on my shelf and is the only reason I found out about the place to begin with, but someone removed that source. WHY someone would remove a proper book source is beyond me. Personally, it wouldn't bother me if someone just deleted that DYK abortion. I don't want the pip. I don't even want to edit that article anymore. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 00:26, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
          • I apologize for putting you through that. You were right: that place is just way too poisonous right now. An unpleasant and frustrating experience for an experienced editor; probably Wikipedia-ending for a newbie. (Their chortling at the end was kind of the final straw.) I won't be submitting any more DYKs until the folks there get tired of hassling people (as they will) and move on to something constructive (hey, it could happen). And in the past 24 hours I have advised two other people not to submit their new articles to DYK. One of them did anyhow; hope it works out OK for him. Anyhow, at least now a bunch of people will read the article and find out about the place. As for this article: I advise waiting a week and then re-adding your Roadside book to it - and doing whatever else you want. Off the radar by then. --MelanieN (talk) 14:18, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
            • Wondering if we can re-name DYI the "Wiki Bath of Surprise"? Makes some of those instruments of psychiatric torture look a real walk in the park. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:37, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
              • Actually it looks like our frustration level is mild compared to that of the prep builders. --MelanieN (talk) 23:35, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

I've unwatched the page. I trust the opinions of you both. I come here to have fun and create stuff for readers to enjoy, not play politics. Editing with you two was fun, the rest wasn't. In the time I spend arguing with people there, I could write another articles like it, and frankly, that is a better use of my time. Like I said, I don't want the DYK pip. This is a minor aggravation, I've seen much worse there. If it ever comes to a vote, mine will be to pour gas on the project and burn it to the ground. It is an editor retention nightmare, the antithesis of everything I work hard on at WP:WER. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 23:01, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Please do invite me to help edit the next time you write an article about something weird and wonderful like this. I promise NOT to nominate it for AfD! 0;-D --MelanieN (talk) 23:20, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Oh, you and Martin are always invited in anything I work on. I just want to spend more time on articles and less on politics. I don't blame any individual, I blame the system, hence the need for napalm. My last DYK was a year ago, RV/MH Hall of Fame, which wasn't so bad, but I remember seeing the carnage around me and it put a bad taste in my mouth. I'm an RV guy. Don't have one right now, but I've owned several. Would love to go to that museum. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 23:31, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

MelanieN, I finally opined at that page. I also removed my name from the template. I'm sure my comments will piss off a couple of people, but only those that needed pissing off. I don't blame anyone who nom'ed or helped, if anything, that was with the best of intentions and hopes. Again, imagine if I was a new editor, young, proud of a new article, and had to go through that arrogant mess. I can promise that half would leave and never come back, so it isn't hyperbole when I say DYK is a retention nightmare. We will work on some other stuff soon. I just picked up some books to work on my 1960s automobile industry project, but I have a couple of other ideas as well, maybe some other museums. Of course, Martin and others are invited, I love worked with others, as long as we do so as equals. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 18:11, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

• MelanieN, sorry to see you this all thrust upon you. Very ugly process that doesn't bring out the best in us, myself included. I just grow weary of the constant ad hominem questioning my adminship, ability to source, arguing points without researching them, and simply being wrong on every point but refusing to admit it even when presented with irrefutable evidence on more than one occasion. There are too many just like that, and the place seems to encourage that behavior, which is why new users should avoid that toxic environment. This is why I prefer to avoid it as well. Too many self-appointed experts who have a few good ideas, but it is drown out by their behavior. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 15:40, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

I should have listened to you in the beginning. As you saw, I have now proposed going back to the less-good hook and dropping Yoninah's improvement. Maybe that will make them happy since they "won". IMO it's just not worth any further discussion beating my head against a brick wall. As for the people with good ideas and bad behavior, EEng at least has made his motivation clear: he does not accept the system as it is, does not accept the premise of featuring articles less than a week old, realizes no article that new is ever going to meet his good-article standards. But instead of moving on to a feature whose premise he DOES agree with, he insists on imposing his good-article standards on every brand new article, and takes out his own frustration on the people who are trying to work within the existing system. And while he is busy driving away the nominators, The Rambling Man is busy driving away the DYK volunteers. I apologize, again, for dragging you into this cesspool against your better judgment. --MelanieN (talk) 16:20, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

No apology needed, friend, you did nothing wrong and only served as a voice of common sense there, more so than I. It has been over a year, this just reconfirmed my previous impressions. It is one thing to have an opinion that DYK shouldn't be about new articles, but to force your opinion on others, that is flatly why WP:DE was created. Had I not been involved, I might have dragged him to ANI for the constant insults of others, incivility and obstructionism. It isn't enough to have some basic skills, you still can't attack others and force your singular view on the entirety of Wikipedia. I can spar with the best of them, it's in my nature, but any new editor would have logged out and never returned. Again, DYK needs to be burned to the foundation and salted. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 16:38, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Reply

Hi. Thanks for the message. I added myself to the project with future prospects of creating and perhaps editing articles related to Pakistan as well as the fact that I had created articles in the past such as PIA Flight 544. That is the reason I have the template on, basically to show people I'm still interested, but no plans of editing until I'm given clearance.

That being mentioned I am planning on creating more articles in a few weeks and the sections that include Afghanistan and Pakistan, I plan on leaving empty with a {empty section}. I even avoid sections that make mention of Pakistan, Afghanistan, India or anything that falls within them. I also hope the arbcom is watching my contributions; especially article creations and hope that I'm earning my way to a topic-ban lift in the near future since I'm not here forever. As worm had put it something like "show as you can be a productive editor first".

I also wouldn't worry too much about the notices since participation is declining.--Nadirali نادرالی (talk) 21:26, 27 June 2014 (UTC).

• Nadirali, you don't want to do that. Even if you don't write about those countries specifically, you are talking about topics that cover those countries, thus it is a violation of your topic ban. At the very least, I strongly suggest you discuss this with Worm That Turned before proceeding. When I said you should avoid these topics like they were poison, I wasn't kidding. Even mentioning them here is borderline. I get the feeling you don't fully understand the terms of the topic ban, something BASC should have explained (and likely did). Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 21:30, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

• No you misunderstood, I do understand the terms. For example I'm not supposed to edit Tajik people since Tajiks are native to both Tajikistan and Afghanistan. Whereas editing Dushanbe the capital of Tajikistan is safe since Tajikistan is not banned for me. Specifically, I was planing on creating an article about the Iran-Saudi Arabia proxy conflict like there's one called Israel-Iran proxy conflict. I was planning on leaving he sections on Afghanistan and Pakistan blank since the proxy conflict also spreads to those areas, but if you tell me that's part of the topic ban then I'll leave it till the ban's lifted. To be honest I think I'm better off staying away from political topics, weather I'm banned or not. I'd prefer to keep creating articles on other stuff and keep working on those. Once those are finished, then I'll see.--Nadirali نادرالی (talk) 18:44, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Left a reply on your talk page. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:26, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Beebs. I've tried explaining it on his talk page and here, but I don't feel like I'm getting the point across. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 08:31, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Patterns on socks

Hi, Dennis. I'm fine with you knowing better than I would about possible origins of User:Password00. However, please let me point to User:Password0, and particularly the edit summary at [6]. And, whatever the origin, my guess is that it's pretty likely that Password000, and so on with more zeros, are soon going to extend the sequence, so perhaps those account names should be preemptively blocked. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:13, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

• I removed that tag as well, it could be Joe Jobbing, but really WP:DENY applies. I will raise it at the SPI, but we don't need to be adding to his trophies. I'm not convinced they are him. Several things didn't look right, but I don't want to explain via WP:BEANS. Regarldless, they were disruptive enough to block, no matter who they are. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 01:18, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. What you say makes sense to me. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:21, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Dropped you a line

Hi Dennis. I've dropped you a line on that subject we were discussing before I disappeared off. Worm^TT(talk) 14:38, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

• Reading and replying right now. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 14:40, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Would it be possible...

...to get an indef block on User:BeyondMyKenDoll for obvious reasons? The account posted a sarcastic comment on Talk:The Pierre, which leads me to believe that it was created by User:Ksoileau, with whom I've been having a dispute regarding their addition of room rates to the article. Of course, it could also be someone else trying to stir things up. BMK (talk) 18:18, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

• Just to note that Ksoileau just restored the comment on Talk:Pierre that I reverted (it was clearly not an appropriate use of an article talk page). Still doesn't necessarily mean that BeyondMyKenDoll is him, though. BMK (talk) 18:48, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

  Hey, I posted an appreciative remark. I don't know why you think it was sarcastic. Are you somebody special at Wikipedia who polices talk pages for sarcasm?BeyondMyKenDoll (talk) 18:51, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

  The "appreciate remark" was:

  ==Fabulous!==

  Congratulations on this yummy article! BeyondMyKenDoll (talk) 17:17, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

  Clearly sarcastic. BMK (talk) 18:58, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Dennis: Courcelles has taken care of it, with checkuser blocks on both accounts, 2 weeks for the master and indef for the sock. BMK (talk) 19:09, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Request for admin attention

I would appreciate a admin set of eyes as review on Wikipedia:Archive.is RFC 3 with specific attention to Darkwarriorblake's actions. I consider their response from 17:47, 30 June 2014 onward to be personal attacks against both myself and Werieth. I attempted to resolve this by relocating the offending sub-thread to the talk page base on WP:TPO Removing harmful posts, including personal attacks, trolling and vandalism... with a hook from the original location. Darkwarriorblake did not consider the points to be personal attacks and had been called out by Werieth as being an attack. I request that you please review the actions and take action in the guise of an administrator to prevent further attacks from derailing the purpose of the RFC. Hasteur (talk) 18:48, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

• I just can't today, buried to my eyes in real world work. I'm sorry. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 19:34, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your time. Since you are much too busy, I am taking leave to appeal to annother admin (DangerousPanda). Please do not read this as WP:ADMINSHOP as I'm trying to be 100% compliant with policy. Hasteur (talk) 20:36, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

I believe you 100%, and know you well enough anyway. Trust me, I would rather work 8 hours at ANI than the 8 hours I just put in. Sometimes, the real world is just as ugly, dirty and sweaty. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 20:58, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Unblock requests

I think it's something of a waste of typing for you to be responding as you did on User talk:Ksoileau‎‎ (saying to request unblock some other way). I'm certainly not the only checkuser who patrols CAT:RFU, and we're quite able to accept or reject such requests. In other words, there's no reason to discourage people from requesting unblock from checkuser blocks; they're welcome to do so, and it gives checkusers a chance to double check the results anyway. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 19:49, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

• Jpgordon If it is a checkuser block, I can NOT unblock them as admin. I'm not encouraging them to remove their unblock request, I'm encouraging them to use an additional channel so the likelihood of getting a CU is greater, sooner. I have recently seen a number of CU blocks that were declined by admin, and frankly admin should NOT be declining CU blocks or acting on them in any way. To me, when an admin declines an unblock that they did not have to authority to unblock in the first place, that is a problem, so the note also serves that purpose. One user had three admin decline them, and they were not CUs. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 19:57, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
  • No, you can't unblock them. But any of the checkusers who monitor RFU can, and will if it is appropriate. You might advise the admin who mistakenly accepts a CU block or declines a CU block, but it seems to me that it will only confuse the user (in the rare case where a CU block is inappropriate, though to be honest I've never seen one of those.) I wonder which approach makes more work for us? --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 20:12, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

There should be a specific unblock template for CU blocks. I think I started drafting one somewhere the panda ₯’ 20:19, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

That would be a good idea. My goal wasn't to confuse the editor, it was actually to protect the editor, so that only a CU would consider the block. I think the admin that declined the 3 blocks on the previous user did so in good faith, but they did so mistakenly and it wasn't really fair to the editor. My bet is that they didn't realize that it was a CU block. Unfortunately, they declined without having all the info, right or wrong. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 20:56, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Vacation

I will be gone at least Thursday through Sunday. Need some time away from work and Wikipedia, hitting the beach. It is very doubtful I will have any internet access during that time. On purpose. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 23:36, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Have a good time and relax. Our vacation time started today and we are taking it easy and may take off for the mountains for part of it and then the beach! I hear South Lake Tahoe calling me. I may have to take pictures though. My vacation time is also "field work" for photography.--Mark Miller (talk) 23:42, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Enjoy your vacation Mark Miller and Dennis. Jim Carter ^(talk) 19:11, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Unfortunately, my dog sitter bailed out at the last minute, so I can't go to the beach. Doing a few day trips instead. Went to the NC Museum of Natural Science yesterday, about 2 hours from here. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 15:22, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Maybe that's just as well, since Hurricane Arthur hit North Carolina yesterday. The beach might not have been much fun... Have a good time, whatever you end up doing. Mojoworker (talk) 05:57, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Glore

I know you've taken the article off your radar, but just FYI: It is on the front page right now and will be for another 2 hours or so. Judging by the number of people who are making minor edits to the article, I suspect it is getting a fair amount of traffic. BTW it looks like the DYK process has almost imploded this weekend. Nobody is promoting hooks to prep; I get the feeling the one administrator who works there regularly had to grab six hooks and move them straight into the top queue. This doesn't surprise me; in fact after reading some of the comments from the volunteer queue promoters, I had the feeling it was inevitable. You can only push volunteers so far. --MelanieN (talk) 22:48, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I certainly found it an interesting read. It's a shame that MelanieN et al don't focus more energy on ensuring the quality of the hooks at DYK rather than just whining about the situation. If ERRORS hadn't been jam-packed with DYK problems for the past few months, it'd be a different story. Perhaps, with her expertise in writing, she should engage more with the queues and preps rather than sitting back and watching the ongoing unfold. Easy to be a wise spectator, isn't it? The Rambling Man (talk) 22:52, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Mmmm, I love a good whine. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:01, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Engage with queues and preps? With the atmosphere of that place right now, you couldn't pay me to. And in fact that seems to be the case with more and more people. I repeat: you can only push volunteers so far. And I won't be a spectator any more, wise or not; I have taken the DYK talk page off my watchlist and won't be making any more nominations. One less whiner to annoy you. --MelanieN (talk) 23:04, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Phew. Too many grapes. The only annoyance is this subversive "round the corner" chatter. I don't see any actual fixing of issues, just lots of talking about them. Tsk. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:09, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Don't be foolish TRM, we are a community that is based on consensus. Complaining is part of consensus building, part of how how change happens. Since I initially wrote that article and was forced into DYK (before I stripped my name from that template), she has a perfect right to complain here. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 23:18, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Anyone has the "right" to complain about anything anywhere, of course. Needless to say, though, it doesn't help at all with solving the problem. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:26, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

The Rambling Man, I'm not convinced the problem can be solved. I'm not being cynical here, I'm quite sincere and calm when I say this, and I hope you take me at my word. Back when you and I started in 05/06 DYK was a way to take new articles and highlight them. As enwp has grown, some are demanding that DYK articles are really GA articles with a hook. This is in part because of the Gibraltar drama, some hoax and other drama and other reasons you already know so I won't rehash. The entire design of the system is being asked to do what it wasn't designed to do, it is overly complicated and there is too much drama. Again, I'm not bitching, I'm stating often presented facts here. After the latest round I've witnessed, plus after going back and looking through other DYKs and some archives, I'm really of the mind set that DYK has outlived it's usefulness. We could use something on the front page that might even say "did you know", but I am thinking that the only way to create that new system is to first get rid of the old system, for as long as the old system exists, there will be those that fight tooth and nail to keep it in any form. This is why I use the (albeit, overly colorful) example of burning it to the ground. It isn't about hatred for the idea, it is the realization that the currently problems will continue to exist until we completely remove the old system, then build a new system from the ground up in its place. New foundation.

People mistakenly think it is anger or frustration that cause me to say these things, but really it is cold, unfeeling logic. We can't be afraid of radical change from time to time, or we will grow stagnant. The current system has mutated into something that is rather ugly and that runs off editors. Even you agree with my basic premise here, but I'm not sure that duct tape will fix it. If it seems that others don't want to help fix the system, it may be that they have no faith it can be fixed. We should instead be asking others to help design DYK's replacement, with the goal of retiring the old system and all the baggage that came with it. Fresh start. That would be my first choice. My second choice would be to shut it down. My third option (it would never be a choice) is to wait it out until it implodes. What stops people like me from starting "hypothetical" discussions on a complete replacement is the fact that many who are emotionally invested in the current system would likely be a problem, defending their child. Again, there is no hate, no anger in my words, just logical opinion based on observation. As a businessman by trade, I would normally just shut down a division that had problems like this and bring in new people to reinvent from scratch, but that isn't something we can do on Wikipedia. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 13:00, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)x 3 or 4 - I think the mindset is important. We have to remember that Wikipedia is like a herd of cats, and there is no shepperd. If you want people to follow you, you have to make them want to. Things like GA/FA/DYK aren't privileges, they are accomplishments to be shared equally by those who start and improve the article, and by those that review and help get it to standard. Calling it "privilege" creates classes, those that grant and those that are granted. DYK used to be a light weight system to promote newer articles that had no major problems. If we try to force GA standards on them, it will do more than implode, it will burn to the ground, without any assistance from any outside force.

As for spectating, I would consider it foolish to waste her time as DYK is in utter chaos. She would be better off using her writing skills on good articles and avoiding the pip system altogether, until some policy changes take place that can either remove DYK from the front page, or make it work as advertised. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 23:05, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

I couldn't agree more. Write some articles. GAs or FAs or FLs make some FPs. Boycotting DYK until it's realised it's dragging the main page into the mire is a wise decision. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:09, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

.. surely, you mean cat-herd, Dennis. Lol. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:12, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Need some help

Hello Dennis, I need some help here. I have strong doubts of socks !voting in that AfD. Most of the IPs hasn’t edited anything other than the discussion or the article. Some of the users where very new and haven't edited anything other than the AfD. What do you think, are they socks?? Should I go for SPI?? Your opinion? Jim Carter 06:18, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

• 97.123.55.117 and 97.123.7.170 are unquestionably the same person, but the one's edits stop before the others start. As long as they don't double vote, it is just a simple IP refresh. Whether he is contacting others to contribute, I have no idea but I don't see evidence. 78.47.151.98 and 144.76.174.53 are on different networks but geolocate to the exact same location [7] and [8] and are presenting themselves as different people but I would bet my lunch money they are either meatpuppets or sockpuppets. 144* then registered at User:LuigiToeness, per his user page. User:BeachParadise shows up saying he forgot his old password for User:BeachesParadise (which only had two contribs). The whole thing is a sockpuppet mess and will be up to the closing admin. Each admin is different, and I tend to cast out any sock-ish vote with extreme prejudice, which means it if closed now I would have seen it as delete. As for the article itself, I didn't look, not interested in that topic. Yes, the whole thing is a mess. You can point to this opinion, but this opinion and $2 will get you a cup of coffee, it is up to the closer. I'm not sure SPI could help, it is all backed up so useless here, it is all upon the closing admin to catch all this. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 12:31, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

• It is so blindingly obvious, I just participated as an editor instead of worrying about the socks. These are the kinds of socks that go away once it is deleted, not the typical POV warrior socks that we really worry about. Their efforts are so obvious and would be fruitless anyway, so it isn't worth the time to do all the paperwork, block them, give them a reason to sock more, etc. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 16:12, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

IP you blocked

Pretty sure it's [9] who created the article the IP is arguing with me about on his talk page. Dougweller (talk) 06:29, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

• I'm out the door, promised to take Mrs. Brown on a country drive for some back roads photography. I will give it a look later this evening. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 13:34, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
• Jeez, that is a bit problematic. They both have the same insufferable attitude but different interests. There is also some interleaving of edits, although not SINGLE edits (which would be a giveaway that they aren't related):

• BruceDavidWilner

16:06, 28 June 2014 (diff | hist) . . (0)‎ . . Gatch gereftani ‎ (→‎Synopsis)

16:06, 28 June 2014 (diff | hist) . . (+222)‎ . . Gatch gereftani ‎ (→‎Synopsis)

16:05, 28 June 2014 (diff | hist) . . (+12)‎ . . Gatch gereftani ‎ (→‎References)

16:04, 28 June 2014 (diff | hist) . . (+844)‎ . . N Gatch gereftani ‎ (←Created page with '==Synopsis==.....

• IP 50.128.184.140

16:19, 28 June 2014 (diff | hist) . . (+94)‎ . . Gyro (food) ‎ (→‎Middle East)

16:18, 28 June 2014 (diff | hist) . . (+114)‎ . . Gyro (food) ‎ (→‎Middle East)

16:17, 28 June 2014 (diff | hist) . . (+26)‎ . . Gyro (food) ‎

15:57, 28 June 2014 (diff | hist) . . (-11)‎ . . List of methods of capital punishment .....

15:56, 28 June 2014 (diff | hist) . . (+71)‎ . . List of methods of capital punishment

• There is a "confession" by the IP[10], but one could argue that he was joe jobbing. Have to look very carefully at behavior, as the technical link is kind of weak. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 16:37, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

• Ok, Dougweller, I am pretty confident that he was logging out to edit some types of articles, which is bordering on socking (it is acceptable under some circumstances, ie: fear of retribution) for avoiding scrutiny, but he admitted it and was just using the two improperly, not to fool someone directly. I blocked one year. Had I known it was him before, I would have indef blocked, but this is pretty similar and will simply have parity between his two accounts. It took a little longer because of the unusual use of the two "accounts" but I'm very confident that you were correct in the link. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 17:10, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Jerrysharma

Those links posted by User:Jerrysharma making those accusations against Sitush and others (including me) originated a few years ago from an off-wiki campaign by some caste warriors trying to spread malicious lies in an attempt to hound Sitush off the project. A number of editors, including a large number of socks, were indef-blocked around the time. It seems unlikely that our new friend Jerrysharma would have happened upon those links accidentally, and coupled with the fact that he presented them by asserting they were true, it makes me suspect he's one of the old troublemakers back again - or has at least been in contact with them. I've given him a warning on his Talk page, and I would recommend that any repetition of those allegations should be met with quick and firm action. Cheers — Alan / Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:58, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Actually I was going to block until I saw the warning. Dougweller (talk) 12:04, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

I ended up monitoring after I wanted to go to bed. I was an hour into a muscle relaxer, and I don't like to block when my head isn't clear, too easy to miss some small detail that makes all the difference. I think FutPerf was exceptionally generous but understandably cautious. The account is unquestionably for POV purposes so it shouldn't take long. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 12:12, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Indeed - I can't see him being here much longer. Thanks for the vigilance. — Alan / Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:25, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks everyone for your comments. :)

First of all let me assure you all that, neither I am, one of your old trouble makers, nor related them in anyway, definitely not a caste warrior. Secondly, I am replying just because since a topic for name was mentioned here, I thought of clearing any misunderstandings, and definitely NOT replying to argue with any of the users. :)

Contributing for the first time, it took me some time and effort for writing the article, which I tried to write in most neutral way, as i felt the earlier content was misrepresented and bit biased. Didn't knew who wrote it earlier. My work was reverted completely mentioning just 'Good Faith'. I added a few references, and in the mean time a warning also was issued.

I humbly requested the user to discuss it. Upon talking to the user and ′requesting′ him to remove objectionable terms, it was denied. Upon showing all references in the talk page, I was asked to add specific page numbers; which even were not existing for the earlier content. Discussion lasted for a few hours with no result.

Now, any new user would feel suspicious if such things happen. So, I just casually searched about the person and found a lot of links, blogs, etc. So send it for verification/confirmation to Wiki, and not for making allegations of any kind for anybody, specially for people whom I never talked with/know.

No hard feelings for anybody. :) :)

I am sure you all would like encouraging new people to actively participate in adding contributions to the site.

It would be really great if people are given some time & help to understand the structure, format, policies and guidelines and to properly formulate their pages (e.g. adding references, etc) instead of simply reverting their work. One can always point out their mistakes.

I am sure you all, as experienced Wiki Admins & users would appreciate this.

Regards, Jerrysharma (talk) 16:35, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

• Sorry, I don't buy it. As a student of human behavior, I find the saccharine laced comments to be very out of character for the situation. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 16:43, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. I don't buy it either. Dougweller (talk) 19:29, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Indeed, he arrives and makes straight for a caste article and removes sourced material and adds unsourced puffery, almost immediately accuses Sitush of vandalism when he correctly reverts, knows where to find those accusations created by previous troublemakers and which are obviously false, and heads straight to ANI less than 48 hours after arriving as a "newcomer". If he's not actually a sock, then I reckon there's a strong chance he's acting in a coordinated way - we know the caste warriors coordinate their tactics off-wiki — Alan / Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:46, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

User: 64.4.93.100

Hello Dennis, I would be glad of your advice, as one of my oldest friends on Wikipedia. The above IP user has, to date deleted well over 250 quotes in articles, with the reason they belong in Wikiquote. However, they have stated that they, personally, have no intention of carrying out this transfer. Personally, I regard this as a sophisticated form of vandalism. They have been warned by various editors, although those editors comments have been deleted from their Talk page, and blocked by admin. JamesBWatson for 72 hours ending today. Today has seen yet another massive batch of deletions, which I fear will take a long time to put right. I really think the time for action is now. Advice/action please. Best regards, David, David J Johnson (talk) 19:54, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

• If they are deconstructing the encyclopedia because it should be at Wikiquote, that violates the spirit of WP:PRESERVE, is silly since the quote can be at both, not just one, and is acting in bad faith since they aren't making any effort to move, only to destroy sourced data under false pretense, as claiming it should be moved implies you are moving it. I can see a block in their future, but it isn't cut and dry enough for me to act unilaterally. It needs a nice, calm, concise ANI report with diffs, then the mob community will take it from there. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 20:04, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Dennis, Many thanks for the advice. Regards, David. David J Johnson (talk) 20:09, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

It does not violate WP:PRESERVE because of WP:NOT so WP:WONTWORK. 64.4.93.100 (talk) 20:24, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

We can let the community decide. If you are removing quotes only because you think they need to be at wikiquote, then yes, I would say you need to be stopped. Quotes can be part of an article and shouldn't be deleted simply because they are quotes. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 20:27, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

No they can't WP:QUOTE WP:NOT quotation sections don't belong on Wikipedia. Quotes can be part of an article if they are part of other sections but not by themselves. 64.4.93.100 (talk) 20:32, 6 July 2014 (UTC)