Dennis Brown (talk | contribs) →"It appears I have little support": clarify |
HafniumDrive (talk | contribs) |
||
Line 342: | Line 342: | ||
:::As for Dan Fogelberg, that was worth a smile. I've heard a few comparisons to different people, but I don't see it. At least no on has said I look like [[Clint Howard]] [http://images.thevine.com.au/resources/IMGDETAIL/Clint_Howard_-Detail_170310111244.jpg] :) [[User:Dennis Brown|<b>Dennis</b> <b>Brown</b>]] - [[User talk:Dennis Brown|<small>2¢</small>]] [[Special:Contributions/Dennis_Brown|<small>©</small>]] <small><b>[[WP:WikiProject Editor Retention|Join WER]]</b></small> 13:27, 23 October 2012 (UTC) |
:::As for Dan Fogelberg, that was worth a smile. I've heard a few comparisons to different people, but I don't see it. At least no on has said I look like [[Clint Howard]] [http://images.thevine.com.au/resources/IMGDETAIL/Clint_Howard_-Detail_170310111244.jpg] :) [[User:Dennis Brown|<b>Dennis</b> <b>Brown</b>]] - [[User talk:Dennis Brown|<small>2¢</small>]] [[Special:Contributions/Dennis_Brown|<small>©</small>]] <small><b>[[WP:WikiProject Editor Retention|Join WER]]</b></small> 13:27, 23 October 2012 (UTC) |
||
== Libel as a synonym for slander == |
|||
Hey man, I understand there is a good bit of admin politics going on right now, so I hopefully won't take up much of your time. I was just wondering, if a user expresses an opinion in a talk page that one sentence in an article is ''false and libel'', would that user likely become banned as making a ''legal threat''? |
|||
Seems to me, saying something is 'libel' is much the same as saying something is slanderous and it's not a big deal. |
|||
I could be wrong, |
|||
Appreciate if you could clear this up, |
|||
Thanks! |
|||
[[User:HafniumDrive|HafniumDrive]] ([[User talk:HafniumDrive|talk]]) 13:58, 23 October 2012 (UTC) |
Revision as of 13:58, 23 October 2012
User:Iamthemuffinman's unblock request
Hi Dennis. Iamthemuffinman has (finally!) posted a sound-looking unblock request, which I'm inclined to grant. However, you and a number of other admins have been involved with his block in the past, so I'd like to get your take on it too; if you have a moment, please could you have a look at User talk:Iamthemuffinman and leave an opinion? Cheers, Yunshui 雲水 12:53, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
- That is a globally locked account, blocked on all wikis. I do believe that Arb is involved although it isn't documented on-wiki. I am certain there is more than meets the eye going on. I would strongly advise against any unblock that doesn't come directly from ArbCom in this particular case. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 13:12, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
- Advice appreciated, as always. It looks to me as though the account is now unlocked (otherwise it's my understanding that he wouldn't have been able to file an unblock request in the first place) but I've virtually no experience with global locks and defer to your judgement - I suspect I'm misunderstanding the log. Much obliged, Yunshui 雲水 13:31, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
- Yunshui is right. This verifies the account not locked but blocked on a bunch of other wikis though.—cyberpower ChatOffline 19:09, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
- Well, if memory serves me, I was tied up two weeks waiting on ArbCom with this for reasons that are hard to explain. A CU might be able to explain better. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 19:18, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
- I've commented there, but there are a few concerns that never made the pages at Wikipedia. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 19:18, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
- Hi Dennis - just to give you a heads-up, since Elen found no evidence of recent sockpuppetry (nor a link to the suspected banned user) I've unblocked. If you disagree strongly and want more evidence or information, I won't consider you to be wheel-warring should you reinstate the block. Yunshui 雲水 07:38, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
- No, that is fine. The delay in unblocking wasn't my opinion, it was because ArbCom had already injected themselves in the situation and never gave me a final answer. I never went to them, they came to me, via CU proxy. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 17:31, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
- Hi Dennis - just to give you a heads-up, since Elen found no evidence of recent sockpuppetry (nor a link to the suspected banned user) I've unblocked. If you disagree strongly and want more evidence or information, I won't consider you to be wheel-warring should you reinstate the block. Yunshui 雲水 07:38, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
- I've commented there, but there are a few concerns that never made the pages at Wikipedia. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 19:18, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
- Well, if memory serves me, I was tied up two weeks waiting on ArbCom with this for reasons that are hard to explain. A CU might be able to explain better. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 19:18, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
spi
I'd be happy to help, but not sure what you need. - jc37 23:17, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
- Admin patrolling. The endorsing/declining/closing/archiving should only be done by clerks, but most cases are a matter of comparing contribs and if they are a clear duck, blocking and saying so. if they are clearly NOT related, then saying so. It boils down to duck recognition. If you are comfortable with that, then we need that help. Supplying diffs is sometimes helpful but usually not needed. We keep it pithy and try to not tip off the socks why we know they are socks. Look for cases that just say "open" and don't have a checkuser request tied to them. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 23:22, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
- Sure, duck watching in the park sounds like an interesting diversion.
- If I manage to mangle formatting, please let me know : ) - jc37 23:25, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
- Ok, I think I understand. going to work my way up from the bottom. - jc37 23:36, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
- Usually, one of us clerks will fix the formatting. It is confusing, but clerks are used to fixing it, no biggie. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 23:42, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
- Nod. had that impression.
- On a semi-related note, I've been reading through Wikipedia:Template_messages/User_talk_namespace#Blocks (and Category:Sockpuppet templates), and can't find one for "blocked due to socking" talk page notice. I can use a generic blocking notice, but thought I'd ask in case there's a specific one and I'm not seeing it. - jc37 00:02, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
- We used the scripts. Check out my common.js file for the two scripts we use. Extremely handy, particularly mastcell's. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 00:05, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
- Usually, one of us clerks will fix the formatting. It is confusing, but clerks are used to fixing it, no biggie. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 23:42, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
- Ok, I think I understand. going to work my way up from the bottom. - jc37 23:36, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
- Well, it looks like you're getting help - I'm starting to run into edit conflicts : ) - jc37 00:49, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
- Usually from the person reporting or the person denying, which is why we often work a few cases at the same time. About a dozen is one sitting (plus archives and closings) is all I can handle on a good day, they take time. Oh, and we generally do NOT notify people who are reported. Just causes drama, and it seldom sheds light on the situation. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 01:40, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
- I understand.
- I can understand the need for it, but the process took a bit to sift through. (Been awhile.) Oh and thanks for the opportunity to re-read block and sock (and related pages) - lol.
- I think I knocked out the more basic ones (on two, I only commented - I think someone else should confirm on one and the other I'm inclined to think that perhaps a CU might be appropriate for the sock farm). I'll see about maybe tackling more later. - jc37 01:49, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
- SPI, to me, is one of the trickiest places to clerk and operate out of. Even tougher than ANI, which I work regularly. CU is helpful, but often is simply wrong, linking people who are really not the same, and failing to link people who are clearly the same. A nice tool, but not a cure-all. Having to check times of edits, patterns of summaries, edit styles, continuity of edits (do they edit one at a time, or in a series of several edits in a row?), grammar, structure, etc. I spent some time as a criminal defense investigator in my youth, which helps, but investigation is something you can not do in a hit and run fashion, which is probably why it is hard to get people to work there full time. I do find it rewarding, however. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 12:27, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
- Jc37, you may find these procedures to be helpful.
— Berean Hunter (talk) 13:21, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
- Usually from the person reporting or the person denying, which is why we often work a few cases at the same time. About a dozen is one sitting (plus archives and closings) is all I can handle on a good day, they take time. Oh, and we generally do NOT notify people who are reported. Just causes drama, and it seldom sheds light on the situation. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 01:40, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
Sock?
I know about AGF and all, but can you look over the contribs of User talk:Rotten regard? His first edits were with twinkle, removing PROD tags and the like. He has now reverted me to restore a non-admin closure he made to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Flat Bastion Road (2nd nomination). Ryan Vesey 20:36, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
- Just as a note, I didn't realize that he had reverted me until half-way through this comment so I'm not screaming sock over a content dispute. Ryan Vesey 20:38, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
- In progress Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 20:51, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
- I have literally not been able to contact a CU in three hours. We have too few of them, 4 have left recently. :/ Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 23:54, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
- No problem, nothing on Wikipedia is urgent to me right now. I'm hammering away at one of two essays I have due on Friday. On an unrelated note, you've developed quite a name for yourself. Ryan Vesey 01:40, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
- I'm flattered, but I try to be careful to not take it too much to heart. I promise that I'm more flawed than the average bear, and maybe that knowledge helps keep me from screwing up too badly, too often. Ironically, what he is talking about is exactly the quality I chose admins by, not technical skills. You can learn technical skills. Patience and tolerance are things that you either have or you don't. Old age helps a little with those, I've found, as I was not nearly so patient in my 20s and 30s. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 02:10, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
- Well, an Arb/CU decided to not run a CU on the user. Actually, he called my report "fishing", but then reverted himself. I assume he realized that was insulting, but the damage was already done in my eyes. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 02:57, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
- Sorry about that, it is clear that Hersfold has misinterpreted WP:NOTFISHING since it clearly states that "Checking an account where the alleged sockmaster is unknown, but there is reasonable suspicion of sockpuppetry is not fishing, and a suspected sock-puppet's operator is sometimes unknown until a CheckUser investigation is concluded". (Emphasis in the original) In this case, we have a new account using Twinkle, closing AfD's improperly, but in the proper manner, undoing/reverting PROD and CSD tags, etc. In addition the account was edit warring over the AfD. Not only is there relatively obvious sockpuppetry, but the user is at least slightly disruptive. I will note that a majority of the PROD removals I checked were good removals and the editor has reverted vandalism. Do you want me to make my comment there? Ryan Vesey 03:07, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
- Not every "group" of editors shares the same opinion of me or my judgement. And no, you don't want to get dragged into that. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 03:16, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) Dennis, you wrote above, "I have literally not been able to contact a CU in three hours." I think enough is enough, don't you? Is there a place where I (or anyone) can nominate you for CU tools, like an RfA nomination? It'd be such a benefit to the entire community. --Jethro B 03:26, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
- On that note User talk:Hersfold#Checkuser. Ryan Vesey 03:29, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
- I've actually asked an Arb about it before, twice in six months, but they declined to even reply to my email either time. The policy is actually flexible, but the yearly elections for CU are "safe" for them, so it is doubtful that any of them would want to stick their neck out, and certainly not for me. If it gets too much, I will just leave SPI to others, but I'm not planning on asking about it again. And I'm flattered in the faith you both put in me. It might not be fully earned on my end, but it is appreciated. I just hate being ineffective at my job, and right now, that is how I feel. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 03:56, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
- AFAIK CU elections are called either once a year or when the need arises for more operators. It's a position that appears to jealously guarded by the creator(s) of, or those ultimately responsible the system, and even innocent enquiries about it from experienced admins who have worked in that area can be met 'go away, get more experience, and stop hat-collecting' or words to that effect. It is not encouraging. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:27, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
- I've actually asked an Arb about it before, twice in six months, but they declined to even reply to my email either time. The policy is actually flexible, but the yearly elections for CU are "safe" for them, so it is doubtful that any of them would want to stick their neck out, and certainly not for me. If it gets too much, I will just leave SPI to others, but I'm not planning on asking about it again. And I'm flattered in the faith you both put in me. It might not be fully earned on my end, but it is appreciated. I just hate being ineffective at my job, and right now, that is how I feel. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 03:56, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
- Dennis, want to run for arbcom? Ryan Vesey 04:39, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
- Hell no. Some days I regret running for admin. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 10:50, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
- That's what I thought't you'd say. I wouldn't touch Arbcom with a ten foot pole. The entire process is too bureaucratic and complex. Ryan Vesey 12:49, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
- I have no idea he thinks it would apply to me anyway, and the current Arbs should be able to choose candidates up to the day they leave "office" if they want to. It is fine if they don't want a special election for just one or two users (Berean Hunter would make an even better CU than I would, as would Kudpung) but the whole "lame duck session of Arbcom" excuse is very problematic in my eyes. Not in his faith, but in practice, as that philosophy guarantees up to 2 months per year of unwillingness to tackle real problems. And I've had a few people tell me privately that I should run for Arb, and I've told them each the same thing: No. Again, I'm flattered, but that isn't where I can do the most good here. By the same token, I don't want to be forced to spend every hour on enwp doing CU, SPI or even just admin'ing in general either. You spend too much time mopping up, you lose perspective and forget what it is like to just be an editor. That isn't good for the system, and can make a person cynical and desensitized to the needs of the average editor. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 13:27, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
- That's what I thought't you'd say. I wouldn't touch Arbcom with a ten foot pole. The entire process is too bureaucratic and complex. Ryan Vesey 12:49, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
- Hell no. Some days I regret running for admin. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 10:50, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
See User_talk:Rotten regard#Blocked. There's no conceivable explanation for this sequence of events that doesn't involve Rotten regard being an illegitimate account.—Kww(talk) 04:29, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
- I had almost blind blocked myself, was on the fence with only two opinions, Ryans and mine. Hersfold isn't a bad guy, but I wonder if Arbs get removed from the nitty gritty, just like some admins can lose the understanding of just being an editor. Something I try to fight by actually creating more new articles and subjecting myself to DYK/GA, etc. nowadays. Experienced CUs who work the front lines can compare the IPs, pull from previous experience, etc., and sometimes find the master. I didn't expect another editor on the same IP either, I expected a previously blocked/banned editor in the same geolocation. That takes more than the CU tools to figure out. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 10:50, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
EditorReviewArchiver: Automatic processing of your editor review
This is an automated message. Your editor review is scheduled to be closed on 21 October 2012 because it will have been open for more than 30 days and inactive for more than 7 days. You can keep it open longer by posting a comment to the review page requesting more input. Adding <!--noautoarchive-->
to the review page will prevent further automated actions. AnomieBOT⚡ 13:20, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
*.111
I've left a further message here. --RA (talk) 14:26, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
Sorry to bother you
A user is revert warring with abandon. He has been warned, but persists. History of article is here. I don't know who to refer this to, so I apologise if this is not within your sphere of admin duties. ColaXtra (talk) 14:33, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
- I've left them a final warning. They are new, so I've granted a tiny bit of good faith here, but if they revert again, they should be blocked on the spot. My warning makes this clear. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 14:40, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
- I see you are at the limit as well, so be careful to not get dragged into the abyss. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 14:43, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
- I hear you. Thank you kindly for your prompt attention, and I commend your typical generosity of spirit. ColaXtra (talk) 16:29, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
- In this case, I really do think he is trying to do the right thing, but he is unaware of the rules. If you can help him understand, consider helping him. He sounds like he might actually have a point, as the history of that article talk page is pretty ugly and there is reason to think there may be a lot of errors that he could help us fix, if he were steered in the right direction, ie: sources. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 16:32, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
- I hear you. Thank you kindly for your prompt attention, and I commend your typical generosity of spirit. ColaXtra (talk) 16:29, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
Message from Búfalo Barreto
Mr. Brown, I received your warning a few minutes ago and I keep telling that Alberto Fujimori's page is OK as I edit it. It has a lot of errors, I know because I'm Peruvian, and I know my History, please understand my point of view. Many teachers in the US including Peru tell us that Wikipedia is not a good website to get good information. I want to make Wikipedia look better, that's why I'm making look better the Peruvian Presidents pages. I won't continue reverting, but please understand. You can reply me writing a message in my talk page. Best Regards Búfalo Barreto (talk) 14:51, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
- Then use the talk page. Constantly edit warring is not allowed. Edit warring is when someone just reverts over and over again. As an admin, it is NOT my job to tell editors what should be on the article pages. My job is only to insure that people are acting in good faith, not warring, and trying to work together. I have no opinion on the edits you made. I do have an opinion the quantity of edits you made, which is disruptive. If we did not limit the number of times someone can revert another person's edit, it would be utter chaos at Wikipedia. Again, use the talk page, discuss this with other editors but do not revert or you will force my hand in blocking you. Even if you are 100% right, you still have to work here in a cooperative fashion. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 15:03, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
- They asked you to reply on their talk page, which, I think, is the "standard" convention (not that many of us use it any more) -- not sure if they'll know to check back here for a reply. Nobody Ent 15:34, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
Leave him alone, you worthless nobody! It's really hard being an admin. Everyone is always so mean to them. Go away and write some content, dirtbag! Apologist for admin 16:45, 18 October 2012 (UTC)- I've indef blocked this obviously compromised account. ;-) Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 16:48, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks, I'm at work, a bit distracted. Was going to put a TB template, but just copied my comment over to them. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 15:36, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
- He was taken to 3RR, I've asked them to not act and see if my warnings and information will be sufficient. The articles have problems, and I think he is truly trying to fix them but doesn't understand policy, so I hate to see him blocked after he has already been warned and he has complied. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 15:49, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
Mr. Brown, I know that you are working right now. I think you understand that I'm trying to make the pages look better. I won't revert, but the problem is the INFO-BOXES. An editor called RJFF told me that it's usually a summary not the whole information, but why does the US Presidents have a lot of information and the Peruvian should not. Sorry for interrupting but I'll try to fit in Wikipedia's policy but I keep telling that you are also reverting the Peruvian President's pages. I know peruvian history, and I'm trying to put the whole information in the INFO-BOXES. I won't discuss this conflict with others. I want to make you understand that my job is to improve Wikipedia articles so people get good information. Sorry for any inconvenience, Best Regards Búfalo Barreto (talk) 16:05, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
- I'm going to move this to your page and reply there. Lets just keep the conversation in one place, there. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 16:07, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
Thank You for the Advice. Have a good day. Búfalo Barreto (talk) 16:33, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
Problematic editor
Hi Dennis, I am wondering whether your impressive calm could be put to good effect in relation to edits made by Postmasterjalandhar at Indian Postal Service. They have gone well beyond 3RR today and have chosen to continue on their merry way despite warnings and explanations both on their talk page and on mine. They are enthusiastic/knowledgeable (to the point of having a COI) and I'd rather try to avoid the blunt instrument that is WP:3RRNB. If we can get the guy onside then he could be a real asset in this niche area. - Sitush (talk) 17:02, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
- Done - I've left a personalized, clear (and respectful) message that I think was appropriate in the situation, directing him to the teahouse, informing him of the problems with reverts, and pointing to WP:BRD. Hopefully that will work, otherwise, the boards will have to deal with it. Help if you can, because I am betting he has a lot to offer us, he just doesn't know how to do it properly yet. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 17:20, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks, and I agree with the "help" sentiment. I've not bothered checking whether he was the person responsible for all the copyvios etc and, to be honest, if I can get him to follow the norms without hitting him over the head then it would be far better because making sense of the website from which those copyvios were taken is a nightmare for me but would be easy for him. That is just one of the many points where his expertise would come in. - Sitush (talk) 17:25, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
- Exactly! This is why putting up with some behavioral problems at first (due to not understanding the rules) is always a good trade-off. The guy is obviously smart and could be a tremendous asset. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 17:29, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks, and I agree with the "help" sentiment. I've not bothered checking whether he was the person responsible for all the copyvios etc and, to be honest, if I can get him to follow the norms without hitting him over the head then it would be far better because making sense of the website from which those copyvios were taken is a nightmare for me but would be easy for him. That is just one of the many points where his expertise would come in. - Sitush (talk) 17:25, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
Need Your Opinion on Something
Which of these climate charts look better? This one or this one? I perfer the former as it is less tacky, has more information and is easier to read. The latter is the standard one to use. What do you think? - Neutralhomer • Talk • 17:50, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
- When you are asking me for content opinions, this can only mean you are really desperate for opinions. ;) I like the existing one at Stevens city, by a large margin. The colors provide additional information and the compact nature makes it easier to compare months. I've only done a couple of those charts, and wouldn't have even considered using your first example, which is larger and actually requires you to think more in order to glean information from it. The second one seems more intuitive. Might be because I'm used to it, but I think the compact nature and colors are the real reason. "Tacky" isn't a big deal to me if it is more usable. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 17:57, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
- Nah, I have asked User:Drmies, User:Gerda Arendt and User:RexxS so far, but want to get a wide variety of opinions before I go nuts and start editing away. So far it's 1 for compact and colors, 2 for large and intuitive and 1 on the fence. I am thinking of a way to somehow create one that is both large and intuitive, but has the colors...kind of a "best-of-both-worlds" kinda deal. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 18:15, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
- Keep in mind, many people don't have wide screens, or use mobile devices. There are good reasons for a compact table and contrasting color besides just "looks". Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 19:18, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
- This is true, but I am different. :) I go against the norm and against the grain. Things like the Ottawa version are cool to me and different from everything else, but then again so am I. :) I figure people will say "don't rock the boat" and keep things as they are, which is cool. I can accept that, I just like being different. :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 19:42, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
- (talk page stalker) I agree that the second one is much more informative at a glance than the first. Go Phightins! 19:46, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
- I have to admit that I like consistency in the encyclopedia. Whatever we choose, it should probably be used wiki-wide. That might need a larger discussion once you have fine tuned it on one of the MOS pages, and a bot to change all the cities if your ideas won out. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 19:47, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
- I think everyone would agree with you that consistency is a good thing and why fix what ain't broken. I will put it up for a !vote once I get all the bugs worked out on WP:MOS, but I have a feeling it won't come out on top. :) Thanks for your opinion (you too Go Phightins!). - Neutralhomer • Talk • 19:55, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
- This is true, but I am different. :) I go against the norm and against the grain. Things like the Ottawa version are cool to me and different from everything else, but then again so am I. :) I figure people will say "don't rock the boat" and keep things as they are, which is cool. I can accept that, I just like being different. :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 19:42, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
- Keep in mind, many people don't have wide screens, or use mobile devices. There are good reasons for a compact table and contrasting color besides just "looks". Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 19:18, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
- Nah, I have asked User:Drmies, User:Gerda Arendt and User:RexxS so far, but want to get a wide variety of opinions before I go nuts and start editing away. So far it's 1 for compact and colors, 2 for large and intuitive and 1 on the fence. I am thinking of a way to somehow create one that is both large and intuitive, but has the colors...kind of a "best-of-both-worlds" kinda deal. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 18:15, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
Updated the Stephens City page with the new climate chart box. What do you think? - Neutralhomer • Talk • 02:41, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
- I don't like it as well. The other chart, the colors varied according to the numbers. Higher numbers had different colors, so it showed a gradient. This was true for rain, highs, lows, sunshine, etc. Now it is just flat numbers. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 10:31, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
COI rewrite
Well, all this talk lately about COI has motivated me. You seem to understand where the problems in our current guidelines are judging by your comment on AN/I, so I'd appreciate your collaboration (and that of any of your Jaguars that would like to pitch in). Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/draft Gigs (talk) 22:14, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
Was I out of line here?
Would you mind taking a quick look at the "edit help" section on my talk page? The user was upset that I added a ' to make the subject of an article he'd created bold rather than italic with an extra apostrophe. I tried to assume good faith, but he was quite perturbed, and I just wanted to know if his "perturbedness" was justified, in your opinion. No hurry, just curious. Go Phightins! 02:20, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks. Go Phightins! 02:39, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
- I've left a note on the new editor's talk page. He's being unnecessarily confrontational, but I think that's because of a misunderstanding. Ryan Vesey 02:41, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
- You are talking over each other. Honestly, this is one of those situations where it is best to say "Ok, sorry about the misunderstanding. If I can help you, feel free to drop me a line on my talk page" and walk away. Right or wrong isn't the issue. He was frustrated from trying to edit a new article and getting stepped on with edit conflicts. New article editors aren't used to having someone look over their shoulder, it is a little disconcerting, so I try to leave new articles that aren't obvious problem alone for 15 minutes or so. And this isn't saying you did anything wrong, it is just about remembering what it is like being very new and someone POPS IN on you. You and I are used to it, they aren't. It is about empathy, that is all. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 02:42, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
- Way past my bed time, I'm out.... Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 02:44, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
- Sleep well :) Go Phightins! 02:46, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
- I understand, and I probably should have apologized in the initial exchange. I remember what it was like, Ravendrop and Paulmcdonald were the first editors I encountered and I was particularly upset at Paul because he tagged a page I created for AFD. It made me mad, but I got over it, and now Paul is one of my most highly regarded editors. Thanks. Go Phightins! 02:45, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
talkback
User_talk:Nobody Ent Just wanted to follow up on the policy conundrum (putting aside the admins-are-evil tangent) Nobody Ent 02:50, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
Edit war IPS
need to stop for a minute on Indian Postal Service, Mr. Postmaster.
Sir, thanks for the guidance, I assure you to be abide with the rules & polices of editting. G C GOYAL SENIOR POSTMASTER (GAZETTED) JALANDHAR CITY PUNJAB INDIA--Postmasterjalandhar (talk) 13:13, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
- No problem, we are happy to have someone with your experience here, and we understand how confusing the rules can be sometimes, but there really is a good reason for the methods we use. If I can help you in any way, by all means, just ask here on my talk page. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 13:17, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
SPI
Want some help? Maintenance is much easier for me while I'm at school than content creation. If you help me learn to clerk SPI I'll be able to help. Ryan Vesey 00:32, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
- You have to sign up there to clerk, and I've been begging for us to take on new clerks but none of the CUs have been willing to. As it is now, my trainer retired, Tiptoety, and I'm still "just a trainee" so I can't train. We are in a catch 22, with not enough clerks and not enough trainers to train new clerks, and the existing CUs are so swamped, I'm thinking that is why they don't want to train new clerks themselves. You can always work it as a nonclerk, nonadmin observer. Adding diffs, offering opinions as to likelihood, etc. Not much different than ANI, except the stakes are much higher, so it takes more caution and a lot more research. That is likely a problem for you though, since each case takes a lot of research. About half the clerking requires the bit, which is part of the problem. The other is that it is a thankless and sometimes tedious job, which is why it is so hard to get admin to volunteer. It is, however, an excellent step toward adminship if you do it well, whether you clerk or just help out with cases. Be forewarned, there is a bit of a learning curve and you have to start slow, which might be why some people don't stick with it. It is also very rewarding work, so it is worth the high price. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 00:41, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
- Dennis, in the absence of a formal mechanism that I know of, I hereby dub you "A clerk". You can take Ryan as a padawan if you want. :-) — Coren (talk) 00:48, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
- You need to grant the same to Berean Hunter, whom I will freely admit is a superior clerk. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 00:58, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
- Oh, and thank you. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 00:59, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
- Well, DoRD is still active and Berean's trainer so I think that this particular decision is his to take. :-) That said, he might simply not have thought about it yet. — Coren (talk) 01:04, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
- Ah, you are correct, sir. Thank you. Glad to see you back, I've been looking for you on the back of milk cartons. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 01:05, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
- I'm still trying to fix some things in Real Life that are consuming an inordinate amount of my time. I've been out of work for a year now, this does tend to mess up priorities. — Coren (talk) 01:09, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
- Ouch. Real life is the first priority. My wife has been gone for days, family illness, and just got home. That is MY priority right now, just being with the most important person in my life. So I will wish you all a good evening. :) Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 01:12, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
- I'm still trying to fix some things in Real Life that are consuming an inordinate amount of my time. I've been out of work for a year now, this does tend to mess up priorities. — Coren (talk) 01:09, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
- Ah, you are correct, sir. Thank you. Glad to see you back, I've been looking for you on the back of milk cartons. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 01:05, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
- Well, DoRD is still active and Berean's trainer so I think that this particular decision is his to take. :-) That said, he might simply not have thought about it yet. — Coren (talk) 01:04, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
- Dennis, in the absence of a formal mechanism that I know of, I hereby dub you "A clerk". You can take Ryan as a padawan if you want. :-) — Coren (talk) 00:48, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
A goof am I
Turns out that, between the last time I check fun-l this morning and my knighting you this evening, there was a discussion started about promotions – so I ended up jumping the gun and overriding everyone else by fiat. :-) I hope you'll forgive me if I say that you shouldn't consider my promoting you as valid until the discussion takes its course. I didn't even know consensus was being build; I was just clearly thinking along the same lines as everybody else alone in my room while the real discussion was taking place elsewhere. :-) — Coren (talk) 03:16, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
- I've reverted the SPI page and will tell Ryan. I've had one email from my trianer, and none from anyone else. I have no idea who the "real" is, which makes learning and doing rather difficult and confusing. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 11:23, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
- The "real" discussion is ongoing on the functionary mailing list between the checkusers. It really is just my fault: we obviously all perceived the need for new clerks, but I didn't notice the talk starting yesterday afternoon before I decided being bold. :-) — Coren (talk) 14:20, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
- I understand. I've mentioned the shortage to some CUs, who likely already knew that of course, but really had not heard anything but silence on the subject, so I have no idea if they agreed or not. I've noticed some Arbs getting more involved in CU as well. It does look more caught up today than it has been in a while, with just 20 open and 5 pending or closed. We were at over 40 open for a very long time, which means we aren't handling them in a timely fashion. It does come in waves, and I think we are understaffed to deal with even a moderate peak. CUs and clerks need to do more than just work SPI. Not healthy to only spend time there and not edit and work other areas. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 14:31, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
- The "real" discussion is ongoing on the functionary mailing list between the checkusers. It really is just my fault: we obviously all perceived the need for new clerks, but I didn't notice the talk starting yesterday afternoon before I decided being bold. :-) — Coren (talk) 14:20, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
vandal reverting?
Hi Dennis - I was wanting to revert this clear vandal edit - its a BLP - diif - I don't think reverting of vandal alterations such as this would be a violation of my agreed conditions - thoughts? Youreallycan 02:44, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
- I think the key would be to make sure it fits the narrow definition of obvious vandalism. swearing, silly things, etc. I would suggest erring on the very conservative side for a bit, making that borderline only because it is possible. The lynch mob mentality has been in full swing in your absence. Take a look at Malleus at Arb, where someone asked for a clarification of a previous rule and it turned into a motion to ban, when the reporter wasn't even complaining about Malleus. He is one vote away from a ban, after following the rules of the previous sanctions.[1] Other examples exist as well. The community has become trigger happy and ham-fisted as of late. It is discouraging. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 11:39, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for October 20
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Tri-Five, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Cid (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:08, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
Wow! Signal
Hello again Dennis, Sorry to trouble you again, but could I ask you to look at the above named page. User Tdp1001 seems intent on causing a edit war with contributions which are unreferenced and appear to be POV. I would be grateful for your advice on whether you consider the page should be protected. With best regards, as ever, David. David J Johnson (talk) 15:54, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
- He is a new user, so I don't want to block him off the bat. I left a polite but blunt notice on his talk page, explaining why he can't add the material back without going to the talk page, and explaining he will be blocked if he continues to edit war. Most of the time, this is enough to either start a dialog, or for them to "get it". If it continues, ping me. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 16:05, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
- Dennis, Many thanks for your help. We'll see how it goes. Best regards, David. David J Johnson (talk) 16:16, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
noindex
noindex - User has reverted my noindexing of his evidence page - I have explained on his talkpage - If he doesn't replace the noindex at his earliest convenience please assist in explaining the situation to him - thanks - Youreallycan 20:24, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
- I have to be honest, I agree with you assessment that no index is the best thing for this stuff, but I am totally unfamiliar with consensus on page in user space using them. I also checked the archives and see a bunch of RFC/Us that don't have no index in them. Is this a user space only thing? I'm not sure I can tell him to do this, even if I agree it is the best thing to do. Not sure of the authority of such a statement, simply because I've not run across it before. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 20:47, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks Dennis I have asked at AN - its just common practice as I have experienced, I am also unaware of a link to the exact action - - so lets see what Admins say - Wikipedia:Administrators_noticeboard#NOINDEX-ing_of_evidence_page - Youreallycan 20:55, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
- Well, then we both may learn something new. It does make sense, but that doesn't mean Wikipedians will do it ;) Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 20:56, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks Dennis I have asked at AN - its just common practice as I have experienced, I am also unaware of a link to the exact action - - so lets see what Admins say - Wikipedia:Administrators_noticeboard#NOINDEX-ing_of_evidence_page - Youreallycan 20:55, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
CU
I requested CU then undid myself at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mangoeater1000 because a checkuser was done two days ago. It doesn't seem like that last checkuser was a super in depth one. Should a checkuser be done there? Ryan Vesey 20:45, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
- You have two types of CU: A regular CU where they compare two people, and "check for sleepers" where they search the logs to see if any other user has used the same IPs, to pick up new accounts you didn't know about. Checking for sleepers takes longer and is only done when that is likely to be the issue. You have to ask for a sleeper check manually, and they might not run it anyway. CU has final decision on all things CU. I can't even unblock an official CU block (marked as CU block), or I risk losing the bit. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 20:53, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
- You could unblock the master, right? To my knowledge, socks are indeffed, never to be unblocked, masters are blocked and treated as any other blocked editor. Ryan Vesey 21:00, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
- It depends. But no, if a CU uses a "checkuserblock" I can not unblock them regardless. That is a special type of block, meaning "I know things you don't". Technically, it is just a block, but the summary will indicate that it is a cu block and reversing one can get you desysoped. Also, not every sock is indef. And I can unblock an indef sock if I want to, assuming I have a reason. There are no black and white rules, but there are rules of thumb. So yes, you generally indef a sock, but I see exceptions a few times a week, ie: the Master's name is actually a bad user name, so we just swap them around and indef it, and let them keep the sock after a short vacation. Stuff like that. That is the key, learning the nuances. But the "clerking" part of SPI Clerks is more about making sure the oldest account is listed as the Master, then moving everything if it isn't. Fixing bad formatting. Knowing when you need to do a history merge, and when you need to do a copy/paste. This is mainly when you have a case like "Bob" is the master, "Alice" is the puppet, then CU discovers they are both really socks of "Charlie", so you have to do a history merge (admin bit required). Or you discover that puppet master "Doug" and puppetmaster "Ernie" are really the same person, so you have combine cases. Or you have the same master "Alice" and the sock "Bob", but you find out that "Bob is really a sock of "Charlie", and not related to "Alice", but "Alice already has an archive, so you have to copy page (and attribute) everything to a new page for Charlie. Clerking is mainly paperwork. Much of the blocking and comparing can be done by patrolling admin, although most admin Clerks do both. Some don't actually. We have a couple clerks that mainly shuffle papers rather than make blocks. All Clerks are expected to do more than do the blocks, however, and must shuffle the paperwork. It is not too hard to learn, but there are very specific ways to do it. I wouldn't endorse or decline or do anything "clerky" until you are listed as a clerk. They haven't accepted you as clerk yet, although it is obvious that I think you would do well enough that I was willing to bump you to the head of the line as a trainee. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 21:11, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
- You could unblock the master, right? To my knowledge, socks are indeffed, never to be unblocked, masters are blocked and treated as any other blocked editor. Ryan Vesey 21:00, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
There seem to be a few misunderstandings here. Let me clear them up.
- In terms of how one uses the checkuser tool, there's no substantial difference between checking two accounts for a relation to each other and checking a single account for sleepers.
- Checking for sleepers creates no difference in how long it takes to carry out the check; it might take much more time or may take much less time, depending on the nature of the technical evidence. If anything, checking for sleepers is easier and less time consuming, not harder.
- Regarding "in depth checks", the only way a check could not be in depth is if the checkuser on the case decided simply not to look at half of the data returned by the check, in which case he should almost certainly not be a checkuser. This is especially true since the tool can often tell you that some of the data does not need to be examined.
--(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 21:20, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks for the clarification. I can't remember where, but I was told sleeper checks took extra time, by a CU. That is odd. But most importantly, I'm glad you corrected my errors Deskana, thank you. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 21:25, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
- You're welcome. The amount of time it takes to check for sleepers does vary on a case by case basis. Perhaps they were referring to that case specifically. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 21:26, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
- That is a likely explanation. I can read httpd logs all day long, but have never seen the voodoo tools that actual CUs use, a non-CU can never understand until they have the tools in hand. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 21:28, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
- You're welcome. The amount of time it takes to check for sleepers does vary on a case by case basis. Perhaps they were referring to that case specifically. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 21:26, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks for the clarification. I can't remember where, but I was told sleeper checks took extra time, by a CU. That is odd. But most importantly, I'm glad you corrected my errors Deskana, thank you. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 21:25, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
(←) A likely scenario where a check for sleepers might take longer is if socks are found over a relatively wide dynamic range that is also shared by other, unrelated users. In that case, separating the wheat from the chaff might take considerably longer (especially if the range is busy) than if the socks were found in a relatively narrow range or pretty much by themselves – in which case the sleepers stick out like sore thumbs and are easy to see. The point is, the actual actions to be done are pretty much the same in either case; it's mostly just why we're doing them that changes (for instance, we normally wouldn't checkuser on a very transparent duck unless there were reasons to believe that there might be more socks sleeping). — Coren (talk) 21:35, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
- Oh no Deskana, never apologize for educating me, I'm genuinely interesting in understanding better for probably obvious reasons. And thanks for your explanation as well Coren. The more I know, the more effective I can be. Often, I will have an idea of the range that is likely to be used by registered users simply by the archives, so that is useful to know. I probably should have deduced that, but hadn't had a reason to before. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 21:39, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
Responded
I responded to your comment at the Signpost. [2]. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 01:29, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
- I can tell a lot of thought went into your perspective and I respect your opinion, but this isn't the first time I've seen the idea of replacing RfA with a selection committee. I've started WikiProject Editor Retention, tried to get the policy Request for Admin Sanctions moving forward, and do a great many admin reviews, in addition to participating in most RfAs. I'm of the belief that as we grow, we need to shift more power away from the top, and empower non-admins as well. The plan you are supporting would do the exact opposite, by concentrating more power in fewer people. When I said I would hand in my admin bit and retire Wikipedia if that type of policy was enacted, I wasn't being melodramatic. And I wouldn't be alone. Too much power at the top always leads to corruption. Top down management doesn't work very well in a volunteer organization. Redundancy and handling everything at the lowest possible level does work, which is why many organization shun top down methods. They can be inefficient and bad for morale, as people at the lowest level are less emotionally invested in the success of the organization, due to being disconnected from all administrative decision making.
- We have some exceptional talent at Wikipedia. Our best authors are not admin. They are people who don't want to be bothered with mopping up, and just want to create content. They depend on a system that allows them to be left alone, yet they can participate at any level if they choose. Once you take away their right to choose admins, you have stripped away their most basic right in a community: the right to choose who gets the tools to block, protect and delete. Cronyism and other forms of abuse will always be present or suspected. It would quickly become more controversial and more hated than the current system. Removing RfA and replacing it with an elected committee who will hand select admin is a bad idea. It is bad for editor retention, the overall level of happiness and trust here, and it is completely counter to everything I have been working toward. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 02:26, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
- You assert that electing representatives to select and manage admins will "shift power to the top." Accountable representatives are neither above nor below the community as a whole, they're of the community. In relation to the admins, "above" is a fair descriptor, but in relation to the rest of the community, they're one with.
- This will result in a more representative selection process, not less. Presently admins are selected by whoever turns up at RfA, and as far as I can see, most !voters are doing so on flimsy criteria. I rarely !vote because I rarely know enough about the candidate to make a valuable judgment; and that is the case with many others here. If I and they were to put in the time to form a deep and nuanced understanding of each candidate before voting, we'd be wasting an enormous amount of valuable time.
- I want the right to democratically nominate a proxy, someone I trust to speak for me in this selection process. That is, I want a say in who becomes an admin, but I don't want to have to put in 5, 10, or 20 hours doing the background research necessary to do that well, and neither should all the other editors here. Do you really think the self-selected cluster of editors who turn up at RfA are doing a good job; do you think they represent my values; do you think they truly represent the community as a whole? --Anthonyhcole (talk) 03:59, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
- You already have the right to nominate and vote for the actual admin, but you choose to not do so. It doesnt' take even 5 hours to do a reasonable background search. I do admin reviews all the time. And you do rely on your own searching, the opinions of others you trust who are voting, and the nominators. Do I think they represent the community as a whole? from 150 to 200 people vote in most successful RfAs, less for obviously failing ones, so that is a reasonable cross-section, but again, if you don't vote, that isn't the fault of the community. Adding a new layer of bureaucracy isn't going to make the process less bureaucratic or more fair, and opens up so many layers of abuse as to make the idea dead in the water as the community is not likely to give up what little control they have in the process. Wikipedia is a project, not a government. Unlike citizens of a government, the citizens at Wikipedia are directly involved with the goals, creating an encyclopedia. The only reason we allow a republican style leadership for government is that we don't want to have to deal with all the individual decisions, so we delegate (vote for) that responsibility to someone else. The citizens of Wikipedia don't have that many things to deal with, just individual issues and the "election" of admin, Arbs, Checkusers and Oversighters. Those are already positions that take care of problems so that individual citizens don't have to. Again, feel free to support whatever initiative you choose. No matter how enthusiastic some may be on that Signpost article, I'm pretty sure that the few hundres people that vote semi-regularly at RfA are not likely to endorse it, so it would be dead on delivery. That makes the issue moot. My only point is that moving power away from the average user is always a bad idea, and empowering a few people at the top who have shown only that they are good politicians, well, that is always bad. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 15:02, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
- I'll think about what you've said. Thanks. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 16:37, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
- And I appreciate the sincere and thoughtful discussion. Even though my opinion hasn't changed on this one proposal, I've gained some experience understanding why some want the AdminCom or similar, so that helps me as well. And of course, you are always welcome to come here and discuss any topic, I appreciate your methods in doing so. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 19:17, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
- You may be changing my mind. I'll keep you informed. I've a bit on my mind at the moment.
- And I appreciate the sincere and thoughtful discussion. Even though my opinion hasn't changed on this one proposal, I've gained some experience understanding why some want the AdminCom or similar, so that helps me as well. And of course, you are always welcome to come here and discuss any topic, I appreciate your methods in doing so. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 19:17, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
- I'll think about what you've said. Thanks. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 16:37, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
- You already have the right to nominate and vote for the actual admin, but you choose to not do so. It doesnt' take even 5 hours to do a reasonable background search. I do admin reviews all the time. And you do rely on your own searching, the opinions of others you trust who are voting, and the nominators. Do I think they represent the community as a whole? from 150 to 200 people vote in most successful RfAs, less for obviously failing ones, so that is a reasonable cross-section, but again, if you don't vote, that isn't the fault of the community. Adding a new layer of bureaucracy isn't going to make the process less bureaucratic or more fair, and opens up so many layers of abuse as to make the idea dead in the water as the community is not likely to give up what little control they have in the process. Wikipedia is a project, not a government. Unlike citizens of a government, the citizens at Wikipedia are directly involved with the goals, creating an encyclopedia. The only reason we allow a republican style leadership for government is that we don't want to have to deal with all the individual decisions, so we delegate (vote for) that responsibility to someone else. The citizens of Wikipedia don't have that many things to deal with, just individual issues and the "election" of admin, Arbs, Checkusers and Oversighters. Those are already positions that take care of problems so that individual citizens don't have to. Again, feel free to support whatever initiative you choose. No matter how enthusiastic some may be on that Signpost article, I'm pretty sure that the few hundres people that vote semi-regularly at RfA are not likely to endorse it, so it would be dead on delivery. That makes the issue moot. My only point is that moving power away from the average user is always a bad idea, and empowering a few people at the top who have shown only that they are good politicians, well, that is always bad. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 15:02, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
While I think about that, can I just say we've got a real problem at Wikipedia with the general quality of argument. I'm no expert rhetorician but I've read a little about it and ours is crap. One major element of this is the tolerance for ad hominem on article talk pages. I'd appreciate your thoughts on this if you have the time. It's possibly the wrong venue. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 14:54, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
- I've made a couple of minor comments in other areas. Will have to ponder more before adding anything else. Civility is more a concept than a tangible thing, so we have to be really careful how we define what is and isn't civil. The idea that we shouldn't use ad hominem on talk pages I agree with, but should already be covered by policy. I tend to not block over it, and instead hat discussion or try to mediate, unless my hand is forced. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 15:57, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
- I'm proposing a change in practice. That is, presently, it is not permitted to remove ad hominem on article talk pages. I would like it to be mandatory. Ad hominem is a universally-recognised logical fallacy; it is inappropriate on article talk pages. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 16:49, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
- WP:REMOVEUNCIVIL limits it to the author of the comment, granted, but more than a few times I have replaced the offending comments with <uncivil comment removed> if it wasn't at all on topic. That is only when I'm an uninvolved editor. I think you will always have to have it removed by someone uninvolved (no need to be an admin really) for the concept to be accepted. While it isn't currently policy, I think most admin would support an uninvolved editor redacting obviously rude and unrelated comments that way. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 16:56, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
- I'm proposing a change in practice. That is, presently, it is not permitted to remove ad hominem on article talk pages. I would like it to be mandatory. Ad hominem is a universally-recognised logical fallacy; it is inappropriate on article talk pages. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 16:49, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
- I don't think it has to wait for an uninvolved editor: ad hominem is very easy to identify: it addresses the motives or competency of the interlocutor. That's about as easy to recognise as a secondary source. Recognising ad hominem is uncontroversial and if we explicitly disallow it on article talk pages, eliminating it will be as simple as pointing at the policy or guideline that disallows it. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 17:54, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
Hey, Dennis. Mind giving me your take on this, especially since you deal with double (or multiple/various) accounts all the time? After reverting Rogr101, I decided to look into his contribution history because I figured that, with the nonexistent user page/talk page, he was likely new. And sure enough, the account is newly registered -- registered on the 14th of this month. But when I looked into his contribution history, I noticed a striking similarity between his article interests and edit summary style and that of Ewawer's. On the 14th, Rogr101 made the following edit summary expressions: "(Ce)," "Expand intro," "Tidy up bit," and "More tidy up." These are all expressions that Ewawer uses often. While other editors use these expressions, it is usually sparingly with regard to the last three; I have come across none that use them as often as Ewawer, especially "Tidy up." And although Ewawer doesn't always capitalize his edit summaries, he sometimes does, such as here. There are some users' editing habits that I know so well that I'd recognize them almost instantly and I believe this to be the case with Rogr101, and I commented as much on his user talk page. So where do I go with this from here? It doesn't seem that this needs reporting since the Ewawer account, thus far, has not been editing since the 16th and since this may have been a WP:Fresh start attempt (albeit the wrong way to do it). We can wait for a reply, but Ewawer usually doesn't reply on his user talk page or discuss matters at/take matters to an article talk page. Flyer22 (talk) 10:26, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
- The key is looking for either overlap or evasion of sanctions/blocks/scrutiny. If they are the same, not sure I see that yet. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 15:08, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
- You mean article overlap? Like I stated, they have that. And per my analysis above, I'm certain that both editors are the same person. Then again, I have been familiar with this editor since 2007. But I don't see anything that indicates that he needs to be blocked. It's just that even though he's been around since 2007, he's unfamiliar with most of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If he participated in talk page discussions more often, he wouldn't be. But there is also the option of just reading up on those things oneself, which I don't believe he's done for the most part. Flyer22 (talk) 15:51, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
- Overlap is different than Editor A stopping on Monday, and Editor B starting on Tuesday. They have to be intermingled. I'm not saying "no", I'm saying wait a bit. The one has only had one edit since the second editor started. Jumping into an investigation too soon is the primary cause of "might be, but not enough evidence yet" which means a connection isn't made, and you've tipped them off. I suggest waiting a few days to see what happens, but keeping an eye out. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 16:02, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
- Yes, again looking at the articles Rogr101 has edited and analyzing the contribution histories of those articles, I see how it can be stated that there isn't yet much of an overlap; that's the only thing that adds doubt in my head that they are the same person, because Rogr101 is editing topics that are in Ewawer's range of article interests and has used edit summary style that is signature of Ewawer's editing. I certainly don't want Ewawer blocked. I was conflicted about what to do on this matter, but didn't even seriously consider starting a sockpuppet investigation because of what I stated above. Although Ewawer's formatting is often "off," Wikipedia-formatting wise, and he often adds unsourced material, his editing is generally beneficial to Wikipedia. I was waiting until Rogr101 responds to decide whether or not to add a Welcome template to Rogr101's talk page. Flyer22 (talk) 16:33, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
- Just keep an eye out. If I block someone, I have to be able to explain in fine detail why, they they are related, and how I've ruled "coincidence". There is no doubt that you would know better than I here, as you are familiar and "gut instinct" can play a role. If you had the admin bit, you could block and explain it in better detail than I can. That is what it boils down for admin: how sure are you? Kind of sure? Not good enough. Reasonably sure? Not good enough. Better than 80% sure? Probably good enough to block. After all, waiting costs nothing, but blocking (and being wrong) can cost an editor. When you are wrong, that is a real person on the other end of that signature. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 18:24, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks, Dennis. I don't want Ewawer blocked, though, as mentioned. Not unless he inappropriately continues to use both accounts, if he is operating both accounts that is. But whether Rogr101 is Ewawer or not, I think it's safe to state that he isn't new to editing Wikipedia. He might have been a different registered user or editing as only an IP before now, but editors who are truly new to Wikipedia don't use "Ce" (which is of course short for "copyedit") in their edit summaries when they edit Wikipedia...unless they learn it; it's something you learn from others while editing here. Flyer22 (talk) 22:22, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
- Just keep an eye out. If I block someone, I have to be able to explain in fine detail why, they they are related, and how I've ruled "coincidence". There is no doubt that you would know better than I here, as you are familiar and "gut instinct" can play a role. If you had the admin bit, you could block and explain it in better detail than I can. That is what it boils down for admin: how sure are you? Kind of sure? Not good enough. Reasonably sure? Not good enough. Better than 80% sure? Probably good enough to block. After all, waiting costs nothing, but blocking (and being wrong) can cost an editor. When you are wrong, that is a real person on the other end of that signature. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 18:24, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
- Yes, again looking at the articles Rogr101 has edited and analyzing the contribution histories of those articles, I see how it can be stated that there isn't yet much of an overlap; that's the only thing that adds doubt in my head that they are the same person, because Rogr101 is editing topics that are in Ewawer's range of article interests and has used edit summary style that is signature of Ewawer's editing. I certainly don't want Ewawer blocked. I was conflicted about what to do on this matter, but didn't even seriously consider starting a sockpuppet investigation because of what I stated above. Although Ewawer's formatting is often "off," Wikipedia-formatting wise, and he often adds unsourced material, his editing is generally beneficial to Wikipedia. I was waiting until Rogr101 responds to decide whether or not to add a Welcome template to Rogr101's talk page. Flyer22 (talk) 16:33, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
- Overlap is different than Editor A stopping on Monday, and Editor B starting on Tuesday. They have to be intermingled. I'm not saying "no", I'm saying wait a bit. The one has only had one edit since the second editor started. Jumping into an investigation too soon is the primary cause of "might be, but not enough evidence yet" which means a connection isn't made, and you've tipped them off. I suggest waiting a few days to see what happens, but keeping an eye out. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 16:02, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
- You mean article overlap? Like I stated, they have that. And per my analysis above, I'm certain that both editors are the same person. Then again, I have been familiar with this editor since 2007. But I don't see anything that indicates that he needs to be blocked. It's just that even though he's been around since 2007, he's unfamiliar with most of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If he participated in talk page discussions more often, he wouldn't be. But there is also the option of just reading up on those things oneself, which I don't believe he's done for the most part. Flyer22 (talk) 15:51, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
Talkback
Message added 10:31, 21 October 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
New socks were added to the investigation. Tijfo098 (talk) 10:31, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
Not AOL. Most likely Vodafone mobile broadband or a similar UK service, e.g. http://www.three.co.uk/ (Hutchison 3G) used by Nole in the past. Tijfo098 (talk) 19:10, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
- I was being generic, and I am a Yankee, so I'm not familiar with all the other old services. If I were looking at CU data, I likely would learn it soon enough, I suppose. But it was likely and old style service, based on her cryptic response. I have trouble reading Elen sometimes, but CUs have to be cryptic for a reason. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 19:21, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
Jesse Cook
Some Arabic flavour Just been playing along with him and have got a sore on my index finger on my right hand from flamenco shredding!♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:25, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
- Finally getting to listen to it now. Had to down a pair of plum trees, 20 footers, log and stack the brush. Tired now. That is an unusual blend of flamenco, with just a touch of Middle-east blended in, and a nice syncopated beat behind it. Reminds of something I would listen to in my medicinal youth ;-) Hard to describe the emotion it evokes. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 18:59, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
- Just in the mood for some stuff from childhood. [4], [5]. Then I had to play Annie Lennox, Why [6], followed by Freddie Mercury's last [7], both of which have always evoked strong emotions. The story behind Freddie's is particularly moving, and I had always considered him the greatest male vocalist of the era. Moody day, I suppose. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 19:53, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
You've got mail!
Message added 16:34, 21 October 2012 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
Jethro B 16:34, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
Blood in the wiki-water tonight
And the sharks are circling. If you're online tonight, please keep a tight watch on WP:ANI -- you'll see what I mean if you look at the last couple posts. I'm going real life tonight. Nobody Ent 22:28, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
- Just got on wiki....jeez...Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 22:29, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
- It isn't pretty.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:36, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
- If you weren't so important to keeping ANI less horrible, I'd tell you to unwatch it. Maybe if you left, the vitriol would rise to a level where it ceases all functioning. Soon enough people would learn to solve their problems without begging for a ban or a block. Ryan Vesey 22:40, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
- Oh, I'm not so sure that I make that much difference. Drama seems to find its way there just fine whether or not I'm there. I will try to keep an eye out, but have a few things going on here as well. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 22:43, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
- Heh, none of us makes that much difference, but, collectively, we may have some soothing influence. At the moment, I'm just waiting to see if my close of the latest ANI discussion holds. I probably won't be around tonight, though. All I can do is hope that people will stop piling it on.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:48, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
- I don't want to have to get heavy handed if it doesn't, but the drama needs to stop, that is certain. I'm dropping a note here and there, trying to smooth things over. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 22:54, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
- Anything you can do to help in that regard would be appreciated, at least by me.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:00, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
- In part, I blame Jclemens for helping start the latest uproar with his comment "Malleus has never been a Wikipedian, no matter how many otherwise constructive edits he has made." [8] That has to be the stupidest act a "neutral" party can commit, and the most biased thing I've seen come out of an Arb at Arbitration. Jclemens received just 60% of the vote resulting in a one year term last year[9], and he did this right before Arb elections this year, which is unfortunate timing for him as I sincerely doubt that the public will forget this. It is one thing to support the ban, everyone has opinions and I respect that, but to declare him persona non grata and unilaterally declare him a non-Wikipedian just adds to the drama and makes blowups like tonight happen, as it declares "open season" on a fellow editor. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 23:23, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
- I'm no fan of Malleus but there's no arguing that he's a first class content editor and perhaps one of the best and most prolific we have. That makes him very much a Wikipedian, and Jclemens comment was beyond the pale. Bit late now, but it might have set a precedent to have taken him to AN/I ! With Arb elections coming up, perhaps it's not only time to get some reforms to RfA, but Arbcom needs a big shake up too. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:53, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
- I respect if an Arb thinks the ban should take place, even if I strongly disagree. I do think it should have been a case, not a motion in an unrelated request for clarification, which looks like a backdoor attempt to ban him, even if it isn't. And yes, I completely agree that some changes might be due. Everyone should go give their opinions in the current RfC on the election, particularly the section secret balloting. [10]. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 23:58, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) I understand, but at the same time Jclemens's statement has become an unfortunate rallying point, tending to heat things up more than cool things off.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:00, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
- I think he agrees. I didn't notice it at the time or I might have been tempted to do what Floq did, put a block template on his talk page for personal attacks, as a shot across the bow. [11]. Exceptional. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 00:02, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
- Now SilverSeren is arguing that Jclemens was "right" in the comment at WP:AN. This is the issue that just keeps on giving. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 00:15, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
- I'm no fan of Malleus but there's no arguing that he's a first class content editor and perhaps one of the best and most prolific we have. That makes him very much a Wikipedian, and Jclemens comment was beyond the pale. Bit late now, but it might have set a precedent to have taken him to AN/I ! With Arb elections coming up, perhaps it's not only time to get some reforms to RfA, but Arbcom needs a big shake up too. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:53, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
Wow, I just noticed that Floq didn't just template Jclemens, but actually blocked him. Again...wow. She has balls, gotta admire that. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 00:52, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
- I have no idea what is happening, but it beats the hell out of real life right now. Jclemens seems to be the subject of at least two major notice boards. WTF?--Amadscientist (talk) 03:54, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
- I thought your comments regarding Jclemens' vote were spot on. --Rschen7754 06:24, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
- Agree with Rschen7754. I'm impressed by what you've had to say. I go around sputtering and you've articulated it all quite succinctly. Well done. Truthkeeper (talk) 11:26, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
- I have left notices in a number of venues, formally asking Jclemens to recuse himself. As I've said everywhere, it isn't personal, it is about protecting the integrity of the process. He did finally strike the one comment, which is helpful, but doesn't erase the obvious bias. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 14:25, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
Editor/RfA review?
I noticed that you stated on your user page that you were willing to give editor reviews to people mildly interested in RfA. I've been mulling over an adminship run for a while and am looking for feedback on how to improve myself in preparation for this. Regardless of whether or not I decide to eventually run, any feedback on how to improve myself as a contributor would be much appreciated. (I know that right now I'm at least six months out from running. This is because of work/personal commitments that have kept me from editing Wikipedia at consistent levels for the time being, and because of a low-ish percentage of articlespace edits that I'm seeking to improve.) Thanks in advance for any response. elektrikSHOOS (talk) 01:22, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
- I'm finishing up one right now, but have been tied with Arbitration and other drama filled events as of late. I will try to take a look in the next day or two and see if the basics are there for a full review and respond here. I would rather wait than be sloppy about these kinds of things, and I've put off working the one review as this has been a frustrating weekend at enwp, and I didn't want to do a subpar job on the one I'm working on now.Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 01:31, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
FAR of Microsoft Security Essentials
Hello, Dennis
As a party involved in the 2nd WP:FAC of Microsoft Security Essentials, you might be willing to participate in Wikipedia:Featured article review/Microsoft Security Essentials/archive1.
Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 08:01, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
- I've replied there. Seems to be a bit of overreactions in a situation where they could just add a touch more criticism if they felt it was necessary, without changing the quality of the article, and without delisting it. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 11:17, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
- Hi. Thanks for the response. I have been expecting this day since this user appeared in WP:FAC and said those things. You guys were also worried but about something else that I don't remember. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk)
MONGO Beck
[12] I'm fine with the redaction, as long as it's done by an uninvolved person. Just to make this very clear though: I understand that my question may be read as an attack of sorts. But it was a completely sincere question. This is the tone of a rightwinger who is listening to too much rightwing talk radio. Obviously MONGO does not like that observation, because it's accurate. He couldn't say that he doesn't occasionally sound like Glenn Beck, and I was trying to give him the feedback that he does, and that it doesn't help his case one bit. Not an "attack", just an honest question and some honest feedback -- pointedly formulated, yes, but at least it's no libelous lie of the sort MONGO likes to tell. Anyway, just wanted to get that off my chest. --195.14.220.127 (talk) 12:58, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
- And I'm much more tolerant of pointy discussion on my talk page than at ANI, where my objective is to reduce drama and keep the discussion moving in as positive a fashion as possible. Since MONGO and I have very different opinions on a variety of issues (but no animosity toward each other), I felt that I was uninvolved enough to make that determination. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 13:53, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
- You sure were uninvolved enough, and I accept that reducing drama at AN/I is necessary. No argument from me on either of those points. --195.14.220.127 (talk) 14:23, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
NPP
I have been going through and patrolling some of the unpatrolled user talk pages and I was wondering if there is a specific reason that the earliest pages listed there are only a month old? Are pages automatically patrolled after a month? AutomaticStrikeout 21:22, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
- Good question. I think you may be right, but I really don't know. Would probably need to ask over at WT:NPP, then tell me so we both know. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 21:26, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
- Well, here's your answer. AutomaticStrikeout 01:15, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
- So my instinct was right. Back when I patrolled regularly, the backlog was closer to 15 to 20 days, but I tried to always work from the back to keep any from falling off the fact of the page. You miss the "low hanging fruit", but that was never my goal, it was to cleanup after they had a go at it for a week or so. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 01:20, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
- Well, here's your answer. AutomaticStrikeout 01:15, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
I came across this article indirectly through CSD. A nightmare. I removed entire sections from it that made me cringe to look at them, and then I stopped before I slashed the article any further. If you're feeling masochistic - or, better still, if one of your page stalkers is an expert in Islam - take a look.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:19, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
- Out of my league. I would say ask Drmies, but he and about a dozen others are on strike. I'm not very active myself. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 01:20, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
Question
I no longer see an email tab when I look at your page. I have something sensitive I would like to discuss with you. I am not sure if it is a matter of settings or what, but I have email enabled so could you drop me a line? Gtwfan52 (talk) 03:13, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
- That's odd, I can see Mr. Brown's email tab. Perhaps refresh the screen, or close the browser and reload? --Jethro B 03:39, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
- That didn't work, but I found a link somewhere that got me to the email a user screen.
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
Gtwfan52 (talk) 04:21, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
"It appears I have little support"
It appears to me you have overwhelming support. I'm sure you're more well-versed in the ins and outs of Wiki-policy than I. What is the correct process to attempt to remove an arb who refuses the requests of the people to recuse? Joefromrandb (talk) 12:50, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
- BTW, why is there a picture of Dan Fogelberg on your user page?:) Joefromrandb (talk) 12:52, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
- If you concern is about Jclemens, NewYorkBrad, Calisper, SirFozzie, David Fuchs, Elen of the Roads, Xeno or PhilKnight, I think they are up for election in November and the best way to handle it is to vote, as no proceeding would likely be done in time to make a difference. I heard that SirFozzie isn't running again, I have no idea who of those is running and who isn't outside of him. Being an Arb is a thankless job and I'm quite sure it is a pain in the ass, so I try to cut a little slack, but I am frustrated at the choices that a few of them have made recently. In spite of what others may think, Malleus is rather incidental to my frustration and my concern is with the consistency and equity with the system as a whole. It is about the greater principle at work more than this individual case. Outside of elections, I am not sure what the removal process is, although I'm not ready to sign on to removing anyone just yet.
- My comment "It appears I have little support" was referring only to the lack of interested parties on that one Arb's page. As to the level of support elsewhere on Wikipedia, I feel very fortunate that many editors have been quite generous in their overall support, as well as very forgiving for my shortcomings. The solution I suggested on that one Arb's page has been taken so far out of context as to dilute my original intent, which was to reduce some drama, not add politics, but seems moot at this point. I don't blame anyone as it is a heated affair with widely varying opinions. Like other heated debates, sometimes a message gets lost in a sea of pitchforks and torches. What affects me most is that many of the people I respect the most have either retired or become inactive due to this debacle. That list includes people I consider mentors and compatriots.
- As for Dan Fogelberg, that was worth a smile. I've heard a few comparisons to different people, but I don't see it. At least no on has said I look like Clint Howard [13] :) Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 13:27, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
Libel as a synonym for slander
Hey man, I understand there is a good bit of admin politics going on right now, so I hopefully won't take up much of your time. I was just wondering, if a user expresses an opinion in a talk page that one sentence in an article is false and libel, would that user likely become banned as making a legal threat?
Seems to me, saying something is 'libel' is much the same as saying something is slanderous and it's not a big deal.
I could be wrong,
Appreciate if you could clear this up,
Thanks! HafniumDrive (talk) 13:58, 23 October 2012 (UTC)