→czar RfA: new section |
BengaliHindu (talk | contribs) →Request for arbitration: new section |
||
Line 426: | Line 426: | ||
Hey Dennis, having been around AfD for a while, I'd like to help with more closures and take a run at RfA. I know you've been vetting editors, and though I've been [[User_talk:Czar/2014#Well...|considering]] it for a while, I wanted to do due diligence by running it past AfD regulars like you first. <span style='font:1.1em"Avenir";padding:1px 3px;border:1px solid #909;color:#909'>czar [[User:Czar|<span style="color:#909"><u>♔</u></span>]]</span> 17:35, 2 November 2014 (UTC) |
Hey Dennis, having been around AfD for a while, I'd like to help with more closures and take a run at RfA. I know you've been vetting editors, and though I've been [[User_talk:Czar/2014#Well...|considering]] it for a while, I wanted to do due diligence by running it past AfD regulars like you first. <span style='font:1.1em"Avenir";padding:1px 3px;border:1px solid #909;color:#909'>czar [[User:Czar|<span style="color:#909"><u>♔</u></span>]]</span> 17:35, 2 November 2014 (UTC) |
||
== Request for arbitration == |
|||
You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Ahmed Hassan Imran]] and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use— |
|||
* [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Requests for arbitration]]; |
|||
* [[Wikipedia:Arbitration guide]]. |
|||
Thanks,<!-- Template:Arbcom notice --> |
|||
[[User:BengaliHindu|BengaliHindu]] ([[User talk:BengaliHindu|talk]]) 17:40, 2 November 2014 (UTC) |
Revision as of 17:40, 2 November 2014
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 |
This page has archives. Sections older than 10 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
Music break
Music break... ♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:46, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
- Good timing Doc, I'm listening to the whole thing as we speak. Eclectic mix so far. I've been doing a little picking on my SX Liquid [1], which is the most fun you can have for less than £100. Stock setup (and nut) is crap, but once setup right, the P90s are shockingly soulful, and the neck is similar to an old Tele, kind of chunky but smooth. Mine is sunburst. So geeky, it's cool, with a 50s vibe. I run it through a tweed Fender SuperSonic 60 I had custom tubed (cooler) with some Swedish JJ's this year by Eurotubes. Dennis 2¢ 20:13, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
I got rid of my Telecaster a while back, for some reason it just didn't have that Tele sound. If it sounds like one of those great chicken picking country players I'd have kept it. Music break.♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:06, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
- The MIM's are pretty good for the money, you can score them used for 200 pounds or less. A really nice set of pickups is 100 pounds. I break into mine and rewire them all the time. The new "Broadcaster" (bridge) and "Twisted Tele" (neck) sets are really popular, but I still prefer the Texas Custom Shop sets. Nice and woody in the neck, like SRV, and just a little midrange hotness in the bridge for old rock or blues. Roll back the volume a touch and they chicken pick well. Chicken picking on the neck is also good, with a woody thump to it, but not too bassy. Really nice woodwinds on this pick, btw, and the piano is an interesting mix classic jazz but with a haunting feel to it. Just a touch of an Arabic feel to the back line. Nice selection. It kind of reminded me to the theme song from the Showtime TV show "Carnivàle" [2]. Loved that series, and the theme music was really good, as far as theme songs go. Dennis 2¢ 18:40, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
- Yeah it's got a mysterious Arabic feel to it. Speaking of haunting, good ole Emmylou. I love her voice. Always reminds me of those 70s horror movies with the country music playing on the radio in the car and the contrast with a strangling!! ♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:31, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
- Excellent example! Underrated singer, always a bit of sadness in her voice. I enjoy a lot of older country, Conway Twitty, Patsy Cline, and of course, Johnny Cash. People don't realize how much of a rebel he really was in his day. And Willie. Redheaded Stranger and of course Wanted! The Outlaws are must listen to anyone who enjoys a broad spectrum of music. Willie actually has some chops, he just seldom gets flashy. Playing that beat up Classical Martin. And of course he wrote a lot of songs for others, the most notable being Crazy for Patsy Cline. Being a native Texan, I was weaned on this old stuff. He is still kicking around, promoting biofuels, the legalization of cannabis and gigging regularly, at 81 years old. Dennis 2¢ 17:52, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
- Yeah it's got a mysterious Arabic feel to it. Speaking of haunting, good ole Emmylou. I love her voice. Always reminds me of those 70s horror movies with the country music playing on the radio in the car and the contrast with a strangling!! ♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:31, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
"I shall call it the Alan Parsons Project" LOL. One of the best songs of the 90s ♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:53, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
- Hadn't heard of Dodgy before, wow, interesting sound. Interesting blend of genres and decades, yet very much their own, I went to check out some others. I remember Alan Parsons quiet well, I graduated HS in 83, so had bought at least a couple of his albums when they first came out, very much in line with what I listened to back then. Don't think we ever did any of Alan's work in a band, however. Dennis 2¢ 10:11, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
This song (and video) of Dodgy's is great too as is this Sound a bit like the Hollies. Can't say I'm a big Alan Parsons fan but I do have a broad range of musical interests which keeps things more interesting.♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:51, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
- I liked much of Alan's stuff, but I liked progressive sounds. Loved the music of the 90s on the whole as well. Did you hear? Paul Revere and the Raiders founder Paul Revere died yesterday. [3] A bit obscure for many, I notice the article hasn't been updated. Dennis 2¢ 11:23, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
- Yeah I like the progressive sound too. Hadn't heard that Revere had died. I was heavily into Brit pop/uk indie scene in the 90s but I went a long time in the 2000s without listening to any of it. I'm enjoying listen to it again now. Some greats which spring to mind [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9].♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:46, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
The sun might explode, but it might blind you first..♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:18, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
- I recently took The Yes Album to GA, it has that nice balance between "interesting" and "pretentious self-indulgent claptrap". Have to admit I'm more interested doing my own thing these days How about something with a nice groove? Who's that weirdo playing moog at the start, I wonder? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:57, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
- A little more polish in production that I personally like (I'm funny about that), but I can see a lot of different influences in their music, both US and obviously UK, including a dash of Beatles. Using a Telecaster as well, my ax of choice. They had a lot of potential, too bad they broke up after one album. Dennis 2¢ 15:53, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
How smooth is this!♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:53, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
- Quite nice, he understands that sometimes less is more, very unobtrusive and excellent blending. I have a similar Ibanez, the ES335 copy [10] that I leave at the office. Similar pickups, not quite as smooth but the bridge sounds good overdriven a bit. Mrs. Brown found a solid brown one at a pawnshop for way too little and brought it home. I think I'm going to grab my Pawnshop 51 [11] and bust out some noise through my little Blues Jr. after Mrs. Brown returns with the evening feast (Taco Bell). It gets mad if you don't heat up the tubes every now and then. If you want something to listen to, its hard to beat the man [12]. People often don't realize how complex this man was, and how much of a hell raiser he really was. Dennis 2¢ 20:31, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
- Dr. Blofeld, I'm betting you have already checked this guy out [13], but if you haven't, he is a interesting player that has been coming out with some interesting twists on blues. [14] Dennis 2¢ 02:08, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
Of course yes. He's a very good blues guitarist but there's something about him as a person I don't like admittedly.♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:41, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
- Ah, I've not seen a video of him before yesterday, I just hear him on satellite radio during the commute each day. Dennis 2¢ 12:49, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
- Me too, I've got an Ibanez Ag96. It gets better with age!♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:44, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
- Ah yes, very versatile guitars and exceptional values, both of them. I have a guitar you would love, a "lost weekend" Gretch. Only about 30 of them ever made, a model 7676 (basically the same as a Country Gentleman) that had all parts from US but was assembled in Mexico. This was after the plant burned down, Baldwin had bought them out, they were trying to get back into production. 1983. They aren't all that valuable (due to the prejudice against Mexico built), but they are some of the most rare Gretches ever made. I stumbled into it cheap by accident around 2000, threw it in a closet and didn't even know what it was until last year. I need to find it a good home. When I want some jangle, I instead play my Thinline, blonde Cabronia, the first guitar I've bought as "new" in 20 years, got it this year.[15]. Here is the non-thinline, which sounds pretty similar [16]. Tone is a beautiful marriage of Telecaster and Gretsch, just a volume knob and pickup selector. It will thicken up nicely for jazz at the neck. I have another tele with that pickup in the neck position and a hot single coil in the bridge, plus a Bigsby tremolo. I have entirely too many guitars, have a room devoted to them, with hangers on the wall. :) Dennis - 2¢ 18:28, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
- Me too, I've got an Ibanez Ag96. It gets better with age!♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:44, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
Questionable sock
user:91.154.101.152 keeps reverting sourced info on Gwen Stefani's page I do declare it most possibly is a sock as others have mirrored their edits can you have a lookie lookie please? Rihanna-RiRi-fan (talk) 17:37, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
- I don't see reason to think they are a sock. Looking at their edits and summaries, they appear to be acting in good faith and providing reasonable rationales for their actions, ie: good editing habits. That doesn't mean they are correct (I love Stefani, and I'm an experienced musician but I'm not a genre expert here.) So who is right? I don't know, but that is for editors to decide on talk pages without the interference of admin. What I suggest is taking it to the talk page of the article. It looks like some discussion has already started there. If I'm mistaken and you think he is a sock of a particular person, by all means drop that info off here and I will be happy to look at it, but we really do have a fair amount of worthwhile editors who are IPs so I can't jump to conclusions just because he is an IP. Dennis - 2¢ 18:15, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
Reply
I had started writing a reply to you at AN/I, but I realized that I was just rambling so I figure here's a better place.
1. You're right about not being able to do that kind of ban from lower than AN/I, which is why I said "from here...". I didn't think it should have been brought to AN/I in the first place, but now that it has, that may be a good fix.
2. For the sake of argument, there are a couple of paths to those kinds of sanctions that are lower than AN/I...I've sometimes seen it done by a small consensus of administrators on user talk pages, and I've actually done it myself a couple of times in responding to unblock requests. (I'd be willing to unblock you if you agree to the following conditions:...)
3. I had read up on this user earlier today before the AN/I was filed, and I was planning on giving the user a stern sounding warning if they resumed stirring up talk page drama - something along the lines of "Dr. Blofield has told you twice now to stay away from Jimbo's talk page, and now I'm telling you. Stop. Anna Frodesiak is trying to lead you in the right direction and a lot of people have given you advice...blah blah" I think that sometimes a serious warning can do more than an AN/I thread with a fraction of the drama.
Anyway, thanks for the time you've obviously put into dealing with this, and have a good night. ~Adjwilley (talk) 04:10, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
- Adjwilley, I had been watching them for a week myself. Taking them to ANI would not have been my choice this early in the game either, but once done, I had to join in. Casliber, Mongo, myself and other were convinced this was an older sockpuppet. More than just "a gut feeling", we were completely convinced based on behavioral evidence. When I said I would bet a month's salary, I wasn't kidding, I was that sure and would loved to have the extra money. We KNEW something was amiss. It is hard to explain how behavioral evidence proves this, but having a good amount of experience dealing with sock/trolls, you begin to see patterns. Obviously Risker saw them as well, which is why she ran the CU and did the homework. As for the folks defending Amanda, they just didn't see the patterns, either from a lack of experience or they didn't dig deep enough. It can be frustrating, but I understand wanting to defend someone, particularly when they say the are a 15 year old transgendered girl. That is what makes this so offensive to me. Likely they are twice that age, and just some guy using that as a persona to troll. And I'm not against brokered deals by one or two admin, I just wanted to make sure that ANI stayed open, for what now probably is obvious reasons. Amanda is a very experienced troll (maybe "I'm a man, duh" is a better name), enough to have fooled half the people, including smart people and experienced admin. That is why the block was so important. On the up side, while the ANI discussion had some heat, it was still civil and in the end, the process worked. Dennis - 2¢ 13:10, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
Agatha Marple
Another one - User:Agatha Marple. - Sitush (talk) 21:23, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
Unrelated: lovely edit summary on archiving, matching something I wrote two years ago, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:28, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
- I've only chatted him up once but he seems like a super nice guy. I'm just hoping that he only needs a long break, all while respecting whatever he decides. I completely understand leaving. I did for two years once myself. Some days I want to scramble my password. It is core to why I started WER: not because I know the answers but because I understand the problem. You are part of the solution, Gerda, and I appreciate that. Dennis - 2¢ 22:40, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
Successive relisting of AfDs
Hello, I've noticed you relisted Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tajiks in Canada. However, according to policy, "... relisting should not be a substitute for a "no consensus" closure. If the closer feels there has been substantive debate, disparate opinions supported by policy have been expressed, and consensus has not been achieved, a no-consensus close may be preferable. [...] in general, debates should not be relisted more than twice [bold in the original]. Users relisting a debate for a third (or further) time, or relisting a debate with a substantial number of commenters, should write a short explanation on why they did not consider the debate sufficient". As it appears to me there's no perspective of reaching consensus any time soon, could you provide an explanation for a third relisting? Thank you.Anonimu (talk) 23:05, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
- It wasn't relisted to substitute for any closure, but to get more input. While generally, being relisted twice is plenty, this isn't a typical AFD, having so many articles listed together. I would also note that the only two votes since it was first relisted are remarkably weak votes. It really needs more input. I would also add that relisting doesn't stop any other admin from closing it. They can close it today, tomorrow, whenever they want. Dennis - 2¢ 23:16, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
Deletion review for List of Windows Phone 8 devices
An editor has asked for a deletion review of List of Windows Phone 8 devices. 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. ViperSnake151 Talk 23:43, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
History of deleted arbitration requests
Regarding this comment: just a point of clarification: requests for arbitration are deleted from the Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case page, but the request is still visible within the page history, and so it is different than situations where the page for an RFC is deleted and so the contents are no longer visible. isaacl (talk) 15:25, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
- True, but the results is the same that you can't go to the "old" page and see everything without picking through histories. Not my best comparison, but in the same vane, as we don't keep the page as a stand alone thing afterwards, like we do failed RFAs, etc. Dennis - 2¢ 15:29, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
- The point of contention, though, was that the RFC was no longer visible at all, so the past conversation could no longer be referred to, and comments on other pages regarding that conversation become orphaned. I don't wish to re-argue the point here (I don't have a fully-formed opinion either way); I'm just offering feedback that the analogy doesn't really apply. isaacl (talk) 15:57, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
Greetings
Hello Dennis Brown, I was scrolling through the talk page of the RFA and found your post. I was considering applying for administratorship in a couple of months. I was wondering, what kind of things do you look for in a candidate? Johnsmith2116 (talk) 15:31, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
- I looked at your stats [17], which has some good things and a couple of voids. Personally, I look for at least 6,000 edits. Odds are way against you if you have less. The lowest I've seen lately was Basalisk, whom I nominated, and I think he had around 6k edits and caught some flack for it. Next, I prefer candidates that have at least 40% article edits, and you certainly qualify. Next, I look for candidates who have had experience in dispute resolution, contentious areas (just a little experience) and fair experience with deletion policy. WP:AFD often offers all three and is one of the best places to learn delete policy. You only have 3 AFDs behind you, so this would be the best place for you to learn. I would prefer to see 200 AFDs, although more is better. Saving a few articles there by fixing and convincing others that the article now meets criteria, that is a huge plus and is a clear demonstration you understand delete policy. Enabling CSD and PROD logging in Twinkle is another good idea, as people want to see what you do there, even if it isn't much. As for tenure, you have around 24 months of continuous editing, which is perfectly fine. Keep in mind, these are just the metrics, I haven't looked at how you deal with other people or your demeanor, but this should give you an idea of where to shore up for a serious run. Dennis - 2¢ 15:44, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
Knowledgekid87
I'd say it's about time he was blocked too along with Amanda and Patrol forty. He just left a comment on my user talk page which was clearly looking for me to react strongly to him just so he can preach his NPA nonsense. I'm not going to fall for it. He's a complete time waster and not here to produce content and we'd be better off without having him stick his nose into every situation. He's harassed Eric for pretty much weeks now and is trying to bait him into saying things and he seems to have started on me.♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:35, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
- I was in the middle of typing out something re: your banner. It was poetic, magical really. I wish I could write articles as well as I opine about policy. But you archived the page and now my magnificent prose is for naught. Sigh. The story of my life, I suppose. As for the other, you can request that he not post on your page if you like. We admin generally expect editors (including ourselves) to respect those wishes when clearly expressed, excepting notifications that require contact, of course. Other than that, I would have to look closer, which I may do in time. Dennis - 2¢ 17:47, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
- I've reverted it back. Now I need a break.♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:54, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
- But my text is gone! You're asking me to paint the Sistine Chapel twice in one day! Ok, maybe I'm being a little hyperbolic, or a lot. Anyway, I have to run for a bit and may say something later. I don't think the image is a great idea, but I don't think it is polemic, as you aren't calling Jimmy anything bad, you are just saying "I think your priorities are mixed up" in a satirical way. If Jimmy ever gets above a little satirical comment, I'm out of here. Dennis - 2¢ 17:56, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
- I doubt anybody would really have the balls to turn up on my talk page and agree with me.♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:57, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
- I've left a message on your talk page. I know that isn't why you came here, but this kind of thing really bugs me, censoring genuine and tasteful criticism of ourselves. Dennis - 2¢ 19:10, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
- Awwwww, Dr. Blofeld, you removed it?! Daaaaaayum. Dennis, I'm about to e-mail you about something entirely different. Yngvadottir (talk) 19:16, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
- I doubt anybody would really have the balls to turn up on my talk page and agree with me.♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:57, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
- But my text is gone! You're asking me to paint the Sistine Chapel twice in one day! Ok, maybe I'm being a little hyperbolic, or a lot. Anyway, I have to run for a bit and may say something later. I don't think the image is a great idea, but I don't think it is polemic, as you aren't calling Jimmy anything bad, you are just saying "I think your priorities are mixed up" in a satirical way. If Jimmy ever gets above a little satirical comment, I'm out of here. Dennis - 2¢ 17:56, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
- I've reverted it back. Now I need a break.♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:54, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
- Just for the record I would have been happy to have been pinged about a discussion regarding me being blocked, anyways I have agreed not to post on Dr. Blofeld's talk-page. I feel this is for the best course of action. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:14, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
VOA Il Duce 83
Hello. Since you gave them this warning I thought I'd tell you that they're back at it again Thomas.W talk 18:49, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
- A week in time out. I'm not sure if he just doesn't speak English or what, but he won't even try to communicate, so blocking is the only tool I have that works. Dennis - 2¢ 19:09, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
- Since all he's done here is increase the numbers in the articles about the Soviet and Russian Air Forces and lower the numbers in the article about the US Air Force, without writing even a single word in English, other than edit summaries (which could easily be machine translated), I guess he's Russian and knows very little English. So I doubt there will be any communication. Thomas.W talk 19:39, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
- Well, communication is required. Same reason I don't go toy with the Russian Wikipedia and alter numbers. If you can't at least marginally speak the language, you probably need to not be working on that wiki. Dennis - 2¢ 19:41, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
- For a while I was tempted to post a template with a message in Russian on their talk page, telling them to contribute to the Russian WP instead, but I don't hink they're interested in contributing anywhere, they're just here to take part in the propaganda war, with sneaky vandalism everywhere, that is currently raging on en-WP. Thomas.W talk 19:50, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
- A template in Russian might be a good idea, if you can be confident of what it is saying. If nothing else, getting something to translate back from this person might give us an idea of their motivation. I hate blocking blind like this, but he really hasn't given me any choice. Dennis - 2¢ 19:52, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
- I believe the correct opening remark in a case like this is Моё судно на воздушной подушке полно угрей. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:36, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
- Which in English means "My hovercraft is full of eels". So thanks, but no thanks. Someone else suggested a message starting with "Путин, пошёл на хуй", but I don't think that would be appropriate either, even though it was more tempting than your suggestion. Thomas.W talk 21:22, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
Hi. Just noticed on my watchlist about the AFD decision. I agree with it but I would take slight issue with your comment that "The result was no consensus. Textbook example of no consensus".
I only posit this because of the presence of a phony IP claiming to be Howley;
Delete - I am the subject, and this page was designed specifically by political critics who wanted to post defamatory hit pieces about me. This should not be the point of Wikipedia. The point of Wikipedia should not be cyber-harassment by specific individuals. Thank you -PH — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.44.5.213 (talk) 20:50, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
whom I challenged. Something fishy there. If you subtract that fraud, only two votes for delete, so I would say a clear consensus to keep. Anyway just my opinion. Yours, Quis separabit? 22:45, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
- The problem being that I can't guarantee who is and isn't, and the IP didn't want it regardless (although that is a weak vote if not him), so it was a punt to a safe result that would end in keep without disqualifying a refile at any time. If that IS him and he doesn't want the article, he needs to identify via UTRS. In that case, deleting would be appropriate as he isn't a political or major figure. Had that vote not been there, it would obviously been "keep", as most of the keep votes were very strong. Since "no consensus" still means it is kept, it just seemed proper in a case like this. Dennis - 2¢ 22:53, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
- No I agree. If he were Patrick Howley and he didn't want the article then I respect that and it is an OTRS case. I just was fairly certain it wasn't him, because he just left a ridiculous scrawl complaining about the article being "derogatory", which it isn't. When I asked what was derogatory about the article, no response. So I am pretty confident we can be sure that it wasn't him. Yours, Quis separabit? 23:36, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
- I mean't OTRS thanks, been a long day/month, and I've been clearing out a ton of backed up AFDs. It might really be him, and he wasn't sure how to get back. This place is confusing to a new user, particularly one with no watchlist like an IP. I just didn't want to slow down or give a sideshow reason in the unlikely event it sees another AFD in a week or two. I've been involved in a couple of those AFDs, they can get messy, I just didn't want "too soon" to be used by a dozen people if it really did come to that. Dennis - 2¢ 23:43, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
- No I agree. If he were Patrick Howley and he didn't want the article then I respect that and it is an OTRS case. I just was fairly certain it wasn't him, because he just left a ridiculous scrawl complaining about the article being "derogatory", which it isn't. When I asked what was derogatory about the article, no response. So I am pretty confident we can be sure that it wasn't him. Yours, Quis separabit? 23:36, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
Black Feminist Anthro
It would appear to me that Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Black Feminist Anthropology was much closer to a "keep" consensus than to "no consensus". (There was no disagreement about the fate of the article—that it should be kept and that its non-book contents should be removed.) Thanks for clearing out the AfD backlog—wish I could help czar ♔ 00:10, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
- Well, there was a consensus to delete the content in its current state, and a consensus to build something else in its place. This is one of those odd AFDs, but they happen, where it is just best to say "no consensus" and leave it to the editors to fix. Dennis - 2¢ 00:16, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
- I think the difference is that the calls for deletion were not !votes to delete the article topic, but to purge ("delete") large swaths of content from the article. The consensus would still be to "keep" the article, even if it's being gutted. Anyway, my 2¢. czar ♔ 00:21, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
- It isn't the votes that matter, it's the discussion, and the split ideas about what to keep/delete made it impossible to craft a singular close that summed it up without explanation. The primary advantage of "no consensus" over "keep" is that if no one does anything about the article, someone is free to take it back to AFD without waiting, so it empowers them. Dennis - 2¢ 00:25, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
- I think the difference is that the calls for deletion were not !votes to delete the article topic, but to purge ("delete") large swaths of content from the article. The consensus would still be to "keep" the article, even if it's being gutted. Anyway, my 2¢. czar ♔ 00:21, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
Halloween cheer!
How would you feel about relisting Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shemford once more in lieu of the deletion? I had rewritten the article from scratch this morning and the other participants did not have the opportunity to respond. czar ♔ 05:21, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
- I went and looked at the versions before and after, and was about to suggest userfying instead as I think it is still likely to not garner enough votes, then noticed the ping my Kudpung on your talk page. I think DGG and Kudpung summed it up pretty well there. This doesn't mean there is no hope in the future, but as it is currently sourced, the odds are that relisting it won't make a difference. Participation at AFD is fairly low, and DGG is correct that most people draw a hard and fast line when it comes to schools, and several mentions almost never are enough to cross that line. I'm still willing to userfy the article if it is a project you genuinely think could pass WP:REFUND in time, but as it is, three admin (myself included) think there is little chance it could overcome the current amount of support to delete if it were to be relisted, making it pointless. Userfying represents the best chance if there really is a possibility of salvaging it over time. Dennis - 2¢ 10:59, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
- On the last point about overcoming the support for deletion, DGG's post on my talk page actually recommended taking it to deletion review because he disagrees with his original nomination. (Though, on its own merits, I still think the deleted version of the article—the one I wrote the day of the deletion—has sourcing that meets the GNG, if only it were to actually be considered.) Sound like a good plan? czar ♔ 18:01, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
- You can use WP:DRV if you want, or better, use WP:REFUND if you have fixed the article. I never find offense in a sincere review of my closing. Technically, if you asked for it to be userfied, fixed the problems, just about any admin would move it into main space. If it went to review, odds are that it would be "endorsed", as review doesn't retry the case, they only look to see if the close was "reasonable", and since the momentum at the end was to delete, I'm not sure they would overturn. A closer doesn't normally look for talk page input in the decision, I'm sure you understand that. Again, my philosophy is simple: show me a version that has even a snowball's chance in hell of passing an AFD and I will personally move it in there. If you need it userfied, just ask me or DGG, or any admin you choose. I'm not bureaucratic about it, I just had to close it as I saw it. Dennis - 2¢ 19:10, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
Your Expert Opinion Required
Dear Sir, I have made some changes to the Educate My Girl Page. Do guide me with your expert opinion — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rangergirl34 (talk • contribs) 12:58, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
- (talk page stalker) @Rangergirl34: The article in question has already been deleted once per a deletion discussion. The present version gives no indications that the situation has changed since that discussion was closed (yesterday). WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 13:09, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
- WikiDan61 explains it well. If you wanted to get it undeleted, you would have to go to WP:REFUND after it had a complete rewrite in your user space. Looking at it, honestly, I don't think there is any amount of rewrite possible to pass criteria here. Most organizations don't pass the criteria here. The business I own, for example, doesn't come close to passing. Most don't. It requires multiple coverage from independent sources, and that coverage must be substantial, not just a passing mention. The organization you are wanting to create an article on is new, very new. It is not unusual for a non-profit that new to not pass criteria here. I'm sorry. Dennis - 2¢ 13:36, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
- Dear Sir. This is the link to the fundraiser we did an year back.http://www.youcaring.com/other/educate-my-girl-computer-program/112232 . I hope this might be a little proof of our notability. Regards. Waiting for your honoured decision. Thanks a lot for your civility.--Rangergirl34 (talk) 13:58, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
- What we need is 2 or 3 newspaper articles where the primary topic is this organization. Times of India, New York Times, The Guardian, that kind of stuff. Those are independent news organizations that don't have an interest directly in the non-profit, so their objectivity can be trusted. The main policies that apply here are WP:RS, which defines what is and isn't a "reliable source", WP:CORP, the specific guidelines to include a business or non-profit, as well as WP:SIGCOV, which explains what "significant coverage" means in the context of a Wikipedia article. I know that is a fair amount of reading, but those are what we have to use to justify an article. Dennis - 2¢ 14:14, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
- Dear Sir. This is the link to the fundraiser we did an year back.http://www.youcaring.com/other/educate-my-girl-computer-program/112232 . I hope this might be a little proof of our notability. Regards. Waiting for your honoured decision. Thanks a lot for your civility.--Rangergirl34 (talk) 13:58, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
- WikiDan61 explains it well. If you wanted to get it undeleted, you would have to go to WP:REFUND after it had a complete rewrite in your user space. Looking at it, honestly, I don't think there is any amount of rewrite possible to pass criteria here. Most organizations don't pass the criteria here. The business I own, for example, doesn't come close to passing. Most don't. It requires multiple coverage from independent sources, and that coverage must be substantial, not just a passing mention. The organization you are wanting to create an article on is new, very new. It is not unusual for a non-profit that new to not pass criteria here. I'm sorry. Dennis - 2¢ 13:36, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
Halloween cheer!
List of drum manufacturers
Thanks for your deletions at List of drum manufacturers.
Almost all the references used in that list, to support entries without Wikipedia articles, are to the manufacturers' own web-sites, which does not prove notability. I therefore proposed at Talk:List of drum manufacturers, that entries without their own article on en.wikipedia should be deleted. Your comments on that proposal would be appreciated. - Arjayay (talk) 18:49, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
- I'm probably super, insanely lax about the requirements in that article, but they have to at least have that primary link. I really don't mind having brands in there that are obscure because I know that drums don't get a lot of press, and I think we are better with too much rather than too little, but we can't have entries with zero links to the main site. Technically, we shouldn't have to require wikipedia articles, but that would mean they need to show two links that demonstrate notability, which means they could just go start a stub. There are lots of other articles like this as well, where notability is kind of hard to prove, but if someone at least shows a primary link to a mighty fine main site, or a good quality link to a news report, I tend to let it slide. If anything, the article just need semi-protection, because the only people adding in the messy stuff are IPs, from what I can see.
- So I will tolerate it if we tighten up the, but really, what you are proposing is kind of what policy already is, and a "local consensus" can't really override it. I personally just recommend reverting every now and then, and I might go ask for semi-protection. Dennis - 2¢ 18:57, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
- Given that the companies own web-sites, or other retail sites, are not "independent", they do not demonstrate notability. I take it you are happy if I simply remove all the names citing their own web-site, or another retail site, as their reference? - Arjayay (talk) 20:02, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
- Not sure "happy" is the right word, but doing so would be within policy. Leaving them if you think they are actually a decent sized company, that would also be ok. We don't have to be draconian, just reasonable, and with lists, I think using individual judgement is best. Dennis - 2¢ 21:44, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
- User:Northamerica1000 seems to be on a clean-up - I'll let the dust settle - thanks for the comments - Arjayay (talk) 22:18, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
- No problem. I know what I'm saying is vague, but I try to not get too hard nosed about lists. If it were a spammy article, I would go after it with a machete. And yeah, NorthAmerica loves lists. I tend to jump on some that he creates, I'm not shocked that he would jump over here. Really experienced guy, I'm pretty sure he won't break much ;) Dennis - 2¢ 22:20, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
- Hi D.B.: I remember you helping out in expanding List of soft drink flavors. List of hot beverages was just recently revamped. I know you're busy in many areas on Wikipedia, but if you can think of any hot beverages that aren't on the list, feel free to add to it. NorthAmerica1000 01:26, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
- No problem. I know what I'm saying is vague, but I try to not get too hard nosed about lists. If it were a spammy article, I would go after it with a machete. And yeah, NorthAmerica loves lists. I tend to jump on some that he creates, I'm not shocked that he would jump over here. Really experienced guy, I'm pretty sure he won't break much ;) Dennis - 2¢ 22:20, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
- User:Northamerica1000 seems to be on a clean-up - I'll let the dust settle - thanks for the comments - Arjayay (talk) 22:18, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
- Not sure "happy" is the right word, but doing so would be within policy. Leaving them if you think they are actually a decent sized company, that would also be ok. We don't have to be draconian, just reasonable, and with lists, I think using individual judgement is best. Dennis - 2¢ 21:44, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
- Given that the companies own web-sites, or other retail sites, are not "independent", they do not demonstrate notability. I take it you are happy if I simply remove all the names citing their own web-site, or another retail site, as their reference? - Arjayay (talk) 20:02, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
Use of an alternate account
I don't feel like I should have to go into detail about my reasons for not wanting to use my main account for certain things. If necessary, I will identify myself to a member of ArbCom (but not to you). I'm sure you have better things to do than hassle me over the use of this account. Please do some of those instead. Legit Alternate Account (talk) 03:54, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
- @Legit Alternate Account. In general, we don't allow undisclosed alternate accounts unless there is good cause. On your talk page, you stated the reason was so you could work on nude celebrity images. This is arguably a valid reason. The problem is, you have never even once worked on a nude celebrity image, and instead you have been chatting up Jimbo and working on Dread Pirate Roberts (Silk Road), and started a thread at ANI complaining about a user. This is exactly the type of activity that is barred from undisclosed alternate accounts, so let me be blunt. If you continue, you will be blocked as a sockpuppet using an alternate account to avoid scrutiny. You can either 1. Stop using the account. 2. Disclose your identity to a CU and have them sign off on this being a valid use of the account. 3. Continue and get blocked. I would consider this your third and final warning. Dennis - 2¢ 13:27, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
- Dennis, you do a lot of good admin work, but I think the problem here is a failure to assume good faith. I am an experienced Wikipedia editor in good standing. I created an alternate account to work on one issue. I made the mistake of choosing a name that turned out to be like waving a red cape at some people. I have never encountered Signedzzz before (which is a good thing). I have never edited Dread Pirate Roberts (Silk Road) with another account. Jimbo has already checkusered me. I could have just created a sock and pretended to be a new user but I didn't want to do that. I wanted to be clear that I have another account with a history here. I'm not trying to "avoid scrutiny". I'm being completely open about what I am doing. I'm using an alternate account to work on controversial topics that I don't want associated with my main account. Cut me some slack. Legit Alternate Account (talk) 14:18, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
- I have, and I'm willing to, which is why I'm engaging in calm discussion instead of just jumping to action. It isn't like I enjoy blocking, the paperwork and drama are a pain. You seem reasonable, so do me a favor, and try my shoes on for a minute and be the admin: a guy says "I want this account to edit celebrity nudes with privacy", then go look at your contribs: Jimbo, filing at ANI, editing a BLP, no edits to the claimed area. Can you honesty say you wouldn't be suspicious? It isn't about faith, it's about comparing a current issue with previous experience. If I assumed no good faith, I would have already blocked you, but instead I warned a few times, to force a dialog. And Jimbo's comment was based on you editing articles that you aren't editing, and don't bar any admin from follow up action. I'm not against undisclosed accounts, but it requires being very honest about the scope, publishing that on the user page, and while identifying to a CU isn't required, it is recommended, so they can put a note on your user page. In short, an undisclosed alt account is always on a very short rope, so it is up to you to go out of your way to be extra clear. The reason the rope is so short is because the two most common reasons for an editor in good standing to create an illegitimate sock is 1. to troll on Jimbos page and 2. drag users to ANI to get them in trouble, while their own history can't be examined. This is why I say the suspicion IS reasonable, even if you are assuming good faith. Dennis - 2¢ 14:41, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
- Perhaps I could be of help? LAA, at the moment, Jimbo has checkusered you but "... was unable to find any associated account or evidence of this being any longstanding banned user or whatever". In all honesty, the fact that he was unable to find an account raises more concerns than it does quash. It may be that Jimmy's out of practice with CU, he's not run one in the previous 6 months. It's generally better to identify to the arbitration committee as a whole, but if you'd like to identify to a single member of Arbcom, give me a shout. WormTT(talk) 14:56, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks Worm, that is exactly in line with what I'm saying. I assume someone can put a note on their user page, then if someone asks them "are you a sock?" they can point to their user page. This way, we don't have to guess, and realistically, life is smoother for Legit as well. We WANT you to have the account for reasonable purposes, but if we have to keep second guessing the intent, it eats up time and resources. Dennis - 2¢ 15:02, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
- Perhaps I could be of help? LAA, at the moment, Jimbo has checkusered you but "... was unable to find any associated account or evidence of this being any longstanding banned user or whatever". In all honesty, the fact that he was unable to find an account raises more concerns than it does quash. It may be that Jimmy's out of practice with CU, he's not run one in the previous 6 months. It's generally better to identify to the arbitration committee as a whole, but if you'd like to identify to a single member of Arbcom, give me a shout. WormTT(talk) 14:56, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
- I have, and I'm willing to, which is why I'm engaging in calm discussion instead of just jumping to action. It isn't like I enjoy blocking, the paperwork and drama are a pain. You seem reasonable, so do me a favor, and try my shoes on for a minute and be the admin: a guy says "I want this account to edit celebrity nudes with privacy", then go look at your contribs: Jimbo, filing at ANI, editing a BLP, no edits to the claimed area. Can you honesty say you wouldn't be suspicious? It isn't about faith, it's about comparing a current issue with previous experience. If I assumed no good faith, I would have already blocked you, but instead I warned a few times, to force a dialog. And Jimbo's comment was based on you editing articles that you aren't editing, and don't bar any admin from follow up action. I'm not against undisclosed accounts, but it requires being very honest about the scope, publishing that on the user page, and while identifying to a CU isn't required, it is recommended, so they can put a note on your user page. In short, an undisclosed alt account is always on a very short rope, so it is up to you to go out of your way to be extra clear. The reason the rope is so short is because the two most common reasons for an editor in good standing to create an illegitimate sock is 1. to troll on Jimbos page and 2. drag users to ANI to get them in trouble, while their own history can't be examined. This is why I say the suspicion IS reasonable, even if you are assuming good faith. Dennis - 2¢ 14:41, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
- Dennis, you do a lot of good admin work, but I think the problem here is a failure to assume good faith. I am an experienced Wikipedia editor in good standing. I created an alternate account to work on one issue. I made the mistake of choosing a name that turned out to be like waving a red cape at some people. I have never encountered Signedzzz before (which is a good thing). I have never edited Dread Pirate Roberts (Silk Road) with another account. Jimbo has already checkusered me. I could have just created a sock and pretended to be a new user but I didn't want to do that. I wanted to be clear that I have another account with a history here. I'm not trying to "avoid scrutiny". I'm being completely open about what I am doing. I'm using an alternate account to work on controversial topics that I don't want associated with my main account. Cut me some slack. Legit Alternate Account (talk) 14:18, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
Using an undisclosed alternate account to work on controversial topics is the very definition of avoiding scrutiny, as Dennis has ably shown above. Don't hate me for being quicker on the draw.[18] Bishonen | talk 19:40, 28 October 2014 (UTC).
checkuser blocks
"Only a checkuser may review a checkuser block" -- are you sure? I've always interpreted policy as only a checkuser may overturn a checkuser block; is a non-checkuser upholding a checkuser block based upon SPI and behavioral evidence now considered improper? --jpgordon::==( o ) 18:02, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
- We can't decline a block we aren't authorized to approve, that is too one sided to be an objective review. If it just a run of the mill block done by a CU, any admin can review, but if is tagged as {{checkuser-block}}, that means it was done using the CU logs. Since we don't have access to the logs, we are ignorant of the true reason for the block and have no way to judge the accuracy or inaccuracy of the CU assessment, thus it isn't fair for us to review. I know you see plenty of it, but there has been some talk lately and really, it isn't kosher. Put another way, a decline means you are endorsing the block, which was done using data you can't see. That isn't a valid review. Dennis - 2¢ 18:19, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
- Fair 'nuff. --jpgordon::==( o ) 19:13, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
- I have asked User:Alison to review the case. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:00, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
- Sounds fine to me, shes one of our finest and most experienced. Dennis - 2¢ 21:01, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
- That's what I thought too, also uninvolved so the outcome is fair. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:05, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
- How do you know the outcome is fair before you've seen what the outcome is? Do you have access to a crystal ball? If you do, can you please email me the result of the Manchester United vs. Manchester City derby match on Sunday, and I'll split the winnings with you. Eric Corbett 21:08, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
- Meaning that people who are uninvolved are better handled to close cases? It just helps to have a new set of eyes is all im saying. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:13, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
- That's what I thought too, also uninvolved so the outcome is fair. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:05, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
- Sounds fine to me, shes one of our finest and most experienced. Dennis - 2¢ 21:01, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
RfA
Hi Dennis. I've been reading the RfA talk page discussions over the past few weeks and noticed you said you've been approaching editors who would be suitable for the admin role. I would be happy to help/work in some admin areas and think I pass various general/user RfA guidelines and so wondered what you thought about me as an admin candidate. At this stage I think I'd be capable working at AfD, CSD, and RPP, but would be comfortable learning other areas. The tools would also help me generally, such as in the help venues. Thanks, Sam Walton (talk) 19:19, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
- Looking just at your metrics, I see around 8k-9k edits, 75 AFDs, which is a little light but not bad and probably good enough. Your ratios there look normal but I didn't peak into individual discussions yet. 57% article edits which is really good. 12% meta discussions, which means you have some experience. Your month contrib rates look fine, although September was one heck of a peak. You don't have CSD or PROD logging enabled in Twinkle. Not required, but a good idea, it shows you are being transparent, and would have let me look at your CSD ratios and focus much easier. Your total number of contribs are slightly on the light side, but it is easy to see you make each edit count, judging by the number of DYK, GA and FAs you have, so I don't think that would hurt you. I would have to dig deeper or be provided with some diffs for disputes and such, and would have to check talk page edits to see demeanor, on the surface, you look like a pretty good candidate. Before I spent a bunch of time digging up diffs, how serious are you about running? Dennis - 2¢ 19:35, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks for the overview. I have CSD logging at User:Samwalton9/CSD log though I've only just enabled PROD logging. I'm quite serious about running, it's something I've always considered I might do when I felt the need for the tools and just haven't until recently. There have been quite a few users needing help on IRC I've been unable to help properly since I couldn't see a deleted article for example, and with the declining admin numbers and assorted grumbling about admin areas I am enthusiastic to help out where needed. If you want a pointer for disputes, the biggest dispute I can think of was at Talk:University of Liverpool, though I honestly don't get into that many. Sam Walton (talk) 19:48, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
- Oh, and the September peak was due to an AWB campaign to clean up WP:VG infoboxes. Sam Walton (talk) 19:54, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
(tps post) Heck, I'd support him... KillerChihuahua 20:02, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
- You do seem to have a good balance of stuff, Sam, which is what I like to see. Give me a day or two to do some serious digging. If you have any previous sanctions or significant problems in the past now is a good time to say so. It won't prevent you at RFA, but things like that are best admitted up front. If you wait for someone else to find it, it will kill an RFA instantly. Its all about disclosure. But yes, I can see me supporting, and assuming I find what I expect to find when digging deeper (calm demeanor in particular), I would be willing to nominate. Dennis - 2¢ 20:35, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
- Thank you! I'm 99% sure I have nothing to confess, and take as long as you like, I'm in no rush. Thanks again, Sam Walton (talk) 20:40, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
- Ah, the 1% just occurred to me - I'd been meaning to add my only other account to my user page, which is now there. Sam Walton (talk) 20:45, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
- That is exactly why a little planning is good. If an undisclosed account comes up at RFA, someone screams "SOCK!", etc etc etc. I'm going to do a full blown review at User:Dennis Brown/RfA/Samwalton9. What I suggest is that you look at the standard questions asked at the beginning of the RFA, and work on your answers. At the end of the review (assuming all looks good) I will email you. Dennis - 2¢ 21:08, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) As somebody who's seen Sam around before at WPAST, I've always been impressed with his demeanor and would likely support an RfA unless something egregious came up. StringTheory11 (t • c) 02:00, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks StringTheory11. Dennis, would you like me to work on my answers & fill in the 'candidate area' on that review page? Sam Walton (talk) 10:02, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
Hey Vern
Dennis,
You were the flag bearer for the deletion of the the entry for Vern Monnett. Among the reasons given were a lack of relevancy. Wiki's own list of criteria for relevancy include nomination for a Grammy. Do your homework. Vern was nominated for a Grammy for his work on the Texas Tornado's album "4 Aces", as listed in the article. He was also a credited actor on the "Beverly Hillbillies" movie, as referenced by IMDb. He has toured over 30 countries and continues to do relevant work in the field. Please reinstate this article immediately. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.174.226.48 (talk) 20:48, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
- You are mistaken, I didn't bear any flag. I only closed the deletion discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vern Monnett. I didn't vote or ask for it to be deleted, the community did. All I did was follow the request of the community. If you want it reviewed, try WP:DRV, but I suggest you try being more polite than you are here. Dennis - 2¢ 21:06, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
Village pump RfA thing
Did we put our opposes in the wrong spot? :) I just stuck mine below User:Church's. Now, others are getting it all mixed up too. Feel free to move stuff about, including mine. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 03:51, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
Okay, I changed my "Oppose" to "Maintain". That made it clear. I do not even know why there are two subsections. Why not one subsection where people say "Abolish" or "Maintain"? The statement "Please vote Abolish (Support) to abolish our current RfA system or Maintain (Oppose) to maintain it (for now)." and then providing two subsections "Abolish current RfA system" and "Maintain current RfA system" is a bit unnecessary. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 04:01, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
- hehe, someone will sort it out. Honestly, I don't think it matters. There is no way that RFA will get thrown out without a replacement. Even if they got a majority vote there (not likely), it doesn't overrule what is called community consensus, nor the WMF. I probably shouldn't have even jumped in that discussion, it is absurd and silly to talk of destroying RFA without a replacement. And as soon as I started suggesting tweaks, they excuse was "NO! We've tried to get tweaks before and people voted them down!!!". Um, yes, like you are doing right now? I have learned the hard way, by proposing new policies and policy changes, that some people are afraid of any change so they will oppose everything, and some think that policies should reflect their own ideas 100%, or they will oppose the change. This is why nothing gets done. Meanwhile, I just keep nominating people like you, and they pass. All this fuss at VP is full of good intention and hot air. Dennis - 2¢ 12:56, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
- Just to freak out everyone, change your Maintain to "Mainbolish" or "Suppose" with a cryptic and self-contradictory rationale. Oh, and stick it under a new subheading called "Mainbolish/Suppose". Joking. But, seriously, I love what you wrote above. Wikipedia is a bit of a madhouse sometimes. Sort of a comedy of errors, but it ticks along.
- I wrote to JohnCD here. I didn't know there had been a lot of discussion about how to find the cause of the decline. I just thought the decline itself was discussed to death and much speculated upon. Anyhow, if there is going to be a plan to help bring the numbers up, it will surely be based on the reason the numbers are falling. That much is obvious. :)
- I like what you are doing with the direct approach of going out and finding admins. Nice. I also respect your views on the reasons for the decline a lot. You mentioned somewhere today that you have asked dozens about their reluctance. You probably know better than anyone.
- I think I need to unwatch that RfA talk page. I'm not sure how I got watching it in the first place, and don't even know if this flurry of activity is the norm.
- Best wishes, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 13:47, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
- It's kind of funny, and enjoyable to watch you mature into the admin role. I've already told you I think you are one of the finest we have here, but you do lose some of the "innocence" after a while, and you start to see why sometimes you have to be firm, or just swing the hammer. But you've managed to do it without losing your sense of humor, sense of self, and without being a bitter, intolerant husk of a former person, like the rest of us ;). And now your sense of humor is getting a bit twisted, which I adore because I relate to it. You HAVE to laugh at yourself, at Wikipedia. Too many take it all too serious and they actually hurt the thing they claim to love. Admining here is like herding cats, if you can't laugh, it will drive you mad. And yes, the "unwatching of pages" is the next step, to keep yourself out of trouble. Caring is like medicine: a little makes you better, too much is toxic. Sometimes you have to just put it out of your mind by unwatching for a while. Dennis - 2¢ 14:03, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
- Thank you. :) I love "...intolerant husk of a former person..." You could fill in for Dave Barry when he's on holiday. And yes, Wikipedia reminds me a bit of that book Catch 22, where it all functions in a bit of a mad way. Really, you are one of the really sane people here. You are totally pilot material. As for me as an admin, I promised myself that my first year would be low-hanging fruit. I just realized that it has been 16 months. I will delve into rougher waters soon. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 14:26, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
- As someone who has done a lot of diving (sometimes into 1 meter water....) I can say that you serve us and yourself best if you don't get TOO involved. I've gotten too involved and it has taken a toll on me. It is hard to find that balance, to be involved but not so much it consumes you, so you can always do your best and be your best. Otherwise, you do good, but not your best, and you start doubting yourself. Plus, you can only handle so much objection. Just like below...someone asking me about Amanda. He's doing so in a perfectly reasonable way (although I think he needs to read ALL the material before questioning, something editors rarely do). Some admin will be short, just say "look, that is how it is, if you think I'm wrong, take me to WP:AN". I try to not do that until there is a genuine impasse. This looks like one of those cases where we probably won't agree, and even though I didn't use the tools (so WP:ADMINACCT inst' an issue, but my behavior is) I want to provide all the opportunity to be heard and to listen. If you get tied in controversial stuff all the time, it makes you impatient for stuff like that, and it doesn't bring out the best in you. Its all about balance. Oh, and I sent you an email, btw. Dennis - 2¢ 20:25, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
- I agree. I feel myself getting sucked into the backpages, and I do not like being there. Back to the mainspace for me! Thank you. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 08:39, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
- As someone who has done a lot of diving (sometimes into 1 meter water....) I can say that you serve us and yourself best if you don't get TOO involved. I've gotten too involved and it has taken a toll on me. It is hard to find that balance, to be involved but not so much it consumes you, so you can always do your best and be your best. Otherwise, you do good, but not your best, and you start doubting yourself. Plus, you can only handle so much objection. Just like below...someone asking me about Amanda. He's doing so in a perfectly reasonable way (although I think he needs to read ALL the material before questioning, something editors rarely do). Some admin will be short, just say "look, that is how it is, if you think I'm wrong, take me to WP:AN". I try to not do that until there is a genuine impasse. This looks like one of those cases where we probably won't agree, and even though I didn't use the tools (so WP:ADMINACCT inst' an issue, but my behavior is) I want to provide all the opportunity to be heard and to listen. If you get tied in controversial stuff all the time, it makes you impatient for stuff like that, and it doesn't bring out the best in you. Its all about balance. Oh, and I sent you an email, btw. Dennis - 2¢ 20:25, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
- Thank you. :) I love "...intolerant husk of a former person..." You could fill in for Dave Barry when he's on holiday. And yes, Wikipedia reminds me a bit of that book Catch 22, where it all functions in a bit of a mad way. Really, you are one of the really sane people here. You are totally pilot material. As for me as an admin, I promised myself that my first year would be low-hanging fruit. I just realized that it has been 16 months. I will delve into rougher waters soon. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 14:26, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
Award 4 U
You "scratched my back" as it were, so I'm indebted to you. Name the return "scratch", and it's yours.
Vjmlhds (talk) 04:12, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
- I have to admit, I'm not shocked to get a barnstar that has "BS" in the center, but I didn't think that it would mean "Back Scratcher", Dennis - 2¢ 14:04, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
Restore request
Hi Dennis. Can you restore User:INeverCry/CSD log for me when you have time? INeverCry 09:46, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
- (talk page stalker) Don't know how often Dennis is about at the moment, so I've done this for you. Yunshui 雲水 11:59, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
- I'm here a bit this week, but I always appreciate someone jumping in and getting the job done quicker. Dennis - 2¢ 12:50, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks Yunshui. I love it when fellow Commons admins show up and take care of a request for me there, and it was the same when I was an admin here. INeverCry 22:43, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
Amanda
The unblock request is declined, so brown and not blue. (It is not in any category, right?) Is a checkuser aware that it needs reviewing? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 14:04, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
- Brown means declined. Phil Knight reviewed it, ex Arb, CU, plenty qualified to do so. Plus he added the non-CU justification for maintaining the block. So two ex-Arbs and current CUs have blocked and maintained the block. Two of our most experienced editors have kept her block, no one will dare unblock her, unless it was BASC or Arb itself, which isn't likely. Unreviewed blocks are in a category, actually, I forget the link. Dennis - 2¢ 14:14, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
- Of course I know brown means declined. (Blue then either brown or green.) :) I saw your comment and assumed Phil was not a CU and you were waiting for someone else. I see it was Jamie first, then Phil, who closed the case for good. And that is that. Thank you. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 14:25, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
I was going to give you the script to show userrights, but you already have it, you just have to go to Phil's user page and it says the rights under his name. :p But yes, I struck my comment after Phil reviewed. It was left because Jamie had (in good faith) mistakenly reviewed. It is implied, but I went and changed Wikipedia:Blocking policy to make it explicit: an admin can't decline an unblock if they lack the authority to accept it. Seems only fair. Dennis - 2¢ 14:39, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
- I have the script. I just didn't click on Phil's page to check his rights. I was doing other things, and just drove by Amanda's page and saw your comment below the decline. Sorry for not checking the history. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 14:47, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
Proof
Where is the proof that the user is not a transgendered individual? You do realize that there is no direct way to tell whether someone is being a fraud for the transgendered identity, right? Socking and everything else aside, I'd like to focus on this bit because being misgendered, especially when you're in the vulnerable position (being blocked) can be seen as exacerbating the flames and can lead to editor depression and possible suicide. The fact that the user has socked does not alone lend credibility to the theory that the user was 'faking it for protection due to it being a minority group'. There could be a legitimate person being absolutely degraded and humiliated, especially by the heavily offensive and vitriolic phrase, "A man, duh". I'd like your thoughts. Tutelary (talk) 19:24, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
- You need to go view the ANI discussion, which has all the links. Amanda was about to be blocked for WP:NOTHERE right before Risker blocked for a CU block. It is no shocker when someone lies about their identity multiple times, they might be lying about it the last time, but suffice it to say that a number of us know transgendered people and this editor's actions/words/etc were so wildly out of character, it was obvious they weren't a teenage girl, very unlikely female, very unlikely transgendered, and then we found they lied about a great deal more. Again, the ANI has all the input. I particularly find this offensive as being transgendered isn't exactly a walk in the park, and there is enough harassment that comes with it, without someone adopting this as their persona here. Most importantly, being transgendered shouldn't matter at Wikipedia. We are an encyclopedia, we don't discriminate against men, women, gay, straight, Christian, Muslim, Atheist, etc. We are also not here to be a social network or a form of WP:THERAPY. Whatever the problem he has, it was obvious he isn't a transgendered teenage girl, and the request to work with Eric was just the red flag, not the final straw. Read that whole ANI, plus all the things Amanda said that lead to that ANI. It is a lot of material, too much for me to summarize here. Only one person believed Amanda, and quickly changed their mind once they saw the other stuff. Dennis - 2¢ 19:34, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
but suffice it to say that a number of us know transgendered people and this editor's actions/words/etc were so wildly out of character, it was obvious they weren't a teenage girl, very unlikely female, very unlikely transgendered, and then we found they lied about a great deal more.
So you're saying that it's out of line on how a transgendered person should be reacting to Wikipedia? If that person isn't adhering to what you would expect from a transgendered editor? Sigh, I don't believe that a person should have to conform to the stereotypes of their identity to be considered of that identity. Same way that somebody may 'act' straight, but be gay in actuality. Does that mean they're obviously not gay because they were acting straight? No, they're still gay. Same here. Because a person 'acts' as not being transgendered (and I'm not really sure how they managed that, they commented on Eric's page and the like, I didn't see much conduct that implied such).I particularly find this offensive as being transgendered isn't exactly a walk in the park, and there is enough harassment that comes with it
I do find it offensive as well if it's true. But given my benefit of the doubt, I can't help but see there being absolutely no reason for this implication other than the fact that the user socked. I guess I should ask: If a person socks, does that mean we can just throw out their gender identity full heartedly? Oh, can we also call them 'A man, duh' when it's been blatantly clear that they assert themself as a transgendered individual, full well knowing that if it's true, that that's effective blow to their mental health? Tutelary (talk) 19:53, 30 October 2014 (UTC)- You need to go read the ANI and all the back material. You are trying to cherry pick my statements and use those as evidence, but it doesn't work that way. No one said anyone had to act like a stereotype, but there are still behaviors that are consistent with deception. I had no idea she was a sockpuppet, nor did the rest of us, when the bulk of the community felt she wasn't a she, so you are taking this out of context and twisting the events into a shape they didn't exist in. If there was any inkling that Amanda was who he said he was, of course I wouldn't have hammed that point. But there really is no doubt to many of us. If you see a woman dancing around smiling and laughing and twirling and she says "I was just diagnosed with brain cancer", you can know that she is lying. You don't have to say "she didn't fit the strict stereotype of a cancer victim", you just know she is lying. You are saying there should be a benefit of the doubt, I am saying there is no doubt. I don't know what you are basing your judgement on. I know what I'm basing mine on. Again, go back and read all their diffs, go back and look at the interactions, it doesn't take more than psychology 101 to get a bead on them. I already did this at the ANI. Until you have done all that, then everything you say here is just conjecture and not particularly useful. Dennis - 2¢ 20:07, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
Question blocking policy
I started a thread with a Q about your recent edit at blocking policy, at that page's talk page. I'll watch for reply there. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 14:45, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
- That's fine. I won't be shocked if there are questions, but really, this is already implied by policy. It is the same reason we don't allow non-admin to review blocks: you can't review what you can't undo. Dennis - 2¢ 14:47, 30 October 2014 (UTC)a
Any chance you could help out?
A new editor is continually introducing deliberate factual errors here. I have already reverted him a few times per BANEX, but it is obviously just a matter of time till someone decides I am gaming the system and blocks my arse, can you please point this newbie in the right direction? Darkness Shines (talk) 19:38, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
- Reading through his deleted contribs, I don't expect much. I've given him a final warning. He seems pretty hell bent on pushing a POV that isn't backed by the sources, and that is a one way trip to getting blocked. Dennis - 2¢ 19:50, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
Could I get some eyes?
Brandenbruso (talk · contribs) is methodically going through US president articles changing infobox pictures. User was blocked for thisj ust two days ago. Could you look please? BusterD (talk) 20:29, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks. Another user and I were barely keeping up with the changes, which had to be planned ahead of time, based on rapidity... BusterD (talk) 20:38, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
- No problem, I'm not quite sure what is going on. They aren't typical vandalism, I really don't know what to make of them. I just did an indef because I can't tell if it is vandalism, or just dumb mistakes, or what, and indef covers it all. Dennis - 2¢ 20:43, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
- Frankly, I didn't know how best to handle this, so I flagged an admin I saw actively editing. I thought your blocking explanation on the user's talk was kind and open-ended. None of us want to discourage a new editor, but changing infobox images on featured articles is a poor place to start. The user's choices weren't bad, but just didn't match agreed style (photo preferable to painting). Thanks again. BusterD (talk) 20:48, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
- No problem, I'm not quite sure what is going on. They aren't typical vandalism, I really don't know what to make of them. I just did an indef because I can't tell if it is vandalism, or just dumb mistakes, or what, and indef covers it all. Dennis - 2¢ 20:43, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar | |
To keep up with me for your great contributions to Wikipedia, I'm rewarding you the Random Acts of Kindness award for act of great effort. Keep this up with another awesome thing, Dennis Brown. -- Allen (talk to me! / ctrb / E-mail me) 03:10, 31 October 2014 (UTC) |
Since your comments prompted the creation of this article, you are under an obligation to take a photo of it for commons next time you eat it. :) Deal? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 09:02, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
- (talk page stalker) What did Europe do before the introduction of "New World" veggies like potatoes and tomatoes? I shudder to think what the Irish ate prior to the introduction of their beloved staple. It originally came from South America, after all. Doc talk 09:08, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
- It was all about the reviled brussel sprout back then. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 10:10, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
- Ah, it looks like the wonderful User:Northamerica1000 has found some flickr images. You are off the hook. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 10:10, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
- I will do that, as I'm thinking about making some this weekend. As he points out, there are tons of ways to prepare it, but most everyone I know prep it like I said, medium thickness slices, slow fried and only turned a few times, so some are brown, some are not. And you must, must, must cook them in an cast iron skillet. I have at least 1 dozen pieces of cast iron. I carefully season them in just right. You can fry eggs in mine with a little oil, and they won't stick to the pan. Truth be told, I love to cook and take it seriously, which might explain why I'm a bit fat :) Dennis - 2¢ 13:08, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
Now that you've been outed with various pings at GGTF can I just say I really liked Money in my Pocket? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pablo X (talk • contribs)
- I explain on my user page, he plays Gibson Les Paul guitars, I'm a dedicated Fender Telecaster man, so obviously we are different people ;) I did a little jamming on my Telecaster Cabronita last night, just knocking the rust off the strings. I have to admit, he is 10x the musician I am. I like his stuff as well. Dennis - 2¢ 13:04, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
- Sorry - it's an Arbcom Case, so it must be right, surely?
Never had a tele, though I have a Jazz bass (and once briefly owned a Jaguar, which was lovely). pablo 14:08, 31 October 2014 (UTC)- Correct, because everyone is honest at Arb, and they never make a mistake. I started playing as a child, so I have a bunch of toys. Most are fairly inexpensive, buying $800 stuff for $300 used. Never had a Jag, but I've owned a few Jazz basses, Mustangs, Strats, a dozen Les Pauls over the years, you name it. Most of it sold. I do have four import Teles plus a bunch of stuff hanging on the wall, as well as a bunch of Fender tube amps, keyboards, drums, etc. I gigged for a few decades in two bit bands, country/blues/old rock, just fun stuff on the weekends. Mainly a blues lead man, but I play a little bit of everything. I don't have kids, so I spend their college funds on guitars ;) Dennis - 2¢ 14:19, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
- Sorry - it's an Arbcom Case, so it must be right, surely?
REPLY TO YOUR MESSAGE FULL AND FINAL WARNING
REPLY TO YOUR MESSAGE FULL AND FINAL WARNING | |
Hello Sir, Sir I respect your decision and I believe that you would have said this because I was doing mistakes, sir Siachen conflict was neither Pakistani victory nor Indian victory but darkness shine is providing wrong information. It is your will that whether you believe me or not.
Thank you for viewing. Shaharyar.121 (talk) 18:02, 31 October 2014 (UTC) |
- A wide variety of people have warned you on your user page. Generally speaking, this means you are probably doing something wrong. At the very least, you need to STOP doing it and instead discuss it. As for whether it was an Pakistani or Indian victory.....I have no idea, and I'm not particularly concerned about that. My warning was an act as administrator here. Administrators do not decide content, editors do, so you can be sure you won't see me get involved in the debate. What I can't tolerate is edit warring to remove giant chunks of article that have seem to have good sources, when you haven't first got a consensus on the talk page. So blocking isn't about being "wrong or right" about the content, it is about being "wrong or right" about the behavior. Read WP:BRD, I promise it will help you understand how we deal with debates here, and can help prevent you from getting blocked. Dennis - 2¢ 19:03, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
Telecaster
Dr. Blofeld, decided to upload an image of just my Tele's and hybrids. Not the best photo, but you get the idea. Cheaper stuff, but tasty. Yes, I have a weakness for Fender Teles. Even the Strat looking thing on the left is a hybrid with a Tele neck and dual pickup setup. The one with the Bigsby is still under construction, I need to swap out the bridge pickup and work on the neck pocket a bit. Dennis - 2¢ 20:13, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
- About to eat: fried thinly sliced and deep fried potato, 2-3mm thick, kind of soft, between a crisp and a chip, with seasoned salt, and Pigs in a blanket, make with hot dogs baked inside a crescent roll. Is that something even remotely close to what you Brits (Dr. Blofeld, Eric Corbett and others) would eat? Dennis - 2¢ 20:29, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
- You mean chips with toad in the hole? Absolutely! Eric Corbett 20:35, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
- I've heard of that, should have put that together myself. Very different, yet very similar: freshed breading with a good but simple sausage. The crescent rolls are just very convenient for us, you can roll them and bake them in 20 minutes using canned crescent rolls. If you think about it, our corndogs are similar, just using a different breading. Around here, kids in particular really love pigs in the blanket as they are easy to eat. Toad in the hole is absolutely something I want to try. Dennis - 2¢ 20:47, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
- You mean chips with toad in the hole? Absolutely! Eric Corbett 20:35, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
- We're more Curry and chips around here!♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:51, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
- Tonight is German fries, with kielbasa and pinto beans. Very popular here, particularly in the southeastern US. We are having a cold snap, 3C now, probably won't hit 10c later, so this is the kind of food that fits the weather. Dennis - 2¢ 13:11, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
- We're more Curry and chips around here!♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:51, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
Re:
...your request for specifics, you probably want to look at my second point here. Regards, —Neotarf (talk) 00:31, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
- I did see your point before, I blocked someone via WP:DICK once out of 1600 blocks and 8 years, and joked with Eric about a "dick ratio", how much of a jerk you can get away with being. My point is you are misunderstanding everything I say. I never said I can't be blunt or even rude sometimes, but you have no idea how much work I've actually done to promote women here, to insure equal access here and in the real world, and even had to watch my wife go through a lawsuit for discrimination. You are confusing my using "dick" to mean "jerk" as sexism, and that just isn't the case. By all means, make any claim you want, but anyone that knows me knows I can be crude at times, but I'm completely intolerant of sexism and go out of my way to mentor females here (three as we speak). I have no idea if it is intentional or you are just grossly mistaken, but you have missed the mark here. I'm a very imperfect person, if you are going to rag on my imperfections, at least get them right, there are plenty to choose from. Sexism just isn't one of them. I didn't want to make a big deal of it there, but I've received a number of "thanks" notifications and email during all this....one from a guy, the rest from women. That alone should say something. Again, say whatever you want to say, I'm not a party there, but you aren't helping anyone by misleading statements about "sausagefest" and the like. Dennis - 2¢ 00:46, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
- Oh please Dennis, it's ensure not insure; you don't have to pay for ensurance. As for Neotarf ... well I guess we'll just to have to wait until the result of the ArbCom deliberations. Eric Corbett 01:03, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
- Oops. I try, but I still make that mistake sometimes. I just always find it so odd to have a small group being so "offended" by someone with a lifetime of doing what they claim they are doing. Like I told Carol, she has a habit out of making enemies out of people that already agree with most of what she is saying, but if someone doesn't agree with 100%, then they are treated as the enemy. This is not helping women, at Wikipedia or more importantly, in the real world. Oh well, it won't change what I do. Dennis - 2¢ 01:08, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
- There's no phallusses in the link I posted, but somehow I'm not surprised to see some in your answer to me. —Neotarf (talk) 04:46, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
- Oh please Dennis, it's ensure not insure; you don't have to pay for ensurance. As for Neotarf ... well I guess we'll just to have to wait until the result of the ArbCom deliberations. Eric Corbett 01:03, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
Sausagefest
I'm not much into festivals, but this sounds delicious! Besides the brats, think of wide array of mustards, rolls, peppers, onions and relishes (is the plural of relish reli?). Ignore the net nannies and style fascists. Wolf has been cried too many times and no one who matters cares to listen. You have every right to be pissed. I suspect some warm themselves off your heat. Ignore them and let them get frostbite.Two kinds of porkMakin'Bacon 05:04, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
- Drmies said it originally. I didn't even realise it had any connotations, never having seen the word before. I assumed it was just a meat-eaters version of Oktoberfest and a play on Drmies's fascination with things meaty (bacon being the main one). People really do seem to be hypersensitive sometimes. Interestingly, the remark appeared in a thread that originated in some earlier needling involving Neotarf at WT:GGTF - see User_talk:Drmies/Archive_73#Photo_removal. - Sitush (talk) 08:17, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
- Now that you mention it, Sausagefest IS a festival in Chicago, a place that knows their brats and sausages. [19] If Northamerica1000 doesn't beat me to it, I might see if I can dig up some sources for it, thereby justifying previous comments about I keep talking about "sausagefest". Actually, sausagefest is a common name for several festivals. [20] Dennis - 2¢ 12:48, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
Not evasion
If the original block was blatantly wrong, then it isn't an evasion. Do a sock puppet check and it is obvious that he was wrong. You can try to shut down all of Virginia if you want but it doesn't make the original block or any subsequent blocks correct. Ryulong was wrong and shouldn't be here. No amount of lying can protect him. 173.153.0.78 (talk) 21:26, 1 November 2014 (UTC) "Perhaps Harris Beckford was just a passing vandal that inserted himself into the reverting? -- Ed (Edgar181) 21:24, 1 November 2014 (UTC)" From the original admin who made the mistake. 173.153.0.78 (talk) 21:27, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
- I blocked you for evading a block, not socking. If Ed reverses it, so be it. If not, I do know how to range block the entire state of Virginia, yes. My suggestion is to stop being a jerk, which you were to Ryulong from the start. That alone could earn a block. I'm willing to listen to anyone trying to be remotely polite, but I'm not willing to work with someone who is being a jerk to other editors. You are technically evading the block HERE, but I'm willing to hear them out at ANI. Even if he backs up on the original block, again, you are bordering one for accusing someone of libel and calling them a troll. Keep that in mind. You can get your point across without resorting to that. Dennis - 2¢ 21:32, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
- Range block the whole state. I don't care. I came to that BLP site because people were adding in rumors about Benedict Cumberbatch that do not belong on Wikipedia. Then Ryulong was begging to be allowed to use as sources two blog posts that abusively attack others. Then he abusively attacked me. If that is what Wikipedia is about, then I'm sure the whole state of Virginia would rather have nothing to do with that. 173.153.0.78 (talk) 21:34, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
- Ryulong is the one that said you WEREN'T a sock, so while you question his integrity, remember that. And remember, I'm the one who is bothering to LISTEN. I don't see you as the enemy. If you see me as the enemy, there is no hope. You can argue with him, tell him he is as wrong as the day is long, but you can't throw "libel" around or call people trolls. Dennis - 2¢ 21:36, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
- One reasonable statement after a lot of unreasonable behavior doesn't balance out. I don't see anyone as an enemy but as people not using logic. Ryulong claimed he couldn't tell if I had previous edits when it was obvious a close matching IP posted in the section above. He removed multiple edits and kept posting harassing things on my talk page. 8 times before he came up with the idea that he had to post that template. He has an obsessive personality fixated on the incorrect things. It then has him attacking others to put in bad sources that attack others. If people want to defend that, then Wikipedia is a bad site that just exists to foster bullies and aid the bullying of others. BLP says it is there to prevent that but it is clearly ignored. 173.153.0.98 (talk) 21:47, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
- Ryulong is the one that said you WEREN'T a sock, so while you question his integrity, remember that. And remember, I'm the one who is bothering to LISTEN. I don't see you as the enemy. If you see me as the enemy, there is no hope. You can argue with him, tell him he is as wrong as the day is long, but you can't throw "libel" around or call people trolls. Dennis - 2¢ 21:36, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
- Range block the whole state. I don't care. I came to that BLP site because people were adding in rumors about Benedict Cumberbatch that do not belong on Wikipedia. Then Ryulong was begging to be allowed to use as sources two blog posts that abusively attack others. Then he abusively attacked me. If that is what Wikipedia is about, then I'm sure the whole state of Virginia would rather have nothing to do with that. 173.153.0.78 (talk) 21:34, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
- I can't speak to his state of mind, but I can say it is very possible to not recognize a new IP is the same person as the old. You go and check contribs, you see nothing, you don't remember the numbers from the old. Not saying that happened, I'm just saying I've done it more than once in my 50,000 edits. It is at least plausible, so I'm more concerned about what he did after that. As for leaving the template about shared IPs, we really do have a policy that says you have to leave them. Again, none of this addresses behavior, but I wanted to clear up those two items. Dennis - 2¢ 21:53, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
- Benedict Cumberbatch was reported by one blog site (deadline.com) that he could be entering into negotiations about playing Doctor Strange. It was an anonymous source. [21] Because of Wikipedia carrying it, current websites now list it as fact while more older ones still say allegedly. There has been no official comment from Marvel or Cumberbatch people. [22] I looked and this is the only news they will release. Wikipedia is responsible for this rumor getting out there. Then I see an even more abusive claim below that has someone adamant about putting in regardless of what ethical reasons not to do so. Shouldn't Wikipedia "do no harm"? Why is it the home of rumor and libel? 173.153.0.98 (talk) 21:55, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
- First, I know NOTHING about the article. I got involved as an admin, due to behavioral concerns. We don't get into content. But yes, Wikipedia has been responsible for perpetuating a number of falsehoods. I know this. But to get them fixed, you have to work within the system. The fact is, the system favors those who are familiar. Most any system does. This means you have to go in and provide sources, build a consensus and make a change. When you go after stuff like this on your own, you are guaranteeing to fail. When you call people names and such, you will fail. Admin don't judge content, but if we see someone acting in an incivil manner, we will block them. We won't, can't and don't want to get involved in deciding content. Every day people decide content. If you want to build a consensus, you have to dial back the rhetoric, and yes, registering an account is best. Right or wrong, people take registered accounts more serious. See WP:IPs are not human. So I won't get involved in the content, but I am willing to help you be more effective in making your argument, by showing you how we do it here, and what works and what doesn't. Dennis - 2¢ 22:05, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
- I haven't been working on my own. I was at a noticeboard. Ryulong clearly acted incivil in his attempt to harass me via my user page in retaliation for disagreeing with him on that board. 173.153.0.98 (talk) 22:10, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
- First, I know NOTHING about the article. I got involved as an admin, due to behavioral concerns. We don't get into content. But yes, Wikipedia has been responsible for perpetuating a number of falsehoods. I know this. But to get them fixed, you have to work within the system. The fact is, the system favors those who are familiar. Most any system does. This means you have to go in and provide sources, build a consensus and make a change. When you go after stuff like this on your own, you are guaranteeing to fail. When you call people names and such, you will fail. Admin don't judge content, but if we see someone acting in an incivil manner, we will block them. We won't, can't and don't want to get involved in deciding content. Every day people decide content. If you want to build a consensus, you have to dial back the rhetoric, and yes, registering an account is best. Right or wrong, people take registered accounts more serious. See WP:IPs are not human. So I won't get involved in the content, but I am willing to help you be more effective in making your argument, by showing you how we do it here, and what works and what doesn't. Dennis - 2¢ 22:05, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
Userify request
Could you userfy the RFCU into my space as it existed at time of deletion? I'll CSD it after I've reviewed it. NE Ent 02:14, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
- I've restored it at User:NE Ent/DP. Shortened the name to make it easier to type and such. I'm genuinely neutral in this, I get along with DP fine but I'm not blind to the concerns nor do I dismiss them. As to procedure, (things to leave out) I would be happy to offer a dispassionate 2nd opinion on the technical aspects before it goes live, if you so choose. Dennis - 2¢ 02:20, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
Magic wand
If I had one, there's a few things I'd fix around here alright (cf User talk:Allen2). But instead of Midas-like powers, all admins seem to see is the Charmin touch. Sigh... DMacks (talk) 04:57, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
- I reverted him off my page once yesterday when dealing with an issue. Not sure what to do. You have to remember, even when we do the common sense thing, there are a dozen people ready to scream "abuse" and "show me exactly what policy he broke!!!". That gets old fast. So they end up getting more rope than they deserve, and all I can do is look for solid rationales. CIR should be good enough. Dennis - 2¢ 13:15, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
ENT 70
I was interested in the user's "key point", repeated a number of times, that when us Christian and atheist bigots attack his religion on Talk:Muhammad (something I, for instance, cleverly did without ever posting there), we call that "freedom of speech". I can't find that anybody except the user themselves has called anything "freedom of speech", or even mentioned the concept. Well, except for the users who have told them Wikipedia is a private website and not a vehicle for anybody's freedom of speech, but I guess they never noticed. I'm glad I still retain some ability to be amazed at these things, after all these years, with Flood geology on my watchlist and everything. Hmmm. I should probably start watching Intelligent design, too, give myself a treat. Bishonen | talk 14:16, 2 November 2014 (UTC).
- I really do understand why some people get confused about "freedom of speech"; they fail to remember that your freedom to speak doesn't mean you can force me to listen on a private website or in my own home. Go speak in your yard or in the public square instead. That is a common theme with WP:DE, the misguided idea that they have "rights" here, when in fact, none of us do. I'm not Christian, Atheist, Jewish, nor Muslim, thus I'm comfortable dealing with those issues and would like to think I can be objective. Pushing POV is pushing POV, the particular flavor is meaningless for our purposes. And I've avoided watching Intelligent design. I may indeed be a fool, but I'm not a glutton for punishment. Dennis - 2¢ 14:27, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
Dennis, I understand that you closed this "no consensus", given the voting tally. However, several "keep" !votes just said "notable", whereas (as you noted in your closing statement) the other "keep" !votes only have a weak case. There is no independent sourcing, it is not covered in any selective databases, none of the "keerp" !votes are even remotely based in policy. Frankly, I'm getting very tired from working hard to improve our coverage of academic journals and then have weak and non-notable journals kept at AfD because of perceived systemic bias against Russian journals (or Chinese ones, or whatever). We're an encyclopedia. If there are good sources, then whether the subject is Chinese, Russian, or Martian, we should cover it and otherwise not. If the sources are biased against Russian journals, it's not up to WP to correct this. Please have another look at this. --Randykitty (talk) 15:00, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
- I don't think that any vote is required to be so expanded when explaining their policy rationale that they are essentially quoting the entire policy. DGG's reasoning was reasonable, as were a number of others. I stated that that Delete votes were stronger, but were outnumbered 2 to 1, so this was a text-book case of "no consensus", meaning it can be brought to AFD again at any time, although I think waiting a few months to allow improvement is the ethical thing to do. Looking at it again, I strongly feel that "no consensus" was the appropriate conclusion if you look at the totality of the discussion. And this was relisted twice, so there was plenty of time for a more clear consensus to form, yet it didn't. Of course, you can always seek a broader consensus at WP:DRV and I won't take offense, but I think that most people would consider the close reasonable, given the discussion. Dennis - 2¢ 16:03, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks for taking your time to respond and also for closing this discussion, which was indeed tough. You are probably right that DRV will support your decision. I will nevertheless take this to DRV, as I think that the "keep" arguments fly in the face of all guidelines. --Randykitty (talk) 16:28, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
name change
I see your request for a name change for an Arbcom case. I thought we had a rule against using editor's name as case name, but I did not find such a rule at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide_to_arbitration or Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Clerks/Procedures. If we have such a rule, I want to add it to both locations.
I also note:
so we've done it in the past.
I have no strong opinion - I wouldn't mind if we did try to use a more generic name, (any suggestions), but if it is a rule, we need to write it down in the right places.--S Philbrick(Talk) 15:26, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
- I wasn't offended by the current name, and honestly, I'm not a fan of hanging at Arb so the procedural rules are a mystery to me, but the current name is so blasted generic as to be meaningless. He is asking for DP's bit, so adding DP's name in an otherwise neutral title seemed reasonable. And I know we have used user names in cases in a number of times, and as long as the title is neutral as a whole, I don't see a problem with naming the case with the user's name. "DangerousPanda", or "Behavioral concerns of DangerousPanda" are reasonable whereas "DangerousPanda needs to be bitstripped and spanked" is obviously not. That has been the problem with EVERYTHING associated with this situation, proper procedure, which of course distracts from the merits. Thanks for the links, I probably should read those, although I'm hoping to not get involved in more Arb cases. Dennis - 2¢ 15:52, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
czar RfA
Hey Dennis, having been around AfD for a while, I'd like to help with more closures and take a run at RfA. I know you've been vetting editors, and though I've been considering it for a while, I wanted to do due diligence by running it past AfD regulars like you first. czar ♔ 17:35, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
Request for arbitration
You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Ahmed Hassan Imran and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—
Thanks, BengaliHindu (talk) 17:40, 2 November 2014 (UTC)