User talk:Dennis Brown/Archive 22

Archive 15

←

Archive 20

Archive 21

Archive 22

Archive 23

Archive 24

Archive 25

Pegasus Bridge

Hello again Dennis, Could I please ask your opinion/action on the latest revisions to the Pegasus Bridge article. I have asked the unregistered editor to stop vandalising this page and making poor edits, but they seem not to take any notice. I must confess a personal interest, as my own father was killed in the Normandy campaign. Best regards, as always, David, David J Johnson (talk) 12:31, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

• Th 92 seems to have some English issues, and it is hard to tell if the edits are vandalism or just pure disruption. I've protected the article for a week as there have been other issues previously. I suggest trying to engage the IP on their talk page, which might tell if this is pure vandalism. If it isn't, just ask for protection to be lifted, but I think this is more than just a content dispute. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 13:35, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
• Dennis, Thanks so much for your help. Regards, David, David J Johnson (talk) 16:30, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Evlekis

You might want to take a look at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Evlekis. User:Sandstein might too. Cheers. WilliamH (talk) 14:11, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

• Looks like I need to go make another round of protections. A bit tied right now, will look later. He is heading down the path of an official site ban if he isn't careful. Thanks for the note, it appears I will need to keep updated on this case. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 14:14, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Much obliged. WilliamH (talk) 14:42, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 06 May 2013

• News and notes: Candidates nominating for Foundation elections; Looking ahead to Wikimania 2014

• Technology report: Foundation successful in bid for larger Google subsidy

• Featured content: WikiCup update: full speed ahead!

• In the media: New Wikipedia for Schools edition; Anders Behring Breivik's Wikipedia contributions

• WikiProject report: Earn $100 in cash... and a button!

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 18:46, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Concerns

Hi. I don't know if you are aware of the recent activity at User talk:Kiefer.Wolfowitz. There's a probable issue going on in his talk page especially with regards to his disruptive editing since he is blocked for 1 month by Fram and he has posted a copyvio link to a Youtube video on his talk page. Can you please do something about this? I would rather not get myself blocked over trivial matters and I have an exceptionally low tolerance with regards to uncalled for disrespect or incivility obviously. Thanks, Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 21:30, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

• You probably want to stop reverting him. His link is not a copyvio, it comes from the publisher. The previous link that DanielTom posted was to YouTube, and it was a copyvio and rightfully reverted by Bbb23. There isn't anything wrong with the current link. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 21:33, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

That almost sounds fair, Dennis. ~ DanielTom (talk) 21:37, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

To be perfectly fair, you didn't add the link originally, you just reverted it back in. I only went back that far before quickly posting here so Sjones23 didn't revert again. Then I went and looked again. Kiefer added it originally, but he correct the error by using a proper source. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER

I understand. Thanks. Unfortunately, KW made a bit of an insulting comment towards me, stating that I "would do better to develop [my] reading before again violating talk-page guidelines or wasting Dennis's time further." I think the part about developing my reading was pretty much in my view condescending, since I am a regular established editor here and I don't intend to cause trouble or violate TPG. I am sure that I did not mean to harass, hurt or upset anyone in doing so. So if I have caused any problems (whether its intentional or unintentional), then I am sorry. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 21:52, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

To a large extent, Kiefer is to blame. When he reverted putting in a proper link, he didn't bother to explain in the edit summary what he was doing, so it appeared to be a true revert when it wasn't. His comment in the edit summary calling you illiterate compounded the problem. You have nothing to apologize for.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:01, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

@Sjones23: Well, your suggestion to "Disable talk page access" was not very kind, was it?

@Dennis: I almost lost faith in your "saintliness" for a second there! Thank you for that clarification. Cheers ~ DanielTom (talk) 22:06, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Holy cow, I'm more flawed than the average bear, trust me, I know this. My only saving grace is that I really do try to get it right. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 22:12, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

DanielTom, I made a mistake when naming the header, so I am renaming it and excuse me for my apparent rudeness. I was a bit concerned though, since users such as Fladrif (who has been blocked) are keen to find faults with other users (including myself) and are oblivious to their own behavior. One of the things I found out from this discussion was that even though people can be abusive and continue to personally attack other users while attempting to dominate and control WP. And Bbb23, I see your point now about what is going on. But over the past couple of weeks, I have found some incivil comments by users like Fladrif utterly disgraceful in my opinion obviously. That has led to AGK withdrawing from the WT:BASC thread on Will Beback. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 22:17, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) How flawed is the average bear? We were once hiking in British Columbia. We had been informed that there were different kinds of bears in the area. We were given a pamphlet that described the differences between a black bear and a grizzly. The same pamphlet also explained the different techniques for dealing with a confrontation with both bears. As we hiked, we joked about what would happen if we actually saw a bear. "Hold on, Mr. Bear, we need to look at the pictures in our handy dandy brochure." (Whips out pamphlet) "Just a second, Mr. Bear, we're having trouble matching you with the pictures." "Hey, no need to get impatient." "Hey ..." (sounds of mangling of flesh, bones, and pamphlet) --Bbb23 (talk) 22:20, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

I can't resist Bbb23, you just reminded me of this photo that floats around Facebook regularly. [1] Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 01:08, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

LOL. We actually were somewhat nervous during one of our hikes because no one else was on the trail. We didn't have bells, so we talked to each other loudly (and pretty sillily as well). I once had a discussion with another hiker about identifying animal feces. The things you learn, although I confess that I have only a vague recollection now of what he told me.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:17, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

After 5 edit conflicts, three of which were caused by SJones23 modifying his original comment, there's no point, is there? Intothatdarkness 22:22, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Admin's Barnstar
	You do more than try. Go Phightins! 22:46, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

• I appreciate the kindness GP. :) Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 01:04, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

email

you have one. No reply needed - just wanted to say something. Best always. — Ched :  ?  23:51, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

On your comment

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Dennis, you wrote at my talk page:

I don't see Bwilkins insulting the guy, he just said his actions were "dumb".

I honestly think you are wrong there, having been on the receiving end of such "non-insulting" insults by Bwilkins myself. Please see his Talk page, where there is a section with my name on it — that was not started by myself — in which Bwilkins also "just" said that my actions were unethical. ("I haven't seen an ounce on honesty or ethics in anything he's written"; "...it's probably one of the worst pieces of ethical conduct I've seen"; "You cannot get much lower - although perhaps their next step will be to insult my family or ethnicity"; "you've made your level of wisdom and maturity clear"; "your ethics have stooped to ad hominem attacks"; "your recent ani proves your level of ethics. Good luck integrating with humanity someday.") Excuse me, is that even acceptable? Bwilkins somehow managed to question my "ethics" a total of 3 times [or maybe more] just in that short discussion! Now, how is that not insulting? How are administrators at Wikipedia allowed to be that abusive? Please help me understand. ~ DanielTom (talk) 13:44, 11 May 2013 (UTC) last edit: 12:30, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

I haven't looked at all the previous comments, my observations were limited to the use of "dumb" at ANI. In that instance, it was blunt but not a personal attack. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 14:19, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

"If you would like me to review the actions of another editor (including admins), just ask on my talk page." Were the green comments cited above personal attacks? Please tell me your opinion, because I think that if I had questioned your "ethics" so many times, I would be indef blocked by now. ~ DanielTom (talk) 14:27, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

I did review the one. Right now, I'm gardening and only came in for a cool drink of water, so I can't look at it in depth just yet. Perhaps the two of you can discuss it, calmly, while I go chase gophers and dig holes. It would be better to leave the discussion on your page, since that is where the bulk of it is. And no, you wouldn't be blocked, you would just be mistaken ;) You should read my archives, I've been called everything but a child of god, I don't let it affect me so much. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 14:33, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Same ol' double standard. I'm not disappointed at you, Dennis, but for the record, here is what you should have said: "questioning a person's ethics like that is simply unacceptable, period." [Exit, pursued by a bear.] ~ DanielTom (talk) 14:43, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Holy cow, you walk out in a huff because I'm gardening and don't want to jump to conclusions without researching it? Sorry if my timetables doesn't suit you, but I am a volunteer here and real world obligations come first. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 15:29, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Of course — I didn't mean to rush you. I was just in a hurry myself, and had to leave the house for a few hours. Sorry for my theatrical exit. ~ DanielTom (talk) 22:56, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Let me offer you something more general, which I think might help. Pardon if it is long: Bwilkins is a blunt fellow, the community knows this and generally accepts this. His way of communicating often comes across more gruff than he really is, however. I suggest he use more silly :) emoticons. He just has that kind of demeanor, direct and to the point. Very often, he says things in a way I wouldn't, but that doesn't make it a violation of policy, or even "wrong", it is just his nature. Me, I tend to sugar-coat things because I'm geared to try to dial down drama. Some find that offensive, but we all have our individual styles. I've seen Bwilkins a great deal, including at his worst and at his best. He can be extremely patient, a good teacher and quick to forgive. Sometimes he comes across a bit abrasive, too blunt, very matter of fact, with an unwillingness to tolerate bullshit, and once in a great while, a little rude. I can, too. Honestly, we all can, it is part of being human. He works in the most "public" places at Wikipedia, so people tend to see his face more than other admins, which means there is more opportunity for criticism. I understand because I do as well, and I get a daily ration of claims on myself. Like all admin and editors here, he is a flawed human being.

If I seem to be cutting him some extra slack, that isn't so, as I'm very tolerant of colorful language and blunt assessments from all editors. I might ask someone to tone it down, but I don't block or file at ANI over mild rudeness (see the other discussion on my page). I think it is necessary for people to be able to express themselves freely here, and I extend this same courtesy to every editor, even if they are an admin. So yes, sometimes I think he is more blunt than he needs to be, but I will tell you this. From my experience, he is here only to make Wikipedia a better place and he is truly dedicated to doing so. Even when I think he is "mistaken" or "too blunt", his goals are to improve the encyclopedia, not some personal gain as an editor. He isn't perfect (nor is any of us), but I haven't seen him ever try to be abusive or selfish in his actions. As I stated earlier, I think you (and plenty of others, to be honest) have an unrealistic expectation for admin sometimes. We can't live up to that and it just adds more stress to what is already a stressful task. Yes, admin should be held to the highest standards here, but that doesn't mean they are perfect, only that they try to be fair. We will come up short regularly, we will make mistakes, we will get rude sometimes, even if we try hard to not. People are rude to me regularly, and I usually just overlook it, understanding they are frustrated for whatever reason. Sometimes that is the best thing to do. Dennis Brown - 2¢ - © - @ - Join WER 23:42, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Not interested.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
You were asked to evaluate whether or not the statements in green were PAs. (That's your answer?! Pontificating about "being human" and that kind of soft/fuzzy stuff?! It is [your typical] "non-answer", Dennis [case you were wondering].) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 06:36, 12 May 2013 (UTC) DT was under-counting. There were at least five PAs (not three). Ihardlythinkso (talk) 06:39, 12 May 2013 (UTC) "I haven't seen an ounce on honesty or ethics in anything he's written." "it's probably one of the worst pieces of ethical conduct I've seen" "if you want to point out somewhere that he's actually been honest (diffs would be nice) or even remotely ethical, I'd love to see it (and I do mean that)" "You cannot get much lower - although perhaps their next step will be to insult my family or ethnicity." "you've made your level of wisdom and maturity clear" "your recent ani proves your level of ethics. Good luck integrating with humanity someday." Ihardlythinkso (talk) 06:46, 12 May 2013 (UTC) Well three of those straight away are discussing actions: "...honesty or ethics in anything he's written..."; "...on of the worst pieces of ethical conduct" I've seen..."; ...next step will be to insult my family...". Basalisk inspect damage⁄berate 09:12, 12 May 2013 (UTC) Really, Basalisk? Because IMO that is a dumbed-down WP rule or cliche. I think the difference you are pointing to, has its significance in grammar only. (Illustration: If I said that what you just wrote is "mother-fucking stupid", is that excused because of the "action word 'wrote'" and importantly different from responding to what you wrote with: "don't be a stupid mother-fucker"? Ihardlythinkso (talk) 10:01, 12 May 2013 (UTC) p.s. With apologies to mothers on Mothers' Day! In a word, yes. Those are two different statements. As it happens I wouldn't care if someone called me a stupid mother-fucker and so it doesn't really matter. Also, I don't really know what you mean by a "dumbed-down" rule. Basalisk inspect damage⁄berate 10:04, 12 May 2013 (UTC) Perhaps the fact you wouldn't be bothered by being called a "mother-fucker" on WP, makes you not in the best position to be sensitive to someone who finds it offensive. Especially when you are willing to pick out "action words" from non-action, and take a position that there's an important difference. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 10:25, 12 May 2013 (UTC) Well the distinction is necessary, isn't it? Otherwise there would be no way to criticise anything anyone does on wikipedia. You could draw an inference about someone's opinion on an editor from anything they say about one of their actions; by your logic saying "that edit is clearly an inaccurate summary of the sources you're using" would be a personal attack, as it's implying that the accused is an inaccurate summariser of sources. Telling someone to stop posting threats on your talk page would be a personal attack as it would imply the accused is threatening. Telling someone that blanking a page for no reason is unhelpful would be a personal attack as it implies the editor is unhelpful. We can't legislate for people taking offence. Basalisk inspect damage⁄berate 10:31, 12 May 2013 (UTC) I think you need to get real, Basalisk. For example, that Bwilkins supposed that DanielTom was feared to be near a next step of insulting Bwilkins's family based on ethnicity, is essentially calling DanielTom a racist. And your parsing grammar elements to say no, is lawyerly obfuscation of the fact. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 10:54, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

"Telling someone to stop posting threats on your talk page would be a personal attack as it would imply the accused is threatening." I've been blocked (for a month!) for telling someone to stop making personal attacks against me, so yes it does seem to work that way sometimes. Although, the person I addressed was an administrator, so perhaps it rather depends on the status of the person with whom you're having a disagreement. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 11:09, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Dennis, it would appear that anyone who tries to defend me is simply going to be subject to attack, so as much as I appreciate it, you're probably wiser to drop it (since nobody else is dropping their sticks, pitchforks or torches). Look, an editor has a bee in their bonnet because I dared to tell them the truth: a) their behaviour in an AN thread had become disruptive, and b) implanting hidden text into comments was not nice. That's it; no more. Since that AN thread has ended long ago, then the issue should have dropped. Unfortunately, from then it has escalated to bizarre accusations of abuse. Now some people are parsing the English language in ways that a contortionist cannot even twist their body. One person even seems to have taken the word "or" out of a sentence to make it mean something 180 degrees opposite from the original statement. Look, I have no argument with DanielTom as an editor. I certainly don't ever recall having negative interactions with Ihardlythinkso - however, I could be wrong (I'm not the type to hold grudges, so it's not like I memorize these things). More people need to drop their sticks, learn from the past, and focus instead on the future - and on this project, the futures means "improving the project". So again Dennis, thanks - but don't let people twist your kind words any further (✉→BWilkins←✎) 11:30, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

• Moral of the story: if you are an administrator, feel free to make personal attacks and even question other people's honesty and ethics! No one will hold you back, and there is no accountability whatsoever! You can even get away with extremely offensive personal attacks such as "your recent ani proves your level of ethics. Good luck integrating with humanity someday" and nothing will happen to you! You won't even get a warning! No one will ask you to stop. So enjoy abusing other editors. It's on the house. ~ DanielTom (talk) 13:55, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Wrong. You asked someone's opinion if those were NPA's or abuse. They said no. Others have said the same. You were advised long ago to either file your ANI against me or drop it. You can't have it both ways. PLUS, you're either accepting my apology and moving on or you are not. If you're not moving on, then you need to file your ANI while your misplaced anger is still strong. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 15:33, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

BWilkins, I accept your "apology", but please do not repeat it, sir. ~ DanielTom (talk) 17:49, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

User:BeyondMyKen conduct

Greetings Dennis, I think someone needs to take a look at the conduct of BeyondMyKen. He is being his typical dick self to other users (see the talk page of User:Epicgenius). Since anything I say is going to be dismissed as a chip or some other dumb shit maybe you could take a look? Kumioko (talk) 20:57, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

• His last edit in the long chain of aggressive questioning was a day ago, and below he said he is unwatching that user's talk page. For the record, no one is required to divulge previous accounts and I don't approve of hammering someone who has done a cleanstart too heavily. I'm happy to look at SPI (or another clerk will) if someone thinks there is linkage, but hammering the person isn't helpful. There are a variety of good reasons to cleanstart, and assuming good faith means not raising the issue unless you have a link to make. This isn't ANI, so I don't want to get wild with the observations but will say that his asking wasn't the best course of action, but it is short of hounding. That said, it would probably also be helpful if you didn't refer to him as an asshole, as you did there, or a dick here. I won't insult you by explaining that further. If you think you need someone to mediate the issue, you are welcome to invite him here and we can calmly discuss it, editor to editor to editor, but not if it is going to be a pissing match. Dennis Brown - 2¢ - © - @ - Join WER 21:23, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
  • With respect, the edit he just did to the users talk page in the last couple hours do not indicate he is taking him off his watchlist and the reversions and snide comments from his own page display a very aggressive behavior towards other users. I have been saying this over and over but no one is listening and I am getting frustrated at the lack of action with dealing with this abusive editor. I respect you but I do not respect him at all (nor does he me for that matter) and I don't think for a second he would accept anyway. You are right though I shouldn't refer to him that way but after attempting to discuss things with him in the past over the years I have come to the realization that using the nice way doesn't get anywhere with him so I tried the not nice way. I am attempting to contact you to make an honest attempt at finding someone outside the circle of stupidity but if you don't want to I understand. I'm used to it honestly but that will make me feel that I need to comment myself and I recognize that may not be helpful. Kumioko (talk) 22:05, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
    • I"ve left a message on his talk page about it. No need to make the issue worse by adding drama, hopefully he listen and get the message that we can't threaten someone with a block if they don't disclose previous accounts. Policy certainly doesn't say that. Dennis Brown - 2¢ - © - @ - Join WER 22:16, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
      • Thanks. Kumioko (talk) 22:18, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Guidance needed

Dennis, I saw your great comments at this AN/I discussion and noticed you're an admin. I was hoping you could give me some guidance on an unrelated issue. I'm looking for any policies or guidelines which explain why an !vote discussion should never be closed by an editor who's either participated in it - either by !voting or even opining about the proposal. The reason I'm asking is because there are currently five move proposals taking place right now on the talk page at 2013 Cleveland, Ohio, missing trio, and a few active participants in the proposals (they !voted and opined) attempted to snow-close three of them. Although I fully agree that at least two of them warrant being snow-closed, I reverted all three of the closes and wrote the editors to explain that it was improper due to violations of neutrality and conflict of interest. I know I saw the applicable rules somewhere, but for the life of me can't remember where. The editors are being very cordial and cooperative, but asked if there are any policies or guidelines which allude to why an editor who's involved in an !vote (or other discussion) should not close it. FYI... the five proposals are:
Let's try again: "Kidnappings of Amanda Berry, Gina DeJesus, and Michelle Knight"
Alternative proposal
Alternative proposal 2
Alternative proposal 3
Alternative proposal 4
So, if you can refer me to any applicable policies or guidelines that allude to why editors should never close an !vote they're participating in, that would be great. And if you feel like reviewing any of the alternative proposals to see if any of them warrant a snow-close, it would be much appreciated if you can close them. As I said, although I agree that proposals 3 and 4 certainly deserve to be closed, I want to make sure everything is done properly and fairly. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 00:20, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

• The whole idea of "uninvolved" centers around the idea that when someone closes a discussion, their job isn't to use their personal opinion, but rather to weight the two (or more) sides of the argument against what the existing policies and norms are, and express it on behalf of the community. It is important that everyone else can trust that objectivity, which is difficult if they have expressed an opinion previously. I'm a huge fan of boldness, and a huge fan of non-admin closing discussions and such, but stiff like this has so much potential for problems, it is best left to someone uninvolved, and with closing experience. It hurts nothing to wait. While "snow closing" obvious proposals by involved people is semi-acceptable for very non-contentious discussion, in articles that are heated and busy like this one, others may pop up 3 hours later screaming "involved!!! OMG!" so you shouldn't close if you are involved, if only to avoid the drama. Policy doesn't spell it out in so many words but it supports the idea, and the community consensus on closing does as well. Dennis Brown - 2¢ - © - @ - Join WER 00:49, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
  • And if you want to point them to my opinion here, that is fine. My opinion isn't "the law" or an edict, but I've been here a while, and seen a lot of problems on these busy/newsy types of articles. Best to just follow normal procedure and avoid shortcuts. Dennis Brown - 2¢ - © - @ - Join WER 00:53, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
    • Thanks so much, Dennis. You have a gift for taking a complex issue and explaining in a way that is very easy to understand. I'll refer the other editors to this thread. Thanks, again. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 00:55, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Dennis, I finally found the policy about closing requested moves. ;) It clearly explains why participants in a move proposal discussion should never close it. Rule #1 says, "Don't close requested moves where you have participated in the move survey." In particular, read the "Who can close requested moves" section, which addresses the conflict of interest issues I alluded to previously. This is the particular policy I had been looking for. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 09:18, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Can you give your final thoughts?

Dennis, regarding the canvassing discussion at AN/I, can you please reply to Casprings about his intent to go back and message all the editors again. I gave my thoughts, but if you disagree with me please do not hesitate to say so in the discussion. I will defer to your judgement and experience. It appears we are very close to being able to close the thread. Thanks. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 02:39, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

• I replied before I saw this. Once the mistake is made, there is no way to really fix it as if it didn't happen. He acted in a timely way to try to fix the problem, and he has a legitimate need to notify people that participated. Since his actions since the mistake were brought to light have been proper, he first removed the offending parts, then he came and asked about a better templete, I think we should extend enough good faith and not interfere with it. He does have a right to post the templates if he is filing an RFC/U, and he did fix the problem post haste, and sanctions would be punitive since he was receptive to fixing the problem. No solution will undo the mistake to begin with, which is why canvassing is so hard to deal with. Dennis Brown - 2¢ - © - @ - Join WER 02:44, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Haha, I think we crossed paths because when I went back to the AN/I, I saw your comment. In any case, I replied to what you just wrote. I commend Casprings for his quick action to accept responsibility and fix the problem, and he of course has every right to re-message everyone (in a proper manner), but my question is: Why? What's the point? I'm sure the vast majority of those editors never even saw the message. And even if they see it in their logs, so what? No big deal; the self-revert speaks for itself. Thanks, Dennis. I enjoy hearing your perspective on things. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 02:54, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Profile Defenders Deletion

Dennis it appears you have deleted a new noteworthy wikipedia page for profile defenders similar to a page up on wikipedia seen for Reputation Changer. The page added has all relevant and highly authoratative references where the reputation changer one appears to be nothing but self created press release links for references which are not credible as you know. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeromekaram (talk • contribs) 04:08, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

I have restored this, so if this should be deleted, how about using AFD. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 04:52, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Ping

G'day Dennis, could you have a look at this please if you get a chance? Peacemaker67 (send... over) 11:23, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

• Looks like Reaper Eternal removed the report. We can't do a CU on just a single IP, per the privacy policy. At this point, I don't see enough evidence [2] to able to take action just yet. Dennis Brown - 2¢ - © - @ - Join WER 12:52, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

• There were actually five or six IPs (dynamic) all the same ISP in Belgrade, but I get the privacy issue. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 12:58, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

I need a bit of help

Hi, I don't know you but Malleus suggested you were a nice person. Could you please review the history of George Marsh (martyr). I have attempted to remove a promotional reference for a video and the person who made the video has decided on revenge. J3Mrs (talk) 13:03, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

• I took a look, but it seems that Malleus is cleaning that article up. Ping me if that user continues to put back problem material and I will discuss it with them. Dennis Brown - 2¢ - © - @ - Join WER 13:18, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Malleus is my guardian angel! Really he is. Thank you for looking and I will get back to you if needs be. Malleus is usually right about people. J3Mrs (talk) 13:23, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Ping [3] and for information [4]. Cheers J3Mrs (talk) 14:18, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

 In progress Dennis Brown - 2¢ - © - @ - Join WER 14:27, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Blocked the old account two weeks, the other account (and a "sleeper" account) indefinitely for WP:sockpuppetry, at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/SPSutherland. Dennis Brown - 2¢ - © - @ - Join WER 15:23, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

I really didn't set out to get anyone blocked but I suppose if I'd carried on reverting it would've been me. Thank you. I notice you have editor retention in your signature, this sort of incident is exactly the sort of thing that will drive me away one day. Thanks again. J3Mrs (talk) 16:10, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

This is why I both founded the Editor Retention project and work in SPI to prevent sockpuppeting (people using multiple accounts to pretend to be more than one person). We want to keep good people here, and getting rid of abusive people is just one of the tools we use to do so. Glad to help. Dennis Brown - 2¢ - © - @ - Join WER 17:14, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Question regarding SPI and Outing policy

Hi, I was reviewing Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/IronKnuckle/Archive based on something that popped up on my watchlist, and was just reading through the investigations. I notice you commented on one of the later IP investigations. I was wondering how SPI and WP:OUTING interact. It seems like identifying that a particular IP belongs to a sock is outing. I can see an argument that the disruptive behavior of the socks is more important than the outing, but would like some clarification or pointers to if there is established guidelines or policies in place for this.

I have had some editor interactions occasionally that I thought were IP socks, but I thought I had been shutdown by CU in the past on an outing basis. Some of those situations have occured again more recently, so I would like to know what guideline to follow. Gaijin42 (talk) 17:40, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

• Checkusers will not usually run a checkuser process to compare an IP to a user, due to the privacy policy, but as SPI clerks, connecting dots is part of what we do based on behavior. Our goals aren't to out someone, but to demonstrate abuse of multiple accounts. If you have evidence that a registered user is editing as an IP in an abuse manner (ie: removing CSD tags on an article that the reg'ed user created, double voting on an AFD with similar styles, etc) then you can file an SPI report, but you don't ask for a CU. CU will ONLY connect dots on registered user names, except in very, very unusual circumstances. Claiming that "User:Dennis Brown is really User:129.42.38.1 [5], so he must live in San Francisco and work for IBM" for example, is not something you do on a user or article talk page and may constitute "outing". You file instead and let us deal with it, where it will be done in the proper venue. And there has to be clear abuse. If I'm editing an article and then you see a stray IP in between edits and it is obviously me but there is no abuse, (no intent to deceive or misuse the IP account) then you just assume my login might have timed out, or I logged out then decided to make one last tweak. That isn't socking, that just happens. When I'm connecting an IP to a registered account, I'm using my best guess and no technical proof, but it isn't for the purpose of outing them, it is to prevent future abuse. In those cases, they are really outing themselves by choosing to abuse the system while logged out in a way that make it obvious it is them. But again, it is done in the right venue, and not just a random statement on a talk page. As a non-CU, I actually have a bit more freedom to connect those dots since there is no way I have access to technical data, which I think is why CUs will often leave blocking IPs completely to the clerks and admin, or they will just say they blocked a range of IPs, but won't say what that range is. So you are better if your report is short, has a few diffs, and don't ask for CU. Even with only reg'ed accounts, you really don't need to ask for CU in the form. If a clerk thinks it needs it, we will ask for it. This will make your report more likely to get attention quickly. Dennis Brown - 2¢ - © - @ - Join WER 17:58, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the great reply. Very helpful. I usually ask for CU in my SPIs because it seems like more evidence is better than less, but I may refrain going forward. Gaijin42 (talk) 18:02, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

I think sometimes once a clerk declines the request, they may get ignored a bit after that, which is why not asking is better. I often add the request and self-endorse, even providing extra diffs to make it more likely the CU will consider as it has clearer evidence. CUs are bound by very tight policy on when they can and can't run a checkuser, and it is difficult for the average user (or even a clerk) to always know where that line is. And I'm happy to help anytime. Dennis Brown - 2¢ - © - @ - Join WER 18:06, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Protection Policy

You took part in a previous discussion on the protection policy talk page about the reference to "uncontroversial" edits. A survey is now in progress on that page in response to a request for comments. You may want to visit that talk page again and provide your input to try to obtain consensus. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:51, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

• Thank you for the heads up. That is a tremendously important issue that affects all editors as well as editor retention in general. Admin are not "Super-Editors" nor granted any special privileges as editors by virtue of the admin bit, and I am hoping that a consensus will come to that same conclusion. I've commented at the RFC. Dennis Brown - 2¢ - © - @ - Join WER 13:21, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

		The Barnstar of Integrity
		We've had some robust discussions over the past couple of weeks, Dennis, but I respect that you're doing what you see as the best thing for the project. 80.174.78.102 (talk) 14:05, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

• Thank you. That is more meaningful than you might realize. I'm certainly more flawed than the average person, but I really try hard to support ideas that keep the playing field level for all editors here, as part of editor retention and just to foster a more community-like and fair atmosphere. I've stored the original in my Ronco Barnstar Vault for save keeping. Dennis Brown - 2¢ - © - @ - Join WER 14:11, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Food for thought (re: parade shooting)

Hi Dennis. Hope you are doing well. I was just reading through the Parade shooting thread at AN and the related AfD. Of course the article doesn't really pass GNG (too recent, single event, blah blah blah), but I was thinking about it in other terms. Breaking news type articles always have this problem, but it is one area that many people enjoy contributing to. So I was thinking about it terms of editor retention. There are currently only a few areas where people are willing to write, find citations and general do what we are here for (creating a well-referenced encyclopedia). Breaking news is one of those, but it conflicts with many of our notability guidelines. That's troublesome as far as editor retention goes. I'm not expecting a solution or necessarily a response. It just crossed my mind as I was reading through the various discussions and thought I'd share it with you and the talk page stalkers here. I probably should have posted this at WER, but I posted here instead. Just something to think about, I guess. Cheers. 64.40.57.162 (talk) 02:38, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

• It is a double edged sword. Breaking news definitely brings us new editors, but it also brings them into the worse of what we have to offer, contentious articles. Their first taste of being an editor then is an article that ends up being semi- or full protected, with lots of arguments on the talk page, debates, sometimes blocks or other sanctions. It is like giving a tourist a drive around town, during a hurricane. The other issue is that they aren't up to speed on policy and end up having their edits deleted or changed instantly, often getting bitten in the process by someone who is focusing more on keep the general peace than greeting a new editor. I can imagine that many would come, edit, and just leave again after finding the experience "interesting" but too stressful. Dennis Brown - 2¢ - © - @ - Join WER 13:09, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Follow-up

I contacted you a couple days ago to ask if you could direct me to any policies that address editors closing move request discussions in which they've participated. You said, "Policy doesn't spell it out in so many words..." But I've discovered that it actually does. Just wanted to make you are of it. I explained it in the original thread, but I wasn't sure if you would look back that far on your talk page to notice it. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 13:49, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

• I had missed this (still getting used to the new notifications system) but glad to see my instinct was right. Thanks for the heads up! Dennis Brown - 2¢ - © - @ - Join WER 14:13, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
  • You're very welcome. Have a great day. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 14:24, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Attempted outing

Dennis, I know you have a lot on your plate, but please tell me what to do: If you take a glance at my talk page, you'll notice that a user named Zabadu barged into a discussion I was having with another editor about the validity of an RS that was cited (by someone else) in the Ted Healy article. He/she got all bent out of shape because I had the temerity to question comments made by a blogger who was using the Healy article to criticize WP in general. For the record, that blogger and I have since had a nice chat off-wiki (public part is here), and we have not only amicably resolved our differences, but reached a consensus on the Healy article. So the issue is resolved, but Zabadu continued mouthing off, hurling insults, and today, threatening to have be blocked for calling him/her and his/her even more obnoxious friend "trolls", and then accusing me of being E.J. Fleming, the author of the book under discussion. (I blanked the last 2 posts because they were completely inappropriate.) Attempted outing is a blockable offense, yes? Even when the personal info is incorrect? I know you're going to say I should have just ignored the harassment, but when people start accusing you of ridiculous stuff, and repeatedly demand that you reveal your identity, you feel obligated to defend yourself. I can get a little pissy sometimes, but I'm not a dick. Sorry to bother you about this. DoctorJoeE ^{review transgressions}/_{talk to me!} 22:59, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

• I've revdel'ed and left them a message. If it were only the one message, it wouldn't have been so bad, but the pattern of badgering you previously, combined with the attempt is such that if he does it again, he will be blocked. Dennis Brown - 2¢ - © - @ - Join WER 23:20, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, sir, I appreciate it. DoctorJoeE ^{review transgressions}/_{talk to me!} 23:47, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

I received your message. Please explain to me how DoctorJoeE can do the things you are threatening to block me over. Because I asked him about his statement that he's a 30+ year news editor? But he can question a historian?

DoctorJoeE is right when he says he can get "a little pissy". I contribute sometimes to Wiki, and Harnisch is an acquaintance of mine. I tried to point the Doctor to articles, but he argued and argued with me. I'm tired of being called a "troll", and he keeps referring to "blog entries" when we have directed him to newspaper articles (check his page, I gave him links). He has name called (troll)me and Finklesomething and made personal comments about us as well. Honestly, this guy runs and reports me after the harassment he's caused to me and another poster for trying to direct him to the "evidence" he requests? So he can "defend himself", but he can call me a troll and I can't?

He specifically asked another poster "are you Harnisch", which is "attempted outing". So block him!

He complains about things he does himself. I also dispute that he is "not a dick" - provable here by him running to report us for disagreeing with him. Block me if you wish, but that will only show that people like DoctorJoeE can do and say whatever they want, then run to you when people challenge him. It's really pathetic. Zabadu (talk) 01:36, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

":So apparently you are the same person? If not sockpuppets, then certainly meatpuppets? " - DoctorJoeE's comment asking if I am Finklewhatever or sockpuppets/meatpuppets". How is this not "attempted outing"? Zabadu (talk) 01:40, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

• Lovely. I have no dog in this hunt, I just call them as I see them, and as for the content on that article, there is no possible way I could be more indifferent. My point still stands that you were badgering him about his identity, and made enough of a claim that I was forced to stop, review, then WP:REVDEL the edit. That was a valid reason for him to ask for administrative help. And for your information, connecting you to another Wikipedia identity isn't outing. Outing is connecting someone to a real world identity by definition. I think I was sufficiently clear the first time and it isn't a point of debate. Dennis Brown - 2¢ - © - @ - Join WER 01:44, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Well then, I would like to report him for asking the other poster if they were Larry Harnisch. Thank you.Zabadu (talk) 01:47, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

His comment is here - I am still waiting for the corroboration that you 'edited newspapers'. You brought it up to disparage a source and to make yourself sound special. Well give. Otherwise we'll know that you are just another phony and likely Fleming himself.Finkellium (talk) 06:25, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Aha, the troll returns. What I said is that I have written for newspapers for 30+ years, which is true. My identity is irrelevant, because this is not about me, and you wouldn't believe me if I told you anyway. And no, I'm not Fleming, whom I'm not even sure is still alive. Are you Harnisch? DoctorJoeE review transgressions/talk to me! 15:28, 11 May 2013 (UTC) Zabadu (talk) 01:52, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

You know, WP:ANI is exactly the right forum to file your complaint. Since I've already issued you a warning for outing, it probably should be heard there so uninvolved admin can view it. As it is, I've got to be up in less than 8 hours and don't have the time to read all the preceding comments to get context, but I'm sure someone would be happy to view the situation at ANI. You should tell them the discussion was started here. Dennis Brown - 2¢ - © - @ - Join WER 01:57, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Mentioned you on my talk

Not sure whether Echo is on or off for you, but I've mentioned you at User_talk:Sitush#INCOTM_coordinator_and_RFA_proposal. Nothing nasty! - Sitush (talk) 12:11, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

• Woke up late after not sleeping well (getting over a chest cold) so just now saw it. I worry sometimes knowing I can't possibly live up to the flattery you guys throw on me. Admin are just humans: no smarter nor wiser nor immune to criticism than anyone else. I think many people don't understand that most admin are driven by a desire to serve, not a desire to lord over. The final product "Wikipedia" is important, but we shouldn't take ourselves too seriously for being a part of it. I worry that many people let their experiences here define who they are in the real world, taking things here much too much to heart and allowing it to define them, often in negative ways. I'm here to learn and to help, to become a better person and to help others do the same. To make it a better place for everyone. Just like the other aspects of my life, I want to enjoy the experience, and hopefully spread a little humor and joy along the way. Life it simply too short to waste it doing anything less. Dennis Brown - 2¢ - © - @ - Join WER 12:50, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

• Chest colds are a pain in another part of the anatomy. As far as flattery goes, Benjamin Disraeli - who was a favourite of Queen Victoria while his political oppo, William Gladstone, was not - said that "Everyone likes flattery, and when it comes to royalty one should lay it on with a trowel." Mind, his true opinion of her was somewhat different: when he was at home on his deathbed, Victoria, who was obsessed with mourning her husband, Prince Albert, asked could she visit Dizzy. Disraeli is supposed to have refused the request, arguing that "she will only want me to take a message to Albert".

  Dennis, I am from Manchester and Mancunians are not generally known for excessive praise or forelock-tugging tendencies: just imagine my remarks being voiced in a gruff, no-nonsense manner and accept them for what they are. Otherwise, I'll have to come over and give you a knuckle butty or perhaps even a Glasgow kiss in order to make my point. ;) - Sitush (talk) 13:15, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Ted Bundy

Hello Dennis, When you have time could I please ask you to take a look at the Ted Bundy article? Several unregistered IP addresses are constantly reverting the death details. My take on this is that we should rely on the official death certificate and anything else is POV. Your input is appreciated. Regards, David, David J Johnson (talk) 12:07, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

• I'm still new to the whole Pending Changes thing, but this looks like it might be a good candidate. I've protected it with PC1 for 3 months, lets see how that works out. Feel free to ping me with feedback, good or bad, on how that does. Dennis Brown - 2¢ - © - @ - Join WER 13:14, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks -- I told David this morning that I thought we could handle it ourselves, but this is probably a better idea -- one less annoyance. We'll keep you posted on its effectiveness. DoctorJoeE ^{review transgressions}/_{talk to me!} 13:39, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Dennis, Many thanks for your help. Regards, David, David J Johnson (talk) 18:51, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Corbridge SPI

Not sure I totally understand your logic on the Corbridge SPI (here: [6]) -- "likes editing a contentious article that lots of people like to edit." What I was actually trying to demonstrate was a pattern of editing a wide swath of unconnected, low-traffic, non-contentious articles, while also using identical verbiage in edit summaries as multiple previous socks. If you disagree with my assessment that's certainly your prerogative, but based on your comments it felt like we were looking at two different SPIs. Arbor8 (talk) 22:23, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

• And I closed that without prejudice to consider at a later date if more convincing evidence comes to light. That means "it is possible, but there isn't enough strong evidence to block someone, for if we are wrong, we can't undo the damage that the block would do". I can't block unless I am very sure, and I'm not. It looks suspicious, but that isn't enough for me to mash the button. It doesn't mean he is innocent. Dennis Brown - 2¢ - © - @ - Join WER 22:29, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

That's fair. If the past is any indication, this account will become inactive and he'll pop up under a new name in a few weeks. Arbor8 (talk) 22:31, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

And we still have the record in the archives. If you were accused of being a sock, you would want the same diligence in determining a connection. We do something get it wrong, but not from a lack of trying. Dennis Brown - 2¢ - © - @ - Join WER 22:33, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

ANI

You're a canny lad - have you any idea what might be going on here - other than a time wasting exercise? Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:29, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

• I don't let just anyone call me lad, but you are old enough to be my big brother, so I will allow it. A bit confused at first glance to be honest, not sure what I'm looking for. Email me if you like. Maybe it's the all the cough medicine I'm on, but nothing exceptional is jumping out at me, other than the waste of time. AFC is a bloody mess to be honest, enough to make a man pull a cork. Dennis Brown - 2¢ - © - @ - Join WER 00:41, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 13 May 2013

• News and notes: WMF–community ruckus on Wikimedia mailing list

• WikiProject report: Knock Out: WikiProject Mixed Martial Arts

• Featured content: A mushroom, a motorway, a Munich gallery, and a map

• In the media: PR firm accused of editing Wikipedia for government clients; can Wikipedia predict the stock market?

• Arbitration report: Race and politics opened; three open cases

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 02:38, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Y2kdsp007

Y2kdsp007 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log), whom you blocked as a sockpuppet of PictureTrivia, is requesting an unblock. It appears that his primary interests are not in RentAGoat, and even if he were engaging in sockpuppetry, he would be considered the sockmaster, not PictureTrivia (and thus his block would have expired by now), but my hunch is that he is probably not socking given that he didn't edit Conservation grazing or Goat grazing which the other two socks did. (If this were still an active SPI, I would probably endorse a CheckUser but not straight WP:DUCK block.) Note that he has somewhat of a history of unconstructive edits, but that's another story. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:31, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

• I did miss the dates, but he does have deleted contribs in RentAGoat [7] and a single deleted edit on Crepeguys, which had to be a hard to find article since it was just created by unrelated User:Nickaang and another of his socks....but I digress. I'm fine with whatever you decide is the best course of action. Dennis Brown - 2¢ - © - @ - Join WER 10:51, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

  OK, thanks. (It doesn't actually matter if he socked or not since the 2 weeks are up; the only difference is whether PictureTrivia should be blocked 2 weeks or indef, which is moot unless he edits again.) -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 11:13, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

  I would expect that if you swap placed on the roster, you swap blocks as well and move the case, which makes it possible to track in the future without having to keep up in the meanwhile. As for asking for CU, they don't like clerks asking for a CU when the case is obvious, and I felt it qualified as a duck block. Dennis Brown - 2¢ - © - @ - Join WER 13:01, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Are you in an editor retention mood?

Sometimes things get out of hand here. We have a new user whose inexperienced behaviour has mightily pissed off the great and good(!) here, but whose intent seems only to be the improvement of WIkipedia. Now, to be fair, he has been abrasive. Equally he has been treated as if he is a halfwit. The outcome is here, and there is a potentially good conversation on my own talk page. I'm hoping you may have oil to pour on troubled waters. He appears to be a substantial academic subject expert having problems in a weird and unfamiliar pond. Such editors wpuld be a loss to WIkipedia, and losing them is a poor comment on Wikipedia in the wider community. Fiddle Faddle 13:08, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

• Funny, I was just in the middle of reading that exact same ANI report, reviewing the AFD and contrib history and wondering what, if anything, can be done when you dropped this note. They don't seem very receptive, but it might just be an issue of methods. I'm at work, so my availability is a bit spotty, but I will keep reviewing and I may attempt a discussion. Dennis Brown - 2¢ - © - @ - Join WER 13:13, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

• All I can think of is to take the moral high ground and befriend the editor in question. We gain much by having such people aboard. We lose a lot by their being so pissed off they leave in high dudgeon. He is not yet acting in advice, but I am sure he is, at last, hearing it. You are more than welcome to stalk my own talk page if you think chatting there would bear useful fruit. I'm adopting my usual approach based on my own (unique?) perception of Wikipedia, one I do not expect you to agree with :) Fiddle Faddle 13:26, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)Wow -- this Tim Trent bloke seems like a really wise, level-headed person; you can actually sense the calm and serenity radiating from his posts. These are the sort of folks that restore my faith in the viability of this enterprise. One quote from his page that I will lodge permanently in my frontal cortex (with attribution, of course): "The only thing to take personally on Wikipedia is praise, you know. All else is random noise." Well said, and thank you (and yes, I understand that you wrote it with tongue firmly planted in cheek); I've experienced some "random noise" recently, so your timing was excellent. DoctorJoeE ^{review transgressions}/_{talk to me!} 14:56, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Kumioko

I deliberately made a point of not reading the other responses before weighing in with my own position. I am happy to see, after the fact, that we share an opinion. When I read what Kumioko wants to do, I wanted to enable it, but I am not comfortable with handing out the block tool. I know we have been down this road before, and stopped short of doing anything, but I trust Kumioko editing protected templates. I didn't know about the AWB limitation, and frankly, it would scare the heck out of me to tough anything that involved 100K articles all at once, but he's more qualified than I am to do it. I'm not sure this incident alone is enough to restart the conversation, but it deserves to be a strong data point when it does get restarted.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 13:53, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

• (talk page stalker) Personally, I'm more concerned about giving him the deletion tool, but that's to one side. The problem is that the editprotected right is bundled in the admin toolkit with no way to separate it; right now it's not technically possible to grant someone the editprotected right without giving them the rest of the toolkit. This would require dev intervention to change (not a big deal for them, it's just a simple configuration change, but it's still a change we need a dev for). So, it's not really possible to make an exception for just Kumioko because we'd need to have some kind of consensus for it to get the devs to act, and I don't think a community-wide consensus for an exception like this is gonna fly. We're kinda stuck between a rock and a hard place here. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 14:02, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
  • I'm sure we won't be making an exception for any single editor, but along with the recent removal of some of the Bureaucrats rights, it shows we may need to realign the tools. Of course, last time I mentioned that, I got blown out of the water. As I've said before, people love to bitch about our administrative system almost as much as they love opposing any change to it. Dennis Brown - 2¢ - © - @ - Join WER 14:06, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
    • Yeah, I really don't understand what all this reluctance to unbundle the admin tools is about. I would've thought that my proposal to unbundle autopatolled would be fairly uncontroversial, as it has nothing whatsoever to do with being an admin. But apparently not. I seem to remember a proposal for the editprotected right going much the same way. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 14:09, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

      And why should I have to keep asking for admin help to do uncontroversial moves? Malleus Fatuorum 14:11, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

      Well, that specific example makes a little bit of sense, as moving things on top of other pages could be abused as a way to delete things without the deletion tool (since moving a page on top of another page deletes the target page). But in general, yeah. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 14:14, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

[ec]Remember OWN of policy? You're seeing it in action. Too many people have too much vested in the current way of doing things. No matter how much sense it makes given the expansion of things here to break up the kit in some way, those with OWN will always stand against it. I suspect some of them have become vested enough that the concept of somehow "devaluing" the Admin set (and some may actually see it that way) might cause them physical pain. Intothatdarkness 14:16, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

• • • • That is kind of my point. I would have no issue handing you the tools to do moves and merges. Frankly, it would be tremendously helpful, like we just got through doing on the Sunbeam Tiger article. Having to track down an unoccupied and willing admin slows down good work. Whether it was given like Rollbacker, or at RfX with a simple mechanism for removing the bit (ie: WP:AN discussion), the downside and risk is pretty low. Of course, the real issue (and stickler) is finding a way to do that without giving access to view deleted contribs, which is the issue that WMF has opined on, rather rudely I might add. As for the "value" of the admin bit, I still don't get a discount on coffee nor has it made my penis larger, but I suppose others put more stock in the cache it grants. Dennis Brown - 2¢ - © - @ - Join WER 14:20, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

        I'm not being critical of Writ Keeper, but his response really does typify the problem here. Does anyone really believe that I'd be likely to abuse the ability to move pages to underhandedly delete pages? Seriously? Malleus Fatuorum 14:23, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

        Dennis, it seems like you're trying to personalizing a generic situation. YOU may not have OWN of some aspects of policy, but there are folks who clearly do, and they tend to move to block or stall changes that impact those areas of policy. In some cases they're admins, in others I'm sure they're not. But you should never underestimate the defensiveness that can be provoked if you try to change something that people are vested in....(orange bar of death, anyone?) Intothatdarkness 14:26, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm often reminded of my own naïveté in thinking that good ideas should win on merit alone. Dennis Brown - 2¢ - © - @ - Join WER 14:37, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

"I still don't get a discount on coffee nor has it made my penis larger"... the real reason for the downturn in RFAs is finally voiced. Zad68 14:29, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

I think the real problem is that people are too used to thinking adversarially (I wish there was a better wikilink for that). I doubt that anybody thinks that you personally would abuse a pagemove tool to delete pages. But the problem is that people would think that giving you the tool would open the door for others who might. It seems to me that user right changes are evaluated from a theoretical perfect-adversary standpoint, where the primary concern is "what damage could this do if a hypothetical, perfectly knowledgeable, perfectly malicious person were to gain access to it?" There's no real thought given to what damage would actually be caused. There is an example of this in my autopatrolled RfC; people keep nattering on about how it will increase the NPP backlogs. Well, theoretically it could, but realistically it won't, since all current admins would be grandfathered in and any new admin who needs it could apply for it just like any other editor, and if they don't need it, then they don't affect the backlog either way.The problem is that people don't get past the "theoretically it could" bit, and they judge based on that. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 14:39, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Everyone knows that we admin are perfect at article creation and don't need to learn anything else about editing by the time we get our admin bit. Even if we weren't, the same wand that gives us the bit grants us that power as well. On a more serious note, I don't claim to know the best way to carve the bits up, but the time to do discuss it has never been better. Maybe even throw in an occassional reconfirmation requirement for admin while we are at it. Dennis Brown - 2¢ - © - @ - Join WER 14:45, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) That's a good summary Writ Keeper. Thinking back to my own RfAs, what really hurt wasn't all the accusations of "immaturity" or "incivility", but the implicit judgement that I couldn't be trusted, and that's what's really at the heart of this. The current system explicitly makes it clear that only admins can be trusted, not editors such as Kumioko or myself. Which is pretty insulting really. Malleus Fatuorum 14:49, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Malleus. I also find it irritating that we are supposed to do all the work so the admin can swoop in, implement the change and then claim credit (implicit or explicit). At some point I really need to decide whether I want to continue to invest my time in a project that appears to neither want nor need help but for now I don't have a life so I may as well stay. I'm married so I don't get out much. :-) Kumioko (talk) 15:15, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Two good/basic steps would be some form of unbundling combined with either a streamlined bit removal or reconfirmation process for anyone with parts of the tools. I have no faith in that happening, though, due to OWN of policy. The standard concerns about "not enough data" or "complexity" or some such will be trotted out and it will sink into the RfC tarpit never to be seen again. Until it's needed as an example of "how these things always fail" the next time someone with OWN needs to defend their vested corner of the bureaucracies. Intothatdarkness 15:21, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

I am going to be careful what I say but remember this comment in a couple months, "Time will tell" :-) Kumioko (talk) 16:42, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

The common counter argument seems to have become "a solution in search of a problem", as if that's in some way a bad thing. Writ Keeper's excellent analysis above makes it very clear what the real problem is, and why so many are so keen to block any solutions to Wikipedia's undoubted problems. Malleus Fatuorum 17:02, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

...I think all Admins should go through RfA once a year... a bit like re-election... Basket _Feudalist 17:04, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

• Not sure if every year is needed, that might be a bit of a burden on the system and the admin. If you haven't done an RfA, it is hard to explain, but RfA week was hell beyond my wildest expectations, and I am pretty sure that is universally true. But at the three year mark, an RfA makes sense, needing 50% +/- to keep the bit. Being an admin means having to block people, and those people often hold a grudge and will pile in on reconfirmation. That is the argument against it and there is some validity to that concern because even the most perfect admin in the world is going to piss off people from time to time, simply by doing his job properly. I still think some kind of re-acceptance by the community every few years is a good idea. Dennis Brown - 2¢ - © - @ - Join WER 17:38, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
  • I wouldn't have described mine as "hell", but then mine was very smooth for an RfA (God knows why), and it was still much more stressful than I expected it to be. I'm not a fan of reconfirmations more out of sheer laziness and sloth than anything else; I'd prefer to just have a much easier desysop procedure (what, the community can be trusted to grant the tools but not take them away?). A reconfirmation wouldn't be that big a deal, though. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 17:43, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
    • I tried to create an easier desysop system (with help from an ex-Arb) that was community driven WP:RAS, which was driven in the dirt, even after a number of modifications. Dennis Brown - 2¢ - © - @ - Join WER 18:00, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
      • *sigh* I know, just as RfA reform has been, just as editprotected unbundling has been, just as autopatrolled unbundling will undoubtedly be once someone gets around to closing it. All sunk into the morass of "no consensus", I'd expect. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 18:04, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
        • Again, the very people who are often outspoken on the current system are often the same that are outspoken against making any changes. I can only assume it is driven by a love of being outspoken. Dennis Brown - 2¢ - © - @ - Join WER 18:07, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

          Err, there are exceptions. I've been very critical of the current system, and I'm in favour of almost any change, if only to shake things up a bit and getting people thinking rather than theorising about what might happen. Malleus Fatuorum 18:17, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

And admins shouldn't be allowed to !vote in those "re-elections" (too much conflict of interest). ~ DanielTom (talk) 18:09, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Mmm, I'm not sure that's a good idea; with deletions and things, admins might be the only ones who can see a problem. We're really not as homogeneous a group as we seem; I don't think that tit-for-tat voting or voting blocs are concerns unique enough to admins to warrant blocking them from the proceedings altogether. YMMV, though; I know that there are some admins (who shall go unnamed) who I would oppose, were they to be put up for renomination. All hail the cabal! *snerk snerk* Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 18:14, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

I would also note that disagreements between admin are quite frequent, but are typically conducted via email, often in the name of professionalism. If people only knew how often admin actually bicker among ourselves or simply disagree.... Dennis Brown - 2¢ - © - @ - Join WER 18:24, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

[ec]Looking at your old proposal, Dennis, it was actually "sunk" by a very small handful of people. I did comment on it, but my concerns were fairly small and (I think) reasonable. OWNing policy types will always block change...they can't do anything else. Sadly, they tend to be over-represented in those discussions. Unlike DT, I don't have an issue with Admins voting in reelections or whatever...the point is to make it as open and fair as possible. If only admins review admins (ArbCom springs to mind here, honestly) the process will always be seen (fairly or not) as a self-licking ice cream cone. Intothatdarkness 18:30, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

To clarify, I do not propose that admins should be "[blocked] from the proceedings altogether"; indeed, they should certainly be allowed in the general discussion, but most definitely not to !vote. I do not doubt that there are important disagreements among admins, but in one thing they all must agree, and that is that they want to keep their power. If admins were allowed to !vote, then the "re-election" would become a joke process, a self-interest façade even. Not something I would want to see. ~ DanielTom (talk) 18:26, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Non-admin outnumber admin by 100x or more. There are only 200 or so relatively active admin on the entire project, out of around 1600 with the bit. Non-admin numbers are insanely higher. Outnumbering admin in a !voting discussion is a trivial task. Dennis Brown - 2¢ - © - @ - Join WER 18:30, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Then you would not object to my proposal that admins shouldn't be allowed to !vote in "re-elections", given that their !votes would not (or so you contend) matter much. Right? ~ DanielTom (talk) 18:34, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

[ec yet again] Actually, an admin might be privy to reasons not to reelect that others may not (see DB's note about e-mail above). I see no reason to prevent them from !voting, but it might be possible to require a certain percentage of non-admin support for an admin to be reappointed (or removed...whatever). And I refuse to use the term community here...community is all too often whatever five voices shout the loudest. Intothatdarkness 18:56, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Seems to go against the ideas of the Five pillars, although the way you are presenting it makes it sound as more of a personal challenge than a sincere proposal. Saying that one group of users can't participate due to the fact they have volunteered to serve the community doesn't sound like it serves the interests of the community. It does sound like you want to put up an even larger wall between admin and non-admin, a wall I've been trying to chip away at for a couple of years. Of course, you are welcome to create an RFC on the issue at the village pump, although I think you would find that if you discounted all the admin votes, the community would overwhelming reject the idea. 18:55, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Admins would overwhelming reject the idea, and it would be in their self-interest to do so. ~ DanielTom (talk) 20:31, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

So what? Non-admins outnumber admins 100 to 1, if every admin voted against, you could still get it put in place because of the sheer volume of non-admin voters. That is my point. Rally the troops if that is really your goal, admin couldn't outvote you if they tried. As I said, my goals are to reduce the walls between admin and non, not build them. Adding more administrative layered positions, making it easier for an admin to lose the bit and get the bit so it is less of a big deal, reducing the "power" that existing admin have. Hell, I've worked on all of those this week. I don't talk about it every day because I'm too busy doing something about it in the venues where these decisions are made. Just talking about it solves nothing. Dennis Brown - 2¢ - © - @ - Join WER 20:49, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

While I take your point Dennis, you and I both know it doesn't work like that. An admin would have to close the discussion and decide on consensus bearing in mind the weight of argument on either side. And given that very few non-admins would even be aware of the discussion and that "canvassing" is expressly forbidden, the status quo would inevitably prevail, so no point in anyone bothering. Malleus Fatuorum 20:56, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Not trying to but my nose in here too much I'll tell you what bothers me more than anything about my RFA. The hypocrisy in the comments. A lot of the folks are about as incivil as they can possibly be saying I am incivil yet only a couple mentions and one by me that people should remain civil. They wonder why I am rude to some editors and then they make comments like that? I have to ask myself what they are thinking asking why I am not nice to them. Yes I used to be a lot nicer and passive and look what happened to me. I was blocked and disgraced by an admin (without ever having actually done anything wrong) who didn't bother to look into the situation and then did not even block the editor who violated 3RR. Then I get more active in trying to unscrew the system and I am constantly insulted and degraded and harassed so I get even more aggressive in trying to change things and now I am a troll and a vandal and a pest because I am taking an active role in trying to change the culture and I am not an admin? How dare I! So I submitted a 3rd RFA to "give some visibility" to the types of comments I am subjected too and which I have begun to respond to in more aggressive ways. It is being seen and I can only hope some action will be taken to address the issues of civility, the RFA process and the way the tools are deployed. Anyway, pass or fail I am not going away. I am going to contiinue to contribute and continue to try and change the culture. If I make some editors made or hurt some feelings and torpedo my chances of getting RFA in the process so be it. Anyway, just wanted to give those here a quick reponse to my feelings on the status of my RFA. Some good will come of my RFA failure, eventually. It may not come in the form of me getting access to the tools, but it will come for the longterm benefit of the project. Kumioko (talk) 19:08, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

• I think the better proposal is something along the lines of what Dennis has already suggested - a system that makes it easier to report genuine concerns over administrative conduct. I think the idea of "revalidation" RfAs is open to abuse by editors with a grudge. I also believe that all this would be made easier if the toolpack were completely unbundled, but that has its own problems too. I think if we break up the toolset we run the risk of preventing able administrators from expanding into areas in which they did not originally intend to work. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 19:01, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

I also agree. Something like AUSC for administrative oversight. Kumioko (talk) 19:08, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

I don't think we need another bureaucracy for keeping admin behavior in check; we already have ArbCom. What I feel we do need, though, is a way to desysop an admin other than ArbCom. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:11, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

@King of Hearts, Yes we have Arbcom but regardless of the intent of that process or how it started it has devolved into being a symbol of the corruption and bad problems we have in the project. Their decisions are sketchy, their methodology for conducting cases and developing remedies for problems is inherently flawed and inconsistent and besides all that they don't police the admins anyway. They might desyop one if someone prevented a case but not only is it extremely rare for an admin to be desysopped they have stated themselves that they don't want to send a message to admins that admins stop blocking and doing admin things. IMO though this is a BS argument. Kumioko (talk) 10:46, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

@Basalisk - But nothing prevents admins from asking for additional parts of an unbundled toolkit, and you could still keep an full version around for those who go through normal confirmation processes. And making it easier to report, frankly, doesn't mean a damn if no action is taken on those reports. If you're simply making it easier to report admins to other admins...does that really do anything if it's still difficult to remove the bit? Removing is the key part, and until that's easier the rest is just window dressing.Intothatdarkness 19:14, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

What we need is for everyone to accept that having admin given or taken away is no more of a big deal deal than it is for for a regular editor to have rollback given or taken away. That'll never happen of course, but if you look at what Dennis does from day to day for instance you'll see that rather little of it requires him to have administrator powers, just a willingness to listen and try to help. Malleus Fatuorum 19:18, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

I don't think that's entirely true. Many of the tools included in the admin set are no more a big deal than rollback, but there are others, such as the delete and block buttons, which are far more sensitive. Regarding many of the tools, I agree that it should be easier to acquire them. I can see the benefit in enabling trusted editors to edit protected pages and templates, and I supported your recent drive to decouple the autoconfirmed right from administrators. That said, I'm not entirely comfortable with making the delete and block buttons easier to obtain. In conclusion, I think Newyorkbrad put it best when he recently said he felt adminship was a "medium-sized deal". It's not supposed to be the be-all and end-all, but it's not supposed to be insignificant either. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 19:33, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

The delete button issue is a fiction, as administrators are not required to identify to the foundation. And any lawyer who says differently ought to be struck off from whichever bar they're registered with for incompetence. As for Newyorkbrad, he's been around for so long he's forgotten what it feels like to be disempowered and disenfranchised. In his day all you had to do was to ask to become an admin and poof, you were an admin. Malleus Fatuorum 19:41, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Well, I don't have anything to say about the actual legality of the whole viewdelete thing, but at some level, we are obligated to play the cards that the WMF has dealt us, however shitty or misguided--if they say viewdeleted is a big deal to grant, then we are forced to treat it accordingly. That doesn't mean that it needs to be a big deal to remove, though; I'm not really a believer in the social-osmosis theory where an office easier to get kicked out of than voted into will inevitably be left empty. I have scoured my conscience, and I can honestly say that being an admin is not that big a deal to me; I would not fight tooth and nail to preserve it. (Feel free to pooh-pooh as necessary.) It's handy, but if people don't want me to be an admin, then I won't be; most of the tasks I do can be performed without the tools with only a slight loss in efficiency. Really, the thing it would be most annoying to lose would be the ability to jump in and fix syntax errors in people's .js and .css pages; it's unspeakably frustrating when you provide the code for them to copy and paste, and they include the <syntaxhighlight> tags, too. Being able to just go ahead and fix it makes things much simpler. (Also, "your [Malleus's] bid"...*sigh*) Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 19:54, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Oh dear. My sincere apologies for that unintentional slight. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 20:27, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Oh, no worries, I didn't take it personally. It's just funny in the light of multiple people accusing me of being Malleus's puppet in proposing it. Apparently Malleus has the anti-Midas touch to them; anything he has touched becomes permanently tainted by contact with him, to be shunned forever because "it was Malleus's idea so it can't be good". Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 20:36, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

I believe I said to you that it would be a waste of time proposing any unbundling, but even I didn't expect the "Oh, it's Malleus's idea, I must oppose" reaction from some. We live and learn. Well, some of us do anyway. Malleus Fatuorum 20:42, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Anyone who says that can be dismissed as an fool or a troll. Many of us think realigning the tools is overdue. Dismissing it because Malleus agrees is silly. Malleus, you should use that to your advantage, use a little reverse psychology and manipulate discussions. You could rule the place ;) Dennis Brown - 2¢ - © - @ - Join WER 10:06, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

"The Malleus that Rocks the Wiki Rules the World....!!!! Basket _Feudalist 10:11, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Editor Retention

Moved to WP:WER talk
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
A while ago we had a conversation about editor retention. One thing I don't think we discussed was the roled Cyber Bullying and Cyber Stalking plays in editors quitting wikipedia. Because if you're a victim of such abuse, its been my experience over the last year there is an unwillingness for admins to look at such problems, they make a presumption that both sides are equally to blame and sanction both victim and culprit. Anyway, whilst I have come close several times (and meant it at the time) I have finally had it. Wee Curry Monster talk 18:50, 14 May 2013 (UTC) Its hard to voice an opinion on the general topic of cyber bullying, and you didn't provide links for me to review any particular case. It isn't a term I use around here very often, and I see it thrown around here pretty often, including in some circumstances where it might apply, and others where it really doesn't. Sometimes people have heated discussions, or someone is just flat rude, which I don't consider cyber bullying as much as it being, well, rude. If someone is WP:HOUNDING you, ANI is the place to go. Without more information, I'm not sure what else to say. Dennis Brown - 2¢ - © - @ - Join WER 19:01, 14 May 2013 (UTC) (talk page stalker) WCM, this kind of thing happens in school. Generally, who ever is to blame, the solution is to separate both parties - and that's what's being suggested. it doesn't mean you have to give up your studies. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 20:31, 14 May 2013 (UTC) Not so simple. Expert bullies and stalkers are subtle, underhand and two-faced and attempt to demean, humilate and harass in ways that are difficult to document. Cordial communication with others masks the nastiness. There's a lot of it about. J3Mrs (talk) 21:24, 14 May 2013 (UTC) Yep...and it all too often flies under the radar. Intothatdarkness 21:51, 14 May 2013 (UTC) Honestly, it is sometimes difficult to make the call being on this side of the admin bit. What we admin love is situations where it is cut and dry, one sided, but when both parties are a bit rude to each other, filing through hundreds and hundreds of diffs (I mean this literally, btw) is confusing and sometimes it is just impossible to get all the context. In those cases, if we have any doubt, we can't take action, or we are the abusive admin. Not making excuses by any means, I'm just saying when you are the one with the buttons and you have to explain in excruciating detail every single action you make, you have no choice but to err on the side of "do nothing" unless you are very sure. Even when you are right, there is the risk that the blocked editor's 100 friends will pound you at ANI, scream bloody murder, and apologists will line up to lynch you as the blocking admin, wasting a lot of time and causing a great deal of stress. Wikipedia can just quite brutal to admin trying to do the right thing at times, just as it is to editors. Dennis Brown - 2¢ - © - @ - Join WER 22:04, 14 May 2013 (UTC) No need to text wall...my comment refers more to an overall lacking in wiki-type policy on the whole. A lack that takes a toll. It's always easier (both to do and to explain) to block someone for calling someone a "fuckface" than it is to deal with OWN of policy, passive-aggressive POV pushing, and the hundreds of other little things that can make time here unpleasant. Intothatdarkness 22:18, 14 May 2013 (UTC) Pithiness isn't my strong suit, but yes, clearly demonstrating POV is very difficult if you aren't very familiar with the topic, and if you are very familiar, you might have edited it and would be WP:INVOLVED... Dennis Brown - 2¢ - © - @ - Join WER 22:23, 14 May 2013 (UTC) And to an extent that's one of the things that is exploited by the passive POV pusher. Those who know the subject will be painted as OWNing the article somehow, and the one who appears so nice and polite is often taken at face value. Nasty business we're at here... Intothatdarkness 22:31, 14 May 2013 (UTC) Walking into these situations, I sometimes feel like a blind dog in a meat packing plant: I just don't know which way to turn. We admin aren't any brighter than the non-admin, you know. We just muddle along and do the best we can. That often comes up short but not for a lack of effort. Dennis Brown - 2¢ - © - @ - Join WER 22:36, 14 May 2013 (UTC) I was replying to Kudpung as I thought his reply was way too simplistic. I can see that you make strenuous efforts to be fair, but even in the real world bullying is hard to prove and the victim is really the only one who knows precisely what is going on. Details may seem trivial in themselves but they can add up to something far more sinister. J3Mrs (talk) 08:52, 15 May 2013 (UTC) WCM has retired and added a wikibreak enforcer as his last edit. Darkness Shines (talk) 20:34, 14 May 2013 (UTC) That's hardly conclusive. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 20:38, 14 May 2013 (UTC) It's difficult to come in uninformed at the 11th hour and change the outcome of an unfortunate situation. It is difficult enough if you are along for the ride. I still don't have all the facts (I'm currently pulled in a dozen different directions on different projects) but I hope he takes a break, reassesses the situation, and reconsiders the retirement. Dennis Brown - 2¢ - © - @ - Join WER 21:04, 14 May 2013 (UTC) I also agree that there are a lot of bullies in Wikipedia and a lot of stalking and baiting that goes on. I have seen it first hand and I have, in several cases, tried to stop it. Unfortunately as Dennis said above its easier to block someone for telling a user off than to deal with the problem which may have culminated over months or years. There has also been a lot of occasions where admins were bullying editors in one way or another and nothing was done about it. I have been known (and blocked for it) to tell a user off from time to time when they were bullying other users and largely because of my rather aggressive stance dealing with these cyber bullies I will never be allowed to have access to the admin tools. An Ironic twist really but that's like on Wiki. It does cause a lot of users to leave and is a significant contributor IMO to the decreasing civility of the Wikipedia and a steady decline in our online culture and presence. Kumioko (talk) 09:38, 15 May 2013 (UTC) Dennis Can I copy and move this discussion to the WER talk pages? ```Buster Seven Talk 12:46, 18 May 2013 (UTC) Of course, copy and paste the particular parts you like and in the summary say "Copied from User talk:Dennis Brown" to meet the requirements of the CC license, via attribution. Then you can hat here and just say it was moved over there. Dennis Brown - 2¢ - © - @ - Join WER 13:06, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Precious again

reading, waiting, then judging
Thank you for living what you advise, "reading it, waiting 24 hours, then judging", for defending editors who are hurt, for practising mentorship, - you are an awesome Wikipedian!

-Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:08, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

A year ago, you were the 124th recipient of my PumpkinSky Prize, repeated in br'erly style. You are even more awesome now, by the editor retention initiative and your willingness to listen in collaborations, as to referencing style for the Automobile Culture, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:19, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

• Thank you for this and everything else you do, Gerda. That is very kind of you, but if anyone deserves recognition, it is Malleus. He has been spent a great deal of time willingly mentoring me in finer points of creating GA class articles, making me a better editor and more empathetic admin in the process. He did most of the hard work teaching, I just had to listen. We are working on our 3rd GA together now, and I'm richer from the experience. Be sure and save a Yogo sapphire for him. Dennis Brown - 2¢ - © - @ - Join WER 12:14, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

The Malleus day will come soon, 31 May, just check the archive ;) - and don't underestimate listening, look at Talk:Johann Sebastian Bach, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:20, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

... or Talk:Richard Wagner ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:23, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

ANI

Crickets at ANI. What happens now? DoctorJoeE ^{review transgressions}/_{talk to me!} 20:45, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

• Nothing. Dennis Brown - 2¢ - © - @ - Join WER 20:50, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
  • You've made your case already. I don't recommend getting into a dialog, personally. Dennis Brown - 2¢ - © - @ - Join WER 22:35, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Duly noted. DoctorJoeE ^{review transgressions}/_{talk to me!} 23:23, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Not that I need to say anything, obviously -- that diatribe, complete with a few additional personal attacks, illustrates my point better than I could. DoctorJoeE ^{review transgressions}/_{talk to me!} 23:35, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

If I can bite my tongue and resist the urge to agree with his final statement, surely you can as well. Dennis Brown - 2¢ - © - @ - Join WER 23:36, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Yep, that was the hardest part to resist. DoctorJoeE ^{review transgressions}/_{talk to me!} 23:47, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

You realize I can see this, right? It solidly proves to me that you all band together. Congratulations, DoctorJoe. So much for a fair community.Zabadu (talk) 02:09, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

There are many thousands of editors at Wikipedia, the very idea that they all are banding together is laughable. You can't even get three to agree on toppings for a pizza. The reason that no one has replied at the ANI report is two-fold: First, you left a wall of text that is hard to read and is a bit on the "rant" side, thus uninviting. Second, they can see that I have dealt with the problem before it got there. If they agreed with you, they would have spoken up and we could have discussed it. The fact that two whole days have gone by without a peep should tell you something. You violated a policy, I did the most gentle option I had as an admin, to give only a simple warning. What you thought was an outing violation by him wasn't. He was a bit rude, he acknowledged it. As for our comments above, you should develop a sense of humor. Considering my talk page is watched by almost 300 people, this is a terrible place to hide a comment, so obviously no one was trying to hide any comments. I know you find it hard to believe, but when no one agrees with you, 'no one, then there always exists the possibility that you are mistaken. And by the way, you should log in when you edit. Leaving messages on an admin board both as signed in and as an IP might give the impression that you are more than one person, which itself is a violation of policy. So was the fact that you didn't notify him or me about your report at ANI, forcing me to tell him. I overlooked those because I believe (just like with the outing) that you weren't intentionally trying to break policy, you just don't understand the policies. That is fine, it takes time and I understand. I'm a patient man. Of course, I'm not the only administrator here, so your mileage with the others will vary. We aren't a very cohesive bunch, in spite of your first impression. At this point, I would advise you to drop the stick, but ultimately the choice is yours. Dennis Brown - [[User talk:Dennis Brown]|2¢] - © - @ - Join WER 02:32, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

I'd be glad to let it go, but I see DoctorJoeE continuing to post snide comments about me like some inside joke. He did not "acknowledge" being rude, he stated he did it at the spur of the moment. THREE times. The fact that an editor DID support my statements about him were followed IMMEDIATELY by a friend of Doctor shows that he is monitoring every word. As for the wall of text, I can't help if what I quote is a wall of text. It is what it is. I didn't receive notification he posted about me either. Zabadu (talk) 02:45, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

He didn't have to notify because he can to my page. I'm one individual. If you look at the ANI page, you must notify as that is filing a formal complaint against someone. Again, I just did it for you, but you need to remember next time. And the first "snide" comment here was actually mine, to be honest, and it wasn't mean to be snide, but the way you said your original quote just begged for a comical reply. It was humorous. He just called your comments a "diatribe", which it did resemble, to be honest. You went a little overboard. Good grief man, we take the articles seriously but not ourselves. We are just humans, nothing more or less. We are going to bump heads every now and then, get a little pissy, even a little rude from time to time. As long as it doesn't go over into personal attacks (ie: its a little rude to say "that was stupid", it is a personal attack to say "You are a fucking idiot". We should avoid both, but there is a distinction.) then you just have to roll with it a little. Had you not made such a big deal of the issue, it would have been easier for me to say more, but once you blew it out of proportion, well, having to deal with that seemed punishment enough. And please do read WP:diff. We avoid copy/pasting because it wrecks the flow of conversations. Once you get the hang of using diffs, it is pretty easy. Basically it is in the form of [http://www.website.com/page.html] when you want to create a diff, then it looks like this[8], just a blip. Easy peasy. Dennis Brown - 2¢ - © - @ - Join WER 03:01, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Appreciate the pointers. I look at the instructions and they confuse the hell out of me, which is why I don't make my own pages or do anything but contribute to the talk pages and make suggestions. I only had one "in red" instruction at the top that said I had to notify the subject - my error in assuming that was you, not "all of you". I guess your idea of "blowing it out of proportion" and mine are different. I used his own quotes in my responses as a defense to why I said what I said. Obviously, you guys don't care. Myself and one other editor see him for what he is and does - we can't be the only ones. But even in his last comment on his talk page, he calls me a troll again - ("now that the trolls are gone"). He's the one that continually throws rocks and then comes to you all innocent. It's frustrating. But your comments are noted and I will read what you instructed. But my statement still stands - it really feels like a little club here that encourages editors to do as they please.Zabadu (talk) 03:15, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

I do care, but at the same I'm aware of the the fact that I can't micromanage what others think or every word they say. I'm just saying in the larger scope of things, calling someone a troll is rude but is a small thing. You should see my talk page archives, I've been called worse more than once and I just blow it off and calmly stay on topic. I am not defined by other's comments. That said, User:DoctorJoeE could probably dispense with using the world troll, and you need to dial back the aggressiveness and intensity a few notches. At least if you want to get along. Discuss more, argue less. There is an art to disagreeing without being disagreeable and the aggressiveness of your tone just asks for comment in some ways. You have to compromise a bit. Dennis Brown - 2¢ - © - @ - Join WER 09:58, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Well, everything is gone now - he's allowed to do that, I'm not. And you've closed the discussion, so in the end, he wins and will continue to do this to others. Oh well, so much for the little guy. Intense I may be, but nothing in my discussion was meant to be aggressive. Apparently emoticons are important here. And yes, I could have just blown off being called a troll once, but three times? Anyhoo, thanks for the tips and discussion. Sorry DoctorJoe dragged you into it.Zabadu (talk) 14:45, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Chalkidiki Greek ANI

I just read your comment on Future Perfect's Talk Page concerning this ANI. Had you written that strictly policy statement as your justification for deprodding "Chalkidiki Greek" and taking it to AfD, you would have heard not a peep from me. But when you invented a non-existent content dispute in order to justify your actions, your reasoning became objectionable. You do not need to invent content disputes that don't exist or else you will find further problems with subject matter experts. --Taivo (talk) 15:37, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

• My vague nomination was meant to be seen as purely procedural but I thought the previous context made the reasons obvious. Perhaps it didn't, so I would apologize if I didn't make that clear enough. I wasn't trying to invent anything, it was just a boilerplate, procedural nomination and I expected the wording to be ignored so others could just pile on the delete votes. I had no real opinion one way or the other, not my field of expertise, so I chose to be as neutral as possible. Since I was nominating, thus voting a "delete", it shouldn't matter as long as it is in good faith, and it was. As for why I chose AFD, I was reverting another admin, DGG, without notification, so I felt I had to comply with his directions to the other editor, else it could look like wheel warring. I did agree with DGG that AFD was the better venue, but I wouldn't have been as likely to get involved and just send to AFD had it not been protected. This was simply the shortest distance between two points. Had it not been taken to ANI by someone else, I would not have commented at the AFD at all, and simply let the process play out, as I had no desire to see anyone blocked. This is why it is better to take concerns to an editor's talk page and simply ask them rather than opine in the AFD itself, as it doesn't affect the merits of the deletion, and is less likely to cause more misunderstandings. Dennis Brown - 2¢ - © - @ - Join WER 15:59, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

"User can not be renamed due to too many edits"

Where has "User can not be renamed due to too many edits" come from? Plenty of editors with far higher edit counts (Kumioko, Rlevse, Betacommand for instance) have been renamed, and the wiki hasn't exploded as a result. – iridescent 2 19:57, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

They had the same problem. Their accounts had to be moved to the new names rather than just renamed. Same result, different process. It does cause a little more problem with SUL accounts but the fix is the same, it just has to be done separately on different sites. Kumioko (talk) 20:02, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

I think 50,000 edits is the cut off and Eric far exceeds that. The software will not allow the Crats to move their accounts, even if they wanted to. The user name already existed and had to be usurped as well. Fortunately, the editor only made one edit, vandalizing, so usurping wasn't a huge issue. WilliamH was a champ and did all this on very short notice, however. Dennis Brown - 2¢ - © - @ - Join WER 20:05, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

".. forever and ever, amen!" [9] Martinevans123 (talk) 23:12, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Kiefer.Wolfowitz

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Hi Dennis! Now that you have unblocked Kiefer.Wolfowitz, would you be so kind as to remove the personal attacks against me (and User:GiantSnowman and others) on his talkpage? Alternatively, would you ask him to remove them himself, or would you like me to remove them? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:35, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

• You probably need to not remove anything on his page, that would likely cause more problems. I will make a request that he clean up his page a bit. Dennis Brown - 2¢ - © - @ - Join WER 21:45, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

• Thank you for making that request of him. For what it's worth, I personally have no problem waiting until tomorrow for him to do something about it, as he asks for some reason. (I can't speak for any of the others who were attacked.) --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:15, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

• I understand and appreciate your patience. Kiefer has a way of cooling down after being unblocked and I think that unblocking him now was the right thing to do at the right time. Dennis Brown - 2¢ - © - @ - Join WER 22:17, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

  I look forward to Demiurge1000's removing his "boxcutter" remarks and his comments about Lihhas, setting an example for the rest of us sinners. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 22:34, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

There's a misunderstanding there, I think. It was not I who made the comment about wanting to "fly to London with a boxcutter and slit some throats", but rather a staff member of a certain web forum. (It is worth noting that Marek has at one point wisely disassociated himself from said web forum after the behaviour of its staff and members moved from merely possibly-humorous threats of violence into the area of blatant stalking and outing.)

Likewise, it was not I who added a userbox stating "This user is a National Socialist" to Lihaas' userpage; it was Lihaas who did so. (It is true that he eventually removed it, after its appropriateness was questioned by me and others.) Lihaas is responsible for his actions; you are responsible for your actions. It is entirely justifiable for me, GiantSnowman, Fram, or anyone else to correct you when you pretend otherwise. It would be best for you not to make such assertions about other editors; it would also be wise for you to take a little break from editing when you are unable to contribute in a collegial fashion. Unfortunately, when you are unable to recognise the need for such a break of your own volition, a break ends up having to be imposed instead. That's what happened here. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 18:08, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

You were blocked for repeatedly smearing Volunteer Marek and others with variations on "box cutter" (officially "... repeated personal attacks and false or unsubstantiated accusations"). You have not removed your "box cutter" smears, as this link to search results for "Demiurge box cutter" shows. Given these facts, there's no point discussing anything with you. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 19:07, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

He was also the one who spread the rumour that I have a secret admin account. Eric (talk) 19:36, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

"By an unconscious self-parody I mean a poem or a passage in which the author is both characteristic and unintentionally absurd. I regret it has not been possible to include any Carlyle because, when I came to look through that fulgurating prose again after a happy lapse of thirty years since I had to read it in Freshman English at Yale, I discovered it was all self-parody."

— Dwight MacDonald, Parodies, p. 474

That was self-parody, perhaps inspired by Dwight MacDonald's book, Parodies, which contains two chapters on self-parodies, conscious and unconscious. MacDonald's essays on William F. Buckley are also entertaining. (Buckley was called a "Nazi" only once.) Kiefer.Wolfowitz 19:44, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

• We all could probably just let our conscience be our guide, and maybe avoid each other whenever possible.... Dennis Brown - 2¢ - © - @ - Join WER 22:37, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

I do hope not, Dennis; I often find your input to be quite useful. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 18:08, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. I was really talking more of you and KW :-) Sometimes good people just don't get along, and it is easier to get along if they cross paths less frequently. Dennis Brown - 2¢ - © - @ - Join WER 18:10, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Just for the record, Volunteer Marek is one of the most decent people on Wikipedia, Demiurge1000 is one of the most indecent users on Wikipedia. Wikipedia would have been the greatest site on the whole NET, if most Wikipedians were like Volunteer Marek. On the other hand Wikipedia would have been the worst site, if most Wikipedians were like Demiurge1000. 71.198.248.45 (talk) 22:31, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:LarryTr7

Sorry to bother you about this user *again*, but [10] is yet another BLP violation, I believe. Can you please block them before they waste any more time? Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 10:43, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

• This would be handled better at ANI with a polite, neutral, short report stating the facts, and request for a final warning be issued first, following by the application of WP:BLPBAN if they won't stop. They must have received adequate warning before this very strong remedy can be applied. Dennis Brown - 2¢ - © - @ - Join WER 10:53, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

• I'm with you on most of this, but surely they've had more than enough warnings, several of which were final warnings? Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 11:00, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

• This would be the shortest distance to a permanent solution. Of course, if an admin wanted to block them there, they could as well, but the ban is actually the stronger action. Dennis Brown - 2¢ - © - @ - Join WER 11:01, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

• Once more I'm confused. How is a BLPBAN, on a user whom clearly doesn't give a damn about any guidelines, and will never edit constructively anywhere else (at least, not under this alias), stronger than an indef block under NOTHERE? A BLPBAN will still mean people have to waste time on making sure this user doesn't appear anywhere near the Ping Fu article (or anywhere else), an indef will prevent any time from being wasted. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 11:10, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

• Coffee is brewing (it is early where I live...) and I've looked again and just issued them a final warning on their user talk page, as is required under BLPBAN. No ANI needed. If they continue, you can get any admin to ban/block them under BLPBAN. I would just say trust me that this makes the paperwork easier, particularly if they come back and sock, which they have already done in the past. Dennis Brown - 2¢ - © - @ - Join WER 11:21, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

• I will trust you, and sorry if I've appeared a bit abrasive (sadly, that's how I am) - thanks for taking some kind of action :) Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 11:25, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

• No offense taken. In cases like this, dotting the i's and crossing the t's makes life easier for future issues, which are likely. Dennis Brown - 2¢ - © - @ - Join WER 11:30, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Honest Q

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

"Indefinite I'm uninvolved as I have no previous interaction with or knowledge of Fladrif. Reading through the diffs, it seems clear that there is a behavioral issue that can not be solved within a predetermined period of time. Indefinite doesn't mean forever, but there is no fixed amount of time that can assure the community that the behavior will not continue after the block expires. Because of his own actions, we are left no choice but to use an indefinite period." Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 02:33, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

I thought "behavioral issues", especially long term ones, were grist for the mill of WP:RfC/U (and, not blocks). (You say "no choice" regarding INDEF block, but, I'm genuinely confused, isn't that circumventing or skipping an RfC/U that, perhaps, should have occurred long ago, and has never occurred? [If there was an RfC/U on that user in past, that's my mistake, I haven't checked, perhaps there was.]) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 13:08, 19 May 2013 (UTC) p.s. To summarize: why not send the matter to RfC/U, instead of deciding "no choice" but INDEF block, when the issue is long-term behavior, and there's never been an RfC/U? (I thought blocks, were to prevent immediate disruption. But that blocks or other sanctions, could result from a completed/consensus RfC/U, as input to an ANI motion, based on long-term behavior issues. I notice, e.g. Mallues has never had an RfC/U. And many editors have argued, that such an RfC/U must precede any call for his head, of which there have been many such calls, as you know.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 13:37, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Sorry in advance for the length. This is my understanding, and like all policy issues, interpretations by others may vary a little or a lot: It depends on the disruption causes. RFC/U is the preferred venue when the disruption is mild to moderate but ongoing and there is a chance that discussion will stop the disruption. Sometimes, the disruption is such that blocking (for any period) is the only solution to prevent disruption. I am on record as not being a fan of our current RFC/U system because there is no way to issue any kind of sanction such as a topic ban, or even to require a mentor. The person who is the subject of the RFC/U isn't even required to participate at all, they are free to ignore it and continue on their merry way. It lacks teeth, as it against policy to issue a sanction within the boundaries of the RFC/U. You have no choice but to start another process, such as WP:ANI. I don't think we should have infinite options for sanctions there, but having no options makes it a neutered process. It does have some uses and sometimes has good results, but more often than not, it is used only because Arbcom often requires it before bringing an issue before them.

In cases like this in particular, I support an indef block as a means to both stop the disruption (which was widespread) and to force a dialog. For example, a one week block can be waited out and the reasons for it ignored. Often, an indef block can be lifted in a day or two as soon as the person pledges to stop the behavior that caused the block to begin with. The duration is up to the blocked person. Most of the time, I think we can guess what period of block will prevent disruption without being punative. I understand there are always differing opinions on where that line is, so we have to use our best judgement based on previous consensus, while being open to it being lifted sooner if appropriate. There isn't a right or wrong answer, just best judgement. More rarely, an indef is the best option with the hope that it can be lifted quickly. From my perspective, the indef should be used when there is no reasonable hope of conforming to expectations (vandals, multiple socking, etc), when other timed blocks have been tried but failed, or more rarely when the actions are very disruptive and their reasoning for the actions defy logic so a time can't be calculated. Those kinds of blocks can be lifted quickly once the underlying issues are addressed.

In short, sometimes you have to stop the disruption now and discuss later. Dennis Brown - 2¢ - © - @ - Join WER 13:39, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your sincere answer, there wasn't any need to apologize for length, I would never ever WP:TLDR anybody, I consider that really stupid, and underhanded. I read several of the diffs claiming blatant PAs by User:Fladrif, and excuse me, but there seemed to be no PAs there, at most minor incivilities. (Therefore, wouldn't that qualify for your "mild to moderate but ongoing disruption" that qualities for RfC/U?) That said, I agree with you about the dicklessness of RfC/U (and in addition to that, the inhospitable mob-rule incivilities I have seen in some RfC/Us that I have read). (When User:Quale filed an ANI against troll User:OGBraniff, later blocked INDEF as troll and sock, User:Drimes declined the ANI and pushed RfC/U at User:Quale and me, when I questioned Drmies about the wisdom of the decision at the ANI in that case. [I told him the same as you told me, at my User Talk, how pointless and ineffective RfC/U is, he gave me a couple "successful" RfC/U examples to read, I read one of them, and was thoroughly unimpressed, and reported same to him, without receiving response.] I have no respect for RfC/U as a result of what I have read in some samples, so cannot criticize your lack of valuing them to do any good, and subsequent disinclination to refer a case to that venue.) Thanks again for your candid explanation, your "like all policy issues, interpretations by others may vary a little or a lot" seems very intelligent comment to me. (Notice please, that you and Admin Drmies, obviously differ on the worthwhileness of RfC/U, if I take his constant recommendations to address the troll through that venue, and giving no other options, as good-faith sincere, and not just a recommendation tailored because I was involved -- a user he doesn't like, and tailored to shed me & my conserns, as an expediency and according to his disfavoritism.) Thanks again. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 14:06, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Going from memory, so forgive me if I'm off a bit (that is a lot to read again), I want to say my concern wasn't the personal attacks as much as the willingness to continue a pattern of behavior that was pointy and disruptive, plus (WP:IDHT). I'm not one to regularly support blocks just for incivility. One thing I also wanted to add re: your previous comment is that blocks are to prevent disruption as a whole, not just immediate disruption. Per the policy itself "Blocks serve to protect the project from harm, and reduce likely future problems". The section WP:BLOCK#DETERRENT also covers how blocks are used to encourage the editor to conform to community expectations in the future, and why they are typically escalating. This is the tricky part, and where a lot of confusion (and drama) centers, and where people often have very different interpretations. Part of the reason for blocking is to offer an incentive in the future, not just to stop what is happening today. They are a deterrent. To be honest, I though drawing the line between punitive and deterrent would be a lot easier before I got the admin bit and had to start actually making the call. It is very possible to get it wrong even when you are uninvolved and trying hard to get it right. Dennis Brown - 2¢ - © - @ - Join WER 14:20, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

I can appreciate that. (Please note though, the difficulty of the judgement call to which you refer, in the hands of an Admin not necessarily trying to "do the right thing" but exercise a grudge, there's plenty of loose rope for him to justify a block, really a grudge-block, and so lots of contention around Admin honesty in execution of their tools. [I.e., flexibility is also fertile soil for the cover of abuse.]) Cheers, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 14:53, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

As addendum, one of the reasons I asked your explanation for your INDEF recommendation, is because I distrust the ANI venue entirely (the mob-rule and pile-on culture there) re responsible comments, for example, this one made me laugh out loud -- is this editor kidding?! ("Bright line" on a poorly defined and inconsistently interpreted CIV policy? Who is this editor joking, as though everything were that clear? What a total irresponsible and ridiculous venue, this ANI. People can say anything, and they do. And it is often mob mentality, abusive, absurd BS.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 15:21, 19 May 2013 (UTC) p.s. And "enough is enough", the argument of User:Ched to which the user responded, really means what? (E.g., why isn't "enough enough" with Bwilkins's insults toward User:DanielTom? It seems "enough is enough" only when an Admin decides they "want" to do something, and that can be based, on personal prejudice, agenda, historic grudge, what have you. ["Enough is enough" is a meaningless tautology. One has to question why a blocking Admin would offer a meaningless tautology as justifcation for INDEF block, unless they had no other concrete basis in policy and objective rationale. It is a manipulative phrase at best, meaning nothing, but begging for a pile-on, which was duly given by the user quoted.] This kind of stuff is bad for WP reputation. Everyone knows I think ANI reputation stinks and I will never go there, ever, for any reason, for good reason, and that I am not alone in this view.]) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 15:31, 19 May 2013 (UTC) p.p.s. More meaningless tautology: "What was, was. What is, is. What's gonna be ... is gonna be." —Archie Bunker

The flexibility does create a loophole to which abuse can creep, but it is the lesser of the available evils: either this way, or a system that is so inflexible that an admin would be afraid to do anything. Most of the big abuses are obvious and caught. Some of the smaller ones are in the eye of the beholder and may or may not be abuse, depending on your perspective and experience. Sometimes, admin simply have to do ugly things that are contentious, it isn't something any of us enjoys, I can assure you. We all prefer to just do our duties and edit our articles without drama. If admin seem to cut other admin a little slack in borderline cases, it may simply be because we understand what it is like to have to make the borderline call, and are just showing respect for that. Often, I will flatly disagree with an admin's decision but respect their call. For example: Bbb closed a discussion the other day where I completely disagreed with his interpretation, and I (and others) was calling for the entire process to be aborted, he chose to close with action instead.[11] I respect that he used his best judgement, that I'm not always right, and that it wasn't personal against anyone. I support his close when it became contentious[12] because I respect him and believe he did so within policy. I was one of the nom's at his RfA, but that didn't obligate him. This is more common than you might think. Fortunately, most admin don't take this personal, so we can work together with the understanding that we aren't obligated to agree with each other. It is important that admin are able to disagree without getting in battles. We are supposed to set an example, after all, even if we all fall short of that from time to time. As for bright lines and civility, I agree, which is why I'm so lax at taking action for civility issues. As for ANI, I have been dragged to ANI for my "abusive conduct" so many times, I've literally lost count. I know all too well what that is about. And for "enough is enough", I have used "enough" as part of a rationale myself, where the user has demonstrated that they are going to continue disrupting, and now using the process to cause even more disruption. For me, it means I have lost faith that the editor can edit without causing disruption and must be blocked. Right or wrong, it isn't so uncommon. Dennis Brown - 2¢ - © - @ - Join WER 16:03, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm not a believer in the system, Dennis. (You are. You support the organization status quo structure. I don't agree with you there are two choices, and flexibility of Admins to block is the lesser evil. I have experienced and witnessed too much corruption here, to possibly be a believer, like when I first signed up and read the vanilla documentation, erroneously thinking this was a pretty cool place. It is filled with abuse, hostility, hypocrisy. And "flexibility" is just a cover for those Admins who hold grudges. The WP needs strutural change. The top content editors should be put in charge. Then you would see something different. No status quo. I do not agree with your belief that "most major abuses are stopped". (Most abuses occur at a level to never reach a radar worth paying attention to. Case in point: User:FleetCommand. Or even my own block. Unless an editor is "a Malleus" [extremely rare], no one notices, no one cares.) I don't even agree that you have been taken to ANI as many times as you like to claim over "abuses". (How many times, in what frame of time? Just give me some numbers.) You also have exaggerated other things, to be fair, Dennis, such as claiming that you have been called "every name in the book except the Son of God". (Funny, I don't see anyone calling you any names, Dennis. In fact I have never seen it. So I think it is a rare occurrence, and you've exaggerated. [If I'm wrong by the diffs, then I'll admit as much.]) I have still a real hard time with the "that's enough" criteria for Admin taking action. It is an arbitrary, invisible line in the sand, that is documented nowhere, and has no objective criteria. Only an Admin deciding they are frustrated enough to sanction someone. Pure subjectivity, and because a function of frustration usually, usually also based on emotion. Last, I have a real hard time with the "Admins-friends-network, whereby, Ched can make a "bold (and unusuall)" sudden decision to INDEF an editor based on "enough is enough" level of PAs, but Bwilkins's statements against User:DanielTom are summarily excused and ignored. Not even an admonishment let alone any kind of warning. (DanielTom asked you to be fair and evaluate the situation re PAs. Your answer: "Here, let me give you something else instead" (basically). I asked Ched the same evaluative Q, were they PAs in his estimation, and also to compare his consistency with recently blocking a user INDEF over PAs. When I got the same type of "Bwilkin's is really a nice guy" answer, same as yours, and found that non-responsive and unsatisfactory, he turned ad hominem, and accused me of asking him to denigrate Bwlinkis privately, when I never did any such thing, when I had simply asked for his objective, professional opinion (PAs or no?). IMO you guys can't even be honest with regular users, less you offend one of your Admin friends, and really no matter what, with nearly no exception. The fact Ched called Fradrif's PAs "unacceptable" and blockable, but will dance around in order to make no statement about PA re Bwilkins's comments re DanialTom, and you too Dennis ... really, just how the heck am I supposed to end up with any kind of respect for this "flexible Admin environment" that is the best of all possible choices in your estimation? (I think it is just plain awful. I don't and won't accept it. It's BS. No objectivity or consistency, just who you're friends with, who you're not. Some would call that corruption, Dennis, when there's also blocking bats being weilded and used. And I don't accept the "No justice, only solutions" meme you've used on many occasions, I feel that is a dumbing-down, can be used to justify or excuse any kind of ill or abuse, and is totally inconsistent with a reasonable amount of fairness that anyone would expect reading the pillars and in a "collegiate editing community", and just based on common sense.) p.s. Sorry to soapbox here, but I thought we were done much earlier, and you "soapboxed" in favor of the current WP structure. So please accept this as "equal time" request. (Thank you.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 12:07, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

(watching) I see dialogues like this "everywhere", can we please concentrate? - I don't see how it is going to improve content. (Language question: what does "honest q" mean?) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:44, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

• (edit conflict)Not trying to be critical, but there are a lot of factual errors here. First, you can search how many times I've been dragged to ANI or called out in the middle of an existing ANI, it isn't hard to do. As for being called name, all you had to do was check my archives, I leave most of them there, although some get reverted by others. I don't have a counter as to the times my pages have been vandalized or I've been called names, I expect it as part of the job, and I try not to take it personal. A minor point, but the expression is "He called me everything but a child of god" and it is an old American expression that is easily Googled. Even Obama has used it.[13] Not being a Christian, I'm not known to make references to the "son" in any context. More on to the main point is the comment "You support the organization status quo structure" which is laughably absurd. You can find my comments all over the wiki where I'm trying to change the way the place is structured, to have different levels that make it much easier for content creators to get the tools for advanced editing without going through RfA. I just made the point on Malleus's Eric's page last night. I can only guess you haven't looked because it isn't hard to find. I don't remember soapboxing, although I do remember saying why things might not look like they seem. I'm not trying to be mean, but you do seem to jump to a lot of conclusions without looking closer. It isn't easy here, I've got over 40k contribs, so I don't blame anyone who doesn't want to filter through all of them, but you conclusions are simply wrong. I don't bitch and moan about the system on my talk page, I go to the actual policy pages and try to affect change, I propose new policies and try to get them enacted. I'm on record many times that admin should have to get reconfirmed regularly, for example. I actually do something besides complain. I still have to work within the structure that exists until then. Sorry, but the degree to which you are mistaken is simply breathtaking: all you had to do was look. All I can say is what I've told others: I do the best I can do with the hand I'm dealt. This started out well enough, but like so many conversation, it ends with the claims that I'm this terrible admin that is unfit. If this is so, you should request that I be desysoped at Arb, or start an RFC/U or whatever process you feel is best. I don't even require a formal action by Arb, and will gladly hand back my bit anytime a consensus of editors thinks Wikipedia is better without me. Dennis Brown - 2¢ - © - @ - Join WER 12:47, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.