Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 17:17, 30 May 2012

Fellow Admins: If you need to revert any error I have made or the rationale for the action no longer applies, and you think I (or a consensus of others) would agree anyway, just reverse or change it, then leave me a message here. Thank you. - db

If you send me email, be sure to tell me on this page, I don't check it very often!

If I have left you a message: please answer on your talk page, then place {{Whisperback}} on my talk. If you leave me a message: I will answer on my talk page, then place {{Whisperback}} on your talk. Please click here to leave me a new message.

CSD Training - Thoughts - YRC2.0 - ARCHIVES - 2006-2010 - 2011 - 2012 (a) - 2012 (b) - Barnstars 2012+

BEFORE YOU POST - Discussions about the content of articles belong on the talk page for that article. This includes discussions about text, images, tags, or other physical things on the page. This way everyone can participate. If you like, you can post a note here pointing me to it. If you want to discuss general policy, ask for help on a page you haven't seen me on, or other topics that aren't related to the actual article, post it here. I archive frequently, check there if a discussion has "disappeared". Thanks -Dennis

Banned user

As you recently gave a 3rr warning to this guy's recent IP, you might want to familiarize yourself with Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/PoliticianTexas/Archive. He likes to pull out new socks on a fairly regular basis. He pretty much uses the same MO every time; so I don't think he cares that we know it's him. It's just an ongoing game. LadyofShalott 23:14, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

• Wow, not exactly light reading. Thanks for the heads up. Adding a few articles to my watch list as well. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 23:23, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

• In case that's not enough reading, take a look at User talk:DoriSmith/PoliticianTexas. For a while, people who blocked these socks were making an effort to keep Dori Smith's list updated. Sadly it has not continued past 2010. EdJohnston (talk) 14:21, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

RfC/U notice

As you have worked with User:Agent00f, I wanted to make you aware of Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Agent00f. I know it's moving backwards, but I'd like to have all previous attempts at least tried before going for the final solution. Hasteur (talk) 01:41, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Removal of A NPOV template

Hi Dennis. I have conserns about this article and placed a template - NPOV - the issues have not been address at all but the same user has again removed it - diff please suggest a course of action? - I wanted to immediately replace it but held myself back - Youreallycan 12:05, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

• Since you brought it to AFD, I would leave the article alone and instead just a simple entry at the AFD "Note: The POV tag I placed has been removed. I will leave it to others to determine if it applies." Two reasons: One, you just placed it before the AFD so there is a valid concern of any passer by if it was used to bolster the AFD (I'm sure it wasn't, but others do that, so you leave it alone to remove suspicion) and Two, the statement is more powerful at the AFD than the tag is on the article anyway, particularly if you are exceedingly neutral in your tone. Others trust in you <= your neutrality. Give others every opportunity to look biased, even while you don't. Yes, this isn't just about civility, it is about persuasiveness, an excellent byproduct. If it is kept, you can always discuss the tag on the talk page, if it is deleted, the tag doesn't matter. I will also note that when you have a neutral stance, it invites others who agree with you to put it back if they agree with you, part of interdependence, giving everyone the chance to agree with you. It just takes patience. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 12:19, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Thank you - Youreallycan 12:21, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Excellent application, and way more persuasive than a revert war over a tag. The tag itself is always much less important that the reasons it was placed. The only thing I would have done different is not added "by the above user", as that makes it personal, and it doesn't matter anyway. You don't have to prove them wrong and that can actually distract from the issues, it can give them a vector of attack that isn't related to the issues. It is the only part that wasn't completely neutral. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 12:35, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Hm, I see, its hard to stay uninvolved - ... I get angry when I see conflicted contributors - got to dash - talk later - Youreallycan 12:43, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Well, yeah it's hard! I try to stay focused on my goal, and use the language that is most effective to achieve that goal. If I choose my language carefully, others are more likely to agree with me, which makes achieving my goal easier. It is a slower but more successful approach, and tends to win you more friends and converts. It is about decoupling emotion and logic. Again, it isn't easy, that is why it takes practice and time. Ask anytime, this was an excellent example to work from. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 13:03, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Hey

You're good. -— Isarra ༆ 22:14, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

• Thank you, that was kind of you to say. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 22:15, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Marketing mix at AN3

FYI, see WP:AN3#User:219.163.197.4, User:219.163.197.5, user:218.225.58.206 reported by User:Jojalozzo (Result: ). In my opinion the sock issue would justify semi. You had previously declined it at RFPP, so you could comment at the 3RR board if you wish. I agree the edits are potentially in good faith, but the complete lack of communication after many reverts means that the article is stuck unless there is admin action, in my view. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 23:30, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

• By all means, do what you feel is best. I'm quite easy, you are always welcome to take action and just tell me afterwards. Even after I've been here a while, you will find I'm easy about these things. I trust your judgement, more than my own in these cases. Right now, I'm probably a bit too conservative. Of course, this is better than overly bold, when equipped with a brand new bag of tools. :) Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 23:35, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Just a note

Dennis, I think I opposed your RfA but I wanted to say (somewhat belatedly) how impressed I have been with your various admin interventions. The ones I have seen have been statesmanlike and well measured. Keep up the good work, and feel free to ping me if you ever want a second opinion on anything. --John (talk) 08:25, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

• Thanks for the kind words. I didn't take any opposes personally, I'm not so easy a person to pin down at a glance. And I appreciate the offer, I will likely take you up on it. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 11:20, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Barnstar of Diplomacy
	Since I started editing actively again I have seen you appear several times. Very few editors know when the best action is not to take action. I believe you are excellent at recognizing that. Ryan Vesey Review me! 18:00, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

a couple minor points

First, I've been watching you since you became an admin, and I think you are doing a great job. (No, this isn't going to be followed by a "but".)

I want both MF and SW to continue contributing to the project, so I am unhappy about the recent incidents. I think you are trying to defuse the situation, and want to support that initiative. I accept your response to me at ANI, I don't wish to belabor it there.

Sorry, this isn't as coherent as I would like, as I'm trying to deal with too much at the moment, but just wanted to make a small point.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 18:54, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

• No problem, you and I agree on this. I'm not quite sure how to "fix" this problem, but I know that ANI isn't going to be the answer. I'm working on ideas even now, but have no solution yet. And thank you for your compliment, it means a great deal to me. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 19:49, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

More MMA problems

Hey Dennis.

Please see Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(sports)#MMA_.26_other_event_based_Sports_Notability, where MMA editors who aren't happy they can't get their way with MMA are trying to take it out on other sports. We need more eyes on this as I strongly believe this is a WP:FORUMSHOP which could turn ugly with MMA SPAs at any time. —Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 02:57, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

• I was noticing a few problems at AFD related to this. The RFC/U of Agent00f is still ongoing with no action, which is related. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 10:40, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

A cup of tea for you!

A hard-working Wikipedian such as yourself deserves to relax with a cup of tea! Thank you for your valuable contributions. Dianna (talk) 04:01, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

• Why thank you! Earl Grey, no sugar, no cream. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 10:41, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Hi

A short hello and touching base. I just wanted to say that I've been watching your input around the "house" lately and I think you are doing a grand job. I genuinely admire your work here, under difficult circumstances. A fair few other users would do no wrong by taking a leaf out of your book. Carry on =) GwenChan 21:48, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

• Hearing you say that is truly heartwarming! I hope that I am able to live up to your words every day. When I don't, do me the favor of kindly letting me know that as well. I am human, and I do err. You just brightened up my day considerably, thank you! Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 21:56, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Mentor report

Hi Dennis - this User has said they are on the edge of reporting me for harassment - User:Rjensen diff - The issue arose about my input to a BLP noticeboard report - Misplaced Pages:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#White_Trash - Harassment is a serious charge - Have I harrassed them in any way? I have not revert warred - the user has accused me of bad faith editing and removed templates I am still not resolved about - I have edited the issue only in absolute good faith? Now he is accusing me of malicious personal attack and vandalism diff - Youreallycan 22:00, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

• Let me take a look. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 22:05, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

I would appreciate that - there are also comments on User_talk:Rjensen#Your_removal_of_unresolved_templates - Please show me what I have done wrong in this issue. Youreallycan 22:07, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

I've left you a message. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 22:23, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

My primary concerns are related to the Amber_L._Hollibaugh biography, my edit contributions to that article and the users allegations about my contributions - - Youreallycan 22:43, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Dennis--Youreallycan deliberately went out of his way to deface and degrade the article I was writing on Amber L. Hollibaugh with stupid tags and deliberate redlinks -- all on a topic he knows nothing about. in terms of personal harassment, Youreallycan charged me with personal "conflict of interest" -- a malicious charge he knew was False. If you are mentoring this kid please straighten him out. Rjensen (talk) 10:34, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

• Well then, you have certainly demonstrated that someone needs straightening out, but I don't think it is him. I'm not mentoring him because he is a kid or mentally deficient. Rjensen, I have a great many problems with your tone and suggest you back up enough to be objective here. To call what he did as "harassment", "deface", "degrade" "stupid tags" and calls his actions maliscious, that is a gross assumption of bad faith and bordering on an ad hominem attack. Feel free to attack someone's central point or logic, but not their character. I believe his actions here are in good faith, even if you find some of them mistaken, and suggest you treat them as such. As for conflict of interest, I was wondering the exact same thing based on the puffery of the article. While this doesn't prove you have a conflict, I certainly can see why he would question it. I find the article troubling on a few levels, and have already begun trying to verify the information. I've previously asked for an outside opinion from some more versed in BLP problems. I might have used few tags than he did and started talking on the talk page sooner, but at the least, there are BLP, notability issues, and yes, the tone is a bit fluffy for an encyclopedia article, so i share his concerns. That said, we should all be adults and discuss the merits of the article on the talk page rather than stoop to hyperbole and insults. Surely you see the potential problems in the tone and potential BLP considerations here, if you are able to view it objectively. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 10:59, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

deliberately weakening and defacing an article is vandalism. You will note that Youreallycan made no use of the talk page to explain any of his allegations. The "COI" allegation is malicious --it was not based on any hint of evidence whatever, let alone assumption of good faith. As for "puffery", the article I think accurately reflects the scholarly literature on the subject. Youreallycan fails to understand policies like COI, FAN, OR, and notability, and his edits were designed to weaken not strengthen the article. That's bad faith behavior, on a topic he never has shown any previous interest before yesterday. His basic motivation it seems is to show the author in question is not "notable" -- despite having major publications in numerous established journals and publishers (like Duke MIT press, Temple University Press, & Routledge as well as periodicals like The Nation, The Village Voice,). Her work is discussed in numerous scholarly books and articles (which are cited) but that seems not enough for Youreallycan. Note how he added red links to terms in order to, as he says himself, to prove it's not notable. This is simply incompetent editing and the job of the mentor should be to help him out of the rut. Rjensen (talk) 11:15, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Since I had independently concluded that there may be a COI and other issue, would you consider me malicious? Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 11:19, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Since you ask: I consider your private judgment a poor one that does not come close to meeting any Misplaced Pages guidelines for COI. The "assume good faith" rule REQUIRES some evidence of which Youreallycan never had any. Happily you assumed good faith & you did not tag the article yourself so I'm not complaining. However, your COI seems to be one of protecting a person you are mentoring. If you're interested in what actually happened, this dispute started when I reverted Youreallycan's poor edit to "White Trash." He claimed that every person cited in the article had to be notable, which is not the Wiki rule. ANyway that got me interested in Amber L. Hollibaugh and I did some research that immediately turned up dozens of scholarly articles about her in JSTOR and Project Muse, as well as scholarly books. I read the articles and wrote her bio. That outraged Youreallycan -- but he never looked at any of the sources cited before he started tagging away in order, he says below. "to expose the low notably of the content." The content came from leading journals (GLQ, Canadian Historical Review, " History Workshop Journal, Radical History Review, Atlantis, American Quarterly & Women's Review of Books)--clear proof that Hollibaugh is notable. For example she won the prestigious Sundance Film Festival Freedom of Expression Award, but Youreallycan edited that so it would show a red link like this: Sundance Film Festival Freedom of Expression Award. That's deliberate vandalism designed to weaken the article not improve it.Rjensen (talk) 11:46, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

• I'm not saying there is a WP:COI, only that I can see why someone would be concerned. Tagging for COI isn't a sign of bad faith, as COI editing is not prohibited. The article does look a bit flowery to me, which is the first sign of a potential COI. I would not have tagged as such, but I wouldn't have scolded someone else who did. He should have then taken it to the talk page, but these other issues came up. I don't doubt your ability an editor, and I understand my own bias, but I still think you are being unnecessarily harsh in your assessment of his actions and misinterpreting a great deal. My role as mentor is solely on behavioral issues, not content, and I am not an apologist for his actions in anything. When appropriate, I'm not hesitant to forcefully correct him, but I don't see that this is needed here. Assuming good faith is a two way street. If you find his actions lack sufficient knowledge of the subject matter, I would have suggested a more neutral way of expressing this, as is the norm in any content dispute. I would expect no less from an editor of your capability and experience. Redlinking is not vandalism, even if you found it contentious. As admin, I have to spend a great deal of time explaining this to others, so I'm confident in my judgement of what is or is not properly defined as vandalism here. He might be more aggressive in his actions than you prefer (and perhaps I as well), but so is jumping to your rather hasty conclusions in assuming his efforts were in bad faith, which itself is in bad faith and excessive. I'm suggesting everyone tone it down, go to the talk page of the article and discuss the concerns, and that both of you act in a measured way that assumes the best of faith in each other at this point. I'm not interested in debating who is wrong or right, I'm interested in facilitating a resolution to the legitimate concerns regarding the article. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 13:50, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

one revert

Please investigate and comment in regards to my contributions to this dispute - did I violate my one revert condition - Youreallycan 23:01, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

• You know what you need to do, revert yourself, and just take it to the talk page. No need to labor the 2nd RR as long as you acknowlege it, just fix it. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 23:02, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
  • and if you can't fix it, apologize for it on the talk page, and begin a dialog. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 23:03, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

I didn't make any violation of my 1RR editing - if you think I did - post it here please - Youreallycan 23:05, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Ok, I didn't see any, thought I had just missed it. You both are very active on the page, so I still suggest starting a dialog, and begin that dialog with the things you both agree on. If nothing else, that provides you both a direction to move together on, and allows both of you to be open minded on the things you disagree on, which you can discuss over a few days. BLPs are contentious thing, this is why I try to first find common ground, rather than jumping into where you disagree. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 23:08, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Dennis - I am never going to agree with this user - and that is fine by me - my only issue are with the biographical articles of living people hosted here , such as this weakly cited promo article that the user has created Amber_L._Hollibaugh - please read it. I added redlinks to expose the low notably of the content - the user just reverted me?Youreallycan 23:13, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) You said that once already. Hint? Egg Centric 23:15, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

• I'm hoping the sources are solid for that. But for now, the article needs a little formatting, sections, and quietly needs to have the sources verified. I don't have a reason to think they aren't, but the sources aren't at my fingertips and I like to personally check sources in cases like this. I'm sure you would as well. I wouldn't confront him about it, there is nothing bad here, just potentially contentious, so if you can't verify the sources, I would instead ask someone different to help you. No reason to get excited about it, just verify. Part of assuming good faith. You don't have to agree with someone to act in good faith. Good grief, my whole day here is spent disagreeing with people, then joking with them later on talk pages. Taking it personal doesn't make us more effective. When in doubt, we get outside opinions. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 23:16, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Then quit worrying about the content, and simply verify it first. Or get help verifying it. Seriously, until you can access some info on her, or show that it can't be verified, your argument isn't solid, even if you are 100% right. Worry about the things one at a time.Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 23:21, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

• I've asked a trusted friend to offer an opinion about the article in general. At this stage, nothing should be done until then, as not to waste time or duplicate efforts. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 23:32, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
• Yes - DGG has is right when he says "its a promotional article" , "no matter who wrote it" is a good way of avoiding the WP:COI issue... - it shows how the project can be misused for promotion by people familiar with our rules. The redlinks that I added to expose the low notability of the content sadly were removed by the user ... no time .. or desire to make an edit there - at least the subject is not being attacked, which is my primary focus. Youreallycan 17:19, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

  DGG has a talent for cutting through the BS, yet still remain very civil. In the future, you and I both probably need to take it a little slower, even if our initial ideas are correct, just to help find the resolution peacefully. If I find a contentious situation, I always call someone in. Not just someone who will agree with me, mind you, but someone who is expert at the topic or concept. DGG has told me I was wrong plenty of times over the years, but at least I learned something. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 18:45, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

A post you recently made on ANI

I'm curious why you made this edit. Unless I'm missing something, it doesn't seem very constructive.--Rockfang (talk) 17:39, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

• He stated that he "knew" this mythological entity in the link provided. He has a history of good edits, and all of a sudden, very odd edits. It wasn't meant to inflame at all, only to get a feel for their state of mind to determine if the account has been compromised or if the person is not feeling well mentally. If it came across poorly, I would apologize. A look at their recent history is a little troubling. I appreciate you bringing it here, and if you strongly feel that I have made a mistake in this, I will strike it, but my goal is to determine IF there is a problem here, as there very well may be. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 17:47, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
• I did modify the tone just a bit since no one has replied to it. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 17:56, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for responding and thank you for the explanation.--Rockfang (talk) 21:37, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

No problem. You are always welcome to come here and ask, I will always gladly explain any action I make. I appreciate you bringing HERE first, as to reduce any drama there. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 21:39, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship/Jenks24

You've supported twice (numbers 68 and 90), I'll leave it to you to sort it out how you want. Dpmuk (talk) 19:05, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

• Ah, well, it would appear I have a cranial-rectal inversion issue going on here. I fixed it. Thank you for bringing this to my attention. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 19:08, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Webcomics

Will you just give me a straight answer on how "Oh, this last AFD was closed as 'no consensus' or had faulty reasoning for its keeping; I think 2 years is a good enough gap to renominate" is a bad thing? There's nothing saying you can't renominate after a no consensus. Ten Pound Hammer • 21:55, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

• Hammer, it is a general pattern, and you have always been at the limits when it comes to deletions. Every time it comes up, I either stay away or take your side, even though I completely see their points. You really have gotten what appears to be, obsessed with the deletions. You *need* a break. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 22:01, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

99.251.114.120

Since you warned him the other day - if you haven't seen it already, note this diff. From where I stand, BR has gone above and beyond in turning the other cheek and trying to make peace with somebody who's been warned over and over about personal attacks. --GenericBob (talk) 22:53, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

• I will try to keep an eye out. I'm not likely to block him over that one redlink, however. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 23:11, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

FYI

Bot didn't revert the angsty IP, it just moved his angst from the bottom on the page. 28bytes (talk) 02:12, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

• Ah. It was their discouragement that concerned me. Likely nothing, but to be honest it seemed a better use of my time than anything else happening at ANI. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 10:36, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Need feedback

Dear Dennis Brown I'd like to draw your attention toward the article at User:Maharathi/sandbox and invite your valuable suggestions and feedback to improve the article.Maharathi (talk) 02:37, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

• I don't usually do a lot of biographies, and this being sourced primarily in Hindi will be a challenge. On the surface, it looks pretty good, and I see Bgwhite is also working on it, who is more qualified, however I will see what I can do to help. I do like to see this type of article creation, in a sandbox, getting input from others. Good work. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 10:15, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Protection

Thanks for protecting Josephus on Jesus. I also mentioned there that the blocked user does the same here and also here. Do I need to make separate requests for those, or could you just protect those for 3 months as well? That will be appreciated. History2007 (talk) 15:40, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

• Normally, you want to stay in process and do them individually for these requests if it isn't urgent. You can mention that I added 3 months, but any admin is free to use their own judgement. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 15:43, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Ok, I will make another request. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 15:47, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Resource-based economy!

Thanks! --OpenFuture (talk) 14:05, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

ANI

I am a hair away from walking away from this article anyway. It's starting to affect me too much. Anyway, I deeply appreciate your kind words, both on the ANI, and on my talk page. When someone takes that much care to understand what I am trying to say, and actually listens, I find it touches me deeply. I make you a solemn promise, from another lifelong autodidact. I will not make a fool of myself, and I will not make a fool out of you, with NPA, no matter what anyone else does or says. Tftobin (talk) 00:43, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

• Good to hear. And I actually enjoy working with people like you, that made mistakes but are reasonable, that got into a bad spot and just need a friend to say "hey, go do something different for a while." Seriously consider working in non-controversial areas. I do all the time because I enjoy the work without all the drama, then I can just edit and it is actually fun. That is what I'm doing right now, making redirects, adding some sources, etc. I try to limit my "drama" to no more than 30% of my daily intake at Misplaced Pages :) There is much to do and make a difference at here. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 00:48, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks...

...for your help at The Bachelorette (season 8). And beyond that: As I've said many times, it's a lot of work being an admin, and having to scout all the various noticeboards to try to put out all the fires. I think the rest of us need to just say thank you, in general, to you folks now and then. With regards, --Tenebrae (talk) 01:16, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

• And thank you for the kindness! I actually enjoy helping people here, and it is nice to be appreciated once in a while, too. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 01:18, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Friends

There is no protection right now, as someone else claimed in WP:RFPP. --George Ho (talk) 03:13, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

• I was sleeping, but it looks like someone already fixed it. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 11:38, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Resource-based economy

Hi Dennis, you can unprotect the page. I had no intention of engaging in edit warring. I just wanted to create the last diff before going to dispute resolution (DR), to provide the most up-to-date and most accurate diff to the DR process. (I formally requested dispute resolution a few hours ago.) There is nothing to worry about -- as I said, I had no intention of being involved in a war. (And I also have no desire for getting involved in other people's wars, as I consider edit warring a total waste of time.)

Regards, IjonTichyIjonTichy (talk) 08:25, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

• I've given permission for any other admin to do so at WP:DRN, since I'm not up on all the particulars. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 11:36, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

A question about blocking procedures

Hi Dennis,

Hope all is well, and that the weather is just as lovely in NC as it is here in the UK. If I may, I would like to ask a question about blocking procedures, and perhaps an investigation into one such incident that occurred with myself a couple of days ago. I was issued with a 24-hour block on Saturday night with the reason for the block being 3RR (apparently I had done a 4th edit which put me over the limit). However, a few editors - one being an administrator - shown concern that the 4th edit being counted should have been disregarded as it was a BLP revert (which apparently is covered under #7 of WP:NOT3RR), whereas the over 3 edits where in regards to a Human Rights content on article Eurovision Song Contest 2012. The administrator who shown concern could review my unblock request as they have had involvement with myself on the Eurovision Project. But he did express that the block was potentially heavily handed, and the BLP edit was being used as an excuse to just issue a block anyway. If this is correct, then what action should now be taken? The block has since expired, but it is distressing that 1) a block for 4RR was issued when I had only reached the 3RR limitation; 2) it took 20 hours before someone made a decision on the unblock review; and 3) the unblock request was denied even though the BLP edit was established as being disregarded - thus meaning the 4RR reason would be null and void. Thank you in advance for looking into this - Wesley☀Mouse 12:08, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

• It is a Catch 22. I don't have to wait for the 4th revert to block someone, I can revert on the 2nd if I feel it is disruptive enough, although I will likely have to explain to my peers and be subject to their interpretation. The 4th is just the "line in the sand" to which all admins will universally agree and not labor the issue. I would have warned you instead of blocking you, but not all admins are as communicative. Looking at the summaries, I don't see that you made a claim that it was a BLP violation in the summary, which I would suggest in the future. Likely, the admin saw multiple reverts, most said "good faith revert" and just hit the bit red button forcing you to go read a book for a day. We handle so many edit wars and such that we might not always read every word in every revert it if looks obvious. Personally, I don't revert more than twice before I get outside opinions, unless it is clearly vandalism and I have tagged it as such. Often I won't revert the second time before getting another editor (doesn't need to be an admin) to look at it. Perhaps someone who is shown to be active on that article. Just a neutral note on their talk page asking them to look at it. You can talk with the blocking admin, provide the diff that was a BLP but it is kind of moot at this point and you can't "revert" the log entry. And yes, often block requests don't get attention for some time. I haven't worked my up to block reviews yet, but I know it is understaffed. We have a lot of admins here, but often too few to deal with the load. The problem with block review is that an admin is usually not willing to override another admin unless there is a clear mistake. One of the edits being a BLP consideration might not be enough reason, as the admin might have just blocked you for the 3 reverts. Did you look to see if the reviewing admin tried to ask the blocking admin on his talk page? That might provide some info. So while I might agree with you in theory, in practice the best thing to do is never use that 3rd revert unless it is an emergency, and then if you do because it is a serious BLP issue, summarize it as such very clearly and immediately ask an admin for assistance. Then if you are blocked, you can establish a clear pattern of seeking assistance and providing a rationale. Not everyone is as reluctant to block as I am, so you have to be a bit more careful. As you have seen, even when you are right, things happen and there isn't much to be done after the fact. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 12:27, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

• Firstly, thank you for explaining that so clear and precise; I understood every word you wrote in your response. It was a bit of a tricky one, and admittedly I should be more explanatory with my edit summaries, something that I shall take on board and implement in future. Of the 4 edits on the article, the first was fixing a name issue of a living person. An official source which was used to reference the list of spokespersons, listed the name as Aleksey to which those details were used on the article. An editor changed the spelling to Oleksiy; which deviated away from the official source. Now I know that BLP policies are as secure as Fort Knox, and as strict as a dictatorship regime (for choice of phrase); which is why I swiftly changed the name back to how it was shown on the source. My understanding was that logic would have prevailed with it being obvious the change was a living person and nothing else. A few hours later, another editor added controversial content about human rights issues; and there was still an on-going discussion about a previous inclusion of such details (written in an objective and emotional manner) on the article's talk page. During that discussion it was decided to omit such details and work towards a mutual re-write; where members of the project where invited to write on the talk page, their suggestions of how the re-write should be worded. Now I know the user who added the latest details wouldn't have been aware of this discussion, and at the time I did the first revert, I wrote on their talk page explaining about the current decision to omit, and also invited them to participate in the discussion on the talk page. However, instead of discussing, they reinstated the content and then started to discuss. It was at this point that I did the 2nd revert and reminded them that they need to discuss first before re-adding content that is still being agreed on. A second user then re-added the details for a 3rd time, and again I left them a note making them aware of the current situation and the content discussion asking them to kindly self-revert. My request was ignored, so I boldly placed the article back into its omitted version - being fully aware I had reached the 3RR limitation, and wouldn't have crossed-over to a 4th revert on the same content (if it was to have been added again for a 4th time). The 24-hours (in all honesty) were a God send, as it meant I had to take time-away from Misplaced Pages - something which many editors, including yourself, had advised me to take since the recent family loss, and that I never acted on the advice at the time. Again thanks for the feedback, much appreciated - Wesley☀Mouse 13:33, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

YRC

Hello -- I wonder if you could help YRC learn to express himself without the use of phrases like "Jew issues" (as at BLPN, in the discussion on Mark Zuckerburg). There is a long history of this sort of thing. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:06, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

• I've brought up the issue on our mentoring page. I think he meant well, but yes, that was expressed poorly. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 16:12, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

• I have a couple of comments for what they're worth (I participated in the brief discussion on YRC's Talk page). First, if YRC doesn't want you to post to his Talk page, you shouldn't. Second, if your objective is to make it "less visible", then you could always come to Dennis, as you've done now. Third, if YRC permitted you to post on his Talk page, why couldn't you have done it in the same way as you did here, which was perfectly polite, rather than say something like "What planet are you on?" You could still have objected to YRC's phrasing without being insulting. And the choices are not only do I post it at YRC's Talk page or in the forum where YRC made the comment. There are other possibilities. Now back to your regular channels.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:29, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
  • I just saw that comment, as I went to the mentoring page, not YRC's talk page. To put it bluntly, Nomoskedasticity, you weren't leading by example on YRC's talk page. Feel free to bring any concerns directly to me, but Bbb23 is correct, and I would say that during mentoring, here is the right place. As you can see, I dropped everything I was doing and handled the situation first. When you state your case poorly on his talk page, you undermine my efforts, and I would ask you please give me enough credit for handling the situation until you have reason to believe I have failed to address it in a timely manner. I did reply only 6 minutes after you brought it to my attention, after posting a notice to his mentoring page only 5 minutes after your notice here. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 16:37, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
    • I'm grateful for the timely response, but since I wasn't being impatient I'm not sure what the point is. As for rudeness -- though I don't expect that anything at all will lead you to condone it, I note again that this issue has been in play for years, and I'm not the only one who is thoroughly fed up with this editor making offensive comments in a topic area where he doesn't know anything. The best solution for all concerned would be (as suggested not just by me but by quite a few others) for him to leave editing in this area to those who actually know something. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:38, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

• YRC has corrected his comment at BLPN and acknowledged the error on his Talk page, which is good enough for me. As for "those who actually know something", All Hallow's Wraith is accusing me at BLPN of not knowing anything and being "highly disruptive". I'm genuinely touched by his concerns.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:48, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

• That is good. And again, I have no issue with anyone bringing a concern here. In fact, I encourage it. Better to just let me know and let me deal with it. If you don't like how I deal with it, chew me out. I'm convinced it was a mistake, but an honest mistake. I would also note that YRC has made a tremendous amount of improvement, and has taken the whole mentoring quite serious. It wasn't forced upon him it was suggested and he chose it. We just aren't done yet. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 18:13, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

• Being his mentor, you would know far better than I, but from the little I've actually seen, he has definitely improved.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:21, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Dual boot

Per the discussion on Reaper Eternal's talk, I'd suggest that you consider getting the Ubuntu Live CD and perform a dual boot installation as a side-by-side with Windows. I just used nmap to scan those IPs easily from the bash shell. It would only cost you one blank CD and some hard drive space and you'd have access to all of those tools that you are used to in *nix . I will say that I convert new installations from using Unity (user interface) back to traditional GNOME desktop and I would suggest the same for experienced users. My 2 c , fwiw
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 22:33, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

• I found a good solution: Zenmap, the self installing GUI for nmap on Windows, found at nmap.org. It is actually quite good and I already know the syntax. It does have a couple of small diffs, ie: -P0 is done as -Pn, but generally the same. I don't want to run Linux when on Misplaced Pages, as I like to run videos in the corner or use the TV card. I'm a snob about using Linux on the server, but more open to Windows on the desktop only for the entertainment apps. Most of the time, as now, I use the TV as a monitor here in the living room and watch and type. If I used my regular desktop, I might just partition and dual boot Fedora solely because I'm so familiar with RH's backend layout. I cut my teeth on RH starting with 1.0, and now use CentOS. I still can't get used to Debian based distros, even though they are superior on the desktop. I have several servers I can ssh into, but PUTTY isn't the best for cutting/pasting, and I wanted a native app. I could just reinstall Cygwin, but I think I like Zenmap better since it is basically the CLI, with some mouse options. Not fancy at all, but 25mb to carry the backend. You might give it a try for boxen that require Windows. I used to use PortScan, a french program that hasn't been maintained in a decade and was simple but good. Might still see if I can get that to work in a virtual machine. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 22:48, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Personally I'd use VirtualBox instead if you need Linux.--Jasper Deng (talk) 22:48, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
    • Yep, what Jasper said. Cygwin has its limitations but virtualization would/should allow the OSs to play nice in the sandbox with each other. I was so used to Debian-based systems that after finishing RedHat Academy a few years ago, I opted to stay Debian-based...usually Ubuntu but also Linux Mint, too.
      ⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 22:59, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
    • That is pretty fancy. I wear many hats at the company (technically, I'm in marketing) so I don't get to tweak nearly as much as I would like to. I'm subpar at Linux on the desktop, but have been doing the backend stuff for forever. I remember the internet before the web was created. Gopher, Veronica, Archie, IRC in a shell with IIRC then BitchX, anon FTP for, um, things :) This is one reason I want to tool up a bit and maybe help out in SPI. I actually understand the back end a bit more than most, although much of it is old school. I still love working in a CLI over GUI for any real work, but I'm not as up to date as I would be if I could do IT all day, instead of 15% of my day, and spending the rest of the time in photoshop and writing commercial web copy and dealing with managerial issues. Ever work with Lantastic? Ha! I even ran a multiline BBS for a few years before the interwebs, in DOS with QEMM and Desqview. Told you, I'm old school, and just lazy enough to use the easiest tools. Probably because I'm getting old. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 23:15, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
      • Hey, VirtualBox can also be CLI.--Jasper Deng (talk) 23:22, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
        • I do need to read up on it. There isn't a use for it at my work, but for my own uses it could be interesting here at home. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 23:24, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks

Just a note to say thank you for acting on the AN/I that I posted (about 84.45.222.192, et al). I hope that does the trick...Moonraker12 (talk) 17:39, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

• Just doing what I thought was right. I hope it helps as well. I looked a little at the other editors, who haven't edited in a while, and couldn't see anything that require immediate action at any. If another admin looks and concludes differently, that will be fine. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 17:41, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

The Kelapstick Beans Award

	The Kelapstick WP:BEANS award
	Please don't give Drmies any more ideas, sometimes he follows through, and someone has to clean up after him kelapstick 02:39, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Well said, K.! LadyofShalott 03:09, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

You know what happens when you given Wikipedians WP:BEANS, right? They WP:FART. Drmies was just trying to emulate that scene in his favorite movie. LadyofShalott 03:24, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

How did you know? I'm sad K-stick moved the article--the longer title did a great job of indicating what's happening here: nothing masquerading as something. Welcome to the future of WP. Drmies (talk) 04:40, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

BTW, someone seems to have vandalized the article, and the related AfD is an amusing read. Drmies (talk) 04:43, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm quite saddened by the page move. It was my hope to see it eventually go to AFD with all the articles in the list added sneakily to the AFD, so we could delete them all in one easy step. There is no way to express the tremendous pride I had in that title, my only contribution to this batch of rock soup. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 10:31, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Dennis, don't feel disheartened, this is a juggernaut of the twitterpedia, there is no stopping it now. This has potential to grow to epic proportions. I won't be happy until I am included in the list, with my 15 followers, how big will the article have to be? And don't get me wrong, I loved the title. Now we have to start 2012 in Twitter. --kelapstick 10:42, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Andy Warhol would be proud. It is a shame that we can't create articles that automatically expire and delete themselves. In the larger scheme of things, these article have a shelf life only slightly longer than milk. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 11:00, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Case in point - Seamus (dog). What do you think an AfD would look like after the election?--kelapstick 11:11, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

A long sheet of relists because no one would care. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 12:10, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

I can't believe it took me over an hour to pick up on the Warhol joke (and I am just seeing the link now, I had thought you had linked to the page). Too long a day, and too much Hahn perhaps (I can't always blame it on the beer, but I do when I can). --kelapstick 12:34, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

I like obscurity, it's my specialty. I made a slight change to Drmies article, to keep it from getting dated. And left Drmies a "barnstar". Sort of. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 12:36, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Awesome barnstar, probably my second favorite (after the one here, look for one by Drmies on 11 Feb this year.) --kelapstick 12:45, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

We do what we can on a budget. Drmies (talk) 14:06, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Ban?

Dennis, can you help me understand how an individual admin can "ban" an individual from a page without support from any other editor? Involuntary bans are only performed by the Community or one of its collective processes. The fact that another admin did a page protection indicates that there is not a ban, because if there were there would be no need for protection. I believe you are misjudging that banning is within the role of the admin as if Community support is not needed. I saw no such support at ANI. JJB 17:17, 30 May 2012 (UTC)