User talk:Dennis Brown/Archive 31

I also want to add this article, there is no actor under the name of

(talk)

00:21, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

• I don't have time to dig up right now, but just send the article to AFD and list the actor in the same AFD. It can get speedy deleted from there and that gives enough time to research by many eyes. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 00:43, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

You were recently recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Media Viewer RfC. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Media Viewer RfC/Evidence. Please add your evidence by July 26, 2014, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Media Viewer RfC/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. Before adding evidence please review the scope of the case. For the Arbitration Committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:10, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi Dennis. Just want to thank you (and not for the first time) as I've just found this ANI case. As Baseball Bugs has rightly deduced, it is yet another line in this long-running, tedious, pathetic saga. Sigh! Anyway, all the best. Jack | ^{talk page} 12:26, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Don't know how to deal with this guy - I've wasted a lot of time on him already and honestly I think he's wasting his time and everyone else's. We aren't going to change our copyright policy for him.

Much of it seems ultimately to be based on promoting an apparently currently non-notable group. It may well become notable, and maybe even large, maybe very soon. Until then, though, ... John Carter (talk) 15:00, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

I left a note on his talk page. My suspicions are pretty obvious. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 16:35, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Don't want to risk outing, so I've sent the three of you an email (probably telling you stuff you already know) — Alan / Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:58, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

• He did get his other accounts blocked: User:Gilgamesh-for-the-World, User:Wiki-proofer-and-tagger and User:Siduri-Project, which shows a lot of interesting history. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 17:06, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

I've left a message on Jim's tp, without prejudice to Boing's email which I was not privy to (no reason why I should have been). --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:57, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. It is interesting that the first 'odd' stuff about Siduri was about a "Church of Siduri", see the first post at

talk

) 08:33, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Well, it's not really all that complicated. 10 mins of web search seems to demonstrate that he is proselytizing for his movement under the guise of wanting help Wikipedia. All in GF of course, but WP is not the place to do it. Most of the movement seems to be about promoting a certain book and other Siduri merchandise on a 'kind of' online store. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:19, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Oh sure, but I was searching on "siduri project" and "church of siduri". What we can find is [3] where he says ". I also run SidurisAdvice.com," SidurisAdvice.com[4] hosts a pdf of Peter Dyr's book & Dyr seems to be behind the Church of Siduri.[5] Both the church site and sidurisadvice.com sell the same products (eg a clock, a mug, etc).

talk

) 10:45, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Dennis - I wouldn't say for a moment that I am brighter than most (but thanks for the compliment), it's just that I do possibly have rare flashes where I might appear more lucid than usual. In fact every time I go to a meet up or Wikimania, I am actually staggerd by the number of people who have far more clue than I do, and some of them are are only a quarter of my age :) Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:54, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

• In my mind, there are several different types of "smart". You are obviously very educated and have good clue. (I see clue as different than "common sense") I'm a horse of a different feather, barely finished high school, an autodidact addicted to learning. The road of life has been long and bumpy, giving me a fair ration of common sense and more than a few scars. Sometimes at Wikipedia, I'm amazed at how many people have exceptional book knowledge yet lack common sense. It reminds me of the short essay I recently wrote, named after my alter ego WP:Farmer Brown. If you haven't read it, you should, it is the kind of thing you would appreciate, Kudpung, and describes the difference between book smarts and "street" smarts. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 10:06, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
• Yeah, I met up with Kudpung once, and I do vaguely remember a lucid moment ;-) — Alan / Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:16, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

I must have been drinking some Thai moonshine ;) Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:20, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Oh yes, I think there were some bottles open :-) — Alan / Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:30, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

You two are in the rare club of Wikipedians I've actually conversed with outside of enwp. Too bad we all live multiple time zones from each other. I have shared some homemade barbecue with Berean Hunter more than once, and had a really nice meal with Dank and his partner just a couple of weeks ago. It would be nice to break some bread with you two as well. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 10:40, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

John and I really enjoyed that, Dennis. - Dank (push to talk) 11:44, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Another two guys I would very much like to meet - c'mon guys, get your tickets booked, Wikimania is only a few days away - (and for me 10,000 miles but I'll be there). Wouldn't miss it for the world even if it leaves me skint for a couple of months afterwards... Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:51, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the invite, we're trying to make it happen. - Dank (push to talk) 14:01, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm only a few hundred miles away, but I won't be able to make it for various personal reasons :-( — Alan / Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:06, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

With reference to .this You have mentioned TheRedPenOfDoom is blunt but a very knowledgeable and capable editor. If he is removing sections, odds are very good that policy is on his side when removing it. I agree with you that he has good knowledge about Wiki rules and policies. But His English is not up to the mark . His choice of words and phrases is not good at all--Enterths300000 (talk) 17:03, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

• You need to look at TheRedPenOfDoom's edits again and make sure you aren't mistaking someone else's edits for him. His grasp of proper English syntax and grammar far exceeds my meager skills. If you think he is making a mistake, you need to provide the diff and exact reason you think the grammar is incorrect, and do so on his talk page. He tends to cut more than add, maybe he made a mistake in grammar due to a technical mistake, but his skills and understanding of the English language are much better than average. I've never faulted his English, just his threshold before achieving the state of grumpiness ;) Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 17:30, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

  For some of us, grumpiness is our natural state. Eric Corbett 17:36, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

  I envy those who are naturally grumpy - it's taken me years of hard work — Alan / Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:02, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

There is good feedback here. I have created the patented Grump-o-meter^TM User:TheRedPenOfDoom/sandbox/grumpy to help me monitor when it is time to step away from the keyboard and go do something actually worthwhile. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:30, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi. While I agree with your decision and reasoning to block this IP, I do believe they have a valid complaint. The diffs explicitly show that the IP made simple grammar fixes that improved the article but was reverted just because they made the edit. I've dug a little further, and saw some incivility on the IP's part, but the fact remains that the other user walked away with less than a slap on the wrist while the IP was blocked. I'd appreciate it if you could at least give

• The problem is that the IP is a long term block evader and not every one of their edits are to improve the encyclopedia. Reverting a block evader is supported under
  WP:RBI, although it isn't mandatory and I think it is probably done more than it needs to be. This IP has a trail of trolling and edit warring behind them. If you go back far enough, you see the IP was blocked for harassment and edit warring. Honestly, it is difficult to feel sorry for them. I'm aware of Alan, by the way. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER
  09:24, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Thank you very much. ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 09:30, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

No-one was asking you to feel sorry for anyone. They were just asking you to stop people being relentlessly attacked and harassed for making edits like this one.

Every single edit I've ever made to the encyclopaedia, since the first one I made in early 2004, has been intended to improve it. I'd love to see you find one edit that you think wasn't. For many years I never had a single problem, not a single complaint, not a single revert of my work. Around 2009 this began to change, people began reverting for no reason, leaving snotty messages, mostly using "AWB" and "TW" to do so. Around 2011 it got significantly worse, and these days you can't edit for more than a couple of days without someone reverting for no reason, and then everyone else who happens to pass by piling on with attacks, false claims, article protections, blocks, etc etc. I'm sure you must find it hilarious to be part of this appalling behaviour. I imagine you chuckled like anything while blocking with the false claim of block evasion. I bet you giggled for hours after you acted to prevent my complaint being heard. I bet you even thought it was pretty funny to falsely insinuate that the reversion of my edit to wind wave was fine because of block evasion, while knowing full well that there was no block evasion of any sort. Well, as I've said before, you won't win. You can't win. I am immensely patient, I can get new IPs very easily, and my improvements will be restored in due course. Perhaps in time you'll realise the absurdity of what you're taking part in.

Incidentally I see that you have no particular problem with making personal attacks yourself [6]. 186.37.203.137 (talk) 15:48, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

"Giggled"? Either you don't know me, or you're a fool. If you ever decide to drop the hyperbole and the childish "look at me, I'm a victim" act and instead ask for a proper review without evading blocks, I will be glad to listen, but until then, I have better things to do. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 16:28, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

What fun it must be to be an administrator! Eric Corbett 17:34, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

See Eric, I am no less grumpy. I just work really hard to keep my threshold high. I've spent half the day visiting in the ICU and the other half consoling his wife (he will probably pull through), and both are more family than parents-in-law. Real life has a way of reminding you how utterly inconsequential some "problems" here really are. Fortunately, I haven't lost my sense of humor in all this, however, my bullshit threshold is very low. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 19:56, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

• here

Hi, Dennis, closing the topic was the right thing to do, but your statement is inaccurate. Neither editor has edited since July 14.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:27, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

• Ah, don't know why I read today's date as the 15th. Fixed, thank you. I probably shouldn't even be here, been a rough day. Might just go drink a beer and play my new video game Goat Simulator, which is very good therapy. You are an immortal goat with special powers and the entire theme of the game is to destroy everything (I'm not making this up). Stupid and pointless, like ANI, but more fun. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 20:35, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

The real (scape)goat game is played at ACE, DYK? Start here. Quoting Anna Russell (The Ring of the Nibelungs, "from one ordinary opera goer to another ordinary opera goer"): "I'm not making this up." --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:51, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

To quote the giant computer WOPR in the movie WarGames..."the only winning move is not to play." so I will take that advice to heart, but nixing the beer. Right now, I have my Fred Flintstone collectible coffee mug half full of "apple pie" flavored moonshine (again, not kidding) and I hear a goat calling out to me. See you guys tomorrow.... Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 21:00, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

It's tomorrow, I decided to play, - also mentioned you, well, not exactly you, Dennis, in today's

Hello, Dennis Brown. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{

ygm}} template.

Voceditenore (talk

I've also sent you a second, follow-up email. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 09:17, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

I am inviting you to leave me some feedback, 18 months after you opposed my RfA. Do you still believe I am not fit to be an admin? Do you believe I have been able to improve past the concerns you have brought up? Do not be afraid of being too harsh, I am specifically welcoming criticism as I believe it is the best way to improve and I am always looking to learn from my mistakes. I am particularly looking for feedback as to whether you have objections to myself lifting the self-imposed 1RR restriction I had agreed to towards the end of my RfA. If you don't have time to comment, don't fret it either, this is nothing I'll lose sleep over. :) ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 19:49, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

• Totally unfit, I have 12 letters into Arb and two to Jimbo right now ;) I will take a look at it later. I think "fit" is a bit harsh, I was concerned about readiness is all. I will save any further comment for that page. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 19:51, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

• Thanks for the time you take for this. Unrelated note: I am thinking of updating the quote on my userpage, and God knows I have a soft spot for giant dicks (emphasis not mine). ;) ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 20:00, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Probably would be a good idea to revoke talk page access. I've never seen posts that bad. United States Man (talk) 19:42, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Really? Never that bad? Really? Anyway, he is on the verge of revoking (and certainly by the letter of the law crossed it), but sometimes letting someone vent for one post can be a good thing (well not a bad thing). --kelapstick^(bainuu) 19:45, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

• I was doing just that and typing it out as you wrote. I didn't extend the block, so we will see what happens in a week. Really, I took away talk page access for his own good, to give him a chance in a week to come back without digging that hole even deeper. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 19:47, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
  • A sound rational for talk page revoking.
    First law of holes and all that. How did we ever get from BBQ to actually work around here. Oh and by the way Dennis, a while ago I created a custom userbox for just such an occasion. --kelapstick^(bainuu
    ) 19:52, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
    • (talk page stalker) Shame on you, kelapstick.Good King Richard Cœur de Lion was not in the least bit pretentious! "He was also known in occitan as Oc e No (Yes and No), because of his ability to change his mind." Martinevans123 (talk) 22:43, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
      • Soft one minute, firm the next? Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 22:47, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
        • Great to see your heart is still fine, Dennis. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:52, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

@Kelapstick: Actually, no. I'm sure there have been far worse, but nothing that I've seen. @Dennis Brown: I figured that you had probably noticed. I was just making sure. United States Man (talk) 19:59, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

• Good block. And one of the wittiest block messages I have ever seen. Thank you. --John (talk) 22:33, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Hey Dennis, I'll say this as politely as I can ... Why don't you just leave me alone, OK? (I've never initiated dialogue with you in any venue recently that I can remember; why don't you follow suit so there won't be any nasty exchanges between us any further? I'd like to say "goodbye" to you, wiki-forever. [The fact you close an ANI thread against Panda, claiming to be "neutral", yet also previously claiming "I just like the guy", as a somewhat recent example, is telling.] I really don't think you have a clue regarding real editor retention, or your own misgivings, but say everything to make yourself "look good".)

Take care and please call your numerous gang members (need I mention them?) off my ass, that you have successfully nominated at RfAs. Bottom line: you're part of the problem on WP, Dennis, fail to see or recognize it, in spite of your professed self-praising/gloating intentions. (When's the last time you didn't say "At my RfA, ..." as example why someone lacking qualifications s/b promoted?) Goodbye and good luck (but seriously, leave me alone, when it's been important, it's been yucky w/ you.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 22:03, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

• Believe it or don't, but I interjected there because I didn't want to see someone come in an throw a sanction on you for violating the iban. It was a very minor infraction but in my opinion it still was against the iban. So I said it was using the softest language I could use and just recommended it stay deleted and everyone go away. I completely believe you when you say you see it as an attack, but that is the problem: the rest of the world would not see my initial post as anything more than I say it is. Ask anyone you want off wiki. And I'm sorry, but you really are too verbose much of the time. I used to be the same way, I completely understand that, but it won't change until you recognize it. It isn't a character flaw, it is just an unfortunate thing for you, as people WON'T read all that. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 22:12, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Oh bullshit, Dennis. You didn't do me any favors, and stop stroking yourself with false praise. (Your characteristic attribute.) a very minor infraction but you have fucking nothing to say whether or not Sjakkalle's threat of block was valid if I restore or is off-base. (Hello. Content-devoid. There you are.) It wasn't against the IBAN, and you have offered no reason why it was against, I have read the article there very thoroughly. (Your "polemic" and "thought-police" shit is not registered in WP:IBAN, and just BS coming out your mouth according to your fantasies, hello.) I never called any comment you made at the AN an "attack" (did I!?) -- but here you go off with your usual BS and accuse me of same. (You like making shit up, don't you.) Your opinion about "what people will/won't read" is not any truth Dennis, you have no monopoly on truth, you think you do, and that is your ever-frustrating problem and why I can't have anything to do with you and don't want to read your shit to my attention any more. (It's too frustrating, and I'm bound to explode. Not good. [Second request: Leave me alone forever, please. Nothing to my attention anymore. You aren't "uninvolved". And I hate your "help".]) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 22:33, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

I've had dealings with this editor in the past who quite clearly (and according to the

WP:POLEMIC he maintains on his up) has an aversion to all things admin - whoever they are, and whatever they do. If he feels admins are ganging up on him, nothing could be further from the truth, but there must be reasons why he attracts attention, action, or comment from admins. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk

) 00:56, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

• What you are dealing with now is EXACTLY what I was trying to prevent. Call me a dick or whatever, I don't care, but if you can't see that my comment was trying to shut down the discussion before it turned into an examination of your actions, ending with deletions of your pages, then you are truly blind. You call bullshit, but I told you this would happen, and this is exactly what is happening. It was the only possible outcome, you just fail to understand why, so you assign it to abuse, when it isn't, it is a common outcome based on policy, whether you like it or not. Yes, I WAS doing you a favor. You are so consumed with paranoia about admin, you are utterly blinded when one is trying to help you. It is your loss. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 10:54, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

"WP:GNG is about sourcing and significant coverage and there is no indication this criteria has been met." - Actually three Wikipedia volunteers believe otherwise, there actually is independent coverage in multiple reliable sources, evidently. You may disagree it was enough, but then you might have registered a !vote in the AfD instead. Will you please reconsider that at best this is a No Consensus. The Delete vote by MiracleMat should be given less weight since there is no rule that a person can't create an article about themselves (and notably the person ID'd themselves and refrained from participating in the AfD). That leaves 3 Deletes to 3 Keeps. --

Saying it has passed GNG here is not the same as demonstrating it at AFD. As for voting, I had no interest in the article nor voting on it. Comments like "Keep They do mention him and his creation in various major newspapers." are not convincing as being "mentioned" isn't the same as significant coverage, for example. Another said " That is no reason for deletion. Andrew Harper's Hideaway Report is a comparable site with decades less of a history. " which is an example of

WP:INHERITED

.

The SPA claims, vanity claims and the concerns over him wanting or not wanting the article really played no part in the decision. Not all the delete votes were strong, but the initial nomination was and Clarityfiend gave a clear rationale that is policy based, plus others opined as well. As for the possibility of a "no consensus" close, I'm not a fan of using that close unless there is truly no consensus on how policy should be applied, but that is not the case here. In short, the Delete side presented sound reasons to delete, the keep side used a lot of non-reasons to keep and never showed how there really was significant coverage that met the criteria. So while three people did opine to keep, closing isn't about counting votes, it is about determining consensus using policy based comments within the discussion, and in this case, the delete side provided some sound, policy based concerns that the keep voters did not overcome using proof or policy based rationales. Of course, you are free to take this to

WP:DRV if you choose and I won't be offended, but at this time, I'm not inclined to change my close. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER

12:40, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

"the keep side used a lot of non-reasons to keep" .. actually Keeps all said the same thing: there are sources that pass the notability guideline CREATIVE. I don't think there are any "policy" issues that were brought up in the nom or elsewhere, Notability is not a policy. I'm concerned you gave policy weight to something that is not policy, or don't seem to understand what a policy is. --

C

19:36, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

"Plus, you can't use reviews of the magazine as proof HE is notable, via WP:INHERITED." .. OK that is incorrect. CREATIVE is meant to provide notability to an artist based on their work. That's why it exists, the notability of their creative works make the person notable. Read the guideline more carefully. INHERITED is an essay without consensus, it exists outside the framework of the notability guidelines. Certainly we shouldn't be discounting Keep votes based on an essay. --

C

19:49, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

• 186.91.67.216 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 186.88.133.142 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

are still proxies, please? We're getting vandalism from them today. —SMALLJIM  12:13, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

186.91.67.216 is an open proxy on port 8080, so I went and changed the block to a year. Oddly, 186.88.133.142 has no ports open even though it is on the same ISP and has a history of being an open proxy. I might have just caught it down, and may check again later after I get back from the gym. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 12:48, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

TVM. I know there's a page somewhere about checking these – I must have a go myself some day. Meanwhile I see that Acroterion has just blocked another nearby one 186.91.64.115 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). Perhaps a rangeblock is going to be appropriate?  —SMALLJIM  12:53, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm operating under the assumption that these are open proxies, but should learn how to check. Acroterion (talk) 12:57, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

The offsite pages that say who is and isn't a proxy really can't be trusted or used. Since I'm using the block button, I want to verify each myself. I scan them using my own offsite server and a script I wrote that hits the most common ports, plus then I manually try those ports for connect (I need to write a script to do that on the remote server, I just haven't gotten around to it and I'm not really a programmer). You can use nmap to scan in Linux, or zengui (a front end for nmap that runs on Windows) but there is some risk that you assume on your own, as port scanning may be considered a cyber attack in some areas, thus you do at your own risk. Plus, the box you scan from could be attacked from someone, which is why I do it on a remote box and not from home. It isn't rocket science, but it is helpful if you are familiar with networking and such. As for a range block, I could probably work one up but I really think it would best be done by someone with CU tools. I don't have the CU bit, so I don't have full access to the information they do, nor the local tools they have. I think you should make a QuickRequest on the

WP:SPI page itself, linking them to here and the ANI discussion, and just ask for a range block. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER

13:15, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Dennis, that's very useful - for showing that it isn't something I'm likely to to be able to do! Sounds like you've got yourself a permanent job (though wasn't there once a bot that one could submit IP addresses to? It's not ProcseeBot.)

Regarding these IPs, I've investigated a bit and although they're are all from CANTV Servicios, Venezuela, they seem to be in widely separated small blocks, making a rangeblock unlikely to be successful. But I'll ask for a check as you suggest if the activity is renewed.  —SMALLJIM  15:10, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

No no, the CUs have permanent jobs, I just mop up the place and occasionally run the floor buffer. Actually, rangeblocks would probably be effective, for if the whole range is full of webhosts and proxies, you block the whole range. I'm thinking that is the case here, or is at least possible, which is why a CU need to peek under the covers and look closer. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER

Oh, and ProcseeBot almost always catches the obvious stuff, but not all. It has to error on the safe side. It actually isn't difficult to avoid detection, but that is all I can say about that. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 15:28, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

OK, I've posted a quick CU request - feel free to adjust it if there's any important info I've omitted.  —SMALLJIM  16:32, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Looks good, I added a note. That is what the quick requests are for. CUs can see user agents and such, plus just have more experience. I seldom do any rangeblocks that are larger than a /20 (4096 hosts) unless it is pretty obvious. Admin can't do anything larger than /16 anyway (65536 hosts). My experience level is probably in the middle, I'm not an expert, but I know enough to be dangerous ;) Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 16:39, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Clearly I'm not going to be checking proxies if that's what it takes! CU check by all means. Acroterion (talk) 16:50, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks again, Dennis. Hope you're now well-exercised and fed as well as dangerous. That Quick CU section is new to me, so I might make use of it in future. I do avoid requesting CU assistance as much as possible, though – I think the duck is at least as mighty as the log, and the checkusers always seem to me to be rather harassed and over-worked...  —SMALLJIM 

The key is limiting quick requests to stuff like this, where an unusual range block is needed, etc. I was an SPI clerk for a year as admin, and have worked on sock issues for some time. Again, not an expert, but familiar. You are always welcome to drop an issue here if you want an opinion or direction. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 17:12, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Much appreciated. CU later :)  —SMALLJIM  17:22, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Hello Dennis, Could I bring to your urgent attention the user mentioned above. This account appears to be used solely for vandalism and is also offensive in content. Trust you can bring admin action to bear. Regards, David, David J Johnson (talk) 15:07, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Further to the above, this user also appears to be using "Mick twig" as a sock puppet. Regards, David,David J Johnson (talk) 15:07, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

• • Got both of them. Been at the gym, just walked in the door, haven't eaten today, so if you could clean up any edits that need it, that would be wonderful. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 15:16, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Dennis, Many thanks for all your help. Will do a clean-up. Now go and have a meal!! Best regards, David, David J Johnson (talk) 15:29, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Since it's not clear whether or not you realise this from your statement at the arbcom case, Eloquence has been an English Wikipedia administrator since January 24, 2003, back when adminship requests were granted on the mailing list. While that isn't the current standard, it was the standard at the time, and to the best of my knowledge nobody has lost the admin bits expressly because they did not go through the formal RFA process, nor has their adminship been treated as "less than" the adminship of users who went through the on-wiki process after that. At that time, adminship was done directly through intervention of those who had root access to the servers; there were no bureaucrats - although Eloquence was one of the very first bureaucrats on this project, subsequently resigning in 2005. Risker (talk) 21:36, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

• Thank you for that Risker, I need to update my response as it is my goal to be factually correct. It doesn't change the fact that he acted outside of admin expectations, but it does change a great many other things. I appreciate the candor. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 21:45, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
• That is complete rubbish Risker, as you well know. Those early administrators never went through the RfA process that the WMF now insists on for anyone granted the right to see deleted content. How do you square that circle? Eric Corbett 21:51, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
  • They were handed the bit for the asking, basically. I had asserted that he gave himself the bit, and I was completely wrong in that assertion. It doesn't change the fact that he likely couldn't pass an RFA now (especially after this recent incident), but Risker did me a favor by correcting me, for if part of my statement is wrong, it casts doubt on the rest. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 21:58, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
  • I'm sorry, Eric, but back in those days there were maybe 100-125 active editors, there was no RFA, there were no bureaucrats (a role that was invented because the sysadmins got sick of doing this work), there were no discussion boards (WP:AN and WP:ANI hadn't even been created), and the wiki-en-L mailing list was the primary communication amongst active Wikipedians at the time. Nobody who was granted adminship during that period has ever lost it *because* it was granted during that time. (Several have lost it for other reasons, including inactivity and in at least one case, removal by Arbcom - but there are several admins who got their bit at that time who still remain admins, and no concern about their admin actions have been brought to Arbcom.) These are facts, and history. That we do things differently in 2014 doesn't change the process in January 2003 (it switched to RFA in June 2003). See this page for the history of the original sysoppings. While I don't necessarily agree with Dennis' position on this case, I wouldn't want his position deprecated because of an error. And I'll be honest - I'm pretty sure of the 1400 or so current admins, 80% wouldn't pass RFA again for one reason or another. The RFA of 2014 has very little relationship to administrator ability, possibly even less than the 2003 method. It's just checking off the right items, mouthing the right opinions, and not getting blocked. It has nothing to do with actual ability. Risker (talk) 22:12, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
    • I've refactored my comments, taking that into consideration. I agree that grandfathering is expected and fine, even with its fault, but if he was a crat and did what he did (threaten and have the ability to follow through), he would have been blocked. He doesn't seem to need the bit, and to me, his actions are such that he has forfeited his right to carry it around. I don't expect that everyone will agree, I'm fine with that, it takes all kinds of people and such. I do feel that someone should provide the perspective I'm offering there. As you know Risker, I'm passionate about some things, but I don't comment at Arb any more than I really have to. I don't want to patrol Arb, I don't want to be an Arb. I just felt compelled in this case. Thanks again. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 22:27, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
      • No worries, Dennis. You know, I remember back in the day where the primary criterion for adminship was "won't break the wiki", and it was handed out in good faith to most who had the courage to ask; even to this day, the vast majority of adminships granted with this low bar caused no problems at all, and I can see only two who were desysopped "for cause" from those old ranks. I still remember the lecture I got when I was granted adminship in May 2008 about not touching the common.js and common.css unless it had been thoroughly discussed in the appropriate forums (i.e., the talk pages of the common.js or common.css page or alternately the VPT) and all implications had been fully understood, and then the appropriate testing done to ensure it was not creating an unexpected effect. Those rules are still in place. They weren't followed in this case. They're there for a reason. I'd rather we deal with the historical artifact of allowing any administrator to access those pages (which was created back when a majority of administrators *were* developers, and the rest would never have dreamed of editing the pages) by creating an appropriate "developer" user permission that requires proven ability to write safe, effective code that does what is intended. If done right, it wouldn't require administrator permission, but would require approval by experienced Mediawiki developers instead. Remember that the majority of Mediawiki developers are volunteers. That would also address some pretty serious security holes that exist at present. One has to worry when an admin's first edit to mediawiki:common.js breaks every existing rule of the page and also doesn't do what the admin intended it to do. I for one don't find it inappropriate that administrators should be actively and thoroughly disabused of the notion that it's okay to add things to that page without being reviewed by any developer other than the creator: nothing else gets into MediaWiki (core or extensions) without at least one other developer approving the change after having thoroughly tested. Risker (talk) 23:14, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

        The rule that wasn't followed in this case, and in other similar cases, is that the WMF has no right to insist on configuration changes to en-wp to shove their poorly tested software down our throats. If they ever start producing decent software then no doubt it will be eagerly adopted, but until then ... Eric Corbett 23:35, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

        • • Eric, I understand your point. At the same time, what happened here was roughly the equivalent of trying to change the direction of a ship by randomly throwing a very large spanner into the engine. It may or may not work, but the chance of doing more damage than achieving the desired result is unacceptably high. In this case, it disabled longstanding user preferences of 14,000 people; just think how you'd react if an out-of-the-way RFC with very low participation had resulted in someone adding code that disabled your preference. Frankly, I can't imagine you being anything less than apoplectic if an admin did that. It was bad code and should not have been added, whether or not one likes the Media Viewer extension. Risker (talk) 23:58, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

            It was clear that the code did more (or less, depending on your point of view) than was proper, but that doesn't excuse the unnecessarily aggressive response from Eloquence. As for your direct question to me, I'd just have to suck it up, just like I have to suck up all the other bullshit around here. And bear in mind that my preferences have effectively been changed several times recently without my approval, not just with Media Viewer. Eric Corbett 00:06, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

• • • • • • • • (edit conflict) Actually, I installed Pete's code in my own common.js as soon as I saw it. [7] It is still there. So the code was good, but not for the entire site as it took away everyone's ability to enable that viewer. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 00:09, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

You could have just unchecked the "Mediawiki Viewer" in your preferences, which would have the same effect without increasing your javascript load (means slower loading) or risking poor code interaction amongst your various javascripts. But each to his own. Risker (talk) 00:27, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

It was easier to use Pete's kludge at the time, took 5 seconds. I finally found that option in preferences, which isn't organized as well as it could be. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 00:41, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. There's currently a RfC going on about this (link) if you'd like to comment. Legoktm (talk) 04:13, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

• • • • • (edit conflict) Then those probably should be out of reach for admin, honestly. If we do have access, it is reasonable to think that consensus matters. I don't question that Pete erred either, we all do sometimes. My concern was Erik making the rest of us admin look even more abusive, and it having a chilling effect. The more power you have, the more responsibility you have to not do things like that. YOU know that, you were an Arb, you had to bite your tongue because the power in your words was greater by virtue of your office. I'm sure there were plenty of times you would have loved to tell someone to STFU, maybe even me, but you had the good sense to match your responses to the actual event. Erik's "power" is off the charts compared to an Arb, I'm just asking for accountability equal to the actual bits he has. And I just want to make sure it isn't completely overlooked. I started in 06, and yes, it is a different place. I think the early adopters were more likely to be experts at something, so the average skill set is reduced now, but that is normal for any project. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 23:37, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

          Exactly the same thing could be said for that edit filter right. By what logic are all administrators assumed to be competent in the use of regular expressions? Eric Corbett 00:14, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

          • • To edit the abuse filter requires a special bit that is different from the admin bit. To get the abuse filter, you have to be an admin and give yourself the bit, like I did, although I've yet to really dabble. Not much protection, but a little. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 00:17, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

              So by "not much protection" you really mean "no protection". Eric Corbett 00:24, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Ironically, I too have abuse filter permissions, even though I couldn't code my way out of a paper bag. I wouldn't dream of touching any of the filters themselves (this is called self-discipline), but I need the permission in order to do suppressions on filtered content. Risker (talk) 00:31, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)Shucks, when I saw this title, I thought it was going to be about what an eloquent administrator Dennis is! --MelanieN (talk) 22:47, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

• • Very clever, but unlikely ;) I've been busy ruffling feathers lately. And you never need to use the TPS template, you have your own reserved parking space on my talk page. Those are as rare as they are in downtown Tokyo. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 22:53, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Hello. You have a new message at Kudpung's talk page. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:29, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Insert this between your ears. Poveglia (talk) 04:35, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Hello. You have a new message at Kudpung's talk page. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:31, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

I hope you are still following that discussion - my diplomacy is starting to get stretched. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:12, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

• I have a busy day, just checking some basics here (what is the deal with the cupcake above? I doubt good things, but I digress....). I don't see any issues with the conversation, just a little heat when you thumped Cullen a bit. We need to make another go at creating a Guideline for schools I think. Strike while the iron is hot. Simple, easy to understand, short and sweet. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 11:42, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

*It was in response to that. I am not sure if you guys say the same in English, but over here you can say "put this in the hole between your ears", which is a funny way of saying: eat this. Poveglia (talk) 16:26, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

I thought that might be what you meant, but wasn't sure. Thank you? Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 16:42, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

You should probably start worrying when someone tells you to put it in a different hole! ;-) Poveglia (talk) 17:28, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

This is true. I was worried you were saying I had fluffy frosting for brains, however. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 17:46, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

If you would have fluffy frosting for brains then adding a cupcake (through your nose?!? any other options?) would seem quite pointless to me. But "your skull seems empty, so here is a cupcake you can store inside it" would be an awesome insult! Conventional zombie movies are quite boring to me, maybe cupcakes can help... Bad admins do not get extra cupcakepower when they need it, they get demoted. If you know anyone here with fluffy frosting for brains then let me know and I will ask the community to get rid of them. Poveglia (talk) 18:28, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

An editor has asked for a

Hi, Dennis. Any chance you might take a look at the above AfD and snow close it if you feel that's appropriate? The nominated article is about a temple spun off a truly notable one and the only voter proposed merging back to the parent temple. I concurred as the nominator. John from Idegon (talk) 18:42, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

•  Done Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 19:33, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
  • I have a headache from recent AfD's I've been involved in so thank you very much. John from Idegon (talk) 21:34, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

I have to get an admin to review the evidence first and to get permission to file a SPI report according to an admin who previously left a comment on my talk page.[8] I request permission to file a SPI report. Here is the evidence. QuackGuru (talk) 20:19, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

• I would decline. I have a good deal of experience at SPI, I clerked there a year, have 1200 blocks worth, and your evidence just isn't jumping out and screaming "duck" to me. You are welcome to ask another admin, no offense will be taken and I won't consider it forum shopping; call it a second opinion this one time. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 20:45, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Isn't that something--I was just reaching that same conclusion after reading the ridiculous history of Míchel Salgado. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 01:42, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

• I picked up some chatter over there and went to the talk page, and something said I needed to look at their contribs. I didn't have to dig very deep to find that, along with the combative attitude on the talk page. Let's hope a short block will get the message across. I'm sure that isn't the only article they have been warring on. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 01:45, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Sergio Busquets is another one. I'm about to look at the AN3 report. Now that you blocked, I am at some liberty to see what content issues are going on. Drmies (talk) 01:58, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
  • This guy is practically asking for an indefinite block. Look at Talk:Sergio_Busquets#Champions_League_Incident_Revisited, which is early in his wiki career. Man, that's lashing out, for no reason at all. Drmies (talk) 02:05, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
    • You don't even have to look at the content to know there is a NPOV issue there, and that he is letting his bias get in the way of building an encyclopedia. Whatever that info is, he wants it deleted at any cost, sources or not. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 09:12, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

I saw your AN post, and while I don't think it's currently true that admins cannot decline unblock requests of CheckUser blocks (only accepting them is not allowed), I agree with the sentiment after reading what you said. It is a sensible thing to do and I would support a change in policy to reflect that. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:45, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

• Thanks for the note, glad to have you onboard. I think policy already does say that in that in the CU policy ("However, all checkuser blocks are subject to direct review and significant scrutiny by the other checkusers and the Arbitration Committee (or its Ban Appeals Subcommittee)."), and I think it is a good faith misunderstanding by admin, who don't really work around CUs much. It might could be worded differently earlier [9] but this once sentence pretty much defines who is authorized to review CU blocks, at least that is how I've always read it. I had pulled it off because I was afraid it might be focused more on the individuals than the overall problem as it was worded. I just want to make sure we are fair as CUs can and do make mistakes, just like the rest of us. I just want to make sure when don't lose good editors when they make an innocent mistake. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 08:53, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi Dennis. Can I get a second opinion? This message dropped onto my talk this morning, complaining about unsourced edits being reverted (not by me, I just gave him the heads up on policy), and I can't help thinking it reminds me of this message from last year, from someone who got indeffed per

• 5am here, up half an hour and no coffee yet, so I don't want to jump to conclusions. It is interesting, but not yet convincing. I will take a look later in the day. Really need to check out some of the socks. All the previous is stale for CU purposes, so anything that would be done would have to be purely based on behavior. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 09:08, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Woah - I didn't mean "jump to it and give me an answer NOW goddamit" ;-) Enjoy your coffee. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:16, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Hehe, just wanted to let you know I was on it :) I hate to leave a question unanswered if I'm awake. I'm funny that way. If it were super obvious, I would have gone ahead and used the hammer. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 09:22, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

(stalking) "Used the hammer"?! ... surely there are no beloved fellow editors who you'd be happy to pay someone £200 to get their fingers broken? Of course not. Cheaper to do it yourself, I guess. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:47, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

I have been known to

WKDL (AM) moved to WRCW (currently a redirect). Reason, WKDL has changed it's callsign to WRCW. - Neutralhomer • Talk

• 21:18, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

• Diannaa beat me to it. Not sure if she is clever or just a stalker, but you can thank her. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 21:33, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
  • I asked her too. I thought you had gone offline. No worries though. :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 23:14, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

My article is considerd for deletion according to the Wiki's Deletion Policy

Hi Dennis Brown
I have recently made a page on wikipedia named "Punjabi Music Media". After a day or two, you put a Article of Deletion on the top of the page. When i saw this, i have fully changed the matter on it. I deleted all the external links from it. Please review it as soon as possible. Now i could not locate where it does it sound promotional. Additionally, I just cross-checked the matter of the article. Please reply me on my email id & on my talk page.
Thank you,
Have a nice day. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Manpreet Singh Sach (talk • contribs) 12:22, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

• You should make a note of any changes at the AFD itself, as the outcome isn't my decision, it is the communities. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 13:39, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

AFD stands for "Articles for Deletion".??? If i am correct, please give me an illustration on How to make a note of any changes at the AFD. Please sir... Because i m just new on Wiki. Give me only one Example of it. I will Be very greatful to you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Manpreet Singh Sach (talk • contribs) 14:49, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

(stalking) Dennis means you should go to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Punjabi Music Media and explain why the article should be kept. You will, however, need to supply a good argument, and the best way of doing that is to provide links to major national newspapers or magazines that cover the company in substantial depth and explain why it is at least nationally important. This is particularly important as several other editors have asserted that none exist. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:23, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

PANHEAD2014 block

Hi there DB, this is former user ALWAYS LEARNING, now vanished,

a situation (edit war, accusations, insults, does not matter who did who now, it's all in the pertinent WP:FOOTY discussion and the participants' talk pages) resulted in this user being blocked by you. He requested a second opinion from a "neutral" admin, as he felt that User:Drmies had a personal relationship with me and was biased, but a "neutral" admin was already involved in the first place because YOU blocked him, not Drmies.

Still, User:Randykitty (another "neutral" admin) offered more insight, he's still not convinced and claims all are out to get him (posses, cliques, etc), sad to see this. Also, i would appreciate if you, Randy or Mies could drop a note on his page if possible, because if i do it he'll accuse me of harassment as he did repeatedly: please tell him that i was not throwing a tantrum when i decided to leave WP forever after eight years then blame him for my departure, the run-in with him was just the last straw, lots of incidents (of which i am to blame in some, certainly) made me realize it was high time i left the project (i realized that "high time" about 10 or 20 times in those eight years, but never left!). Have nothing personally against Mr. Panhead, n-o-t-h-i-n-g.

Do not know if it's permanent but it will be a very long wikinap. Please reply to me HERE, i'll be watching.

Happy meditating --84.90.219.128 (talk) 18:28, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

• I don't think it would matter, as his comments are paranoid and all about how unfair I was for not blocking everyone (I'm not the only admin, any admin can block anyone), and honestly, he seems to not care about reason, only in getting justice. Well, there is
  Pearls before swine comes to mind. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 19:56, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Agree with that argument as much as a human being could, and then some. We'll leave it at that then, thank you for your time. --84.90.219.128 (talk