Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48

This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

With regards to this discussion at ANI, what is your opinion on these actions (1,2,3,4,5,6,7, and 8) to circumvent any pending discussion at Module talk:Webarchive and make the same disputed changes to 7 other templates without soliciting any input from other editors? Note: I originally tried to ask the question at ANI, but Codename Lisa reverted me several times. 2601:5C2:280:8043:F126:B333:2DF4:1FEA (talk) 05:49, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• This is something for ANI, not really my talk page. It is still being discussed there and it should stay there. Not sure who you are, but if it is a big deal rather than just standard edits, someone will raise it. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 12:28, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, so you two have met. This IP address belongs to a person Codename Lisa and I call "flyboy". He has been hounding Codename Lisa for three years now, chasing her around Wikipedia, reverting her actions, digging dirt on her, bad-mouthing her, like this that he is doing. He tried posting this very same edit in WP:ANI but Codename Lisa reverted him. He didn't dare stage an edit war there, because if admins investigate him, things are revealed that are not to his advantage, especially since Codename Lisa and I are keeping a list of all his IPs with which he has operated so far.

FleetCommand (Speak your mind!) 11:20, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Because she is involved, she probably shouldn't be the person to revert, but I had already gathered this was nitpicking. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 11:30, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry? Come again? What revert are we talking about now? FleetCommand (Speak your mind!) 11:35, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just saying Lisa shouldn't be the one that reverts a complaint about her. I'm not arguing against the revert, just that she did it. If someone files a complaint about me, I shouldn't be the one to revert it. It looks like I'm covering up. I'm not making a big deal of it, just saying best practice is always to let someone else do the revert when you are the subject of a complaint, unless it is obvious vandalism, etc. As for this person hounding, I can see the possibility and trust your judgement on that, but as you can tell, it didn't get much traction here. I'm familiar with Lisa and have been for a long time, just as I am with you. I'm not easily persuaded by a couple of diffs out of context. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 11:41, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You and admin NeilN certainly have 180-degrees opposing views. He'd revert the sock on sight, even if that sock is complaining about him in my talk page.

And if you wanted diffs about this certain malicious block-evading sock, just say the word, and get ready because you will be buried underneath them. FleetCommand (Speak your mind!) 11:46, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page watcher) @FleetCommand: You can't go comparing one admin to another on their own talk. You must know there's such a thing as admin discretion, that's a bit like how you and me have different interpretations, etc, on articles. Have you told NeilN that you think he's a better admin?! :D — O Fortuna ^{semper crescis, aut decrescis} 11:55, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Admins are considered models of our community. (This sentence even appears in the admin policy.) When a model takes a certain action in a situation and that action does not involve using tools, it is a clear sign that others should probably do that same, given the proper circumstances. Now the models seem to have conflicting behavior. This is a more serious issue than not comparing two peers in their own talk pages. What? Are afraid that they are shy girls that get jealous of each other? Huh. In my experience they are more like immovable Titans. FleetCommand (Speak your mind!) 12:08, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't use the word titan or immovable to describe myself, but of course that is up to the individual. Some admin put accountability higher than a sock, some don't. And note the tone of my words. The flexibility in them. I try to choose my words carefully. My job isn't to tell people what to do as much as provide guidance. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 12:58, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, to be fair I used "immovable titans" as the opposing points of "shy jealous girls", so I could argue that a metaphor shouldn't be nitpicked at. All I am saying is, for a Wikipedian like me who always feels lost and like a pariah, it isn't very pleasant to follow the example of one admin because I think he knows what he is doing, then another admin tell me that I am doing is wrong. This is in fact, a very big concern in the justice system. In our country, each years judges convene to discuss similar charges that received different verdicts from different judges and improve their approach.

That said, show no mercy to this certain sock. As you and I concluded in Wikipedia talk:Template editor, desperate time requires desperate measures. FleetCommand (Speak your mind!) 14:28, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

But admin aren't judges or police. If the person is a confirmed sock, then I understand reverting by anyone. If not, my wording was pretty tame. As I said, I'm not making a big deal of it, just saying it is usually less than optimal. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 14:30, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. I still haven't seen any evidence that the IP is block evading. [1] Whereas my reverts were of this character. I trust even FleetCommand can see the difference. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:04, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I believe Codename Lisa emailed you her list. If you haven't seen evidence of block evasion yet, that's because you are lazy and incompetent. Speaking of which, you reverted SineBot and call it "Rv sock", so your incompetence and not seeing has precedent. FleetCommand (Speak your mind!) 04:33, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I was given a list of user names and a long list of IPs with no diffs presented tying the accounts and IPs together. Open a SPI case with simply a list of names and IP addresses and see how far that gets you. And I reverted the Sinebot edit instead of the preceding edit - shrug. Guess that makes many a Wikipedia editor "incompetent" as that's hardly a rare error. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 05:06, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, three other admins proved more willing to look at the list and enforce a couple of blocks. And I didn't even open a SPI case. Just because you have held a grudge against me since 2011, doesn't mean that any other admin has. Of course, you go ahead and deny the grudge too. I don't intend to press it. FleetCommand (Speak your mind!) 09:59, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

How times change. A while ago, admins were 'models of the community'; now they're 'lazy and incompetent'! I would have thought that accusations such as that are best raised at a noticeboard. IMHO of course. — O Fortuna ^{semper crescis, aut decrescis} 10:15, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The editor FleetCommand refers to [in his edit summary] wasn't reverted because (s)he was a sock. (S)he was reverted for alleged harassment/vandalism, which is a catchall phrase used when an administrator's friends want to shield him from criticism. 86.135.209.240 (talk) 13:59, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know the specifics, too lazy to go look up such a vague claim, but generalizations are seldom universally true and just as often, they aren't helpful in opening a dialog. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 14:06, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Some more detail then. The IP whose contributions NeilN was so desperate to keep went on to call another administrator an a***hole and has now been rangeblocked by a competent administrator. 86.135.209.240 (talk) 14:13, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not necessary, but the end result isn't shocking. Admin do have access to more info than non-admin and I get the feeling you may be overstating the case a bit, but that is fine. Everyone is an asshole in the eyes of at least someone around here. I just don't take it personal or serious. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 14:17, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, 86 is the LTA I mentioned above. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:50, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Dennis Brown. You have new messages at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cannabis/420 Collaboration#Recreational vs adult use.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Thank you for all the help you have given me. I reward you with a User box I made.

Dinah Kirkland (talk) 00:50, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not one to block people per ANI, but I Just promised to block JJBers and/or StephenTS42 if they edit there again for 6 months I'm not an ANI regular, so feel free to tell me where to get off if I'm wrong. Probably need some notification on thier talk pages.Dlohcierekim (talk) 22:08, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You can't unilaterally do that, not the way you did it. You could close the discussion since that is the consensus, and blocking is a natural way of enforcing it, but we admin can only topic ban if is a General Sanction, Discretionary Sanction or Community decision. This one is a community decision, but it needs closing and finalizing by you first, using the archive headers. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 22:12, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You can see an example of using the archive headers on this talk page. And done forget the closing archive at the bottom of the discussion. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 22:13, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Eh, Dlohcierekim is fairly in on this one, since they've been active in the discussion. User:Oshwah seems at the keyboard and uninvolved though. TimothyJosephWood 22:15, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I have too many irons in the fire and didn't notice. Then I would strike the block comment. That would be in essence issuing a unilateral topic ban. Can't do that. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 22:20, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yup. And in case there is a follow up block from the TBAN, which gets a messy appeal, don't want technicalities muddying the waters. TimothyJosephWood 22:22, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Errr... Dlohcierekim... I know you've had a break in service, but... you may want to cool it a sec and find someone who's uninvolved. TimothyJosephWood 22:26, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks HAve contacted Oswah and I'm striking everything.Dlohcierekim (talk) 22:29, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• ANI is a beast unto itself, takes some getting used to, but its a good place to learn process. I've worked ANI since before I became an admin. Because it is such a public stage, its easy to get called out for now following policy to the letter. Hang out and spectate if you aren't used to it, you will learn it quick enough. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 23:32, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I always eschewed ANI because of the melodrama. In general, the bickering, misrepresentation, and misleading recriminations are odious. Don't know how you stand it. It looks like the community is, in this instance, content to let them bicker. Why should I interfere in something they obviously enjoy doing?Dlohcierekim (talk) 12:01, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ANI is nearly always an obscene waste of time, but ideally, it's less so than the alternative, which in this case is to continue to run up and down WP:DR for the foreseeable future, never probably actually learn to work collaboratively in a way that ever doesn't require the input of scores of outside, and themselves otherwise productive editors, and accomplish little or nothing of lasting value for our trouble. Anyone who's been here for a while has probably had to go through the process of having an article get all up in their emotions. Hopefully most of us learn to recognize that and stop ourselves from repeating it. Unfortunately, losing your hurt-feelings-Wikipedia-virginity can be a messy process. TimothyJosephWood 14:02, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dlohcierekim, the funny thing is, ANI doesn't bother me in the least. I like solving problems and the majority of my work here has been centered around behavioral disputes. I would rather help with behavioral problems than content disputes any day of the week. I tend to get more heated up during content disputes. I supposed most people don't like dealing with behavior problems, or get upset, while I tend to not. I guess it just takes all kinds. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 14:43, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. [2].

I've focused my energies elsewhere and have indeed learned a lot from the experience.

Perhaps if you have a chance you might like to peruse some of the new articles I wrote recently, like Disinformation (book), Dezinformatsia (book), or The Case for Impeachment, and let me know what you think of my efforts ?

Sagecandor (talk) 00:07, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If I feel a user is wikihounding me, can I do anything about it ? Is there a way to suggest it is best for us to just avoid each other, at least for a good long while ? Sagecandor (talk) 02:55, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the time, you start by trying to talk to them. Calmly. You would be shocked how many times things can be worked out by calmly talking to someone and not starting out with claims and yelling. Same as in real life. Then ask a third party to look if that does work. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 11:16, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I tried that [3], thank you for the sound advice. Does my wording look alright? Sagecandor (talk) 11:56, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And I would just leave it alone regardless of his response. He is a bit snippy at times but a very good editor otherwise. We can't all be saints. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 13:27, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[4]. Okay. I'll take your advice. And hope that my leaving him alone can maybe go both ways? Sagecandor (talk) 20:46, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[5]. Dennis. This is getting ridiculous. This is WP:WIKIHOUNDING, pure and simple. What to do here? Sagecandor (talk) 00:41, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dennis, thank you for your requests to the user, at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Defeating ISIS. Just curious how long this would be allowed to continue to go on for? I mean, can it encourage me to do the same thing (I won't), and get away with it? Sagecandor (talk) 15:59, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There really isn't an answer for this. I'm not the law, just one admin who may have a different threshold for action than another admin. Taken individually, there isn't a problem with his actions, even the ill advised AFD. I don't like to draw lines in the sand as that only encourages people to approach them. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 16:02, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'm going to keep writing new articles. I hope every single darned one doesn't get nominated for deletion by the same individual. That is disruption. A waste of the community's time. And spiteful. And the very definition of WP:WIKIHOUNDING, no? Sagecandor (talk) 16:04, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dennis, it hasn't stopped, see [6] and [7]. What can be done here? Sagecandor (talk) 22:19, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User has violated 1RR and added "fraud" back into the page a 2nd time, [8]. This needs to be removed from the page per WP:BLPCRIME and WP:UNDUE WEIGHT. Is this reportable to AE yet ? Is that an appropriate move at this time? Is there another step I can take here? Sagecandor (talk) 23:19, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Technically, he made a change and one revert, and the content he added/reverted to is a direct quote from that source. His first edit wasn't a revert, it was a modification. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 23:24, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay. However it's highly inflammatory to have the word "fraud" on the page of a WP:BLP from one (1) source. Strongly disagree with that. Not sure how to resolve this next. And he's still following me around. What can be done? Sagecandor (talk) 23:26, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • You have two options: Go see if you can find another source that uses the word fraud and add it, or if you can't, raise the issue on the talk page. It could be he is right but it needs more sources. Might go a long way towards getting along if you found one and added it. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 23:29, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • I looked. I found zero other sources. I raised the issue on the talk page. Now we wait. And in the meantime, "fraud" sits there on the page of a WP:BLP, denigrating the person based on one (1) source's opinion. That is wrong. What else can be done? Sagecandor (talk) 23:31, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        • Keep calm and wait. Easier said than done, but in the end, it is the most productive way and has a higher possibility of finding a solution. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 23:33, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
          • Agreed. Okay. Will try to. Trying to keep myself busy writing other new articles instead. It's not easy. It feels like being violated to be subject to WP:WIKIHOUNDING in this manner. I had already been in the process of improving this particular page, and writing new articles about books by the subject, first. Sagecandor (talk) 23:39, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
            • In this case, he is using actual quotes. Forget about hounding so much. I think I made it perfectly clear that I'm watching in that AFD, but I'm patient and not going to jump to conclusions. I'm pretty sure he knows I'm serious but fair about this stuff. Just edit, find some joy. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 23:54, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
              • The word "fraud" does not belong in the WP:BLP page, based on one (1) source. Also, just look at his contribs. He's done NOTHING but stalk me, for the last five (5) days now. Nothing else. Literally nothing else. Sagecandor (talk) 23:55, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Dennis. I was wondering if you had a minute to take a lookey Improvements here at some proposed content I authored with a COI. CorporateM (Talk) 21:03, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• It is a bit of "here is a company, here are all the financial things they did" but most articles for newer media companies look similar. Looks pretty solid. If it went to AFD, I would Keep it and confident it would pass muster by the community. As a side note, their ads are very annoying. ;) Dennis Brown - 2¢ 22:28, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Your draft is better. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 22:30, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I see a duck ...new editor all familiar with our lingo. Editing same article infoboxes, creating series templates...etc. Should I open a sock invest......? Editing odd articles like Erin O'Toole makes this obvious . --Moxy (talk) 06:40, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Charles lindberg -(unsourced no consensus)

Medicinehatter (rv to sourced version)

• I think you have enough evidence to get a CU to peek around, so yes, SPI would be a good idea. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 06:44, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good....tomorrow I should have time to do all this--Moxy (talk) 06:48, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Charles lindberg--Moxy (talk) 17:30, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Good catch, and picked up a sleepy as well, Moxy. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 22:26, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You do realize you closed as delete an AfD where NO ONE aside from the editor opined for a deletion outcome? Two keeps (which admittedly are pretty weak), two merges, and a redirect option. Please reconsider your close and amend it appropriately. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 21:08, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• One nominated and three said merge/redirect. That means they didn't want the article and only wanted it in that list. Mission accomplished as it was already in that list (not sure if you checked that). The keep votes were completely without merit, so what I saw was 4 people that agreed it should not be a stand alone article and two keeps with no policy rationale. 4-2 against the article and that is if I'm generous and give credit to the 2. Merging implies deletion. Technically, so does a redirect, although the article history is typically preserved but only one person suggested that. You are welcome to take it to WP:DRV if you like. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 21:25, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• (talk page stalker) [Admiringly:] Not sure I would have dared do what you did there, Dennis. It's an unusual situation, to be the first person on the page to use the word "delete" — but IMO you were absolutely right, and came to the only logical conclusion. Bishonen | talk 22:21, 10 June 2017 (UTC).[reply]
• If you think that merging implies deletion, I'm afraid your reasoning is at odds with policy, specifically WP:ATD-M. If you really want me to take it to DRV instead of realigning your close, I'll regretfully do so. Jclemens (talk) 23:34, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Since it is a raw list and only the name could be added, and was indeed added before the close, they are effectively the same since in all circumstances the editors wanted the article under that title to disappear. Not one single person who articulated a policy based rationale wanted to keep the article as it was. So yes, DRV is your best option. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 23:56, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, a quick question: can I report someone for an ARBPIA violation if they were not notified of ARBPIA at the time of the violation, were then notified but refuse to correct the problem after notification? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 23:14, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• I wouldn't recommend it. Personally, I'm one of those that like to remain very calm, give people enough rope until they hang themselves, then politely report it, and it is so blindingly obvious that no one questions my motives. Patience is a good thing, so is lots of evidence. In this case, we really look at behavior AFTER the template more than before, and it might look petty. Wait a day, revert, see what happens, keep your cool. Remember, at any admin board, we look at the behavior of everyone involved. If you behavior is that of a model citizen, it allows us to focus exclusively on the other person. This is extra important if you have ever had sanctions yourself, since there may be some natural skepticism. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 23:18, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• I would really rather not report them at all, and suggested several times they discuss their behavior with an experienced editor they trust, but that doesn't seem to be helping. I was just wondering about the template. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 23:38, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]