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.

• Hijiri88 and CurtisNatio, closed ANI at [1]

Seriously, go read the threads at /r/kotakuinaction etc. You might find the additional context as to why the GG SPAs are out in force for Dr. Bernstein. This bullheadedness from Masem is exasperating, and Dr. B's tone is really restrained given the awfulness they direct at him.

72.198.218.115 (talk) 22:34, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks for the pointers and polite tone, I'm reading through some now, although reddit isn't a site I normally read. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 22:50, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Dennis Brown, Apologies for the interruption. While I can and do empathise with editors about whom comments are made off-Wiki, I cannot agree with suggestions that such mitigates poor behaviour on-Wiki. If, however, as suggested above, you are taking off-Wiki matters into consideration, I direct you to the following site, specifically purposed for the disparagement of editors who do not align to a particular point of view w.r.t the Gamergate controversy topic space. Based on the usernames of the contributors, they include a number of Wikipedia editors, including those participating at WP:AE. Please also see this diff for an example of the site being advertised on-Wiki.

NB: I have been mentioned on the site referenced, and on various threads at Reddit. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 02:23, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• The idea of spending so much energy on one single idea, GG, boggles my mind. I can kind of understand the POV warriors for I/P or religion, but GG? I managed to avoid all that controversy by staying away from the Arb hearing and the articles. That makes me uninvolved, but still confused that people can devote so much of their life to something that history will consider a blip on the radar. I looked at the link, but looking at all these comments on the different sites I find a mix of misogamy, fanboyism, simple hate, denial and juvenile antics that simply have no originality or artistic value, written by people who obviously need to go outside for a change. Quality wise, most of it is one step below ASCII porn from the 80s. So it really isn't influencing my vote, the practical realities of getting things done at Wikipedia is what is influencing me to compromise. My opinions are pretty obvious, but in the end something needs to be done that will affect some kind of positive change, and that is the best I could do. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 03:42, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Dennis Brown, I thank you for your kind reply, and appreciate your attention on this matter; as I appreciate all work done by our Admins to ensure the smooth running of the project. I broadly agree with your assessment of the various sites; though I feel you may have done 80s ASCII porn a disservice in the comparison. My purpose in highlighting the site was to address claims that the respondent editor's on-Wiki actions were mitigated by off-Wiki harassment. I do not believe that this is supportable given that editor's own off-Wiki actions. I do appreciate the thought which you have brought to the WP:AE discussion, and the independence of that thought, and that you are seeking some kind of positive change. I share your belief that an IBAN seems a bit futile, and a consequent concern that we will be back at WP:AE at some stage to discuss essentially the same behaviours. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 07:59, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's not video games, it's politics. Politics is why it attracts Sommers and Breitbart's Yiannopoulis as so called "GamerGate supporters". It's political "stay on message" along with true believers. It's the only reason why it stays alive for so long. Best analogy I can think of is abortion and gun ownership. One faction says "It's murder and there's no way to write the article except as 'this is murder. children are dying. Any editor that wants to add anything that says it's not murder is, in fact, supporting more murders. '" Another faction denies it's murder at all while others see nuances and larger aspects. We have entrenched editors that believe they are morally obligated to call it murder and we have others in the same camp working to keep it on the "it's murder" message. They have been largely successful. There is certainly a huge element of GamerGate that is threats against women but it's not the only aspect. Mssem has patiently tried to add more aspects that explain why people like Christina Hoff Sommers and Milo Yiannopoulos are involved or even care. (as far as I know, they are not gamers, game developers, game journalists or misogynists so why are they so prominent as GG supporters? What are they supporting?). Imagine trying to edit the abortion or gun control articles, and editors label you as being part of a group of murderers or assisting in those murders. Imagine the gamergate article and everyday being accused of enabling rape and death threats. It's gone as far as suggesting that Masem should go offsite and try to convince others not to commit rape or death threats as if he personally knew them or knew of them. How long would an editor last on the abortion articles if they told any editor that documents pro-choice viewpoints or descriptions to the article would be better off convincing their friends not to commit murder, rather than write about the pro-choice viewpoint? We have a lot more experience dealing with those topics, but the playbook for the politics surrounding it is the same. That we have failed to recognize that it is a contentious political target ispart of the problem. --DHeyward (talk) 11:54, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The analogy above is not useful. All Masem needs to do is go to WP:RSN and make a case that statement X is supported by reliable source Y, and/or go to WP:NPOVN to show that statement X is WP:DUE. Masem has posted at a variety of places (example 1 and example 2)—I have seen several more, but I have never seen any that produced an outcome satisfactory to Masem. Johnuniq (talk) 12:08, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

One problem is that many of the sources are basically op-eds and almost inevitably the cacophony of protest is reported and commented upon in more detail. However, until MarkBernstein is removed or retires from the topic area there is little point in getting involved. There is a serious case of RGW going on and unfortunately some admins - even among those who have commented - have long-standing povs of their own regarding such issues. - Sitush (talk) 12:29, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's the same thing that was said about myself, TheRedPenOfDoom, Tarc and the other "Horsemen." "Just get rid of them and the problems will go away." Now, someone else steps up to defend NPOV and living people on the article, and the exact same canard is trotted out, "just remove that person and the problem goes away!" Yes, obviously, if you get rid of all the Wikipedians who are defending living people from false allegations, vicious attacks and vile harassment, then anonymous chanboard trolls will be free to fill Wikipedia articles about the issue with false allegations, vicious attacks and vile harassment! Brilliant. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 20:03, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Did I mention RGW? And Bernstein probably should have suffered the same fate as you but he was blocked at the time anyway. That article needs breathing space. Masem has agreed to withdraw; Bernstein has not and won't even respond to challenges of what appear to be untruths in his statements. Someone there has honour and it isn't Bernstein. - Sitush (talk) 00:03, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So ... it's personal to you? "probably should have suffered the same fate?" Understood, no axes on your end to grind, nossir. 72.198.221.196 (talk) 01:45, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I feel sorry for the people who defend living people from false allegations, vicious attacks and vile harassment without all the hostile and zealous behavior. The methods you use give them a stigma that they don't deserve. 69.5.131.1 (talk) 12:24, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Since you have been so extensively 'sealioned' by a certain side in this debate I thought it would be only fitting that you see two sides to the story regarding the 'voluntary' 3 month leave of Masem. https://www.reddit.com/r/WikiInAction/comments/3j2vbu/masem_took_mark_bernstein_to_ae_and_by_the_looks/ 77.97.24.152 (talk) 00:03, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I know it makes me sound like a dinosaur, but I don't read reddit normally, I have too much going on in the real world and I just fail to see the attraction. As for being "sealioned", that is an interesting metaphor. How apt it is, I leave to the reader. The reality is, all I can do is try to be a voice of reason but if consensus is against me, I can't raise hell about it, I am forced to just move on. I was even willing to compromise. This was my first venture into the GG arena and I've already learned there can only be two sides and compromise is a sign of weakness. This is inconsistent with my way of thinking, and Wikipedia's, for that matter. I didn't visit the Arb case, never edited at GG and avoid gender drama cases on the whole, except a time or two when I was singled out in a comment, by editors that are now Arb banned. I didn't like how the last AE went down, this is true. It seemed like there was more opinion than rationale, but I don't want to jump to conclusions. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 14:49, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Saw your ping and suggestion (somewhere now forgotten) for Chili mac to be created, so I created it. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:54, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I grew up with 6 other siblings, so we ate a lot of cheap and easy food like chili mac, beans and rice, and the like. It is funny, the stuff we ate as children, other people can't eat for being too hot. We went from the bottle to the chili pepper, so I guess we were just used to it. And great job, that is more than a stub. I've been so darn busy lately, barely had any time for here to begin with. Good work on what I think is an important midwest staple food. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 11:29, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Short note: Just nominated at DYK by User:Sovereign Sentinel, here. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:41, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• When I eat foods with hot chili, it makes me want to hit the bottle. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:46, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• N.b. Chili mac in space! For some reason, this reminds me of Pigs in space... North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:26, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Good job! Happy to serve as muse here, you took a raw, off the cuff idea and turned it into something nice. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 16:48, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Just another aspect of the universe that is covered on Wikipedia now. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:55, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, as a user in the edit filter manager user group we wanted to let you know about the new wikipedia-en-editfilters mailing list. As part of our recent efforts to improve the use of edit filters on the English Wikipedia it has been established as a venue for internal discussion by edit filter managers regarding private filters (those only viewable by administrators and edit filter managers) and also as a means by which non-admins can ask questions about hidden filters that wouldn't be appropriate to discuss on-wiki. As an edit filter manager we encourage you to subscribe; the more users we have in the mailing list the more useful it will be to the community. If you subscribe we will send a short email to you through Wikipedia to confirm your subscription, but let us know if you'd prefer another method of verification. I'd also like to take the opportunity to invite you to contribute to the proposed guideline for edit filter use at WP:Edit filter/Draft and the associated talk page. Thank you! Sam Walton (talk) and MusikAnimal ^talk 18:22, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Your ideas are intriguing to me and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 18:58, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not posting in ANI anymore per Kingsindian et al's advice, but regarding this: Do what you feel is right regarding the conflict between me and CurtisNaito. If you want to know what that is, you should look at the evidence of uncivil behaviour on the part of me, CurtisNaito, Nishidani, TH1980, Calvin999, Curly Turkey, Signedzzz and everyone else involved in the dispute, and figure out which of us has been aggravating all the others to the point of acting uncharacteristically gruff and even occasionally resorting to profanity. The fact that John Carter and AlbinoFerret have also engaged in disruptive IDHT behaviour to the point of pushing me and Sturmgewehr88 over the edge of profanity a few times in an unrelated dispute is not really relevant -- I'd like to see it dealt with eventually, but my having more than two users who don't like me should not be taken as evidence that I am the one at fault in both cases. As for the accusations of wiki-stalking, please look at the shared editing histories of all parties involved before deciding who is really at fault. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:21, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I really prefer keeping this on the ANI page, but I won't labor it. I did look at the page a fair amount, which is how I noticed the bludgeoning, which is part of the problem. Had you not been dominating the page, it would have been easier to dismiss. If you weren't the most obvious at being rude, same thing. To put it bluntly, you do a lot of good work but fuck it up by being too aggressive, and eventually, likely soon, it is going to end up with harsh sanctions. If others are being dickish, you have to rise above it. For one, you DO have plenty of detractors, and two, you tend to take a small insult and reply back with a more harsh one, upping the ante. It isn't personal, quite the opposite, on a good day you add some needed balance but you just get your nose bent out of joint too quickly and it causes more problems. And you have bludgeoned a page more than once. You have got to get your head wrapped around your own problems and devise a solution. One such that any admin can look at the page and easily see that YOU aren't the problem. And you need to articulate it, a promise and a way forward. I don't want to sanction, but if you don't address your problems, it is impossible to look at others because your's are the worst of the bunch right now. Not saying it is completely fair, but WP:NOJUSTICE applies. You know the drill, you get dragged to ANI enough times, someone is going to get hamfisted with the admin bits. I'm trying to keep you away from ANI. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 10:32, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Understood. Your advice is good. I don't think some of the others would accept a mere promise on my part to abide by your advice, and unless something is done they're going to keep asking for my head -- which naturally makes it difficult to build an encyclopedia in the meantime.

While I wish I could claim that my recently responding to your request for a proposal on ANI was influenced by your advice above, but I actually only saw this now.

I would accept a 48-hour block for my poor adherence to the civility standards on ... various talk pages where I have interacted with CurtisNaito, but he should be similarly warned that his own behaviour (infuriating other users by not reading their talk page comments, edit-warring, routinely bringing content disputes to the noticeboards...) is just as unacceptable. Blocking us both for the same period of time (preferably not long) and linking to the ANI discussion in both of our block logs so no one can come back years from now and pretend either of us was blocked for something else (don't ask...) would hopefully solve the problem.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:39, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for trying to put an end to this. AlbinoFerret 14:06, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dennis Brown, what would you say to mutual IBANs between me and AlbinoFerret, Beyond My Ken, John Carter and TH1980? With all of these users immediately showing up every time a dispute involving me turns up on a noticeboard and requesting that I be permanently removed from Wikipedia, without even attempting to look at the context of the dispute, other users at present have an incentive to elevate their content disputes with me to ANI. This was the case with all of the last three ANI discussions -- the current one, the IBAN-related one last month, and the last CurtisNaito one in May. I can't actually do anything to stop CurtisNaito choosing to post his grievances about me and my sourcing standards on ANI, and with the other four users constantly following my movements these ANI disputes never wind up the way they probably would otherwise. Even though IBANs have done me very little good in the past, I do think mutual IBANs with these four users would effectively solve the problem of my content disputes winding up on ANI once every month or two. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 14:24, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Shit. Didn't see your close. That was a good close. Thank you for stepping in and fixing it. I will do my best to take the advice I received from you, Kingsindian &c next time I have such a dispute. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 14:34, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like Hijiri88 has not learned his lesson, asking for IBANS of AN/I regulars from commenting on sections involving him, which he struck after I first wrote this. It also looks like there may have been collusion to derail the AN/I section, or preconceived protection.[2]. The comments in that section are very insulting. AlbinoFerret 14:39, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(e-c with AlbinoFerret above) In light of Hijiri continuing to see enemies under the bed in his struck comment above, I suppose that, when and if the next complaint is raised, the ongoing habit of Hijiri trying to basically blame everyone else for his own misconduct continued here as well. Certainly not the best sign in the world.

Dennis, I'm not sure whether you have ever been party to the arbcom mailing list, I know I'm not in general, but I think your actions in this matter may well be sufficient to make any concerns I may have been made aware of on it as resolved, and thank you for trying your best to resolve a situation which, honestly, is probably the only way to resolve what seems a rather entrenched battle. I'm not sure whether the closing comment officially comes to the level of applying discretionary sanctions, because that isn't clearly indicated, but it is as close as it can get, and probably does constitute the best "final warning" that could be issued.

I'd actually give you one of the rather overused barnstars for this, because, honestly, it deserves it, if I hadn't already given you one for reviewing the last related brouhaha. John Carter (talk) 14:49, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and, obviously, it would be pretty much impossible for anyone to call for Hijiri's head anywhere if he didn't do anything to cause that. So, basically, that seems to me, unfortunately, like more or less an admission from him that he has no intentions, or perhaps ability, of changing.

And, I guess, it probably should be noted that in one of the first times I can remember contacting him directly Hijiri referred to someone else "prodding the bear," in this case him, which he considered justifiable response for his dubious conduct thereafter. It is, I guess, worth noting that Hijiri had been, apparently, OUTed at some previous point, and, as one of the admins involved in one of the previous discussions indicated, he seems to have become, well, as that admin put it, "brittle," since then. In general, I would probably be working to help him remain active, because I think the "conspiracy theorist" attitude he has rather obviously taken toward all those who ever question his gross incivility is a combination of the bloated ego of the "bear" who doesn't like being prodded and the paranoia resultant from the previous OUTing. I helped found WP:WCAG specifically to help make it easier for individuals with such problems to edit. But I wasn't thinking of editors with such problems who decide to vent their spleens at others and in some ways try to use wikipedia as a form of therapy. In cases like that, if they can't reform, then they may well become a net loss to the project overall. John Carter (talk) 19:50, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm hopeful. Both parties should know that if I say the threshold is very low and they will be quickly blocked, that I mean it. I'm not one for hyperbole. I will be keeping an eye out and there won't be any warnings before action takes place. I don't like having to be so forceful, but the community has been disrupted too many times and I'm confident they will back whatever actions I take to keep the peace. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 20:27, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In October 2014, someone not acting on my behalf created a Wikipedia page concerning my then to-be-published book. The page was subsequently deleted by Dennis Brown for a couple of stated reasons: The concern that the article was purely promotional, and that it may be a religious attack.

Now that my book has been published and has a record of critical response, I am wondering if it we be appropriate to consider reversing the decision to delete the page.

Davidconleynelson1 (talk) 14:46, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• You aren't providing enough information for me to give you an answer. I need to know the exact article name, then I can look at it, then determine whether undeleting is appropriate, or if you should just start another article. Of course, WP:Deletion review is an option but you aren't likely to succeed there. More likely they will want to see your new article first, made at WP:AFC. That is probably your best option anyway. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 20:18, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• @Davidconleynelson1: Just a warning that publication by itself does not confer notability to a book. Please take a look at WP:GNG for our general notability requirements, and WP:NBOOK for the specific requirements for books. If you create the article, and it doesn't fulfill these requirements, there's every possibility that it will be deleted at some point. You should also read WP:PROMO: Wikipedia is not the place to promote your book, that's not what we're here for. BMK (talk) 21:51, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Dennis: The previous article was Moroni and the Swastika: Mormons in Nazi Germany. BMK (talk) 21:53, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• That was deleted due to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Moroni and the Swastika: Mormons in Nazi Germany. My actions were simply acting within consensus. There appears to be some problems with the article. Since you didn't write it and there is some controversy as to the content, I would instead suggest writing a brand new article in your user space, then having it moved over the old article. Anyone can do it, not just admin, although because it was previously deleted at AFD, it will be held to a higher scrutiny and will be deleted under our G4 criteria if is substantially similar to the old one. This is one reason I suggested using WP:AFC, as you aren't likely familiar with our notability criteria, which is fairly strict. The vast majority of books don't pass. Unless the book has significant coverage by at least two or three reliable sources (as defined by WP:RS), it won't stand a chance. Blogs are generally not reliable, nor is Amazon or any other site that sells the book. A New York Times review would be of course. The standard, again, is fairly strict as Wikipedia isn't a depository for articles on all books, just those that have received good coverage by the main stream press. This doesn't speak to the quality of the book, just the buzz generated by it. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 23:58, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just FYI: if you have a mind to, you can log your final warnings to Hijiri88 and CurtisNatio here, so they don;t disappear when the thread scrolls off of AN/I. BMK (talk) 18:52, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I've added a section at the top of this talk page. Rather than get into Arb and all that paperwork, or another ANI poll, I'm more likely to just be bold and take swift action. This actually reduces the strain on the community and is the simplest and most effective way to deal with the problem, by doing it myself. They both should know that the threshold is significantly lower now and patience has run out. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 20:25, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Sounds good. I'm glad you're keeping an eye on the situation. BMK (talk) 21:47, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding this comment on Oshwah's request for adminship: I appreciate your collapsing your comments, as I'm not sure why, given the number of times you've said that being an admin leaves you little time for contributing content, you reacted so strongly to someone saying that content creation is not an important part of adminship. Your own views on administrators being there to perform cleanup duties seem to be in agreement. (*) Additionally, I was surprised you chose to express yourself in a fairly dramatic fashion, which is contrary to your usual approach of seeking to bring editors with disparate viewpoints to a common understanding through a reduction of flamboyant statements.

(*) I agree that the nomination statement is not very clear in its arguments; the first sentence is more related to the contested issue of the degree of article-writing experience an administrator ought to have, rather than the statement made in the second sentence. Many nomination statements, unfortunately, exhibit poor writing style. But in the current environment where there is a paucity of nominations, it may be counterproductive to express strong criticism regarding the writing abilities of nominators on the request page. isaacl (talk) 22:11, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In the current environment, many editors are voting against people because of sufficient content experience. To be the lead on nominating, and to basically thumb your nose at all those potential votes was a dumb thing to do and I simply pointed out the obvious, that it was an amazingly stupid thing to do. I'm pretty much in the middle of the road when it comes to content creation, you need some. What was most remarkable is how many people jumped on my comment instead of letting it stand on it's own. This is what many "content creators" complain about, if they dare oppose for content reasons (a valid reason even if you and I disagree with their conclusions), they are bludgeoned to death by comments. No one can be allowed to have an opinion that isn't supportive. It was an opportunity for the candidate, but it was squandered by the half dozen people that felt compelled to defend the candidate....and I wasn't even talking about the candidate, except to question his judgement in choosing a nominator. I'm not up to debating the issue, which is why I just hatted it. It was simply a courtesy to the community, not a change of heart. But to be bludgeoned until you capitulate for the crime of taking issue with the candidate or the nomination? That, my friend, is utter bullshit. And no, I'm really not up for debating it further here. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 22:30, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's one of the reasons why individual responses to each support/oppose/neutral statement is inefficient: it promotes swamping the discussion with redundant, repeated discussion threads. I really hope that some administrator candidates will volunteer to follow an alternate format that reduces repetition.

Regarding responses to your comment, it comes back to tone, and how it sparked people to respond. I won't discuss it further other than to suggest that you might consider revisiting your comment in a few days to consider alternate ways of expressing the same sentiments. As you are fond of saying, there is no justice, only solutions. isaacl (talk) 00:02, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously? When an editor says I'm not really up for debating it further here the right answer is not to continue posting. No one will mind if you revert your comment and this response. NE Ent 01:46, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

... for your help at WP:FPC re this IP user. Sca (talk) 14:59, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Dennis Brown! I will admit upfront that I racked my brain on who to run this by, and by happenstance, you drew the short straw!...

OK, so to get to the point, I've been doing some Random page patrolling of late. Which is fine, except that I have little AfD experience (certainly never nominating an article for deletion myself), no CSD experience at all, and only a couple of PRODs under my belt. Anyway, on rare occasions I'll come across an article, and wonder "Should this really be here, on Wikipedia?..." Most of the time I'll just shrug this impulse off, but last night I came across Transphotographiques while Random page patrolling, and it set off my Spidey Sense more than usual.

First off, it's completely unsourced (outside of an External link to the official site, which doesn't seem to count to me) – now that I can take care of with an {{Unreferenced}} tag and be done with it. But, in looking at this one, I'm really wondering if it belongs on Wikipedia. It seems promotional (to me, anyway). I'm sure it has "significance" (i.e. A7). Finding any English-language sources for it will be somewhere between a chore and impossible. And it was originally authored back in 2010 by an account that only ever edited this article (and wasn't even autoconfirmed?...). It's been barely touched by anyone since, and doesn't look to have been updated since 2010.

So, my question is – when I as Joe-Average editor come across an article like this, what should I do? Or, really, I guess: what would you do?

P.S. If you can suggest some other AfD/CSD "experts" so I'm not always bugging you with questions like these, I'd appreciate that too!

Thanks in advance. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 20:47, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) Totally not an expert but I'm generally fearless so I Afd'd it (after looking for sources per WP:BEFORE) ... let's see if anyone yells at me, and then you'll know the answer. NE Ent 01:42, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks NE Ent. I've gone ahead and voted in that AfD. I'm glad that my instincts on this one weren't totally off... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 02:31, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm the guy who made the Universe Sandbox 2 article, remember? The thing is that I had been banned in the past, and I just returned now (a few months later) to wikipedia on another computer so I could start that article. The article is about a software I helped develop. Now some annoying user just keeps deleting my article. Is it a huge problem to just leave the article there even though I'm a "sock" (as you like to call it)? There is nothing wrong with the article and it is pretty useful. I will ping @NeilN: and @Ritchie333: as you requested, just in case you are busy. QqqQ1- (talk) 21:51, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Somehow, I had a sneaking suspicion. First problem first: if you've been banned before, you can't just come back under another name. That is block evasion. Technically, you should be blocked right now, but I get the feeling you don't quite get how that works. You have to log into your first account, and then request the unban (or unblock, not sure if you are really banned) from there. You can ping me. From that point, I can look at the totality of circumstances and if possible, try to help. Regardless, there is a process and for now, you need to stop edit warring on that redirect. Stay calm, disclose everything, lets take a look at what is really going on before we get too excited. The article will still be there in the history. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 22:43, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Tetra quark and they know full well how blocking and unblocking works. They've had ample time to request an unblock: User_talk:John#At_the_risk_of_being_called_a_snitch... Indef blocked the sock and I would strongly oppose unblocking the master given these kind of edit summaries: [3] --NeilN ^{talk to me} 23:42, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • As always, patience pays off and someone smarter than me comes along and makes all right in the Wikiverse. I didn't want to jump to conclusions, although I did take an interest very early and followed him from his first edits. Looks like we're done here. Thanks for batting cleanup, NeilN. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 00:36, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • Not smarter. Just happen to catch this at one of the noticeboards earlier today and did the requisite homework. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:39, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• sigh* I don't think I'm cut out for this admin job; I'd have restored the article to Draft:Universe Sandbox 2, Universe Sandbox probably scrapes GNG by sources such as PC Gamer so I think the main thing stopping the sequel from being in mainspace is WP:CRYSTAL. I seem to be in a minority of 1 for this next viewpoint, but I have no real interest in our sockpuppetry policy at all; for sure we need to kick the latest Grawp sock du jour out, but I really think we take things too far. I've edited the sandbox while logged out (to find out exactly what an IP editor's user experience is like) - when am I getting blocked for sockpuppetry? I don't like the G5 criteria either - I mean, deleting something based on who wrote it without regard to what it is basically contradicts WP:NPA's mantra of "comment on the content, not the contributor", doesn't it? I'm sure someone like Czar could rescue this article and beef it up to acceptability if he was interested. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:58, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]