User talk:Dennis Brown/Archive 4

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 10

What are you talking about? Don't you see that I improved the existing article? You are free to block this IP anytime. It will be yet another proof that Wikipedia is ruled by idiots.--71.178.101.2 (talk) 00:50, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

• Blocked one week for ongoing edit warring at Croatian Liberation Movement Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 01:00, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

• (hard to post this because of weird Wikipedia interface problems) You're amazing. I was just thinking about how to deal with this IP when I saw you had blocked them. Thank you.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:21, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

• Just doing my duty. I had left them a final warning that they blanked, and two more reverts in 10 minutes was enough. I had the same spaz interface issues.... Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 01:23, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

• I understand the policy justification for the block - it was just the remarkable coincidence that it also made my life easier, especially at the end of a long day, and me with a sinus infection (whining). This IP blanks all warnings. I'm gonna go rest now.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:26, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

I strongly disapprove of your decision as a Wikipedia propagandist to censor the critical comments about Martin Lewis, the self-styled "MoneySavingExpert".

You had no right to silence that perspective on Lewis. It is an important view that is corroborated by articles in the very corporate-controlled media in which Lewis works.

Through your repulsive censorship, you bring great discredit to Wikipedia, "Dennis".

Furthermore, it is very difficult to believe that your public persona is even genuine. You strike me as being a fake. You claim to be based in North America but yet focus heavily on the political and economic activities of the United Kingdom. That's what singles you out as a bogus shill who works this internet resource for corrupt personal gain.

Wikipedia is a very worse place through your presence. You should resign, "Dennis" — Preceding unsigned vitriol added by 2.100.15.30 (talk) 03:48, 16 May 2012 (UTC) .

• I solemnly pledge to give your concerns the respect and consideration they deserve. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 17:30, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Could you possibly consider semi–protection for Battle of Antietam? With the exception of me fixing a misplaced parenthesis, of the last 50 edits going back less than a month to April 23, all of the edits have been IP vandalism or someone reverting them. Thanks. Mojoworker (talk) 17:14, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

• Normally, I would say that you should go to WP:RFPP but this was such an obvious case that I felt pretty safe in just semi-protecting it for 30 days. I clerk at RFPP regularly, btw. When it expires, if there is still an issue, take it there and ask for indef since it is listed as a GA. I may end up being the one that indef protects it there, but 1 month is about all I feel comfortable with outside of the normal venue. I noticed it hasn't been blocked in a few years, so hopefully the month should at least give you some breathing room and allow it to return to normal. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 17:22, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Please see Talk:Abundance: The Future Is Better Than You Think. Thank you. Onceangle574 (talk) 01:31, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Hi Dennis, protection templates don't seem to support UK date formats, because your addition of a protection template to Sexual reproduction put it in Category:Wikipedia pages with incorrect protection templates. This is obviously not ideal, and I've brought this issue up at the technical village pump. Graham87 01:48, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

See the reply to my message; you didn't do anything wrong: it was nothing that a null edit couldn't have fixed. Graham87 03:23, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

• That is weird, I will check into that a bit later. I haven't protected that many and wasn't aware of the tech issues. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 11:35, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Your remark was noted. Since I am already here, can you or anyone else interested be so kind to finally help us solve this issue on whether the Kosovo War can be considered part of the Yugoslav Wars or not? Me and user:Joy posted over two dozen sources supporting the claim, while user:DIRECTOR still denies it. It is a deadlock so other users need to give an unbiased, neutral verdict on the topic. --Justice and Arbitration (talk) 16:29, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

• And I appreciate you taking the time to consider my points. I don't have an opinion on the content itself, and I would strongly suggest you take it to WP:DRN and let them hash it out there. They are better equipped and the format is such that I am confident that you all will be able to find some resolution. I know these articles get contentious, and it is easy to get frustrated, we all (myself included) just have to be careful and take it to the appropriate venue and let 3rd parties who are not involved help you. Again, WP:DRN would be the right place since you have already tried to solve the issue at the talk page and it isn't progressing. Thanks for the note. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 16:38, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, I have taken your advice: Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard. Hopefully it will work and solve the matter.--Justice and Arbitration (talk) 19:14, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Dennis, you might be an asset if discussion proceeds to Medcab, as I have recommended. Just to get your view on this, as I thought I saw something brilliant but nobody else has seen it yet. If I proposed List of minor planets: 200001-201000 for deletion (well, if I did it it'd be pointy but if an uninvolved party did it), there would be a string of immediate keeps. But all the deletion reasons I stated at RFC/U apply. The community recognizes that in this case a thousand-item sublist is nonnotable and notability is not inherited, but also that notability does not limit list content (and unlimited list content is handled by summarization), a list topic is notable if discussed as a group or set, and that the entirety of the list does not need to be documented in (secondary) sources. Summarization shifts the question from the intractable N debate to the better questions of DUE and other content policies.

Even though other stuff technically doesn't affect us, it can be used to determine an overall view of something. My question is: What is the difference between the sublist of planets I linked and a single UFC event like UFC 27? It seems they're both nonnotable as a topic; they're both list-notable, meaning, appropriate for listing on a notable list; both lists, if unsummarized, would contain more data than appropriate article size suggests; and thus that event breakdown is equally acceptable as year breakdown for how to spin out the summary article into nonnotable subarticles. I can grant that the knee-jerk reaction (mine as well) was that for an article to exist it must be notable; but these longstanding list-breakout exceptions have been a quiet admission that this is not always true, and WP:N supports this. Can you at least see that this has hopes of uniting the !factions? Thank you.

A couple sentences useful to this discussion appear here. JJB 17:45, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

reply

I'm trying to follow your logic, and may need to follow up, but I did some actual searching instead of just relying on memory. It takes a bit to break down, so bear with me. These types of conversations are difficult for the fanbase to follow, as they are less concerned with the core policy concerns, and not much easier for the experienced editor either, so if I fail to make a point clear, just ask for clarification. As to the lists of planets, I haven't looked at it and would tend to think that, yes, WP:WAX applies and it may or may not be notable for inclusion. Just as I've done for all my participation at the MMA events, I'm forced to only consider the application of policy as it applies properly here, for the purpose of making a final decision that doesn't need to be revisited once someone deletes the planet article. I know that isn't the answer you are hoping for, but I'm forced to consider the MMA project against policy as a whole, rather than comparing to what has managed to slip through the system.

You can't compare a "List" with and "article" in the way you are trying to because the standards are somewhat different, even if both have to pass GNG. For example, you can have parts of a list that are not notable by themselves, or lists of items to which none are individually notable, if you can still satisfy WP:GNG that the entirety has been covered by multiple reliable sources (the planets may qualify for this, btw). Reading WP:LIST..

Notability guidelines apply to the inclusion of stand-alone lists and tables. Notability of lists (whether titled as "List of Xs" or "Xs") is based on the group. A list topic is considered notable if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources, per the above guidelines; notable list topics are appropriate for a stand-alone list. The entirety of the list does not need to be documented in sources for notability, only that the grouping or set in general has been. Because the group or set is notable, the individual items in the list do not need to be independently notable, although editors may, at their discretion, choose to limit large lists by only including entries for independently notable items or those with Wikipedia articles.

To me, this says that as long as the list on the whole is talked about (say, all of UFC in 2012, or all minor planets and you are just organizing them in a logical fashion) then you can include all the events that happened in 2012, even if you don't have a source for each event, at your option. You are also able to list only the notable ones, if you so choose. This is the rationale for the omnibus, which is independent from whether or not any individual article exists. It does't say anything about articles spun out of a list, so I have to assume it doesn't treat them differently as no exception is given. Once an article is a stand alone article, it must pass WP:GNG. All other subsets (ie: the essay WP:MMANOT) are technically irrelevant as they get their authority from GNG. But before I jump to conclusion, lets make our rounds at all the possible policies and guidelines that might offer us some relief.

Up even higher is WP:NRVE, "The common theme in the notability guidelines is that there must be verifiable, objective evidence that the subject has received significant attention from independent sources to support a claim of notability. " with independent being a common issue when the sources come from MMA only sources. It does not make an exception for articles spun out of a list, so this provides us with no policy based exception.

A closer glance at WP:GNG, the Holy Grail for notability, clearly differentiates the two "stand-alone article or stand-alone list", and clearly gives the exact same criteria for demonstrating notability for either. So in general, it is saying that all "mainspace pages" must provide significant coverage from multiple reliable sources, etc. But we continue our search....

If you look up one paragraph from WP:LISTN, you find the paragraph on sports events which states For example, routine news coverage such as press releases, public announcements, sports coverage, and tabloid journalism is not significant coverage. which sets the bar for which types of coverage can and can not be used for the purpose of establishing notability. It is very common for a source to be fine to establish fact, but not establish notability. Examples of this include primary sources being used to document the birthday of a person.

Returning to the Manual of Style guidelines, specifically WP:LIST, we see the purpose of lists, including "Information", justified as "The list may be a valuable information source. This is particularly the case for a structured list. Examples would include lists organized chronologically, grouped by theme, or annotated lists." which provides the rationale for the omnibus, but not the criteria for its inclusion, which is covered in WP:GNG. WP:Manual of Style/Stand-alone lists is more specifically applicable, with WP:LSC being most interesting, as it discusses both lists of notable and not-notable topics in a list, but offers no guidance as to special exceptions for spinouts, or even notability in general.

Lastly, we consider WP:Content forking, and more specifically WP:SPINOFF. The majority of this guideline covers potential NPOV problems, which are not relevant in this discussion. It does not provide an exemption for inherited notability for child articles. The closest example I can find is the statement "Spinouts are intended to improve readability and navigation, not to evade Wikipedia's content policies." which isn't directly related but would indicate that the only reason for spinouts to exist is to improve readability and navigation, not to make them exempt from any other policy, which one would assume includes WP:N. As such, all spin outs should be held to the same standard as any other stand-alone article.

I have spent a great deal of time researching this, both before and now, and because WP:N is so clear in setting the criteria, and I can find no policy (or even guideline) that offers relief in the form of an exception, I can only conclude that the consensus of the community is that all articles and lists should be treated equally in the eyes of establishing notability. This is also consistent with my previous experiences. I'm open minded, but no one has provided me with a link to where this exception is, so I'm forced to conclude that an exception does not exist. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 19:02, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

reply 2

OK that's a lot, and I assume the right to reply in kind. I've just read half those pages myself prior to your mention, so I agree with most all of the above, and the primary disagreement seems to be that, recurringly, we are applying the policies to different scopes, and it's easy to misunderstand each other (as has also happened at RFC/U) for these reasons.

I recognize that an AFD deleting a particular minor planet or centenarian would not be adducible to change consensus here. But I'm not talking about that scope: I'm talking about "List of minor planets: 200001-201000" or "List of centenarians (miscellaneous)", neither of which will not get deleted anytime soon, though completely nonnotable topics themselves (ignore individual list-item notability as a red herring). Like 2012 in UFC events and Later life of Isaac Newton and Ron Paul bibliography and Events preceding World War II in Europe, these are breakouts intended to cover a larger notable topic. The "later life" article is used as an example of good summarization, and yet it hardly even has a lead relating it to the other articles (only a navbox). But if an editor correctly pointed out 'it is OR to regard "Newton's later life" as an independent topic and evidence that RS's regard it independently is very tenuous', it would fail any delete or merge proposal. The topic is Isaac Newton, not later life. Nonnotable 1000-planet lists, or nonnotable chunks of biographies, are not regarded as inherently notable, but are regarded as portions of an oversize notable topic. I've worked on several topics from a summary perspective and this is routinely recognized.

It's also simply not true that all articles and lists have to pass GNG: GNG includes; it does not exclude. An article may pass GNG, or pass some SNG, or be agreed by local consensus as notable despite failing these. And, it may also be a spinout of an oversize notable topic.

The next scope difference is that the main list article I am thinking of is List of UFC events, not 2012 in UFC events. First, the by-year article is not notable and only exists because everyone unconsciously recognizes it as a spinout of an oversize notable topic, "list of UFC events". Everyone has long agreed that "list of" could be properly spun out into a large set of by-year articles, and that these articles could be spun out partly into fight articles. Everyone has also long agreed that the content will presumably be preserved regardless; though UFC 27 is gone, Hasteur has no problem asking for undeletion and merge to a new 2000 in UFC events. So the content is the same in each case, it's just organization.

So whether omnibi exist or not, a UFC event is still a spinout of list of UFC events. My suggestion is that, if the omnibi are deleted, the set of event articles is a valid (and probably better) complete spinout of the content of "list of" than the omnibi are, even though some or all of the events may be nonnotable. Just like with a season of a TV show, there will be about the same amount of primary-source content whether that content appears in a by-fight article or a by-year article. But while an omnibus list may be good for a bibliography, where books widely vary in notability, it gives no benefit in the case of a set of programmed events that have the same predictable level of primary-source content. In that case if some TV episodes or individual fights were missing, since there is agreement to preserve the content, the "list of" article would contain very brief lines on notable entries but several grafs each on nonnotable entries, which is a very clunky appearance.

(In the longevity articles, I did support a solution similar to omnibus, even granting this risk of clunkiness. However, there, there was not a predictable equal level of consensus-agreed primary-source content for each entry; the entries were nonnotable because very little could be said about them encyclopedically. Therefore their entries in the lists were not significantly larger than the summary entries of the notable centenarians. In the MMA case you'd have one or two lines for each "notable" fight and a large table for each "nonnotable" fight, and there is no DUE reason for claiming which fights are notable and which not within the list article. Much better to claim that virtually all the fights (and seasons) are nonnotable, and they only exist because "list of" is notable.)

Building this more from policy (repeating my OP with quotes): WP:N "guidelines only outline how suitable a topic is for its own article or list. They do not limit the content of an article or list." So content of a notable list is unlimited. This fact is dealt with by WP:SUMMARY: "When there is enough text in a given subtopic to merit its own article, that text may be summarized within the present article. A link should then be provided to a more detailed article about the subtopic." The article is merited by enough text, not by notability. "Judging the appropriate size depends on the topic and whether it easily lends itself to being split up." So we can make this decision as a local project. V applies as a standalone to breakouts, and this is fulfilled with primary-source citations, and secondary-source when they are available (but not to a petty consistency that requires deleting fights that lack them). The reason we do not delete is not inherent or inherited notability, but list notability: because the list is notable, its nonnotable subportions are permitted as standalone articles (omnibi, or fights).

You say, "As long as the list on the whole is talked about [in sources] then you can include all the events that happened in 2012, even if you don't have a source for each event, at your option." Right. If size were not an consideration then the notable list of UFC events could have 200 sections with 3 grafs and 1 large table each, even if many of the events lack secondary sourcing. Now why must that hypothetical article be broken into years if it could also be broken into fights and there are several considerations favoring the latter? Don't you see that omnibus itself is an article spun out of a list, and by your standards "no [N] exception is given" to it either?

So your quotes, while valid, do not apply to my claims: (1) the last lead graf of WP:N, taken with WP:SUMMARY and standard practice, demonstrates that spinouts are routinely recognized as nonnotable but persistent anyway; (2) given that both year and fight are nonnotable, there is no policy reason to prefer either one as the approved breakout system a priori, but that the decision should be made by how the topic lends itself to being split up, per WP:SUMMARY. No quotes disagree with this.

And here is where "other stuff" does have a valid application. Your conclusion of no exception, reading many policies silent on the topic but not recognizing the application of either this common practice or its grounding in my quotes explaining the "exception", is a very broad and testable hypothesis. So it is valid of me to ask: would you support AFD of the list of planets 200001-201000? Would you AFD "later life of Newton" or "events preceding WWII" as being OR nonnotable topics insufficiently recognized as topics by RS? Of course not! You recognize the exception at work there, and you even recognize it at work to except 2012 in UFC events, which nobody has put forward as notable in itself. So why must you conclude there is no exception? Thank you for reading through. JJB 20:18, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

reply 3

You make some excellent points, and it is refreshing to talk to someone on this topic that has a good understanding of the policy issues involved and actually cares that we apply them properly. I had not thought of it from the summary position. I still have a few concerns as this is just a little bit outside of the normal use for summary articles, which are more common for stand-alone articles, and not stand-alone lists, and because stand-alone lists don't have the burden of demonstrating notability of individual entries, and you are summarizing out of them, this means you can technically have a notable list, with a non-notable entry, with a spun out article that itself is not notable. I don't have the answer right off the top of my head for that, and honestly, I have to ponder that to give it the proper consideration that it deserves. That IS an interesting concept, and it a lot easier to discuss it here without disruption from either "side" of the issue. I'm not convinced, but I'm open minded, so give me a bit to study and reply proper. On another note, as someone who has been in the mix of MMA as an observer for a while and is familiar with the difficulty of dealing with the personalities, I don't envy your role. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 20:31, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

THANK YOU!! Communication accomplished. Your entire graf now describes exactly where I was about 3 days ago. JJB 20:45, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Don't thank me too soon. And I'm quite communicative with people who communicate as well as you have. Reading WP:SUMMARY confirmed by initial gut thinking, that it doesn't apply here. The word "list" doesn't exist in the entire text, and it appears to go to great pains to specify "articles" is a very specific way, to the point of redundancy. The second issue is the "References" section, which states:

Each article on Wikipedia must be able to stand alone as a self-contained unit. The Verifiability policy requires that all quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged be attributed to a reliable, published source in the form of an inline citation. This applies whether in a parent article or in a summary-style sub-article.

So even if it applied to lists, every article still must pass its own WP:GNG test, as I previously indicated. You may be correct that many people "let this slide" from time to time on articles, and likely it is because the consensus of them believe that the information is better served outside the primary article. IE: WP:IAR and it only works because everyone agrees to follow IAR. In most cases, the spin out IS properly sourced, however, and not an issue. As to "why break it up later life" and such, that is more a matter of accepted custom and doesn't really apply here. Breaking down sports by year or season also passes MOS. That is more a matter of how we organize the omni, and isn't relative to the break out articles, so will leave that for another day.

I have to wonder if the reason WP:SUMMARY seems to take great pains to exclude lists is because of the "notability paradox" that you have a notable list A that rightfully has a non-notable section B, that is spun out to make a non-notable article B plus, and we are supposed to expect no one to AFD it. We don't have the authority to tell people they can't go to AFD. I don't think ArbCom would even be so bold as to make an entire category of articles "off limits to AFD". There are plenty of people in this discussion and in the wider Wikipedia community that would take exception to this, and there is no way we can force them to NOT bring this to AFD. In short, the plan has two fatal flaws, of which only one could possibly be overcome. WP:SUMMARY doesn't cover lists, so you would have to use WP:IAR to apply it, and even if people agreed to that, it literally demands that the article passes WP:GNG by being exceedingly specific and detailed on this point. If I've missed something, by all means point it out, because it does get complicated at this level. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 21:11, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

• By the way, if you want someone very experienced or a panel of a few select admins to review the policy arguments here, by all means, ask away. I will take no offense. Since this is about policy, and not specifically about the MMA article, it may be easier. If I'm missing something, I surely want to know. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 21:13, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

reply 4

OK, now we're talking. (1) "SUMMARY doesn't apply"? First, stand-alone "lists may be articles". Second, the omission of the word "list" in SUMMARY is an argument from silence. So your conclusion of inapplicability doesn't follow.

(2) "V applies": I referred to this above, V does apply. The event article content has a primary source, and secondarily Yahoo Sports or periodical when possible. But first, standing alone does not mean standing alone for N, in context it means standing alone for V; and second, not every article must pass GNG, which is why we have SNG and local consensus as well. Local consensus of N on an article that fails GNG and SNG is not IAR; the rule doesn't say articles that fail GNG must be deleted, it says articles that pass GNG cannot be deleted for N. So here your conclusion that events must pass GNG doesn't follow.

(3) "Let this slide"? I'm not arguing that editors of these articles let anything slide, if I thought it was sliding I'd make my own simple AFD. The only rules being ignored that I can see are not policy, rules like "every article topic must be notable", not what N says. You then hint that maybe all these consensi (love those Latin plurals) are not letting things slide, but they are "excepted custom"; but under either homonym, you seem to consider adhoc breakdowns of bios and sports event lists as permitted, but with UFC events you regard one breakdown as permitted (by-year) and a different breakdown as flawed (by-event).

The reason that most editors seem not to get this is that a one-event (5-to-7-fight) article doesn't look like a spinout. Newman read everything I wrote but still thinks I'm arguing that the one-event article is notable; it appears this is because of this basic reaction "it's an event, it must be notable, but if it's a list, the listmakers must have a reason", which was also my first reaction. But Newton's later life doesn't look like a spinout either. (The failure in the lead is incorrect and is something that editors let slide, and I would edit it if I took some time to find out how to fix it, but that's beside my point.) All the same, if I stopped by to AFD Newton's later life, I would be roundly stopped by regulars who point out that it's excepted (and accepted) as Newton is notable and this is "part of" the Newton article that just didn't fit there. So:

(4) "Can't go to AFD"? Of course people can go to AFD. But only if an AFD finds that there is a broader opposite consensus larger than the local consensus do the fireworks happen. (Then the question becomes whether the whole project is off-balance or the outside editors are just not recognizing a compliant set.) Anyone who AFD'd any one of the minor planets sublists, or all 200+ of them at once, "can" go there, but if they are in good faith they will leave pretty quickly. The same can be true here. In your plan, if we had list of UFC events, plus one omnibus for each year, plus say 10% of the 200 individual events according to event notability, then it would be a Bad Idea to AFD "2000 in UFC events" for lack of sourcing and nonnotability in all RS. This fails because the omnibus is a breakout of the notable topic "list of". What I'm saying (sorry for repetition) is that if the events rather than the years are the breakout level, if there are no year articles at all, then the 200 event articles are each nonnotable portions of a notable topic just like the 200 minor planets sublists, and they are preserveable by local consensus that they are valid spinouts.

So the solution is that people are free to AFD; then the project members respond that the information is V and primarily sourced, that WP:PRESERVE would tell us to merge the data, but that merge has already been considered and rejected and the present format accepted as the best org. That is, there is no new deletion argument if it's just N. People don't generally object to preserving the data, because it appears spread around the "list of" article and the fighter articles. The only objection is that the article looks like a notability failure, when it's actually a nonnotable breakout that is agreed to be best organized as such.

(5) If we can hash this out ourselves, or else agree to disagree at some point, then it might be worth bringing in broader discussion afterward. To me the relevant guideline is that (SUMMARY) local projects should determine best breakup and so we are free to choose a per-event breakup (that's still not the lowest hierarchy level, which is individual fights within the event), in accord with practice at other projects. But at any rate, thanks again for your time. JJB 23:50, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

reply 5

I get your point that Summary focuses on WP:V rather than WP:N, but still says "Each article on Wikipedia must be able to stand alone as a self-contained unit." which I interpret to mean, must pass WP:N. A stand alone unit would imply it is held to the same standards as any other article, or else it wouldn't be "stand alone". Lists can be articles, but the fact that Summaries doesn't even mention lists is telling. It doesn't even say "treat lists that are articles, the same as articles". You wouldn't think that type of omission would be accidental. In most Summaries, at least from articles, this is a non-issue as the sources are just merged over to support the secondary article. More importantly, it won't stop the flood of AFDs. PRESERVE don't come into play because if the core info is already in the omni, and Preserve says that merge is one option, it becomes a somewhat moot point. It is already preserved whether or not you delete the article. I would have to say that you and I have similar understanding of many things, but not how it applies here. I can see that we interpret from different ends of the same spectrum. It looks like your focus is on finding a way to keep all articles, and searching for a way to make that fit the existing policies. That is fine enough, but I'm not sure your interpretation is consistent with a majority of editors.

Just as important, my experience has been that many of the individual articles will still not likely to stand up in AFD if they are held to the WP:N standard, which I maintain applies even if you do accept Summary as applying to lists, so in the end we still end up with a lot of AFDs and controversy, and two sides of a debate that are no closer than they started. I don't see this as a step forward, just another version of the same problem. I've already invited you to get outside opinions on these points, and I still do, but I don't see this as being a viable solution, for both policy and practical reasons. Interesting, to be sure, but not viable. Would love to hear some perspectives from others and I'm still open to being persuaded, but I'm not so far. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 00:32, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

OK, then (1) do you think that List of minor planets: 200001-201000 and List of centenarians (miscellaneous) fail notability standards? That they slipped through the cracks? (2) Wouldn't 2012 in UFC events fail notability standards for the same reason? Or do you find some sport guideline that allows it and not the event breakouts? I still don't understand your perspective on these two questions. (3) We could ask at WT:SUMMARY about the omission you find important. (4) I'm talking about a situation where there are no omnibi, and all the info is to be preserved in the event articles, because the main article (list of UFC events) would have hiccups between short (notable, spun-out) entries and long (nonnotable, preserved-in-main) entries. (5) What you say about preserving applies to your situation, but not to the one I'm suggesting; but if the data in the omnibus and the event articles is identical, one of them is redundant, and neither one is more notable than the other. JJB 02:08, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

• I can't really speak to the planet's articles, as I haven't read them and looked into to it deep enough to offer an intelligent answer, and I just don't have the time, as I have a lot of other projects here I'm working on. I will listen to anyone else's opinions if you have a third party who wants to chime in, but I think I've done my due diligence and spent a couple hours on this today, and spent a few months on MMA issues researching as well. That and just previous experience. It is moot anyway as I've said the method isn't likely to work because of practical reasons. And at the end of the day, this was all about an RFC/U, not an RFC. This is about Agent's behavior, not the omnibus system. I am participating in any actions against Agent since I was involved in the problems, and I don't mind discussing policy issues in a general fashion like this some times, but I think we are at the point now to where we just agree to disagree. It is perfectly fine if you disagree with my conclusion, and I don't regret spending the time, but it has only served to reinforce my previously held opinions on the interpretations. It was interesting. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 02:27, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

For clarification of both the above and the next section, yes, I used IAR quite a bit early on because there was an open RFC, not just an RFC/U, and my initial sentiments were supported when several other editors agreed on discussing content as well in accord with my approach. I basically attempted, and I believe largely succeeded, to use RFC/U partly as a clean slate for the RFC concerns. Then, as the concerns about discussing content came out later, I backed off and referred that discussion to Medcab (which I may still open). That's just to say that while there is concern about my pressing content questions now, there was not originally, and so I responded in each case in light of the situation then existing.

I don't mind agreeing to disagree, though I'm disappointed you didn't find the time to look into the applications even though you looked through the policies. Declining to answer my last two questions suggests to me that the conversation about these two paradigms is far from over, though I don't know how much part I'll take in it; MMA is a very interesting microcosm for testing these more global paradigms. I do appreciate your being the first person to hear and understand the paradigm, even though you don't see the evidence for it in the same light. JJB 20:30, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Part of the issue is that I'm nursing a sick wife, thus I don't have as much time as I would like to fully pay attention. The other part is I tend to be a little more wonky when it comes to policies and I think that any exception should be in the policy itself. My disagreement wasn't meant to be any final authority, I just didn't see the evidence in the policy and lacked the time to read through a long list relating to a class of articles that I'm not familiar with. To give it a proper read would take a great deal of time, and I would rather bow out than do a substandard job. Even now, I'm bouncing between the wife, mowing 1.5 acres a section at a time, and every day life things that the Mrs. can't :) You caught me at both a bad subject and a bad time. It's why I'm just doing RFPP's right now, they take less than 10 minutes each. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 20:39, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

My prayers are with you. JJB 22:25, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

I appreciate the kindness. She should ok soon enough, and it is nothing compared to last year so I didn't mean to complain too loudly, I only wanted to let you know why it was difficult to devote a great deal of time. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 00:21, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Hello Dennis,

I know you have a history with MMA and Agent00f but I have been able to reason with him. Would you be willing to cool off for a day before you post more on his user RfC. I can see you and JJB have been in a constructive dialog about policy as it pertains to MMA content. I think there is some potential for defusing this situation.

I'd appreciate your willingness to think this over seriously even though you have strong opinions.

Sincerely,

Factseducado (talk) 03:53, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

• I appreciate your perspective, and don't mean to argue, but I'm not "heated" or need to cool down. He has managed to get me upset in the past, but my thoughts on the matter are pretty calm and rational. Even then I don't recall "losing my cool", I just removed myself from the situation. If any comment I've made seems "hot headed", please point me to it. I can assure you that my opinions at the RFC/U were well thought out. It is perfectly fine to disagree with me, as JJB does on some points, and I'm quite comfortable discussing issues with someone who disagrees me with. But I'm not exactly known to be reactionary nor pepper my comments, nor do I see that I have here, so I'm not sure what the complaint is. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 10:43, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

• I don't want you to feel I am complaining. That is definitely not my intention. Quite a bit of nuance is lost when people are communicating in writing. I agree that you don't tend to be reactionary or pepper your comments. I hope you don't feel I have made that kind of accusation. I can assure you that I am not accusing you of things like writing something hotheaded. So let's give this communication between us a fresh start, okay? In the past you have written that you felt you had lost objectivity and had to remove yourself from the discussion of MMA related issues. My feeling is that there is a chance of more productive communication both at the user RfC of Agent00f and about the MMA content issues. When I suggested cooling off for a day before continuing to post at his user RfC it was an attempt to help defuse a situation that I perceive as overly polarized. There is disagreement on that RfC page and things can be heated there. Often times it helps if people decide to be the first to walk away from an unfriendly encounter. It is possible for parties to it to give time for feelings all around to calm down. I have seen things turn out surprisingly well in the past on WP even when they weren't expected to. This appears correlated with at least one user deciding to take a break instead of continuing to comment in the midst of heated dialog. I understand that you didn't find my suggestion useful and that is your right. Assuming good faith really is a good way to work together at WP and I know you agree. I do hope you agree there are many ways of viewing the MMA and Agent00f situations and I am not necessarily wrong if I don't reach the conclusions you have. It would feel helpful to me if you did extend that kind of willingness to agree to disagree with the readers of your comments on MMA and Agent00f's user RfC. That seems reasonable, doesnt' it? Factseducado (talk) 16:51, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

• I didn't take offense by your comments in the least, I just disagreed with them. As for my comments, I haven't bloodied the page with my comments, or even bothered to reply to most instances when Agent or anyone else has disagreed. It is an RFC/U, and contention is the nature of the beast here. We aren't there to fix MMA, the U refers to "User", and the sole purpose of the discussion is to discuss the disruptive behavior of Agent and determine if further action is needed. All the other conversations about fixing the project are actually outside of the scope of an RFC/U and technically improper. As to assuming good faith, it doesn't apply to blindly ignoring bad faith, and you are preaching to the choir here. If anything, I generally assume too much good faith and give too much latitude and benefit of the doubt to others. I'm confident that I have exceeded the expectations of the guidelines here. My conclusion that Agent should be indefinitely blocked was made before it was recommended at the RFC/U, yet I didn't tell anyone as not to poison the environment. Once another independent admin had suggested it, I was under no obligation to withhold my endorsement. No policy required I withhold the idea until someone else suggested it, only my generosity. The fact that I have openly stated that I am not objective and have removed myself from the list of admins that can take action (block him) does not require me to exclude myself from participating. If others choose to be unpersuaded by my arguments because of my admitted bias, they are free to do so. I know you are new to Wikipedia and the layers of process aren't obvious, but I'm confident that my actions in the discussion are not only proper, but would be considered both restrained and at the highest level of civility. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 17:25, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

• Well, I am feeling you are not at all understanding what I am trying to communicate. I never said there was any policy that requires you to withhold any endorsement you wish to make. I have never said that I believe there is any policy that precludes you from participating at the RfC/U. I have never said your actions in the RfC/U discussion have been improper. I have no idea if others are unpersuaded by your ideas for reasons relating to what you term your bias. I would have no way of knowing that unless someone actually wrote it and I'm not aware of anyone having written that. If you want JJB not to discuss the content of the MMA articles at the RfC/U, please tell him so rather than telling me. I never misunderstood the RfC/U process and I would like you to extend me that good faith. Would you be willing to agree I have never indicated a misunderstanding of the purpose or scope of RfC/U? This sort of misunderstanding is one reason it is time to get this to MEDCAB where things can be sorted out slowly.Factseducado (talk) 18:06, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

• I didn't tell JJB to stop because I didn't go there to enforce the RFC/U rules, and was open minded about what he had to say. Believe it or not, I'm known to be extraordinarily tolerant, many say too much so. Don't believe everything Agent says about me. Ask someone else, anyone not involved with MMA, you will hear a different story. You don't need to worry about my faith in you at all, you haven't done anything but good faith explaining your position and I never thought otherwise. I disagree with you, but I fully support your right to express it and don't take issue with you. You worry too much. :) If my tone seems a bit formal at the RFC/U, it is because I try to be concise and to the point. As for MedCab, I would be against it, as it is unbinding and not designed to address behavioral issues. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 18:28, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

• I have not been interested in anything Agent00f has written regarding you. The two of you are not happy with each other and humans don't tend to say helpful things when feeling that way. I am aware of your reputation for being tolerant and well-liked. I think you built that over time. Everybody has bad days and I know you feel you have. That's normal. I have been taking an interest in what you write for a while and I literally never paid any attention to what you wrote on MMA. I think MEDCAB might be willing to work on this and it has a chance of success. This MMA content issue has been a sticky wicket and mediation and peace making are not a waste of time in my opinion. I know it's hard for you to believe but I have seen Agent00f make progress. I believe a lot of difficulties have arisen from his being new to WP and not having anyone to advise him. Factseducado (talk) 18:44, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

• But my supply of good faith is exhausted, and in the end, the greater needs of Wikipedia outweights any one person, whether is is myself, Agent, or Jimbo Wales. Latching on to him is a bad idea, as I have a pretty good idea where this is headed. I've seen it many, many times. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 18:46, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

• I think this can blow over. The content issues with MMA will not be blowing over as far as I can see. It's just an area that will suck in new editors and get them banned while they are learning how to contribute. The participants, and I believe you have no interest in further participating, really should agree to MEDCAB. They are going in circles and everyone is getting or has gotten exhausted. It's time for a new approach. I seem to recall MEDCAB suggesting that people bring issues to them before they have escalated too far. Surely MMA content is an area in which dialog needs to be quickly moved to another venue because it has deteriorated so far and it's sad to say that it can actually get worse. A stitch in time saves nine. Factseducado (talk) 19:44, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

I got involved because many, many admins here have suggested many times to simply nuke all the MMA articles, delete them all. My goals was to implement the omni system, which was moving slowly forward before Agent showed up. It wasn't painless, but it was moving forward. That is my issue with Agent. I don't care what someone says about me personally, I am truly unaffected by the rude remarks from people I don't know. I did care that it set the whole project back months. You can thank Agent for that. That is why I am confused as to why you cling to him. I don't care about MMA articles strongly one way or the other, which is why could serve as a neutral party. If you don't have a truly neutral party to help bring the two sides together, you won't get progress. Good luck finding anyone. I was privately told that I was a fool for doing it, by a great number of people whom I consider friends. I don't see too many volunteers willing to help, unless they have a bias, thus not neutral. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 20:06, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Dennis, I don't at all agree with your statements that I have either latched onto or clung to Agent00f. I don't like that you are writing those things about me. I would appreciate it if you would show more good faith to me on the subject of Agent00f and MMA content. I am not interested in assigning blame to anyone in particular. I have repeatedly stated at the RfC/U that multiple parties have not been behaving in laudable ways. Agent00f has been a person I have been able to reason with and that's a good thing in my opinion. MEDCAB is a viable option for the MMA content issues but I don't think you can see that at this time. Factseducado (talk) 22:31, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

MedCab may indeed be an excellent solution to the MMA discussions. It is not an option for dealing with the behavior of Agent, which is my only focus. I left the MMA discussions, what happens there is no longer my concern. They are two different things, and I am only concerned about one of them. As to my other comments, I mean no offense but it is based on my observation and isn't inherently insulting at all. I'm not the only one who has observed this, if you note. It doesn't make you a bad person or make you guilty by association, nor have I implied that. Assuming good faith doesn't require you ignore acts of bad faith. I've made it clear a great while ago that I think Agent is acting in bad faith, and his actions since then have only reinforced my belief. I am not alone in this assumption. I can not assume good faith in his overall actions, and policy doesn't require that I do since the reasons for the assumption of bad faith are laid bare for the world to see. Policy only dictates that I am civil, and I feel quite comfortable with my level of civility. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 22:58, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Hey Dennis, looks like some peculiar editing again by User:Scottdelaney1067. I don't think there's any nefarious intent, but perhaps it's an over–ambitious neophyte editor. So, since User:HJ Mitchell‎ seems to have gone on Wikibreak, I guess you're my new "go to" admin . I've been waiting until the dust settled to congratulate you on your successful RfA, and I was happy to support you in that effort. At the time, I saw your comment on ANI and thought to myself "that took a lot of courage", during an RfA, to speak up and support someone who had !voted against you in a disagreement with someone who had up until that time, supported you. I leave it to the reader to determine which editor emerged from that whole shit storm with my enhanced respect. I'm glad it didn't derail your RfA. Oh, and I like the picture of the smoker on your user page, but am dismayed there's mention of "slaw" on the same page...that's just wrong man. Are you by chance anywhere near Asheville? I love that place. It's on my short list of places to someday consider retiring to. Mojoworker (talk) 04:49, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

• Ashville is less than 3 hours due west of here. The Mrs. drags me near it on the way to Cherokee once a year but I haven't taken the time to really visit Ashville or the Biltmore Estate yet. I should do that this summer. As for red slaw, I have no use for the stuff, but they eat it on everything here, hot dogs, hamburgers, chopped pork or alone. The idea of mixing cabbage, ketchup and vinegar makes my stomach turn as well, but it is an important cultural food here. And I still have and use that smoker, it's in one of the barns, and it's about time to break it out for summer. And thanks for the support and your observations. As to the participants, I don't hold a grudge against Kiefer, and even spoke out to have him unblocked, in public and private. I don't think he is a bad guy at all, he just has a different life perspective and anger threshold than I do. Had the circumstances been different, I think we might have been on friendlier terms. I've extended an olive branch to him twice, but he appears to be uninterested. I will check into Scott, I had almost forgotten about him, as I've been busy trying to learn the new tools and finding a way to be useful here. Of course you are always welcome on my talk page, whether it is a problem or just to stop by and chat. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 08:36, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

• Thanks Dennis. I left Scott a message about using some of the templates. Mojoworker (talk) 17:14, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

• I've been looking at his edits some, I think he has good intentions, but he is playing at on the edge a little by getting involved in controversial tagging areas. I fear that someone is going to snap on him, even if Scott is in the right, and he won't know how to deal with it. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 17:23, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Hi Dennis, Um can you look at this edit for me: ([1]), because an admin is trying to bribe me from not posting at WP:AN. Khvalamde :   Argue, Scream, Chat, Yell or Shout   04:26, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

I think it's safe to assume Flo wasn't serious there. He's an experienced admin who knows an offer like that wouldn't fly. He's just driving home the point that you jump to ban proposals too often. Equazcion ^(talk) 04:48, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, but I don't see whats the harm in that. Khvalamde :   Argue, Scream, Chat, Yell or Shout   04:50, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

It's just his opinion. A trip to ANI was totally unnecessary.--Jasper Deng (talk) 04:51, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Ah alright, I thought that he actually meant it. See, because I'm on the Aspergers (ThatPeskyCommoner, an editor knows about this), I tend to mistake what people actually mean you see, and I'm sorry it took to this route. See, with Floquenbeam, I understand that it can come to stages where he can be somewhat hard to work with when he often gets irked of with things, but since this is a difference of opinion, I will stay off now. Khvalamde :   Argue, Scream, Chat, Yell or Shout   04:57, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Here we go again, jump straight to the "I have Asperger's so I should be allowed to get away with it" defence. Pesky has herself told you in the past it is not legitimate, and you need to learn to work around your Asperger's. Dennis, some related links: here, here, and here. Think you'll agree Khvalamde has overreacted. —Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 10:31, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is invited to contribute, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Tinga Tinga Tales, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. GwenChan 11:18, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

I've been naughty =( Replied at my talk. GwenChan 11:36, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

I did get a chuckle out of it, so no harm no foul. I took the liberty of striking the vandalism warning, however ;) Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 11:44, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to alarm me by posting to my talk page with section headings like Tinga Tinga Tales, thus making me think that our curious friend is back and nearly giving me a heart attack, you may be blocked from editing. I am also really disappointed that you and Gwen have sorted it out: I would have loved an excuse to block you. JamesBWatson (talk) 20:27, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

• Please don't send me to WP:ANI Mr. Watson! I'll be good! We was just funning! Honest! Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 20:54, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Hi, Dennis. Thanks for fixing the redirect. For what it's worth, the main article has been unprotected and stable for a long time now, and with the legal proceedings over and done with, it's unlikely there'll be any more media frenzies to attract edit warriors. Then again, since it's a redirect page that is unlikely to require further editing ever again, I suppose there's no harm in protecting it forever. So I'd say you made a good call. If you want to mark my request resolved or not done or whatever, I have no objection. Rivertorch (talk) 21:11, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

• I screwed it up a bit, as I haven't unprotected one, but eventually I got it unprotected. I was a more cautious than I needed to be because it was a BLP, but you are completely right here, it isn't needed. You are always welcome to drop by with a concern. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 21:34, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

  I don't think anyone has ever noted my "flawless logic" before. Thanks—I'll remember your kind words the next time this place is getting me down! Rivertorch (talk) 21:43, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

  Drop by anytime you need a lift. I do like to add a little extra kindness, with just a touch of humor in my comments when I can. It costs nothing and always pays dividends. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 22:02, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

I formatted everything perfectly Egg Centric 02:01, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

• That, you did. I appreciate your enthusiasm, but I was getting edit conflicted by you as I was trying to simply fix the diff myself. I already had known about this incident, but had I not, I would have gone and read the entire page and found the diff and added it or provided a stronger basis for my claims so I wouldn't have to strike them. ANI is already drama laden as it is, so I so tend to be a little more conservative to drive the excitement down, rather than up. But that's just me. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 02:07, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

I suppose it depends whether you see it as feature or a bug . If they want less drama they should appoint ten thousand admins, so that editors stop running into one another... Egg Centric 02:32, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Actually, not enough admins run due to the drama at RfA. To be clear, one of my primary objectives in becoming an admin was to reduce the drama level at the boards. It is important to me that we dial things back and just deal with the problems, so we don't lose 100 or more good editors per months. I tend to be quite focused on this and always appreciate any efforts to help me reduce the tension level at the boards. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 11:43, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Any chance of a more even-handed word from you here? Can you just briefly vouch that I've left Osborne and Mervyn King alone, and am actually capable of dispassionate discussion, for example? All they are doing is spotlighting the negative, leaving the positive in the dark. There's been a flood of people who would dearly love to see me banned show up, and just one person who seems to have attempted AGF. AGF was not required in any event, since I have refuted the two charges.

Recall that I got that user Wnt, a neutral, to make the edits I thought needed adding to Osborne's article. I'm staying away from those who brought out the worst in me up till now, and the associated articles (Osborne and King).

So, yeah: I'm currently up for a permaban on the basis of two "misunderstandings" about a couple of edits I made to the Second Intifada. The person has, as far as I am concerned—though I've not jumped to accuse him like he has with me—lied about the nature of one edit, and then made, at the very least, a mistake of his own regarding the other. Since last we spoke, there has been a complaint about some silly comments on someone else's talk page (I deleted them without hassle as soon as it was requested by an admin(?)), but I'm not sure what the problem is there, since the person's whose talk page it was not the one who made the complaint, and the owner of the talk page posts utter rubbish himself on it and mine. No complaint from me; none from me. Even though he was rabidly 'pro'-Israel, I wrote a lengthy defence against his being permanently banned. Yet I'm always the unreasonable one, and others get off scott free because I'm easier going than they are. I've never initiated a formal complaint against anyone, despite some of the rubbish I've seen added and material removed, and despite the way others have spoken to me. There seems to be a tactic used by people of taking umbrage at anything and everything to get people banned, particularly on Israel-Palestine.

An ill-advised post—though I'm still not 100% sure what the problem is with simply pointing out that something is racist—about what I regarded as blatantly racist material that people had posted, and that about rounds it out since last we spoke here. I stayed out of the racism thing when told to as well, to note. Quite how two false allegations, coupled with some po-faced complaining about what I write on someone else's talk page when its owner had no problem with it, warrants a permaban is beyond me.

If you don't feel like sticking an oar in—well, don't! ~ Iloveandrea (talk) 04:51, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Hey, even got a thank you from a 'pro'-Israel today! Isn't that sweet? They're not all bad. I meant to emphasise that my lengthy do-not-ban post for Luke 19 Verse 27 was before any of this blew up, so it wasn't made to help me out of this little pickle. Easily verifiable, of course, just need to double check the times. ~ Iloveandrea (talk) 05:24, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Ah, whoooops! Just bothered to check the rules on minor edits!

When not to mark an edit as a minor edit:
*Adding or removing content in an article
*Adding or removing visible tags or other templates in an article
*Adding or removing references or external links in an article
*Adding comments to a talk page or other discussion

OK, I think it's safe to say I have been violating minor-edit regulations on an industrial scale! Seriously, on that basis virtually none of my minors actually are minor, and I make quite a few of what I regard as minor edits.

To be honest, what's with the minor tag anyway? Who the hell pays any attention to it? If an article is on my watchlist, I check absolutely everything. You'd have to be trusting to the point of idiotic naivety to trust anything anyone ever does in this place. Besides, if you hack out 20k of material and tag it m, who is ever going to get away with it? Seems a completely pointless feature of Wikipedia, both in terms of using it to try and cover up stuff and in terms of flagging possible wrongdoing (unless there's something I don't know about). An edit should just be an edit. ~ Iloveandrea (talk) 05:42, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

• • I will look at this a little later in the day. And I'm actually good about using the minor edit tags, as I filter by them. Lots of people do, just as we filter by bot tags, but I can see why others don't. It is better to never tag as minor than tag all as minor. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 11:45, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

• • Before I get involved in any dispute, didn't you tell me "I would say I'll stay away from Israel-Palestine articles" just four days before your edits landed you in AE? Or was your comment a literal and only telling me you would simply say something? I'm hesitant to jump into the fray if I can't take you at your word on bigger issues. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 12:31, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
    • FYI he was indefed.
      • I figured as much would happen once he broke his own word. I don't feel sorry for him, I tried everything possible to make it possible for him to stay, he chose to ignore my good will, and confuse it with stupidity, thinking I would just jump in and defend him. Oh well. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 18:32, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Help desk/Header has been full-protected for 4 years. The protection summary was "high-risk template", though its only real use is at the help desk page (others include some userpages, archives, etc). I think a semi-protect ought to cover whatever actual risk is involved. I came across this because I wanted to perform a rather simple tweak (center the search boxes), but on general principle I think the full-protect is unwarranted. The header has 40 watchers, and the full can always be re-enabled if there are problems (since it's been full-protected for so long there's no evidence of that yet). Equazcion ^(talk) 12:36, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

• I'm still unfamiliar enough, and this is in WP space, that I think you should take it to RFPP. I'm not quite comfortable or bold enough to make that decision outside of the normal venue. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 13:05, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Alright I understand. I'll follow boring ol' process. I actually forgot there even was a process page for this. Thanks. Equazcion ^(talk) 13:19, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
    • Yup, I clerk there regularly. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 13:20, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^{Talk Email} 17:23, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Hi. I noticed your action/explanation at WP:RFPP regarding Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories. You might want to check that article's talk page and add a comment to the existing semi-protection discussion there, just for completeness' sake. Thanks. — Richwales 01:27, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

• Done. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 01:37, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

It would appear that things are progressing in the right direction. Well done! (If I were into barnstars, I'd probably give you one.) I'm taking you off my watchlist, but you do know how to contact me - if you ever wish to, please don't hesitate to do so. Good luck and best wishes! Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 09:55, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

BTW: That box is still saying: "I will revert only once in a 24 hour period and then discuss". Pdfpdf (talk) 10:08, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

He is doing better, it's a marathon, not a sprint, but I have high hopes. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 18:55, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

I see you have left Anthony Bradbury a message about the User Talk page, I have asked for it to be restored as U1 does not apply to user talk pages. I also have found my sock scene twitching with this 1 month old user so his talk page may help identify any sock-relationship. Mtking ^(edits) 01:05, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

• U1 can sometimes apply in a WP:RTV, but even then it is rare, but since he has claimed he was outed, I would have supported it. Of course, now he is claiming I outed him, which is bizarre and obviously untrue. He's written DGG, which is fine (DGG has been familiar with me for years and knows better) and I would allow any CU or other "test" they want to give, I know I would never out anyone. I've used the same email here since day one, and anyone that was even remotely good could literally pinpoint my home address if they were a smart cookie, based on just my edits and history here. I don't even try to hide my info or email. What is particularly crazy is now he is posting as an IP, which is very easily traceable to his town. Not smart for someone complaining of being outed. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 01:13, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

According to the WP:CSD page "In exceptional cases user talk pages may be deleted via Miscellany for Deletion (see right to vanish); they are not eligible for speedy deletion under this criterion." (my bold).

For what it is worth I think the whole RTV/Outing thing is some sort of smoke screen, two much does not add up about this user. Mtking ^(edits) 01:21, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

You can always go to deletion review, but I think it is better to explain this to the admin and let him do the right thing. I wasn't familiar with the process, just the basics, as I've never "vanished", and most people who do are polite enough to stay vanished. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 01:55, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Please run as many check users as possible. I heartily endorse it. I have never been a sockpuppet or a meatpuppet. I have never encouraged a sockpuppet or meatpuppet. I have no knowledge of anyone who has been or is a sockpuppet or meatpuppet. If I could demand a check I would. Factseducado (talk) 01:23, 21 May 2012 (UTC) Dennis, I have not been posting as an IP. Your statement is again the misleading and I think you are well aware of that since I have explained exactly what happened. A number of times going back many weeks I have been logged out of WP for no reason known to me. I have then logged in and identified myself with the comments written as an IP. I feel threatened by your writing that you can find my hometown using my IP. Is that what you intend?Factseducado (talk) 01:27, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

• I was talking about them running any check they want on ME to disprove your claims. I didn't know where you lived until you were silly enough to post an IP and connect your name to it. And yes you did post as an IP, [2] and other places. You added your name at the end of the IP. And any fool can just enter "locate x.x.x.x" in google and find where an ip is out of. We even have some tools here at wikipedia. YOU just outed yourself, which was quite foolish. Now please stay off my talk page. You have accused me of doing what you so foolishly have done yourself. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 01:32, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

• Please note that Factseducado has been indef blocked for sockpuppetry. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 13:21, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

• Hi Dennis, I have posted this on Elen of the Roads talk page but thought I should do so here, too. In cyberspace many things can happen. Factseducado could be up to all the nefarious things of which he is accused, but

I became acquainted with him working on the Theosophy article. I found him to be sensible and rather new to Wikipedia's ways. At one point, I presented a brief tutorial which he found useful. Factseducado, another editor, and I worked together quite congenially and it surprises me that he has been banned. I think the evidence for his banning is rather weak. It seems that he has done nothing demonstrably wrong other than having incriminated himself. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 17:29, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

It is a bit more complicated than that, there are other elements that may not be apparent at this time. His other work looked fine, but then he began a smear campaign against me, accusing me quite publicly of trying to out him and sending harassing emails to him. I told him he needed to submit the evidence to ArbCom, but he refused to do so. I had no choice but to ask someone from ArbCom to review, if only to clear my own name and stop these personal attacks. I contacted Elen, noted the oddness of the situation, she took it upon herself to CU the editor, based upon her own suspicions, and found he was guilty of sockpuppeting. That he had outed himself made it easy to accomplish. I don't think her reaction would have been any different had he not commented at all. Keep in mind, he had improperly gotten his talk page speedy deleted (strictly against policy) which looked very suspicious, asked to exercise his right to vanish under WP:RTV then refused to comply with the terms of vanishing by continuing to bludgeon the RFC/U. She really didn't have a choice but to take action, if nothing else, on sockpuppetry. Additionally, the vicious personal attacks against myself was being used to undermine my credibility in an RFC/U regarding another editor whom I had experience with. Had I been uninvolved, at the least, I would have considered a short term block based solely on the personal attacks and other behaviors exibited, so the net result is the same. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 17:46, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

• Thanks for the explanation. I understand. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 17:54, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Hi Donald, fancy meeting you here. Dennis, correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't there circumstances when it's OK to have multiple accounts, as long as they aren't being used in an abusive manner? I only have one, but I've considered creating a second account myself to use in contentious topics that I avoid because I don't want to get involved in the drama. You and Elen probably have more info than the rest of us, and I agree that his accusations against you are wildly peculiar, but since User:NewtonGeek hadn't edited anything but his own user page, can that really be evidence of socking? Could the creation of User:NewtonGeek, along with Factseducado's RTV, perhaps be a botched attempt at a FreshStart? Mojoworker (talk) 18:38, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

• Yes, but in all cases they must be declared, along with the intent of the second account (ie: for use when on insecure networks, doppelganger, humor, bots, etc.). Accounts that are created and not used, and simply held in reserve (in case your main account gets blocked, for instance) are called sleepers. It is a common method employed by serial puppetmasters. They can be accused of socking simply because the two accounts can be linked to the same person. WP:SOCKS is worth a read. Any second account that is not declared (either in public or privately to ArbCom before starting) is a defacto sock account, regardless of how it is used, and in particular if it isn't used, as you can't guess what the motivations are. I see socks blocked all the time without a second mention. Why this one is attracting so much attention is puzzling. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 18:46, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
  • (RE to Mojoworker)Parden my jumping in, but WP:RTV does not grant the right to create a new account immediately. It grants the right to permanently disappear from Wikipedia. The right to start clean again is codified by WP:CLEANSTART. That the user in question was claiming RTV and then not vanishing after being warned multiple times of their options, suggests that the indef block and Sockpuppet marking is an attempt to avoid scruitiny. Hasteur (talk) 18:54, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

• (Hi Mojoworker, its been awhile.) I could be wrong but Factseducado did not know his way around Wikipedia well enough to do all these things with ill intent. It seemed as though he didn't know what he was doing and tried all sorts of naive things. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 20:36, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

• Attacking me and accusing me of sending harassing emails and threatening to out him? And refusing to go to ArbCom with his evidence and instead undermining a RFC/U with constant vicious claims? He wasn't so innocent in every way. I'm quite tolerant of simple name calling, and shrug it off like water on a ducks back, but not so of attacks against my character when my input is required at a noticeboard. You don't have to be a wikilawyer to know that such things are wrong and improper. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 21:08, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

• I agree. We all would respond similarly under such attacks. Didn't he at one point suggest that someone had usurped his login information and was using his name? Dennis, I am not trying to negate the concerns you have raised. Rather, I am attempting to add to the information we have about him. Wikipedia is a window on the world in all its complexity. Blocking indefinitely seems fair to you, I suppose. Yet, I sense the loss of someone who showed promise and wish the block had some hope of duration limit to it. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 23:04, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

• I have no problem with him coming back, but after he does one of two things: 1. Presents all his evidence to ArbCom against me, or categorically withdraws any claim against me regarding harassment, outing and bad faith. I did no such thing to him and would be just as happy with either solution, even if I don't look forward to an investigation. If someone IS trying to out him, it needs attention. However, anyone who knows anything about me in the least, would know that I put character and principle above all else here, and to undermine me in this way without the willingness to back the claims or retract them, is completely unacceptable. I'm not exactly new to Wikipedia, and just passed through the RfA gantlet, so most everything about me is quite public. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 23:10, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Us non-admins depend on admins for their careful experienced thought. The two-part solution makes sense; i.e. make the case or admit that you were incorrect. Dennis, I appreciate your desire for your reputation to be kept in tact. It still is, as I see it. :) DonaldRichardSands (talk) 23:27, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Dennis, can you please undo the archiving that Jasper did at ANI, if you think it's appropriate. Based on his edit summary, Jasper seems to think he can archive it because he started it. That might be so if there wasn't subsequent discussion, but the discussion was not only ongoing, it was spreading to other areas, not just the ban but the blocks themselves, by various admins and other senior editors. I don't want to battle with Jasper over this. If you agree with Jasper, that's fine, too. I suppose the discussion can continue above the subsection, but it's annoying for him to be so quick on the trigger finger. Let me know what you think.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:14, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

• Normally, I would agree with you on this, but since every vote is an oppose, I'm willing to consider this a "withdraw proposal" just to let the dramah die down, even if it isn't proper. I will leave a note on his talk page about it though. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 18:17, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

• Thanks, sounds like a reasonable approach (it is stirring a lot of drama, isn't it?).--Bbb23 (talk) 18:27, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

• He and I are talking about it on his talk page. He really is a good guy, he just wants to jump in and FIX THINGS!!!111 Well, as you know, you can't do that at ANI. You can't approach problems like they are pit bull, else you get bit. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 18:36, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
• And you must think I'm some kind of freak. I do tend to do things differently than other the stereotypical admin. I would like to think that is a good thing. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 18:37, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

• I think you're a major asset to the project. You look at things freshly. You're practical. Your objective is always to resolve things in a commonsense, sensitive, and forward-thinking way. I may not agree with every single action you take, but I always understand what you're doing and why. And in this particular case I have no quarrel with the way you handled the archiving issue. By the way, it's just not my day. I was just about to question why Raul thought that mismarking accounts as banned was "trivial", and right in the middle Egghead archived the discussion. I gotta be faster. :-) --Bbb23 (talk) 19:41, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

• I had asked twice for someone to archive it. ANI isn't the right place to ask that, go to his talk page. That whole section shouldn't have been more then 10 comments, and it spiraled out of control. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 19:43, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

• No, I'm not going to take it to his Talk page. As it is, lately I've been taking a lot of things to admin talk pages. However, what I would like to do is to change the ban documentation process so that any time a ban is issued, complete or topic, it's logged and available at the banned account (similar to a block). This free-for-all trying to find whether a ban was issued, who issued it, and what it was, is a nightmare. I'm just not sure where to go to do that. User:Equazcion thinks I should take it to VP proposals, although he also said, "it might be seen as inviting the community to participate in enforcing user sanctions, so I have a feeling it wouldn't do that well." Do you have any thoughts before I go out on a limb here?--Bbb23 (talk) 19:51, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

• Actually, that sounds like a good idea. Me personally, I would make a subpage(s) in user space, canvass for help from editors and coders, develop a reasonable mock up of what it would look like, how it would be organized, and how you could accomplish it in code, then move forward. Take two weeks to do this, so when you do go to the pump, you aren't talking purely hypothetical. Having a "prototype" and some proof of concept code makes it 100x more likely to get through. Of course, that is based on my real world experience, not so much wiki-experience. The two weeks also gives you time to attract very experienced and influential people to your cause, which never hurts. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 20:06, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

• That sounds very much like work to me. :-) Any suggestions as to which "editors and coders" to approach?--Bbb23 (talk) 20:09, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Scottywong seems to love coding and knows the API. EQ loves to tweak the interface. TParis likes to code as well, and he seems to like "order" in things. And yes it is work, change always is. You reduce the load by doing it in the spirit of rock soup. You start the thing, get a few, they bring their friends and contacts, everyone does a little, or someone just jumps in and makes it work. On projects like this, typically what is missing is leadership to get things started, and keep it on track. That would be your role. Make this happen, then soon after start your RfA while everyone is feeling warm and fuzzy about you :) I would co-nom you, although I doubt that would help you. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 20:17, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Interesting statement: Ent doesn't seem to care much for me either, although I have no idea why -- how would "caring for you" improve Wikipedia? Nobody Ent 23:12, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

• It wouldn't. It was just an observation during mentoring. It doesn't affect your actions or mine, but was a good point to make to someone who has had problems getting along with others, that two people who don't seem to "click" on some things can still work side by side without incident, in a professional way. As to hard evidence, I suppose I have none other than a gut feeling. I've always had a great deal of respect for you, even in the rare times when we disagree on finer points. I have a strong personality and not everyone is going to appreciate my way of doing things. That someone wouldn't care for my methods would hardly shock me. It wouldn't deter me from interacting with them, or change how I interact with them, but it doesn't shock me. I apologize if I offended you, as I wasn't passing judgement in any way. I was only saying that I did not know the reason. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 23:30, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Not offended. I've serendipitously ended up spending most of time on Wikipedia in conflict resolution and it's my observation that editors who are part of social networks end up having their objectivity questioned; It's fair to say that, with a couple exceptions, I interact in a way that would make it seem that I don't care for anybody, so this is not a personal reflection on you. On Wikipedia, everything you say will be used against you. FWIW, I thought you started out a bit rough when you got the mop -- best exemplified by the editor who told you to get off your high horse -- but have more recently seemed to have "found your groove." The only advice I'll offer is the next time you're reviewing ANI -- and it's not fun -- be willing to take a break. Nobody Ent 00:26, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Actually, he was much less kind that that and used a few choice words. A couple of conversations later he then said "Thanks for your offer, Dennis, which I accept; you will be my go-to admin in future. This is the first time in over five years of editing that any admin has reached out to me in this way, and I much appreciate that." [3], so it actually came out better than you might have guessed. This was after I went to his talk page and addressed his concerns, instead of worrying about his insults. I wasn't worried how I looked, only how he felt, so I didn't link any of that at the ANI. I've had a few cases like that, and they always come around because I don't get upset at them and just take the time. I expect insults from time to time, and it rolls off my back quite easily, I just ignore and answer politely, which really messes with their heads ;) I understand they might be saying it to me, but really directing it to Wikipedia, or admins in general, or their frustration, so it is pretty easy to overlook. I'm not a fan of drama, and sometimes I piss off some people who are trying to ramp it up at ANI when I go to their talk page and politely help them understand why drama is bad, or I just cut them off and close the ANI, then go deal with the problem on the two editors talk pages (They usually don't see that part). I actually like working ANI because I think I can solve problems quickly and with fewer incidents than some, with fewer blocks. As corny as it sounds, the most gratifying rewards are the comments from regular editors who are grateful that someone explained something to them, took the time to spell out the problem, or provide the solution, or simply not jump to conclusions. I even like the barnstars now, because of what went into giving them. I'm not interested in being the favorite of the admins here, but when regular editors say they think I'm fair and trustworthy or just doing a good job, then seriously, I can think of no better reward. Thanks for your observations and advice, by the way. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 00:53, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Sounds like you quack like I do Nobody Ent 01:38, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Interesting indeed. Very glad you stopped by. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 01:43, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Whack! You've been whacked with a wet trout. Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know you did something silly.

Righteous block, but what's this about coming to ANI???? The editor was obviously trolling and can/should discuss on their talk page with an appropriate unblock request -- not need to hash out on ANI Nobody Ent 18:25, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

• I just had not added the "any admin can unblock" part to his page yet! I just did, at the same time I was getting trouted. It isn't like I'm an expert at blocks. I tried hard to NOT block him last time. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 18:29, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
  • I added {{trout small}} recently, applicable by the victim once they've firmly gotten the point. Just a heads-up. Equazcion ^(talk) 18:31, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

The trout is for inviting them to discuss on ANI -- any unblock discussion doesn't really need to leave their talk page. Nobody Ent 18:34, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

• • • Thank you EQ! I owe you one. And Ent, is it really improper for me to say that any admin at ANI is free to unblock? I don't think it was required, but I'm at a loss as to how it was improper. Being serious, of course. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 18:36, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
      • No, that's fine. But we don't want A Brunus coming to ANI to discuss it -- we want them to discuss on their talk page. Nobody Ent 18:41, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
        • Yes, that is true. Feel free to add on his page, I won't be offended. I'm not an expert at blocking, and don't really care to be. I've always prided myself on my ability to solve problems without blocks. I'm sorry that Drmies doesn't agree with me on this, but I just didn't see any other alternative to stop the disruption NOW. The main page was the icing on the cake. Whether it is good or bad faith, it is still disruptive. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 18:44, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

That's not realistic. Some users are just going to play games until physically stopped. I've seen no sign you're block happy and I've never been one to call for blocks when good faith can be applied, but really -- the main page?? Now their unblock request is being all who me? Don't let them waste your time -- some other admin will come eventually and review the unblock request. Nobody Ent 18:53, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

• Well, it is good to see that they are using rational reasoning now.... I will take your advice and now leave to others to consider. If they want to question me, they can. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 18:56, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

  I did want to note that Drmies turned down their request. Perhaps he went and read the prior ANI, probably didn't catch it the first time and wasn't up on the history. It was still quite fresh in my mind, and I thought I was pretty open minded during the first one as well. I'm wasn't sure if he's trolling or trying to rack up edit points. Doesn't matter, disruption is still disruption. Based on his reaction, we will likely be seeing him 2 or 3 more times. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 02:12, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Has semi-protection been removed early? Because this was supposed to last for a few months and expire 12 August 2012. See the talk page for further details on the currently ongoing "cyber-dispute" due to recent events, and the article history for examples of disruptive editing by IP editors from both countries. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 02:57, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

According to the protection log, this was under Semi-PP until August 2012. Dennis changed it to FPP for 48 hours in response to recent warring, and the new settings overrode the previous protection, thus after 48 hours all protection expired. Salvidrim! 03:12, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Would it be reasonable for me to request that Semi-PP to August 2012 be re-instated? Otherwise we're going to have the same problems we had before Semi-PP. Things are relatively peaceful now because we don't have to revert IP edits of "THIS ISLAND BELONGS TO THE PHILIPPINES!!!!111!!!" every 30 minutes. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 03:26, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

I do not think it was Dennis' intention to have the short-term FPP completely disable the other, longer-term SPP; he either hadn't noticed the SPP or didn't realize his change of the settings would mean that it would go completely unprotected after 48hrs; I'd thus think reinstating the initial SPP would be more than reasonable as there has technically been no request nor reason to unprotect. Salvidrim! 03:32, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

I wasn't implying that it was Dennis' intention either, I'm sure he made his edits in good faith in response to the edit war that we had a few days ago. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 05:37, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

• Fixed. I don't think that you can semi and full protect at the same time, so one has to go to make room for the other. Ask anytime. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 11:24, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

hi,,,User:Lalith10 (talk) has been Vandalising my talk page (my talk page history), for that i have reverted his edits. pls look into this matter !!! regards, DRAGON BOOSTER ★ 12:31, 21 May 2012 (UTC).

• I've tried leaving a polite but firm notice on his talk page. Let's see if he is wise enough to take heed. You also need to stop using the tags, and go to the talk page. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 12:46, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

• i don`t get what tags are u talking about? elaborate pls... regards, DRAGON BOOSTER ★ 13:02, 21 May 2012 (UTC).

• These tags [4] and [5]. I'm not saying you did anything wrong, I'm saying that you need to go to the talk page and discuss it, as tagging isn't going to find a resolution and at this point, may escalate things even if you are correct in placing them. He already knows what he is doing, and he has been warned by me. That is all that is needed to take action should he decide to be disruptive. The goal now is to use the article talk page and get a consensus while the page is protected, that was the reason I protected it to begin with. It wasn't a demand, it was a suggestion in the interest of getting the article talk page going, by moving all communications there. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 13:09, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

• Okk ! i got it !!! thanks for all the help..... regards, DRAGON BOOSTER ★ 13:13, 21 May 2012 (UTC).

[6] Nobody Ent 16:42, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

• I respectfully disagree although I do see your point and will reconsider it again later after more time has passed. At the least, it was neutral. Hopefully the light hearted absurdity of my comment was taken in the right vein vane, that the ban is absurd and they need to learn to get along, not avoid each other. One is a major content creator, the other is an administrator, surely they can either get along or agree to disagree. As I see the entire event as absurd, I was trying to interject my own to keep people from thinking that some drastic solution was the answer. I was taking a calculated risk to defuse the situation. But again, I will look at it later and reconsider. I appreciate your concerns. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 16:49, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
• I did make a note to Ryan to let him know that the comment wasn't directed at him personally. I'm not as concerned if Malleus or Scotty took offense but I didn't want Ryan to think I was picking on him. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 17:39, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Didn't say it was offensive.

A couple years ago (if memory serves) ANI was just a horrible pit, with editors (admin and not) trying to outdo each other with "clever repartee." One of the most annoying had a comment to add to every post, it seemed -- he was eventually site banned. My concern is not at all with the comment, but rather that it not form the nucleus of a norm that it's okay to be joking around on ANI. While it would have little impact on SW and/or MF, a newbie editor who makes a good faith (even if possibly misguided) post on ANI deserves better than to find themselves in a "jokefest." While there's no doubt you would adjust your contributions depending on the situation not all editors have your judgement, so I think it'd be better if we all model boring decorum on ANI. Nobody Ent 21:36, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

I just wanted to seek clarification. Was the newbie editor thing hypothetical? I assume it was. Ryan Vesey Review me! 22:03, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't have a specific instance in mind, but in the "dark years" pretty much anyone who posted to ANI with other than a slam dunk incident was likely to have an unpleasant reception. Nobody Ent 22:11, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

• I swear I replied to this but can't find the diff. Getting senile I suppose. But point taken. It is a shame as once in a blue moon, sarcasm or absurdity is a useful tool. I can't say I won't ever use them, but I will use more discretion as not to incidentally encourage undesirable behavior. Thanks for the insight. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 00:12, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 17:29, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

User:99.251.114.120 99.251.114.120 (talk) 04:40, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Sorry about the format but I am now getting tag-teamed by some of the same gang again...LOL. Please have a look at the events taking place on my talk page and give me some instruction on how to proceed with ammends of defences to end this. Your time would be appreciated. My edit time is just being wasted, now. Thanx! 99.251.114.120 (talk) 03:12, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Good find. This set of hoaxes goes even deeper than you thought. I just sent similarly hoaxy Haweli Ek Paheli to AFD. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 06:09, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the link. While some earlier edits appear okay, the overall pattern seems to be from folks who do not have clue and will bear watching. I have already notified User:Silver Screen Awards of issues with his choice of username. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 00:35, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

• I don't think there is such a user, per se. I'm betting the one editor has all those accounts. That strongly looks like sockpuppets, even if he has no ill intent, ie: just reserving the names. Lady is pretty good at sniffing those out, which is why I dropped it on her lap. It isn't a rush thing, as I don't think he is going to break anything, but it needs someone more familiar with socking. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 00:37, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Agreed. And no doubt the anon IP related to all those articles is the same person as the various user accounts. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:55, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
• Update: The entire box of puppets found has been quickly confirmed by checkuser and have been dealt with accordingly. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:33, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
  • I saw that! A whole nest of the nasty little boogers. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 20:08, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Greetings Dennis,

Not sure how to address this issue, so I'll just jump right in and let you figure out what to do. IP46.12.192.244 (talk · contribs) has breached twice in 2 days, the 1RR rule that's currently in place at WP:NCMAC. I have issued 2 NCMAC warnings on each occasion; but I'm not sure if this second breach for the same offence on the same article warrants a block or not. Thanks in advance. Wesley☀Mouse 11:08, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Ignore that. Just noticed its a different IP with an almost identical IP46.12.92.124 (talk · contribs) address that made the second edit. Most likely the same user - which if that is the case, then probably needs a range block. Wesley☀Mouse 11:12, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

• Was about to say the same thing. I haven't done a range block, however, and would hesitate to do so at this stage of my Jedi training. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 11:14, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

• I've just done a whois check for both IP addresses, and they do belong to a person called "Kotsilis Dimitrios" if that helps. Wesley☀Mouse 11:19, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

That is just the contact name for that ISPs block of addresses. You might have someone more experienced look at it, as there is a small chance that one or more is an open proxy. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 11:26, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

yea im very mad — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.46.101.180 (talk) 15:35, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

• And i'm confident that in time, your anger will dissipate. However, he does have a point that there is a 1RR rule in place, so you should take it to the talk page of the article, and not revert more than one per day, or you force me and/or others to block you based solely on that rule. Those are the breaks. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 15:39, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

• The comment above was made by the person I mentioned on AN/I. GwenChan 17:30, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• I'm not saying there is a WP:COI, only that I can see why someone would be concerned. Tagging for COI isn't a sign of bad faith, as COI editing is not prohibited. The article does look a bit flowery to me, which is the first sign of a potential COI. I would not have tagged as such, but I wouldn't have scolded someone else who did. He should have then taken it to the talk page, but these other issues came up. I don't doubt your ability an editor, and I understand my own bias, but I still think you are being unnecessarily harsh in your assessment of his actions and misinterpreting a great deal. My role as mentor is solely on behavioral issues, not content, and I am not an apologist for his actions in anything. When appropriate, I'm not hesitant to forcefully correct him, but I don't see that this is needed here. Assuming good faith is a two way street. If you find his actions lack sufficient knowledge of the subject matter, I would have suggested a more neutral way of expressing this, as is the norm in any content dispute[7]. I would expect no less from an editor of your capability and experience. Redlinking is not vandalism, even if you found it contentious. As admin, I have to spend a great deal of time explaining this to others, so I'm confident in my judgement of what is or is not properly defined as vandalism here. He might be more aggressive in his actions than you prefer (and perhaps I as well), but so is jumping to your rather hasty conclusions in assuming his efforts were in bad faith, which itself is in bad faith and excessive. I'm suggesting everyone tone it down, go to the talk page of the article and discuss the concerns, and that both of you act in a measured way that assumes the best of faith in each other at this point. I'm not interested in debating who is wrong or right, I'm interested in facilitating a resolution to the legitimate concerns regarding the article. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 13:50, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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