User talk: Kim Dent-Brown

Kim Dent-Brown - Talk page Home Talk Editing activity Barnstarium Editing tools Userboxen Userspace sitemap I am a Wikipedia administrator open to recall. Talk archives can be seen here You can email me from this link but in the interests of Wiki-transparency, please message me on this page unless there are pressing reasons to do otherwise.

Ralph Cupper Not sure if you wanted me to write here or in my talk page, so I am just writing here that I replied to you on my talk page, with a link about 5 norwegian newspaper articles about the CDs Ralph Cupper and Inge Haugen made, this should prove that he has one of the criteria of that link you gave me. Anyway check out my talk page. -mpc TUSC token fd9dc9b1cea75d40a8197b4331615093 I am now proud owner of a TUSC account! Did you know? Thank you for your answer, my friend! I hope you will participate to this discuss on the link that you send to me. Best reguards! Bastien Sens-Méyé discuss 13:55, 3 october 2011 (CEST) New Page Patrol survey New page patrol – Survey Invitation Hello Kim Dent-Brown! The WMF is currently developing new tools to make new page patrolling much easier. Whether you have patrolled many pages or only a few, we now need to know about your experience. The survey takes only 6 minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist us in analyzing the results of the survey; the WMF will not use the information to identify you. If this invitation also appears on other accounts you may have, please complete the survey once only. If this has been sent to you in error and you have never patrolled new pages, please ignore it. Please click HERE to take part. Many thanks in advance for providing this essential feedback. You are receiving this invitation because you have patrolled new pages. For more information, please see NPP Survey Duplicated Material There is now material that appears TWICE in the Germanic neopaganism page: once in the introduction and once in the heathen sub-section. May I suggest that you remove it from the intro? I would do it, but our heathen friend would go thermonuclear. This is the material in the intro: Historically, the term was influenced by the Gothic term *haiþi, appearing as haiþno in the Gothic Bible of Wulfila for translating gunē Hellēnis, "Greek (id est gentile) woman" of Mark 7:26, probably with an original meaning "dwelling on the heath", but it is also likely that it was chosen because of its similarity to Greek ethne "gentile" or that it is not related to "heath" at all, but rather a loan from Armenian hethanos, itself loaned from Greek ethnos. This is the material in the Heanthenry sub-section: In the Sagas, the terms heiðni and kristni (Heathenry and Christianity) are used as polar terms to describe the older and newer faiths. Historically, the term was influenced by the Gothic term *haiþi, appearing as haiþno in Ulfilas' bible for translating gunē Hellēnis, "Greek (i.e. gentile) woman" of Mark 7:26, probably with an original meaning "dwelling on the heath", but it was also suggested by Jakob Grimm in his Teutonic Mythology that it was chosen because of its similarity to Greek ethne "gentile" or even that it is not related to "heath" at all, but rather a loan from Armenian hethanos, itself loaned from Greek ethnos. --ThorLives (talk) 02:18, 30 January 2012 (UTC) Germanic Neopaganism: howdy! Thor, heathen friends, do they believe in 'thermonuclear' in the first place? Isn't "berserk" the proper term? Drmies (talk) 17:39, 30 January 2012 (UTC) Hi there Drmies, good to have you on the page. As you'll see from the talk page I have been longing for some other folks to come along and help with actual article writing there, rather than engaging in long talk-page arguments. So it was very good to see your edits, none of which I had a problem with. If you stick around it will be interesting to see how they go down with other regulars on the page. Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 18:37, 30 January 2012 (UTC) Yep. One thing led to another and I've been going through some of the articles related to the topic, mostly organizations. There's a wealth of fan talk and POV editing going on there as well, but that was to be expected. I was happy to see you on the talk page, though. Anyway, I gotta go and sacrifice a virgin lamb now, since the Milky Way is in the Western house and on a collision course with Mars. Happy editing, Drmies (talk) 18:39, 30 January 2012 (UTC) Mr. Dent-Brown, thank you for the "heads up" on the complaint, but what should I do? When I went to the page in question, I noticed that it is for administrators only. By the way, although I complained about the Bhlegkorbh edits, I did not actually reverse them. That was done by an administrator after my complaints. --ThorLives (talk) 23:36, 30 January 2012 (UTC) Addendum: The deletion was made by this administrator, and I fully support him! [1] --ThorLives (talk) 23:44, 30 January 2012 (UTC) Hi there, the page is not exclusively for administrators; anybody can post there. Particularly, if you have been the subject of a complaint raised there you have every right (and might be expected) to do so. However, the complaint has been pretty firmly handled by Drmies and in this case it might be simplest and wisest just to let the item close - or at the very most to post a very short note indicating that you've seen the item and don't have anything to add to Drmies' comments. Anything more might be superfluous and could be seen as rubbing salt into Bhlegkorbh's wounds. Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 23:50, 30 January 2012 (UTC) Indeed. BTW, Thor, while I think the complaint had little merit, right now yours are the edits causing some disruption. You're not helping the cause, I'm afraid. Drmies (talk) 14:58, 2 February 2012 (UTC) Gentlemen, disrupting the article was not my intention, but I see that even the best intentions may not always foster peace. On the positive side, the article is much better than it was in the dark days of November 2011, so I will "stand down" and let others make the improvements. --ThorLives (talk) 07:31, 4 February 2012 (UTC) ThorLives, I'll say the same to you as I did to Bhlegkorbh in these circumstances - I hope you reconsider and can find a way of editing here (and bringing your undoubted expertise) to collaboratively improve the article. I agree with you it's better than it was but I also think it has a ways to go! Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 00:13, 5 February 2012 (UTC) Ashoka Can we move protect it? There are many attempts to move it. --Redtigerxyz Talk 13:45, 5 February 2012 (UTC) Already done :) I just made it a week of move protection, we can extend this if the problem persists. Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 13:46, 5 February 2012 (UTC) I just saw the move in my watchlist and pinged you. Impatient me. :) Anyway Thanks. --Redtigerxyz Talk 13:48, 5 February 2012 (UTC) No probs. I have it on my watchlist now and will be keeping an eye on it. Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 13:52, 5 February 2012 (UTC) Good to know Belatedly off-topic, I hope I just saw you add your real-life research to your user page. It looks like an intriguing field for the complete outsider that I am. I guess the drama boards here do work as dramatherapy for some, but not for others. I'd be interested to hear your professional opinion on that issue. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 12:13, 7 February 2012 (UTC) Not a field on which I have any data, but my own view is that they neither do, nor should, work as therapy for anyone! I think the disinhibiting nature of the www means that people say far more, more quickly, and in a more extreme way than they would do in a more socially moderated environment. And the results are rarely, if ever good! But thanks for noticing my bit of vanity on my user page.... Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 12:33, 7 February 2012 (UTC) I think you do have a point that entertainment (particularly that at the expense of others) is not exactly therapy if it reinforces anti-social traits or behavior. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 12:40, 7 February 2012 (UTC) Oops the lead Yeah you're right to remove that, I was actually going to but I copypasted it down while I was working on rewording things and forgot to remove it after --Mistress Selina Kyle (Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉) 20:11, 7 February 2012 (UTC) No problem - I thought it looked out of character with the rest of your draft. I was actually OK with the longer version (I do think Wicca is essentially duotheistic...) but I like crispness in a lede too, so it's all good. Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 20:14, 7 February 2012 (UTC) Gotta ask ...so did you actually meet/see Hess at Spandau?VolunteerMarek 21:13, 7 February 2012 (UTC) Didn't meet him, but did see him. The article on Spandau Prison gives the background - I was there in 1986, the year before Hess died. Each month, one of the Four-Power Authorities took it in turn to guard the exterior of the prison as well as the gatehouse, and I commanded the guard platoon there on a couple of occasions. We walked the perimeter walls and could wander at will round the grounds and outbuildings. Only the central keep where Hess was imprisoned was out of bounds. It was a spooky place, essentially untouched since May 1945. I only saw Hess a couple of times at 50yds or so distance. He would slowly walk out to his summer house in the garden, my memory was that he was a tall, stooped over figure with a slow shuffling gait. I gather after he died the buildings were pulverised and the dust dumped in the North Sea to prevent it becoming a shrine. Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 23:19, 7 February 2012 (UTC) Thank you for that little chunk of history.VolunteerMarek 02:12, 8 February 2012 (UTC) A Barnstar For You Hasteur (talk) has given you a plate of hummus! Hummus is a specialty of the Middle East. With some pita bread, they are delicious and promote WikiLove. Hopefully, this one has added flavor to your day. For handing out a Ban to Andy The Grump and making ANI a less toxic dumping ground. Spread the goodness of hummus by adding {{subst:Hummus}} to someone's Talk page with a friendly message! Give a plate of hummus to someone you've had disagreements with in the past, or to a good friend. Thank you - it feels awkward to be thanked for handing out a block (not a ban...) as it's not a thing I ever enjoy doing. Andy is a good veteran editor and he lost it momentarily. But hopefully if the result that people feel slightly less free to dump on others in future it's a net gain. Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 20:55, 8 February 2012 (UTC) Without passing judgement either way on the other editor mentioned in the barnstar, I wholeheartedly approve of your initiatives on ANI as well. And it does seem that you managed to lead by example, because a few other admins are more proactive there now. I hope the trend is going to last. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 21:02, 8 February 2012 (UTC) In no way was I disparaging Andy, simply Kudos-ing you for having the chutzpah to actively detoxify the board. Hasteur (talk) 21:38, 8 February 2012 (UTC) Thank you both, I really appreciate your comments. Yes I've noticed a change in the atmosphere at AN/I too. Maybe the collective wobble we all had a day or two ago was just what we needed to get our collective act together! Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 21:48, 8 February 2012 (UTC) Hey remember it was me who that said the insults were getting out of hand in the first place, you were/are supporting baseball bugs? :) Do you still really really hold by the assumption of bad faith you made against me accusing me of some machiavellian rubbish whilst glorifying the one trolling, reallyreally? To me it looks like my refuse to get back to the bus when trolled moment[2][3], which I got blocked for, has made more people realise more should stand up to it[4]? --Mistress Selina Kyle (Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉) 00:35, 9 February 2012 (UTC) You should be aware that at this very moment the admin who unblocked you is being pressured by an Arbitrator to reverse himself. So, it's a little early for you to head for the rooftops again. Let the admins deal with the Bugs infestation of their own premises. Take that as a friendly advice. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 01:47, 9 February 2012 (UTC) yeah I wasn't intending to get involved don't worry, thought maybe Kim would agree that i was good intentioned in reporting stuff now ~nods and sighs~ I'll just shutup --Mistress Selina Kyle (Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉) 01:57, 9 February 2012 (UTC) Hi Selina, looking back I suspect there were mistakes made on all sides. If I made some I apologise; you've changed your approach and made some sensible decisions subsequently; there seems to be a consensus towards keeping you unblocked now; even AN/I is a more businesslike place for now! So maybe good things can come out of difficult times. Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 16:15, 9 February 2012 (UTC) Just a note appreciate all your wonderful and hard work on the AN and AN/I stuff. :) — Ched :  ?  14:27, 9 February 2012 (UTC) Thanks a lot Ched. It's intrinsically rewarding when people just respond to the threads I've started (and even more so that AN/I seems to be having a good day today.) But it's also very nice to get a personal not, thank you!! Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 16:16, 9 February 2012 (UTC) Note If the discussion had been strictly about the blocked editor, it wouldn't have "involved" me. However, as certain editors saw fit to try and blame me for getting that editor blocked, they opened that door. Feel free to point that out to them. And you're right, I've made my positions clear, so dat's dat. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:52, 9 February 2012 (UTC) It was your comments on censoring/removing the "bullshit" remark that were unnecessary. !Voting unblock for MSK and even commenting on your own involvement was OK I think; but going further was unwise and ran counter to what I thought you had agreed to. Anyway, 'nuff said and I will now invoke the 4th power of the Sphinx upon myself. Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 16:57, 9 February 2012 (UTC) Perhaps it's just as well I don't know what that is. I'm not into Sphinxes. As regards Tarc, I don't know what I did in the past to incur his wrath, but as a wikipedia citizen I don't think censorship of comments is right. But whatever. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:02, 9 February 2012 (UTC) [5] Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 17:07, 9 February 2012 (UTC) OK, "silence". Not sure that qualifies as a "power", although it probably took some will-power not to yelp when Napoleon's soldiers shot his nose off. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:11, 9 February 2012 (UTC) I am trying to become a useful idiot for the admin cabal See this feeble attempt. If you have any comments... ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 17:14, 9 February 2012 (UTC) A barnstar for you! The Admin's Barnstar Thank you so much for patrolling WP:Dramaboard during this difficult period. Your work has really helped to shut down the current drama frenzy and helped people focus on editing rather than battling each other. Dianna (talk) 15:15, 10 February 2012 (UTC) Thanks so much Diannaa, I really appreciate the barnstar! The best thing is of course that the input really does seem to be having an effect at the moment, and everyone seems to be collaborating to make it a better place. I'm not so stupid as to think the change is permanent, but if we can distinguish what makes AN/I run well from what makes it run badly, maybe we can increase the ratio of good days to bad ones. Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 15:25, 10 February 2012 (UTC) User:Twomorerun Kim: Thank you for closing out the AN/I report on this user, and for putting the note on his page. If I'm right about this editor being the IPs from the past, their pattern has been to move along to another IP, or maybe, in this case, an ID. If I notice this happening, would it be OK to let you know so you can take a look and see what you think? Best, Beyond My Ken (talk) 16:54, 10 February 2012 (UTC) Yes of course, that would be great. It's all very well me threatening fire and brimstone but if I don't know they're up to their tricks again it's all bluster! So if you could keep an eye open that would be excellent, thanks! Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 16:59, 10 February 2012 (UTC) Thank you. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:35, 10 February 2012 (UTC) Speed closing getting out of hand There is a reason we don't archive threads for 24 hours on AN/I. There are many time zones and in many cases you're archiving threads very shortly after the last comment to them. This limits input and hampers discussion.--Crossmr (talk) 00:25, 11 February 2012 (UTC) I take the point about threads not leaving the board for 24 hours because of timezone issues. But I still think they can be helpfully closed after less than that time (eg by use of the {{archivetop}} template.) Of course that template is not very helpfully named because it doesn't actually archive anything. We're not archiving threads any faster than before but we are closing them more quickly and decisively when it's clear they have been dealt with. In no case this week have I seen a quickly-closed case which would have benefitted from being left open so people from the opposite hemisphere could comment... But your point of view would be very valuable over at Wikipedia talk:Administrators' noticeboard, would you consider posting there? We are in danger of congratulating ourselves on a job well done (so far) and if you think otherwise it would be good to hear from you. Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 00:43, 11 February 2012 (UTC) What you consider dealt with and what another person considers dealt with might be two separate things. In some cases it is a binary yes or no, but in a case where it's subjective, it certainly isn't. Let's take the Jasper Deng thread as an example. I made a comment, and while I was sleeping you yet again closed it. But, before it got closed Jasper gave us more interesting information. That he was under mentorship. Doing some checking, I actually found this behaviour to be a long term and on-going behavioural issue for him. One for which has generated consensus discussions twice before that his editing was not okay and had to be changed. This is a discussion which clearly isn't over--Crossmr (talk) 00:55, 11 February 2012 (UTC) Indeed, I absolutely agree I'm not infallible! In a system where we close early, there will be some false negatives - ie reports closed that should have been left open. But if new information emerges they can (and have been) re-opened. The danger of closing too late is that there will be more false positives - ie reports left open that should have been shut. These are the ones which generate dramaah and once it develops momentum it's very hard to shut it down. But I think this discussion would be very useful over at Talk:AN/I. Would you mind if I copied it there? (Tomorrow, going to bed now...!) Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 01:00, 11 February 2012 (UTC) Oops - I see you have already posted here, thanks! Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 01:02, 11 February 2012 (UTC) (ec)If you want, I've made a couple of comments there already. Unfortunately false negatives are quite damaging to the project. Most of the drama I've seen on AN/I tends to come from a few sources, and it should be dealt with appropriately if it's disruptive. But we risk driving people away more by closing discussions down than leaving them open a little long. People can ignore a drama thread, but if their issue or an issue they're interested in gets shut down prematurely they're going to feel frustrated. The less experienced an editor is, the more likely they are to possibly just leave because of it. More than once I've felt complaints against certain admins (not made by me) that had merit were shut down very quickly, much like this Jasper Deng thread merely because the community got together and gutted the messenger. After it happens several times it could almost be made to seem as if certain things were being swept under the rug. If an editor who has been here nearly 6 years can feel like that, imagine what a user who'd only been here a month might think--Crossmr (talk) 01:12, 11 February 2012 (UTC) VP thread on new "admin abuse" noticeboard You might be interested in m:Requests for comment/Gwen Gale. --He to Hecuba (talk) 00:42, 11 February 2012 (UTC) Post at Moni's page Hi Kim - just alerting you in case this is of interest to you. User_talk:Moni3#Work_proceeds. Cheers Manning (talk) 03:49, 13 February 2012 (UTC) Update - I felt it was time to centralize this ANI analysis discussion. Please feel free to join me at User:Manning Bartlett/Moni3 ANI analysis. Manning (talk) 02:10, 15 February 2012 (UTC) Stavgard/Tore Gannholm FYI: I don't doubt that it really is him. And yes, he is famous, on Gotland. He is a well known local original and local-patriotic pseudo-historian. He has a lot of good points but, as all pseudo-historians, lack all forms of self-criticism. His books are self-published and not reliable sources. --OpenFuture (talk) 11:48, 14 February 2012 (UTC) I assumed as much - but of course you are quite right that whoever he is, he has to learn how we work here and play by the same rules as the rest of us. I'm not optimistic but will keep AGF until proven otherwise. Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 11:57, 14 February 2012 (UTC) I don't think there is any doubt about the good faith. The question is if he will be able to accept Wikipedia policies. Other pseudo-historians I have had internet contact with in relation to Wikipedia has not been able to accept that the outside world doesn't take their word as law, and have ended up leaving, viewing Wikipedia as a Force of Evil, which is sad and bad for everyone. --OpenFuture (talk) 12:07, 14 February 2012 (UTC) I couldn't understand why everything I wrote was refuted. OpenFuture is in Sweden disreputed and what his says about me is a lot of nonsense. If you let him censor everything I write than it is meaningless to use Wikipedia. It is an insult to call me local-patriotic pseudo-historian. I might sue him. I wrote: You are breaking the rules. We can discuss here why you want to stop a paper presented at an international symposium in Moscow and edited by 2 professors and published available for you to buy the book. It fullfills all the requirements. Will I be allowed to continue to censor? Stavgard (talk) 08:15, 17 February 2012 (UTC) OpenFuture is heading a group of disreputed people whose aim is to censor everything they don't like and defame his opponents. Hi was before Christmas banned from the Swedish newspapers. I learnt very much from you and am greatful for this. Stavgard (talk) 08:22, 17 February 2012 (UTC) I have read the Wikipedia rules a few times and As far as I can find, it says: "All reliable sources are, by definition, both published and accessible to at least some people. Sources that are not published (e.g., something someone said to you personally) or not accessible (e.g., the only remaining copy of the book is locked in a vault, with no one allowed to read it) are never acceptable as sources on Wikipedia." In my interpretation I can refer to "2000 Jahre Handel und Kultur im Ostseegebiet - Gotland, Perle der Ostsee" ISBN91-972306-6-9 As far as I can see this book qualifies. If you accept this we can go further. If you search ISBN91-972306-6-9 on Google you will get 109 results" OpenFuture does not accept this. Are you reading the rules in the same way? Stavgard (talk) 08:31, 17 February 2012 (UTC) OK, this has officially become funny. :-) I don't mind Stavgard trying to "out" me. In fact it is interesting to see who he guesses at. He doesn't know who I am, so his guesses will continue to be wrong. --OpenFuture (talk) 10:36, 17 February 2012 (UTC) If anybody wants to talk to me, I'm here too. The organisation I head is the Swedish Skeptics Society, which continues to enjoy good access to the Swedish media. Whether or not we are disreputable depends on whom you ask. Martin Rundkvist (talk) 06:46, 18 February 2012 (UTC) FYI: Föreningen Vetenskap och Folkbildning --OpenFuture (talk) 07:16, 18 February 2012 (UTC) Kim, I'm not sure where to take Stavgard's accusations on my talk page. His unfounded accusation against 2 editors seems to me to amount to gross incivility worthy of a block. Bazj (talk) 22:18, 23 February 2012 (UTC) Kim, I am very greatful to you for the help you gave me re-write the page Astronomical calendars on Gotland. As ref is also an edited paper by two professors at the Institute of Archaeology. Russian Academy of Sciences. I don't know why your friend Martin Rundkvist does not like ref to Institute of Archaeology. Russian Academy of Sciences. He has deleted my article. He started insulting me under the signature OpenFuture. Than he used the signature Mrund to delete my entries. An now he uses Bazj. I presume you have higher ranking than Martin Rundkvist alias OpenFuture alias Mrund alias Bazj It is not acceptable for him to delete links to papers edited by two professors at the Institute of Archaeology. Russian Academy of Sciences. Actually it was you who entered the reference when I wanted to include it last week. The refernce he now has deleted I hope you will take some action. Stavgard (talk) 15:11, 24 February 2012 (UTC) Stavgard (talk) 15:12, 24 February 2012 (UTC) Stavgard (talk) 16:07, 24 February 2012 (UTC) Please read Talk to Grooves (archaeology) and you will understand what Martin Rundkvist alias OpenFuture alias Mrund and alias Bazj It looks like Martin Rundkvist is not interested in Puplicised litterature but prefere his own speculations Stavgard (talk) 17:29, 26 February 2012 (UTC) Stavgard, that page is on my watchlist as you can imagine. I don't need to be directed there by you. But more importantly - STOP MAKING ACCUSATIONS OF SOCKPUPPETRY. Judging from editing patterns to seems to me virtually certain that these are three separate editors. (Mrund has declared that he is Martin Rundkvist and is not editing separately under any other name.) You must not make any further accusations on this or any other talk page. I will regard you doing so as further disruptive editing on your part. Your only course of action if you believe they are one and the same person is to go to WP:SPI and make a report, with evidence. Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 19:51, 26 February 2012 (UTC) I am very tempted to begin claiming that Stavgard is my sockpuppet. Martin Rundkvist (talk) 21:13, 26 February 2012 (UTC) Thanks - Wikiquette assistance Hello Kim. This is just a short note to express my thanks for your time and your wisdom on WP:WQA recently. I’m particularly grateful for the soundness of your contributions at diff1 and diff2. I asked for a sysop to leave a message on a User’s talk page, and you did so HERE. Many thanks. I have made my closing remarks on the thread and I publicly acknowledged your contribution – see my diff Dolphin (t) 01:52, 17 February 2012 (UTC). Edit being repeatedly deleted by a cyberbully Hello, Since Kevin Rutherford wasn't much of a help (actually no help at all), I decided to turn to you. One of my edits is constantly being deleted. I edited the page "Julian Assange" by adding two facts which I've put under a new segment, the common "In popular culture". It has been removed several times, even though there is no reason which would justify that act, since I've written it according to Wikipedia's guidelines. Many articles have that segment, such as "Neil Gaiman" ("References in popular culture ; Gaiman made a guest appearance on long-running cartoon series The Simpsons in 2011, in an episode called The Book Job.") and "Lindsey Buckingham" ("In popular culture ; Lindsey Buckingham has been portrayed by Bill Hader in a recurring sketch titled "What Up With That" on NBC's Saturday Night Live. He appeared as himself on the May 14, 2011, episode during this sketch."). Especially after reading these edits one can see that there is no plausible reason for deleting my edit. In order to avoid the risk of being accused once again of being engaged in an edit war, for a mere act of reaction on my part to someone's act of arbitrariness and to put this once and for all behind, I would like to ask you the following : What am I to do in order to keep individuals from deleting my edit repeatedly and without any reason ? If the two aforementioned segments aren't outside the pale and can be and stay in the respective articles, so can mine. After all, you can see it for yourself ; look up "Difference between revisions" of that page, you will find it under "Revision as of 08:30, 15 February 2012" (In popular culture He will appear on the 500th episode of The Simpsons, which will air on February 19, 2012. He was impersonated three times on NBC's Saturday Night Live by cast member Bill Hader, during December 2010.). As far as I can see, there is not one thing in these edits that could be considered a breach of any of Wikipedia's policies. The only step to be taken by someone in my position that is suggested by Wikipedia (or at least the only one I happened to find) is to discuss it on the talk page, which isn't an option in this case ; discussions with unreasonable individuals who are arbitrary by nature are unfortunately impossible. Someone who responds to my edit with "Trivia - this article doesn't need random 'popular culture' entries, and see WP:CRYSTALBALL" is not open to any rational conversations. As far as I know, that individual has been reported for incivility in February 2012 and during January he has been advised to stop adding unreferenced or poorly referenced biographical content, especially if controversial to articles or any other Wikipedia page and received the following warning : "This is your only warning; if you make personal attacks on other people again, as you did at talk:East Germany, you may be blocked from editing without further notice.". I started contributing to this encyclopedia with the intention to share relevant and valuable information and knowledge with the international community and not to be dragged into an edit war and subsequently being verbally abused by someone who is constantly breaching guidelines and insulting other users. Plus, none of my edits includes speculations, rumors, or any sort of information that is irrelevant and/or false. In this case, both are approriate encyclopedic content ; if "References in popular culture ; Gaiman made a guest appearance on long-running cartoon series The Simpsons in 2011, in an episode called The Book Job." is appropriate, then "In popular culture ; He will appear on the 500th episode of The Simpsons, which will air on February 19, 2012." is as well ; if "In popular culture ; Lindsey Buckingham has been portrayed by Bill Hader in a recurring sketch titled "What Up With That" on NBC's Saturday Night Live. He appeared as himself on the May 14, 2011, episode during this sketch." is approriate, then "He was impersonated three times on NBC's Saturday Night Live by cast member Bill Hader, during December 2010." is as well. If instead of "...which will air on February 19, 2012" a change to "...which is scheduled to air on February 19, 2012" is necessary, then this change will be made. After all, after February 19, 2012 it will be necessary to change it anyway to "...which aired on February 19, 2012". I would like to settle this before the airing date, since it's a jubilee, a milestone, and therefore a cause to celebrate. Greetings Audrey Horne 89 (talk) 04:40, 19 February 2012 (UTC) Hello Audrey, sorry for the late reply but I have been away on holiday for a week! I'm afraid I'm not going to be a great help either, because I'm going to suggest there's nothing here for me to do either as a fellow-editor or as an administrator. What you can do is start to discuss this content dispute at the article talk page. That's the way to sort out disagreements like the one you have been having. Best wishes, Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 22:40, 24 February 2012 (UTC) Topic ban??? LOL Reposting in case you're not following my page. Wow that's still going? You didn't look into my case very hard, did you? In spite of all the improvements I've made to acupuncture that consensus has agreed upon and the complete lack of any validated accusations of recent bad editing, you brought out that ban hammer that the POV pushers wanted. You've driven away this editor. Epic fail. --Mindjuicer (talk) 21:01, 26 February 2012 (UTC) There's no need to feel driven away. There is lots more to edit here. That's the purpose of topic bans. WP:SPAs need to gain more experience, and this is how it's done. -- Brangifer (talk) 21:31, 26 February 2012 (UTC) Sorry, but 4 people who bullied me on NLP manage to get a topic ban in spite of clear indication it's so they can POV push? I thought that ANI thread had died. No opportunity to defend myself. This is a failure of this admin, of due process and WP itself. Why on earth would I stay? --Mindjuicer (talk) 21:49, 26 February 2012 (UTC) I'm sorry you weren't paying close attention to the AN/I discussion but I can't be responsible for that. Many more than four people concurred that a topic ban was appropriate, and nobody at all raised an objection to the ban or defended your editing style. Your opportunity to defend yourself was at AN/I (though more collegial editing beforehand would have rendered such a defence unnecessary.) Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 22:46, 26 February 2012 (UTC) I miscounted, it was 6 people supported a ban prior to you implementing it. Three of them I was planning to investigate for SPI (wanted to do a usercompare first but the tool owner has been banned ironically). A fourth was someone who was told off for bullying me on a talk page and should not have known about the ANI ie probably a meatpuppet. I'm pretty appalled at Jess Mann and Brangifer for calling for a topic ban but they both push POV on that article. After the 7th (yourself), [Solomon Asch | Asch ] conformity comes into effect. Why would anyone object the ban or defend my style (as you generalised it)? I did not know about it and nor did any neutral editor who has seen my contributions. I stopped watching on the 21st as it became clear that Eraserhead did not condone Famousdog's behaviour. Your ambivalence about lack of due process is akin to a judge saying "it's not my fault the defendant wasn't told about the second trial". The only way I would consider continuing in this online banana republic is with a withdrawn ban due to premature conclusion and full due process. But that would require a rather egoless admin, something that almost never happens with people in positions of power. --Mindjuicer (talk) 00:52, 27 February 2012 (UTC) 11 supports and not a single oppose on maybe the most watched page in WP project space. Also, Eraserhead was talking to you about your behavior. You can blame conformity or POV or anything else but all that does is show that you still don't understand how WP works. You didn't get site banned so take this opportunity to learn the ropes and come back after you've gained some experience. Many editors tried to warn you that if you continued acting like you did that you would get blocked or banned, you can't claim this is unexpected. Noformation Talk 01:13, 27 February 2012 (UTC) Mindjuicer: If you wish to demonstrate some good faith, I would suggest you either remove the SPI claim from your user page or open an SPI case. On the face of it, claiming three editors with thousands of edits and years of experience are sock puppets (apparently laying in wait for several years...) is fairly hard to believe. It is reasonably easy to copy all of the edits (or a few thousand samples) from the users, plop them in a spreadsheet and look for patterns that will either support or challenge your assertion. Otherwise, your repeated claim looks like little more than a refusal to accept any responsibility. - SummerPhD (talk) 14:41, 27 February 2012 (UTC) Stavgards sockpuppet accussations. The accusations continue. In his latest reply to me he calls me "Martin", clearly indicating that he still thinks that Martin Rundquist is behind several accounts including mine. He isn't listening to anyone, not even you. He needs to made to listen. [6] --OpenFuture (talk) 11:22, 1 March 2012 (UTC) A barnstar for you! The Original Barnstar You get a barnstar for your never-ending optimism with regards to getting Stavgard to be a useful contributor. OpenFuture (talk) 20:36, 1 March 2012 (UTC) Don't Don't be lecturing me about rules and bans and such. This site lost any shred of integrity and credibility when it pulled that stunt a few weeks ago. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:06, 3 March 2012 (UTC) Admin misconduct I consolidated this here. I will watchlist this and reply here. --Timeshifter (talk) 19:26, 3 March 2012 (UTC) Hello Timeshifter, as you may have guessed I don't think I see as much of a problem of admin abuse as you do, and I didn't think a new noticeboard was the way to solve it even if there were a problem. However I came by to say that next time you do spot something of this sort, let me know and I will try to help if I can. I certainly wouldn't argue that all admins are all good all the time, so the only thing we disagree on is the frequency of bad behavious. I believe admins should behave with the highest standards (higher than other editors get away with) and I'd be happy to help if ever I can in a specific case. Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 21:20, 2 March 2012 (UTC) Great! Thanks for the offer. --Timeshifter (talk) 23:24, 2 March 2012 (UTC) After further thought I feel that a longer reply is warranted. I appreciate your offer, but I frankly would not ask for your help because if you do not really "get" my point of view after over 2 weeks of discussion at the Village Pump then I don't believe you would necessarily get my point of view concerning individual cases that come up. I would go to a different admin for help. I don't want to get into a long discussion here, because you have a right to your point of view, and I to mine. I don't see how any objective reader of that long discussion can not see that there are many people who agree with me. Even if they are all wrong, a separate admin misconduct noticeboard would go a long way towards addressing the appearance of admin impunity and lack of accountability. I could spend the next few years having individual cases looked at by individuals like you through many admin talk pages, WP:ANI, etc.. But all that accumulated record of admin stuff would not be in one archive on a separate noticeboard. A total waste of a great record and resource. It would soon become clear that there are other problems too, such as some vague guidelines that invite abuse. So a record of that abuse in a single archive would be necessary to clearly illustrate which guidelines are causing the most problems. --Timeshifter (talk) 19:26, 3 March 2012 (UTC) Hi Timeshifter, thanks for the considered response. I'm disappointed that you think because I disagreed with you on one point, I'm likely to disagree with you on others. From my point of view, just because your argument was unpersuasive on one point does not mean your arguments on others might not carry weight. But of course it's up to you who you look to for support and I can at least promise you that if you bring problems to AN or AN/I I will consider them on their merits. Best wishes, Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 16:59, 4 March 2012 (UTC) Reply to comments several days ago Dear Kim Dent-Brown: My apologies for not responding earlier to your actions concerning the removal of material from the talk page of the article on the Revolutionary Communist Party, USA. This was on March 1st. I am only able to log on to Wikipedia and edit periodically so I didn't even see your request that I self-revert (and your subsequent reverting on your own) until just now. I wasn't sure exactly where this response should be posted; hopefully it was correct to put it here on your talk page. After reviewing your comments, including the point about how the talk page edits are a commentary upon the article as it stands, I went back and looked more carefully at the article itself. I think the problem I raised actually originate in the article itself. The paragraph dealing with the LA branch of the RCP is problematic because the entire paragraph was unsourced and speculative. The only reference was to a completely secondary point in the paragraph (the NYPD's views about the activities of the Progressive Labor Party, which is not the subject of this article); everything else was unsubstantiated. My understanding of Wiki policy is that material should be objective and verified with credible references and sources, not simply opinion or unsubstantiated speculation. This, to the extent it is followed, is what makes Wiki valuable as an encyclopedic source. I have edited out that paragraph (and included a note explaining this on the talk page). There are significant amounts of material available that can be reviewed, evaluated, and cited to if an editor finds them credible. In particular, I know that the RCP itself publishes a weekly newspaper (including an online version), it has published numerous books and articles (the vast majority of which are also available online), etc. It seems to me that the starting point of an objective, nonpartisan article – whether on a group or individual, a scientific theory, an event in history, etc. – would be to start with those types of sources. I don't think it serves anyone's interests (including a simple desire to learn about a given subject, which is the reason people go to Wiki in the first place) to substitute unsourced opinions instead. I'd ask you in that light to reconsider your decision to restore the comments on the talk page. Given the problems with the paragraph in the article itself, the comments are essentially "speculation on speculation". I'd welcome hearing any thoughts you have on this matter. Thanks. EnRealidad (talk) 04:38, 4 March 2012 (UTC) I agree entirely with your view that there are problems in the article, and your solution to remove article content was entirely correct in a way that your decision to remove talk page content was not. Different rules apply in the two spaces. "Speculation on speculation" is permitted in a talk page, as is unreferenced material, digressions and all sorts. The material removed by you certainly didn't break the WP:NOTFORUM guidelines, in my view, and your position was not supported by anyone else on AN/I. So no, I still think you were wrong to remove the TP material. Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 16:54, 4 March 2012 (UTC)