User talk:Dennis Brown

My barnstars

Enjoy your vacation and then get back to work!

		The Original Barnstar
		For your excellent close of the thread on the Kaldari fiasco at ANI. Good work, as usual. Recharge your batteries and come back strong! Carrite (talk) 16:25, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

• Thank you Carrite, I truly appreciate the show of kindness. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 00:04, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
  • It is extremely good to see you around once more. Believe it, we missed you! → Call me Hahc21 21:20, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
    • Dennis, You have been sorely missed. Enjoy a break, but please drop by from time to time. Best regards, David, David J Johnson (talk) 21:33, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
      • Thank you. I had a couple of days with a little extra time so I thought I would pop in and try to help. I miss many of the people here. I do lurk from time to time without saying anything, as I don't want to start something I can't finish. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 00:37, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Some stroopwafels for you!

Good to have you around again, even if briefly. Take care of yourself. Drmies (talk) 00:31, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Excellent! That will go well with the cup of Earl Grey tea I just poured. This place is like the Hotel California: You can check out any time you like, but you can never leave. It won't last, but I figured that perhaps I could do a little good while I have the time. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 00:35, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

And thanks for your assistance with the semi-protection here! Johnuniq (talk) 01:22, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

No problem. I'm pretty liberal with protection, particularly when it comes to slowing down disruptive people. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 01:24, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

A cookie for you!

Nice to see you around WP. Best wishes, JoeSperrazza (talk) 11:39, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Joe, and to everyone who has been patient over the last couple of months (and years...) I probably won't be able to get as involved as I used to be, but will try to at least be around enough to help. I have a bunch of new and exciting things on my plate here in the real world that will be taking up a lot of my time. Once I am able, I will give more details. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 22:54, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Have a Beer!

I'm really happy to see you working around Wikipedia again, even if it's for a short while. Your valuable judgement at various places is highly beneficial and useful. I've always seen you make careful decisions by analyzing the situation first rather than making hasty decisions which is a good trait for every admin to have. Best wishes and Take care! -TheGeneralUser (talk) 13:25, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

• Hi Dennis, on another note can you please kindly take a look at User:Dennis Brown/RfA/TheGeneralUser and do the necessary updates on all the things that would have changed, as it's already been a really long time since then! That would be really helpful for me :) Regards. -TheGeneralUser (talk) 23:59, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Not sure if I'm up for noming anyone soon, but I took a quick look. I noticed your article % of edits actually went down, to less than 25%. I can think of a dozen people who will automatically oppose based on that metric if they show up at your RFA. I think you have the common sense and good demeaner, but you would do yourself good if you (and I'm being literal here) took a month off of all meta and talk, and just focused on article content. Your total number of edits is still on the light side. There is no right or wrong number, but I remember Basalisk having near the same number and getting a lot of opposers due to that, and he is a medical doctor with some extra skills, he barely passed. Again, I think you have the meta experience, but what you have to prove is that you can actually generate content competently. Gnoming is fine as long as it is content; I never had a GA or FA until I became an admin and mainly just gnomed myself. I didn't check your CSD and AFD stats, but those are hot spots right now as well. I don't doubt you will make a good admin some day, but it is still a bit early if you want to comfortably get over 80%. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 00:09, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
    • Well yes, that's because I mainly work in housekeeping and do administrative tasks. Everyone has different opinions and expectations here and they are welcome to it. Putting statistics aside, for what it's worth I've shown and proven myself to be a responsible, trustworthy and competent editor which I'm sure you already know. And I just wanted an updated review for that page :) so you can feel free to take your time to do it. Best. -TheGeneralUser (talk) 00:33, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
      • I think I just did above :) The thing about edits: it isn't just enough to be ready, you have to convince others you are ready. My article edits were 40% of my total edits and many thought that was too low. I'm just saying you will get oppose votes over a ratio of less than 25%. Some people only care about content. RFA is about appealing to the trusting side of everyone. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 00:36, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Need help

Hi, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Censorship_of_Twitter&action=history I added but it has been reverted twice. Can you help?Wesakgilda (talk) 01:07, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

• If he has added a source, then the real issue is "what order do we put them in?" The talk page is a good place for discussing that. I'm a fan of alphabetical, since there is no bias in it, but I suggest leaving it in whatever order it is currently in until a discussion is had. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 01:13, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Welcome back and here...this is what you really want...

All the waffles, cookies and beer awards are nice...but what you really deserve.......is bacon! ;-)

		Bacon Barnstar
		Welcome back Dennis...have some bacon!. Mark Miller (talk) 01:36, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

• Bacon is like manna to me, thank you :) Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 01:39, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Nice to see you back, even if here less often than normal. Fiddle Faddle 19:54, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

AN/I

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

It's nice to hear your thoughts at AN/I. I'm not sure why but there are fewer admins weighing in on the noticeboard than there was six months ago. I'm not sure whether people are retiring or just want to spend their time elsewhere. But it isn't unusual for a query to be posted and not getting any response at all from the admin corps. It means that some situations are left unresolved and either resolve themselves or reappear at AN/I at a later date.

Welcome back! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:39, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

• Well, the time I have available fluctuates wildly. Right now, I'm back-ordered on a ton of prototypes for the new business, so I have the time, thus here. ANI tends to be where I hang out when I am here and not editing a new article. Most problems there just need someone to listen calmly, and apply a little common sense, so it isn't so hard. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 01:48, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Also about ANI

Whatever problem the member of the oversight team has, I think that your closing sweeps it under the rug.  The closing has left the WP:BATTLEGROUND in place at the AfD.  In your own comments, you used the word "hate" and put an f-bomb in my mouth.  It was just as well that you found a procedural way to stop the ANI discussion.  But the crafting of the WP:BOLD closing is not a balanced statement and requires that I respond.  Care to comment?  Thank you, Unscintillating (talk) 17:17, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

• I have no idea what you are talking about. I didn't put anyone's words in any mouth, f-bomb, hate or otherwise. I didn't "end" the discussion, it ended itself, I just summarized it. He asked for an interaction ban, and no one at the discussion, over a period of a few days, thought it was a good idea. Not one. He opened it, you didn't, I said no relief would be granted, no one argued otherwise. Best to move on, which is basically what I told him as well. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 17:28, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

I see that you have some emotional attachment here, and are in denial about both your own words and mine.  Unscintillating (talk) 20:53, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Removed comment

I hope you don't mind but I thought it best to try removing the "badge of shame" stuff at User talk:CYl7EPTEMA777. I advised the other editor to do that but I think they got stuck on seeing you had replied. Obviously your revert at the user page (to remove a gratuitous "this editor is indeffed" tag) was correct and there should not be any ill-advised commentary on the talk. Thanks for your assistance with the case! Johnuniq (talk) 07:10, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

• I think that was the wisest option, and I wholeheartedly agree with your actions. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 14:43, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Republic of Crimea

I really think you ought to reconsider. For one, the self-declared country included Sevastopol; the Russian federal subject does not. -Kudzu1 (talk) 18:10, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm sure Dennis is capable of reading what was presented during the discussion. RGloucester — ☎ 18:19, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

• As a closing admin, it isn't my position to consider technical facts or other information outside the discussion, only the discussion itself and Wikipedia Policy. I have no dog in the hunt, I'm not interested in editing those articles at all (which is why I can close those discussions), but the arguments in that discussion were decidedly stronger in the support, whereas the opposers presented some good arguments, but most of it was well meaning passion, which has little weight in building consensus. If you think I've erred, you can always ask for review at WP:AN and I will not take offense in the least, but at this time, I have to stand by my close. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 18:21, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Terrible mistake on closing merge discussion about Republic of Crimea

You made a terrible terrible mistake closing that merge. The Republic of Crimea (country) is a merge of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea and Sevastopol which were two completely different separate entities. The new federal subject does not include Sevastopol, it's simply the same as the Autonomous Republic. Here's a timeline:

1. Autonomous Republic is separate from Sevastopol
2. Autonomous Republic and Sevastopol merge to form a new country called 'Republic of Crimea'
3. This new Republic requests to be acceded to Russia
4. The accession is granted but separately: one for the Autonomous Republic, and another for Sevastopol
5. The Autonomous Republic is now called 'Republic of Crimea' since the 'Autonomous' adjective doesn't make sense as a federal subject

I have included some maps to help you understand these differences visually.

What needs to be done to revert these changes?

—Ahnoneemoos (talk) 20:22, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

• You can ask for a review, as I've told another. I've removed the maps, as it isn't about MY opinion. My close was based on my reading of the discussion, not my opinion of the merits. Had I closed based on MY opinion, that would be a supervote, which isn't allowed. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 20:25, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
  • It was based on your reading and on your disrespect or lack of understanding. GO AND REVERT!! The votes were 21 OPPOSE to 15 SUPPORT and you come in, close while the time for discussion still was running. Tibet2014 (talk) 20:26, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
    • I've already said, if you want it reviewed by another admin, then that is what you should do. WP:AN is a good place to start. Continuing to hammer away once I've provided this information isn't helpful. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 20:34, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
  • I'm sorry but you need to review how closing discussion works. WP:CONSENSUS states explicitly that, "consensus is ascertained by the quality of the arguments given on the various sides of an issue, as viewed through the lens of Wikipedia policy." This very same argument was explained in the discussion by @Tibet2014 and @benlisquare. As an administrator you are supposed to listen to all arguments and find out which ones are based on both reason and policies. For some inexplicable reason you decided to consider other arguments as more "qualitative" rather than this one which pretty much renders all other arguments as weak. That's an opinion in itself. However, as you have not shown a desire to revert your decision nor to discuss this further I will then channel this through other means. —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 20:35, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
    • This admin should be blocked from Wikipedia. It is outrageous. Tibet2014 (talk) 20:37, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Dennis, I'm sure, understands that Sebastopol was included in the independent Republic. But, as I stated in the discussion, it is easy to explain this to the reader in prose in the Republic of Crimea article. RGloucester — ☎ 20:40, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

• The purpose of the close isn't to tell everyone how to organize the articles, it is to summarize the discussion based on policy and the strength of the arguments. I can honestly say I have no opinion on the merits of the discussion. This is also why I didn't even say where to redirect. It isn't an admin's job to tell editors what to do. Again, WP:AN is a good place to start to get a review. I've said this five or six times now. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 20:43, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Ah, the glorious benefits of wielding a mop :-) --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:45, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

• • Having my actions questioned doesn't bother me, I know to not take it personal, even the unnecessary rudeness of some. That wasn't an easy or simple close, particularly since consensus was counter to count, but I don't shy from closing something just because I know a few will be very upset. I welcome a review and willing to live with the results, regardless of what they are. I really don't get too bent out of shape. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 20:53, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
• Dennis, if you don't revert this back I will invade your house and claim it was just "local self-defense forces". Then, I will simply annex it to my house and proclaim you are just my federal subject. I better hurry up before economical sanctions come in! —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 20:48, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Well, you would have to get past two very vicious lap dogs, so bring treats. ;) Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 20:53, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
• OUTRAGEOUS. "since consensus was counter to count" - THERE WAS NO CONSENSUS, OR if, then there was one agreeing with the count. GO, BLOCK YOURSELF! Tibet2014 (talk) 21:03, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Tibet, you probably need to go have a tea. Fortunately, I'm not one to get bent out of shape easily, and honestly, I understand your frustration. I've already told another admin to just let you vent a bit, I can handle it, but at some point others will lose patience with you over this. You can ask for review, but if you do so in the way that you are talking to me now, no one will even consider your opinion. Again, go have a tea, try to understand that even when someone disagrees with you, they can be acting in good faith. Then if you want, go get review. There really isn't any need for any other discussion on this outside of a review process. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 21:09, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
• Dennis, it seems someone has done something weird with the former Republic of Crimea (country) article, and created a new fork. Perhaps take a look? Thanks. RGloucester — ☎ 22:18, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
  • That article was started in 2004. As for where the redirect should point, that is a matter for the talk page. As closer, it is kind of important I don't inject my opinions or force my will. That is the for the community to do, else I'm not independent and instead have a stake in the outcome. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 22:22, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

What I mean is that Republic of Crimea (country) was moved to Political status of Crimea by User:Incnis Mrsi, and then made into a new article. I've reverted his changes, however, I'm not sure what to do in this situation. RGloucester — ☎ 22:28, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

After I read this, I looked closer and "got it", so I dropped a note at the WP:AN discussion on the subject. You might drop by there. I just can't get into reverting to enforce. I did one revert because the person didn't know that I had just closed, but that was a technical revert only. Others must enforce, or overturn my close. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 22:30, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Dennis Brown, you are my admin role model. Making thoughtful, difficult decisions based on the evidence, sticking by your decision and not taking it personally when people are upset at you, even pointing them in the direction where they can get your decision reevaluated. I hope if I ever have a position of authority over others, I can be as fair and level-headed. It is far too easy to let ones ego get in the way when one encounters conflict and personal attacks. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:30, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

As near as I get to a wikilove message

Dennis, we often disagree and you know I hate "wikilove" messages with a passion (I eat kittens on toast with chilli-sauce) but I had to note my admiration for taking on a judgement Solomon would have flinched at, indeed most admins would have baulked at. Fondest regard, Wee Curry Monster talk 22:30, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

• I don't mind WikiLove, I encourage them actually, you must be thinking of Eric. At the top of this page, I have a link to my Barnstar collection, so I appreciate the kindness. I don't close many RFCs, so I figured I needed to do my part. The controversy is what it is, and to a degree, was expected. It is a hot topic, there are lots of opinions and even more emotion. It's probably good that I have to endure such a thing every now and then, they say it builds character ;) Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 22:33, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm out

It is very likely that I won't be around for a couple of days due to work. Any concerns on the RFC or any other action should be directed to WP:AN. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 01:15, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

• I don't have time to answer question or check in regularly, but wanted to drop off a note that anyone is free to copy anywhere: When closing the discussion, what I found was a lot of desire to leave the article as a separate article but I didn't see rationales that talked about how sources are considering it independent, or what policy here says that it should still be considered separate. I saw opinions that ranged from "similar articles exist" to "obviously it should be an article", which is a non-argument. There were also some interesting points that were considered and given full weight. I'm not going to break it down any further, that is what an independent review is for. When closing a discussion, votes that are solely about emotion or passion without a clear basis in policy are essentially discounted. It isn't that I don't respect their passion or feelings, but they can't be considered in consensus, which is based upon determining the will of the community as it is supported in policy. Closing discussions like this are difficult, particularly doing so early and against count, but someone has to close these and I suppose it was my turn. It has been a while since I've closed a contentious discussion, and I've never closed one as contentious as this. I can see why so few admin do them, but I doubt it will discourage me in the future. I would suggest letting the discussion continue at WP:AN (and please, the canvassing isn't helpful...) and living with the result. Whether my close is overturned or kept, it doesn't upset me. I try to not get emotionally involved in my duties here, and just try to do what the community selected me to do. I will try to pop in if I can, but work has me very tied up for a few days. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 12:57, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Russia recognised it as an independent state. That's enough source. And 'similar articles exist' is not a non-argument. If there are hundreds of similar articles than the decision to ban this article is extremely bias. --Wester (talk) 15:21, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Articles we have about Crimean historic structures or periods

• Roman Crimea, the area of the peninsula under the control of the Roman and later Byzantine empires
• Crimean Khanate (1441–1783)
• Taurida Governorate (1802–1917), a governorate of the Russian Empire (Taurida is the Ancient Greek name for Crimea)
• Crimean People's Republic (December 1917 to January 1918)
• Taurida Soviet Socialist Republic (1918)
• Crimean Regional Government (1918–1919)
• Crimean Socialist Soviet Republic (1919)
• Crimean Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republic
  • 1921–1945 part of Russian SFSR, since 1922 Soviet Union, including Sevastopol and all of Arabat Spit
  • 1991–1992 part of Ukraine, not including Sevastopol
• Crimean Oblast (1945–1991), part of the Ukrainian SSR, Soviet Union

So a separate article Republic of Crimea (country) about the short-lived independent country in March 2014 cannot be called 'unrational'.

--Wester (talk) 15:21, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

ANI notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Protection review - Political status of Crimea. Thank you. Dpmuk (talk) 18:45, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

For helping the world to realize how hypocritical is the Wikipedian establishment, how ineffective are modern Wikipedia procedures, and how gregarious and thoughtless are Wikipedians en masse. Prompting several other sysops to fight in your war you made a good thing for the community, revealing that uninvolvedness and WP:third opinion in modern Wikipedia are usually a deception. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 08:51, 25 March 2014 (UTC)