User talk:Dennis Brown

ARCHIVES - Archive 2006-1010 - Archive 2011 - Archive 2012

BEFORE YOU POST - Discussions about the content of articles belong on the talk page for that article. This includes discussions about text, images, tags, or other physical things on the page. This way everyone can participate. If you like, you can post a note here pointing me to it. If you want to discuss general policy, ask for help on a page you haven't seen me on, or other topics that aren't related to the actual article, post it here. I archive frequently, check there if a discussion has "disappeared". Thanks -Dennis

---

Contemplating RfA - Requesting feedback

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.

---

I'm contemplating an WP:RfA and requesting feedback from any registered editor who cares to give an opinion. In short, I've been here over 5 years, took a wikibreak a few years back (burned out a bit) and came back. I've got over 17k edits, never been blocked, and have learned a great deal by contributing at Wikipedia that has helped in my real life. I've worked in admin areas to get my feet wet and noticed a seeming shortage of admins available for vandalism and such. I've never been the greatest author, but I did start High Rock Lake, Bob Timberlake (artist), Lexington Barbecue Festival and Pigs in the City (and others), which are all regional to my new home in NC. I've uploaded a lot of original photography, (and have much more still to upload) which is likely one of my better contributions. Like anyone, I make mistakes but quick to admit them. What I'm hoping for in this discussion is for some folks to look back a little at my history, offer guidance and an honest opinion (even if brutal) if you think this would be in the best interest of myself and Wikipedia. If I do go to RfA, I will notify every registered editor in good standing who participates here, although there is no obligation to participate. I will be asking specific editors to come here, but any editor who happens upon this is welcome to chime in. If you are willing to nom (some have already expressed an interest) please indicate. In the interest of disclosure, I've talked to another admins about his previously [1], which is still in my archives. Dennis Brown (talk) (contrib) 16:50, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

• Areas I would be interested in working at - CSD, ANI, vandalism, eventually page protection and copyright issues (a year down the line). Dennis Brown (talk) (contrib) 18:06, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

I saw your notice of this thread on another editor's user talk, which happened to be on my watchlist. You've made a few posts on admin boards which appeared very sensible to me, and they suggested to me you might have good judgment. On that basis I'd encourage you to explore a bid more seriously. I think it would be correct for you to expand a bit on the very short resume of your work you've included above. Also what admin work you would do. Include any controversies or disputes you've been in. Your comments above seem to be hyper-aware of the risk of canvassing, and that's a good thing. If you've done anything special since November 2011 to overcome the objections mentioned in the thread you cite above, you could mention what you've done differently since then. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 17:52, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

• I archive talk, log my CSDs and PRODs, slow down and research better before entering AFD/CSD, and have generally tried to research more before I offer an opinion. Nothing radical, just being more thoughtful before I act. I have gotten more involved with ANI, learning to help others and settle disputes peacefully. In a nutshell, I've tried to be more objective in what I do. Dennis Brown (talk) (contrib) 18:30, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) Since few weeks, I have been stalking watching your edits since you and James had a small fight with each other. And, you are certainly a good editor. You will do great as an admin according to me. I m really surprised that why haven't you gone for RfA yet. Yasht101 17:55, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

• I don't remember James and I having a fight. I can't think of a time I've even disagreed with him. If we did disagree, it had to have been minor as I don't even remember what you are referring to. I respect his judgement enough to usually defer to it if we were on the different sides of an issue. Dennis Brown (talk) (contrib) 18:09, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

• Am I the "James" referred to? If so, Dennis, I think there have been one or two occasions when I disagreed with you, but I don't remember having a "fight" over any of them. Or maybe it wasn't me. There is an editor whose username is just "James", but he has made only 54 edits, not one of which has been on a page you have ever edited, so I don't think it's him. Anyway, whether I am the person referred to or not, here are a few of my thoughts. I think you would make a very good administrator, and I am delighted that you are considering an AfD. I have seen examples of your work quite a number of times, and my impression is that you are reliable, level-headed, and constructive. You frequently consult others, rather than jumping in unilaterally, which is a good thing. You are patient and civil to other editors, even when you clearly don't like what they are doing. I have not always agreed with everything you have done, but that is no reason for opposing you: any two people will disagree sometimes. You have extensive experience of several admin-related areas of work. Your content creation is a fairly small part of your work, and some people see that as a reason for opposing at RfA, but you have created more articles than many admins (for example, nearly three times as many as I have) so that should not be a problem. I have also looked at a sample of your articles, and they all looked good to me, and they were all genuine articles, not just stubs, so I really don't think there is likely to be any problem there. You have written on another page "The harshness there is one of the reasons I've avoided RfA", and it is, unfortunately, true that RfA can be an unpleasant experience, and the amount of unreasonable aggressive attacking of candidates has for some reason been steadily increasing over time. I found RfA very stressful, even though I had a three figure number of supports and a single figure number of opposes, so what it is like for good faith RfA candidates who get a lot of aggressive opposition I hate to think. However, as far as I know you have not made any serious enemies or got into heavy controversy, so the risk of having a rough time is probably not all that great. In fact, after checking through a sample of your edits, I can find only two things that might give me pause. Firstly, I managed to find one occasion when you made a report at AIV which was edit warring, and arguably disruptive, but not, as far as I could see, done in bad faith. If one such incident is the worst you have done then it may not be a big deal: we all make mistakes sometimes, but I suggest reading WP:Vandalism carefully. Secondly, I see here that you seem to be unclear of correct administraive procedure concerning animal sacrifice. I really do have serious doubts about anyone so grossly ignorant of administrative ritual running for RfA . JamesBWatson (talk) 19:50, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

• Yeah, I'll chime in with JBW, whose desysopping for lack of article creation is in the mail, BTW. James, you are clearly the good cop. Drmies (talk) 19:53, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

• I created WP:BLUDGEON back in 2008, and I've seen others use it. That should count as the equivalent of what, 100 new articles? ;) Dennis Brown (talk) (contrib) 20:03, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Hey, I'd never seen that, but now that I have I will use it. JamesBWatson (talk) 21:30, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Not to totally butt in, but I've seen you around the admin noticeboards recently and you seem to have a good head on your shoulders. I say go for it! (I would even nominate you if you wanted a completely unbiased opinion.) Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 21:36, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

I've had a brief look through your edit history, it's pretty good. Mature attitude, article creation, high edit count with low proportion of automated edits, clean block log, good use of edit summaries... I can't see any valid reason to not support you. I would, however, opt into the monthly edit count breakdowns as per [2] Catfish Jim and the soapdish 22:07, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

•  Done Dennis Brown (talk) (contrib) 22:14, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

• Also note, I used to use the name User:Pharmboy, had it changed here via proper channels, but some edits still show that old name. I disclose this on my user page, but wanted to add here to prevent confusion. Dennis Brown (talk) (contrib) 22:16, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

• I've seen you around at ANI and you certainly have a cool head, but I do worry over potential disruption to your RfA since you were sort of involved in that MMA nonsense of a meatpuppet farm. —Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 11:57, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

• I've never actually edited any of the MMA articles (not interested in MMA, never seen an event) and my involvement was to try to help bring some order to the process after multiple AFDs made it clear that a merge was in order. I would like to think my actions there helped calm things down, and a look at the talk pages of Talk:2012 in UFC events and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mixed martial arts/MMA notability would show I stayed out of most of the actual !voting on names, etc., and instead tried to help others understand the policy reasons for the change. One example would be helping User:Glock17gen4. (User:Elen of the Roads was involved in that as well). Now, most of the participants who originally opposed are on board with the changes (or banned for sockpuppeting). I had nom'ed one of the articles at AFD[3], which ended in merge to an undetermined article, and I made a conscience decision to stay involved (but not too involved) to help two other editors User:TreyGeek and User:Mtking start an omnibus article to merge the content into, simply supporting their efforts. There were times I disagreed with them as well, such as using AFD to force a merge, and I said as much. I also reverted myself once to keep from being dragged into an edit war and causing more problems. I would like to think my participation there was beneficial to the process, as someone who focused on the guideline side of the issue rather than the content. It would require a lot of deep reading to get the full picture, but anyone that cares to, I would welcome their input as to my handling of the issue. This was the first time I chose to intentionally put myself in the line of fire to help calm down an extremely heated dispute, so surely I made mistakes, but nothing I would be ashamed of. At the time I decided to get involved, the I had already thought about adminship, and figured that this would be a good test of my mettle and would serve a higher purpose. If I wasn't willing to help out and couldn't keep a cool head in what really was an explosive situation, then I shouldn't consider seeking admin. In the end, it was an ugly affair that needed some objective eyes on it, and fortunately a few others got involved just enough to help out by also being calm voices of reason, including User:Anna Frodesiak and User:DGG. Would I do some things differently now? Of course. I learned a lot during that process, it was my first time to participate in such an extreme dispute resolution but I don't regret my efforts. And sincerely, thanks for bringing that up, as I'm sure you are correct that some will bring up that issue in an RfA. All I can hope is that anyone who wants to judge me on my actions will first take the time to research it fully. (added later) And let me be clear, I have NO intention of getting involved in heated debates regularly. It is too taxing. But all admins should be expected to do ugly work every now and then. I've probably done more of this in the last few months that I would in a year, solely to make sure that I am up to the task. Dennis Brown (talk) (contrib) 12:28, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

• Thanks for the response. I think you've misunderstood me somewhat; anyone who opposes you based on your brilliant handling of that issue will be silly, or, more to my original point, a sock of one of those previously involved at the MMA mess. There have been cases in the past where disgruntled users have created socks or invited meatpuppets to ruin an RfA, and my only concern is that it may happen to you. —Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 12:40, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

• Thanks for the compliment on my handling of the affair. I'm not as worried about socks/meat at an RfA as I would be in AFD or ANI, simply because I think there is a more serious approach to the process and they have a history of looking at the merits rather than the vote count. If a dozen socks show up to !vote, there really isn't anything I can do except hope they realize who is and isn't a sock. RfA isn't a good place for a candidate to have to constantly defend himself, so I would have to depend on others familiar with my efforts here to do that for me. That is one reason I started this talk where socks aren't as likely to participate, to see if the 'real' editors here would support my candidacy enough to actually speak out. Dennis Brown (talk) (contrib) 12:49, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

• In short, do it. I have seen, (for search of a better word), lesser editors pass RfA in the past. MrLittleIrish^(talk) 13:04, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

• Your attitude is rock solid, and you're a good communicator. I would support. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 13:53, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
• Hmm. A pre-RfA. Looks like wikipedia is going the way of New York kindergarteners! [4] Based on what I'm reading above, you seem like an erudite and reasonable person. Just go for it! --regentspark (comment) 14:05, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
• Support Bmusician 15:00, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
• Solid but not showy, moderate and civil: looks like sound admin material to me. --Orange Mike | Talk 15:38, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
• Go for it. Why have you waited so long? — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 15:51, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
• I'd agree that you have a good grasp of WP:COMMONSENSE (it's a superpower!), a good spread of edits, and a good grasp of policy. As others noted above, the MMA sockfarms will likely turn out in droves at the sharks-smelling-blood feeding frenzy that is AN/I, and expect "piling on" from anybody who's ever questioned anything you've ever done, even if it's not relevant to adminship at all. That said, if you think you can handle that, then by all means go for it! - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 16:41, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
• I'd say it's pretty clear from the response you've gotten here that you should go for it. I for one would be happy to support. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:23, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

• That's the scary part, no one says I should wait. That means either I'm properly experienced for the mop or the haters are eagerly waiting to sandbag me at the actual RfA ;) Dennis Brown (talk) (contrib) 17:28, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

• (informed as a talkpagestalker stalking at least one informed user) You want to work in the CSD area? Please get more experience! You CSD logs shows only 16 entries, while here are 35 false positives. (some might be transformed to a redirect, but likely not all) and thus many will oppose you because of a really bad ratio. mabdul 17:51, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

  I just recently added the logging to CSD entries, which is why it is so sparce. I'm not sure how to pull a complete list of CSDs over the last year or the last 5.5 years I've been here to see an actual ratio, but I would like to see that. One of the reasons for logging was to make myself more aware, and to study the policy better. The list you show was already available on my user page, I added that myself. I would say a look at the actual "misses" might be more informative than just the numbers. Many of those are redirects or disambig pages now, and at least two of those are now articles in other editor's user space[5] and [6]. One is an unsourced BLP Elliott V. Bell, several others are ripe for AFD but I haven't labored it just to make a point. And yes, some were flatly mistaken. My shortcomings were pointed out to me previously [7], and I've taken a few months to sincerely work on them. Dennis Brown (talk) (contrib) 18:16, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

  If you do want to get a better idea of my ratio and don't mind reading through the chaff, [8] is a better way. I haven't done the math myself. Out of the 91 entries on the first page, 2 are redirects, 4 were bad calls, 3 were BLPs that had no sources but now have only 1 RS, the rest are redlinks. That is from Feb. forward, and I'm doing considerably better now. Dennis Brown (talk) (contrib) 18:46, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Your log of deleted contributions for the last two months includes 88 edits which included "Requesting speedy deletion" in their edit summaries. Your log of undeleted contributions for the same period includes 10. Three of those ten are now redirects, so the articles which you tagged for speedy deletion have effectively been deleted. That makes 91 deletions that went ahead, and 7 that didn't. Even if we take every one that was not deleted as a mistake on your part, that is a ratio of good to bad nominations of 13:1, which is not bad. Moreover, it is unreasonable to take every one that was not deleted as a mistake on your part: some of them were perfectly reasonable suggestions that somebody else just happened to disagree with. (In fact, in my opinion, at least a couple of them unambiguously should have been deleted, and it was the person removing the speedy deletion tag who was wrong.) In fact, there are only two nominations among the 98 that I think were certainly mistaken. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:37, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

• I'm really just going to echo a lot of what others have said. I've seen you taking part in discussions in several areas, and you've always provided level-headed, calm, and well thought out input. In fact, on a few occasions I've thought of suggesting you run for admin, but haven't actually suggested it - don't want to be responsible for providing the poisoned chalice, and all that ;-) But seeing as you are thinking of it anyway, yes, I would certainly support you and I think you should make it. The only areas I think might cause some opposition is in CSD, but you've been clearly working on getting that right for some months now, and some might oppose due to relatively low content creation. But you've created more articles that I have, and I don't think there should be much opposition. In short, I'd say you're just the kind of candidate we want now, and I'd be very surprised if you didn't do well. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:03, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

• Just run already. Doc talk 09:51, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Seconded. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 09:53, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Nomination

Well, the good people above have made this pretty clear. A full review shows no problems to me; I'd be delighted to offer a nomination and will get writing if you're happy to accept and if the praise above has been sufficent to persuade you to run! Pedro :  Chat  09:58, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

• I didn't expect this discussion would move this quickly or smoothly to be honest. Thanks to everyone that has offered an opinion here, I am genuinely humbled by the positive responses. User:Elen of the Roads has also expressed an interest in nominating me as well, and has seen a fair amount of my participation recently, if it would be appropriate to have two perform the task, if not, then yes I would like you to write it up please. I think I'm ready to serve, and I'm willing to run the gauntlet to find out if the consensus agrees. Dennis Brown (talk) (contrib) 11:40, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Having co-nominators can work well - and in Elen and Pedro you'd have two very well respected ones. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:41, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
    • Two nominators is probably a happy number :) I've dropped a note to Elen. Pedro :  Chat  13:52, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Dennis Brown is blue. Pedro :  Chat  14:18, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

• • I've added the answers to the initial questions. Not sure what else I need to do other than observe and reply if appropriate. Also, I noted in this discussion here on my talk page that I would notify all the editors who commented here of the RfA. Is that a wise thing or would that be considered canvassing? Dennis Brown (talk) (contrib) 15:10, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
    • They may well be watching anyway. Don't bother notifying, just in case. MrLittleIrish^(talk) 15:17, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
    • Also, accept the nomination :) Best of luck MrLittleIrish^(talk) 15:18, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
    • Yeah, it might be seen as canvassing - they'll be expecting it anyway, so I'm sure they'll see it. What to do now? Just wait for Elen's co-nom and then transclude it, following the instructions (wherever they are - I'm sure a good admin candidate can find them :-) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:21, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
    • As per Boing- don't go notifying people even if it seems courteous to do so. Let's wait for Elen and then go from there. Pedro :  Chat  17:56, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
      • Advice taken. Dennis Brown (talk) (contrib) 18:03, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

I've noticed your request for feedback on my watchlist as I have the user page of several of the people you asked watchlisted. My immediate thought was that I'd be leaning oppose based on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive746#Persistant copyright violations at 2011-12 Arsenal F.C. season. It's not your view that that is my concern but rather, that it appeared to me, that you did not take on board other user's comments as is suggested by your last post to that thread. I had made the point that, based on WMF counsel advice, that I thought it was possible that the list was copyrighted as it might not be simple facts and yet your last comment was wrote in a way that suggested it was agreed upon that they were facts, and so not copyrightable, rather than it just being your opinion. Throughout the conversation you did not once comment on my opinion and just seemed to ignore it, continuously stating that it wasn't copyrightable in the US and that was beyond doubt. I don't want to restart the debate about whether it is copyrighted but rather raise the issue with how you dealt with it. Given the comments above it would appear that your record overall is good so I won't oppose but I probably won't support either unless I have time to look at you wider contributions. Dpmuk (talk) 18:13, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

• I did get your point (after a few minutes), which is why I didn't dispute it. In hindsight, I could have replied to reinforce your statements, but I thought your correction spoke loud enough on the issue. I've already talked to User:Moonriddengirl earlier today about my wanting to get more involved with copyright (I'm a little familiar because of my day job), but in a few months after I've had the time to study the policies better. In my own defense, I didn't jump to the conclusion immediately and did seek outside assistance early in the process, but in the end you are still correct that my statements were too absolute and could have come across as an endorsement of the editor's actions. Whatever the consequences now, I had already been spending some time reading copyright policy here, and didn't intend to get more involved in actual disputes until I was more confident about them. Dennis Brown (talk) (contrib) 19:07, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Fair enough, as I say I won't oppose because of it because it seems likely based on all of the above that it was a was a bit off a one off and because you accept that you could have dealt with it better - everyone make mistakes and I think the ability to say as much is important in admins. If I get the chance I'll look at your other contributions and if, as seems likely, that conversation was a one off example of not communicating very well I'll happily support - I can hardly oppose someone for not communicating very well on the odd occasion given the length of one discussion at my own RfA!
  • More copyright help would always be appreciated, whether as an admin or not. The backlog at WP:CP is quite large at the moment and nicely shows how much we depend on User:Moonriddengirl. She has a weekend where she doesn't deal with any and the backlog grows a lot! I'm pitching in where I can but I've been quite busy myself recently.
  • As an aside, and unrelated to your RfA, my personal view is that WMF counsel is probably being a bit too conservative when it comes to copyright in lists, although I can understand why they'd prefer to lean that way than the other. However as I have no legal training, and most of the copyright stuff I know I've learnt here, I don't feel happy making the call that those fixture lists aren't copyrightable. If there was no counsel advice I'd be agreeing with you that they weren't but if I take the advice into account (which I feel I must) I'm less sure. Dpmuk (talk) 19:19, 18 April 2012 (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.

Biotechnology in Maryland

FYI, JoelWhy's edits are up for Biotechnology in Maryland. I made some changes, too. Please consider re-reading new version and weighing in before tomorrow's close date if possible. Thanks for all your help in teaching a relative "newbie" the ropes. Ferddog (talk) 22:44, 16 April 2012 (UTC) (I was Mdbizauthor, name change)

• Excellent work! I've stuck my Delete, added a Keep, and asked the closing admin to consider the diffs between the nom and the current article. I would imagine it would be kept. If not, you could go to WP:DRV and I would be happy to participate. It is a completely different article now. Dennis Brown (talk) (contrib) 23:04, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

• Wonderful - thanks, Dennis. Really appreciate all your help on this. On a side note, I think you would make an excellent admin - your patience, open-mindedness and willingness to help others make you a great candidate. If there's anything I can do to help just let me know. Ferddog (talk) 15:27, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Your RfA

When you run, please paste this into the appropriate place for me:

• Strong support

Anna Frodesiak (talk) 12:04, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

• I can't paste that in, but I will let you know when it is active and you can participate if you choose. Dennis Brown (talk) (contrib) 13:22, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

I was kidding, of course. I will keep an eye open and weigh-in at the RfA. From what I see, you can easily handle a mop, and also one of those cool floor buffers too, and we've all seen in movies how those can get away from ya. :) Seriously, you will do well. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 14:16, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

• Glad you were kidding, I was wondering if you were trying to trick me into undermining my own RfA. Guess that would have been a good test, if I was dumb enough to copy and paste, then I wouldn't be worthy to wield the mop. Dennis Brown (talk) (contrib) 19:25, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Of course I was kidding. I'm so sorry. Bad joke. RfA is no joking matter. Plus, I set a bad example, with bad consequences.

In total seriousness, you have the skills, but that is obvious. More important is the demeanor. You have the right character:

What do all good admins have in common? Common conduct and behaviour, and a certain way. They are very similar to airplane pilots, who all have the same character. No wild talk. Self control. No loose cannons. Trustworthy. You have that exact character. And that's the right stuff. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:23, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Now you're going to give me the bighead ;) Thank you for kind words, it really means a lot when your peers appreciate your efforts. Dennis Brown (talk) (contrib) 23:40, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Nom nom nom

You now have my nomination. If you want to reorganise the page so you are accepting both noms, then I think it's ready for transclusion.

Last tip - if someone gives you negative feedback, don't argue with them. Thank them for the feedback. If one of your supporters argues with them, don't let it get out of hand. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 19:55, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Oops - I kind of reorganised it anyway on the basis Dennis was accepting - sorry for being presumptive. Let me know if you want me to transclude or feel free to just go for it! Pedro :  Chat  20:16, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

I think I just transcluded, but another set of eyes is always good. I don't see it on the list yet. Yeah, I noticed the EC, no prob :) Dennis Brown (talk) (contrib) 20:17, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Wasn't transcluded, but was fixed removing the subst: etc.. I've added it to main RFA page now for you. Good luck. Pedro :  Chat  20:23, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

• • • • I had removed the comment breaks <!-- and -->, as the page stated, I assumed you needed the subst, per the page explanation. Thanks again. Dennis Brown (talk) (contrib) 20:27, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

They deliberately keep the instructions obscure to keep people off the page I reckon :) Pedro :  Chat  20:30, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

I was waiting for "You fail! Try again in 6 months!" ;) Dennis Brown (talk) (contrib) 20:31, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

RFA is live

Well, as you probably already know, I'm running the gauntlet as the RfA is live. Thanks again for the feedback and truly overwhelming support, and yes, for the deserved critical points that were politely expressed. Those of you that have been around me know that I'm not always right, but I will admit when I'm wrong and try to put the best interests of Wikipedia first. I hope everyone here participates, even those with reservations about me becoming an admin because every voice should be heard and every concern should be addressed. Regardless of the outcome, I'm truly humbled by the outpouring of support shown here. Thanks again. Dennis Brown (talk) (contrib) 20:59, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

YGM

Hello, Dennis Brown. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.— Mtking ^(edits) 07:49, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

child-selling Talk

In case you're not watchlisting the child-selling redirect that was formerly an article, which you recommended be merged into trafficking of children, the merger is the subject of a new discussion, with a view to unmerging or another alternative. Please feel free to participate. Nick Levinson (talk) 14:46, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

• I've commented there. Interesting issues to consider. Dennis Brown (talk) (contrib) 16:48, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

CSD

Hi. I've been following your RfA progress, and I'd like to help if I can. I did quite a lot of CSD nominations before I became an admin (and I think I got most of them about right), and I've done a fair bit of CSD work since (I've deleted around 5,000 pages, and have declined quite a lot of CSD requests - and I've made some mistakes too, but mistakes can be rectified). So if you'd like a CSD mentor for a few months I'd be happy to volunteer. You could run CSD decisions by me before doing them, I could present some to you to see what you think, etc - and perhaps we could do some joint CSD sessions when we're online together? Let me know what you think, and if it sounds good, please feel free to mention it at the RfA. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:12, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

That sounds a generous and excellent offer. I'm nervous that this does not appear as an RFA "crowd pleaser"; I hope the community will look at it for exactly what it is - an experienced admin helping a mature thoughtful editor "cross the t's and dot the i's" Pedro :  Chat  15:18, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

• That sounds like a good idea after a few months wait, and that is in line with what I had just posted in question 8. I had looked at previous RfAs when preparing, and quit after reading a few because it was making me not want to run the gauntlet myself. My RfA, however, seems to be much more reasoned in tone, and I don't have a problem addressing their concerns. All I can do is be who I am and either they trust me with the tools or they don't. Dennis Brown (talk) (contrib) 15:28, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

  Yes, the tone of the opposes is encouraging - they read to me like "I'd like to support, but..." type opposes. Anyway, I'll leave it with you to decide how to progress it - and how to present it at the RfA should you so choose. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:41, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

• FYI, I just posted another additional question at the Rfa. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:23, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Perfect answer, good job! Mark Arsten (talk) 18:03, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

A7

Quick way to remember it: A7 subjects are (or have been) alive or made up of living beings, or are only found and used on the web. Obviously some exceptions - animals have to be named, like Gertie the Crocheting Bullfrog, and not be species or genera (or even anonymous herds). Otherwise, people, and groups of people. Companies, underwater knitting circles, Churches (that is, The Church of the Sixth Reincarnation, yes; the Grade II listed building St Ethelfroth's Anglican Church, Little Twittering, no), charities, bands (but not rubber bands) and so on. Web content has to be that. The Great Auk browser is not web content, but greataukbrowser.com (where you can download it for $49.95) is. Any CSD queries, just ask. Peridon (talk) 18:40, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Note that Ephraim Snodgrass (the lead character of Snoddy & Fred's Unauthorised Adventures) is not A7 - he's fiction. Arthur Blogg who wrote it is, as is Wayne Shurtarz who plays him. The series would need prodding like Snodgrass. Then AfD when someone removes the prod. Peridon (talk) 18:47, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

• Thank you. I've already begun being considerably more cautious when it comes to speedy delete [9]. I would agree with the consensus that I need to study up and perhaps memorize a bit of policy before jumping in with the mop. Another admin has also been gracious enough to also offer an ear when I have a question, and I appreciate all offers. CSD is likely my greatest weakness, with 91% ratio over the last 5 years. Not the worst for an editor, but I understand that an admin will need to be much closer to 100%, and if I pass RfA, I'm confident I will take the time to insure I will. This is one reason I've been nom'ing less for CSD/PROD/AFD and instead focusing on ANI and other disputes, where my contributions are more likely to be on the mark. I still need to improve at CSD, but that be done without the tools, even while I find uses for the tools elsewhere. Dennis Brown (talk) (contrib) 18:51, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Well, now you have opposes for being too much of a deletionist and too much of an inclusionist... I think that means you're doing it right. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:49, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
    • If anything, I'm flattered, as one comment included "He is a solid candidate." and other positive remarks, even though they oppose. And as to the AFD above it, I had nom'ed, and have no regrets as to any comment I made afterwards, and I had already admitted in that AFD that it wasn't my best work writing a nom. These two each only expressed concern over one edit out of over 18,000 edits I've made, and if that is enough that they think I shouldn't be an admin, then that's ok, they have every right to express their concerns. If anything, I'm just happy that the tone has been very civil and a bit overwhelmed by the amount of support I've received. Dennis Brown (talk) (contrib) 20:10, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
      • Yeah, but you deserve a lot of the credit for the civil tone in the discussion, people really react to the way the nominee conducts him/herself. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:14, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
        • I haven't researched a lot of RfAs, which may or may not have been wise, but I'm trying to just answer the questions and in the one case above, address the concern about the one AFD. Whether that is wise or not, I have no idea, but I would hate to be one "oppose" away because someone disagreed in a single AFD. He never addressed his concern on my talk page or at the AFD, just at the RfA. Like I said there, I could have avoided doing anything but minor edits this week, but honestly, that would have been a little bit cowardly and that isn't the kind of person I want to be. Dennis Brown (talk) (contrib) 20:50, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
• Request Dennis, do me a favor and read over WP:WIHSD. I see others have left comments but I want to leave another that I hope you'll give a good sincere read over. Wikipedia is entirely built on consensus. The problem with CSD is that a sysop can delete an article without any consensus. However, in truth the sysop does have consensus to delete because the consensus can be found at WP:CSD. What that means though, is that unless you are operating exactly how they are written, then you are not deleting with consensus. It's important to follow CSD strictly because it is one of the areas of Wikipedia with the least oversight. Except for Arbcom, Oversight, and Checkuser; CSD has a certain level of secretiveness that regular editors arn't able to review for accuracy and compliance. That's why it's more important than any other area of Wikipedia to get right. That's why it can tank an RFA. Also, especially with A7, the point of CSD criteria is not to delete articles that have no chance of passing an AFD. CSD has the lowest of low thresholds to avoid deletion. Anyway, give the essay a read over and let me know.--v/r - TP 21:43, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

• I had already gotten to the part where it went through each category individually when I left work to come home, which is an hour drive. About to eat and expected to finish it. It is interesting, and sometimes uncomfortably familiar. Dennis Brown (talk) (contrib) 22:18, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

• Ok, a salad, some cold pastrami and a small wedge of some really nice smoked Gouda. I feel better. I read over the rest of the article. It will take a few complete readings to get the full grasp which I will do another day, but I wanted to make one observation that is probably already obvious to you. This is NOT a justification of my previous mistakes tagging articles, it is just the truth from someone who didn't think about being an admin until a few months ago but still cared about Wikipedia. The reason so many editors will tag an article with a CSD tag, and do so sloppily, is that it works. Even when the criteria is wrong, the admin will just correct the criteria in the summary and delete. When it is a non-notable person but still doesn't meet A7, they will still delete it most of the time (I'm considering 2008 to now). It has been an effective means to avoid a contentious AFD and it comes with no consequences unless really abused. There is no easy method of determining your "ratio" as an editor, so no incentive for being right. Yes, this is ugly, but the truth, and the average editor learns this quickly. And when any editor that is trying to "weed out the junk" knows this, they are likely to take these shortcuts for as long as they work. Honestly, I never thought about it very deeply until this RfA, but I'm starting to get a grasp of how detrimental it can be.

If every editor's page had a "CSD stop light" that was green when their ratio was 95% or higher, yellow for 90-95%, red for 80-90% and black with a warning sign when it was below 80%, maybe that would be a personal incentive. I don't know, at least some way to know your ratio, accounting for stuff like redirects (as deletes, to be generous). Very likely, nothing like that will never happen for technical reasons, even if we wanted it. That or have admins at CSD act like ogres to "offenders" for each mistake, which isn't very good either. But the fact is, sending the wrong article to speedy IS easier, effective, and with virtually no consequences. Until that is changed at some level, I'm not sure what can be done to reduce the problems at the Wiki level. Dennis Brown (talk) (contrib) 23:07, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

The change starts with you. I never delete articles that do not meet the explicit criteria. I decline maybe 40% of the A7s I come across. I probably decline 80% of the A1 and A3s. It's up to you to be the first to make the change and encourage others to do the same. Sending the wrong article to CSD because it's easier won't isn't going to be fixed if you do it because other people do it too. Follow the right process and it will improve.--v/r - TP 02:50, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

• One very common mistake is to think that the CSD criteria are clear cut and objective, and that a "good" admin always sticks strictly to those criteria, while a "bad" one doesn't. None of the criteria is clear cut and objective. What constitutes "unambiguous advertising or promotion"? A matter of judgement, and one admin will disagree with another, without either of them being unreasonable. What constitutes "sufficient context to identify the subject of the article"? What constitutes a "sufficiently identical and unimproved copy" of a page deleted via a deletion discussion? And so on... all of them are matters of judgement, to a greater or lesser extent. And as for A7, it is hopelessly vague. Nowhere is there any guidance as to what constitutes a claim of "importance or significance", and I find that interpretations of this vague expression vary enormously. (That is why I most often don't even look at A7 CSD nominations when I am checking the list of candidates for speedy deletion. I just don't like getting into the quarrels that they entail. I also find that A7 nominations often stay in the list longer than many others, suggesting that I am not the only admin who tends to avoid them.) Amazingly many editors, and, I am afraid, many admins, cannot see that CSD is a matter of admin judgement, and seem to think the criteria are objective. Having said that, there are certain aspects of some of the CSDs which are objective. For example, an article about a product made by a company does not qualify for A7, no matter what, although an article about the company might. You have occasionally made mistakes of that "objective" kind about CSDs, and you need to clarify your understanding, but in my opinion the extent of the problem has been grossly exaggerated, both here and in your RfA. As I have said both on this page and in your RfA, a very small number of your CSD nominations have clearly been wrong, a larger but still small number have been matters of others making a different judgement from you, and the vast majority have been absolutely fine. By all means accept Boing!'s offer of help: from what I know of him, I am sure he will do a first rate job of advising you, and from what I know of you, you will do a first rate job of learning from him. However, please bear in mind that this is a small detail, and not the big issue that it has been made out to be. Other admin candidates have had a more questionable CSD record than you, and nobody has even mentioned it: in your case one editor has made (in my opinion) a bigger issue of this small problem than is justified, and others have tagged along. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:40, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

• I appreciate you doing the math James, and I would love to see a tool that make it easier to see what a user's ratio was over a given period and over total history. I agree that my problem with CSD has been somewhat overstated by a few editors, but I accept that some believe that any ratio below 100% is unacceptable and they have a right to oppose if that is how they feel, thus I haven't rebutted their arguments. Their concerns have all been expressed in good faith, and that is all I can ask. My real problem with CSD has been one of perspective, focusing on removing "unwanted" material over the years, rather than considering the broader impact. That is what fed the occasional sloppiness. I've often found that one disadvantage of being open and honest about your shortcomings is that a rare few will jump on that and may blow it out of proportion. Just as when I stated that I had considered laying a little low this week but felt it would be dishonest and didn't, then one editor saw that honesty as a weakness and further justification to oppose. I would disagree with that assessment (and I'm sure that crosses the mind of many RfA candidates, I was just honest enough to admit it), but I'm not going to debate them over it. The fact that I stayed involved in AFD has already came back "to bite me" as one oppose because I !voted to keep an article at AFD, but he was very civil and even complimentary so I can't complain. I have no intention of avoiding working in any area this week, consequences be damned. Regardless, I'm just happy (and a little surprised) that the discussion has been remarkably civil and constructive. Even the observations that I disagree with have all been expressed in good faith. Realistically, that is the best you can hope for, regardless of the outcome. Dennis Brown (talk) (contrib) 12:21, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

• I'd disagree with JamesBWatson on most points. I only find G11 vague.--v/r - TP 12:44, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

• If I've learned anything this week, it is that I'm probably not the right person to settle this dispute. ;) Dennis Brown (talk) (contrib) 13:24, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure I'd like to see a debate trying to settle what was the definition of significance, especially if Fastily and Colonel Warden were involved... I agree with James B that there can be a wide range of possible interpretations of some things. I've deleted over 14000 pages in just over 12 months - some by request, of course - and very few authors have appealed so far. If you delete by mistake, you can restore. I have restored a few times because I had second thoughts, or userfied by request. A couple went to DRV - one was declined, the other AfDed and then deleted again. Whatever you do, you can undo. When I started out with my mop, I was exceedingly cautious at first. I was leaving alone tagged things that I would have tagged on sight. That's another point - no-one is forcing you to delete a particular article. If you're not sure, don't. We all do it. Someone else will do something - usually because they know the subject better. I was a spotter of hoaxes amongst the spam etc - but I wouldn't have known one about an American sportsman until it was pointed out and I Googled. (I always think American sport in general sounds like a hoax to begin with...) BTW Just answer Keepscases. He won't help you. (Usually doesn't, anyway.) His questions aren't silly - they just can't be answered by parroting the book... Peridon (talk) 14:46, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

I took your advice and answered the question with some hesitation. I knew the question was reasonable, but it was so vague that I found it difficult to answer without qualifying the answer somewhat. Dennis Brown (talk) (contrib) 15:18, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

I suspect that's partly the point of Keepscases' questions - to offer something away from policy and out of the usual "admin" mindset, and see how people respond to the unexpected. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:42, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

PS: On the objectivity of the CSD criteria... Regardless of whether individuals here think the guidelines are or are not objective (and I pretty much concur with JBW on that), what is blatantly clear to me is that in practice there is a wide spread of actual interpretation amongst admins - especially on what counts as a credible claim of importance. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:44, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

• When I answered Q4, I knew that was going to be tricky and different editors would have different opinions. It was actually a good question and example for this. There are hundreds of TV channels now and being on one show on one channel isn't automatically a valid claim. It was in this case, but I felt it was borderline, which is why I should have prod'ed it instead. I notice Scottywong basically said that my ratio is even better than the 91% previously claimed [10]. I still need work, but I thought that was good of him to point out, even though he opposes my adminship. Dennis Brown (talk) (contrib) 11:52, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Yep, I think that one was borderline. And it was a good answer - if in doubt, PROD/AfD rather than CSD. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:59, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I still remember Keepscase's question at my RFA. I think you did good. Elen of the Roads (talk) 12:49, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

• You had a little fun with your answer, and I liked your answer. In this case, he seemed fairly serious and I had concerns that there might have been a heated discussion somewhere on the topic. Answering it felt like I was wearing clown shoes in a mine field. I've tried to be polite but honest in my answers, like Q4 where I thought it was more of a borderline case than others might have thought, even if my tagging was improper. I actually feel fairly lucky that the discussion is very reasonable. Obviously the whole shebang is somewhat stressful, but it seems much more civil than the few RfAs I've looked at before. I'm still floored that so many people are willing to openly support and speak on my behalf, both on the talk page here and at RfA. Regardless of the outcome, that alone was makes the stress worth it. Dennis Brown (talk) (contrib) 13:16, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Hopelesscross

Many thanks for your help in trying to talk to Hopelesscross. Of course, whether he responds to your encouraging appeal is his choice; the point is there is no way he would have listened to me, any remarks I submit on his talk page are instantly removed - but this is something we have established is permitted. Time will tell now if he wishes to discuss his proposals or merely exert his energy in implementing his favoured edits. You're also right that I do not appreciate being told I have a "fetish", I'll let sleeping dogs lie for the time being and we'll all see what comes of his future contributions. Thanks. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 00:52, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

• I'm glad you have the right attitude. This situation was one that I could tell you made several mistakes, even if in good faith, and didn't want to see either of you blocked. You might want to bone up a little on a few guidelines from time to time, as they can and do change. And if you ever have a question about whether you should or shouldn't do something like a revert, feel free to just ask me or any admin. I had no desire to get involved in the content of the article, I just want everyone to get along in a fair manner so you can jointly decide what that content will be. And as a favor, if someone is new, work with them, keep it simple, and help them get up to speed on the guidelines. You will end up making an ally for life most of time. Dennis Brown (talk) (contrib) 01:01, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Obviously, everyone needs to be given a fair chance so nobody gets the block. In my case Dennis, I'm not a new editor - I've been here for about as long as you; even so, I still landed myself with a short block for an indirect remark that one user with whom I had running issues had "learning difficulties". Interestingly it was sent in passing whilst communicating with another editor but still, I was horrified when I found myself unable to edit. My appeal - which apologised and pledged not to use such term again - was successful and the ban was lifted after 45 minutes but I do know how easy it is to be blocked. Now although it is not honestly my place to comment, I have the strangest of feelings our "new" friend may not be as fresh to this venture as we think. Four days, 40 edits, knowledge on how to cite examples and consult ANI, and what WP:OR is and all charged with a vision for the articles: one article moved without consensus and this episode on Slavic peoples in which he is for one reason or another denying pan-ethnic status. If I'm wrong, then he must surely know someone who edits and will have seen them in action. For me, I'll be honest, even I was contemplating whether to restore my version each time he reverted; it is not so much the edit war that is the problem but whether according to rules my actions are correct and as you say - rules are often amended and even established editors can get caught out if following obsolete guidelines. My decision at the moment to insist on my revision is that the pronominal article sees a lot of activity from a host of editors and - like many articles - has its own fair share of disagreement on presentation. The latest talks have been on the infobox gallery: who should be on and who shouldn't? If not why not? Do we even need to have it? And so on. Now if this panethnicity topic had been even a minor issue, somebody among the regulars will have voiced concerns and dealt with it by now, this is why I believed myself to be acting correctly in restoring that revision. Obviously you see I have been accused of allowing my own "Pan-Slavist" sentiment to cloud my judgement as an editor, in truth, I don't hold firmly onto anything. I only wish to see one good argument to support the alternative version and I will start working towards a new balanced verison immediately. I recently worked closely with User:Mdupont to achieve a neutral outlook on Tringa Hysa. Either way, we'll just hang fire and see how things progress. Regards. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 05:19, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

• Very likely he has done some editing before, but it might have been as an IP. In this case, it was complicated by you doing a few things that could have gotten you blocked, vandal tagging and reverting. Basically, in order to save you, I had to save you both, so I had to assume the best of faith in both of you. Plus, it was a content dispute, which didn't belong at ANI, but on the talk page. It wasn't your fault that he brought it there, but you might notice I took great pains to NOT get involved in the content, that is for the editors there to discuss, not admins at ANI. If there is another issue with him, just drop me a note here. Hopefully it will be more one sided ;) Dennis Brown (talk) (contrib) 11:30, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Dennis, thank you very much, you're a star! Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 18:09, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Doing good

2 Days have passed and there is 89% support. Thats great. I hope that this tempo continues for 4 more days. There has been little drama out there but it is okay (at least you don't have drama on your talk page). You will get through probably. All the best! Yasht101 09:54, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Re;. Luka Basanets

Hi, Dan. I don't think the tag belongs. The tag seems to be for use when there are problems with the source relied on: the tag says that "Discussion about the problems with the sole source used may be found on the talk page." There are other mentions of the subject in material I've found, but they are passing references without any depth, while the work cited as a reference is an actual biography from a published book that contains the same facts. So, additional sources could be found, but they would be unhelpful. Zloyvolsheb (talk) 15:04, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

• I think the tag is there mainly to tell the person reading the article that the information is based on a single source, so may not present the total picture or may be incomplete. I've always thought that any article with a single source, regardless of quality, qualified for the tag, but I would invite a 3rd opinion on it. I will go ask someone else, just to be sure. Dennis Brown (talk) (contrib) 15:17, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
• I've asked Drmies to give an opinion. He is impartial and quite experienced, so I trust his opinion. I've never had anyone ask me about this before, so I don't want to jump to any conclusions. Dennis Brown (talk) (contrib) 15:23, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
  • I saw Dennis's note on Drmies's page - hope y'all don't mind my jumping in with my two cents' worth. I don't have any problem with the single source tag per se; however, given that some of the information is not cited at all, I think the Refimprove tag would be better. (I'd replace one tag with the other, not add to the list.) That's just my take, and Drmies may have a different view. LadyofShalott 16:02, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

• Your opinion is always welcomed here. Dennis Brown (talk) (contrib) 16:05, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

• I would never disagree with the Lady. Dennis is correct about the tag, but if the Lady's further reading reveals the refimprove issue, that's a better (because more general) tag to signal possible improvement. Zlovoylsheb, thank you for your contributions. Wikipedia needs multilingual editors to improve its coverage. Drmies (talk) 19:38, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

• Per the discussion here, I removed the One Source tag, then added the Ref Improve tag. And yes, Zloyvolsheb, thanks for the contributions and bringing this to my attention. I got to learn something today, which is a good thing. Dennis Brown ® © 19:45, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know and sharing your opinions. Zloyvolsheb (talk) 00:57, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

please remove your rfa

WP:DENY. Dennis Brown ® © 02:02, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
you can't be an admin in my opinion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Spanky The Warrior (talk • contribs) 23:28, 21 April 2012 (UTC) You've already expressed your opinion at the RFA - and not very well at that ("because I can" - what does that mean?). There's no need to come here as it adds nothing to what you've already said. It also seems a bit strong coming from a person who just recently created an account. Perhaps it would be helpful for you to focus more on editing and learning Wikipedia policies and guidelines than badgering other editors.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:37, 21 April 2012 (UTC) Not a problem. His opinion is duly noted. And to his credit, a look at his contribs indicates he has mastered the details of how to edit here quite well for someone who has been here less than a week. Its almost like he's done it for years. Dennis Brown ® © 23:39, 21 April 2012 (UTC) I wonder whose sock he is..... --Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:10, 22 April 2012 (UTC) Didn't take you long to figure it out. Are you going to remove his !vote from the RFA?--Bbb23 (talk) 00:24, 22 April 2012 (UTC) No one will be removing anything at this point. Removing that vote would be the last step in the process, if it ever happened. Dennis Brown ® © 00:26, 22 April 2012 (UTC) Actually, no sooner had I written my comment, Elen effectively struck the !vote without "removing" it.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:33, 22 April 2012 (UTC) Wow, that was some fast process!!! Dennis Brown ® © 00:28, 22 April 2012 (UTC) There are a couple of regulars that try to disrupt RFAs - it had to be one of them. Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:35, 22 April 2012 (UTC) Ah, I was looking at my own usual suspects and came up dry. If I only had better tools.... ;) Dennis Brown ® © 00:38, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Question

Wikipedia:Edit filter can be used to prevent certain words from being snuck into articles, among other things. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 18:04, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

• I thought that might be what you were referring to. Beyond my current pay grade to decide if that is wise or not, but isn't that a little ham-fisted (and resource intensive) when long term protection can be done? If this was 100 articles, I would lean toward the filter, but if it is just two, it just seems a little overkill. Again, not an expert opinion, just an editor observation. Dennis Brown ® © 18:06, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

• Long term protection as in months? Maybe, but I just know the second the lock comes off the page, Navin will be pimping himself on the article again. Edit filtering it would get rid of it permanently. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 18:09, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

• Yes, I was thinking 90 days, but this is out of my league here as I have no experience with edit filtering so I will leave to an admin to decide at ANI. I didn't want to mention it there as not to steer any opinion on it. Dennis Brown ® © 18:12, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but...

WP:RIGHTNOW Ishdarian 13:10, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

• That is very kind of you, but just think of all the drama and sockpuppeting we would miss out on. After all, it has been a rather civil and uneventful RfA. Dennis Brown 2¢ © 13:36, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
• ^Oops. I guess you shouldn't have said that. It's now a fucking drama fest. Brilliant. I'm chucking in the tools for a while after it's over, whichever way it goes. I actively hate this place right now, with all the disingenuous "oh-so-clever" two faced fuck-witted tossers around here. . </rant> Pedro :  Chat  22:01, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

  Don't let them drive you away, Pedro - you're one of the good guys who we really need to keep -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 22:04, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

  Who is the "them" we're talking about here? Malleus Fatuorum 22:21, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

  YOU Malleus, very specifically. I'm pissed of dancing around you like I'm on a sword. So if you fancy one for the civility police - fuck you and your two faced attitude and your oh so clever games. And take that "semi retired" notice of your talk page. That was the usual load of bullshit that the rest of the community could smell a mile off. I've danced to your tune too long, and I'm bored of it.Pedro :  Chat  22:41, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

  I think I phrased that badly, and did not mean to imply agreement with the above description of anyone - I should have said something more like "Don't let your current feelings drive you away". -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 22:28, 23 April 2012 (UTC)