User talk:Dennis Brown: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
→‎Involved: new section
Line 294: Line 294:
*:If I manage to mangle formatting, please let me know : ) - <b>[[User:Jc37|jc37]]</b> 23:25, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
*:If I manage to mangle formatting, please let me know : ) - <b>[[User:Jc37|jc37]]</b> 23:25, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
::Can you explain why the SPI I filed does not satisfy the duck test? <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">'''[[User:AnkhMorpork|<b><font color="#990000">Ankh</font></b>]]'''.'''[[User talk:AnkhMorpork|<font color="#000099">Morpork</font>]]'''</small> 23:28, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
::Can you explain why the SPI I filed does not satisfy the duck test? <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">'''[[User:AnkhMorpork|<b><font color="#990000">Ankh</font></b>]]'''.'''[[User talk:AnkhMorpork|<font color="#000099">Morpork</font>]]'''</small> 23:28, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

== Involved ==

Is confusing. How do you determine if someone is involved in something or not?

That said, you may or may not be involved in [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification_and_Amendment#Clarification.2Famendment_request:_Malleus_Fatuorum_topic_banned|this thingy]]. I have no bloody idea. -— [[User:Isarra|Isarra]] [[User talk:Isarra|༆]] 23:30, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Revision as of 23:30, 16 October 2012


Battlegrounds

Hi Dennis,

You might take a look at User_talk:Belchfire#Warning in reference to your comments here as it's tangentially a related issue. I bring it up because Belchfire and Still Standing-247 are the two most involved users in the "conservatives vs. liberals vs. everyone else" war going on on conservative pages. Belchfire makes a salient point that there are other editors involved who need warning as well. But it's a big task, and I could certainly use assistance, if you're willing, as well as that of any other uninvolved administrator who happens to be watching this page. The players involved (not necessarily "guilty" but the ones that consistently pop up in this area) are pretty obvious: StAnselm (talk · contribs), Lionelt (talk · contribs), Binksternet (talk · contribs), IRWolfie- (talk · contribs), Roscelese (talk · contribs), Little_green_rosetta (talk · contribs), Mr. Vernon (talk · contribs), Guy Macon (talk · contribs), and Arthur Rubin (talk · contribs). There may be others involved, some of the aforementioned may not be breaking any rules -- those are just the names that immediately stand out from a cursory glance. This is no joke one of the most disruptive, widespread series of edit wars I've seen in 7 years and 20,000 edits on this project. And nobody is doing anything about it, other than intermittently looking at the AN/I complaints as they come up. SWATJester Son of the Defender 18:32, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • I've left a detailed message there, just I already have with Still, more than once. It appears some mediation is needed. It is complicated enough that ANI just isn't a viable option for these disputes, either they need to start playing by the rules or sanctions will follow. While I loathe having to just start blocking or unilaterally issuing other sanctions, I'm not afraid to if it will keep the peace. I think it will take two or three of us working directly with the parties for a while. I'm not interested in debating content with them, only conduct, including bias, and I see you agree. I will start looking at some of the other parties, too. I have looked at Lionel some, and it wasn't encouraging. They seem to reworking WP:WikiProject Conservatism from being a project about classical conservative in articles, into more of a political and bias machine, which is likely unacceptable here. A tool for divisiveness. You might take a look at that as well. Dennis Brown - © Join WER 19:38, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I too have seen this shift; I have boldly done something practical to correct it: [1] & project talk p. DGG ( talk ) 00:09, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have echoed your sentiments at the talk page, and a full review by a few uninvolved admin is likely overdue. I appreciate your involvement. Dennis Brown - © Join WER 00:16, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reply

Hello, Dennis Brown. You have new messages at Jenova20's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Talkback

Hello, Dennis Brown. You have new messages at Kudpung's talk page.
Message added 13:20, 9 October 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Talk to someone

Hi Dennis. User:Cantaloupe2 caught my attention, because he made large cuts (50k & 7k bytes) to the articles I contributed to with a COI on NetBase Solutions and HubSpot. His criticisms of my work are not entirely unreasonable (excessive detail and modest promotionalism), however his cuts are not an improvement.

I reviewed his contributions and noticed this is part of a disturbing trend for aggressive deletionism and anti-marketing. My last four contribs before this one show how I am undoing some of his prior edits along these lines. I suspect he is intelligent and reasonable (not an overt axe-grinder) and could improve as an editor with some engagement from a veteran like yourself.

I have no current financial connection to these subjects, but given the circumstances, I feel a discussion with Cantaloupe about this trend in general or the articles specifically may be an invitation for confrontation. I was wondering if you were willing to talk to him and maybe do a little coaching, discussion and pre-dispute dispute resolution.

PS - After Jimbo's Signpost, Smallbones and I discussed working on a proposed paid advocate policy/guideline. Might be a good opportunity to integrate some of the ideas in EasyMoney, as well as other initiatives. Corporate 13:41, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • I will take a look in a bit. I agree work on COI is certainly needed here, but the opinions are all over the place, and I've pulled back simply because I didn't think I could get a consensus. As I disclose on my user page, I've been in the marketing field for well over two decades. Of course, I avoid editing in areas where I have an interest now, but some people act shocked when they learn that I'm one of the 'the enemy' and yet an admin. Or perhaps they just have the wrong impression of the field. I'm not big on COI editors directly editing articles they are invested in, but there is nothing wrong with editing other articles and the experience of being in marketing offers a good understanding of business in general, a net plus. I haven't looked here, so I can't say if that applies, but I do understand the knee jerk reaction by some against evil marketing people. Dennis Brown - © Join WER 14:20, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yup, I do the same thing. In fact, a while back a COI editor busted me making a quick (and incorrect) assessment that their external links were "spammy." This judgement was bias based on the edits coming from a COI.
HubSpot is also a unique case. To a certain extent a promotional article is an accurate reflection of their reputation in reliable sources and we would expect (as has been discussed previously between impartial editors) the sources to be heavily reliant on blogs compared to most companies due to the social media angle.
In any case, I agree. But many editors oppose our BLP rules or have different interpretations of WP:COI. Even though there is no consensus in the purest sense, the rules exist nonetheless. I think consensus in the purest sense is an impossibility, but if we can create something that is vague enough (but still clearer) and represents good compromise, we can make progress. It's not something every last editor would support, but Wikipedia has overcome this issue where the need is compelling enough. Corporate 14:46, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • A quick look at NetBase Solutions, I can see why he deleted all that[2] and would say it was a good edit. Maybe 10-20% of that could be worked back in if it was worded properly. Most of it is puffery. A bulleted list of what makes them "great" isn't appropriate, and is just promotional. Some of the first section might be ok since it is part of the history, but should be inserted only as that purpose, with the editoralizing left out. I would suggest rewriting a single paragraph to add, post on the talk page for a week, then adding if no one objects. I think that if you show good will and a desire to add info in a neutral way, and a willingness to discuss (via WP:BRD) on the talk page before readding any material back, you might get a better reception. At the very least, you will have demonstrated good faith, and hopefully he will join you and work to tweak the info to make it encyclopedic. Dennis Brown - © Join WER 14:30, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I will take a look if I get around to it. I see there is some promotionalism and the year-and-a-half old article doesn't represent my best work, but was disappointed because I didn't feel the cut was an overall improvement. Since I no longer have a COI, the idea of going through the whole COI song and dance is painful, but I do want to protect my work from degrading. Corporate 14:55, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I understand. Sometimes cosmetic surgery leaves a scar ;) But since the majority of it really didn't belong, it is arguably better to be less fluffy and slightly less informational, so I can't argue with his choice, even if rewriting that small part would have been preferable. Dennis Brown - © Join WER 14:58, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I just finished going through his contribs and restoring articles on SEO topics, re-inserting SEOMOZ as a reliable source, doing a better job looking through external links that were deleted en-masse, and other nick-nacks. I will have to mull over what to do for the two articles. I am not in communication with any of these orgs and they probably wouldn't appreciate me just acting as a free agent. What is your assessment on the HubSpot article? Corporate 16:01, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Will have to look at in a bit, fighting with software on a different computer right now... :/ Dennis Brown - © Join WER 16:26, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't look at the first one very close, just the material he reverted out, so can't give an opinion on the article. I looked at the second article as a whole, rather than the changes made. As it sits, it needs most of the material deleted out, honestly. Growth strategy stuff, etc. just doesn't belong in an encyclopedia article. That is great stuff for a magazine article, but it isn't encyclopedic. Now, I am no expert author, just a regular Joe when it comes to editing, but here is one on a company I did: D.H. Griffin Companies It states the facts, it sources the claims, it keeps it simple and provides relevant information without puffery or buzzwords. It may not be as "sexy", but it is encyclopedic, meaning there is no promotional wording and just raw facts in the form of prose. Dennis Brown - © Join WER 22:29, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that went as expected. I have asked Cantaloupe to leave my Talk page. I suspect I will get quite the bombardment now that I am in his cross-hairs. Corporate 03:34, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ANI warning

I don't quite understand this warning. I was striking comments of an IP precisely because it was sockpuppetry, per Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/SkepticAnonymous. StAnselm (talk) 20:35, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Ah, I was not aware that was an active sock investigation. My apologies. I've struck my comment and apologized there as well. Dennis Brown - © Join WER 21:03, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

RFA opinion

Before I make any further posts and comments about the situation with RFA, I wanted to get your take. Perhaps it will add some focus for me.--Amadscientist (talk) 05:34, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Not sure the utility of talking at wt:rfa. The same issues seem like they've been brought up there time after time with no change. Its why I don't really post there any more, seems useless to do so if all that is going to happen is talk. I've grown weary of talking for sake of talking. Dennis Brown - © Join WER 08:57, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Check User

Denis, am I right in thinking that the check user done as Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Kaz/Archive would have detected any other registered editors using the same IP address as Kaz?--Toddy1 (talk) 07:23, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Not necessarily, you would need to ask the checkuser if they did a check for sleepers. They might have just checked those names only. Looking for sleepers (ie: any other user with the same IP) is an additional step that takes more time, so it isn't usually done unless there is a reason. Dennis Brown - © Join WER 08:59, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Melodic minor

This set of lessons is well worth it. He looks the most unlikely guitarist to be knowledgeable and intelligent, looks more like he belongs in San Quentin, but never judge a book by its cover. You might find something useful from him..♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:32, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Too challenging eh?♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:11, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Started watching, then real life keeps getting in the way. At work today, lots of small fires to put out :/ Dennis Brown - © Join WER 14:50, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dennis the fireman? You look a pretty cool, happy guy Dennis, anybody ever said you look a bit like Don Stroud?♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:15, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Are you hitting on me? ......... (j/k)
I hadn't heard that one before, thanks. Actually, now I'm 40 pounds lighter with a short, well groomed beard, so I look skinnier and fuzzier. As for happiness, I've always believed it is a choice, so sure, I choose to be happy. I change what I can and accept things I can't change. It isn't difficult to find people who are worse off, which keeps you humble. I posted the picture to keep it real and remind myself that none of us is really anonymous. Dennis Brown - © Join WER 19:44, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hehe, well you've got a good set of nashers LOL! Just don't get the David Schwimmer (Ross) Friends cosmetic white teeth treatment!♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:04, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your email

Thanks for the more extensive comments. I didn't take it as smug; rather, I saw it as a case of you heeding the spirit of WP:BEANS. I wasn't challenging you; my only reason for commenting was to find out if you'd used something such as a Toolserver utility that would be useful for IPs in general. Nyttend (talk) 13:37, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oh I didn't take it as a challenge in the least, I just wanted to give you enough info to understand why I was so vague. Your question was a very valid one. I have no idea how net savvy you are, and there are other considerations that might not be obvious even to those that are, and thought that info might benefit you. Dennis Brown - © Join WER 13:41, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

IP address

Very sorry to trouble you, Dennis, but this person needs a block User talk:207.144.99.102. Thank you for your time. ColaXtra (talk) 16:59, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker)  Done ​—DoRD (talk)​ 17:14, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there clerk

Dennis, do me a favor if you will, and quickly if you can: my suspicion on Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Zhand38 is completely incorrect, and the report needs to be nixed. Can you help? Thanks, Drmies (talk) 00:12, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  •  In progress (I WAS editing a nice article, Ball joint, per your demand that I edit articles more, but I guess I will stop long enough.... ;-) Dennis Brown - © Join WER 00:18, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • NO! Never stop working on the ball joint! Drmies (talk)
      • There is something terribly wrong with us. Dennis Brown - © Join WER 00:19, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • I just closed it, didn't CSD did it. If you prefer a CSD, probably better to tag it for such and let another 'min nuke it since I clerked it. I know, I'm funny with all those layers of eyes. Dennis Brown - © Join WER 00:27, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have to tell you this story, as it related to ball joints: Many years ago when I was 22, unemployment was 11% in my town, I went to apply for a job as a suspension mechanic, not knowing anything. The manager laughed his ass off at how bold I was to even ask. He told me to go read up and talk to him in three days, as that is when he was going to hire someone. (basically, he was brushing this ignorant fool off) Obviously, there were better candidates. I spent the next three days in the public library from open to close, and literally mastered the theory of automotive suspension. I went back, he quizzed me, was literally floored. I got the job. He said that if I would work that hard to get the job, he knew I would work that hard to keep it. So yeah, I've seen a ball joint or two. Kept the job for a year before becoming a disk jockey. Dennis Brown - © Join WER 00:32, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • First things first: "Commonly found in automotive throttle linkages, throttle body set ups, these are also widely..." is unclear. What is the relation between throttle body set ups and throttle body linkages? I'll read your story after I change a diaper. ;) Drmies (talk) 00:56, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • That stuff was already there, I'm working on that and the maintenance section now, which is a bit "how to". Now that I have three solid refs, I have some material to pull from. You should see what it looked like before I started, an hour ago. Dennis Brown - © Join WER 00:59, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Holy hell we have a lot of photos missing. Guess I need to break the camera out. Can't believe we don't have a decent image of a grease zerk. Such a simple thing. I might have to draw a diagram as well, since it uses a spring and check ball, and you can't tell that from a photo since they are internal. Dennis Brown - © Join WER 01:14, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • Ha, that's a fun story. My father would have appreciated it, as a longtime mechanic. Drmies (talk) 01:22, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • When you want something bad enough, you work for it. At least I do. That was an important life lesson for me. Dennis Brown - © Join WER 01:24, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ok, it might not be a Good Article, but it is now a good article. I could go try to get a DYK, but it isn't worth the effort. Dennis Brown - © Join WER 01:44, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Closure request

Howdy mate. As per advice I received here, I'm here to ask if you might consider closing Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Brainbug666 which I started as a result of some silly stuff at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Post-Finasteride Syndrome (which was helpfully closed by MA). While I contend there was some serious socking going on, dragging the issue on by keeping that SPI open doesn't really achieve anything. Hopefully now that the AFD is over, the single-purpose-accounts will not longer have a purpose and will simply go away. Cheers, Stalwart111 (talk) 00:52, 11 October 2012 (UTC).[reply]

  • Holy cow, that is an encyclopedia worth of evidence. I can't just close down without investigating (even above, I did a quick investigation, but the evidence was only one sentence, so it was easy.) You might just add a note that you want to withdraw the claim, but a clerk will still need to at least briefly review all the evidence once it is filed. I'm a bit tied with an edit, but someone will look at it if I don't get to it first. Dennis Brown - © Join WER 00:55, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fair call. That's where I was on the fence. Not sure I want to "withdraw" it - don't want there to be any suggestion that sort of activity is acceptable and that if you shout long enough people will just give up. But also don't want to revive the hostilities from AFD by pushing an admin to take punitive action. Ho hum... what to do? Might just leave it and not push either way. Thanks for your advice though - much appreciated! Stalwart111 (talk) 02:42, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sorry, I just had several things I had prepromised to do. I cut my teeth here at AfD, so I'm very aware of the problems of socks. We are just very shorthanded at SPI and the socks are coming out of the woodworks. It is not an easy place to clerk. Dennis Brown - © Join WER 02:44, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can imagine. Knowing the clerks are overworked I try not to raise an SPI unless it seems obvious and doing so would achieve something... In this particular instance, the editor who looks to have co-ordinated the "Keep" campaign at AFD has now recreated the deleted / redirected page in his user-space sandbox and is linking to it from article-space talk pages to "raise awareness" of the issue. He has also taken to tendentiously editing the article of the pharma company that makes the drug - removing run-of-the-mill external links to the company site claiming they are "promotional" and citing arguments made at the above AFD as justification. More disruptive editing. So I might leave the SPI to run its course and let justice be done, so to speak. Stalwart111 (talk) 03:29, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your intervention. Unfortunate end result but entirely justified. Stalwart111 (talk) 23:18, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Question on deleting media

I'm in a discussion with User:Jennypatrizia and am unsure of the answer to her question. Can files be deleted from the Commons that are fair use. I've never uploaded anything, so I'm not sure. Go Phightins! (talk) 01:25, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Commons doesn't allow fair use, only Wikipedia does. Commons requires they be public domain, GNU or CC attrib. Dennis Brown - © Join WER 01:27, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
She's uploaded two files, she may own them, I honestly don't know, but my question was can she delete them in the same manner that an author can blank a page he created? Go Phightins! (talk) 01:29, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
She does own the works. Go Phightins! (talk) 01:30, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure, I avoid Commons. I have like 200 edits there, and almost 30,000 here, for example. Technically, she shouldn't be able to, since once you license the use of a photo for anyone to use, you can't revoke the copy you already uploaded for. She can still license it differently elsewhere, but can't retroactively take the license away if she lawfully uploaded and licensed it, from a legal stand point. She still owns it, but her publishing it under a free license is a contract that she can't revoke, technically. You could ask there, but we have no control over what they do. Dennis Brown - © Join WER 01:37, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'll direct her there. I think I've made one edit there. I have no clue. Thanks for your help--Go Phightins! (talk) 01:39, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A cup of coffee for you!

I'm surprised you've stayed awake through all the boring and somewhat stupid questions I've asked you over the last month or two. I was between coffee and a cheeseburger. Go Phightins! (talk) 02:49, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Going to save the coffee for the morning, I've been trying to get to bed for an hour, and on my way now :) Dennis Brown - © Join WER 02:53, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, then I suppose it's good I chose that rather than a cheeseburger. I guess I should probably start considering heading that direction now as well. Anyway, thanks for your help, as always--Go Phightins! (talk) 02:55, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Trolling comment removal

I removed a comment by Andy the Grump as a personal attack. I actually asked Drmies about it first ( I don't like going to you for every issue) but he declined as being tired of dealing with Andy. So I removed the comment per WP:NPA and commented on the talkpage of WP:RSN. I felt I should at least mention it to you as an admin. Didn't seem worth taking to AN/I and I wasn't going to comment directly on it, but felt I was justified to remove it and not just collapse it.--Amadscientist (talk) 02:54, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • [3]. That's why. He didn't even get blocked for it. So I'm not going to block for "hey you're a troll"... Drmies (talk) 03:07, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Drmies, I actually understood your point. I laughed because I am aware of how tired you must be of even dealing with civility issues. I wasn't looking for a block. But I won't bother you further with these issues if they bother you that much. But thanks anyway. I do know it doesn't help these situations to counter with more of the same. This seemed the best way to handle it. It got Andy's attention and we both extended apologies for perceptions we both had. He may know more about the subject even if Idon't agree on all of it.--Amadscientist (talk) 03:23, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, all's well that ends well, I suppose. No, it's no bother to me, but I'm not the one to ask about civility in the first place, I think. I got a few "bright lines", and Andy crossed one of them which is why I want nothing to do with him, really--I lost respect for him and will let other admins, or the community, or no one in particular, deal with him. Drmies (talk) 04:41, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough.--Amadscientist (talk) 04:45, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not the one to ask about incivility either, but maybe on the other hand I am, in a way. I found Andy's posting linked above to be completely and utterly unacceptable, and how the Hell he gets away with that when I get blocked for making a vague reference to "sycophants" is really at the heart of what's wrong here. Malleus Fatuorum 04:50, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oh...was that you? LOL! I keep hearing about that! LOL! But yeah, sadly.....he should have recieved some sanction over that and now we have an admin who simply no longer cares what he does. One who is very well respected in my view. That scares the hell out of me to be honest.--Amadscientist (talk) 05:47, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I care. Actualy, I've been trying to keep an eye out for Andy, like I do many people, trying to help him not get blocked but willing and ready if needed. That diff was back in August, so is beyond stale, so not inclined to chew on Andy's ass for that bit of rudeness. I expect a little rudeness around here (and usually get more than expect...) but that clearly should have been deleted. Dennis Brown - © Join WER 11:53, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You really deserve this. Sorry there is no monetary reward. You would deserve that as well!

The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
Just for putting up with me. That, and the fact that you really do so much to make Wikipedia a better place to edit for all! If anyone deserved a financial prize for work here, it would be you. Amadscientist (talk) 04:43, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I like the fact that it is animated. I don't know why.--Amadscientist (talk) 05:49, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Very kind of you to say. Right now, I'm feeling more tired-ful than tire-less. Need more coffee... Dennis Brown - © Join WER 12:14, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Archiving

Hi.

Thanks for the notice. I have already configured archiving. My talk page will be archived as soon as its size hit 64 KB. Currently, it is 62.32 KB. My archiving gadget is not Misza Bot, though I know how to configure it; I did it for K-Multimedia Player talk page.

Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 10:15, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Good. I had wondered. You seem the kind of person that would want everything archived and organzied. Dennis Brown - © Join WER 11:46, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hi. Actually, your note proved useful. I discovered that MiszaBot III archives threat-by-thread not page-by-page. It is a better approach. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 14:40, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • One more trick, if you look above, you will see a thread that I changed the year to 2013 on just the very last post. That is to keep the thread on the page and not archive it. Once I'm ready to have it archived, I will just change it back to 2012. Another advantage of the thread by thread archiving. Dennis Brown - © Join WER 15:04, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Saw that you reverted an edit made by an IP at Amol. I guess compared to the other edits made by User:پارسا آملی's socks, it is safe to say the user is back to IP hopping at the Amol article now that the page protection has expired. Not sure if it's worth a new SPI investigation page or not, or just leave it be for now... Singularity42 (talk) 10:55, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • I did a /19 [4] block on that IP last night, 3 months, witch is about 8192 addresses. It doesn't show on that one IP page because it was a range block. No reason to file an SPI, nothing new to learn that we don't know. If he comes back, I will protect the page again. Dennis Brown - © Join WER 11:42, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Question

Hey Dennis, Drmies is offline at the moment so I am hoping you can help. I am working on an very uncontroversial article in my sandbox need to upload the logo for the infobox once I create the article (standard stuff for me), but I am unsure if I can do that. Checked my unblock note didn't mention it, but I want to make sure I am not going to cross a line. - NeutralhomerTalk • 12:04, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • I don't see a problem adding articles or logos of this type. Obviously, you can't use the logo in your sandbox since it will be fair use, but you already know that. Dennis Brown - © Join WER 12:21, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yup, I was going to upload the logo after I create the article. Just wanted to make sure first. :) Thanks! - NeutralhomerTalk • 12:24, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Uncontroversial is good. ;) Next stop, DYK--Dennis needs the practice anyway. Drmies (talk) 13:55, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • No, DYK is waaaay too much work for one little pip on my user page. If I weren't too busy trying to change everything else, I might spend some time trying to streamline DYK a bit. Good hearts, good work, not user friendly and focuses on new material only. Dennis Brown - © Join WER 15:11, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

IP abuse

Even after blocking he continues and I fixed it. It looks like denial of talk page access and a lengthening of the block would be in order. -- Brangifer (talk) 14:38, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Advice sought...

My apologies for asking out of the blue, but could I seek your advice on resolving the tensions here? There's lots of good intentions on all sides, but I'll admit the underlying issues have been running for a while and I'm finding it a little frustrating. Hchc2009 (talk) 18:57, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm probably the wrong person to help when debating citation styles or general MOS issues. It looks like you made an edit, he reverted, you are both discussing on the talk page. Since there is a great variety of styles of citation that are considered acceptable, it is up to you two to figure out. If you can't, then I would ask at WP:3RD Dennis Brown - © Join WER 19:55, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! Hchc2009 (talk) 20:02, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(talk page stalker)You might try starting a new thread at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style. There are a number of editors experienced in style issues who monitor that page. --Neotarf (talk) 20:33, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

DRV

Can you semi-protect the Leroux DRV at [5] as mentioned at ANI? IRWolfie- (talk) 22:51, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Someone might override me and call it preventative, but I see it as an extension of the AFD, so protection is warranted. Done. Dennis Brown - © Join WER 22:59, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, IRWolfie- (talk) 23:15, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

The Admin's Barnstar
I cannot thank you enough for blocking the guy who was trolling me. I guess that's what you get for NPP and vandal-fighting, but to me, it's well-worth it. --v/r Electric Catfish (talk) 23:16, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As an aside, how would I go about initiating a CU of this Moshe whatever? It would nice if it could be determined who they are a sock of so that discipline could be meted out to the sockmaster as well. AutomaticStrikeout 02:31, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Simple CUs can be requested at the bottom of the WP:SPI page. You will need to keep it short, supply diffs, and a valid reason. This is like an SPI report when you don't know the master. We are very short handed with CUs right now (most of the active CUs are Arbs, actually, which shows how bad off we are) so it might take a day or two to get a reply, and of course, it isn't guaranteed to happen. And CU isn't magic pixie dust. It is just technical data. I know over a dozen ways to avoid CU detections myself, and so do others, so keep in mind that it is just a tool, not the final answer. Dennis Brown - © Join WER 02:35, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, thanks for the reply. AutomaticStrikeout 02:37, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
By simple, do you mean a quick checkuser request? It looks to me like those are for requests not related to sockpuppetry. AutomaticStrikeout 02:41, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I don't have all the details here. If you want to file an SPI and request checkuser, just look up in the form for "checkuser" and change "no" to "yes". The form will auto fill out, then a clerk like myself will look at the evidence and either endorse or decline. Of course, CUs are independent, so I've had them refuse to run when I endorsed, and run them when I've declined them. The endorse/decline function of the clerk is to give them more info, not to tell them what to do. If anything, we answer to the CUs. Not because they "outrank" us, but because they are accountable for each checkuser they run and they have to justify each one. This is why short but diff laden SPIs are more likely to get endorsed. Dennis Brown - © Join WER 03:02, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. You may be interested in this. AutomaticStrikeout 03:13, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That is fine. Since I made the block, another clerk should endorse or decline. Besides, it is 11:15 here and I've been trying to get to bed since 10pm. Got a long day ahead of me, so I'm out :) Dennis Brown - © Join WER 03:18, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm in search of input

Hi, Dennis. I've reverted a couple of IPs at Talk:Bettina Wulff regarding BLP problematical posts. The IPs cropped up on the talk page after the article had been protected. I don't really have a problem continuing to revert, but do you have any input as regards semi-protecting article talk pages? It seemed a bad idea to me when it first crossed my mind. After the first couple of reverts I left messages on the IP's talk and have not received any response. If you look into the particulars and are of the opinion that there is no BLP concern, backing off is an option I'm open to as well. Tiderolls 18:03, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • For most things, my threshold for talk pages is a little higher than for articles, but when it comes to BLP, it is the same. I just went ahead and semi-protected for a month. That is strong, but so is the consequences of BLP violations. Dennis Brown - © Join WER 22:15, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Notable?

Do you think this would meet WP:GNG? It's a startup called PoverUp doing microfinancing, but the sources seem to be split between talking about the company and talking about the founder. So far I've got Forbes, an extension of that article in wharton magazine, Inc., fast company, Go girl finance.com (runs on wordpress so it looks like a blog, but I don't believe it is one), Knowledge@wharton, Philadelphia Business Journal, Raising CEO kids (I would have written this website off if it wasn't for the academic credentials of the site creator and the book he wrote), Time Business, another Fast Company (not related to business, but founder is featured). I'll note that Peter Cohan a Wharton Alum, caused a number of these so he was pushing the company out there. What do you think, would it survive AfD? Ryan Vesey 18:44, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • The EDU, raisingceokids.com, and biz journal won't pass RS for the purpose of WP:N, the others are kind of weak, but I think the totality of the coverage should be ok, even if borderline. Even the Inc is on a blog, which is weird. If I were interested, I would make the article, but being careful to not get fluffy with the prose. Weak refs + fluffy = AfD , every time. I suggest starting in a sandbox first. I just did one this afternoon that was a little weak at first, Knight's Spider Web Farm, then found a book cite and a boston globe cite, so you never know til you sandbox it and see. Dennis Brown - © Join WER 22:13, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I plan to use a sandbox. If it's not slam dunk notable when I finish, I'll try to have someone else review it/move it. On the topic of won't pass for RS for the purpose of WP:N, there's no reason they wouldn't be reliable sources at all, correct? Ryan Vesey 22:16, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Depends on what you are citing for. Be careful not to stack too many weak cites, which makes it look padded. The raisingceokids really didn't look good for much anything, reliability wise, but I didn't research them individually. Dennis Brown - © Join WER 22:26, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I fixated on the word doctor on the book and looking back at it, the source doesn't seem like much. I got to the point where they wrote she was going to "Warden" and any thought I had of reliability was thrown out. Thanks for the advice. Ryan Vesey 22:32, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cebiche - Help request

Dennis, could you please close this Move Request, as I am left totally unsupported by other users? Thanks in advance and all the best. --E4024 (talk) 21:41, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Normally I wouldn't close an RfC early, but since you started it and no one else has supported, I went ahead and closed it. Dennis Brown - © Join WER 22:07, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

IP still editing

Hi Dennis. 68.35.160.23 was blocked yesterday per the outcome of Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/PoliticianTexas, but something appears to have gone wrong as the IP has returned to continue editing. Could you take a look? Camerafiend (talk) 00:09, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weird. The block log says I did the one month block, and it was current, yet he wasn't blocked. Software glitch on the backside. I blocked over the last block, and it looks like it stuck. Thank you for bringing this to my attention. Dennis Brown - © Join WER 00:35, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I looked again, it said "anon only" which isn't an option I use. I had blocked him with the SPI script, which is a single click to do all kinds of neat and groovy things, so it must have been the script. I will keep an eye out and report it to the techs if it does that again. Again, thanks. Dennis Brown - © Join WER 00:38, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for getting that sorted out! Camerafiend (talk) 01:15, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Range block

What would the fallout be for a range block re: Talk:Bettina Wulff? Or, do we have the budget to send out Liam Neeson? Drmies (talk) 00:24, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • I already protected the page yesterday. If you did block, it would have to be 95.33.0.0/16 if you wanted to cover the whole range, which is coincidentally the largest size block we can make as lowly admin. That is why I just protected the page. Of course, if the IPs are bleeding onto other pages, then the block would make sense. Dennis Brown - © Join WER 00:33, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Forgot to add, that would be 65,536 residential addresses in northern Germany, which is a moderate amount of damage. Dennis Brown - © Join WER 00:53, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
These are the only German IPs that have recently edited that article:
  • 95.33.9.54 - Bremen, Am Wandrahm/Contrescarpe
  • 95.33.20.6 - Langwedel (near Bemen), Achimerstrasse
  • 95.33.27.236 - Langwedel (near Bemen), Achimerstrasse
  • 109.192.252.63 - Pforzheim, Haldenweg
  • 92.73.89.126 - Bonn, Am Hof/Windeckstrasse
Probably low collateral to en.Wiki for the 95.33 range. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:42, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The issue with that one had been the talk page as well, which is why I protected it, as I think Tide rolls got the article. It still seems that protection is more effective than blocks here. Dennis Brown - © Join WER 11:33, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Who do we have in that area? I have a friend nearby, but he's a real academic so he's not on WP. Can we at least administer a kick in the nuts? Drmies (talk) 21:08, 14 October 2012 (UTCP
I think probably an anon block for the three Bremen IPs might have an effect. If more improper edits from that range crop up, then a range block might be the solution. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:32, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Again, none have edited in days, they were only interested in that one page, it is semi-protected. 92* and 109* are static and the most recent, the others have dynamic and haven't edited in almost two weeks, and have likely cycled. Semi-protection just seems the best choice with the least damage, particularly since it is a BLP issue. Dennis Brown - © Join WER 12:23, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

DYK nomination of Knight's Spider Web Farm

Hello! Your submission of Knight's Spider Web Farm at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Miyagawa (talk) 10:42, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

User:Iamthemuffinman's unblock request

Hi Dennis. Iamthemuffinman has (finally!) posted a sound-looking unblock request, which I'm inclined to grant. However, you and a number of other admins have been involved with his block in the past, so I'd like to get your take on it too; if you have a moment, please could you have a look at User talk:Iamthemuffinman and leave an opinion? Cheers, Yunshui  12:53, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • That is a globally locked account, blocked on all wikis. I do believe that Arb is involved although it isn't documented on-wiki. I am certain there is more than meets the eye going on. I would strongly advise against any unblock that doesn't come directly from ArbCom in this particular case. Dennis Brown - © Join WER 13:12, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Advice appreciated, as always. It looks to me as though the account is now unlocked (otherwise it's my understanding that he wouldn't have been able to file an unblock request in the first place) but I've virtually no experience with global locks and defer to your judgement - I suspect I'm misunderstanding the log. Much obliged, Yunshui  13:31, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yunshui is right. This verifies the account not locked but blocked on a bunch of other wikis though.—cyberpower ChatOffline 19:09, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, if memory serves me, I was tied up two weeks waiting on ArbCom with this for reasons that are hard to explain. A CU might be able to explain better. Dennis Brown - © Join WER 19:18, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've commented there, but there are a few concerns that never made the pages at Wikipedia. Dennis Brown - © Join WER 19:18, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

AdminCom

You might find this interesting. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 22:00, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Concentrates way too much power in way too few people. Snowball chance in hell getting something like that through. I can't see I would support that. Dennis Brown - © Join WER 22:05, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Power corrupts. Absolute power is kind of neat.

John Lehman, Secretary of the Navy, 1981-1987 --Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 22:08, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

spi

I'd be happy to help, but not sure what you need. - jc37 23:17, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Admin patrolling. The endorsing/declining/closing/archiving should only be done by clerks, but most cases are a matter of comparing contribs and if they are a clear duck, blocking and saying so. if they are clearly NOT related, then saying so. It boils down to duck recognition. If you are comfortable with that, then we need that help. Supplying diffs is sometimes helpful but usually not needed. We keep it pithy and try to not tip off the socks why we know they are socks. Look for cases that just say "open" and don't have a checkuser request tied to them. Dennis Brown - © Join WER 23:22, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Sure, duck watching in the park sounds like an interesting diversion.
    If I manage to mangle formatting, please let me know : ) - jc37 23:25, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Can you explain why the SPI I filed does not satisfy the duck test? Ankh.Morpork 23:28, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Involved

Is confusing. How do you determine if someone is involved in something or not?

That said, you may or may not be involved in this thingy. I have no bloody idea. -— Isarra 23:30, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]