User talk:Dennis Brown/Archive 17

Archive 10Archive 15Archive 16Archive 17Archive 18Archive 19Archive 20

Drake equation

Hello Dennis, Could I please ask you to look at recent additions on the Drake equation page? I have recently reverted comments from 24.90.155.20, as they appear to be POV in both content and style. However, they have been re-inserted without any explanation and it appears that this contributor is starting to edit war. I would be grateful for your view on this? With very best regards, David David J Johnson (talk) 12:08, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

  • I've left them a message on their talk page. I agree that their edits do appear to have an inappropriate POV in them, and instructed them to take it to the article talk page instead of adding it back. Hopefully, that will suffice. Ping me again if they didn't get the hint. Dennis Brown - © Join WER 12:17, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Yo Ho Ho

Thanks for your work on editor retention.

  • Thank you, and happy holidays to you! I don't celebrate any of them officially, but I enjoy celebrating with my family and friends that do. I'm looking forward to spending some quality time with them over the next several days, eating some great food and creating some new memories. Hope you do as well, friend. Dennis Brown - © Join WER 19:35, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
Sadly the DR stuff I attended at DC wasn't as good as I had hoped. But yes, it would have been worth the drive. Rich Farmbrough, 04:37, 21 December 2012 (UTC).
Since I'm so involved in DR (behavior more than content) I would have really enjoyed hearing some different perspectives on it. Dennis Brown - © Join WER 15:51, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Semi-protecting Jenni Rivera

The talk page indicates that you semi-protected the page Jenni Rivera due to "Violations of the biographies of living persons policy".

As the woman is deceased, shouldn't a different rationale for protection be indicated?

Thank you.--Yammie2009 (talk) 20:52, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

  • I completely understand the confusion. BLP applies to persons who have recently died the same as it does to those that are living, as part of the protection relates to their family and friends. There isn't a specific amount of time in policy that must pass before they are no longer covered. It is covered in a subsection of the BLP policy at WP:BDP. BLP is commonly applied as a rationale for recent deaths where there is improper editing regarding the events that surrounded the death itself. Dennis Brown - © Join WER 22:07, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

SPI

Hi, wanted to let you know I sent an email re a SPI. Thanks. Logical Cowboy (talk) 22:12, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

  • Hi, seems like this went quiet. Would it help if I filed a fresh report in the correct place? I did name the wrong sockmaster, so that needs to be corrected. Or is this under way, and should I just wait a while? I did send an email to the CU with more information. Thanks. Logical Cowboy (talk) 22:46, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Andy the Grump admission to editing drunk on AN/I

I am going to bed. But take a look and let me know where I went wrong. I don't know that actually did....but seems I have been accused of dramamongering and yet not a mention about Andy being drunk. This all stemming from a discussion on the Sandy Hook talk page. Thanks and feel free to trout if necessary.--Amadscientist (talk) 10:43, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

At any rate, there may need to be a checker user done at the very least on the IP and another (or others) showing up. I think I stayed to long at that party. If there is a current SPI investigation that would be of relevance to my opinion on the IP, but I now feel I should not interact with Andy in any shape of form ever. Good luck with the Sandy Hook page. I feel that I cannot collaborate there further. Happy Winter Solstice--Amadscientist (talk) 11:10, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
  • I would by lying if I didn't admit I did a facepalm at "drunk and beligernet editor". It does kind of show you have a predetermined bias, and I wouldn't have recommended that phrase. Technically, there is no policy against editing drunk, and we can't do a breathalizer over the internet, so it would be unenforceable anyway. One thing I've learned is that if you see Andy at ANI, there will be a split consensus, so I tend to not jump in until all the facts are out. Invariably, Andy is completely right on the merits, and completely wrong on his conduct. There is no simple answer here, either you live with it or block him. Like some others we know, he is a polarizing figure. When he isn't telling someone to fuck off, he is actually a damn good editor and has lots of clue, and still a net positive. But he aggravates the daylights out of me that 2% of the time as well. Dennis Brown - © Join WER 14:43, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
      • Thanks for the assesment. This is one of those moments when I feel the community is taking a blind eye for the sake of someone they feel is a net gain even when they drive others away. I disagree that the term shows a bias...I agree I have one. I didn't say it because I was guessing at it. He stated it outright on the ANI but we are supposed to question whether or not he meant it? I don't think it is a good idea to allow editors with such horrible social skills to get away with a claim on AN/I of "Yeah, I'm drunk. I would rather be blocked then change my behavior of name callng" (paraphrased), But as you know I am learning the ropes on the level of acceptance some editors are giving and given. No matter how bad his behavior is....he will always be allowed to stay. This doesn't just disapoint me. This concerns me greatly. But at least it is all in the open and readers and editors alike can judge for themselves how worthy Andy is. Since I was only involved in the discussion and not the actual dispute and was making an attempt to mediate what turned into a one sided name calling fight, I am reconsidering my contributions and time spent in areas that are not worth the work. I have no idea what those areas are but will take some time away from Wiki to determine this. It may simply be best if I stop trying to assist editors for a while. Clearly Andy has issues, his behavior and comments are shocking and disgraceful and no amount of good contributions will ever convince me that he is a worthy editor at the moment. Perhaps one day...but not now. If he is allowed to get away with this, others will begin to do the same and when they are blocked or sanctioned for the same behavior, a special class of editor is created. --Amadscientist (talk) 23:42, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
        • Again, Andy frustrates the crud out of me, I just don't know a solution. I also accept the fact that he is difficult to block for a variety of reasons. And I wasn't scolding, just saying the bias did come through a little. No biggie, but it was there and that hurts you, not him. I agree that Wiki'ing drunk is not a good idea. Dumb, actually, but there isn't a policy against it. You can block someone for disruption if it rises to that level (confine them to the talk page drunk tank, so to speak) but "drunk" isn't actionable by itself. I just proposed a new project at WER that might interest you. Low drama, low stress, not too much time, won't interfere with editing, should be fun. Not sure if it is you cup of tea, but it might fit your criteria here. Dennis Brown - © Join WER 23:51, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
    • I'll check it out. Don't get me wrong. I don't feel like you scolded me. In fact, I come to you as a matter of getting a better perspective. With Andy....I have just become fed up and just can't work with him in any way, but thats about me, not about him.--Amadscientist (talk) 00:03, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
  • I do want to add, the idea of "one hour block" by someone. Very, very bad idea. Short blocks for incivility are proven to cause more incivility. If it isn't worth blocking for at least a few days, it probably isn't worth blocking for. Dennis Brown - © Join WER


I think someone posted a violence threat on Andy page.--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 15:17, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

  • Since I can't see the diff (props to WK for responding to Shrike's report so quickly), I'll just give out my boilerplate reminder that any threats of violence, no matter how absurd, must be reported to the Foundation per WP:EMERGENCY. I only say this because it's a policy I stumbled on very early on here, and since then have found that a good many longterm contributors are unaware of how broad its scope is. — Francophonie&Androphilie(Je vous invite à me parler) 15:43, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
This was Mikemikev, who is currently teaching EFL in Seoul. The posting was standard for him (cf the blocked ip sock troll who intervened in the ANI thread recently). Mathsci (talk) 23:05, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

revdel?

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Grosse_Pointe&curid=654237&diff=529192253&oldid=529192236 Gtwfan52 (talk) 00:30, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Season's tidings!

To you and yours, Have a Merry ______ (fill in the blank) and Happy New Year! FWiW Bzuk (talk) 14:10, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

  • Thank you, and "Decemberween" it the fill-in-the-blank holiday for my people. It is celebrated as the 55th day after Halloween, which coincidentally is the same day as Christmas. It is celebrated with food, drink, presents and by spending quality time with family and friends. Dennis Brown - © Join WER 14:15, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Invitation to WikiProject Brands

Hello, Dennis Brown.

You are invited to join WikiProject Brands, a WikiProject and resource dedicated to improving Wikipedia's coverage of brands and brand-related topics.

To join the project, just add your name to the member list. Northamerica1000(talk) 16:52, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

  • Interesting. If the goal is what I hope it is, to help create a more consistent way to cover brands, reduce spam and fluff, and increase the number of articles on notable brands, then count me in. With all the controversy and problems with paid editing, a proactive approach is the right one. I've signed up and will take a look around when I have time. Dennis Brown - © Join WER 17:03, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for joining the new project! Cheers, Northamerica1000(talk) 17:42, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Suspicious edit in WP:FFD?

Hello, Dennis. Merry Christmas. How do you do?

I run into this edit in WP:FFD. I thought I should ask someone about it because to me, it looks like vandalism. Seems to me a user, who is not an admin, has removed an entire discussion because he thinks nominator should relist it as no one cares!

However, there is something that made me ask you: The user in question has been in Wikipedia since 2005 and has over 100,000 edits plus three additional user account rights. Vandalism is uncharacteristic of such a person. Is there something I don't get?

Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 11:23, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!

ΛΧΣ21 05:48, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!

And a happy new year
Have health, happiness and peace at your home all your life. Thanks for keeping some of us also in peace... :-) E4024 (talk) 11:17, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!!

For all you do. We need more Wikipedians like you :)

Nadolig hapus

Dennis, you are a tireless champion of fairness and reason here. Please accept my very best wishes of the season. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:06, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for the kind words. I hope you and yours have a great holiday season as well. Dennis Brown - © Join WER 02:41, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

14 hours is almost as much as I do ;) so...

Best wishes
for the holidays and 2013 from a warmer place than where you probably are ;) Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 21:57, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Haha, rub it in, Kudpung! Enjoy, both of you, Drmies (talk) 22:29, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
  • I'n in all fairness, I'm still a young fellow, barely 48, I'm not as tough as my elders, Kudpung. ;) Dennis Brown - © Join WER 22:40, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
    • Ha! You're older'n me! Drmies (talk) 22:55, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
      • You have children, I don't. Wait until they hit their teens, then we can compare gray hairs. Dennis Brown - © Join WER 22:57, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
        • Haha, as my beard would have told you, I skipped gray and went STRAIGHT to white. Which reminds me, I owe you a word: I cut it. It had to go. It looked OK, but it didn't feel so good, and Mrs. Drmies apparently thought it would interfere with marital hanky-panky. If you friend me on Facebook you can see the before, during, and after (not of the hanky-panky, of course). But you'll have to find me first--I'm completely incognito. Much respect to all the bearded ones, including Uncle G and Mandarax. BTW, I saw a picture of Kelapstick--he's not a bad-looking fellow. I think we should have a "prettiest Wikipedian" competition. Drmies (talk) 23:53, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
          • I had to grow, cut, grow a few times as well. The oil in your skin has to adjust to get rid of the itchy. Haven't found you yet, but it would be easy to find me. Good luck with the "prettiest" contest, I told you, I'm only bar pretty. Dennis Brown - © Join WER 00:06, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

From the Puppy

Happy Holidays from the Puppy!

May the coming year lead you to wherever you wish to go.

-- KillerChihuahua 17:35, 23 December 2012 (UTC)


Good news[1] Hopefully you'll be able to help him/her. KillerChihuahua 01:48, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
Thanks pup. If nothing else, hopefully the heat is reduced that some good discussion and education can take place. Dennis Brown - © Join WER 02:37, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Merry Christmas

Well, I'm not as festive (or template-gifted) as some of my fellow Wikipedians who I see have littered your page with various banners, but I still wanted to wish you a Merry Christmas (or whatever Decembertween thing you were referencing a few posts above) and a Happy New Year. Go Phightins! 02:48, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Merry Christmas

Dennis Brown, I hope you have a Merry Christmas and hope your day is full of the true spirit of the day.
Plus, good food, good family and good times. :) Have a Great Day! :) - NeutralhomerTalk07:19, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Spread the joy of Christmas by adding {{subst:User:Neutralhomer/MerryChristmas}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Merry Christmas - 2012

Christmas Greetings. Kierzek (talk) 14:47, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!

TBrandley 23:35, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

  • Just got back from sharing the evening with family, expect to do more tomorrow. Hope you get to do some of the same. Happy holidays to you as well! Dennis Brown - © Join WER 01:49, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
    • Thanks, I'm probably going to, and will hence most likely be offline tomorrow.

Hope you and your family are enjoying the holidays!

Be well and be safe!--Amadscientist (talk) 23:44, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

  • Just got home from spending time with family, about an hour away. The kids got to open their gifts, they were thrilled (they are teens, we just give cash at this point, I have no idea wtf a 17 year old wants). Going back to spend the whole day with them tomorrow, so won't be around here much. It is one of the few times I get to see everyone, so I am enjoying it. Hope you get some quality time with family and friends as well. Dennis Brown - © Join WER 01:51, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!

--LlamaAl (talk) 02:27, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!

Till 04:50, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!

Hey Dennis! Wishing you a very Happy Merry Christmas :) TheGeneralUser (talk) 12:02, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Page protection

I was reverted again today at the Union of Orthodox Hebrew Congregations. Can you semiprotect this please? The edit-warring has lasted over a month with no explanation being provided for the blanking. I have tried RFPP to no avail. 82.132.246.70 (talk) 12:13, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

  • If I semi-protect it, that means YOU won't be able to edit it as well, since you don't have a registered account. Also, we don't generally semi-protect for a content dispute, which is what this looks like. Dennis Brown - © Join WER 13:47, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

I understand that it looks suspicious; a BLP concern and an IP single purpose account. However, I assure you that the section is well sourced (8 different references) to various newspapers. There is no "content dispute" - unless you consider a section blanking tag a valid discussion - and I request that you protect the page so that only autoconfirmed accounts can edit this page. I am frustrated, I have been repeatedly reverted for over a month without explanation. 82.132.246.70 (talk) 14:20, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks ... I guess for your begrudging help. I am surprised you think the neutral version is that of a serial section blanker who has been reverted by ClueBot and other patrolling editors, while my properly sourced version has been reverted. 82.132.246.70 (talk) 14:34, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Actually, what you are adding is a BLP violation. Just because sources are talking about claims of a crime doesn't mean we can add them. I have protected the article, but because of your addition. I've reverted that out as WP:BLPCRIME clearly says we do NOT add this kind of material for simple claims of a crime. Do not add it to any other article, as that is a violation of WP:BLP. Please familiarize yourself with the policies relating to biographies of living persons. Dennis Brown - © Join WER 14:33, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
    • It isn't about the other person, it is about adding material that someone has been accused of a crime. I haven't edited the article and not familiar with the subject matter, so I only removed the material that I knew didn't belong, per WP:BLPCRIME. Not everyone accused of a crime is guilty, and in the US (where enwp's servers are located) you are presumed innocent until found guilty by a judge/jury. That is why we don't add that kind of material. Dennis Brown - © Join WER 14:38, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
Try telling that to my daughter. What national papers have reported, you have objected to. Have a shitty Christmas. 82.132.246.70 (talk) 14:52, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
We aren't a newspaper. If you would just read WP:BLPCRIME you would understand. Feel free to stay away if you are just going to be rude. Dennis Brown - © Join WER 14:53, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
Why don't you remove the Jimmy Savile allegations while you're on your righteous crusade? I am used to people ignoring my cries of pain but I am surprised to encounter similar callosity on wikipedia. 82.132.246.70 (talk) 15:00, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
Savile has been dead for over a year and is therefore not subject to the constraints of WP:BLPCRIME. Dennis is properly enforcing Wikipedia policy, nothing more. Wikipedia is not a platform for you to air your personal grievances, no matter how deeply you feel them.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:19, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
Why is my plight less important than those affected by Freddie Starr, Dave Lee Travis, Stuart Hall, Wilfred De'ath who are all alive and whose alleged misdemeanors have been reported here? 82.132.246.70 (talk) 15:25, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
I haven't looked at them to know there was a problem, and today is a bad day since I'm about to go spend the rest with family. The only reason I knew about THIS problem was that you brought it to my attention. Dennis Brown - © Join WER 15:32, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
I'll jump back in to try to help a little. First, I know this is personal for you, but Dennis's actions are not personal. Your plight is not less important or more important than any other person related to a victim of alleged child molestation; no one is trying to diminish that. Second, Wikipedia has many articles. Sometimes articles have problems that come to the attention of someone who can correct the problem. Sometimes they don't. Unfortunately, that may create inconsistencies among articles as to application of policy. Dennis made the right decision here, in my view. If another article has material that violates policy, it should be corrected, not the other way around. Third, I took the Starr article and looked at it as it was the first on your list. No one reported a problem with the article. Thus, unless someone happens to notice the addition of the child molestation accusation (I assume that's what you're referring to), it would remain until someone did and challenged it. I'm not going to express an opinion on whether the Starr material violates WP:BLPCRIME, but it would not surprise me if someone argued that it did. However, there is an important distinction between the Starr and the Union articles. One of the exceptions to BLPCRIME is WP:WELLKNOWN. It could easily be argued that Starr is much better known than the rabbi. I'm not going to look at all the other articles - honestly, I'm just too busy at the moment.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:40, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

What do you think?--Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 12:33, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

  • I've filed for my first GA on another article, so I'm not as familiar with the process as you likely are. If you think there is enough material that can be added to obtain GA status, then I would be happy to work with you on getting a GA. Dennis Brown - © Join WER 13:44, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
    • I think it would be possible, yes, though I have only one GA myself I have done a few reviews .. I'd be happy to work on it with you so I'll get started in January?--Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 14:50, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

..


Seasons greetings to you and yours
Dougweller (talk) 13:36, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

BN thread

I posted to User_talk:Ligulem#BN before seeing your "we need to be as welcoming as we are inquisitive and have a better tone in the questions", but I'm happy to see we are on the same page.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 15:20, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

  • It is a bit of a Catch 22. We DO want to be more inviting to users coming back. I would imagine most are coming back only long enough to keep the bit, prompted by the email, not just coincidentally coming back. But yes, we should welcome them back as we would any editor. Asking question (properly worded) is appropriate, however. In my mind, when we remove the bit from the user, they are still technically an admin. The bit is removed only as a security measure, not for cause. As such, when they return to claim the bit, they should be treated like any other admin. Part of being an admin is being willing to answer questions about their actions or lack of, and in part, this helps verify who they are. Obviously, we need to be more polite in asking them and not make it feel like they are being interrogated, and TRM's methods did cross over into that, but I think that wasn't really his intention, he was just overreacting to the previous problems a bit. Part of the battle seems to be two lines of thought, MBisanz (and surely others) is on the side that the Crats must act on policy in a very rigid and strict way: resysop unless there is a policy reason why you can't. Others tend to subscribe to the idea that the Crats can exercise some discretion in making the call, based on the best interests of Wikipedia. There is logic to each argument, and at this point I can't claim to know which is "best" or "correct". This division seems to be the underlying issue on several discussions there. This is a very unusual set of circumstances that is not likely to be repeated, so I'm looking forward to things returning to normal in a week. Until then, I think we should try to meet in the middle, and be extra cautious in our questioning, but still ask the questions. Of course, that is a Crat board and I'm not a Crat, so I don't want to push the point too hard. Dennis Brown - © Join WER 15:59, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Happy holidays!

Happy Holidays!
From the frozen wasteland of Nebraska, USA! MONGO 12:15, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 24 December 2012

  • News and notes: Debates on Meta sparking along—grants, new entities, and conflicts of interest
    As part of its new focus on core responsibilities, the Wikimedia Foundation is reforming its grant schemes so that they are more accessible to individual volunteers. The community is invited to look at proposals for a new scheme—for now called Individual engagement grants (IEGs)—which is due to kick off on January 15. On Meta, the community is once again debating the two new offline participation models—user groups (open membership groups designed to be easy to form) and thematic organizations (incorporated non-profits representing the Wikimedia movement and supporting work on a specific theme within or across countries). In a consultation process on Meta that will last until January 15, the community will be discussing WMF proposals for a new guideline on conflicts of interests concerning Wikimedia resources. The draft covers COI issues for both volunteers and organizations across the movement.
  • WikiProject report: A Song of Ice and Fire
    This week, we spent some time with WikiProject A Song of Ice and Fire, which focuses on the eponymous series of high fantasy literature, the television series Game of Thrones, and related works by George R. R. Martin. The project was started in July 2006 and has grown to include 11 Good Articles maintained by a small yet enthusiastic band of editors.
  • Featured content: Battlecruiser operational
    Seven articles and two lists were promoted to 'featured' status this week, including List of battlecruisers. The article covers all of the battlecruisers—which were a type of warship similar in size to a battleship but with several defining characteristics—ever planned or constructed. The last British battlecruiser built, HMS Hood, is pictured at right.
  • Technology report: Efforts to "normalise" Toolserver relations stepped up
    Efforts were stepped up this week to sow a feeling of trust between the major parties with an interest in the future of the Toolserver. The tool- and bot-hosting server – more accurately servers – are currently operated by German chapter, Wikimedia Germany, with assistance from the Foundation and numerous volunteers, including long-time system administrator Daniel Baur (more commonly known by his pseudonym DaB). However, those parties have more recently failed to see eye-to-eye on the trajectory for the Toolserver, which is scheduled to be replaced by Wikimedia Labs in late 2013, with increasing concern about the tone of discussions.

Just in case you wish to comment, I filed a report at WP:ANEW, and I mentioned your name in passing.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:37, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

WADC (radio station)‎ and other points

Hey Dennis, hope your Christmas was a good one. When you have a moment, could you move WADC (radio station)‎ back to WADC. The page was moved from its proper place (at WADC) against MOS and naming convensions. Thanks. - NeutralhomerTalk16:15, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

  • I'm a little short on time today, but I think you need to address the move with the editor, so I'm not stepping on someone's toes. I think you are right on your assessment, but he is a long time editor and there may be issues I'm not aware of. You can point him here if you want. Dennis Brown - © Join WER 16:24, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Hollisz

Just noticed, on the Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Zimmermanh1997 front, User:Hollisz has, once again, posted more "poor edits" here and here. These are the first two edits after coming off a 31 hour block by User:Drmies. I will post this information to the SPI page. - NeutralhomerTalk16:20, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
Brought Hollisz to AIV per Drmies instructions after the 31 hour block. - NeutralhomerTalk16:27, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
But it isn't sockpuppeting. There is no overlap. I've closed that case. If he is being disruptive, then Drmies knows how to handle that aspect. It isn't socking to stop using one account and start using another. He could have forgotten a password, for example. Dennis Brown - © Join WER 16:48, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
True, he could have, it just felt DUCKy to be since he switched from the Zimmermanh1997 account, then to the IP, then to Hollisz. AIV will, hopefully, handle the Hollisz account. - NeutralhomerTalk16:51, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
No question it is him, I'm just saying there are legitimate reasons and allowed uses for multiple accounts as well. Dennis Brown - © Join WER 16:55, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
True, I just don't think he is doing this for those good reasons. I know, AGF. Do you think it would easier to protect the pages he frequents or maybe setup an edit filter to prevent him from making these edits? It has worked in the past with other users. - NeutralhomerTalk17:05, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
If he is doing something disruptive or against policy, an admin can take action on it. I just can't for sockpuppeting. I don't think an edit filter will work. Like all disruptive behaviors, you have to start by talking to him on his talk page (in a calm manner that assumes good faith) and try to fix the problem at the lowest level. For an admin to take any action, it has to be shown that the least aggressive methods have been attempted and failed. Dennis Brown - © Join WER 18:51, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
After I took him to AIV (per Drmies instructions), Diannaa posted a personal, calm, non-templated warning, but to no avail. Edit-warring continues. :S I updated the AIV post as I am unsure what else I can do. - NeutralhomerTalk20:40, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Looks like Diannaa blocked him. We have to give everyone a chance for someone to conform, she did. I just haven't been on much lately, it is getting to that time of year when I will be scarce for a few months, and I actually have to "work" at work, so it is often hard for me to research deep enough to take action. Dennis Brown - © Join WER 22:09, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Happy Holidays!

Happy holidays.
Best wishes for joy and happiness. Also, best of luck to the new year! Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 21:04, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Just wanted to get my two cents in as well :) Happy Holidays, Happy New Year, Et ceterA, Et ceterA! -- JoannaSerah (talk) 22:23, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Andrew Powers

Hello Dennis, First of all thank you for your reviewing of the SPI case and quick decision. However I noticed that User:Andrew Powers is not blocked indefinitely as you might have assumed here [2] as in the block log they have only been blocked by Kuru for 2 weeks (see [3]). As the main account User:Andrew J Powers which was renamed to User:Andrew Powers back in april 2012, is the actual main account now, so they might need to be indefinitely blocked as you said. Regards. TheGeneralUser (talk) 17:22, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Hank Harrison

I just want to let you know that I do understand you, I am also reluctant to repeat a clearly defamatory claim about a 72 old man originally made in the context of a apparently bitter divorce custody hearing and then repeated by Love who obviously doesn't remember anything from then. But I don't see how we can have the biography and not include both the accusations and Harrison's response to it since both have been widely published by secondary sources. That is why I think we should delete the article, it is too much of a mess for wikipedia to get involved in a dispute between Courtney Love and her father.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:42, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

  • Without question, I know your argument is in good faith and I understand your reasoning, even if I disagree with you. It is a Catch 22, which makes me want to default to excluding it. Like you, I'm hoping it will simply get deleted and make the point moot. Until then, it is at a standstill, we both have differing opinions and can just wait for others to pipe in to see if a consensus can develop. I'm a fan of WP:BRD and letting the system work, even when I don't agree with the outcome. I never take stuff like this personal, and glad to see you don't either. Neither of us have a dog in this hunt, we both are just doing what we think is the proper interpretation of policy. Dennis Brown - © Join WER 18:41, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
Yes, I've requested additional comments at tyhe BLPN and at the talkpage of the biography of Courtney Love where the same claims are currently included.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 18:47, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
Great minds think alike :) I was thinking that this would be a good idea, glad to see you already started. Dennis Brown - © Join WER 18:50, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Socks

Dennis, please look at User talk:186.212.143.98. I'm comfortable with the block, but I'm not sure that the user isn't correct about the Dalai lama ding dong part. If you look at the Dalai lama SPI report, you'll note that User:Marokwitz tied the IPs to BilalSaleh and Guinsberg, which the IP admits to. Marokwitz also tied them to the Dalai lama, but now I'm not so sure. If you scroll up the report, you'll notice that other IPs have been tied to Dalai lama, but none geolocate to Brazil - they all edit from the UK. Now the IP admits to abusing multiple accounts, but I want to be accurate about who is the master when I block. If I don't hear from you because of your schedule, I'll try to enlist the support of another SPI person. Of course, if any of you talk page stalkers want to pitch in ...--Bbb23 (talk) 19:58, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Guinsberg is BilalSaleh, confirmed by CU and behaviorial similarities, and geolocates to Brazil as noted before at ANI. Dalai Lama Ding Dong generally geolocates to Northern England/Scotland. I filed an SPI thinking that Bilal Saleh was a sock of Dalai lama ding dong. The CU admin, on discovering that the BilalSaleh and the Guinsberg account were connected, labeled them as socks of DLDD. Marokwitz then relied on this in his subsequent SPI. In hindsight, Guinsberg is probably an independent sockmaster. Ankh.Morpork 20:21, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
I haven't looked at the history of how the SPI reports were filed and aggregated, but assuming you are correct, then the reports and the tags on the user pages need to be fixed. I don't suppose you want to connect the dots (links/diffs) on how the reports themselves went awry? I really need to be doing my real life work.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:51, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
I've noted in archive, but not sure what else to do. Some socks will geolocate differenty for a variety of reasons, proxys (both open and closed) being one reason. I don't have the time to sort it all out right now, which is why I just noted it in the archive. Dennis Brown - © Join WER 21:03, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
Thanks, Dennis. I'm not going to do anything further on the clean-up issue. However, if I have to block more puppets (I did one subsequent to opening this conversation), I will not specify that they are a puppet of Dalai lama.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:09, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
Sounds good. With IPs, it doesn't matter as long as we can track it back to someone. Dennis Brown - © Join WER 21:13, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
I agree. Marokwitz (talk) 12:03, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

A couple of sockpuppet archives that may need merging

At Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Historylover4/Archive you mention that Turmerick is the Master. Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Turmerick/Archive. Dougweller (talk) 10:04, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Hollisz/Zimmermannh1997, Part 2

Well, looks like there is officially some crossover between the two named accounts and 98.204.145.138. What should I do? - NeutralhomerTalk15:08, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

72.228.190.243

Hi Dennis, Could I ask you to look at recent contributions from this IP address. The contributor is inserting POV into articles, but is also using bad language against those who disagree with him/her (See Talk Page). Would be glad of your opinion. Will be away for a few days from tomorrow. Best regards, David J Johnson (talk) 22:25, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

  • I gave a final warning. Their other contributions seem in good faith, although not impressive. If they continue, I would recommend a block. I think I've been exceedingly generous, but I hate to block for one inappropriate outburst. Dennis Brown - © Join WER 22:35, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Dennis, Unfortunately he has now had a "go" at you. Frankly, I don't think he will listen to reason. Regards,David J Johnson (talk) 22:54, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

  • I've directed him to a couple of essays. I'm not worried what he says about me, he doesn't know me, appears to not understand Wikipedia in the least, so I will allow him a little more rope. Granted, it is probably for naught, but if he gets blocked, I will know I at least tried. Dennis Brown - © Join WER 23:05, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Check out this. If you spot the Chopin influences you'd be right, and he's buried very close to him in Paris. ♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 15:03, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

  • Wow, I wasn't familiar with him, but I love his style. You can tell he has his own beat inside, and it comes through very clear. Not just technical skill, but soul. Interesting article as well. Found this jewels as well. [4] Dennis Brown - © Join WER 15:44, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Early greetings for the new year

Best Wishes for a Happy New Year!
May 2013 bring you rewarding experiences and an abundance of everything you most treasure.
Cynwolfe (talk) 16:59, 28 December 2012 (UTC)


Victory, Janus, Chronos, and Gaea (1532–34) by Giulio Romano

Although our interactions have been limited, I appreciate your calm, reasonable approach. Cynwolfe (talk) 16:59, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

new editor barnstar

Dennis, do you know of a barnstar that would be fitting for a brand new editor whose work, altho not very extensive, has been spot on? There is a guy that has been editing Idaho articles that is doing a bang up job, and I wanted him to know it has been noticed. Unfortunately, there is no Idaho barnstar. Thanks in advance! Gtwfan52 (talk) 19:12, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Point is moot as the account has been blocked anyway. Mtking 22:02, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

  • Ah, I see. At SPI, the CUs are funny about providing diffs. Often, we will just investigate anyway, but they really want us "clerking" more and digging around from scratch less. I jumped on that case because I'm familiar with the master, but it wasn't obvious enough at first glance that I could just block, which is why I needed diffs. Dennis Brown - © Join WER 11:43, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Kiefer

Hi Dennis. I see you have commented on Kiefer's talk page, so I thought you should be made aware that he has banished me from his page and has removed a number of my comments (including where I pointed out that Sven has been in email contact with the RfA candidate, has concluded that he no longer has any concerns, and has switched his !vote to Support). I think those comments are pertinent to the discussion and should be seen by any reviewing admin. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 23:39, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

  • I just walked in, it looks like someone took his talk page access. I was hoping to bring a little calm into that discussion by just providing a perspective that didn't take either side, but since it failed, I just smiled and backed away. Most of the time, Kiefer has an interesting perspective on things, but once he goes off the deep end, there is no saving him. Dennis Brown - © Join WER 01:54, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
    Yeah, it's a shame he switches into attack mode so readily - apart from that unfortunate tendency, I think quite highly of him. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 02:05, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
    I do too, even if we got a rough start at my RfA, and I generally get along with him just fine. That is why I tried to start a process of walking him away from the edge of cliff. Once I saw he took my comment out of context, I just struck it per his request and backed away, not wanting to make the situation worse, concluding that I couldn't help him. I was really trying to help him but I don't think he understood that. Dennis Brown - © Join WER 02:19, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Ihardlythinkso, for the second time: go away. I've done all the explaining I need to do. I have no idea what comment of Elen's you are talking about, and I don't really care since I'm not responsible for her words. You are just soapboxing and making personal attacks, and doing so with an astonishing lack of clue. I really don't want to repeat myself, go away, come back in 2013, but you are not welcome here until then. This starting to look like Suicide by cop, and I want no part of it. Any further posts by you this year will be reverted by me or any talk page stalker. Dennis Brown - © Join WER 13:38, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
  • You've asked me a Q, Dennis, so I'll answer it: No. (You struck something, you clearly didn't take back, but just to placate a request. That's a clear pattern, with Kiefer, and now with me.) Your bias against me, versus Townsend whom you let a litany of personal attacks slide without comment, naming them "opinions" and "[user] errors", but labelling of personal attack here against me, is noted. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 06:25, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

:This was a rather long discussion with strange meanderings.

Thanks for the just words, Dennis. Let's forget about the unjust words .
For the record, Boing has acknowledged misreading what I repeatedly wrote, and he has struck many of comments. I have acknowledged his good faith, and stated my wish that I had not written "little man", etc.
Perhaps the heat of the discussion arose because we both take due process and good names seriously and we also share a serious commitment to protecting persons with concerns about alleged sexual harassment?
TParis's excision of the discussion prevented me from striking more of my comments from AN/I, but I did strike several on my page. Boing has been welcomed to post whenever he wants on my talk page, of course.
For comparison, I had quoted Boing's discussion of Sven, which had three variations on "lie" in one edit, without calling Sven a liar. I also quoted or gave diffs of various personal attacks on myself, which resulted in no blocks or administrative warnings. Scott MacDonald's rabid attack has still not resulted in a retraction or a warning, but has received endorsements from blocking heads at ANI, who never miss an opportunity for viciousness. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 13:13, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
    • I was trying to keep an arm's length away so I could consider an unblock, but I chose my words poorly, so that it could be taken more than one way. I really did mean it in a very general way, but completely understand how it could be taken as specific. That was just a failure of communication on my part, so I bowed out as to not make the situation worse. I really am sorry about that. I hope you know that I have a good opinion of you, I just failed miserably in my verbiage that day. Dennis Brown - © Join WER 22:11, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

..

Interesting copy/paste issue encountered

I've been doing a lot of work on a handful of articles (particularly Fort Dobbs (North Carolina), which relates to the Anglo-Cherokee War article substantially. In the process of creating the Dobbs article, I made a few edits to the pre-existing (and somewhat poorly cited) Anglo-Cherokee article. Whilst doing that, I encountered the following website: [6]. On this site, someone named Gilles C. H. Nullens of Belgium purports to have written a series of books on everything from Native Americans to the Masons. In his book on the native americans, he has what appears to be near-verbatim copies of Wikipedia articles, noticeably the following: Anglo-Cherokee War -- Nullens link 1; Battle of Blue Licks -- Nullens link 2; Battle of Oriskany -- Nullens link 3.

I looked at the revisions, and each seemed to take their current form in short-term, large-scale re-writes. Blue licks was rewritten by Kevin Myers on August 21, 2006 See differences; for Oriskany, it appears to have been set in its current form (and that copied on the Nullens site) on May 7, 2009 by user Magicpiano See differences; and as for the Anglo-Cherokee War, it appears that the article reached a crystalised version of its current state as of May 25, 2009, based on the edits of Natty4bumpo See that article.

My first thought is that this Mr. Nullens is just copying wikipedia articles and presenting them as his own, which I suppose can't be stopped. The variety of editors involved in editing these three articles alone -- especially given the involvement of Kevin Myers, whose edits I think are top-grade -- makes me certain that this is the case, rather than the idea that some cabal is attempting to copyvio the works of an unknown amateur historian from Belgium. Just thought I'd bring it up, though, in case anything can be done to rectify the situation. Thanks! Cdtew (talk) 05:24, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Earth100/101

Dennis, couldn't a CU be done to check whether the two accounts are related? Not saying whether it should or shouldn't be done, just asking whether it's feasible.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:01, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

  • I've already tried to ping a CU twice to see if they were interested. The argument about 1600 hours is incorrect, they edit roughly around that time on the weekends some. Someone could file at SPI and request CU if they wanted. That CU can't prove disprove, particularly if one is on a proxy, open or otherwise. Dennis Brown - © Join WER 23:05, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

My Hogmanay message

I've been rather astonished by the events of the last few days, but they've made it very clear to me that Malleus carries too much baggage to be anything other than a drama magnet. I don't think that's right, but I'm only one person, I can't change anything. Perhaps I'll edit from one of my alleged admin accounts if I decide to contribute here again.

I actually think that I'm very easy to work with, unless you go out of your way to piss me off of course, and if you do you'll get both barrels, admittedly. Anyway, I'm sorry I won't be able to offer any more help with your 1950s American automoble culture article, but I'm sure you understand. Just one final piece of advice; try to remember that the article is about culture, not the 1950s automobile industry, and good luck at GA/FA. Malleus Fatuorum

  • It is unfortunate but I understand, as we both knew this day was coming. I wish I knew a solution that would satisfy both "sides". While I've tried, it is well beyond my capability to resolve. Thank you for taking the time to help me with the article, it truly made a difference for both the reader and me personally. I learned a tremendous number of things; more in two months than the previous two years combined. And yes, I had to look up "Hogmanay", so even on your way out, you taught me something. Whatever you do next, I hope you find peace and purpose, friend. You deserve that. Dennis Brown - © Join WER 03:11, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
Recommended reading in the context: User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive 122#Continued: civility and team spirit, bottom line: civility is not spoken but lived. You two do that, keep it up, the best for 2013! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:21, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks

Your words of support truly mean a lot. ```Buster Seven Talk 00:07, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

  • And your enthusiastic support of editor retention, the project and new users means a lot to me as well. You have more than earned my support for a free t-shirt. If they gave you a leather jacket, Nike's and a cool hat, we would still owe you :) Dennis Brown - © Join WER 00:10, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

(EC) Added thought: I NEVER support administrative action because of incivility. I support peer pressure; editors on the scene taking care of the act of incivility. Its one of the basic reasons we are civil in real life. It keeps us collaborators working toward a common goal: a social structure that works. No matter how loud those that don't agree scream, here, on the web, we are citizens of WikiPediaWorld. ```Buster Seven Talk 00:18, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

  • "Although we rank the expletives Boomer shouted among our language's top five most offensive words, they're also among the top five most frequently used, according to Timothy Jay, the author of "Cursing in America" and a professor at the Massachusetts College of Liberal Arts." That quote alone is very telling. Oftentimes, making something taboo or illegal only makes it happen more frequently. Dennis Brown - © Join WER 16:15, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
A Peace Officers peace can not be disturbed. A citizen needs to make a complaint. At least that's how it is in my neck of the woods. Also consider that, sometimes, the simple harmless swear word carries alot of venom and anger behind it making it neither simple nor harmless. ```Buster Seven Talk 20:32, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

wondering

Hollisz Update

Hey Dennis, hope all is well. With User:Drmies‎ on a Wikibreak, I may have to lean on you for blocks or whatever when it comes to the Zimmermanh1997/Hollisz/98.204.145.138 situation. I kinda hate to do so, since you are insanely busy, but you are the only one (besides Drmies) that knows this whole case. Just wanted to keep you in the loop. Hope you have a good day and a Happy 2013! :) - NeutralhomerTalk14:47, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Murthy

Dennis, just a heads up that I restored the topic ban thread from the archive at WP:AN. Another editor nudged me about this on my talk page. I've been much less active since the unfortunate events of a couple of days ago. It feels like slogging through mud, and I have to force myself to do anything at all. Regards.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:19, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

2013

File:Happy New Year 2013.jpg Have an enjoyable New Year!
Hello Dennis Brown: Thanks for all of your contributions to Wikipedia, and have a happy and enjoyable New Year! Cheers, Northamerica1000(talk) 15:24, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Brains Work Better barnstar

The 'Brains Work Better in A Community' Award
Thank you for all your efforts to befriend and assist your fellow Wikipedian Editors (WE). WE are a community and the more WE allow attack tactics, the more WE become imprisoned by the result. Sometimes WE need a reminder that WE are all human and entitled to respect. What's so bad about Peace, Love and Understanding? ```Buster Seven Talk 18:29, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
👍 Like Go Phightins! 18:54, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Kudos

The eggnog of good citizenship award
For being unfailingly kind and consistently helpful, for taking WP:AGF to heart in all you do, and because barnstars are just so 2012, you are hereby awarded this partially-filled glass of eggnog. (Hurry and drink it before it spoils.) Hope your busy new year is a happy one for you, on and off the wiki. Rivertorch (talk) 21:51, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

YellowPegasus

Hello,

I was wondering, shouldn't YellowPegasus (talk · contribs) be sporting a

{{sockpuppet|1=PIPony22|2=confirmed}}

as AnnaHendren (talk · contribs) does? (Not urgent, since YellowPegasus is already indefblocked)

-- 70.24.248.246 (talk) 23:06, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Happy New Year !!!
Who should I nudge to get this resolved ? Mtking 23:58, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Wonder Woman and WonderBoy

If you think it appropriate, would you mind mentioning the circumstances around your checkuser block of WeirdWoman123 as a sock of WonderBoy98? I'm not questioning your decision — rather, I'm confused why you'd indef-block a user as a sock without blocking the sockmaster. Please see the "Wonder Woman/GA2" section of my talk page and the "Wonder Woman" section of User talk:Aircorn if you care about why I'm asking: someone wants to G4 speedy a page that WonderBoy created, and I'm very much unsure how to handle the situation. Nyttend (talk) 14:38, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

  • Feel free to revert any edits by WeirdWoman or delete any page, CU (DoRD) was very clear on the connection. I've emailed WonderBoy and trying to offer them an opportunity to not get blocked and instead get a little mentoring, but I haven't received a reply. If I don't get a reply soon, I will file a SPI report to hang the CU results and they will be blocked for a short period as the sockmaster. It is unusual to do this, but I'm hoping it might be more effective at preventing future socks in this one circumstance. Dennis Brown - © Join WER 14:47, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
  • SPI clerk, but not a CU. Someone dropped me this case via email, I pinged the CU DoRD on IRC and got the result. It isn't typical but the emailer thinks the editor is very young, so I just wanted to try the more gentle approach. Most cases do hit the SPI pages, but a few like this get handled off venue. Dennis Brown - © Join WER 15:41, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Dennis Brown. You have new messages at Talk:1950s American automobile culture/GA1.
Message added 18:15, 1 January 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

TBrandley (what's up) 18:15, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your quick action

On the Pete K IP use issue. hgilbert (talk) 18:41, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Apology

I had a brain fart, and apologized here: [15] Dennis Brown - © Join WER 23:44, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 31 December 2012

  • From the editor: Wikipedia, our Colosseum
    In the impersonal, detached Colosseum that is Wikipedia, people find it much easier to put their thumbs down. As such, many people active in the Wikimedia movement have witnessed a precipitous decline in civil discourse. This is far from a new trend, yet many people would agree that it all seemed somehow worse in 2012.
  • In the media: Is the Wikimedia movement too 'cash rich'?
    A recent, poorly researched and poorly written story in the Register highlighted the perceived "cash rich" status of the Wikimedia movement. ... The Telegraph and Daily Dot, among others, have alleged that there are multiple links between the WMF, Wikipedia co-founder Jimmy Wales, and Kazakhstan's government, which is, for all intents and purposes, a one-party non-democratic state.
  • Technology report: Looking back on a year of incremental changes
    In the first of two features, the Signpost this week looks back on 2012, a year when developers finally made inroads into three issues that had been put off for far too long (the need for editors to learn wiki-markup, the lack of a proper template language and the centralisation of data) but left all three projects far from finished.
  • Interview: Interview with Brion Vibber, the WMF's first employee
    Brion Vibber has been a Wikipedia editor for nearly 11 years and was the first person officially hired to work for the Wikimedia Foundation. He was instrumental in early development of the MediaWiki software and is now the lead software architect for the foundation's mobile development team.
  • Featured content: Whoa Nelly! Featured content in review
    At the beginning of the year, we began a series of interviews with editors who have worked hard to combat systemic bias through the creation of featured content; although we haven't seen six installments yet, we've also had some delightful interviews with people who write articles on some of our most core topics. Now, as we close the year, I would like to present some of my own musings on the state of featured content—especially as it pertains to systemic bias and core topics.
  • WikiProject report: New Year, New York
    This week, we're celebrating the New Year from Times Square by interviewing WikiProject New York City. Since December 2004, WikiProject NYC has had the difficult task of maintaining articles about the largest city in the United States, many of which are also among the the most viewed articles on Wikipedia. The project is home to 22 Featured Articles, 7 Featured Lists, 32 pieces of Featured Media, and a lengthy list of Did You Know? entries.
  • Recent research: Wikipedia and Sandy Hook; SOPA blackout reexamined
    Northeastern University researcher Brian Keegan analyzed the gathering of hundreds of Wikipedians to cover the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting in the immediate aftermath of the tragedy. ... A First Monday article reviews several aspects of the Wikipedia participation in the 18 January 2012, protests against SOPA and PIPA legislation in the USA. The paper focuses on the question of legitimacy, looking at how the Wikipedia community arrived at the decision to participate in those protests.

Up for a challenge, Mr. Editor Retention?

WP:ANI#Moving forward. — Francophonie&Androphilie(Je vous invite à me parler) 17:59, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

  • I'm flattered, but as my page notice indicates, I just started that time of year when I'm going to be working 14 hours a day. I have one of those odd jobs where I only really work half the time, but lots of hours when I do. I have a couple under observation as it is, and this would stretch me a bit thin, thus not be fair to them. Dennis Brown - © Join WER 18:05, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Mail

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.

```Buster Seven Talk 21:20, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. take yer time...weeks if necessary. Its been on the shelf for years. No rush. ```Buster Seven Talk 03:08, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Not that I keep track, but...

I won. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:55, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Ha! ```Buster Seven Talk 03:29, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
I'm thick headed, and besides, I went and snuggled with the Mrs. ENWP keeps me up at night too much, I needed sleep. And snuggling. Dennis Brown - © Join WER 14:21, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

E-mail

I accidentally disabled e-mail when updating gender. Sorry. It as been enabled again.--Amadscientist (talk) 02:51, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Updating Gender???? ```Buster Seven Talk 03:09, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
Yep. Its possible. LOL! ( I decided on male. Works for me)--Amadscientist (talk) 03:42, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
Haven't gotten anything Dennis. If you sent something it may have been unable to get through due to the overload on my email. I cleaned out a ton of stuff so it should work OK now.--Amadscientist (talk) 22:32, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

McGurk Johnny

Thanks. That, as (ironically enough) the user speculated, was exactly why I put this on hold. As one of the regular unblock-request reviewers, I think I speak for most of us when I say that I do prefer that when someone is blocked for sockpuppetry without an SPI or even sockmaster identified, that it is difficult to properly review the block in the event of an unblock request. Which, as we see, does happen. (Vent mode off; hope you don't feel implicated since this is just a general complaint of mine). Daniel Case (talk) 04:14, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

  • I completely understand. I strongly prefer linkage. Not necessarily SPI when it is very obvious, but in cases like this. In this case, I had announced he was a sock of "unknown" at IRC, NW looked and agreed and did the block, so there was already two sets of eyes before you got there. I quickly tracked down a CU on IRC and provided enough convincing to justify the CU check (that is kind of strict since it is a privacy concern). Then I put the info in the SPI archives for him. NW was just a little quicker on the trigger than I thought. My first impression was that it might have been Mathewtownsend, who was just blocked and known for anti-malleus rants. If I'm around and you have an issue with blocked sock of "unknown", feel free to ping me, I don't mind looking and filing the paperwork at SPI, etc. Dennis Brown - © Join WER 14:14, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Recommendation for good medical article to use as a model

Dennis, stalkers:

Due to some unfortunate family circumstances I found myself reading everything I could find on percutaneous vertebroplasty a few nights ago. I added the best reference I found to the article and tucked it away on my watchlist to come back to later. A new editor came through shortly afterwards and, although the formatting was a wreck, he appeared to know what he was talking about. I engaged him, and he turns out to be an expert in this area (although definitely not in wikipedia editing). We're talking by email.

Rather than hand him a stack of policy pages to read I think it would be much more efficient to show him an exemplary medical article and say "Do it this way" (filling in policy as needed). What would you suggest for a unusually good article on a medical procedure that has a fair bit of actual controversy surrounding it? (By actual controversy I mean that there are very solid – and conflicting – secondary sources.)

Also, if you know of someone who works on medical articles and doesn't have enough to do already I could probably use another set of eyes on this.

Thanks much,

GaramondLethe 06:10, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

  • MastCell is sporadically involved, and Colin is quite busy ... really, the best thing to do is AnthonyCole's advice ... post a request to WT:MED. And show the new editor two pages: WP:MEDRS (on sourcing requirements for medical articles, particularly since non-wikipedians have a tendency to do original research and use primary studies and case reports rather than secondary reviews) and WP:MEDMOS (particularly the sections on what sort of encyclopedic language we use and how medical articles are organized). Also, this Dispatch will help, and should be required reading for anyone editing medical articles: Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-06-30/Dispatches. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:55, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Thanks for all the great advice and recommendations—that's exactly what I was looking for. And yes, Dennis, you do have the most helpful stalkers in all of wikipedia. GaramondLethe 01:27, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Legitimate claim to an account

Hi. You wrote "... there is no way the former account holder has a legitimate claim to the name." As I sit here and read this, I wonder how your claim to the account "Dennis Brown" is any different than this (former) user's claim to the account "Griot". There is most certainly a legitimate claim to the name, isn't there? The user is presumably able to authenticate it using his or her password, which is all we require around here, for me or for you or for anyone. --MZMcBride (talk) 17:21, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

  • In this case, socking was the issue. The account was blocked as an illegitimate use of a name for abusing multiple accounts. I have never seen an instance where a sockpuppet of a master was allowed to come back as a legitimate alternate account. This isn't speaking to the puppetmaster (whos contribs would still be linked via the new name after the old was usurped). In my eyes, it is ONLY because it is a sockpuppet that we allow this. The account will never be allowed to be used by the original creator anyway. If it was an account in good standing with 5k edits, I wouldn't even have considered it, even if it was abandoned years ago. The "sock" is what makes the claim invalid and removes any previous or future use that is fully in good faith. But, that is just my perspective, my idea of when it is ok to make an exception and use discretion: when there is no way for the original owner to use the account due to it being blocked as a sock many years ago. I'm no expert here, and always open to being persuaded. Dennis Brown - © Join WER 17:28, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
    • Perhaps I'm misreading the checkuser thingy, but it looks like Griot was the master account, not a sockpuppet. Writ Keeper 17:40, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
      • Damn, you are right. That was my error. That is a different thing. If he was the sock, then to me there is clear discretion. If he is the master, that is a different thing. Thank you for correcting me, Writ. Have to ponder that. Dennis Brown - © Join WER 17:42, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
      • See my comment there. I just had a conference with some tech and crat types, the foundation is going to force SUL unification anyway, so eventually the account would be usurped if not today. Thus, I'm supporting the change as an inevitable outcome. Jeez, confusing stuff. Dennis Brown - © Join WER 19:47, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
        • You're coming dangerously close to fearmongering. Do you have a reliable source for the claims you're making? (Hint: a random unmaintained page at mediawiki.org does not count.) --MZMcBride (talk) 20:52, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
          • Fear mongering?? There is no "fear", only facts based on actual discussions that this will be coming anyway. I'm not shocked it is coming, SUL needs unification across all wikis. No one is "threatened" by it, so I have no clue what you are referring to. Dennis Brown - © Join WER 21:36, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
            • Discussions where? --MZMcBride (talk) 21:49, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
              • Real time discussion on IRC, admin channel, links and all. I was aware that SUL unification had been discussed before, but that discussion convinced me that it was an ongoing plan. Like you, I started here before unified logins. Of course, it makes sense that they eventually want to completely unify everything. I suggest moving this to the Crat page if you want to discuss it further, so anyone can participate. But again, there is no "fear" or anything TO fear. Dennis Brown - © Join WER 21:54, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
                • I imagine some users might fear losing their preferred account name with many thousands of edits. That's what completely unified login entails, you realize?
                  With respect, in my discussions with Oliver and others at BN, it's become increasingly clear that nearly everyone involved in these tech chats is completely clueless. --MZMcBride (talk) 22:07, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
                  • At this stage, they are only talking about notifying and giving them a change to oppose. Eventually, it will all have to go that way. In this case, it is a prolific sock master that hasn't edited in a few years, so it is a fairly safe bet. I DID raise all those issues in that discussion, you might note, and did a lot of background on policy before concluding what I concluded. Doesn't mean I'm right, but there is some logic to all this. Dennis Brown - © Join WER 23:30, 3 January 2013 (UTC)