This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 5 | ← | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | Archive 13 | Archive 14 | Archive 15 |
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Tri-Five, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Cid ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 12:08, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
Want some help? Maintenance is much easier for me while I'm at school than content creation. If you help me learn to clerk SPI I'll be able to help. Ryan Vesey 00:32, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
Turns out that, between the last time I check fun-l this morning and my knighting you this evening, there was a discussion started about promotions – so I ended up jumping the gun and overriding everyone else by fiat. :-) I hope you'll forgive me if I say that you shouldn't consider my promoting you as valid until the discussion takes its course. I didn't even know consensus was being build; I was just clearly thinking along the same lines as everybody else alone in my room while the real discussion was taking place elsewhere. :-) — Coren (talk) 03:16, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
Hi Dennis - I was wanting to revert this clear vandal edit - its a BLP - diif - I don't think reverting of vandal alterations such as this would be a violation of my agreed conditions - thoughts? Youreally can 02:44, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
Hello again Dennis, Sorry to trouble you again, but could I ask you to look at the above named page. User Tdp1001 seems intent on causing a edit war with contributions which are unreferenced and appear to be POV. I would be grateful for your advice on whether you consider the page should be protected. With best regards, as ever, David. David J Johnson ( talk) 15:54, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
noindex - User has reverted my noindexing of his evidence page - I have explained on his talkpage - If he doesn't replace the noindex at his earliest convenience please assist in explaining the situation to him - thanks - Youreally can 20:24, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
I requested CU then undid myself at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mangoeater1000 because a checkuser was done two days ago. It doesn't seem like that last checkuser was a super in depth one. Should a checkuser be done there? Ryan Vesey 20:45, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
There seem to be a few misunderstandings here. Let me clear them up.
-- (ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 21:20, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
( ←) A likely scenario where a check for sleepers might take longer is if socks are found over a relatively wide dynamic range that is also shared by other, unrelated users. In that case, separating the wheat from the chaff might take considerably longer (especially if the range is busy) than if the socks were found in a relatively narrow range or pretty much by themselves – in which case the sleepers stick out like sore thumbs and are easy to see. The point is, the actual actions to be done are pretty much the same in either case; it's mostly just why we're doing them that changes (for instance, we normally wouldn't checkuser on a very transparent duck unless there were reasons to believe that there might be more socks sleeping). — Coren (talk) 21:35, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
New socks were added to the investigation. Tijfo098 ( talk) 10:31, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
Not AOL. Most likely Vodafone mobile broadband or a similar UK service, e.g. http://www.three.co.uk/ ( Hutchison 3G) used by Nole in the past. Tijfo098 ( talk) 19:10, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
Some Arabic flavour Just been playing along with him and have got a sore on my index finger on my right hand from flamenco shredding!♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:25, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
Jethro B 16:34, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
Hello, Dennis
As a party involved in the 2nd WP:FAC of Microsoft Security Essentials, you might be willing to participate in Wikipedia:Featured article review/Microsoft Security Essentials/archive1.
Best regards, Codename Lisa ( talk) 08:01, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
I responded to your comment at the Signpost. [7]. -- Anthonyhcole ( talk) 01:29, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
While I think about that, can I just say we've got a real problem at Wikipedia with the general quality of argument. I'm no expert rhetorician but I've read a little about it and ours is crap. One major element of this is the tolerance for ad hominem on article talk pages. I'd appreciate your thoughts on this if you have the time. It's possibly the wrong venue. -- Anthonyhcole ( talk) 14:54, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
And the sharks are circling. If you're online tonight, please keep a tight watch on WP:ANI -- you'll see what I mean if you look at the last couple posts. I'm going real life tonight. Nobody Ent 22:28, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
Wow, I just noticed that Floq didn't just template Jclemens, but actually blocked him. Again...wow. She has balls, gotta admire that. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 00:52, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
[12] I'm fine with the redaction, as long as it's done by an uninvolved person. Just to make this very clear though: I understand that my question may be read as an attack of sorts. But it was a completely sincere question. This is the tone of a rightwinger who is listening to too much rightwing talk radio. Obviously MONGO does not like that observation, because it's accurate. He couldn't say that he doesn't occasionally sound like Glenn Beck, and I was trying to give him the feedback that he does, and that it doesn't help his case one bit. Not an "attack", just an honest question and some honest feedback -- pointedly formulated, yes, but at least it's no libelous lie of the sort MONGO likes to tell. Anyway, just wanted to get that off my chest. -- 195.14.220.127 ( talk) 12:58, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
I have been going through and patrolling some of the unpatrolled user talk pages and I was wondering if there is a specific reason that the earliest pages listed there are only a month old? Are pages automatically patrolled after a month? Automatic Strikeout 21:22, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
I came across this article indirectly through CSD. A nightmare. I removed entire sections from it that made me cringe to look at them, and then I stopped before I slashed the article any further. If you're feeling masochistic - or, better still, if one of your page stalkers is an expert in Islam - take a look.-- Bbb23 ( talk) 01:19, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
I no longer see an email tab when I look at your page. I have something sensitive I would like to discuss with you. I am not sure if it is a matter of settings or what, but I have email enabled so could you drop me a line? Gtwfan52 ( talk) 03:13, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
Gtwfan52 ( talk) 04:21, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
Which of these climate charts look better? This one or this one? I perfer the former as it is less tacky, has more information and is easier to read. The latter is the standard one to use. What do you think? - Neutralhomer • Talk • 17:50, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
Updated the Stephens City page with the new climate chart box. What do you think? - Neutralhomer • Talk • 02:41, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
It appears to me you have overwhelming support. I'm sure you're more well-versed in the ins and outs of Wiki-policy than I. What is the correct process to attempt to remove an arb who refuses the requests of the people to recuse? Joefromrandb ( talk) 12:50, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
WP:DENY Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 21:06, 23 October 2012 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Libel as a synonym for slanderHey man, I understand there is a good bit of admin politics going on right now, so I hopefully won't take up much of your time. I was just wondering, if a user expresses an opinion in a talk page that one sentence in an article is false and libel, would that user likely become banned as making a legal threat? Seems to me, saying something is 'libel' is much the same as saying something is slanderous and it's not a big deal. I could be wrong, Appreciate if you could clear this up, Thanks! HafniumDrive ( talk) 13:58, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
|
Hi Dennis. I just wanted to let you know I reverted your revert to GoalRef. The content you reverted was actually a significant improvement over the original content in terms of both formatting and informational value, and was most definitely not a vandal edit. Besieged ( talk) 15:08, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
The Admin's Barnstar | |
Thanks for everything you do to keep the wikipedia running, relevant and useful! Besieged ( talk) 16:59, 23 October 2012 (UTC) |
Hi,Dennis.I've nominated Uttar Pradesh for GA.Will you please review it.I hope you help me as you said "You are willing to lend a helping hand. Just ask." Thank You and kind regards. 25 CENTS VICTORIOUS ☣ 19:09, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
Brilliant. -- Gilderien Chat| List of good deeds 19:14, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
I was wondering if you could look at Political positions of Tom Smith were an editor trying to describe Smith's Position on Rape says that "he believes abortion should be banned with no exceptions, including for victims of rape" which seems to me politcally charged language meant to be unfairly biased against his position with the neutral way I tried to include was "he believes abortion should be banned with no exceptions, including cases of rape". As I would not say Mitt Romney is against abortion except for rape victims I would say except for cases of rape. Also If you could check out the talkpage for Tom Smith for that sections other problems it would be great John D. Rockerduck ( talk) 21:36, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
Thanks man for taking the time to check it out, also our paths did cross once before here 1 — Preceding unsigned comment added by John D. Rockerduck ( talk • contribs) 23:58, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
Ryan Vesey 21:38, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
I took your advice, so please check AN under the above title. Tim98Seven ( talk) 01:11, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
I noticed your comment at the MF clarification request. Requesting clarification of an Arbcom decision has always been risky: here's one where I nearly wound up topic banned from all arts articles because I tried to get clarification on wording.— Kww( talk) 05:49, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
Basalisk inspect damage⁄ berate 10:00, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
I'm giving out cookies to all of the Admins I see today :3 Enjoy! Meva / CHCSPrefect - (Prefect Helpdesk) 10:31, 24 October 2012 (UTC) |
Hey, Dennis. Mind giving me your take on this, especially since you deal with double (or multiple/various) accounts all the time? After reverting Rogr101, I decided to look into his contribution history because I figured that, with the nonexistent user page/talk page, he was likely new. And sure enough, the account is newly registered -- registered on the 14th of this month. But when I looked into his contribution history, I noticed a striking similarity between his article interests and edit summary style and that of Ewawer's. On the 14th, Rogr101 made the following edit summary expressions: "(Ce)," "Expand intro," "Tidy up bit," and "More tidy up." These are all expressions that Ewawer uses often. While other editors use these expressions, it is usually sparingly with regard to the last three; I have come across none that use them as often as Ewawer, especially "Tidy up." And although Ewawer doesn't always capitalize his edit summaries, he sometimes does, such as here. There are some users' editing habits that I know so well that I'd recognize them almost instantly and I believe this to be the case with Rogr101, and I commented as much on his user talk page. So where do I go with this from here? It doesn't seem that this needs reporting since the Ewawer account, thus far, has not been editing since the 16th and since this may have been a WP:Fresh start attempt (albeit the wrong way to do it). We can wait for a reply, but Ewawer usually doesn't reply on his user talk page or discuss matters at/take matters to an article talk page. Flyer22 ( talk) 10:26, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
Laughed my ass off at the "Has anyone seen my paw". I'm sure it's an old one, but it caught me at just the right time I suppose. — Ched : ? 03:07, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
Can you userfy this article for me please, I am quite sure this fellow passes the notability guidlines such as WP:AUTHOR and GNG. I asked Boing, but he is on strike currently. Darkness Shines ( talk) 11:39, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. (It's the Fjozk discussion). Automatic Strikeout 16:03, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
Hi Dennis, I'd like to ask for another set of permissions, as you suggested in your RfA review for me. Even though pending changes isn't enabled, I think I'd be a competent reviewer. You seem to have given me a good lookover for that review, but if you'd like to know any more before giving me such a permission, I'd be happy to oblige. Thanks, BDD ( talk) 18:10, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
Hello Dennis! Happy to see and talk to you after many weeks. I just recently came back after a short Wikibreak of about a month. I have started a quite simple SPI report Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/DeeJermo and have given the required information and evidence there. I believe it would be quite easy for any SPI clerk like you to have a review over it and endorse/approve it so that Investigation completes soon, and we all get the results soon ;) Regards. TheGeneralUser ( talk) 19:36, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
This is very tedious. User:Turco85 is deleting entire sections which have journal article citations. Can you please take a look? I'm writing to you cause I think you are the admin who were looking into this page. Cavann ( talk) 21:23, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
For some reason you've decided to stay out of this, likely because you're smarter than I am. Atm I am engaged in an edit war on User:Sally Season and it could use some level heading admining from you; I would consider it a personal favor if you'd be willing to mediate. I'm done with it now, better things to do and what not. Thanks if you can offer any help. Sædon talk 01:17, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for believing! :)
DeeJermo (
talk)
04:49, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
Hello Dennis, I would like to use Wikipedia:Autochecked users user right for testing on pages in Wikipedia:Pending changes/Testing. I already have three other user rights which i do my usual Wikipedia work with them. Technical information given at Special:ListGroupRights gives some info about Autochecked users, but I would personally like to use and see it on my own by experiencing it. Regards. TheGeneralUser ( talk) 11:48, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
This "administrative strike thing" reminds me of the novel, Atlas Shrugged. Which makes me wonder...which one of you is Galt? ``` Buster Seven Talk 14:33, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
.
Dennis, could you please take a look at the above (edits this month, from here down for SPI and a revdel on the subsection Rudman? Thanks in advance. There be games afield! Gtwfan52 ( talk) 00:59, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
NM, he self deleted. Gtwfan52 ( talk) 03:56, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
By a vote of 9-1, the Arbitration Committee has passed the following motion:
Remedy 4 ("Malleus Fatuorum topic banned") of Civility Enforcement is vacated, and replaced with the following:
Malleus is topic banned from making edits concerning the RFA process anywhere on the English Wikipedia. As an exception, he may ask questions of the candidates and express his own view on a candidate in a specific RFA (in the support, oppose, or neutral sections), but may not engage in any threaded discussions relating to RFA. An uninvolved admin may remove any comments in violation of this remedy, and may enforce it with blocks if necessary.
For the Arbitration Committee, -- Lord Roem ( talk) 19:25, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
Hello Sir,I recently got rollback rights after some good work related to vandalism and apart from that i want to get reviewer rights too then what to do and where to improve myself so i will able to grab reviewer rights in future.Thanx! ---zeeyanketu talk to me 21:36, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
I was wondering if there was any news with regard to WP:Conservatism. There is little left to say there, and I’m rather concerned that the discussion will go nowhere, as it has in the past. Do you know anything of interest? RGloucester ( talk) 22:06, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
Sorry to bother you, but an obvious sock ( Special:Contributions/76.232.253.147) currently performing mass deletions on Genocides in history. ColaXtra ( talk) 22:08, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
You posted in the section about the interaction ban, but your text seems to about the site-ban. Tijfo098 ( talk) 22:47, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
In my view you generally get things right, but your comments at ANI and the arbcom request case are surprising. You say, we don't know enough to evaluate. Well, two members of the oversight team saw the material; one suppressed it, the other agreed (posting on ANI) that that was the right decision. The fact that we can't see the material shows that there was a problem; it shouldn't be used to argue that there isn't a problem. (Now, on top of that, I saw it before it was oversighted -- even if one doesn't agree that it was outing, there was an aggressive, taunting quality to it that amounts to a blatant violation of the civility restriction.) Nomoskedasticity ( talk) 08:39, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
I need a little admin break, so I won't be around much through this weekend, if at all. Can't remember taking a single day off here in 6 months, and I need to get outdoors. You know, go look at that big yellow ball in the sky, do some yardwork, fresh air and all that. If something needs looking at in a timely manner, I would ask you check with another admin until Monday or Tuesday. Thanks!
Dennis Brown -
2¢
©
Join WER
00:44, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
On 28 October 2012, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Knight's Spider Web Farm, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that painted and lacquered spider webs are sold as art at Knight's Spider Web Farm in Vermont? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Knight's Spider Web Farm. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
The DYK project ( nominate) 16:04, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
Since I've stolen a few tools from your commons.js page, I thought I'd let you know about one that I've been working on. I pieced it together using code from a current Gadget and code from a retired user who wrote a predecessor to the gadget. (I had been using the gadget but didn't like it because it removed a lot of helpful tabs (like watch/unwatch), and I didn't like the older code because it didn't have nearly the same functionality as the gadget.) Anyway if you'd like to take it for a test drive, the code is
importScript('User:Adjwilley/cactions.js');
If it works correctly, you should get "user" and "page" tabs that open up into sub-menus that have links to all kinds of useful things like rights, logs, contributions, subpages, blocks, wikichecker, and geolocate (only works on IPs). It looks like it has extra things in there for admins that I can't see obviously. ~ Adjwilley ( talk) 20:55, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
If you want a cool album to listen to check out this. Last track isn't the best though... ♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 20:35, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
She's good!♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 12:36, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
[18], great version of Come Together.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 21:57, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
Could you please reopen the SPI on Logical 1 until Elen has time to respond to the comments just made by IRWolfie and myself? I think you closed it prematurely. Thanks. Dominus Vobisdu ( talk) 01:37, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
Hi Dennis. I didn't realise you'd closed it. Dominus Vobisdu and IRWolfie have also presented some evidence based on behaviours that a CU couldn't identify as the edits are all too old. In such cases I'll mark it as checked, but won't close it because closer examination of the behaviour evidence may confirm identity - as with Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Leontopodium alpinum where one of the parties was editing thru a proxy, and another admin blocked as a duck. I'll mark a case checked if I've checked but want someone else to look at it - but I have only recently started doing this, I used to leave it as open before, so say if you would prefer me to do that. I'll close if there seems nothing to be done, or nothing else to be done. And occasionally I'll archive if it's better off the board. -- Elen of the Roads ( talk) 12:59, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
Wanna practice that on another user? User talk:Bull-Doser, editing here since 2005, but no more. Tijfo098 ( talk) 23:04, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
YRC and I have both agreed to a voluntary IBAN, as proposed on AN/I, and I've offered to withdraw my request for a site ban so that we can move on from this matter. Would you be up for implementing the IBAN and updating AN/I on the result? Prioryman ( talk) 07:53, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
I think all that is a bit presumptive, and I'm more inclined to let the community's voice be heard on it. It is at WP:RFAR and I was actually hoping they would take it, even if as less than a full case, so that something with some teeth can be achieved. For now, I would remain neutral on your idea, as it is already at two venues yet that isn't on the table as a remedy at either. Yet. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 11:16, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
Hi Dennis. I've read other editors' descriptions of your mentorship experience but I don't think I've read a comprehensive summary from you. If you have posted it, could you please point me to it; if you haven't, would you like to? -- Anthonyhcole ( talk) 08:12, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
I noticed that you stated on your user page that you were willing to give editor reviews to people mildly interested in RfA. I've been mulling over an adminship run for a while and am looking for feedback on how to improve myself in preparation for this. Regardless of whether or not I decide to eventually run, any feedback on how to improve myself as a contributor would be much appreciated. (I know that right now I'm at least six months out from running. This is because of work/personal commitments that have kept me from editing Wikipedia at consistent levels for the time being, and because of a low-ish percentage of articlespace edits that I'm seeking to improve.) Thanks in advance for any response. elektrik SHOOS ( talk) 01:22, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
John was involved when he made the block of Boundarylayer. He appears to not have been given any warning about legal threats before being blocked out of hand. Obviously the editor is a bit clueless, with the block evasion, but it certainly doesn't merit the indefinite block (has anyone actually explained the issue to him, he doesn't know what's going on [20]). IRWolfie- ( talk) 12:09, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
Hi. I see that you are away for the weekend so don't worry about replying to this until you get back. I have some concerns about the SPI case I had opened recently. Could you please explain to me why you dismissed this case -- [21]? Some of the IP addresses haven't edited this year, but the others did and more than once, as well as the named user accounts. Even if some accounts are stale, couldn't it be looked at on behavioral pattern alone? And could you also explain to me why you say there is no abuse between the socks? If the socks are reverting to each other's edits to promote the initial edit of one account, is that not abuse of accounts? Also, the fact that one made an initial edit on the Belly Dance article, where they added content that was not in the source they cited, and they also named the source something it really was not (the source was a fiction/fantasy novel and not a factual book as they claimed). And then to have two other accounts say the exact same thing later on, using the exact same source, is that not fraud and abuse of accounts? The reason I feel this is a serious matter is because the pattern is very alike to Plouton2's socks. This person could be starting up again with new accounts, wouldn't that be considered an evasion of block? If you look at the Plouton2 case, there's over 55 sock accounts blocked. The list I provide follows the same pattern (many accounts targeting same articles), same editing style, same interests. The interconnectivity you displayed does not include all the articles or the socks I listed. As shown in the diffs, some of the socks I listed reverted to socks of Plouton2 and not edits from Plouton2's account alone. What are the chances that any random user would say the exact same thing as another user in the exact same article and then to use the exact same source which is fiction? Could you please have another look at the case? I really would appreciate it. Thank you. ProfessionalScholar ( talk) 20:27, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
Just one more thing to add. The reason I came to the SPI board first was so that the suspected socks could be investigated to see if they are in fact 'one' user. The concerns I have go beyond that - which involve fraud, ethnical/cultural issues, etc. But I had a feeling that if I went to any other board bringing these matters up, I would have to list the suspected socks there, and chances are those boards would send me back here to open an SPI first to see if they should be treated as one user vs many users behaving the same way. And instead of jumping around from board to board, I felt it was best to start with an SPI before reporting the user(s). Please read the 'edit summary' here of one of the suspected socks I had listed [22]. Doesn't that fall under 'personal attack' according to Wikipedia's guidelines? So if this user is in fact using socks, there may be more of those kind of edit summaries and I don't feel that would be considered editing in a civil manner. I may not be available on Monday or Tuesday but I'm not sure yet, so I just wanted to get this in now. Thank you. ProfessionalScholar ( talk) 19:39, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
Please see User talk:SarahStierch#Adoption and User talk:Brybry1999 and provide assistance. Any other Administrative Page stalkers are invited. An inexperienced (fill in the blank) new user, User talk:RAIDENRULES123, is insisting on adopting other "fresh from the incubator" new users. Considering assorted factors it can only lead to the detriment of the New Users she adopts. What can be done? This issue deals directly with Editor Retention and how New Editors should be protected from factors they know nothing about. They dont know but they are being fed poisoned food. That may be extreme but only to express my alarm and fear. The new users this editor adopts are, without a doubt, in harms way. ``` Buster Seven Talk 05:02, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
In regards to Tib42, he’s not entirely at fault. He attempted to discuss the issue and we sort of “wikifilibustered” by not engaging in discussion. The discussion wasn’t a long one in which overwhelming consensus was reached after a good discussion on all points. The discussion was closed with consensus for certain awards to be included that everyone agreed on. The remainder were not discussed because Tib42 failed to return in a reasonable period of time. New consensus should easily have been able to be formed for a number of the awards. The problem was that when Tib42 did come back his attempt at discussion was poor. He attempted to re-discuss the ones we already had consensus to include and tried to discuss including ‘’all’’ of the awards rather than choosing the most notable of the remaining ones he wanted to include. I was busy at the time and didn’t desire to dive in to discussing all of those points. Because I was busy, I attempted to “pass the buck” rather than telling him to start with one or two of the awards he felt were most notable; however, nobody else took part in the discussion. He can’t be blamed for reinserting the material when nobody would discuss it with him. I’m having some technical trouble, so I can’t see the revert. But there wasn’t specific consensus not to include a number of the awards that he wanted to reinstate. (On behalf of User:Ryan Vesey) Frood! Ohai What did I break now? 02:31, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 5 | ← | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | Archive 13 | Archive 14 | Archive 15 |
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Tri-Five, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Cid ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 12:08, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
Want some help? Maintenance is much easier for me while I'm at school than content creation. If you help me learn to clerk SPI I'll be able to help. Ryan Vesey 00:32, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
Turns out that, between the last time I check fun-l this morning and my knighting you this evening, there was a discussion started about promotions – so I ended up jumping the gun and overriding everyone else by fiat. :-) I hope you'll forgive me if I say that you shouldn't consider my promoting you as valid until the discussion takes its course. I didn't even know consensus was being build; I was just clearly thinking along the same lines as everybody else alone in my room while the real discussion was taking place elsewhere. :-) — Coren (talk) 03:16, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
Hi Dennis - I was wanting to revert this clear vandal edit - its a BLP - diif - I don't think reverting of vandal alterations such as this would be a violation of my agreed conditions - thoughts? Youreally can 02:44, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
Hello again Dennis, Sorry to trouble you again, but could I ask you to look at the above named page. User Tdp1001 seems intent on causing a edit war with contributions which are unreferenced and appear to be POV. I would be grateful for your advice on whether you consider the page should be protected. With best regards, as ever, David. David J Johnson ( talk) 15:54, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
noindex - User has reverted my noindexing of his evidence page - I have explained on his talkpage - If he doesn't replace the noindex at his earliest convenience please assist in explaining the situation to him - thanks - Youreally can 20:24, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
I requested CU then undid myself at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mangoeater1000 because a checkuser was done two days ago. It doesn't seem like that last checkuser was a super in depth one. Should a checkuser be done there? Ryan Vesey 20:45, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
There seem to be a few misunderstandings here. Let me clear them up.
-- (ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 21:20, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
( ←) A likely scenario where a check for sleepers might take longer is if socks are found over a relatively wide dynamic range that is also shared by other, unrelated users. In that case, separating the wheat from the chaff might take considerably longer (especially if the range is busy) than if the socks were found in a relatively narrow range or pretty much by themselves – in which case the sleepers stick out like sore thumbs and are easy to see. The point is, the actual actions to be done are pretty much the same in either case; it's mostly just why we're doing them that changes (for instance, we normally wouldn't checkuser on a very transparent duck unless there were reasons to believe that there might be more socks sleeping). — Coren (talk) 21:35, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
New socks were added to the investigation. Tijfo098 ( talk) 10:31, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
Not AOL. Most likely Vodafone mobile broadband or a similar UK service, e.g. http://www.three.co.uk/ ( Hutchison 3G) used by Nole in the past. Tijfo098 ( talk) 19:10, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
Some Arabic flavour Just been playing along with him and have got a sore on my index finger on my right hand from flamenco shredding!♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:25, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
Jethro B 16:34, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
Hello, Dennis
As a party involved in the 2nd WP:FAC of Microsoft Security Essentials, you might be willing to participate in Wikipedia:Featured article review/Microsoft Security Essentials/archive1.
Best regards, Codename Lisa ( talk) 08:01, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
I responded to your comment at the Signpost. [7]. -- Anthonyhcole ( talk) 01:29, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
While I think about that, can I just say we've got a real problem at Wikipedia with the general quality of argument. I'm no expert rhetorician but I've read a little about it and ours is crap. One major element of this is the tolerance for ad hominem on article talk pages. I'd appreciate your thoughts on this if you have the time. It's possibly the wrong venue. -- Anthonyhcole ( talk) 14:54, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
And the sharks are circling. If you're online tonight, please keep a tight watch on WP:ANI -- you'll see what I mean if you look at the last couple posts. I'm going real life tonight. Nobody Ent 22:28, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
Wow, I just noticed that Floq didn't just template Jclemens, but actually blocked him. Again...wow. She has balls, gotta admire that. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 00:52, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
[12] I'm fine with the redaction, as long as it's done by an uninvolved person. Just to make this very clear though: I understand that my question may be read as an attack of sorts. But it was a completely sincere question. This is the tone of a rightwinger who is listening to too much rightwing talk radio. Obviously MONGO does not like that observation, because it's accurate. He couldn't say that he doesn't occasionally sound like Glenn Beck, and I was trying to give him the feedback that he does, and that it doesn't help his case one bit. Not an "attack", just an honest question and some honest feedback -- pointedly formulated, yes, but at least it's no libelous lie of the sort MONGO likes to tell. Anyway, just wanted to get that off my chest. -- 195.14.220.127 ( talk) 12:58, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
I have been going through and patrolling some of the unpatrolled user talk pages and I was wondering if there is a specific reason that the earliest pages listed there are only a month old? Are pages automatically patrolled after a month? Automatic Strikeout 21:22, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
I came across this article indirectly through CSD. A nightmare. I removed entire sections from it that made me cringe to look at them, and then I stopped before I slashed the article any further. If you're feeling masochistic - or, better still, if one of your page stalkers is an expert in Islam - take a look.-- Bbb23 ( talk) 01:19, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
I no longer see an email tab when I look at your page. I have something sensitive I would like to discuss with you. I am not sure if it is a matter of settings or what, but I have email enabled so could you drop me a line? Gtwfan52 ( talk) 03:13, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
Gtwfan52 ( talk) 04:21, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
Which of these climate charts look better? This one or this one? I perfer the former as it is less tacky, has more information and is easier to read. The latter is the standard one to use. What do you think? - Neutralhomer • Talk • 17:50, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
Updated the Stephens City page with the new climate chart box. What do you think? - Neutralhomer • Talk • 02:41, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
It appears to me you have overwhelming support. I'm sure you're more well-versed in the ins and outs of Wiki-policy than I. What is the correct process to attempt to remove an arb who refuses the requests of the people to recuse? Joefromrandb ( talk) 12:50, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
WP:DENY Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 21:06, 23 October 2012 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Libel as a synonym for slanderHey man, I understand there is a good bit of admin politics going on right now, so I hopefully won't take up much of your time. I was just wondering, if a user expresses an opinion in a talk page that one sentence in an article is false and libel, would that user likely become banned as making a legal threat? Seems to me, saying something is 'libel' is much the same as saying something is slanderous and it's not a big deal. I could be wrong, Appreciate if you could clear this up, Thanks! HafniumDrive ( talk) 13:58, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
|
Hi Dennis. I just wanted to let you know I reverted your revert to GoalRef. The content you reverted was actually a significant improvement over the original content in terms of both formatting and informational value, and was most definitely not a vandal edit. Besieged ( talk) 15:08, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
The Admin's Barnstar | |
Thanks for everything you do to keep the wikipedia running, relevant and useful! Besieged ( talk) 16:59, 23 October 2012 (UTC) |
Hi,Dennis.I've nominated Uttar Pradesh for GA.Will you please review it.I hope you help me as you said "You are willing to lend a helping hand. Just ask." Thank You and kind regards. 25 CENTS VICTORIOUS ☣ 19:09, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
Brilliant. -- Gilderien Chat| List of good deeds 19:14, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
I was wondering if you could look at Political positions of Tom Smith were an editor trying to describe Smith's Position on Rape says that "he believes abortion should be banned with no exceptions, including for victims of rape" which seems to me politcally charged language meant to be unfairly biased against his position with the neutral way I tried to include was "he believes abortion should be banned with no exceptions, including cases of rape". As I would not say Mitt Romney is against abortion except for rape victims I would say except for cases of rape. Also If you could check out the talkpage for Tom Smith for that sections other problems it would be great John D. Rockerduck ( talk) 21:36, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
Thanks man for taking the time to check it out, also our paths did cross once before here 1 — Preceding unsigned comment added by John D. Rockerduck ( talk • contribs) 23:58, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
Ryan Vesey 21:38, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
I took your advice, so please check AN under the above title. Tim98Seven ( talk) 01:11, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
I noticed your comment at the MF clarification request. Requesting clarification of an Arbcom decision has always been risky: here's one where I nearly wound up topic banned from all arts articles because I tried to get clarification on wording.— Kww( talk) 05:49, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
Basalisk inspect damage⁄ berate 10:00, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
I'm giving out cookies to all of the Admins I see today :3 Enjoy! Meva / CHCSPrefect - (Prefect Helpdesk) 10:31, 24 October 2012 (UTC) |
Hey, Dennis. Mind giving me your take on this, especially since you deal with double (or multiple/various) accounts all the time? After reverting Rogr101, I decided to look into his contribution history because I figured that, with the nonexistent user page/talk page, he was likely new. And sure enough, the account is newly registered -- registered on the 14th of this month. But when I looked into his contribution history, I noticed a striking similarity between his article interests and edit summary style and that of Ewawer's. On the 14th, Rogr101 made the following edit summary expressions: "(Ce)," "Expand intro," "Tidy up bit," and "More tidy up." These are all expressions that Ewawer uses often. While other editors use these expressions, it is usually sparingly with regard to the last three; I have come across none that use them as often as Ewawer, especially "Tidy up." And although Ewawer doesn't always capitalize his edit summaries, he sometimes does, such as here. There are some users' editing habits that I know so well that I'd recognize them almost instantly and I believe this to be the case with Rogr101, and I commented as much on his user talk page. So where do I go with this from here? It doesn't seem that this needs reporting since the Ewawer account, thus far, has not been editing since the 16th and since this may have been a WP:Fresh start attempt (albeit the wrong way to do it). We can wait for a reply, but Ewawer usually doesn't reply on his user talk page or discuss matters at/take matters to an article talk page. Flyer22 ( talk) 10:26, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
Laughed my ass off at the "Has anyone seen my paw". I'm sure it's an old one, but it caught me at just the right time I suppose. — Ched : ? 03:07, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
Can you userfy this article for me please, I am quite sure this fellow passes the notability guidlines such as WP:AUTHOR and GNG. I asked Boing, but he is on strike currently. Darkness Shines ( talk) 11:39, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. (It's the Fjozk discussion). Automatic Strikeout 16:03, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
Hi Dennis, I'd like to ask for another set of permissions, as you suggested in your RfA review for me. Even though pending changes isn't enabled, I think I'd be a competent reviewer. You seem to have given me a good lookover for that review, but if you'd like to know any more before giving me such a permission, I'd be happy to oblige. Thanks, BDD ( talk) 18:10, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
Hello Dennis! Happy to see and talk to you after many weeks. I just recently came back after a short Wikibreak of about a month. I have started a quite simple SPI report Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/DeeJermo and have given the required information and evidence there. I believe it would be quite easy for any SPI clerk like you to have a review over it and endorse/approve it so that Investigation completes soon, and we all get the results soon ;) Regards. TheGeneralUser ( talk) 19:36, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
This is very tedious. User:Turco85 is deleting entire sections which have journal article citations. Can you please take a look? I'm writing to you cause I think you are the admin who were looking into this page. Cavann ( talk) 21:23, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
For some reason you've decided to stay out of this, likely because you're smarter than I am. Atm I am engaged in an edit war on User:Sally Season and it could use some level heading admining from you; I would consider it a personal favor if you'd be willing to mediate. I'm done with it now, better things to do and what not. Thanks if you can offer any help. Sædon talk 01:17, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for believing! :)
DeeJermo (
talk)
04:49, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
Hello Dennis, I would like to use Wikipedia:Autochecked users user right for testing on pages in Wikipedia:Pending changes/Testing. I already have three other user rights which i do my usual Wikipedia work with them. Technical information given at Special:ListGroupRights gives some info about Autochecked users, but I would personally like to use and see it on my own by experiencing it. Regards. TheGeneralUser ( talk) 11:48, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
This "administrative strike thing" reminds me of the novel, Atlas Shrugged. Which makes me wonder...which one of you is Galt? ``` Buster Seven Talk 14:33, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
.
Dennis, could you please take a look at the above (edits this month, from here down for SPI and a revdel on the subsection Rudman? Thanks in advance. There be games afield! Gtwfan52 ( talk) 00:59, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
NM, he self deleted. Gtwfan52 ( talk) 03:56, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
By a vote of 9-1, the Arbitration Committee has passed the following motion:
Remedy 4 ("Malleus Fatuorum topic banned") of Civility Enforcement is vacated, and replaced with the following:
Malleus is topic banned from making edits concerning the RFA process anywhere on the English Wikipedia. As an exception, he may ask questions of the candidates and express his own view on a candidate in a specific RFA (in the support, oppose, or neutral sections), but may not engage in any threaded discussions relating to RFA. An uninvolved admin may remove any comments in violation of this remedy, and may enforce it with blocks if necessary.
For the Arbitration Committee, -- Lord Roem ( talk) 19:25, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
Hello Sir,I recently got rollback rights after some good work related to vandalism and apart from that i want to get reviewer rights too then what to do and where to improve myself so i will able to grab reviewer rights in future.Thanx! ---zeeyanketu talk to me 21:36, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
I was wondering if there was any news with regard to WP:Conservatism. There is little left to say there, and I’m rather concerned that the discussion will go nowhere, as it has in the past. Do you know anything of interest? RGloucester ( talk) 22:06, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
Sorry to bother you, but an obvious sock ( Special:Contributions/76.232.253.147) currently performing mass deletions on Genocides in history. ColaXtra ( talk) 22:08, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
You posted in the section about the interaction ban, but your text seems to about the site-ban. Tijfo098 ( talk) 22:47, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
In my view you generally get things right, but your comments at ANI and the arbcom request case are surprising. You say, we don't know enough to evaluate. Well, two members of the oversight team saw the material; one suppressed it, the other agreed (posting on ANI) that that was the right decision. The fact that we can't see the material shows that there was a problem; it shouldn't be used to argue that there isn't a problem. (Now, on top of that, I saw it before it was oversighted -- even if one doesn't agree that it was outing, there was an aggressive, taunting quality to it that amounts to a blatant violation of the civility restriction.) Nomoskedasticity ( talk) 08:39, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
I need a little admin break, so I won't be around much through this weekend, if at all. Can't remember taking a single day off here in 6 months, and I need to get outdoors. You know, go look at that big yellow ball in the sky, do some yardwork, fresh air and all that. If something needs looking at in a timely manner, I would ask you check with another admin until Monday or Tuesday. Thanks!
Dennis Brown -
2¢
©
Join WER
00:44, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
On 28 October 2012, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Knight's Spider Web Farm, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that painted and lacquered spider webs are sold as art at Knight's Spider Web Farm in Vermont? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Knight's Spider Web Farm. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
The DYK project ( nominate) 16:04, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
Since I've stolen a few tools from your commons.js page, I thought I'd let you know about one that I've been working on. I pieced it together using code from a current Gadget and code from a retired user who wrote a predecessor to the gadget. (I had been using the gadget but didn't like it because it removed a lot of helpful tabs (like watch/unwatch), and I didn't like the older code because it didn't have nearly the same functionality as the gadget.) Anyway if you'd like to take it for a test drive, the code is
importScript('User:Adjwilley/cactions.js');
If it works correctly, you should get "user" and "page" tabs that open up into sub-menus that have links to all kinds of useful things like rights, logs, contributions, subpages, blocks, wikichecker, and geolocate (only works on IPs). It looks like it has extra things in there for admins that I can't see obviously. ~ Adjwilley ( talk) 20:55, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
If you want a cool album to listen to check out this. Last track isn't the best though... ♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 20:35, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
She's good!♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 12:36, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
[18], great version of Come Together.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 21:57, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
Could you please reopen the SPI on Logical 1 until Elen has time to respond to the comments just made by IRWolfie and myself? I think you closed it prematurely. Thanks. Dominus Vobisdu ( talk) 01:37, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
Hi Dennis. I didn't realise you'd closed it. Dominus Vobisdu and IRWolfie have also presented some evidence based on behaviours that a CU couldn't identify as the edits are all too old. In such cases I'll mark it as checked, but won't close it because closer examination of the behaviour evidence may confirm identity - as with Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Leontopodium alpinum where one of the parties was editing thru a proxy, and another admin blocked as a duck. I'll mark a case checked if I've checked but want someone else to look at it - but I have only recently started doing this, I used to leave it as open before, so say if you would prefer me to do that. I'll close if there seems nothing to be done, or nothing else to be done. And occasionally I'll archive if it's better off the board. -- Elen of the Roads ( talk) 12:59, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
Wanna practice that on another user? User talk:Bull-Doser, editing here since 2005, but no more. Tijfo098 ( talk) 23:04, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
YRC and I have both agreed to a voluntary IBAN, as proposed on AN/I, and I've offered to withdraw my request for a site ban so that we can move on from this matter. Would you be up for implementing the IBAN and updating AN/I on the result? Prioryman ( talk) 07:53, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
I think all that is a bit presumptive, and I'm more inclined to let the community's voice be heard on it. It is at WP:RFAR and I was actually hoping they would take it, even if as less than a full case, so that something with some teeth can be achieved. For now, I would remain neutral on your idea, as it is already at two venues yet that isn't on the table as a remedy at either. Yet. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 11:16, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
Hi Dennis. I've read other editors' descriptions of your mentorship experience but I don't think I've read a comprehensive summary from you. If you have posted it, could you please point me to it; if you haven't, would you like to? -- Anthonyhcole ( talk) 08:12, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
I noticed that you stated on your user page that you were willing to give editor reviews to people mildly interested in RfA. I've been mulling over an adminship run for a while and am looking for feedback on how to improve myself in preparation for this. Regardless of whether or not I decide to eventually run, any feedback on how to improve myself as a contributor would be much appreciated. (I know that right now I'm at least six months out from running. This is because of work/personal commitments that have kept me from editing Wikipedia at consistent levels for the time being, and because of a low-ish percentage of articlespace edits that I'm seeking to improve.) Thanks in advance for any response. elektrik SHOOS ( talk) 01:22, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
John was involved when he made the block of Boundarylayer. He appears to not have been given any warning about legal threats before being blocked out of hand. Obviously the editor is a bit clueless, with the block evasion, but it certainly doesn't merit the indefinite block (has anyone actually explained the issue to him, he doesn't know what's going on [20]). IRWolfie- ( talk) 12:09, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
Hi. I see that you are away for the weekend so don't worry about replying to this until you get back. I have some concerns about the SPI case I had opened recently. Could you please explain to me why you dismissed this case -- [21]? Some of the IP addresses haven't edited this year, but the others did and more than once, as well as the named user accounts. Even if some accounts are stale, couldn't it be looked at on behavioral pattern alone? And could you also explain to me why you say there is no abuse between the socks? If the socks are reverting to each other's edits to promote the initial edit of one account, is that not abuse of accounts? Also, the fact that one made an initial edit on the Belly Dance article, where they added content that was not in the source they cited, and they also named the source something it really was not (the source was a fiction/fantasy novel and not a factual book as they claimed). And then to have two other accounts say the exact same thing later on, using the exact same source, is that not fraud and abuse of accounts? The reason I feel this is a serious matter is because the pattern is very alike to Plouton2's socks. This person could be starting up again with new accounts, wouldn't that be considered an evasion of block? If you look at the Plouton2 case, there's over 55 sock accounts blocked. The list I provide follows the same pattern (many accounts targeting same articles), same editing style, same interests. The interconnectivity you displayed does not include all the articles or the socks I listed. As shown in the diffs, some of the socks I listed reverted to socks of Plouton2 and not edits from Plouton2's account alone. What are the chances that any random user would say the exact same thing as another user in the exact same article and then to use the exact same source which is fiction? Could you please have another look at the case? I really would appreciate it. Thank you. ProfessionalScholar ( talk) 20:27, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
Just one more thing to add. The reason I came to the SPI board first was so that the suspected socks could be investigated to see if they are in fact 'one' user. The concerns I have go beyond that - which involve fraud, ethnical/cultural issues, etc. But I had a feeling that if I went to any other board bringing these matters up, I would have to list the suspected socks there, and chances are those boards would send me back here to open an SPI first to see if they should be treated as one user vs many users behaving the same way. And instead of jumping around from board to board, I felt it was best to start with an SPI before reporting the user(s). Please read the 'edit summary' here of one of the suspected socks I had listed [22]. Doesn't that fall under 'personal attack' according to Wikipedia's guidelines? So if this user is in fact using socks, there may be more of those kind of edit summaries and I don't feel that would be considered editing in a civil manner. I may not be available on Monday or Tuesday but I'm not sure yet, so I just wanted to get this in now. Thank you. ProfessionalScholar ( talk) 19:39, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
Please see User talk:SarahStierch#Adoption and User talk:Brybry1999 and provide assistance. Any other Administrative Page stalkers are invited. An inexperienced (fill in the blank) new user, User talk:RAIDENRULES123, is insisting on adopting other "fresh from the incubator" new users. Considering assorted factors it can only lead to the detriment of the New Users she adopts. What can be done? This issue deals directly with Editor Retention and how New Editors should be protected from factors they know nothing about. They dont know but they are being fed poisoned food. That may be extreme but only to express my alarm and fear. The new users this editor adopts are, without a doubt, in harms way. ``` Buster Seven Talk 05:02, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
In regards to Tib42, he’s not entirely at fault. He attempted to discuss the issue and we sort of “wikifilibustered” by not engaging in discussion. The discussion wasn’t a long one in which overwhelming consensus was reached after a good discussion on all points. The discussion was closed with consensus for certain awards to be included that everyone agreed on. The remainder were not discussed because Tib42 failed to return in a reasonable period of time. New consensus should easily have been able to be formed for a number of the awards. The problem was that when Tib42 did come back his attempt at discussion was poor. He attempted to re-discuss the ones we already had consensus to include and tried to discuss including ‘’all’’ of the awards rather than choosing the most notable of the remaining ones he wanted to include. I was busy at the time and didn’t desire to dive in to discussing all of those points. Because I was busy, I attempted to “pass the buck” rather than telling him to start with one or two of the awards he felt were most notable; however, nobody else took part in the discussion. He can’t be blamed for reinserting the material when nobody would discuss it with him. I’m having some technical trouble, so I can’t see the revert. But there wasn’t specific consensus not to include a number of the awards that he wanted to reinstate. (On behalf of User:Ryan Vesey) Frood! Ohai What did I break now? 02:31, 30 October 2012 (UTC)