User talk:Dennis Brown/Archive 35

Archive 30

←

Archive 33

Archive 34

Archive 35

Archive 36

Archive 37

→

Archive 40

Admin bit

I've requested the admin bit back, and expect there won't be any issues since there was no cloud. This is actually a little premature, but there are a few things I want to do that require the bit. Not having it gave me some insight how frustrating it can be for non-admin that do admin like work. I still do not expect to be very busy, and under no circumstances will I be working dispute resolution or monitoring ANI and the like any time soon. I do think doing some quiet clean up once a week or so would be helpful to me, give me something useful to do. Please don't expect more adminy things than that just yet. I do not have a timetable, and I can't create one.

Part of using good judgement as an admin is knowing when to not act as an admin. What I've been through, it takes time too get back to "normal", whatever that is. I'm grateful I have some truly amazing friends in the real world, as well as here at Wikipedia.

Dennis Brown - 2¢ 01:44, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Seems like a logical step then. I'm glad to see you working through things and moving forward in positive ways. Best always. — Ched :  ?  02:00, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Please tell us this isn't an April Fool's joke! We'd love to have you back even if you can't do much right now. No kidding. --MelanieN (talk) 02:55, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

I'll second that! Mlpearc (open channel) 02:59, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

No, no, I wouldn't do that. I'm not a fan of April Fool's jokes on Wikipedia anyway. The main concern was my judgement. I think I'm in better shape now. Far from perfect, and damn sure not in "good" shape, but good enough. I just need to keep in the back office with the bit for a while, and avoid the limelight. Doing some gnome/admining once or twice a week is better than nothing, and about the limit of what I have to give. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 03:02, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Let me add: my life has been changed forever by the events of Dec 31. I have no idea if I will ever be as active as I once was. Right now, I have two jobs, my old marketing job of 20 years, and a new business I started a year ago that is doing marginally well, but financially starved due to events beyond my control. I used to float by with 30 hours per week of actual work, now I can't get it all done in 60. I have no idea what 2016 will bring. 2015 will be busy. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 03:08, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

--AmaryllisGardener ^talk 03:05, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

. Buster Seven Talk 05:13, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Whatever is good for you, Dennis, is also good for the encyclopedia. Great to see you helping out a bit from time to time. You decide, now and always. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:47, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

April Fools? Time for a music break (sad music). Dennis if you want some interesting listening, that goes for jazz enthusiasts like Gareth E Kegg, Martinevans123 and Gareth Griffith-Jones check out this.♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:59, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Will try to check it out later. Currently wolfing down some cold leftover goulash from Sunday, between call backs to customers. I never get to eat anything while it is still hot when at work. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 15:53, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

The music is wasted on you all!♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:49, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Good to see you back Dennis. Back room sounds a good plan, but your presence is cool in itself, regardless of input quantity. Things will improve faster than you think, and it will be in 15,not 16. You mark my words son. Simon, occasionally known as Irondome (talk) 00:15, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Duckbox

Hi, you are aware of the Duckbox since you wisely nominated it for deletion. I'm on the list, in my opinion, unfairly because I'm a teenager who likes sixties music. I feel this has no basis and am afraid somehow I'll be punished for no reason. Is there something that can be done to get me out of this? I just want to help Wikipedia, I didn't know my interests could get me in trouble. TheGracefulSlick ( talk)

• You aren't in trouble. Being on a user space page like that just means someone has suspicions, which can lead to drama, which is why I nominated it for deletion at MFD. I'm actually a bit surprised at the community reaction there, voting to keep the page, but I'm obligated to respect consensus and will. If you haven't done anything wrong, then I wouldn't worry about it. It is still not fun, but sometimes, those are the breaks. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 07:42, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for understanding at least. That was the concern though, if users were willing to keep it, I'm worried they will think more of the useless connections than there actually is. I don't really know how to defend myself in this setting and I think the user would take advantage and trap me. TheGracefulSlick ( talk)

Please note this

Hi Dennis, please note this at my talk page: [1] Thanks. Montanabw^(talk) 19:25, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

• I've answered in a place or two. If nothing else, this may help clarify policy. Glad to see you know it isn't personal. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 00:06, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Oh indeed, I respect a lot of the work you've done here. Having the mop is a thankless job. Montanabw^(talk) 08:04, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

You created a holiday!

• In preparing next week's WP:TOP25 report, I note that Siblings Day, which you created on that august day in 2013, will come in at #22 this week. Stats.grok.se only recorded 14,917 views for the month in April 2013, and views of 165,257 for April 2014. Now its topping 400K for the week. Do you take any credit for creating this holiday? Should you?  :-) --Milowent • ^hasspoken 19:55, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure it trended on Twitter on Friday. Special days like that can trend all day long. Heck, #InternationalIceCreamDay can trend all day. That brings a lot of views to Wikipedia. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:26, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

• Credit to me? No. The holiday has really exploded in popularity over the last two years, there was barely enough sourcing to make the article back when I created it. Did Wikipedia play a role in popularizing it? I don't know, maybe a small one, but that credit goes to everyone here. Actually, it is a great idea for a holiday in the age of social networking. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 21:34, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

• Yes, Liz, it was all over Twitter and Facebook, that's where I first saw it. But Dennis' comment confirms my thought that it was really not much two years ago, and has since become popular. I bet we'll see "sibling cards" in the store by next year!--Milowent • ^hasspoken 03:58, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Possible violation?

I am glad to see that you are active again.

You had blocked Nadirali for violating the topic ban,[2] right after he was unbanned by Worm That Turned. I believe that he has violated the topic ban once again. Check this edit, he changed the title of a section from "Ethnicity and language" to "Nationalities/Ethnicities and languages", and right below that section, the article reads "Indians in the United Arab Emirates|Pakistanis in the United Arab Emirates|Expatriates in the United Arab Emirates". He also spaced between "[[Bengali language|Bengali]],[[Sindhi language|Sindhi]]" which is probably a minor edit, still he touched. Editing the section title was clearly a major edit because section titles changes the basic meaning or even conclusion of the part that is written below. Most of that section concerns the backgrounds of the people coming from India and Pakistan. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 03:12, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

He made a page move[3], where we can read a major section about India. He added a new section to Astrology,[4] where we can find good sections[5][6] about India. This edit was major, the article mentions India about 8 times and mentions Pakistan about 7 times. Black Kite may also want to observe this. There are more violations that I can address but for now these seems to be enough. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 03:12, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

• I'm not here enough to do the background reseearch needed to block him, although going from memory, I believe you are correct on all points. Only reason I'm here right now is insomnia. Might need to take it to ANI or Worm. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 06:27, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

  I'd actually suggest WP:AN, I'd rather keep out of this one thanks :) Worm^TT(talk) 14:16, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Breaking a bit

I'm getting a lot of mail, please understand that I'm not able to filter through it all. I've been getting home at 10pm and up by 6am most days, so I'm going to be around even less for a while as real world just has me swamped. It isn't that I don't care, it is quite literally that I don't even have time for doing laundry, no less Wikipedia at this time. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 13:58, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

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.

 — Berean Hunter (talk) 14:26, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

FWIW

Hi Dennis, we've never really interacted and personally I thought the comment you made to me at AN/I about harassing RO was a little unfair. It was enough to spill me over the edge, because as I responded, editor retention works both ways. To see that comment come back at me doesn't feel good, [7]. I thought about sending email, but my sense is all of this needs to be dealt with openly and transparently, that perhaps a great deal of email has been flying around. Anyway, we are all entitled to our opinions, but equally we are all entitled to walk with our feet with enough is enough. Just thought I'd post this here. Feel free to delete. Thanks. Victoria (tk) 21:44, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

• Answered via email. Victoria is of course welcome to copy any part here if she chooses. I don't mean to pick sides, I just want us all to get along. It is my nature. I don't want anyone to leave because they are unhappy, and of course that means you as well. Again, I will be gone for several days, starting in about an hour. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 15:23, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Musical break

[8] Might not be what you expect ;-)♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:10, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

You don't know whether to laugh or sigh. So I did both Irondome (talk) 19:53, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, just what the doctor ordered Mlpearc (open channel) 19:59, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

• Excellent. Anyone who thinks that was only about shock value will have missed the entire point, that trolls beget trolls. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 15:32, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes, there's a message there alright! ♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:05, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Please tell me that's not a true story... DoctorJoeE ^{review transgressions}/_{talk to me!} 15:52, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Probably is somewhere! The Only Way is Up Baby!. Quoting Hugh Hefner after an erectile dysfunction and digging out the viagra at the ripe old age of 386! ;-) Ew!! ♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:44, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

ILT LTA

Hi Dennis, saw this and wanted to check in with you on the Duck box AfD, which is sort of going nowhere in particular. I think that there is agreement that we create a Long-Term Abuse page for ItsLassieTime and in exchange, I will blank the duck box. I took a draft that was in Victoriaearle's sandbox (which she linked to at the AfD) and created the LTA here: Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/ItsLassieTime. There are some ILT links in the Duck box I want to copy over, but need to check against the work Victoriaearle did with the chart to avoid duplication. I'd like 30 days to do that, although it's apt to happen in less time: I am also trying to focus on an FAC that I think is almost approved. Montanabw^(talk) 17:24, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

• It isn't my place to decide, but I'm generally one that thinks that a request for 30 days to make changes is a reasonable request. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 18:29, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

• • Heh, you opened the AfD, so I think you need to be the one to close it, yes? Montanabw^(talk) 00:32, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
    • No, if I open a process, someone else should close it. My role was to raise a question, the community decides, someone uninterested interprets. Like I said there, I'm willing to compromise, I just thought it needed examination, and the amount of interest shows that I was at least right on that point. I haven't checked in a couple days, but the discussion early on was quite good and on point. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 12:55, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

• • • • OK, well, the basic outlines have been laid out and the LTA created, so I guess if you could ping SOMEONE to close it, we are pretty much just down to minor sniping, and that is rather exhausting. Montanabw^(talk) 19:01, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

A young Dennis with RO Lassie ;-)♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:51, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Anyone home?

Been a crazy couple of weeks at work, major overtime, and still found the time to meet a most interesting lady who is both smarter and wiser than me. She has been getting the bulk of my free time, and it has honestly been good for me. I've gotten several email, but much of it I can't help with, I'm just too far removed from Wikipedia right now for dispute resolution, sorry. Give me a few months and perhaps I will be able to dive back in, but I can't give what I don't have to spare. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 17:45, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Nice to see you; thanks for checking in! and glad to hear you have time for some social life. I know it's been a rough few months, so it's nice to hear that you do have some pleasant free time. Don't worry about Wikipedia, it's doing fine and will still be here when you have time to contribute again. --MelanieN (talk) 21:42, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Good to hear you have time for socializing. Like Melanie said, don't worry about WP, we just want you to be happy. Regards, --AmaryllisGardener ^talk 22:17, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

A Wikipedian with a social life Dennis, what is the world coming to? I am around till Tuesday, drop in for a coffee. Good day, and be well. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 23:52, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Life. No one has to tell you to get one. ;-)--Mark Miller (talk) 00:07, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Precious again

reading, waiting, then judging
Thank you for living what you advise, "reading it, waiting 24 hours, then judging", for defending editors who are hurt, for practising mentorship, - you are an awesome Wikipedian!

-Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:08, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Three years ago, you were the 124th recipient of my PumpkinSky Prize, - and recently I referred to you here (look for Precious or "farmer"), not knowing that he had died, and now one of the last comments left on his talk. - When I need retention, I look at the precious list, - the amount of goodness found ("also a poignant reminder that the friendships we form here are real, heartfelt, and lasting") is encouraging! Best, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:13, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

• You are definitely one of the good ones, often under-appreciated, Gerda. I keep reaching out to be here more, and it gets farther and farther from my grasp. Death, divorce, real life, these are all retention issues we have no control over. I'm glad you are still around. This last weekend had me doing some soul searching with a new friend who feels like an old friend already, a very rare thing, and it became obvious I'm pretty far away from being okay. Thanks for the reminder, the smile, and all the quiet goodness you do around here. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 22:10, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Just checking in Dennis. Simon. Irondome (talk) 00:52, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Friends: About the Trustees election

For what it is worth, I'm supporting Tim Davenport (Carrite) and James Heilman (Doc James) and a few others because they have a no BS attitude about the job, and understand that not everything can be handled at the WMF level, and often things need to be left to the communities. I probably opposed as many as I supported, primarily for thinking the WMF is "the answer" when instead, it is one part of the total machine. Of course, you should vote for who you feel comfortable supporting, but you *should* take the time to at least support (or oppose) those you have strong feelings about. It isn't anyone's business who you vote for, but please go vote. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 11:14, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Dennis. I appreciate your vote of confidence. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 11:24, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for the confidence, Dennis. Next year we have to get you running... Carrite (talk) 12:00, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

WP:QUOTE discussion update

@PamD: referred me, here, to the older discussion on this subject in your 2014 archives. I'd gone to PamD on a single event of 2014-vintage Quotations-section removal. I've now reversed the single removal I'd encountered and addressed my action on the article's Talk page. I'm alerting you to the continuation of the subject and will do the same at the Village Pump discussion if that seems appropriate. I'm not really addressing this as a policy issue myself but may segue into the policy mode if it seems necessary/possible. Thanks for your past work on the subject. Swliv (talk) 16:51, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Some Assistance/Guidance

Hi, Dennis Brown. Looking for some guidance and/or assitance. I put some suggested edits up on the TransUnion article on its talk page and added them to the Requested Edits page almost three weeks ago and have heard nothing back. Unfortunately, I have a WP:COI and am just trying to be extremely cautious about any edits. I believe the edits are all very straight forward and would be happy to make them myself after someone reviews them and might consider cleaning up a bit after me. I'm still learning. Would be grateful for any guidance. SusanChana (talk) 13:25, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

• SusanChana: I didn't check the sources very well, but the stuff you have on the talk page looks ok, I didn't see any fluffy parts. I did see one part I would drop off, the Products and Services section. If any of those products are particularly notable, or you just want to mention one or two, I would instead work it into the lede of the article. The "Legal" section seems a little weak, but I don't see a problem adding it. Someone else might delete it, just be aware of that, and WP:BRD applies. I would add a note at the bottom of the talk page saying you are making the edit, and add "COI" to the article page summary to be clear, but I think you've done due diligence at this stage. The purpose of COI essays (and they aren't policy...) is to keep out fluff, and I think you've shown good faith in doing so here. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 01:10, 6 June 2015 (UTC)\

I am very grateful for the detailed response. This is fantastic guidance. Wondering if you might consider notating the TransUnion talk page with the same code that was put on another edit I was told I could make. Not sure what it is called, but an example of it is on the Ivanpah Solar Facility Talk Page where I had gone through the same process. Would just make me feel more comfortable:)SusanChana (talk) 02:34, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

 Done with a link back to my comment above. Again, anyone can edit it (and will) but I think it is obvious you complied with the spirit and letter of policy here. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 11:39, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Again, my sincerest gratitude for you taking the time to help. SusanChana (talk) 14:11, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

User: Brandywine589

Hello Dennis, I do hope all your current problems will come to a conclusion that is acceptable to you. You may remember that there were problems with the above user, in 2013, on the USS Scorpion (SSN-589) article. They have now inserted a mass of unreferenced and POV edits on the same article, which for the moment I have reverted asking for sources etc. I only mention this in case we have further problems and fully accept that your time is limited. My best to you for the future. As ever, David, David J Johnson (talk) 21:40, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

• Thanks David, hopefully WP:BRD will do the trick with your article. I just had surgery on my knee a couple days ago, so it seems that it is always something slowing me down. Nothing major but enough to slow me down for a couple of weeks.

Many thanks for your advice, Dennis. Will keep in touch and best for the future. As ever, David, David J Johnson (talk) 22:28, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

You have mail

Many thanks, David, David J Johnson (talk) 20:11, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:ENGAGE

I just started this essay, actually wrote all the prose in rapid fire action, so there is probably plenty to do. I hadn't seen one that covered this topic in a concise manner; that a person is sometimes required to engage with others here, or be subject to sanction. Anyway, take a look and if you are up to it, feel free to correct my errors, add pictures and the like. Every now and then I just get an itch that needs scratching in the form of an essay. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 22:28, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Nice work, Dennis, and nice to see you scratching that itch. I added a couple of words and a couple of commas. Question: Is an all-caps title acceptable for an essay? --MelanieN (talk) 22:41, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

It probably needs a better title, and have ENGAGE be a redirect, or rather "engage". I wasn't sure the best short title for it. I did the same with WP:BLUDGEON I think, and then we changed it afterwards. Moving is easy, I'm just not sure which title to go by. "Talk, dammit" or "You must reply" or, well, you see my dilemma. I don't currently have a good short title. Rock soup and all that. Hoping someone brilliant will come along with a proper title. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 22:44, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Not brilliant but as an opinion: Collaboration is required
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 22:56, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Engage isn't bad, but it's maybe a little demanding. If you want a word to describe editors this would apply to it might be noncommunicative, but that's hardly better. How about communicate? RO^(talk) 22:57, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Better word, granted (I can't help but think of Jean Luc Picard, on the Enterprise saying "Engage!", but I'm a nerdy guy.). We need a 2 to 4 word title to sum up the idea for a title. "You must communicate to participate", only pithier. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 23:05, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Going off Berean Hunter's suggestion, how about Communication is required? RO^(talk) 23:28, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

/ec) I like ENGAGE, and the ideas. "Revert": no, you don't have automatically to go to the talk, - you could also accept it ;) - I don't revert much, and I don't get reverted much. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:31, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, ENGAGE is about as succinct as it gets, and there's no shame in showing some love for Star Trek. RO^(talk) 23:41, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

I like "Communication is required" best so far, but want to hear others and sleep on it. A friend had one of her friends put in hospice today, so I'm busy supporting her right now, not likely be around much for a day or so. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 00:15, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Best wishes for that! - "Engage" engages me more than the all-too-common "communication", but that's just me, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:16, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

I still think WP:ENGAGE is the right shortcut, ie: "You need to WP:ENGAGE with other editors", but a cleaner title is still helpful. Editors who won't talk with others and just mindlessly go on, this is all too common a problem. Not sure if the essay will help everyone, but keeping it short and easy to read might help some. As for my friend, she lost her husband last year and is all too familiar with Hospice. So am I, if anyone remembers my trials with the (now) ex-wife's dad last summer, and my mother a few years ago. All I can do is be there for her, keep my phone close by. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 11:28, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

I've changed it to Wikipedia:Communication is required per RO's and BH's ideas, but left the ENGAGE/engage shortcut because it is very useful. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 16:26, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

• BH added some polish, and it might could use a little more, but I think it is pretty concise and usable. Twice in the last week, it would have been handy for me to point to. Stone soup folks, feel free to make it sparkle more if you like. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 21:21, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

How about, "Co-operation is essential"? isaacl (talk) 22:15, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

I hate blocking someone when then simply won't respond, but I've had to do it a couple of times. Thus I like the stronger title with "required". The essay won't be a high traffic one, but when the essay is being linked to someone, they need a firm shot across the bow to keep them from being blocked. Dennis Brown - 2¢

Funny, for me, "essential" is a stronger imperative than "required"... I was thinking of "co-operation" to emphasize that editors should be working together to find the best solution or, failing that, the best compromise possible.

Regarding the section on formal boards, I'm not sure why you start with saying that participation is not required, and then advise participation. Perhaps the emphasis should be reversed: lay out the reasons for participating, and then state that it is up to the editor's best judgment? isaacl (talk) 00:06, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Go for it. Your last edits cleaned it up nicely. That part seems a little awkward to me as well. I'm best at spilling out the general ideas, then cleaning it up later. And yes, I usually ask for help cleaning up :) That usually means a better quality essay or article, so that's a good thing. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 00:14, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

I was a Cub Scout den leader and raised two teenage boys, so I'm used to short, sharp directions being the most effective. How about just "Communicate!" Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:20, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

I added the shortcut WP:COMMUNICATE earlier. That and WP:ENGAGE work well when used in sentences directed at the user. Titles tend to be short and clean without punctuation, so basically we are already there. The shortcuts seem to matter more than the titles. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 02:27, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Guidance needed

Hi Dennis,

Where you see a content dispute (based on the diffs presented to you at ANI), I see a lot more diffs that have not yet been thoroughly organized and which I believe show a serious behavior breach of WP:ARBCC#Principles. My only interest is prevention, not punishment. In the event that I believe the alleged problems with this editor continue, I will likely spend considerable time organizing an AE complaint. The reason I'm writing you about this is to express my concern for what would probably become a claim of forum-shopping.

Obviously any future diffs would be eligible for inclusion in such an AE filing by me. But what about diffs prior to the current ANI? There are two subsets there - (A) those brought to attention in the ANI thread and (B) those that were not included in the ANI thread. If I organize a careful AE complaint under the climate case decision, and include any diff from any venue and time that I think shows the problem, would you personally believe that I was doing that in order to forum shop? As you consider your reply, rest assured, I have no current plan to file such an AE, and would only do so if new diffs added to the ones I already know about persuade me that sanctions are necessary to prevent future disruption.

Thanks for your input on this procecural question. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 17:44, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

• In my opinion, if you do a future filing that uses diffs prior to today in part, there isn't any issue. Often at ANI, the goal is just to get the cause of the problems to promise to stop creating problems. That part was accomplished, and in the least aggressive way. He admits the consensus is against him, which is significant. The fact is, he filed the report, he "saw the light" (or at least a twinkle) and asked to stop the process. He wasn't technically under examination and wasn't "acquitted" of any wrong doing. It is essentially a punt where I hoped it could just go back to the talk page because looking at that one issue in isolation, I didn't see a reason to block anyone today. That doesn't make it a formal ruling. Hopefully, you will wait a week or two and see if he lives up to his words, and if not, filing would be pretty reasonable. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 20:24, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Fair enough, thanks NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 21:02, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

<gasp> thank god for that block. Although I did have a good laugh over edit warring closure of a sanctions discussion about one's self. Thanks for your thoughtful attention and dutiful followup. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 10:56, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Now that a block has been instigated, to reduce risk of additional chaos at ANI perhaps by a newcomer to the thread may I suggest adding the appropriate administrator-only closed templates to the subthread I started? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 11:44, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

It appears Euryalus closed the whole thing. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 12:57, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

OK, thanks NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 13:02, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Welcome back

I just noticed you were back. Hope all is well, or as well as possible!--Wehwalt (talk) 20:35, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

• Better, still on the heal, it takes years. I think helping out here will do me some good, although I will still be hit and miss for a while. Moving back to a house I was trying to sell but just isn't selling. Lake front, which is kind of nice, so I guess I will keep my boat and catch up on some fishing. Thanks for the welcome back. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 20:38, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Dear Dennis, I know we have communicated recently, but I want you to know how very much your help and advice has, and will be again, appreciated over the years. Always here to support you. As ever, David, David J Johnson (talk) 20:45, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

I can't wear your head, so I don't know. All I can do is wish you the best, and healing.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:07, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

RFA question

Be my guest and remove mine, yours is better :P Kharkiv07 (T) 17:46, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

• No, that is fine, I will perhaps save a slot for a follow up. Quite obviously, that is a question worth asking due to his prior statement. This may take a few questions to clear up. Feel free to plagiarizer mine. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 17:47, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

ANI follow-up

I noticed you dealing with this yesterday on ANI and watchlisted the page in question as a result. Sadly, based on this, it seems that Akhil222 didn't get the message. I suspect there are language competency issues at work here, but the user needs to stop AFDing pages as "some reason." Valenciano (talk) 18:16, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

• Fixed. Thanks for the heads up. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 18:23, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

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.

Nothing urgent. BMK (talk) 21:01, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

• BMK, nothing received. I tested it myself and it works, but your's never arrived. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 22:30, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Caste system

I noticed your helpful comments at WP:ANI#Improper use of template:disputed at Caste system in India and at a user's talk, so am alerting you to what I regard as some trolling at ANI that I have removed (diff hmmm, perhaps I shouldn't have left my comment at ANI because it calls out for a response from those involved, and no comment might have been better). That was in an earlier section at ANI involving similar participants. An IP took the opportunity to attack an editor with some "clever" poking. If you have some time, please review my removal of that and either restore the text if you want (very unlikely!), or watch to see if I am reverted. Something needs to be done to stop harping on about "racism"—an accusation like that, as you know, should be aired once at ANI if wanted, then dropped. No problem if you don't feel like taking this on per your edit notice! Johnuniq (talk) 04:25, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

• I saw the deletion. I tend to overlook more than most, so I'm probably not the best guy for a threshold test. At ANI, I just shoot for settling things as best as possible and getting everyone OFF of ANI and back to articles. There is so much crap being thrown around, I probably would have overlooked a single trolling. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 01:11, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Caste system in India

This is in reference to the article Caste System in India.In the talk page of the article i have made mention of the views of Harvard's Michael Witzel in connection with the Indian caste system. Would it be considered canvassing if i were to send an email to Dr Witzel to take a look at this article and then to consider giving his views (along with the references) on the caste system in general and on this particular wikipedia article in particular? If he agrees, but decides not to participate in the talk page of the article, i think the best thing might be for him to present his views in the form of an article on his home page or else for him to express his views in an email in a publicly viewable mailing list. (Full Disclosure: I have communicated with Dr Witzel in the past.)I know everyone is equal in wikipedia, but i think it might be fruitful to have Witzel's views on this wikipedia article--together with any references Witzel gives--to be placed in the talk page of the article. Also, if Witzel considers some of the references being given in the article (particularly in the lead) to be of a dubious nature--for instance, if Witzel says that the lead in the article is containing material that is substantially similar to the material that was debated upon and rejected in the California textbooks case-- then it might be fruitful to know about this in the talk page. Please advice. Soham321 (talk) 20:06, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

• My gut says that this isn't a good idea. It would probably look like canvassing to some people, but when you start bringing in "experts", you can easily cause problems. Experts in a field are seldom familiar with our policies, for starters, and they tend to have singular views and methods that aren't always conducive to Wikipedia's methods. Feelings tend to get hurt. At this stage, you might serve yourself and other better to get more eyes on it. Wikipedia talk:Noticeboard for India-related topics is just one place to try. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 20:58, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

All right.Thanks for the link. Soham321 (talk) 23:46, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Dennis, I have been informed by Soham321 here that this non-neutral message seeking support for his position was made on your suggestion. I had warned the user to revert and post something neutral, but have been told that it was made on your advice. Could you take a look please? —SpacemanSpiff 00:41, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Hey

I'm so glad you're back. Drmies (talk) 04:32, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

• Thanks Mies. I'm still going to be hit and miss, but I'm going to try to be a regular fixture as best I can. I'm in the middle of moving back to the lake house, need to get a renter or two, move on with life. I've been living in the hood (that is what they call it) for 6 months now, among crack dealers, heroin dealers, bootleggers and worse. I was the only white person in a complex of 100 units. I really didn't have to move here, but it made sense to for a short while and I took advantage of it by getting to know the people and the sub-culture. Being white, articulate, middle aged and having an assertive personality, most of the residents assumed I was an undercover cop. I told them I was a light bulb salesman, which might sound like a bad cover but technically, that is what I do. I need to write about the experience. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 11:08, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
  • These are trying times in America, especially for many whites in the South, since it's we ("us"?) who have to improve. Good luck with everything, Dennis, and even your light duty is much appreciated. Drmies (talk) 18:42, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
    • You might be shocked at how many blacks don't like Obama, Drmies, they just hate Republicans even more. We discussed ideas such as the fact that if half the black population voted Democrat and half voted Republican, they would actually be more empowered as each party would be forced to actually take action on their promises. As it stands, there is no incentive to find solutions to issues specific to blacks in America because the Democrats can take their vote for granted, no effort is required at all. And every politician's first objective is to get reelected, as we know. One could even argue that it benefits Democrats to NOT solve issues within the black community, as the problems themselves make great platforms to run on. Unsurprisingly, the blacks with prior military service were more likely to say they vote Republican and more willing to engage in political discussion, regardless of their age. If you listen to the political ideas of blacks in this hood (a few hundred live there), you see they are quite conservative in the political ideology, just not their voting. Contradiction was thick everywhere I went. About half had zero interest in actual politics at all, and their opinions were just parroting what others were saying with no ability to answer a follow up question other than to say "Well, that's just how I feel"; a punt. Not so different than the rest of America, to be honest. Being neither Democrat nor Republican, it gave me some interesting insights into this segment of society. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 13:39, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
      • We have a pretty representative student population at my school, and the black students all favor Obama. Our governor just took down the four rebel flags on the Capitol grounds this morning. It won't really solve anything, but it's a sign of something. I'm disappointed in Obama (a bit) as well, but that's also Congress for you. The stalemate has, in my opinion, more to do with this ridiculous state-enforced two party system, with gerrymandering and how districts are cut up and, of course, with huge amounts of money (even in judicial elections--see this and this). In other news, on your lack of party affiliation, I argued recently that libertarians never get laid, and got one "like" on Facebook for my argument. So there. Drmies (talk) 15:29, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
        • Past due for the flags. The State shouldn't be supporting a symbol that is used more to divide than anything else. The arguments to keep are unconvincing. What an individual does is fine (and is often handy, as an overt racist is less dangerous than a secret one), but what the State does speaks for us all, and I've never supported that symbol outside of it's use as a historical relic. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 16:37, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
        • Oh, and Libertarians don't kiss and tell. We don't need to. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 16:53, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
          • [9]. MastCell ^Talk 17:08, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
      • And lest someone say we're just chatting, I found it a good incentive to do a bit of work on Sue Bell Cobb. I think I'd like to meet her. Drmies (talk) 15:51, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Why does this article exist?

I'm new to the deletion process, I joined wikipedia to clean up some of my local area articles but this guy has his name plastered all over articles for notability. Where does his biography currently stand? can it be removed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Limitsky (talk • contribs) 20:16, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

• I assume you mean Jordon Hodges, and judging the sockpuppets who recreated his page, and the UTRS letter authorizing the photo, I'm guessing his PR team was behind it. His latest role, however, could qualify him for an article here, although a quick check of the sources, they look like a garbage truck of useless links. You can always do your homework to make sure good stuff doesn't exist, (ie: WP:BEFORE) and send it back to AFD using the TW feature. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 20:27, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

Thanks!!!!!!!!!!!

Drjobrout (talk) 06:03, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

A little bit of help understanding the Wikipedia process

Thanks for helping me out with the doppelganger issue yesterday. And sorry for bothering you despite your STOP sign, but right now I'm a really frustrated Wikipedia editor, and I need to understand what I did wrong. Please direct me to the proper venue if I'm bothering you. Yesterday I tried to bring up an issue about User:TheRedPenOfDoom on the Incidents board. The issue was closed after only two hours and I was accused of acting in a retaliatory manner. Yet only minutes after the issue was closed the same user has an arbitration enforcement sanction brought against him, for only a quarter of the issues I brought forward. I don't want to be seen as vindictive, as I said, I truly don't care about him at all, I'm just trying to do the right thing. Could you please explain to me in which manner I misstepped yesterday or point me in a direction where such questions could be answered. BFG (talk) 23:45, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

• Your issue was his user page being protected. Any user can do that, just ask any admin to help you with it. As for getting help here, the best place is the WP:Teahouse. Very laid back environment, and it is hosted by nice people whose only goal is to get you started in the right direction. One of our finest programs at Wikipedia. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 00:07, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Adminship

What do you mean, I won't be blocking anyone? THE POWER IS MINE. I HAVE THE POWER. I...ahem.

More seriously, I wanted to thank you for your vote of confidence over at my RfA. I hope I may do it justice...even if I don't end up blocking anyone. :-) --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 02:56, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

• To me, that is funny as hell, although not everyone will get the joke. I'm totally confident you will put the tools to good use, Ser Amantio di Nicolao. We each do what we do best, glad to have you empowered with the tools to make editing easier and better for Wikipedia. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 06:06, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks

DB, thanks for your help with the League City IP editor (73.166.187.154). This was tricky. I didn't care for their claims of self-harm, and I didn't want to exacerbate their condition, but it occurred to me that if someone makes legal threats we block them, so shouldn't we do the same to protect this person from whatever triggers they are experiencing. There is, of course, also the issue of them using the self-harm statements as a way to get people to back off, which is manipulative. Anyway, thanks for the help. Just wanted to vent a bit since I couldn't really do it in the ANI. Regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 21:19, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

• No problem. I sat and thought about that one for some time before closing. It isn't always easy, but the consensus was clear, and in this case, a firm hand is likely best for all. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 21:26, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Your ANI comment

Your ANI comment So it is all fixed thanks to your diplomatic skills, everybody happy (and incidentally Resolute's comment on me again proudly displayed on AN, though you don't mention that specifically). And you chatted with Doc9871 offsite because he was "understandably upset" and cooled everything down. Mmm. No loose ends in your opinion? How about this? And I hope you realize it may be some time before we see Floquenbeam again. I feel a little put off myself. This beautiful (at least where I live) season may be better enjoyed with as little Wikipedia as possible. Bishonen | talk 14:11, 28 June 2015 (UTC).

• Bish, sometimes there are no winners and no losers no matter what you do, so you try to follow policy as best as you can, and just reduce the drama along the way. If I start giving strong opinions on what either said or did outside of the policy, then I wouldn't be uninvolved. As I saw it, if I didn't know the parties, I can't justify reverting that comment. That is an objective statement that a consensus would agree with. At Floq's page as well as ANI, my goal is and was to just let everyone fan out in their own little circles, without anyone getting blocked. This is exactly as I would do for any other editor if I didn't know who they were. Under no circumstances does it mean I condone any comment. It is a matter of policy, not preference. I could have easily avoided the whole thing, but felt my stepping in would prevent a block, stop the warring, and let things calm down and if needed, be handled some way other than edit warring. If you want to take some action over the comment, nothing is stopping you. My actions were limited solely to the edit warring, which WAS disruptive, and had Floq already at 6RR. Someone else was bound to block him shortly. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 15:01, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
• Resolute has issued an apology of sorts at WP:AN. I will leave it to you to determine the value. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 15:03, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

• (For talkpage stalkers: No, actually on WP:ANI.) Thank you, I have. Bishonen | talk 18:00, 28 June 2015 (UTC).

I haven't commented about this spiraling chain of incidents except to say, it's been one helluva weekend on Wikipedia. I think a whole lot of people need a few days away from the drama which, like a whirlpool, has a tendency to suck people in and leave them disoriented. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:52, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

It has made me regret coming back and recapturing my admin bit, I must admit. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 16:55, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

You can have mine for a nickel. Bishonen | talk 18:00, 28 June 2015 (UTC).

Whether I'm right or wrong, all I can do is try to read consensus and apply it as gentle as I can. Or I can ignore the issue, but there was a reasonable risk it would have blown up bigger than it already has. In the end, perhaps I'm an idiot for trying to calm things down, but I can't say I regret trying. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 19:06, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Step outside

...it's the best damn weather that we've had in ages. Take a camera, a beer or whatever makes you happy. Don't miss the chance because it'll be gone before we know it. De Dramah vill stihl be hier ven ju geht bach.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 19:39, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

In the midst of these dramatic situations, I present to you, a kitten.

AmaryllisGardener ^talk 19:50, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

A cup of tea for you!

Herbal tea which is supposed to be relaxing. In my capacity as an editor, I order all admins to take a night off from Wikipedia patrol and find enjoyment in the multitude of activities which have nothing to do with a certain encyclopedia project. Liz Read! Talk! 20:27, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Nature's bounty

	Happy National Ceviche Day (U.S.)
	Enjoy the bounty of foods that nature provides. North America1000 23:30, 28 June 2015 (UTC) See also: List of food days Source:

 — Berean Hunter (talk) has given you a bowl of yoghurt yogurt! Yogurt is delicious and promotes memory improvement, awareness and WikiLove. Hopefully, this treat has added some flavor to your day.

Spread the goodness of yogurt by adding {{subst:Yogurt}} to someone's Talk page with a friendly message! Give yogurt out liberally to someone you've had disagreements with in the past, or to a good friend.

Arbitration motion regarding Arbitration enforcement

By motion, the Arbitration Committee authorises the following injunction effective immediately:

1. The case is to be opened forthwith and entitled "Arbitration enforcement";
2. During the case, no user who has commented about this matter on the AN page, the AE page or the Case Requests page, may take or initiate administrative action involving any of the named parties in this case.
3. Reports of alleged breaches of (2) are to be made only by email to the Arbitration Committee, via the main contact page.

You are receiving this message because you have commented about this matter on the AN page, the AE page or the Case Requests page and are therefore restricted as specified in (2). For the Arbitration Committee, L235 (t / c / ping in reply) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:30, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Arbitration enforcement arbitration case opened

By motion, the committee authorises the following injunction effective immediately:

1. The [Arbitration enforcement] case [request] is to be opened forthwith and entitled "Arbitration enforcement";
2. During the case, no user who has commented about this matter on the AN page, the AE page or the Case Requests page, may take or initiate administrative action involving any of the named parties in this case.
3. Reports of alleged breaches of (2) are to be made only by email to the Arbitration Committee, via the main contact page.

You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has, per the above, accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arbitration enforcement. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arbitration enforcement/Evidence. Please add your evidence by July 13, 2015, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arbitration enforcement/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. Apologies for the potential duplicate message. For the Arbitration Committee, L235 (t / c / ping in reply) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:43, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

A procedural question

I'm writing here rather than posting on the AN board because there is a distinct possibility I'm missing something fundamental. I tried to read all the comments but there are a lot it's possible this issue has been raised and I missed it.

I reviewed Arbcoms' enforcement motion

It says in part:

Administrators are prohibited from reversing or overturning (explicitly or in substance) any action taken by another administrator pursuant to the terms of an active arbitration remedy...

While it explicitly refers to action, I don't think it's an abuse of language to say that an AE discussion resulting in a consensus of no action needed qualifies as an action. It would be far too anal to conclude that only actions can be overturned not a decision that no action is necessary.

If I follow the time sequence and I think I do, the AE discussion included a number of participants and was closed with a decision of no action. One can easily debate whether the closure was premature. I'm open to the possibility it should be reopened but that's a different kettle of horses of a different color.

So I think I see an AE action taken: "no action regarding Eric is needed" and an administrator reversing or overturning that decision. While I would not support a desysop of gorrilla warfare for this action why am I wrong in thinking that this is a clear-cut case where it should be overturned?--S Philbrick(Talk) 19:00, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

• You and I think alike. Because it requires that an admin make a determination at AE (consensus or not, that is irrelevant) it is indeed the same as an admin action. Reopening it would have been acceptable, even if some didn't like it, as the typical time hadn't expired. The question is: what constitutes an admin action?

• An example: I tell you "Stop adding that material back in that article or I will block you". I didn't use any tools, but the tools are necessarily to fulfill the threat, and lets say I did so on an article I normally edit, so it is an abusive threat. I would expect to be held to account as an ADMIN, not as an editor, even though I didn't use the tools, I was acting in administrative capacity.

• The reason it isn't so cut and dry is because most people are looking at it as either loving or hating Eric, and they are looking at whether or not he deserved the block, they aren't looking at the process. They are also not looking at the concept of WP:INVOLVED, which at a minimum, is very arguable based her own words and actions in regard to Eric at the GGTF[10]. It's ironic, she didn't say one word to much of anyone in that case until I piped up and made note of it. Silence often speak volumes, particularly when it comes to bias and only one person has the power. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 20:35, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

I don't see a correct interpretation of WP:AC/DS here. When a sanction is requested at AE, any admin in the thread (or any other admin) may unilaterally issue a block. It's only a common practice to wait for others' opinions before taking action, and not required by WP:AC/DS. Closing a thread at AE with no result is not an admin action. The only time you need consensus is when a sanction is being *appealed* at AE. Also there are rules about 'modifying sanctions out of process', which this is not. It would torture the wording to think that by blocking someone who another admin had declined to block, you are modifying a sanction. EdJohnston (talk) 21:13, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm not an AE specialist, but it seems to me that once an admin has made an action (block or not), and that requires the tools (you can't do it unless you have the tools), then the proper action is to reopen, not to say "Well, I'm ignoring your finding and acting on my own". In this case, she was aware of the AE filing and closing before she took action. What is the point of closing the case if it isn't an admin action? And if it was so obvious, she should have been wise enough to let another act on it, not her since her opinions in the very case this covers were very clear. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 21:40, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

The qualifier "(explicitly or in substance)" seems, in my mind anyway, to make this a clear case of overturning a prior admin's action. There would be no need for the wording "or in substance" if the only thing that qualified as an admin action were those that required use of the tools. Closing without action, something only an admin can do, would have to be considered an admin action. That said, even if the consensus agrees with my reading of it and even with the obvious involved nature of the block I wouldn't be for a desysop of GW. That would be just more fuel on the fire. I'd be happy if GW just unblocked and everyone went on their merry way. I've had a WP account for a while now but it was only around two years ago or so that my job allowed the free time to try to do some actual editing. I asked some random people to teach me how to do proper citations and such and found folks helpful. Then when I got down to trying to find something I'd be interested in editing it became stunningly clear that there are very few corners of this encyclopedia that aren't friggin' battlegrounds at some given moment. Be that constant POV battles or old grudges. I've seen arguments, as I'm sure everyone has, over the most trivial shit you could imagine. Tired of that quickly. Nothing as a whole though has been as bad across so many areas as the fallout from the GGTF and surrounding civility drama though. It seems like an ideological line has been drawn and there's no room for grey. You can't agree or disagree with someone without being cast as being on one side of that line or the other. And it seems once a person is perceived as being on one side or the other you're irrevocably stuck there. It's silly and juvenile but this current drama stems from that catalyst while duly allowing for past grudges to have an excuse to reemerge. It's more baffling that all the major players that keep popping up in these conflicts don't even edit in the same areas. It's not about content or edit wars. It's people watching each other and picking fights and pretty much 100% of the time there's an admin action that furthers disruption rather than diffuses it. Though I don't envy the plight of any admin who steps into this hornets nest. No matter what you do you'll seen as a savior to some and a sinner to others. There's no winning a lot of the time. Be lenient and you're an enabler. Be stringent and you're a dictator. I'd like to think there's a middle ground, one that could mostly be found if people simply ignored each other a bit more, as odd as that sounds. I don't see it though. Sorry for the long rambling post. I know you started WER so I thought I'd give you the impression I get from activily following WP from fairly recently and what is, I'd assume anyway, a factor in the difficultly in retaining editors let alone gaining new ones. It's not the initial action by an editor that seems to cause all that much disruption but the ensuing actions by admin's and editors alike that stoke it into a full on conflagration. To me the most sensible way forward in the current mess is GW unblocks, there's no talk of taking her bit, everyone chalks it up to known existing tensions and just goes on their way. I don't have high hopes for that though. Capeo (talk) 22:59, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Can't say I disagree, and in fact, I would say that is a very good read on the situation at Wikipedia. As for GW, no one is asking for any sanctions against her. I think she screwed up and underestimated her own level of involvement, but I don't have a reason to suspect malice, just bad judgement. All admin make mistakes, I've made my share. But yes, she COULD have simply unblocked and reopened the discussion. I'm not even saying that a short block is unreasonable (although I don't see the long term benefit it offers), but the process is definitely messed up here. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 23:25, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

• Sphilbrick is one of the most lucid users and admins on Wikipedia. Unlike me and Dennis he keeps mostly to himself and mainly reserves his opinions. When he speaks out as he does here, he finds consensus among admins such as me and Dennis where if we were to discuss this issue on its proper venue we would all be shot down by the anti-admin brigade, or if on ANI, by the peanut gallery and wannabe admins. Knowing how prickly Eric is and that he is quite capable of sticking his barbs quite unprovoked into any admin or user who defends the mere principle of management of Wikipedia by any system other than anarchy, I don't even watch his talk page which has about as much academic interest for me as Corbett's neighbour, Corrie.

Clearly Corbett's statement was both an undeniable infringement of AE and a deliberate characteristic swipe at an admin in the full knowledge that this kind of toe-dipping into the very edge of the acceptable is likely to be into an acid bath - one that would almost surely dissolve his participation on Wikipedia for yet anothr stretch. In normal circumstances, such repeated indiscretion is met with escalating periods of enforced vacation from the project, however, the subject being discussed here is prcklier still. So to get to the quick, I support this block because it is apt while I support unblock because a) the discussion wasn't given time to develop before it was closed (closed?), and b) because one admin overturning another without discussion is inappropriate - just like the analogy of an AfD closed one way by one admin then promptly overturned by another, c) because it does look as if GorillaWarfare felt that as a sitting arb she would be invincible. Unfortunately my vote leaves GW as a rather sitting duck until these vagaries of policy are neatly resolved. I think there is no way out of this without some proper arbitration, with GW recusing herself of course, and Corbett sitting out the block until the committee can return a majority verdict on what to do for Black Kite, GW, and Corbett.

Whether Corbett's current block gets overturned or not is immaterial, he is an intelligent person and sooner or later will get the indef or at least the very long block he is obviously expecting. Of course, it won't happen without a lot of drama claiming yet again that he has been unfairly treated. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:12, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

I agree a block was inevitable and likely justified (although I think an admin could have gotten by with a week block, we aren't forced to escalate and can take the circumstances into account), GW is the larger issue. This is why I made a statement on the Arb case that was filed on her last night. I'm not seeking sanctions, but there needs to be some clarity. In my opinion, it was foolish of her to block him due to her obvious animosity and involvement, which does call her judgement into question. And of course, I would still consider closing an AE action and "admin action", so it does look like flaunting of power, and as Kudpung puts it, an air of invincibility. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 12:31, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

I didn’t want either of you to think I was ignoring your responses. First, Kudpung, thanks for your extremely kind words. I’ll repay them by asking for a favor on your talk page shortly :) obviously, things of progress since I wrote. I’m happy to see that my view of the situation has been shared by others so I haven’t felt the need to jump in. Refer eternal did the right thing and now will have fun at Arbcom trying to sort out several issues. One of which is the interesting point I think made by Dennis regarding wheel warring. I was ready to explain why an action wasn’t wheel warring drop the plan to state it when I saw others making the point and then I saw the point by Dennis that provided an interesting argument that perhaps this should be considered wheel warring. That’s one of a number of things that need to be addressed. Anyway, enough for now I look forward to the evidence phase.--S Philbrick(Talk) 18:20, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Dear Wikipedia Admin:

You are all idiots, myself included. The lot have gone mad this weekend. Some of the rantings at Arb would be funny if they weren't so sad. I'm expecting to get blocked now for making a personal attack against a privileged class of super-editors and breaking the blue code, but as a class, admin collectively have looked like a bunch of buffoons over the weekend. Per Berean Hunter's excellent advice, I'm going to go outside, I'm tired of hanging with admin and not sure I like them anymore. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 20:09, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

I haven't been following the goings-on at ANI - and now Arb? - except as they are reflected through people's talk pages. But I gather it's been admin against admin all week. Dennis, I'm sure you were trying to bring a voice of sanity over there and I applaud you for it. I don't understand what's been going on here the past week; it's as if there was something in the air, or the Wiki-water, to turn the admins against each other. Or maybe it's some kind of evil electronic ray. I've recently been working on the Tin foil hat article; maybe I should start wearing one, before I too start drawing swords against fellow admins. Hang in there, Dennis, we love you, and this place needs people like you right now. But yes, definitely get a breath of fresh air whenever and for as long as needed. --MelanieN alt (talk) 21:43, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

That's all right. These things gotta happen every five years or so, ten years. Helps to get rid of the bad blood. Been ten years since the last one.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 22:01, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

For speaking common sense, I have been blocked you indefinitely with talk page access and email revoked :). In all seriousness, to anyone reading this, I would recommend taking a break from drama for a bit. Lift, run a 5k, do interval training, do whatever. Anything to defuse the drama. StringTheory11 (t • c) 23:08, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Heya Dennis, I have been at the fringes of this drama because I was really angry about Eric's block, though hopefully I managed to avoid engaging "Save page" before brain too often, but I agree with everyone else. Let me put it like this, over the weekend one of my favourite musicians passed away at the relatively young age of 67, and it's a shame it took his death to whip his article out of Start Class and get rid of a truckload of unsourced original research on it. When you consider that, it really does put all this silliness at ANI and Arbcom into sharp perspective, if you ask me. Hang in there Dennis, you're one of the good guys, really, and even when we disagree (more of that in a mo), we do so in a civil and respectful manner. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:49, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

• I missed it all and when I read it, wondered if I should comment. Unfortunately I couldn't see straight because my eyes ached from rolling too much. Unfortunately, now it's in Arbcom's hands - they are going to have to act, a decision is going to have to be made, and it's not going to be pleasant. Worm^TT(talk) 13:53, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

• • It isn't just the 6 admin listed at Arb right now (yes, six), but elsewhere I've seen knee jerk reactions and unusual behavior, sometimes venturing into "asshat" territory. It is like the admin bit has given a group of people ADHD or something. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 13:56, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

    It's the weather and the holidays. Every summer we have a load of stupidity. Every. Single. One. I might put together a list. Worm^TT(talk) 13:58, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

    • Yes, but usually it is the new editors just out of school acting like idiots, not the admin. Well, a little bit of the admin. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 14:02, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

It probably won't make you feel any better, but Wikipedia is far from unique in having eruptions of silly drama every now and again. It happens in small village societies and little clubs. For example, about 18 months ago I watched a management team of a website lose their temper with each other over seemingly minor infractions and resign en masse. When Rutland regained independence from Leicestershire c. 1997 the sudden absence of a common "enemy" allowed the council to descend into bickering and infighting. It seems to be human nature. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:25, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Curious, Rutland had its own Eric, aka “Dirk”. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:52, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

If you look below, you see that I've felt forced to participate in two ongoing Arb cases involving 6 admin and others. Hence why I say all admin are idiots. I've yet to be proven wrong nor have I been blocked, so I can only conclude that I am correct. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 18:28, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Is there justice on Wikipedia?

More than 200,000 residents of the London Borough of Hackney have been blocked from editing. Dennis Brown says "there is no justice". Risker is a former member of the Arbitration Committee with intimate knowledge of its workings. Dennis Brown dismisses her view saying "Risker is just another admin, not a judge". 86.183.19.20 (talk) 09:41, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Separation of powers

I've been following yesterday's discussion at ANI and the overspill on individual editors' talk pages. Last night you said

Since I had reverted you, it wouldn't be kosher for me to have blocked you.

It is invariable that an administrator who reverts will then ask another to block, and administrators who revert will also ask another to protect. NeilN does not adhere to this, but then he's only been an administrator for a few days. As it appears that the two of you are close would you consider mentoring him? 86.183.19.20 (talk) 12:19, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

• There are plenty of times an admin will revert and block someone, IP or not. BLP violations, vandalism, clear disruption, etc. This is particularly true at formal boards like ANI/AN/Arb. I could have blocked yesterday and no one would have blinked an eye. I chose to engage a bit instead, knowing someone else would block anyway. Me blocking would have been pointless and could have raised an issue, even though WP:INVOLVED would have granted the exception. NeilN is new, but he's a good guy whose learning what raises eyebrows and what doesn't, but I don't believe for a moment he would do anything shady on purpose. I'm not familiar with all the details, but I get the idea we are talking about blocks that another admin would have made if they had seen them, which is specifically mentioned as reasonable under WP:INVOLVED. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 12:43, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

On 8 June Neil reverted, blocked and protected on Ancient Egyptian deities. That seems to be way outside the guidelines which you have explained above. I haven't looked any further into his blocking record. 86.183.19.20 (talk) 15:00, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

• He blocked a sock, then protected the article. Assuming the block was in good faith, there is nothing wrong with that. Just briefly looking at the edits of the IP, it is very plausible that is was a block evading sock. If we had to file at WP:SPI and WP:RFPP, then nothing would ever get done. Those processes can take days to weeks. Admin are actually encouraged to simply act on their own, on behalf of the community, per WP:BURO. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 15:36, 26 June 2015 (UTC) Dennis Brown - 2¢ 15:36, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Do you see the danger? You start off by saying "he blocked a sock" then qualify that by saying "it is very plausible that is was a block evading sock". Wikipedia's quasi - legal structures have not been set up simply to punish the guilty - they are also there to protect the innocent. Take the case of Eric Corbett - doing what you advocate someone could block Eric and keep him blocked forever. If people are not singing from the same hymn sheet - following an agreed set of rules - any group is going to collapse into anarchy.

The Arbitration Committee came down so hard on Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry precisely because he did what you are advocating - he ran the SPI procedure himself from start to finish. 86.183.19.20 (talk) 16:07, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

No, they came down hard because he used the CU tools improperly, plus some other stuff that I can't discuss (what little I know of it). There is a huge difference. I can personally audit anything that any admin does with the admin tools. I can't do that with the CU tools, and very few people can. Apples and oranges. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 16:37, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) FWIW I often revert, protect, and block all in one go. Blatant disruption needs bold, rapid intervention. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 16:25, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

This is what Risker said:

On 21 April 2015 at 1513 hours UTC, Chase me Ladies, I'm the Cavalry (ChaseMe for short) blocked Contribsx (talk · contribs) for abusing multiple accounts.[11] Immediately before that, he had initiated a sockpuppet investigation (SPI) at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Hackneymarsh in which he alleged that Contribsx was a sock of Hackneymarsh; in that SPI, he states that he was contacted by reporters from the UK newspaper The Guardian. His original statement also implied that the account was managed by or managed at the direction of a specific living person who is the subject of one of the articles edited by Contribsx and also edited several years previously by Hackneymarsh; however, as it was pointed out to him off-wiki that such a statement was a BLP violation (absent direct proof that the living person was directing or responsible for the edits of Contribsx) ChaseMe modified his statement.

What clearer guidance could there be that administrators must not investigate and block on their own without following the normal procedure of giving notice, collecting evidence and passing the matter to an impartial adjudicator for a decision?

Getting back to Neil, his last block on 8 June was 81.154.132.163 which had done nothing more than post an unblock request. Talk about biting the newbies. 86.183.19.20 (talk) 17:32, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Referring to Kudpung's comment I would agree that eventually editors get tired of continually reverting a vandal and would like to do something else. 86.183.19.20 (talk) 17:38, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

• Risker is just another admin, not a judge, and you are taking that out of context, as again, the overwhelming majority of that case was held in private, away from public eyes, for a good reason. Trust me, there is more to the Chase Me case than you know. I'm not up for debating something that is already written in a dozen policies or more, that admin do not have to submit to any board in order to take action. Never have, never will, it would be unworkable for a number of reasons. There is no such thing as "impartial adjudicator" in any shape or fashion at Wikipedia, we are not a court, there is no justice. With all due respect, you simply have no idea what you are talking about. That isn't how things get done. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 18:15, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

I happened to stumble across this when reading the section below. I probably don't have to say this, but taking anything the IP says at face value would be a mistake. I am happy to explain any admin actions I have taken to any editor asking in good faith. And no, I do not think the IP (whoever they are) has the best interests of Wikipedia at heart. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:34, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

NeilN above assumes bad faith. Something is rotten in the state of Denmark. I just looked at WP:BURO which Dennis cited. It clearly states that regard must be had for the principles of policies, and disagreements are resolved through consensus - based discussion. I am unaware that there is any principle that Wikipedia process is designed to produce an unfair result, and the reference to discussion indicates that an administrator is expected to refer to others, not do everything herself. This is a general comment, not directed at anyone in particular, but it does explain why GorillaWarfare is getting flak in the following section. 86.183.19.20 (talk) 10:01, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Discussion transferred to Wikipedia talk:Blocking policy#Is there justice on Wikipedia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.149.12.180 (talk) 09:34, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

socks of Futurewiki

please check Mega256. sure looks quacky to me. Thanks John from Idegon (talk) 18:09, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

• I can see why you would be suspicious, but it is short of me being able to take unilateral action. I strongly suggest filing a traditional SPI and asking for CU to look based on similarity of :cats and such. As the edits stand now, that is the best option. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 20:49, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

User:Futurewiki

Hi there. User:Futurewiki is now using User:Mega256. I reported it yesterday to ANI, but he hasn't been blocked yet, and continues to make a huge mess. I've been able to spot each sock because we edit the same articles. Thanks. Magnolia677 (talk) 21:53, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

• I just noticed the message above mine from User:John from Idegon, who also edits many of the same articles. What a mess this vandal is making. Magnolia677 (talk) 21:56, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Hey, Magnolia677. I cannot do an SPI right now (on my phone). Could you?

• • I looked again and blocked. I asked for CU at the SPI, but not sure if they will. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 22:10, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

73.166.187.154

You said to have blocked this IP indefinitely, but you actually just blocked it for 3 months. Did you actually mean to block the IP indefinitely? --TL22 (talk) 23:59, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

• If you go back and read the close, I blocked the PERSON for an indef period. I implemented it by blocking that IP for a few months. If he changes IPs, he is still blocked. If he doesn't, you can get the IP blocked longer next time. IP addresses change regularly, and is only an address, not a person, so we just block it for as long as we think it takes to cycle. Rarely do we block an IP for indef. Again, it isn't a person. See also WP:IP addresses are not people. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 00:02, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Kww and The Rambling Man Arbitration Case Opening

You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kww and The Rambling Man. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kww and The Rambling Man/Evidence. Please add your evidence by July 13, 2015, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kww and The Rambling Man/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:20, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

• Goody, I get to participate in not one, but TWO simultaneous Arb cases with a total of 6 admin (plus others) under scrutiny. I'm already compiling my evidence. Looks like we pay the tab for the drunken binge that admin went on last week. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 18:26, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Dennis, while you should certainly contribute to these cases if you feel moved to do so, you shouldn't feel compelled to participate. Sometimes, the best way to set an example when people are behaving ridiculously is simply not to take part. It's also important to protect yourself and to decide how much of yourself you want to give to these aspects of the project. For me, there are a handful of issues where I'm willing to go to the mat—mostly those dealing with the accurate presentation of medical and health information, or with severely obstructive user behavior which noticeably affects article editing. For the rest, when it comes to who-said-what-to-whom and the interminable personality-driven squabbles, why bother? We're volunteers. Our participation here should be enjoyable, or at least meaningful, for us. I don't see how participating in these cases will feel either enjoyable or meaningful. Life's short and the future is uncertain, so don't spend time on this out of a sense of duty. Only do it if it feels genuinely important or meaningful to you. MastCell ^Talk 20:50, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

• Good advice. I may just limit myself to a couple of minor points that I think are getting lost and leave the politicians to figure the rest out. Sadly, my real life is about as messed up and confusing, so doing much more here surely isn't good for my mental health. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 21:45, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

• Don't forget what Count Rugen said: "Get some rest. If you haven't got your health, then you haven't got anything." Heimstern Läufer (talk) 01:45, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Change from announced time table for the Arbitration enforcement arbitration case

You are receiving this message either because you are a party to the Arbitration enforcement arbitration case, because you have commented in the case request, or the AN or AE discussions leading to this arbitration case, or because you have specifically opted in to receiving these messages. Unless you are a party to this arbitration case, you may opt out of receiving further messages at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arbitration enforcement/Notification list. The drafters of the Arbitration enforcement arbitration case have published a revised timetable for the case, which changes what you may have been told when the case was opened. The dates have been revised as follows: the Evidence phase will close 5 July 2015, one week earlier than originally scheduled; the Workshop phase will close 26 July 2015, one week later than originally scheduled; the Proposed decision is scheduled to be posted 9 August 2015, two weeks later than originally scheduled. Thank you. On behalf of the arbitration clerks, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 07:58, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Duck

Hello. You blocked an editor for making precisely the same deletions as User:Granty123, who was subsequently created and is now making the same deletions (and is an SPA). --Epeefleche (talk) 09:01, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

• The problem here is that this new account was created and edited before the other account was blocked. They've only made two edits. Could be meatpuppetry, or sock, or just a kindred spirit. It's vague enough I need to see another edit or two. It is possible that two people have the same opinion on this kind of issue, as well as lack of understanding of policy. This forces me to hesitate for just a bit, even if odds are that you are right. So far, he's only made two edits in a month and you've warned him, lets just watch for a bit. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 09:25, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Works for me. Thanks. Epeefleche (talk) 20:54, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Nationalist IP

Say Dennis, as a well-rounded American citizen, could you have a look at 94.14.212.141 (talk · contribs)? They seem to be rather aggressively pro-US and anti-London; I came across them on Park Lane, Boris Johnson and this unexplained removal of content on Footpath. I'm not going to do anything myself as it's reasonably well known I get annoyed by "my country is better than yours" arguments (from both sides of the debate!), but do you think it's worth telling him to calm down and be a bit more neutral about stuff? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 08:26, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

• I left a strong enough note. That sounds like an older adult. The last thing we need is more nationalistic editors, and frankly, there is no shortage of yankee ignorance when it comes to these topics, myself included. I'm not hopeful, to be honest. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 09:36, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. This guy seems to have been all over the place - he's been at the perennial corn maize feud and the spelling of Labor Labour economics. This can't end well. I can remember an American couple asking my mom mum if she was English, then being astonished she could speak the language so well. (She's born and bred in Wales, so "no" is the right answer). Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:48, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

The same could be said if she had been a Scot :) In defense of the ignorance, it is a lot easier to be that ignorant in a country that is nearly as large as the whole of Europe. Not a valid excuse, mind you, but an explanation. I've spoken to many people at work (phone) who have never traveled more than 100km or 200km from where they were born, and never will. Reminds me of the Yank that went to London on holiday, went to see Big Ben, looked up at it, looked at his watch and said "Man, it's stood all that time and it's only 3 minutes off". Dennis Brown - 2¢ 12:58, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

"We Texans just lurve ur quaint li'l English salad." Martinevans123 (talk) 13:00, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

I forget the movie title, where the girl is making potato salad, chicken salad, egg salad, etc. Someone asks why all the food, and she dryly says "Doctor said we need to eat more salad.". Dennis Brown - 2¢ 13:09, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

I can forgive Americans (I have to, I've got family there), and the cultural ignorance works the other way round. "What, you mean you FLY from New York City to Rochester? It's in the same bloody state, why don't you just drive?" (and yes, I really did say that). One of the nice things Wikipedia does is allow people to learn about cultural differences - I mean everyone in Britain knows what a Waldorf Salad is now, but those used to be just isolated examples. Can you imagine how crestfallen I was when I found out that the Dennis the Menace loved in the US wasn't the the boy with a red and black striped jumper and a dog called Gnasher? That was a cultural shock. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:15, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

I'm ex military, came from a military family, so I had a leg up over most, but I've still learned more since working on Wikipedia, particularly with Eric on my two GAs and the FA, correcting each other's terms and the like (he doesn't need much correcting for USENG, I did for UKENG), and dealing with Irish, Scots and English some at work. I love the differences, celebrate them. Two peoples separated by a common language, indeed. I consider myself patriotic, but not nationalistic. We aren't better than anyone, but I love American ideals. I'm not so in love with our current implementation of it. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 13:23, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

We'd rather not hear about your "leg up over most", if you don't mind, Dennis. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:28, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Well, and now I'm the one with culture shock. There is an entirely different Dennis the Menace (present company excepted) in Britain? and the two strips started "coincidentally" during the same week in 1951? That's beyond belief. It must have been arranged by aliens or something. --MelanieN (talk) 16:47, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

@MelanieN: Dennis the Menace is fascinating. He's not just a British comic character, I think he's by far the best known one, to the extent I could describe a red and black striped top as a "Dennis the Menace jumper" to anyone (in the UK at least) and be understood. There's no content based reason the US Dennis the Menace wouldn't work here - we love Calvin and Hobbes over here so there's certainly the market for syndication in British newspapers. But it will never happen because of the name. DC Thompson are proud of their creations and would probably sue any paper that tried with a trademark violation. And as The Beano has never sold in the US, it doesn't travel the other direction either. Plus getting dragged off to Granny's house to be spanked by the "demon whacker" is probably unpalatable for prime time family viewing in the US. Vive la difference. PS: Dennis the Menace is one of the oldest disambiguation pages on Wikipedia, created way back in 2001 by none other than Larry Sanger Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 06:46, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

@Ritchie333: Never happen? According to the article Dennis the Menace and Gnasher, "the US series has been retitled Dennis for UK consumption". That suggests that the U.S. "Dennis" has at least some presence in the U.K. The strips are clearly very different. The U.S. "Dennis" is mischievous but charming, only five years old, a basically innocent character. From what I can see the U.K. "Dennis" is much edgier, more of an actually "bad" character. Definitely not something that would have been allowed on the comic pages in the 1950s, and borderline even now. As you say, vive la difference. But I'm still blown away by them starting the same week. One has to wonder if word of one filtered across the pond to the other - but maybe not, maybe the obvious rhyme of "menace" with "Dennis" (apologies to our host here) was just too good to pass up. At least the U.S. strip has a clear provenance: it was actually based on the creator's four-year-old son, Dennis Ketcham. --MelanieN (talk) 15:16, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
P.S. You still get Calvin and Hobbes there? Lucky you. We have to go out and buy the books if we want to read that late lamented strip. --MelanieN (talk) 15:19, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

No, Calvin and Hobbes has stopped, just me being nostalgic for that and Gary Larson's The Far Side. I'm sure somebody has tried to get Dennis syndicated here, but I can't ever remember it taking off in the same way some US strips have. Comics wouldn't print this anymore, some parents seeing a child being spanked repeatedly by a slipper would be horrified. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:29, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

I should imagine. We were beaten with switches that we were forced to cut ourselves, like normal civilized folks ;) My parents weren't exactly progressive, nor tolerant. And yes, every stranger/teacher/etc/ would refer to me as "Dennis the Menace" as if that was supposed to be cute. It wore thin after a while. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 15:35, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Something I learned long ago: there is no joke you can make about a person's name, that they haven't heard a million times before.--MelanieN (talk) 15:56, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

They have completely different definitions for pudding, chips and the serving temperature of beer as well. They do have better tea choices than us yanks. The Brits do know how to make a good "Full English" breakfast, although that tradition is fading fast. Someone once told me the Brits changed up the English language, which was kind of funny since it was us that inherited it from them. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 17:04, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

That is funny. These disagreements go back centuries. Our folklore records a reaction to our Declaration of Independence, from an Englishman who disapproved of the document's use of invented words like "belittle": "It seems Mr. Jefferson has declared war on the King's English as well as on the English King." We each think we invented and own the language. (If that's the case, I wonder why it's called English?) --MelanieN (talk) 17:37, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Ironic that we join forces to create yet newer non-words like lede, uninvolved and sockmaster. Wikispeak is a whole 'nother language by itself. We use more acronyms than the military and teenagers combined. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 18:06, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia didn't invent "lede", that's a newspaper term. But we have invented words that are far more outrageous than "uninvolved". IMO one of the most awkward/ugly words in what passes for English at Wikipedia is "desysop". --MelanieN (talk) 19:40, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

{{unblock|reason}}

On the WP:WIKISPEAK page, I did find a useful image that I will have to work into the next "how to request an unblock for a civility block" discussion. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 20:27, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Fascinating conversation, chaps guys dudes, keep it up. I just wanted to go back for a moment to the original topic - the IP - to say I absolutely don't think that is a new user. Anyone who can use "lede" in an edit summary, and sign their posts as "~~ipuser", is not new here IMO. Have we recently banned anyone who posts like this? --MelanieN (talk) 13:30, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

• Searching is difficult, didn't see anything. Instead of all this "Flow" and "Wiki Adventure" stuff, I wish the Dev Team would spend more time making search powerful. If you search the admin boards, you can't even give a date range, not even a one sided date search before/after. That is criminally negligent. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 13:36, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

The best way to search (and this isn't just Wikipedia you can do this on) is to give the internal engine a miss and go straight for google (ie: site:en.wikipedia.org whatever). Some sites have picked up on this and integrate Google's search directly into their engines. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:39, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

I quite agree, Dennis, searching can be quite arduous. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:55, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

The IP's very first edit was at Talk:Chinese whispers, where they made it clear they had been participating before. And yes, there had been an IP at that discussion, 90.198.209.24, who also signed their posts as "~~ipuser". That IP claimed to live in Britain (although they use American spellings, such as color), and they did not talk like the raging America-good-Britain-bad zealot that the current IP appears to be. But... that IP also started a Village Pump discussion about spelling of titles [12], and in that discussion they argued for a return to the original American spelling of article titles which had been changed to British spelling years ago without discussion. The current IP makes the same arguments, only more forcefully and from a more pro-American point of view. So, probably the same person, just more obnoxious this time around. Nothing sockish about this; IP addresses do change. --MelanieN (talk) 15:08, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Consensus requires patience

It occurred to me that a lot of the escalating events this weekend (and on other days) are rooted in an impatience with letting a consensus develop. Accordingly, I have written an essay, User:Isaacl/Consensus requires patience, to advocate for editors having more patience in working together to find appropriate solutions. I have no illusions about this having any substantial effect on matters, but it's always a fun exercise to clarify your ideas by putting them down in writing. If you have any thoughts, please let me know. isaacl (talk) 23:35, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

• What! I don't have time to read that. TLDR.
   — Berean Hunter (talk) 00:27, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Levity aside, I appreciate it's a bit of a catch-22: often those who are receptive of reading and considering advice in an essay are those whose behaviour already aligns with it. isaacl (talk) 02:13, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
    • I may wander over and jump in, if you don't mind. That is a good concept, Isaacl, although BH does make a point in that the many impatient people probably won't read an essay, they just want their way. Like you said, a catch 22. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 10:26, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
      • I do provide some tips for reinvigorating a discussion which may be helpful for those who already appreciate the need to allow time for consensus to develop. isaacl (talk) 16:16, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
      • Additionally, I feel there is a substantial group of contributors who genuinely wish to contribute productively to reaching consensus in discussions, but are unfamiliar with managing group dynamics, particularly when the group is distributed around the world. I think there is some useful information for them, too. isaacl (talk) 16:43, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Confession to sockpuppetry

Hi. I understand that a day or so ago you indefinitely blocked User: Hyenabecauseitshills 595 for being a vandalism only account and vandalising the Administrator incidents page. With great and genuine remorse I am here to confess that I used this as a bad hand account to my genuinely productive good hand account. I now understand how stupid my actions were and am determined to once again follow Wikipedia guidlines to the letter. It was a one off 15 minute or so act of experimental vandalism which is in stark contrast to the over 100 genuine and productive edits I have undertaken over this year. I don't know if this will have any bearing on consequences, but the disabiling of my IP adress which came with the blocking of my sockpuppet account and which expired earlier today profoundly shook me up and felt like a punnishment for the sockpuppetry in itself! You may wish to do whatever you like about me, but I sincerely hope that you take into account my genuine remorse and the effective consequince of the IP block. For the time being, I hope we can form a cooperative and trusting relationship. Regards Aardwolf A380 (talk) 01:16, 5 July 2015 (UTC) Aardwolf A380 (talk) 01:16, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

• It was Hyenabecauseitshills 593 that was blocked. As for you, Aardwolf A380, the normall process is to block the sockmaster (you) for one or two weeks, to get the point across that you can't do that. Even if I didn't block you, I would be tempted to put a 1 second block for "time served" so there is a record of it, but I won't. It seems the point has gotten across, so I'm not going to block you today, and would ask other admin to not block, assuming this is the whole truth. If you have a problem here, use the right venue. If you don't like something, work to change it. The problem with vandalism is it eats up a lot of time of others. Wasted time. I don't enjoy blocking and reverting vandalism, I like actually helping people instead. I would much rather help with an edit/move/delete/etc than contempate how to deal with your vandalism. Anyway, as you seem to get it, I will leave well enough alone and just ask that you never do that again. Find a better way to deal with frustration. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 01:40, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

• • Thanks. I wish to ad for clarification that I also used the IP adress for the same perpose at the same time, I kind of consider it part of the same incident. Thi hope this doesn't affect your ruling, does it? Aardwolf A380 (talk) 01:47, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

• • • It's not a ruling ;) I'm not a judge, I'm just an admin, which isn't that big of a deal. Technically, another admin can come in and just block you anyway, but it isn't likely as we have professional respect for each other. I just do what the whole of the community would do if everyone voted on everything. The main thing is you get the point and pledge to not do it again. Everyone makes mistakes, everyone deserves a second chance without being bludgeoned over it. This is your second chance. Now go make some good edits, and we are all better for it. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 01:50, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Motion passed in AE arbitration case granting amnesty and rescinding previous temporary injunction

This message is sent at 12:53, 5 July 2015 (UTC) by Arbitration Clerk User:Penwhale via MassMessage on behalf of the Arbitration Committee. You are receiving this message because your name appears on this list and have not elected to opt-out of being notified of development in the arbitration case.

On 5 July, 2015, the following motion was passed and enacted:

1. Paragraphs (2) and (3) of the Arbitration Committee's motion of 29 June 2015 about the injunction and reporting breaches of it are hereby rescinded.
2. The Arbitration Committee hereby declares an amnesty covering:
   1. the original comment made by Eric Corbett on 25 June 2015 and any subsequent related comments made by him up until the enactment of this current motion; and
   2. the subsequent actions related to that comment taken by Black Kite, GorillaWarfare, Reaper Eternal, Kevin Gorman, GregJackP and RGloucester before this case was opened on 29 June 2015.

• I feel so liberated. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 14:44, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Meritocracy

Regarding this edit: I presume you meant that Wikipedia's community doesn't always value comments based on their individual merit. However, "meritocracy" isn't the right word to describe this; valuing a participant who has made a lot of contributions to Wikipedia over a new editor or an anonymous identity whose total contributions cannot be determined is, in fact, characteristic of a meritocracy. isaacl (talk) 14:08, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

• It was the nicest way of saying what I was thinking, even if flawed. I'm a bit more upset by the method that I let on, so it is probably best I say nothing more. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 14:49, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
	Dennis, there isn't a day that I don't see your name in some capacity on Wikipedia. Your time and expertise is very valuable here and I just wanted to stop for a moment to say that you (and your wide variety of contributions) are very appreciated. MJ94 (talk) 01:11, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, that means a lot to me. I've stored the original in my Ronco Barnstar Vault for safe keeping. :) Dennis Brown - 2¢ 03:49, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Open proxy script

Dennis, somewhere you recently said you had a script to detect open proxies. Is it usable only by you or are you sharing?--Bbb23 (talk) 04:19, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Library needs you!

We hope The Wikipedia Library has been a useful resource for your work. TWL is expanding rapidly and we need your help!

With only a couple hours per week, you can make a big difference for sharing knowledge. Please sign up and help us in one of these ways:

• Account coordinators: help distribute free research access
• Partner coordinators: seek new donations from partners
• Communications coordinators: share updates in blogs, social media, newsletters and notices
• Technical coordinators: advise on building tools to support the library's work
• Outreach coordinators: connect to university libraries, archives, and other GLAMs
• Research coordinators: run reference services

Sign up now

Send on behalf of The Wikipedia Library using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:31, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

• We have a library? Dennis Brown - 2¢ 12:35, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Soham321

@Ritchie333:, @NeilN: I had to do this as Soham is ratcheting up his rhetoric. Just FYI he tagged me in his failed ArbCom because I was tagged by a user to provide information on his talk page behavior in the past (refusal to adhere to standard talk page practices). He is super aggressive sometimes and I really felt this crossed the line into a personal attack. I'd like to add that I strongly disagree with the user he attacked on many, if not most, occasions - I'm not taking sides here. Ogress _smash! 08:45, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

• I will probably bow out and let Ritchie and Neil handle this one. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 12:38, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Question?

If a user started a discussion in a dispute I was involved in, and he/she doesn't reply for like a month. Can I revert? — JudeccaXIII (talk) 00:01, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

• I need more info for all the possible scenarios, but if I start a discussion and no one complains within 1 week, I just move ahead. If they revert back BUT they join the discussion, have the discussion. If they revert back and don't, leave a reminder on their talk page. If they still won't and they revert again, they are asking for a sanction for disruptive editing. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 00:13, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, you're reply was very satisfying. I'm in a dispute and waiting for a response to continue on the discussion. — JudeccaXIII (talk) 03:16, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

WP:Communication is required is an essay that I wrote that might (or not) apply to this situation. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 11:00, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Graham's hierarchy of disagreement,

Thanks for that. I've probably seen it before, but if so, I'd forgotten it. BMK (talk) 03:44, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Gabrielkat struck again

@Adjwilley: At General Hospital, they updated the episode count again at 2:57pm EST, and the episode had not yet ended airing for the final airdate of the week, per the consensus at the WikiProject Soap Operas Again, this is them attempt to over-ride someone else updating the episode count, despite your [final] warning. I am also pinging Adjwilley into this conversation, as this is not the kind of behavior that should be acceptable at Wikipedia, and I only hope an appropriate action is taken, as it is clear they have not learned from their warnings. livelikemusic ^{my talk page!} 12:28, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. livelikemusic ^{my talk page!} 18:59, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Jehovah's Witnesses in Mozambique

Hi. I have redirected Jehovah's Witnesses in Mozambique to Religion in Mozambique. The target article already contains information about Jehovah's Witnesses pertinent to the the only suitable source indicated in the source article, and I have added that source to the target article. Given the scope of the target article regarding other groups and the proportion of JWs in Mozambique, the degree of coverage about JWs at the target article seems reasonable. If you have any concerns, please let me know.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:36, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

• Seems fine. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 19:25, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Past history

Dennis, Liz, regarding these edits: I thought I would respond here since the discussion is a bit off-topic from the RfA process. I hadn't remembered exactly when I started editing, but after checking I found it was in the same year that Dennis started. I'll have to say in the areas I've edited, I haven't perceived a big shift in the editor demographics regarding skill level. There have always been editors who don't (or don't want to) understand Wikipedia's basic principles, and editors who have done stalwart work in improving Wikipedia. As with any project spanning over a decade, there has certainly been a lot of turnover, but there are plenty of skilled editors who have taken their place, and a few old-timers remaining. From the very start I became aware without enough editors paying attention to a given article and willing to provide their viewpoint, it's impossible to fix problems in the article, because you can't build a consensus. So although the scale of problems have become magnified, due to the larger number of editors, personally I feel the problems of the present are very similar to problems of the past. And although I remained blissfully unaware of a lot of the old contentious issues (which I just didn't follow then), when I read some of the points being made in the associated discussions now, they seem more, shall I say, divergent from today's best practices—precisely because those debates led to the formation of today's pillars and policies. So I think there is a much better framework in place now in which disagreements can be debated.

I've mentioned Clay Shirky's talk on online group dynamics several times; the problem of managing a community as it grows is inevitable, and trying to avoid it just makes it worse. Wikipedia is the largest experiment to-date in trying to run a mostly consensus-driven community, with no hierarchical decision-making, and it's amazing how far it's gone. But after awhile, you can only patch the conventions and traditions that have accreted for so long before they start breaking down. I've said before that following the rules is at least five times the effort than not: someone can drop in a plausible-sounding, yet erroneous statement into an article in a minute or two; and I have to spend at least five to ten minutes searching for corroboration. If I'm still uncertain, I can request a citation, and then I have to remember to come back some day and check on it. If I find a citation, I've got to spend another couple of minutes adding it to the article, and possibly another three to five minutes rewriting the text to better integrate the original edit. So if ratio of editors aligned with Wikipedia's principles to misguided editors drops below 5 to 1, the battle is being lost.

The price of success is that it attracts everyone. It's good for extending coverage into new areas, or being able to get enough opinions to vet article content. It's bad for trying to continue with a pure consensus approach. Even if everyone is acting in good faith, they can have disagreements that cannot be reconciled due to contradictory assumptions or underlying principles, which is one of the reasons that consensus decision-making scales poorly. As a result, there will be a point some day where Wikipedia's editing population will have to shift in some way. It might get overrun by non-neutral advocates, or some kind of registration may become mandatory to try to force editors to maintain an identity and associated reputation (one of the steps recommended by Shirky), or the consensus process for article content may be modified to include some form of editorial oversight, or something else. The only thing certain about communities is that they will always change. isaacl (talk) 04:01, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

• Two of your points hit home with me: When enwp was new, it pretty much just attracted nerdy types, GNU types, code junkies, topic specialists, and fairly skilled or highly educated people. As Wikipedia matures, it attracts new people wanting to be a part of it, random people who stumble here and like it, and POV warriors because what is say on Wikipedia actually matters and kids. The average age of a participant is probably much lower, but I have no way of substantiating this. This is exactly why I say the average skill level has gone down. Once it truly became the encyclopedia that "anyone can edit", anyones started editing it. On average, an "anyone"'s skill level is lower than a specialist/nerd/professor/code junkie. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 19:31, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
  • I can't speak from before my time, but since I started editing, I've seen plenty of editors who did not work collaboratively in the interest of producing a more accurate, neutral work. (However I have no doubt that the Eternal September phenomenon hit English Wikipedia at some point.) Wikipedia has never been a friendly environment to real-world specialists, as a result: in the real world, you establish a reputation, and thus earn credibility for your work, whereas Wikipedia (as long as I've been here) has a tradition of requiring editors to justify their changes to anyone who challenges them. This can be quickly wearisome, and discouraging to editors. For example, some editors, for various reasons, will challenge routine copy edits, and it's a huge time and energy sink to have to explain standard writing principles and best practices. And unless there are others watching the article who chime in, the conversation will frequently wane without a consensus being established. I understand why it has to be this way with Wikipedia's current environment, but I think burnout of good editors could be reduced if some concept of reputation could be managed, or if some kind of editorial oversight/binding mediation could quickly resolve disputes.
  • One countervailing force that may drive up the average age of the editors who make the bulk of edits: with the incoming rate decreasing a few years ago (but now leveling off), the population of long-term editors is aging. It's the nature of any rapidly growing group, though, for average skill level to decrease: even companies like Microsoft, Apple, and Google have to deal with this, particularly when they initiate large hiring sprees. It's a tradeoff made to increase capacity to accomplish more, at the cost of doing it somewhat less efficiently. isaacl (talk) 23:22, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
    • WP:Randy from Boise covers it. Back where there were fewer editors, you had more isolation to work in, fewer problems (I actually edited before 2006, I just didn't register, wasn't that regular. I'm not saying "the good old days" were better, but in some ways they were. It is almost impossible to retain specialists now because of the Randy problem, and we have no way to verify credentials. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 00:15, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Amnesty

Regarding this edit: the editor in question is aware of the amnesty but is unhappy with it. isaacl (talk) 03:15, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

• I knew that ;) Dennis Brown - 2¢ 11:00, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
  • OK, well, I'll have to say I disagree with your choice of wording in this situation. As I mentioned in my essay on consensus requiring patience, avoiding fanning the flames of contentious issues leads to more effective discussions. There's enough issues to mull over and weigh in the arbitration case without also having to deal with the fallout from statements intended to provoke, particularly when they are made with a deliberate contradiction. It's true my personal editing style is to be mostly humourless in discussions, to avoid misunderstandings and to keep things focused on objective pros and cons, but I think in an arbitration case this is a reasonable approach for everyone; the presented information is long enough without having to deal with another layer of interactions created by a digression. isaacl (talk) 12:29, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

  The short layer was designed to show that the entirely could be hatted, (which I asked a clerk to do, but they aren't here) as being offtopic and pointy. My point was to not assume, and get the individual to admit it within that thread, so the intent of the thread was obvious. The quote by DGG on my user page might explain my methods better. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 15:06, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

  But there was no need to assume: the editor had stated in other comments given on the workshop page, and on the talk page, the intentions behind the proposal. So saying someone hasn't paid any attention when they explicitly said they had seems, to me, unduly confrontational. I think you could have just jumped to your second reply where you asked for clarification on the intentions. isaacl (talk) 16:05, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

  I think when someone intentionally uses a formal board for a soapbox, they should expect irritation from others. I was speaking as a fellow editor, and not in any way whatsoever in an administration capacity. Could I have been nicer? Maybe but sometimes being blunt is useful. Good Faith isn't a suicide pact and his intention is obvious. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 18:13, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

  I have no issue with being blunt; I think your second reply was blunt, raising your specific concerns. But I think the first sentence in your first reply was the opposite of being blunt as it introduced a digression that potentially raised the temperature of the discussion, without adding anything to your argument. However it seems in this particular instance, alls well that ends well. isaacl (talk) 18:43, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

  I completely understand your perspective here, not saying you are wrong. Most of the time, we try to lower the heat instead of raising it. Being pointy to make a point, about a WP:POINT, this is sometimes effective, as long as you avoid ad hominem, which I of course did. Or I could simply be wrong. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 18:56, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Is a bureaucrat's BARC worse than his bite?

Dennis, I've reworked it considerably. Something has to be done so I'm going to start the ball rolling very soon even if I'm not entirely sold on it. I would very much appreciate your updated comments on its talk page before I go live with it. Thanks.--Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 17:12, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

My RfA

Pavlov's RfA reward Thank for !voting at my recent RfA. You voted Neutral so you get a reasonable two cookies, just cooling off. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 19:31, 16 July 2015 (UTC).

• It is entirely possible that it is a matter of "when" and not "if". Getting sanctions lifted will help, although I don't know the timetables on all that. I think you handled it well, btw. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 23:14, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Introducing the new WikiProject Cannabis!

Greetings!

I am happy to introduce you to the new WikiProject Cannabis! The newly designed WikiProject features automatically updated work lists, article quality class predictions, and a feed that tracks discussions on the 559 talk pages tagged by the WikiProject. Our hope is that these new tools will help you as a Wikipedia editor interested in the subject of cannabis.

• Browse the new WikiProject page
• Become a member today! – members have access to an opt-in notification system

Hope to see you join! Harej (talk) 20:57, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

• Dave's not here, man. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 21:21, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Come on, man! Will you open up the door? I got the STUFF! Scr★pIron^IV 21:26, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Cheech: "How's my driving?"; Chong: "I think we're parked man." RO^(talk) 21:25, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

It's funny, as I mentioned elsewhere I have a minor COI because I develop and sell UVB bulbs for growing cannabis, not something most people would automatically guess that I did. It is a small part of what I do, but it is what I do. Went out and talked with Ed Rosenthal about it at the 2014 Cannabis Cup in Denver. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 21:37, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Hope to see you join! - a statement that appears to be missing an "r" and a "t". - Sitush (talk) 11:09, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Wowzers. I learned something new about Mr. Brown today. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:18, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Two days ago, a second doctor told me that cannabis was probably the best treatment for my back pain, even though it is still illegal. Times they are a changing. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 07:12, 19 July 2015 (UTC)