User talk:Kim Dent-Brown/Archive 9

Request

Hi Kim,

• 1.Could you please tell me whether i am within my rights to write what i did on my user talk page in pursuance of my freedom of speech and expression:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Soham321#Note_to_self

• 2. There is an article called 'The Unblockables': http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Beeblebrox/The_unblockables

It is about 'Unblockable' editors on wikipedia and is written by an Admin from the perspective of an Admin. I wish to write a similar article (perhaps 'The Unblockables Part 2') about such editors from the perspective of ordinary editors. I had made my edits on the article itself not knowing i need permission from the user to edit any article in user space, and so my edits got reverted. But i am planning to write an expanded version of my edits as an article in my user space. Please take a look at the diffs and let me know whether you think it will be appropriate for me to put it in my user space. If it needs some modifications, please give me feedback on that as well. Thanks. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Beeblebrox/The_unblockables&diff=567956593&oldid=567952554 and http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Beeblebrox/The_unblockables&diff=567916079&oldid=567912848.

• 3. I wish to emphasize that i want to exercise my freedom of speech and expression while being compliant with wikipedia rules and guidelines. Soham321 (talk) 22:30, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Kim will be able to address this I am sure, but I feel that it should be mentioned that as editors, we have no rights here (other than the right to stop editing) and no freedom of speech. I recommend that you not write anything similar to Beeblbrox's "The Untouchables", since it will likely be seen as retaliation and might just escalate the situation.--Mark _{Just ask! WER TEA DR/N} 00:13, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Mark, just so that we are clear you had mentioned that you will henceforth not be assuming good faith on my part in the ANI discussion. So your advice to me is meaningless as far as i am concerned. Beeblbrox wrote the article based on her user experiences and i see no reason why i cannot write a similar article based on mine. Soham321 (talk) 00:45, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

I believe what I said was, that I could no longer AGF after your behavior at the discussion. Now, if you read what I wrote above, it is only a recommendation. One you are certainly able to ignore. The advice may be meaningless to you, but that is further example of your unwillingness to collaborate and your ability to hold a grudge. I have a distinct feeling we shall be seeing you back at AN/I far sooner than 6 months and should that be the case, it will certainly not help you if you can be seen as retaliating for personal reasons. I am not here to grave dance Soham321. I actually was trying to explain how such an article would be perceived by the general community.--Mark _{Just ask! WER TEA DR/N} 01:17, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

You are entitled to your views as i am to mine that you continue to bait and goad me (into saying something i will later regret) demonstrating yet again your incompetence when it comes to Dispute Resolution activities. Soham321 (talk) 01:32, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

I see you really do not care how much anyone attempts to help you. You will continue this at all cost. So be it. Be aware this is not what Wikipedia calls "Good faith" editing so...--Mark _{Just ask! WER TEA DR/N} 01:36, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Kim, if you look on my talk page you will see that Soham themselves brought that AN/I discussion to my attention.--Mark _{Just ask! WER TEA DR/N} 01:28, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

And i explained why i did so in the DRN discussion. Soham321 (talk) 01:41, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

In the An/I discussion you mean. The DR/N was a different venue that took place before the AN/I discussion that you directed me to. And I think you may be defending yourself on that point for no reason. I am only explaining that you, yourself asked me to that discussion.--Mark _{Just ask! WER TEA DR/N} 01:57, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes, the ANI discussion, where you kept baiting me and goading me (to say something foolish) on this point; and also on my usage of the word 'punishment' as a kind of synonym for the 'temporary block' that you wanted to be placed on me. Soham321 (talk) 02:00, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

At Wikipedia these discussion are decided on the strength of the argument. I am a very vocal editor and I made my argument and believe it was done within policy and guidelines for consensus discussions. Your claim of baiting is rather obtuse.--Mark _{Just ask! WER TEA DR/N} 02:04, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Mr Dispute Resolution Volunteer, my claim of baiting is spot on. You were clearly baiting when you kept quibbling with me in ANI about the word 'punishment' which i had used as a kind of synonym for the term 'temporary block'. Soham321 (talk) 02:17, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Second use of same Ad hominem attack as below.--Mark _{Just ask! WER TEA DR/N} 02:40, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

It is nothing of the sort as i have explained below. Soham321 (talk) 02:57, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

You know exactly what you are doing. I think I have taken up enough space here on Kim's Talk page trying to help guide you away from actions that will not end well, but I am quite sure you are traveling in a direction of no return. Good luck and happy editing.--Mark _{Just ask! WER TEA DR/N} 03:01, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Same to you, and Good Luck in your Dispute Resolution activities. Soham321 (talk) 03:04, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Soham321 "Note to self"

[1] Is beginning to look like a hit list. Clearly this editor has no clue what they are doing and adding a list of editors to their page in this manner is very disturbing and concerning. It is not neutral in the slightest and I strongly object to this editor using their talk page in this manner.--Mark _{Just ask! WER TEA DR/N} 01:25, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

One last thing, it appears Sitush made a very civil attempt to address this list to no avail as the Soham just deleted it immediately, which seems to indicate a lack of civility and some intention to prolong this situation.--Mark _{Just ask! WER TEA DR/N} 01:34, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Tut tut. This is how Sitush's post began: Soham, I have tried to stay off your talk page but this is like watching a car crash. Soham321 (talk) 01:43, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm not an Egyptian King and what are you tying to say there? It is indeed beginning to look like a car crash and you should expect rubber neckers.--Mark _{Just ask! WER TEA DR/N} 01:54, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Keep going. Don't let me stop you. Soham321 (talk) 01:56, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm not actually. This is a formal complaint to the Admin that adjudicated you topic ban.--Mark _{Just ask! WER TEA DR/N} 01:59, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

I was referring to your bringing up the Egyptian king into the discussion. Was that also a part of the formal complaint? Soham321 (talk) 02:03, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

When the indent is below and to the right, it means it is a response to the last post.--Mark _{Just ask! WER TEA DR/N} 02:06, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

That's what i wanted to tell you, Mr Dispute Resolution Volunteer. Soham321 (talk) 02:14, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Please only refer to me by my user name. Such remarks are personal attacks per WP:WIAPA: "Using someone's affiliations as an ad hominem means of dismissing or discrediting their views".--Mark _{Just ask! WER TEA DR/N} 02:19, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Does not seem to apply in your case. Calling someone an Admin or a DRN volunteer clearly does not constitute a personal attack. The rule you cite goes on to say " speculating on the real-life identity of another editor may constitute outing, which is a serious offense" which clearly does not apply in your case. However, if Kim tells me that i should not call an Admin as Mr Admin or a DRN volunteer as Mr DRN Volunteer than i shall refrain. Soham321 (talk) 02:25, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

I am not "Mr. Dispute Resolution Volunteer". That was an Ad hominem attack.--Mark _{Just ask! WER TEA DR/N} 02:38, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

You misunderstand the meaning of the term. It would have been an ad hominem attack if i would have called you an 'Incompetent Dispute Resolution Volunteer' or 'Pathetic Dispute Resolution Volunteer'. Calling you 'Dispute Resolution Volunteer' is harmless. There is no personal attack or personal criticism in the term i used. It is like calling Kim an Admin. Soham321 (talk) 02:56, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Topic Ban

I just realized that the vote was 10-3. 10 in favor of some kind of ban or block and 3 against any kind of ban or block. Given this, and given that i am convinced at least some of the voters who voted against me were neutral, i have decided to accept the one year ban. However, i would like to appeal the ban after 6 months. I would like to know whether i would be able to get your endorsement after 6 months in the appeal in the event that you believe i have become more proficient in interacting with other editors. Soham321 (talk) 03:43, 10 August 2013 (UTC) I also seek one clarification. If an editor is taken to ANI in future because of edit warring or something else on the Digvijaya Singh page and a support/oppose topic ban is sought for the user in ANI, do i have the right to vote on this? Soham321 (talk) 04:19, 10 August 2013 (UTC) One more clarification needed: there is edit warring going on in the page i am not supposed to edit and one of the editors is on 3RR. Can i report edit warring or vandalism of this page anywhere if it happens? Soham321 (talk) 04:57, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Soham, looking at your three points:

1. If you have edited productively and without incident in other areas for 6 months you'd have a good case for appealing the ban and having it lifted early. If there has been no further problem then yes in principle I'd be happy to support an early lifting of the ban.
2. I'd be very careful in commenting on AN/I in respect of this page. I certainly wouldn't take anything there yourself. As to commenting, if you strictly restrict yourself to one contribution and don't get dragged into a debate that might be OK. But to be honest, in most cases the consensus is pretty clear and one !vote more or less either side is hardly ever decisive.
3. If there is edit warring there, then clearly at least two people are active on the page. Rely on one of them to spot that the other is at 3RR - you don't need to police the page yourself. In fact I'd advise taking it off your watchlist so you are not tempted to get involved. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 10:06, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

• Thank you.Soham321 (talk) 13:43, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Your words

It looks like I missed a lot of conflict on your page, Kim, but I just wanted to say that I saw your comment to Soham321 on his Talk Page titled "Topic ban" and I thought you handled passing along that message in a graceful and kind way. You ask for apologies for being "blunt" but I thought your language was direct, effective and caring. I haven't always had the most pleasant encounters with Admins so I like to applaud those who are no only competent but generous and thoughtful. It is truly laudatory! Newjerseyliz (talk) 18:17, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Liz, I see no point in rubbing salt in the wound when enacting a ban or block - much better to try and get the editor onside than antagonise them further. Glad you appreciated it! Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 19:27, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

ANI Board

I cannot thank you enough for closing the Wolfe Tone Societies thread on the ANI noticeboard. The peace of mind I now have is wonderful. I was sick to my stomach when Psychonaut refused to accept the consensus and started lobbying again to get me banned. I even left a message for Cailil asking him to intervene. If I could send you a case of Scotch I would. Thank you, thank you, thank you. SonofSetanta (talk) 10:11, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

You're welcome SoS - I'm glad you feel better. BUT (yes there is a but...) please learn from this experience. You must change your way of working in relation to images and text which might be copyright. You are assuming that if you know or believe the copyright status to be OK, then you can upload an image with little or no proof. If you carry on in that way you will give your opponents the evidence that you have not, in fact, learned anything and next time the consensus for a topic ban will be much easier for them to get. My closure was not based on the fact that I thought you had done nothing wrong, copyright wise. On the contrary, you have been careless and ignored sound advice because you didn't like it. I closed the thread to give you a chance to prove that you now understand what you were doing wrong, and will not repeat the mistakes. Please take the opportunity! Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 10:16, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Kim. I don't mind the "but". I created the article Wolfe Tone Societies at the end of a day's editing. I worked on it for an hour and fifteen minutes before wrapping up for the day, with the express intent of coming back the next day to do more and shape the article. The article I had replaced Wolfe Tone Society had existed for seven years as a direct copy and paste without even giving a source (although I didn't notice this until later) and nobody bothered their head about it. Nothing I have ever done on this wiki has led to me being so accused before since my very early days when I was learning how to contribute so I was shocked when the new article was blanked. I genuinely felt, and still do, that an editor who had been in so much discussion with me, wouldn't have simply drawn my attention to the suspect text and I would have assured him of my intentions and fixed the article. There's absolutely no chance of me simply plagiarising someone else's work.

As for image copyright: I needed to learn and have done so. I still feel however that the approach of some other editors was wrong. To simply tag images for deletion isn't good enough in my opinion. I found that the vast majority I had made licencing errors on could be retained by spending time learning about copyright. Quite a number of the images I uploaded were self taken and came under scrutiny. I was upset to be called a liar (the exact words) with regards to these and to have them deleted without cause other than "suspected of copyvio". To restore my credibility I rescanned these and offered to upload the negatives (where they existed) or used a different portion of digital images. That's why complaints were made about me uploading images which had been deleted - they're still there! Much kudos should be given to OTRS because, rather than delete my images, they advised me on licencing protocol, because Wikipedia needs images and anyone like me who's prepared to take the time and trouble is worth educating. I'm much clearer on everything now - thank God.

I make mistakes Kim. Is there anyone who doesn't? I prefer to have them pointed out to me and to work in a collegiate manner to learn from those mistakes. I didn't think it was very sporting of one editor though to go to such lengths to get me banned, especially when the consensus was against him. I am so glad you stepped in and I'm very grateful you put your faith in me. I won't let you down and would expect serious repercussions if I did.

BTW it's been noted before that I'm too wordy, so I apologise in advance for this epistle on your talk page. I'm like that in real life too. As Churchill said though, "Better to jaw-jaw than war-war".

Thank you again. SonofSetanta (talk) 11:21, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

AE Board

Kim, the same guy User:Psychonaut has reported me again here Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#SonofSetanta. I wonder would you be interested in giving your thoughts on the matter? SonofSetanta (talk) 07:25, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your help

Reference my case on the ANI board yesterday. I've decided to step back from all articles concerning The Troubles for a while. Someone else can sort out the petty disputes there. I accept I was wrong to put the case to ANI and I thank you for pointing out the error politely and for closing the discussion. SonofSetanta (talk) 13:24, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

No problem, and I think that's a wise and cool-headed decision you've come to. Actually you had some surprising supporters for your editing style at this and other places - I mean, folks whse POV you'd expect to be opposite to yours. So I think with a bit of time away there's no reason not to come back to this area refreshed and with a clearer perspective. If/when you do (or for any other reason), please feel free to ping me here if you need advice. Especially if things seem to be escalating; I usually check my messages at least every day, so if ever you are in doubt do try me. Best wishes, Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 14:19, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

As I said to someone else this morning, I appear to have had a "road to Damascus" moment. I'm actually not that surprised at the support I've had, although it's very pleasing to see people speak for me. I've spent a long time striving to rid Irish articles of POV and consider myself to be very neutral. That's part of my value to Wikipedia in my opinion and I think some editors recognise it.

I don't know if I'll take a full Wikibreak or not. I'm actually looking at Queen's Royal Irish Hussars at the moment with a view to updating it and trying to get a bit more campaign information added. I do think I overstretched myself on Troubles articles though. I don't really have the demeanour to argue the toss all the time over the type of semantics POV pushers use. All that arguing and fighting just to get one word changed at times. I prefer to get stuck in and write good material for articles like I did at Ulster Defence Regiment which has just had peer review and is up for GA status.

At any rate I've very pleased you stepped in yesterday and I'm glad somebody with your level head is there to help me out if and when I need it. I'm also very pleased to say you're not alone. There are some very nice people here, as well as the occasional rogue. SonofSetanta (talk) 14:36, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

I think the QRIH would be an excellent place to do some work - an Irish military topic, but by definition one that (unlike the UDR) won't get you far into Troubles territory... One word of caution - I'm always wary when I see anyone describing themselves as neutral and I certainly wouldn't claim to be. Personal disclosure here: I'm a former British Army officer who, perhaps surprisingly, would be an SDLP voter if I lived in Northern Ireland! Each of these gives me a very strong and particular POV. I don't edit Troubles based articles as a rule but if I did then the trick is to acknowledge the personal POV BUT never to let it affect your own editing. It's the editing that must remain free of POV; none of us editors ever can, unless we're admitting to being weak, watery and indecisive, and who wants that? Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 14:50, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

I accept your views on POV. Most people wouldn't understand that an Irishman like me could be neutral and I fully acknowledge that my background will always be there as a personal influence. (I did my cake too btw). You're correct in what you say however: it's not what we feel it's what we write which matters here. For the record I have no issues with unionism, nationalist or republicanism. I accept they all have a place in the modern world here in Norn Irn and I would defend (and have defended) the rights of all citizens to subscribe to a political ideology. Ideologies don't hurt people. I see myself as separate from those political concepts up to a point however and that point comes when one has to vote. I'm the Queen's man. Always have been and always will be. Over here, as you know, that narrows my choices for voting and I can only hope that the day will come when this wee part of the world embraces a political system which isn't based on power-sharing initiatives but will assume those to be redundant and unnecessary. SonofSetanta (talk) 15:11, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your time

Thank you for arbitrating in the recent AN/I discussion. A third editor have engaged into the article, which is good. I hope I don't need your help at AN/I anymore. Grrahnbahr (talk) 12:36, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

You were extremely diplomatic! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:38, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks on the AN/I

Kim, thanks for your work on the recent AN/I on which I was involved. I realize this can't be fun duty, and appreciate your work on it. TJRC (talk) 23:17, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

AN/I Discussion

I'm working on a reply. Some thoughts: I'm finding that rereading CIVIL in its entirety is a good exercise. I see there isn't an audio version of CIVIL. Yet. Hmm… A list of borderline technical policy violations is one thing. An inability or unwillingness to listen is another. I hope I can or did point to actual policy that makes refusing to actually participate in discussion efforts, and continuing to edit to put in place 'the right version' a policy violation. That's the core issue - IIRC - everything else is just straws. Your last comment about grasping at straws makes me wonder how policy (or users) can differentiate between grasping at any straw to paint the other in a bad light and setting troll bait in order to do so. TJRC's use of the user template in is last AN/I post to contact the 7 users he says I acted improperly toward is a clear violation of the canvassing prohibition and I hope someone addresses it; it compromises the normal consensus decision-making process, which makes it disruptive behavior. --Elvey (talk) 09:22, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

I don't appreciate you asking me for feedback and then closing without it, after I told you I was working on it. There's even a draft at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Elvey/sandbox3. I'd like to review/tighten/finish and post it for your consideration, but please let me know if you'll be willing to consider it or not. --Elvey (talk) 13:22, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

I don't think so, no. I think it's unlikely that anything you could say anew would decisively change my mind. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 13:26, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm frustrated. When you asked "Please now each of you say (a) what policy or guideline has been broken by the other person, e.g. that on civility, disruption, edit warring etc and (b) give some diffs to evidence this. " I understood it was because you were willing to let us know how you evaluated the diffs (b) in light of the rules (a) we provided. You deemed the accusations of not notifying of ANIs false, and pointed out how I could have notified differently, and that's fine - I see the opportunity for improvement, but I ask that you not stop there. You say we've "each made many mistakes". What are they? There's a huge learning opportunity here - can I learn? No action is unsatisfying, but my goal is to find a way forward. For the future, it would be helpful to know which diffs and policies to take another look at, and why. Being denied that - now that is most unpleasant: Help us understand where we went wrong by telling us where you think we went wrong. Help us understand where we did right by telling us where you think we did right. I just don't see much of a way forward given just the close you gave so far. That could help us do what you ask - learn when and how to reach a compromise. It doesn't have to be posted to AN/I. I read MLauba (talk · contribs)'s harsh re-closing comment as indicating he didn't notice (or didn't care) that I was responding to your request for diffs and pointers to policy by completing my post I'd marked (to be continued…) hours earlier and told you I was working on and had posted drafts of here. You closed the case and so your advice doesn't reflect the diffs and pointers to policy you'd asked for and have since been given. --Elvey (talk) 15:49, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I've been away for 48 hours and only just seen this. I realised you'd probably have responded but this has been my first time back at a computer. I've had a look at the material you posted to AN/I when you reopened the thread and it would not have changed my mind; rather than trying to seek any kind of reconciliation as I had suggested in my closing statement, it seemed to be a further attempt to win the battle against your opponent. I think that's why MLauba's statement to you was terse, but I understand that you drafted this before I closed the thread. So it's understandable that you were continuing the attempt to gather evidence against your opponent.

I'm not going to respond in any more detail to that AN/I thread, as it's about the other guy and not you. But above you ask for feedback about what I think you did wrong and the mistakes you made, and how you could avoid them in future. I'll be happy to do that to you personally - either here or on your talk page. However I'm not interested in a re-run of the AN/I discussion or in apportioning blame or deciding which of you is right. You have asked for feedback about your editing and that's what I'll give you. Your opponent hasn't, so I won't discuss their edits. It will take me a while to read carefully and get back to you, but I promise I will. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 16:34, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Help requested on a new issue

Images I uploaded to Ulster Defence Regiment are again being slated here. One image, File:The Yellow Card.jpg had already been accepted as valid and a request made for the closure of its discussion by a copyright patroller here [2] but the subject of its removal has now come up again for some reason. I have my suspicions about the reasoning behind the sudden re-opening of this discussion and I have to say I'm not best pleased at having to enter into another procedural debate when I'm doing my best to remain quiet and away from such things. Can you assist? SonofSetanta (talk) 16:38, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

This issue is now resolved. Another admin stepped in and marked the file as "Kept". Did you action that? SonofSetanta (talk) 16:40, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

No that wasn't my doing - have been away a couple of days and just got back. But I'm glad it's resolvedKim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 16:59, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. You didn't say what outfit you were with although you don't get your level of common sense with a line outfit. My guess is a corps, probably RE? SonofSetanta (talk) 17:06, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

No, all RE officers are well known to be "mad, married or Methodist" and I'm only one of those. I was indeed in the Line, the Gloucestershire Regiment as it happens. Though I started as TA, and wrote the Royal Wiltshire Yeomanry article about my first mob. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 17:42, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Ah, so you are a Methodist then? You don't come across as a line officer, certainly not from such an up market mob as the Glosters. (What am I talking about, nothing could have been more upmarket than the QRIH?) I know Wiltshire better than some people as I spent three years with the Demo Sqn at the School of I. Knew one or two "back badge" guys there. That seems to be the credentials sorted then. Very pleased to meet you. SonofSetanta (talk) 12:13, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for taking time to assist a new editor

Hope all works out well.--Mark 04:58, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

File:NZ fern.jpg missing description details

Dear uploader: The media file you uploaded as:

• File:NZ fern.jpg

is missing a description and/or other details on its image description page. If possible, please add this information. This will help other editors make better use of the image, and it will be more informative to readers.

If you have any questions, please see Help:Image page. Thank you. Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out) 16:05, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Please don't feel this is something you need take account of…

… and it's not that I'm trying to argue with you, but perhaps I should have pinged you when I posted this, since you'd dipped a toe or two there. Bishonen | talk 20:17, 4 September 2013 (UTC).

No problem Bish. I don't fundamentally disagree about that user but they have been a bit more productive and less frantic than their first entry on the scene. I always like to give folks one chance, even if it seems blindingly obvious that they are NOTHERE, just to show good form. It doesn't mean I have unrealistic misty-eyed expectations of them! Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 21:56, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Hello, Kim Dent-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.

--MichellineAspic (talk) 22:24, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Why?

This [3] should not have been closed since it was not resolved. Todd needs to be held responsible for his actions. Several editors expressed concern and the community deserves an answer. Sweeping it under the rug is not appropriate. Caden ^cool 14:55, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Because the original question had been decisively decided upon and there was no indication or likelihood that Toddst1 would reinstate it. Blocks are only used to prevent further damage and as none was likely a block would have served no purpose. And in any case, only you and one other editor were proposing sanctions and after 36 hours the suggestion had gained no support (probably for the reasons outlined above.) Three edits were made in a period of 15 minutes by Toddst1 to give rise to this ANI report; it's not really a convincing picture of a consistent danger to the 'pedia from which we needed urgent protection.Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 17:41, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Enkyo's still at it...

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

Hi Qwyrxian! Just to let you know that Enkyo did exactly what we thought he would, and waited for the ANI thread to get archived before going right back to doing what brought him there in the first place. So I've started a new thread. Feel free to comment if it suits.

Kind regards,

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 14:10, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Vodello's oppose

Thank you for your comment on Agent Vodello's oppose. I was ready to post a snarky comment until I saw your message. Ryan Vesey 16:24, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your restraint Ryan! It looks like other people have so far heeded my plea so hopefully no dramah this time....! Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 20:28, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

70.73.141.146

I am concerned about the three-month block you have imposed on this IP. I did not find a warning, although in a complex matter such as this I may have missed it. My problem is that in my professional opinion this editor is entirely correct in his assertions regarding the tanning and sunbed industry, both in the potential harmful effects associated therewith and also in the assertion that the commercial aspects of this industry produce advertising which, by virtue of making definitive statements about alleged benefits of artificial tanning and by denying the proven harmful effects are disseminating propaganda. It is clear that this editor has, in the course of the discussion, become more heated than would have been acceptable, but I am unhappy about such a long block in the face of his basic editing accuracy. --Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 18:40, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Hello Tony, very glad of your input. This editor was blocked by me as a WP:BOOMERANG consequence of this recent ANI report brought by him/her. (Hence there was no warning or ANI notice on the IP's page.) This followed an earlier incident in July, discussed at this ANI thread which resulted in the first block. I won't give you a commentary on those - it's probably better if you have a look at them without my opinion to colour your view. You might also want to check out this version of their user talk page, which gives the original unblock appeals from July. If once you've had the chance to review these you need to check anything out with me please do. On the other hand if they give you enough to go on without needing to consult again, please go ahead and unblock/change block length/confirm block as seems best to you. Happy reading, and thanks for taking the trouble. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 19:18, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

I would not dream of wheel-warring here and, as I said earlier, it is unfortunate that this editor, whose comments about artificial tanning are correct, has become vituperative in his responses on the threads relating to his edits. Would you feel that a conditional unblock offer with long-term topic bans on propaganda and on the tanning industry would be acceptable? --Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 19:44, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

I think an agreement not to edit the Propaganda article but instead to make the contributions at Tanning bed for example would be absolutely fine. My reading of the ANI threads was that nobody was disputing the factual and well-referenced nature of what s/he was posting. Rather it was (a) the undue weight and slightly incongruous location and (b) the uncollaborative editing style that was a problem. In respect of the latter, demands to defer to a medical practitioner probably did not go down well.

How do you want to handle this? Would the offer come better from a previously uninvolved admin like you, or is it better if I try and see this through? Happy to play it either way. (But will be away from keyboard for half an hour from this datestamp...) Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 19:53, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

I am happy to put it to him/her (obviously without unblocking until receipt of agreement) but will wait until you tell me that you are happy with this. It will do no harm if we are on hold until you are back online. I will, if you agree, stipulate that failure to agree will lead to no unblock, and breach of agreement reached will lead to indefblock. OK with you?--Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 20:24, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

A geolocate shows that the IP is dynamic, this editor was previously User talk:68.148.184.208. An indef block would only hurt those who receive the IP address later, so I don't think that should be an option. Ryan Vesey 20:35, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

While we've been discussing, Daniel Case has declined the unblock request. But he did so leaving the door open for a further request - maybe Tony you could suggest a form of wording to the IP which might satisfy everyone? Eg is s/he agrees to leave Propaganda alone and tries to edit more collaboratively? BTW I agree with Ryan, we shouldn't indef block - but we could go to AN and propose an indef ban which, given the signature editing style, should be pretty easy to police. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 20:49, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes, an indefblock on a dynamic IP is not an acceptable option. That was me showing woolly thinking after a busy day. I will suggest to the IP that an unblock condition is to avoid editing on the Propaganda page, with a warning to seek consensus on pages relating to tanning.--Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 21:31, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

See my post on his page. For the record he claims to have stable IP. --Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 21:43, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Tony - he has also edited from 68.148.184.208 as you can see from those contribs but I know next to nothing about how IP addresses are allocated or when they change. It would be better if he had an account of course but he may not want to make one. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 22:08, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

L'Origine

Re your comment on the Mfd [4] -- please see L'Origine's comment on AN/I [5]. NE Ent 01:37, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Hello NE Ent, I'm struggling to see the direct link between the two diffs - can you spell it out for me? Nothing in the second link makes me change my mind about what I wrote in the first, but maybe that wasn't your intention? Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 12:36, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

I understood you as saying L was blocked because she refused to stop complaining about Reaper Eternal; she had stated should would stop posting anything on-wiki about it before the block. I honestly don't understand the reasoning behind it except she broke the first law. Given the decline of her unblock request my instinct for wiki politics tells me further effort of my part on her behalf would not be productive. NE Ent 22:07, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm feeling the same way, NE Ent. I'm still willing to push to see why recently blocked Editors have their User Pages nominated for deletion at MFD. I don't understand the rush. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:38, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Liz and NE Ent - on balance I think I feel the same as both of you, that L'OdM has been treated poorly and deserves a chance to resume editing. They have appealed their block and I've pasted their appeal to WP:AN. However they are still banging on about the unfairness of the original block on their own talk page so I'm not confident that they understand what dropping the stick means, or how it applies to them. They were, frankly, their own worst enemy at ANI and came within a whisker of the thread being archived before they posted these [6] contributions [7] and poured petrol on the dying fire. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 22:27, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

I know, I know, Kim Dent-Brown, Beeblebrox tells me that he/she is positive that L'Origine is a troll but where he/she sees bad intent, I see cluelessness. I tried to give L'Origine some advice but I think that when a person feels mistreated, advice that they should play along and be nice are just wasted words. But I had to try.

I'm actually not too worried about L'Origine though because he/she has edited for years as an IP and will probably just return to that. I'm just upset at the process, how another Editor can come to AN/I asking for help, for someone to advise L'Origine and then, there is blood in the water, users look at his/her edits and can see that he/she is a little odd, he/she gets labeled a troll and immediately, indefinitely blocked, partially because he/she doesn't have many people supporting him/her. There are other Editors who are actually disruptive who don't face even temporary blocks because they have allies. I think that's unfair but it's also the way people work within organizations, especially ones as loosely defined as Wikipedia.

And I've still been unsuccessful at getting a definitive answer to how one gets unblocked from a "community block" imposed at AN/I. I've been told by different Admins:

• There is actually no such thing as a "community block"
• That an admin can't go against consensus and lift a block like L'Origine's without a "community consultation"
• That, in an almost identical case at AN/I on the same day, Bonkers the Clown was indefinitely blocked but the Admin said that he didn't do it because of the clear, negative consensus but "blocked on his own" so it was not necessary to consult the community to unblock
• But L'Origine put in an appeal request with ARBCOM and an Admin DID review her appeal

I find it confusing that so many people who block and unblock Editors every day have such contradictory understandings. Any way, I hope you have a nice weekend! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:45, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Liz, I think WP:AN is the right place to appeal a community-imposed block, as it says in the rubric at the top of that page "Issues appropriate for this page could include: General announcements, discussion of administration methods, ban proposals, block reviews, and backlog notices." The rest of the policy pages may not give an unequivocal answer but I'm pretty sure I'm right. Blocks imposed by community consensus need discussing by the community, and WP:AN is the pace to do it. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 22:50, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Then it sounds like an aberration then that L'Origine was advised to file an appeal with ARBCOM and that AGK reviewed it and rendered a verdict. Someone is misinformed. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:01, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Just to clarify my questions (above), I came across this notice on the page of an Editor who was "community blocked" some years ago...maybe this is the correct policy which could partially explain the contradictory things I was told by different Editors/Admins:

"In accordance with the consensus at the Administrators' Noticeboard, you are hereby indefinitely community banned from Wikipedia. This means you may not edit from any account until and unless you successfully appeal your ban. Any edits you make, from any account, will be reverted and editors doing so are immune from the three-revert rule. You may appeal this ban by contacting any editor in good standing and requesting they begin a community discussion, though they have no requirement to oblige such a request, or by contacting the Arbitration Committe at arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org."

So, by this account, a block coming from community consensus can either be addressed in another community discussion OR appealed to ARBCOM. This clarity was missing from all of the other conversations on Talk Page I've had. It still doesn't explain how a blocked Editor can "contact any editor in good standing" or address concerns in a community discussion about their block which I think tilts the scale against them in an almost insurmountable way. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:30, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

L'Origine du monde on AN

Hi, Kim. Nobody can read your plea for unblocking L'Origine du monde based on your personal guarantee without being convinced — at first — but it gradually struck me that there are some angles you didn't mention. I've put a question to you about those angles on AN. Bishonen | talk 11:44, 28 September 2013 (UTC).

Thanks Bish, perfectly reasonable questions. I've replied at WP:AN. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 12:14, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Right. Thanks. I think I'll just as soon stay on the fence, then. Bishonen | talk 12:37, 28 September 2013 (UTC).

Kim Dent-Brown, I know that you asked for an uninvolved volunteer to close the discussion but doesn't it have to be done an Admin on an AN board?
Blackmane has only ~1,800 edits. This is no slight to him/her and I'm not arguing that the decision would have been any different if it had been done by someone else. I was just expecting the discussion to be closed by an Admin with some experience (though uninvolved, yes). Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:30, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
P.S. By the way, thanks for going the extra length for giving L'Origine the benefit of the doubt. I know your opinion on her/him changed over the past week but not many Admins would go out on a limb for a relatively unproven Editor. Whether L'Origine will listen to the advice given has yet to be seen but I applaud you for at least posing the unblock question on the AN noticeboard. L.

Hi Liz, thanks for your note. I'm sorry L'OdM couldn't restrain him/herself during the appeal process, it's odd that someone who has produced such interesting articles as An Oak Tree can't tell when to take a hint and lie low in their own interests. I hope they come back in 6 months. In fact anyone can close discussions at AN and ANI, though obviously only an admin can enact things like blocks and page protection. It's usually preferred that admins or other experienced editors close controversial or marginal decisions but I think this was such a clear non-consensus that it was OK. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 20:24, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification, Kim. I didn't realize that regular Editors could close AN/I discussions (and elsewhere, I assume). As for L'Origine, I shouldn't speculate but when someone who has previously been productive acts so self-destructively, there is usually something off-wiki going on. I didn't sense any malice, problems with competency and I don't think he/she was a troll, it was a childish testing of limits of what the community would tolerate. I do hope things in their life work out, whatever is going on. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 14:02, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Last comment on L'Origine

I promise! But L'Origine was just blocked, his/her User Page was nominated at MfD and there was a surge of Editors opposing deleting her User Page and so the decision was to Keep. Today, both his/her User Page and Talk Page are completely deleted with a notice that he/she has been indefinitely blocked ({{User talk:L%27Origine du monde&redirect=no|L'Origine du Monde Talk Page]]). Now, I wouldn't complain about this but this very day I came across several User Pages of Editors who had been indefinitely blocked and then, six month or a year later, they are unblocked by ARBCOM and are editing again. And I regularly come across Editors who haven't been active until 2006, 2008, 2010 and they are still standing.

I don't get the persistence that some Editors have for erasing L'Origine's presence. Who is to say that he/she won't wise up, appeal the decision in a few months and return? It is clearly not the policy to delete the User and Talk Pages of every Editor who receives an indefinite block, only those who have either a) been community banned by ARBCOM or b) have been discovered to be a sock account. At least, that's my experience looking at many User Pages on Wikipedia over the past few months.

I just think that Editors who are unpopular are treated quite different from those who have a few allies. Maybe this is human nature and I'm fighting a losing battle. But I don't think it is fair which I do think is a Wiki principle (and it should be if it isn't!). Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:03, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I have no particular opinion about this one way or another, as I haven't researched it all that much to have an overly educated opinion, but just FYI: while it's certainly far from usual, deleting a user's user page and blanking their talk page is definitely not unprecedented, particularly when part of the issues surrounding the blocked editor was the content of the pages themselves. I don't think damnatio memoriae is the goal here. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 21:17, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Well, I went ahead and undid it myself and recommended that if Editors wanted the pages blanked, they nominate them at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion which is where the decision was made just last week to Keep L'Origine User Page. Sorry to bother you, Kim, with the soapboxing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:37, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

I tend to agree with you, Liz. Even with the most tendentious editors (and L'OdM was a long way from that...) I find it helpful to be able to look at their user and talk pages in their original state to get a sense of what the problem was which led to an indef block. Airbrushing them out just leaves an unexplained mystery. Racist, attack or hoax pages are a different matter but these are none of those. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 21:40, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Stalking. A bold and thoughtful edit Liz. Irondome (talk) 21:43, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Whew. That's a relief. I never revert other people's edits. It all seemed a bit too eager. Even if Editors believe that L'Origine was a troll, I think it's important to see the conversations that occurred there which, let's be honest, doesn't show him/her in a positive light. If he/she does apply for an unblocking, Admins/ARBCOM should easily be able to see why previous appeals failed in order to assess if anything has changed. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:56, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

WP:NOBAN is our guide here, and you were entirely in line with it, Liz. I've said as much to DavidLeighEllis who made the original blanking edits. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 22:24, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

File:NZ fern.jpg missing description details

Dear uploader: The media file you uploaded as:

• File:NZ fern.jpg

is missing a description and/or other details on its image description page. If possible, please add this information. This will help other editors make better use of the image, and it will be more informative to readers.

If you have any questions, please see Help:Image page. Thank you. Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out) 04:34, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

request

Thanks for the thoughtful close. Would you mind moving the closing rationale to the TOP of the move request, and just write something like "The result was MOVED to Chelsea" at the very top, then put the whole rationale, and keep the whole thing in the archived section (I think there are actually special RM archiving tags you could use? This will mirror more closely how other RMs look. thanks! --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 00:11, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Image watermarks

For reasons I'm sure you understand, I'm reluctant to approach Sou Boyy about this. Can you have a word if you think it's warranted? They're his photos and he's obviously putting watermarks on them while knowing about our guideline. Other images have watermarks but none so obvious as that one. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:33, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Will do, Neil - have been busy for a couple of days but I'll get onto this today and try to let him know what the score is. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 13:27, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Done. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 13:53, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, Kim. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:57, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Do change the File Name as it suits you and Thanks for your message!

Dear Kim, Hope all is well with you. Great to hear from you! My files are saved in that way with those names in my laptop as I use them in my blogs. Anyways, do change the file name to "Nusrat Jahan at FIERAA, a fashion and lifestyle exhibition held at Sapphire Banquet 2, Calcutta.JPG" or whatever you feel appropriate or put some other picture of the actress if that is your wish and suit the western sensibilities and fits the policies framed by majority of western wikipedians. Some words often used sounds jargons to me as I find it very difficult to comprehend western ways of communicating so publically. I would love if there is anything that needs to be edited, should be edited even if it is my work, due with as I give permission for all my work that is so far submitted. It is my small effort to uplift the fashion content of Wikipedia Calcutta and also some Wikipedia Indian content (as it seems Wikipedia Calcutta is neglected and is not as diverse as others) whenever I do get some time from my busy studying and journalism schedule. Please feel free to email all your valuable suggestions and advices at sourendra.das@gmail.com that should give you a quicker response as most of these notifications get in my spam folder by default by gmail and I see it often very late. Thanks and Happy Editing. Best, Sourendra Kumar Das from Calcutta, India. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sou Boyy (talk • contribs) 15:30, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for tidying up on the Alesia Raut's article

Dear Kim, Greetings for the Day! Thank you for this editing work of yours. Alesia is a close and dear friend to me from Mumbai and I really do appreciate that you edited her article very nicely. Please feel free to edit any of my work as it suits Wikipedia. Also, do feel free to email me with all your good suggestions and I shall definitely try and remember them. Hope you will have a great week ahead with family and friends. Do take care of yourself. Best Wishes, Sourendra Kumar Das from Calcutta, India. sourendra.das@gmail.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sou Boyy (talk • contribs) 15:43, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Did you...

...intend to remove my last post @ ANI? ES&L 23:28, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

...Nope! Edit conflict, hopefully I've restored it now. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 23:30, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Ok, one never knows - the community has lost patience with PL, and I'm probably on my last thread myself. I'm pretty much ready to propose either an indef WP:CIR block, or a topic ban preventing him from undoing ANY admin post or action anywhere on the project, and removal from AN/ANI. They've become a liability and massive timesink. I thought maybe you were censoring me for my own good or something :-) ES&L 23:34, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Heh, I can see why you might have thought I was trying to save you from yourself, but I wasn't! Pure coincidence. But now that I look, maybe you'd save yourself some grief if you did walk away from this one. I'm learning the advantages of WP:FUCK to an admin and maybe this is one of those times. If the situation so obviously needs action, someone else will likely take it for you and save you the bother... Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 23:41, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

A topic ban worded that way would be a bad idea. Something better might be: "PantherLeapord is prohibited from starting or commenting on AN/ANI/etc. threads about things in which they are not directly involved." (Sorry for the derail.) Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 23:37, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

So, how do we stop bullshit like his latest gaffe on ANI? He involved himself in something that he was not directly involved in, and when he got caught, ran to start an ANI thread as someone "directly involved" ES&L 23:42, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Nothing that a liberal dollop of "broadly construed" can't handle. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 23:45, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

... and now this violation of WP:POLEMIC? This is ridiculous. ES&L 23:47, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

... and this one now too. At which point does WP:CIR come into play? ES&L 23:54, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Meh. Not that that isn't ridiculous, it totally is, or that you're wrong to be offended and want something done about it, you're totally justified in that, but...meh. If it's in his userspace, well, you only have to read it if you want to. I'd leave it be, if it were me. But it's not me, so do what you will. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 23:55, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Bah. Most likely just a kid, or indistinguishable from one. I'd second WK. Leave it be. MLauba ^(Talk) 00:31, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Lobsterthermidor AN/I report

Hi Kim. I'm glad that you closed that AN/I report on Lobsterthermidor, it was well due. But it's a complex case and I don't think your closing comments fairly reflect the situation. This is really about his (mostly unintentional) disruptive behaviour which I tried to show in the evidence I submitted. I'm aware of the non-productive nature of the to-and-froing and I tried to restrain myself (hence the two sub-sections), but it was hard, especially with so little third party input to hang sensible comments on - wish I was perfect!

We did manage politeness a couple of days ago at Talk:Nutwell though. Have a look: it's clear evidence that he still doesn't understand OR or proper referencing, nor can he apparently understand straightforward questions on these topics. Yes, each one is a minor issue in itself, but they aren't isolated issues that I have to search around for - they are prevalent throughout his work and cumulatively they are damaging Wikipedia's credibility. This must be something worth pursuing. Any chance you could reword the AN/I closure to balance things up a bit? Thanks for listening,  —SMALLJIM  15:06, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Smalljim, I realise the closure wouldn't be satisfactory for you. However I don't think I should get into revising the wording of the decision because if I do I would have to allow Lobsterthermidor an appeal at re-wording and we are back re-opening the discussion. The problem for me was that as an administrator, you of all people should realise what's involved in bringing a request for a permanent site ban. This is reserved for the most egregious and persistent offenders as you well know, usually after they have attracted some serial attention from multiple other editors. This just wasn't the case here. Look at how little attention the case got from other editors whom you were quite unable to get involved in the case. I think LT has got under your skin and you are sensitive to problems that other editors just don't see as too problematic. You asked for a sledgehammer to crack a nut and were declined; if there really is a substantial problem then other editors will become aware of it and you will end up getting some traction here but it may take some time. If you don't end up acquiring support, the inference must be that the community does not see the problem as large as you do. If I were in your shoes I'd put on a charm offensive and be as collegial, friendly and co-operative as possible. It might break the ice and the two of you might be able to work together better. If you are rudely rebuffed then it's one point to you. (LT, if you are reading this - exactly the same applies to you!) Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 20:30, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for that measured reply, Kim. It's greatly appreciated. I'll take a while to consider what, if anything, to do next. Interesting that you should think I was asking for a site ban though - that was certainly not what I intended. I thought I was just setting out a case and asking for help, opinions, advice on how to proceed. Ah well, I'm sure you weren't the only one I misdirected over that, so the problem must be with my drafting. Overall it was all a bit of an own goal, I think. Cheers,  —SMALLJIM  23:46, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Re: Cork Hat

Boo. :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.248.2.163 (talk) 04:26, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

L'Origine du monde

L'Origine posted this unblock request five days ago and hasn't had an official response. I understand why Admins might want to keep their distance but I hope you or another Admin could tell him/her either a) Yes, b) Yes, with these conditions or c) No, and here's my advice for you (i.e. wait a month, work on other wikis, etc.).

It seems like once an Editor has been marked as troublesome, there is a mindset that things would be so much simpler if they simply weren't actively editing. But I do see some change here along with a dropped stick. I think offering an unblock with conditions (say, 1RR) would be a move that would benefit the user along with Wikipedia. At the least, there will be a lot of eyes on L'Origine so if he/she goes astray, there will be swift action. Just my 2 cents. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 12:48, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi Liz, I've gone back to the ANi discussion which was closed here and I think it would be sticking my neck out to unblock, based on the pretty clear consensus there. I'll post at L'OdM's talk page to that effect, but I don't think I should be the one to deny the appeal either, having been very involved in the last discussions. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 13:23, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

I completely understand your decision, Kim. I posted this request here due to your past involvement without considering the outcome of that involvement. I think I was most concerned that L'Origine was waiting a long time for an answer, either way. Thanks for your response. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:35, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Possible IP socking

See User talk:121.222.35.118. I think Flyer22 has made a pretty compelling case for WP:DUCK. Similar style, dove right in to editing a variety of topics related to human genitalia, similar edit summary style as well. I'd like to get your opinion, since you tried so hard to be nice to this user, before taking any action. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:40, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi Zaphod, have been busy at work today and couldn't get to look closely at this. I'll try and do so tomorrow but if there are any better bits of evidence coming up why not go straight to WP:SPI? I'm not a sock specialist in any case, there are folks there who may be better placed than I to give an opinion! Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 22:59, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

File:NZ fern.jpg missing description details

Dear uploader: The media file you uploaded as:

• File:NZ fern.jpg

is missing a description and/or other details on its image description page. If possible, please add this information. This will help other editors make better use of the image, and it will be more informative to readers.

If you have any questions, please see Help:Image page. Thank you. Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out) 04:37, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Germanic neopaganism

Hey Kim; I'm making some revisions over at Germanic neopaganism by using academic sources to built up and improve the article. It would be great if you could take a look and give me any feedback or advice. Best, Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:39, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Courtesy notice

I have mentioned you here: [8]. Second Quantization (talk) 14:24, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Hello!

Hi, Kim,
I haven't seen much of you recently so I thought I'd check in. I hope it is wonderful real-life activities that are keeping you busy and that, when you find the time, you can edit at Wikipedia once again. All the best, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:59, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Kim changed his userpage in January to reflect a new job. I, too, hope that we'll see him back here in due course. For someone who has had more than a passing interest in drama on the stage, he always struck me as a facilitator in minimising it here! - Sitush (talk) 21:12, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

I couldn't agree more, Sitush! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:41, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Hello folks, Sitush is right that it's my new job which has got in the way of my WP activity. I've had a lot to do getting two new MSc programmes up and running along with all the usual stuff that goes along with moving to a new job, learning new routines etc etc. But I haven't hung up my keyboard just yet and when time permits I hope to get somewhat back into the swing of things here. Thanks to you both for your friendly concern! Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 08:31, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Request for comment

Hello there, a proposal regarding pre-adminship review has been raised at Village pump by Anna Frodesiak. Your comments here is very much appreciated. Many thanks. Jim Carter through MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:47, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Leeds meetup

Hello! I don't know if you're aware but there is a wikimedia meet up in Leeds this Saturday (14 June) if you're interested. Hopefully you can make it. Regards IJA (talk) 17:41, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

WikiProject Military history coordinator election

Greetings from WikiProject Military history! As a member of the project, you are invited to take part in our annual project coordinator election, which will determine our coordinators for the next twelve months. If you wish to cast a vote, please do so on the election page by 23:59 (UTC) on 28 September! Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 22:15, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Happy Holidays!

Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2015!!!

Hello Kim Dent-Brown, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you a heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2015. Happy editing, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:01, 25 December 2014 (UTC) Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages.

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of {{U|Technical 13}} to all registered users whom have commented on his talk page. To prevent receiving future messages, please follow the opt-out instructions on User:Technical 13/Holiday list

Looking For Help From Someone Better Qualified Than I

Greetings!

I believe I've seen you work on pages related to Wicca before (if my memory is faulty, go ahead and delete this, because the rest of it follows from that), and I'm hoping you can take a look at some changes. I'm coming to you not as an Administrator but as someone who seems pretty knowledgeable on the subject of the history of modern Paganism. I'm involved myself, but my "scholarship" stage has been pretty well overwhelmed by my "practice" stage, so I'm not up on the literature.

Here's my issue: user WHRex appears to have created an account for the single purpose of making edits to articles related to Wicca. I have some serious issues with a number of them, but when I undid a change to New Forest Coven, it was promptly re-done. I'm hoping you, or someone with better resources than I, can perhaps chime in on some of these edits. It's pretty clear that WHRex is here with an agenda, and while I may not be entirely agenda-free, I do try to maintain NPOV.

Best regards,

*Septegram*Talk*Contributions* 21:18, 10 February 2015 (UTC) (watching your page)

Disambiguation link notification for March 19

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Cognitive analytic therapy, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Depression. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:30, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Considered for unbanning

Hi Kim Dent-Brown

Just a quick note to inform you that I have raised this new topic on the Administrators' noticeboard, asking for a review of the ban on editing medical Wikipedia articles that was imposed on my account 2 years ago. As you were the administrator who closed the ban discussion at that time, this may be of interest. Drgao (talk) 15:40, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Germanic neopaganism

Hi Kim. I see that for many years you have been active over at the Germanic neopaganism page. There are a number of discussions being held at that article's talk page at the moment, regarding both a potential change to the title and regarding whether certain paragraphs should be included or not. If you had the time, your input on those issues (whether you support my own positions or oppose them) would be useful and gratefully received. Best, Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:15, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Kim Dent-Brown. Yes, the conflicts continue. Midnightblueowl renamed the article (Heathenry, again), and deleted thousands of words of referenced material, including material on Valhalla! Although, in my opinion, the comprehensive term should be Germanic neopaganism, at this point I am mainly concerned with the deletion of important material.  :

BTW, from the dictionary:

hea·then (hē′thən) n. pl. hea·thens or heathen 1. Offensive a. An adherent of a religion that does not worship the God of Judaism, Christianity, or Islam. b. Such persons considered as a group. 2. Heathen An adherent of a Neopagan religion that seeks to revive the religious beliefs and practices of the ancient Germanic peoples. 3. Informal a. One who is regarded as irreligious, uncivilized, or unenlightened b. Such persons considered as a group. [Middle English hethen, from Old English hǣthen; see kaito- in Indo-European roots.]--ThorLives (talk) 03:17, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

"Midnightblueowl renamed the article (Heathenry, again)"? Or rather, Midnightblueowl opened the question of renaming the article up to consultation through a Requested Move, presenting an argument as to why "Heathenry (new religious movement)" was preferable to "Germanic neopaganism", and found that most of the editors who examined the competing arguments concluded with her, resulting in the move actually being made by an uninvolved editor? And then should I add that ThorLives wasn't at all happy with this so decided to unilaterally edit war to get it back to "Germanic neopaganism" until being told off by other editors? And Midnightblueowl also "deleted thousands of words of referenced material, including material on Valhalla"? Or do you mean that Midnightblueowl removed all of the information that was either unreferenced or poorly referenced using non-reliable sources (such as self-published books and blogs) before replacing it with content that was meticulously sourced to academic, secondary sources (including on Valhalla, funnily enough)? I came here to ask for Kim's advice and input in good faith, not expecting him to necessarily agree with my positions, and you then burst in to completely misrepresent my actions. That's just acting in bad faith. I'm sorry that this has happened on your talk page, Kim. Your input on the Heathenry talk page would still be very much welcome. Best, Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:20, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

WikiProject Military history coordinator election

Greetings from WikiProject Military history! As a member of the project, you are invited to take part in our annual project coordinator election. If you wish to cast a vote, please do so on the election page by 23:59 (UTC) on 29 September. Yours, Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 05:22, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:04, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

ANI notice...

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved - I note you've been referenced by another editor in WP:ANI#Suspected stealth canvassing / meatpuppetry. Hchc2009 (talk) 21:31, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Extended confirmed protection

Hello, Kim Dent-Brown. This message is intended to notify administrators of important changes to the protection policy.

Extended confirmed protection (also known as "30/500 protection") is a new level of page protection that only allows edits from accounts at least 30 days old and with 500 edits. The automatically assigned "extended confirmed" user right was created for this purpose. The protection level was created following this community discussion with the primary intention of enforcing various arbitration remedies that prohibited editors under the "30 days/500 edits" threshold to edit certain topic areas.

In July and August 2016, a request for comment established consensus for community use of the new protection level. Administrators are authorized to apply extended confirmed protection to combat any form of disruption (e.g. vandalism, sock puppetry, edit warring, etc.) on any topic, subject to the following conditions:

• Extended confirmed protection may only be used in cases where semi-protection has proven ineffective. It should not be used as a first resort.
• A bot will post a notification at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard of each use. MusikBot currently does this by updating a report, which is transcluded onto the noticeboard.

Please review the protection policy carefully before using this new level of protection on pages. Thank you.
This message was sent to the administrators' mass message list. To opt-out of future messages, please remove yourself from the list. 17:47, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Two-Factor Authentication now available for admins

Hello,

Please note that TOTP based two-factor authentication is now available for all administrators. In light of the recent compromised accounts, you are encouraged to add this additional layer of security to your account. It may be enabled on your preferences page in the "User profile" tab under the "Basic information" section. For basic instructions on how to enable two-factor authentication, please see the developing help page for additional information. Important: Be sure to record the two-factor authentication key and the single use keys. If you lose your two factor authentication and do not have the keys, it's possible that your account will not be recoverable. Furthermore, you are encouraged to utilize a unique password and two-factor authentication for the email account associated with your Wikimedia account. This measure will assist in safeguarding your account from malicious password resets. Comments, questions, and concerns may be directed to the thread on the administrators' noticeboard. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:33, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

New deal for page patrollers

Hi Kim Dent-Brown,

In order to better control the quality of new pages, keep out the spam, and welcome the genuine newbies, the current system we introduced in 2011 is being updated and improved. The documentation and tutorials have also been revised and given a facelift. Most importantly a new user group New Page Reviewer has been created.

Under the new rule, you may find that you are temporarily unable to mark new pages as reviewed. However, this is nothing to worry about - most current experienced patrollers are being accorded the the new right without the need to apply, and if you have significant previous experience of patrolling new pages, we strongly encourage you to apply for the new right as soon as possible - we need all the help we can get, and we are now providing a dynamic, supportive environment for your work.

Find out more about this exiting new user right now at New Page Reviewers and be sure to read the new tutorial before applying. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:28, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

A new user right for New Page Patrollers

Hi Kim Dent-Brown.

A new user group, New Page Reviewer, has been created in a move to greatly improve the standard of new page patrolling. The user right can be granted by any admin at PERM. It is highly recommended that admins look beyond the simple numerical threshold and satisfy themselves that the candidates have the required skills of communication and an advanced knowledge of notability and deletion. Admins are automatically included in this user right.

It is anticipated that this user right will significantly reduce the work load of admins who patrol the performance of the patrollers. However,due to the complexity of the rollout, some rights may have been accorded that may later need to be withdrawn, so some help will still be needed to some extent when discovering wrongly applied deletion tags or inappropriate pages that escape the attention of less experienced reviewers, and above all, hasty and bitey tagging for maintenance. User warnings are available here but very often a friendly custom message works best.

If you have any questions about this user right, don't hesitate to join us at WT:NPR. (Sent to all admins).MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:47, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Kim Dent-Brown. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Notification of pending suspension of administrative permissions due to inactivity

Following a community discussion in June 2011, consensus was reached to provisionally suspend the administrative permissions of users who have been inactive for one year (i.e. administrators who have not made any edits or logged actions in more than one year). As a result of this discussion, your administrative permissions will be removed pending your return if you do not return to activity within the next month. If you wish to have these permissions reinstated should this occur, please post to the Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard and the userright will be restored per the re-sysopping process (i.e. as long as the attending bureaucrats are reasonably satisfied that your account has not been compromised, that your inactivity did not have the effect of evading scrutiny of any actions which might have led to sanctions, and that you have not been inactive for a three-year period of time). If you remain inactive for a three-year period of time, including the present year you have been inactive, you will need to request reinstatement at WP:RFA. This removal of access is procedural only, and not intended to reflect negatively upon you in any way. We wish you the best in future endeavors, and thank you for your past administrative efforts. MadmanBot (talk) 01:30, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Notification of imminent suspension of administrative permissions due to inactivity

Following a community discussion in June 2011, consensus was reached to provisionally suspend the administrative permissions of users who have been inactive for one year (i.e. administrators who have not made any edits or logged actions in more than one year). As a result of this discussion, your administrative permissions will be removed pending your return if you do not return to activity within the next several days. If you wish to have these permissions reinstated should this occur, please post to the Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard and the userright will be restored per the re-sysopping process (i.e. as long as the attending bureaucrats are reasonably satisfied that your account has not been compromised, that your inactivity did not have the effect of evading scrutiny of any actions which might have led to sanctions, and that you have not been inactive for a three-year period of time). If you remain inactive for a three-year period of time, including the present year you have been inactive, you will need to request reinstatement at WP:RFA. This removal of access is procedural only, and not intended to reflect negatively upon you in any way. We wish you the best in future endeavors, and thank you for your past administrative efforts. — xaosflux ^Talk 15:52, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Suspension of administrative permissions due to inactivity

Following a community discussion in June 2011, consensus was reached to provisionally suspend the administrative permissions of users who have been inactive for one year (i.e. administrators who have not made any edits or logged actions in more than one year). As a result of this discussion, your administrative permissions have been removed pending your return. If you wish to have these permissions reinstated, please post to the Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard and the userright will be restored per the re-sysopping process (i.e. as long as the attending bureaucrats are reasonably satisfied that your account has not been compromised, that your inactivity did not have the effect of evading scrutiny of any actions which might have led to sanctions, and that you have not been inactive for a three-year period of time). If you remain inactive for a three-year period of time, including the present year you have been inactive, you will need to request reinstatement at WP:RFA. This removal of access is procedural only, and not intended to reflect negatively upon you in any way. We wish you the best in future endeavors, and thank you for your past administrative efforts. — xaosflux ^Talk 02:24, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Mop shop stop

	I herewith return to thee thy bit
	Welcome back. I've returned your mop with pleasure. Looking forward to regularly seeing your name crop up on my Watchlist again. Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 14:29, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Many thanks! I will take it easy at first, there will obviously be some changes to policy and procedure that I need to catch up on. So I'm not going to jump in with both feet just yet.... Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 15:11, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Non-free image use

Hi Kim Dent-Brown. Please see my comment at Talk:UK City of Culture#New page for Hull UK City of Culture 2017 -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:40, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi again Kim Dent-Brown. I'm not sure if you noticed this, but File:Hull CoC black and white.jpeg is lacking a non-free use rationale for Hull UK City of Culture 2017. Could you add an appropriate rationale for file's use the article? Thanks. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:01, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Skill set

This redirection/delete game is just not in my skill set. 4 keep- 3 redirect 2 delete somehow displays a consensus for--no-consensus! Where am I going wrong? How does 3 trump 4? The final three comments are all showing a tendency to keep? Is a quick U-turn is needed here? --ClemRutter (talk) 17:55, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

• I agree with the point that Clem is making here but we needn't get too excited about this as nothing has been deleted and the close accepted that further expansion would be reasonable. Clem has prepared a detailed outline structure on the article's talk page. Myself, I have located and documented eight more good sources, to add to the eight that we already have in the article. Presumably Kim would have no objection to us now expanding the article, right? Andrew D. (talk) 18:17, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

• • Consensus isn't determined by a headcount but by the strength of the evidence put forward and the policies thatv are invoked. And yes as I said in my close, there's nothing inherently problematic about the title. I'd suggest drafting up a really good article in someone's user space before releasing it, to forestall any repeated objections. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 01:21, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

186.91.63.146

You read that stuff, or not?

I don´t see within your context page any reference to reality in theology, linquistics or for that matter politics.

Thou shall not suffer a ´which´ to life, is a reference to not wackering the flame of doubt, which many a time is used by quite a few individuals with a ´wannabe´ goth principle to shut down any opposition to their ´King of the Hill´ position.

You should add that, it´s quite a bit more real and can definitely save quite a few more lives, then any humanitarian action or for that matter endowment onto democracy.

) Cheers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.91.63.146 (talk) 01:02, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Norwegian Journal of Sociology

Hi, thanks for closing this AfD. However, I am afraid that I don't agree with your decision to close this as "keep". There were several well-argued and policy-based !votes to delete. The "keep" !votes were really not policy based. I could understand if you had closed this as "no-consensus", but not "keep". Perhaps you could have a second look at this? Thanks! --Randykitty (talk) 16:10, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

In fact, there were several well argued, policy-based arguments to keep the article, while the only two delete votes were hardly based on any Wikipedia policies, but seemingly on an insistence that journals must be included in one particular, commercial database, which is not based on any Wikipedia policy or guideline at all, and which fails to take into account that the database in question neglects in its near-entirety the non-English realm of academic publishing and is of extremely little relevance to a sociology journal in Scandinavia, discipline-wise and language-wise. I think therefore it was correct, based on the discussion, to close this as keep rather than no consensus. Also, Randykitty, I find your attempt to have the result of this time-consuming and fruitless discussion changed from "keep" to "no consensus", which wouldn't alter the outcome, to be a not particularly constructive attempt to beat a dead horse. --Lillelvd (talk) 16:19, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Randykitty, iIf by "have a second look" you mean "go back and change my decision...." then I'm afraid not. The AfD had been open for a couple of weeks and I felt that a close had to be definitive, either to keep or to delete. A "no-consensus" close would have been a cop-out (as well as a de-facto keep!) As I said in my close, the balance of decision was extremely fine in my view; I think those of you on both sides of the debates thought your arguments were much stronger than I found them to be. I was expecting a note on my talk page from whichever side I disappointed in this decision. I accept much of what you said in the AfD but my final litmus test, in the spirit of WP:IAR was which outcome was overall the best one for Wikipedia. I don't honestly think it's worth expending much more energy over this - but you can use the appeal process at WP:DELREV if you feel strongly that my decision is a wrong that must be righted. And Lillelvd there was really no need to post the victory dance above. The pair of you have invested far too much in this disagreement and there is nothing to be gained by continuing it. Grace in victory and stoicism in defeat are virtues to be cultivated. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 16:27, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I know that "no consensus" would also have defaulted to keeping the article. However, the difference between "keep" and "no consensus" is not trivial. A "keep" decision makes it much more difficult to re-visit the question of notability in a future AfD (after a suitable waiting period, of course). So I guess DRV it is going to be. --Randykitty (talk) 16:35, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

That's your prerogative of course. But I think it's a massive waste of time that could be spent on article creation. And can we now keep any further discussion on ice until the DRV case, please. I'll delete any further input here from either side. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 16:38, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Submarine ace

You closed this AFD on 19 Jan., redirecting the article in question to another one that was only created (by the nom) on 17 January. Only two of three users who joined the discussion after 17 Jan. explicitly supported that result. Given the six explicit keep votes (incl. mine) before 17 Jan. and only one delete vote, this close seems questionable. What's more, as I raised on both the new article's talk page and the AFD page without any response, the new article lacks a citation for its central claim: the general definition of a military ace. Srnec (talk) 21:55, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

That's a reasonable point Srnec and deserves an explanation, although I'm not certain it will convince you. I tend to close the "left-behind" AfD discussions, the one or two left after a week that others have been unable or unwilling to close, perhaps because the discussion is heated, or complex, or the options are varied. AfD is not like WP:RFA where judging consensus is largely a matter of mathematics between two very simple alternatives. It would of course have been possible to close it as "No consensus" but I try and avoid that as the least desirable outcome; it leaves the article vulnerable and nobody satisfied. In this case I was interested not only in the numbers of people voting, but also in policy, in judging the quality of the article and others linked to it and in trying to think holistically about the encyclopaedia as a whole and what was the best outcome right now. I didn't feel Delete would have been right as it's a viable search term and would have hidden the history of the article from anyone who wanted to use some of it. However with the content as it stood, Keep did not seem right either. The title was inconsistent with the content and what little content there was fitted perfectly well. as was pointed out, in other articles. The title and thus the Redirect went best to the article identified; when it was created and by whom have no bearing on whether it's the most suitable architect. And as you point out, of the three comments posted after 17 Jan, two supported the redirect. The content of the article (because of the disconnect with the title) belonged elsewhere I felt and because the page history still exists anyone who cares to can migrate that content if they wish. In the long run if a better article, with content consistent with the title, can be written and placed over the redirect I'd be very happy. I don't imagine I've convinced you that I came to the right decision, but I hope I have at least persuaded you that I gave it some thought and this was not just an unthinking close. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 09:35, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

(Belated response) "With the content as it stood" is a good point. I rescued two other articles from deletion this month (Ralph IV of Valois and Napoleon and Protestants) and I did not feel like doing a third, even though I feel confident it could be done. So long as the history is there and the article was not deleted, there is no prejudice against recreating it with better sourcing. My bigger problem is with the redirect target, which I think suffers from exactly the same problems from which Submarine ace was alleged to suffer, namely SYNTH and OR. I have now opened a discussion at the Military History WikiProject and we'll see where that goes. Perhaps it can be fixed. Srnec (talk) 04:40, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the understanding response! Yes I hope you get some help from the Military History WikiProject. Submartine history is a minor interest of mine - I wrote most of HMS Storm (P233) but I'm afraid I don't really have the time myself to try and overhaul the two articles we're discussing! Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 11:16, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter - February 2017

News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2017). This first issue is being sent out to all administrators, if you wish to keep receiving it please subscribe. Your feedback is welcomed.

Administrator changes

NinjaRobotPirate • Schwede66 • K6ka • Ealdgyth • Ferret • Cyberpower678 • Mz7 • Primefac • Dodger67

Briangotts • JeremyA • BU Rob13

Guideline and policy news

• A discussion to workshop proposals to amend the administrator inactivity policy at Wikipedia talk:Administrators has been in process since late December 2016.
• Wikipedia:Pending changes/Request for Comment 2016 closed with no consensus for implementing Pending changes level 2 with new criteria for use.
• Following an RfC, an activity requirement is now in place for bots and bot operators.

Technical news

• When performing some administrative actions the reason field briefly gave suggestions as text was typed. This change has since been reverted so that issues with the implementation can be addressed. (T34950)
• Following the latest RfC concluding that Pending Changes 2 should not be used on the English Wikipedia, an RfC closed with consensus to remove the options for using it from the page protection interface, a change which has now been made. (T156448)
• The Foundation has announced a new community health initiative to combat harassment. This should bring numerous improvements to tools for admins and CheckUsers in 2017.

Arbitration

• The Arbitration Committee released a response to the Wikimedia Foundation's statement on paid editing and outing.

Obituaries

• JohnCD (John Cameron Deas) passed away on 30 December 2016. John began editing Wikipedia seriously during 2007 and became an administrator in November 2009.

---

Discuss this newsletter • Subscribe • Archive

13:36, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Reno R. Rolle

You recently closed this article on 13 January 2017 after a user had marked the article for deletion 5 January 2017. As it turns out, the subject of the article was being solicited by the user to update the article, and when the subject declined, the user marked the article for deletion. As of 26 January 2017, this user has been blocked from Wikipedia indefinitely.

I’d like to request that the article be re-published and given the opportunity to provide adequate sources. The subject’s notability has only come into question from the blocked user, who was unable to provide any substantive examples into his deletion nomination.

The article was in need of sources and the content needed to be updated to follow Wiki’s guidelines, but the notability of the subject passes several of Wikipedia’s requirements. The subject is a published author (WP:AUTHOR), a TV personality with 100+ hours of airtime on Evine (WP:ENTERTAINER), and has received an R&D 100 award and two Ernst and Young nominations (WP:ANYBIO).

I’d be happy to provide additional information into the interactions between the subject and the blocked user if necessary. Thanks! Designaco (talk) 12:22, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

I'm still uncertain in my own mind whether sufficient notability has been claimed or sufficient secondary sources found. However in view of the issues with the nominator and the limited discussion at AfD I've restored it. I think the article is still vulnerable myself but if you can improve it, please go ahead! Best wishes, Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 14:54, 1 February 2017 (UTC)