User talk:Dennis Brown

My barnstars

Concerns to not be archived

• Hijiri88 and CurtisNaito, closed ANI at [1]

Thanks...

... for your help at WP:FPC re this IP user. Sca (talk) 14:59, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Request for (random) advice...

Hello, Dennis Brown! I will admit upfront that I racked my brain on who to run this by, and by happenstance, you drew the short straw!...

OK, so to get to the point, I've been doing some Random page patrolling of late. Which is fine, except that I have little AfD experience (certainly never nominating an article for deletion myself), no CSD experience at all, and only a couple of PRODs under my belt. Anyway, on rare occasions I'll come across an article, and wonder "Should this really be here, on Wikipedia?..." Most of the time I'll just shrug this impulse off, but last night I came across Transphotographiques while Random page patrolling, and it set off my Spidey Sense more than usual.

First off, it's completely unsourced (outside of an External link to the official site, which doesn't seem to count to me) – now that I can take care of with an {{Unreferenced}} tag and be done with it. But, in looking at this one, I'm really wondering if it belongs on Wikipedia. It seems promotional (to me, anyway). I'm sure it has "significance" (i.e. A7). Finding any English-language sources for it will be somewhere between a chore and impossible. And it was originally authored back in 2010 by an account that only ever edited this article (and wasn't even autoconfirmed?...). It's been barely touched by anyone since, and doesn't look to have been updated since 2010.

So, my question is – when I as Joe-Average editor come across an article like this, what should I do? Or, really, I guess: what would you do?

P.S. If you can suggest some other AfD/CSD "experts" so I'm not always bugging you with questions like these, I'd appreciate that too!

Thanks in advance. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 20:47, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Totally not an expert but I'm generally fearless so I Afd'd it (after looking for sources per WP:BEFORE) ... let's see if anyone yells at me, and then you'll know the answer. NE Ent 01:42, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks NE Ent. I've gone ahead and voted in that AfD. I'm glad that my instincts on this one weren't totally off... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 02:31, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

For god's sake please help me

I'm the guy who made the Universe Sandbox 2 article, remember? The thing is that I had been banned in the past, and I just returned now (a few months later) to wikipedia on another computer so I could start that article. The article is about a software I helped develop. Now some annoying user just keeps deleting my article. Is it a huge problem to just leave the article there even though I'm a "sock" (as you like to call it)? There is nothing wrong with the article and it is pretty useful. I will ping @NeilN: and @Ritchie333: as you requested, just in case you are busy. QqqQ1- (talk) 21:51, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

• Somehow, I had a sneaking suspicion. First problem first: if you've been banned before, you can't just come back under another name. That is block evasion. Technically, you should be blocked right now, but I get the feeling you don't quite get how that works. You have to log into your first account, and then request the unban (or unblock, not sure if you are really banned) from there. You can ping me. From that point, I can look at the totality of circumstances and if possible, try to help. Regardless, there is a process and for now, you need to stop edit warring on that redirect. Stay calm, disclose everything, lets take a look at what is really going on before we get too excited. The article will still be there in the history. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 22:43, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
  • It's Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Tetra quark and they know full well how blocking and unblocking works. They've had ample time to request an unblock: User_talk:John#At_the_risk_of_being_called_a_snitch... Indef blocked the sock and I would strongly oppose unblocking the master given these kind of edit summaries: [2] --NeilN ^{talk to me} 23:42, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
    • As always, patience pays off and someone smarter than me comes along and makes all right in the Wikiverse. I didn't want to jump to conclusions, although I did take an interest very early and followed him from his first edits. Looks like we're done here. Thanks for batting cleanup, NeilN. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 00:36, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
      • Not smarter. Just happen to catch this at one of the noticeboards earlier today and did the requisite homework. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:39, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

• *sigh* I don't think I'm cut out for this admin job; I'd have restored the article to Draft:Universe Sandbox 2, Universe Sandbox probably scrapes GNG by sources such as PC Gamer so I think the main thing stopping the sequel from being in mainspace is WP:CRYSTAL. I seem to be in a minority of 1 for this next viewpoint, but I have no real interest in our sockpuppetry policy at all; for sure we need to kick the latest Grawp sock du jour out, but I really think we take things too far. I've edited the sandbox while logged out (to find out exactly what an IP editor's user experience is like) - when am I getting blocked for sockpuppetry? I don't like the G5 criteria either - I mean, deleting something based on who wrote it without regard to what it is basically contradicts WP:NPA's mantra of "comment on the content, not the contributor", doesn't it? I'm sure someone like Czar could rescue this article and beef it up to acceptability if he was interested. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:58, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
  • If you liked everything about being an admin, Ritchie333, I would be very suspect. Can't tell you how many times I've gone to WP:BN, contemplating asking them to remove the bit. Still, at the end of the day, I get more done with it than without it. And I piss off the powers that be by participating in getting some of the policies changed. For the record, I was more dogmatic about a great many things before becoming an admin, including deleting material just because someone was banned, but I've become more pragmatic in my old age and instead focus on just what is best for the encyclopedia. I still estimate a minimum of 20,000 socks here, so it is a losing battle using our current TOU and antiquated methods. They are designed to fail, it would seem. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 11:03, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Hey,Dennis, did you write that or did I? Or did you just plug into my brain with a USB cable and download my thoughts? Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:26, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

In my previous life as head site admin elsewhere on the web, I think we banned about 6-7 people in as many years ... every single one socked. You might as well accept that socking is like software cracks, it's frowned on and you should put up reasonable security against it but the most determined people will do it anyway so you might as well accept it. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:54, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

After a year and 1500 blocks as an SPI clerk, I gave up. The impression I got from the higher ups was that they didn't take it very serious. The only times I've been privately "scolded" was related to my working on socks. I don't remember any of those blocks being reverted, however. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 13:41, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

• • @Ritchie333: Ignoring socking is a really good way to piss off regular, policy-abiding editors who form the backbone of our community. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:48, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
    • I don't think he's saying to ignore socks outright, but our sock policy is antiquated at best. For starters, any website that allows any IP to edit, they are going to have sock problems. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 13:55, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
      • Given that IP editing seems to be a foundational policy, how would you update our socking policy? Me, I would look really hard at our policy that prohibits linking IP addresses to user names. I think if you're violating our TOU, you are not entitled to have an expectation of privacy. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:26, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
        • This isn't about policy, this is about TOU, which is Foundation. It is outside of, and trumps, the community, as the Foundation owns the place. The community has no input when it comes to TOU. The Foundation has some very strong ideas (read: Libertarian) when it comes to privacy. While I completely agree with them as it applies to good faith editors, our ideas diverge when it comes to repeated troublemakers. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 15:19, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

For all the talk about "the community", I do not think it is or ever will be as important as the real world who read Wikipedia articles. Right now, I'm listening to the Grateful Dead's take on Johnny B Goode as preserved on archive.org that has praise and rave reviews, despite musically not being that much different from any zillion number of renditions I have played at jam sessions for the last 25 years. It's all about the audience! And therefore the sockpuppetry policy only matters as much as it does to support improving the enyclopedia for the reader, or you can ignore it. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:29, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Who exactly produces and maintains these articles that the audience reads? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:36, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

We do. Ironically, some of the best content has been produced by socks as well, since not all socks are vandals or trolls, some are just grumpy ass writers. I've tried to bring back a few from being banned IF they were content creating types, same as I've gone out on a limb to protect those that create tons of content here (much to the chagrin of many others). We have to chase socks, but I still say our policy needs overhauling to both be more efficient and compassionate. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 15:43, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

I'm not as vicious and barbed as some who who think all "non content creators" are scum, but I still think all admins should create some content. Keep the sock-hunting and vandal reverting as your main job, but have some article work on the side you can retire to. I've got User:Ritchie333/Monopoly, which will keep me busy pretty much indefinitely. Or, patrol our list of candidates for CSD A7, find one you don't think meets the criteria, and improve it so it doesn't even go to AfD. As these are often created by new users, you give a great first (or second?) impression to them. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:57, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

I'm trying to work more on content. To really do so, I need to unwatch everything meta, full protect this page, and give back the bit. Or just use one of my sockpuppets. ;) Dennis Brown - 2¢ 16:00, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

@Dennis: Don't forget about expanding List of alternative names for currency. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:47, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

I haven't, I've mainly been busy trying to expand my currency. ;) Dennis Brown - 2¢ 13:01, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Courtesy ping

Hi Dennis,

RE: [3]

In my first post in the section at WT:CSD, I linked your username, which I thought provides the ping. Was I wrong? Sorry, I certainly meant to ping you. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:41, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

• I can only guess that since you copy/pasted my quote, it didn't. I simply forgot you can't speedy delete in Draft space. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 13:40, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Smokers

Dennis, given your penchant for smokers, I thought I would pass on this beauty. I am trying to decide if I can justify building it, especially since I have never smoked anything before. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 21:19, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

That reminded me to post here. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 21:25, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

I assume that uses a steel fire box off to the side, but the idea of cedar is very interesting. Long life, repels bugs, and cedar is used in cooking fish (typically salmon) on the grill. I've done that more than once. Will take some time to get a good coating in that sucker, but that is interesting. I still miss my smoker. It is at the house where the soon-to-be-ex-wife is temporarily living. I offered her the house for 25% under appraisal and she was foolish enough to pass on it, so I guess I will end up with both houses, and mortgages. But at least I will have my smoker back :) Dennis Brown - 2¢ 22:46, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Small victories I suppose. The firebox is brick and mortar (looks like there is some sort of fire brick within standard house bricks), the door looks cast iron, and was bolted. I have done cedar planked salmon before, it's quite good. There are step by step photos of the construction, it actually looks a lot easier to build than it appears at first inspection. It would be a lovely addition to the yard however. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 22:57, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Planking salmon

When planking, just be sure not to use treated cedar house shingles...North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:29, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Wheel war AN

You state none of the three have complained; I'd classify this as a complaint. NE Ent 13:56, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

• Weakly complaining at best. Typically, if admin can work it out without interference, I prefer they at least try, then AN, then ARB. When I wrote that, I don't think they had tried to deal with it admin to admin (to admin) yet, which is why I wanted to see what each had to say, where the lines were drawn. Three admin in a button pushing contest is kind of rare, after all. I think the one editor (I forget who) talking about Arb was amazingly premature. It belongs at AN of course, but until they speak (and WP:ADMINACCT pretty much demands it, they have no choice or they will face Arb), my comment was designed to just slow down the speculation and drama. Your link is interesting, but not exactly a smoking gun when it comes to complaining in an official way, and more like "well hell, I wish he would just explain". Like you (typically), I prefer to stay somewhere north of "naive" and south of "presumptuous", although I can't say I always get it right. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 19:32, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for being level-headed

I'm not really sure how to use wikipedia very well, but I do often lurk around ever since GG started a year ago. That being said, I'm glad to see you pointed out the battleground mentality in the BenMcLean case. It isn't just the usual editors on the GG page that make the whole thing bothersome, it's people that take minor conflicts and escalate them to somehow prove themselves "right" that makes this whole thing a mess. And that's only the tip of the iceberg! So once again, thanks for being rather calm and collected throughout this ordeal. And this is coming from a "GamerGater," haha. 65.78.150.19 (talk) 22:59, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

• Appreciate the show of faith. For me, it is about helping preserve a good editing environment for editors who wish to follow policy and take a rational approach to writing. I've never edited there, didn't participate in the Arb case, and haven't even read the article to be honest, so I don't have a bias or "side" in this. I trust our editors to hammer the issues out and make the article as balanced as it can be, if they are given the chance. Removing tendentious editors (regardless of their POV) is the only way to give the process a fighting chance. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 23:16, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Your e-mail

Without a target, it's tough. Nothing pops up. That doesn't mean you're wrong, of course, just that the limited technical data doesn't lead anywhere. Take care.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:31, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

• Thanks for taking the time Bbb23. Obviously you saw why I had questions, but I understand that  CheckUser is not magic pixie dust. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 14:17, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

That problem

I don't think the existing "final warning" applies to other editor's user talk pages, does it? If it doesn't, I think User talk:Sturmgewehr#One week after the moratorium... might contain information of interest to you. Personally, although I regret seeing such comments, I don't see them as rising to the level of sanctionability. Personally, I have to think that some of the comments made in the first discussion linked to seem to contain comments of a type which could be seen as being disparaging of Hijiri, and to at least my eyes could be seen as being within the bounds of the final warning you imposed. So, although he might not believe this, in this case I don't myself think Hijiri has necessarily done anything sanctionable to raise the concern on Sturmgewehr's talk page, but I do think that the disparaging comments directed against him might qualify. You are, of course, free to ignore this comment from me altogether, if you so see fit, but thanks for basically being willing to take on this matter. John Carter (talk) 18:58, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

• Sturmgewehr has one edit, John Carter. Wrong link? Dennis Brown - 2¢ 19:01, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

• How the hell did I miss that? It's Sturmgewehr88, not Sturmgewehr. The discussion is at User talk:Sturmgewehr88##One week after the moratorium.... Sorry about that, he said sheepishly. John Carter (talk) 19:05, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

• I found it. I wonder if I can just delete the whole article and make them start from scratch, making me the common enemy, and maybe they would join forces instead of bickering? If only it were that easy. It is pretty obvious at [4] that CurtisNaito is using ad hominem, but I'm wondering if Hijiri 88's timing of the GA review was to antagonize rather than solve a problem. Not saying he is wrong (I have no idea, never read the article) just curious if there were better solutions and why he chose a GA review, as those are always drama fests. If I was confident H was antagonizing, then I could overlook C's reaction. I may be forced to just bring them both to AN and get a topic ban, which I think is more effective than blocking. I'm reasonably confident I can get a consensus, as everyone is sick of hearing about them. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 19:13, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Dennis this is starting to look like a pattern of Hijiri88 using other editors to continue his bad behaviour. There is also this post on Curly Turkey's page by Hijiri88. [5] To me it looks like a 3 way tag team is forming and if one gets caught, the rest will show up at AN/I to defend the accused. AlbinoFerret 21:25, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

@Dennis Brown: AlbinoFerret has had issues with Hijiri and myself separately and has been trying to paint us as a "tag team" ever since he found out we both happen to work frequently at WP:JAPAN. You'd be hard pressed to find us collaborating on anything but defending ourselves from AlbinoFerret. For the record: yes, I'm accusing AlbinoFerret of bad faith. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 21:50, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

• @Dennis Brown: actually, he had asked CurlyTurkey and I personally, and an open request on the article talk page, to file a GAR specifically because he didn't want others to claim it was filed just to continue "harrassing" CurtisNaito. He filed it because the original GA assessment was poorly done and shouldn't have passed in the first place, and he probably felt that someone had to do it if no one else was willing or able to.

The article in question was completely rewritten by CurtisNaito, who has a history of WP:SYNTH and misrepresenting sources. Even after blatant evidence of his mistakes/wrongdoings are thrown in his face, he repeatedly deflects or denies/ignores it. Even after I warned him on his talk page that I would be monitoring his behavior for violations of your final warning, he thrice now denied that there were ever any sourcing issues when direct evidence was presented, and soon after basically said that it doesn't matter that there were sourcing issues "then" because there aren't any "now" (that has yet to be proven). He and TH1980 have gone so far as to even blame Hijiri for the sourcing issues which CurtisNaito introduced. I think this more than warrants sanctions, since it is now obvious that he isn't going to change his behavior anytime soon. ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 03:54, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

I regret to say that Hijiri88's latest comment, at User talk:Curly Turkey#AlbinoFerret's tinfoil kettle, seems to show a continuation of the habit of rather petty vindictiveness which seems to have been at least somewhat apparent since he decided to trash Catflap on the Editor Retention project talk page. I definitely think, given his persistent, rather purposeless, use of abusive language towards others who might disagree with him for no obvious purpose or benefit other than indulging that habit, that perhaps either ArbCom or maybe a broader "final warning" to Hijiri might be called for, because it does seem to be an ongoing habit of his. John Carter (talk) 18:30, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

The mail was a notice about AlbinoFerret's bad-faith accusation above. Why is AlbinoFerret not being called out on his vindictiveness and drama-fomenting? Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 21:55, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

@John Carter: how is "AlbinoFerret's tinfoil kettle" any worse than you reffering to Hijiri as "That problem"? ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 21:57, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Sturmgewehr88 (talk · contribs) It wouldn't be, if that is in fact what I had done, which it is not. I was actually referring to the ongoing Hijiri/Curtis Naito dispute, and, honestly, I wasn't thinking of either party individually. In fact, if you had bothered to read my comments, which you rather obviously refused to do before making your unsupportable ad hominem accusation above, I said that I personally didn't find much fault with Hijiri. Having said that, allow me to very sincerely thank you for demonstrating that your input in these matters is rather obviously driven by your own partisan presumptions, and not by any apparent review of the situation being discussed before throwing in wildly unfounded personal accusations against those whom you prejudicially judge. John Carter (talk) 18:16, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

@John Carter: I apologize, and I've struck my comment. I had read your comments of course, however, although you said Hijiri wasn't in the wrong this time, you've stated a few times at ANI that Hijiri is a problem and needs to be sanctioned, so I wrongly thought "that" referred to him. Partisanship has nothing to do with my involvement, I just see CurtisNaito as a disruptive editor who's damage needs to be controlled, and who has gotten away with it more than enough. ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 18:35, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

And you also "just" seem to make irrational, unsupportable judgments regarding virtually anyone who ever disagrees with Hijiri. I am beginning to think, myself, that the allegations of a team effort to support Hijiri at almost all costs is, unfortunately, becoming more obvious. While I can and do understand that some editors would be willing to bend over backwards to defend someone who has been described as "brittle" and "paranoid" by others, including admins, I have to wonder whether the frequency with which they might do so, and the rapidity with which they chime in to such disputes, may be at least as disruptive, if not at times more so, than the problem they might be acting to address. John Carter (talk) 18:46, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Or, for that matter, AlbinoFerret posting, with reference to my "bad behaviour" of starting a good article reassessment (!), Dennis this is starting to look like a pattern of Hijiri88 using other editors to continue his bad behaviour. There is also this post on Curly Turkey's page by Hijiri88. To me it looks like a 3 way tag team is forming and if one gets caught, the rest will show up at AN/I to defend the accused. Referring to this a tinfoil hat theory, and lampshading the fact that AlbinoFerret and John Carter are the last people who should be talking about "tag-teaming", is not a personal attack even approaching the gross assumption of bad faith that inspired it. The only reason

• I'm just curious how far this will go. This isn't ANI, after all. My first question would be "is the GAR of the article [6] a reasonable action?", and no, I don't want to hear from ANY interested party, but instead by someone completely outside the article, including stalkers. Dr. Blofeld is very high on the list of people whose judgement I would trust in such a manner, although I wouldn't blame him if he didn't want to volunteer to look only at the merits of the GAR, and ignore the drama. John and Ritchie333 are other obvious choices, and lord knows there are plenty more who know GA well enough to objectively judge if the GAR is a reasonable response. That isn't the answer, that is just the first question. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 22:12, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

User:MSJapan is pretty uninvolved and neutral, and he agrees the article should be delisted. It seems inappropriate for someone to claim that an article should not be delisted as a GA unless they themselves have examined the article. But I agree, some even more outside input would be welcome, and I very much hope one or more of the users you name will show up on the GAR.

And no, my timing was not a violation of your last warning, because I was already drafting the GAR several weeks earlier. None of my comments on GAR have violated BLUDGEON, IDHT, V, OR, NPA or AGF: Curtis, on the other hand, has now violated your final warning at least three times without so much a wrist-slap.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:12, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Commented here. Yes, an inadequate GA review, but on the surface it does seem to have the basics and is well sourced enough for GA. The question is whether the sourcing issue is as extensive as H88 suggests. That does need to be sound for GA. I do think given its importance that editors should work hard in good faith towards retaining it as a GA instead of an immediate delisting, but it depends on whether it'll take days/week or two or months to really fix. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 06:43, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

If the editors focused their efforts on working out the problems I imagine it would be fixed in a reasonable amount of time. The disputes at the article go far beyond those between Hijiri and CurtisNaito, though—different editors have different ideas about what needs to be there and are bickering about it rather than working towards solutions. There have been 240 edits by 35 editors to the article since the promotion less than a month ago and still a lot of criticism from knowledgeable editors on the talk page—concerns about bias and missing key names and events, etc. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 07:54, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

I suggest working on a draft at Wikipedia:History of Japan to avoid edit warring and then a neutral admin can review the changes and update the article once there is general consensus. Might be difficult seeing full agreement on such an article though.♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:10, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

• Let me be clear about my intentions: My first goal is always to find a resolution that doesn't use any of the admin tools or authority. That is a given. Second, I raise this question because I can concerns that Hijiri88's choice to go to GAR might have been unwise (best case scenario). It does seem the timing wasn't exactly brilliant, considering it would cause a lot of drama and there are other options available. This isn't about rules or policy, this is about judgement. I'm going to take the good doctor at his word and assume that GAR was one option but not the only option. I have no interest in delving into the content here, that is outside of the scope of my role. The objective is finding a solution, not one that is best for Hijiri88 or CurtisNaito, but one that is best for everyone else trying to edit that article, because I'm more concerned about that, and general fairness, than I am individual editors here. Dr. Blofeld has offered a suggestion, taking it to a neutral area and rewritting major sections while leaving the current version more or less intact. Technically, it can be done as a subpage of the talk article, but where isn't so important. I'm interested in hearing what the two parties think is a fair way to start building a consensus. If we can't find common ground and at least start working in the same direction, it kind of forces my hand here, because the drama is piling up too deep with this topic. We are reaching the edges of what is proper to deal with on my talk page, and approaching an WP:AN discussion. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 13:12, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

I hesitate to post this, because your talk page may not be the best place to go into details. But Hijiri88 has posted to Dr. Blofeld's talk page.[7] That post is directly on point to past negative behaviours "TH1980, a long-time enabler of the nominator and longer-time wiki-stalker of me". AlbinoFerret 17:17, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

@Dennis BrownDr. BlofeldAmong the many problems with the good article review, the biggest problem is that all the issues which Hijiri pointed out in his introductory statements are issues which he already changed before bringing the article to good article review. Hijiri made minor clarifications, and I disagree they were serious problems, but ultimately good article review should be about correcting problems that exist in an article, not problems which no longer exist. Hijiri did not mention one single problem with the article which had not already been changed. I doubt the article will be delisted based on nonexistent problems, so the good article review is not particularly useful. I think the best solution would be to cancel the good article review and discuss any remaining issues, if there are any, on the article talk page.

However, it's true that there are some trust issues. I verified the citations in the article, but Hijiri doesn't believe me. The user TH1980 also verified the citations, but Hijiri doesn't believe him either. TH1980 and I have both read the book written by Kenneth Henshall, whereas Hijiri has acknowledged that he doesn't actually have access to the source he is criticizing.

We could certainly redraft the article, but I have to ask Dennis Brown and Dr. Blofeld, who will do it? I could do it, but I'm not sure if Hijiri would accept that. TH1980 has read and verified the sources cited in the article, and he says that he wants to do "a thorough copy-edit" on the article. Therefore, he could probably play a major role in the redraft, but would Hijiri accept that? Hijiri just yesterday called TH1980 "a long-time enabler of the nominator and longer-time wiki-stalker of me" which doesn't seem to indicate a collaborative attitude to editing with him.

Hijiri himself has said that "my involvement with redrafting might be minor", so he apparently isn't going to do it. Curly Turkey says, "I've withdrawn my services", so he apparently isn't going to do it. Like I said, I have time to volunteer my services for this project, but if my participation isn't acceptable, then we need to know, who will write the redraft?CurtisNaito (talk) 17:27, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

On strike

Hi Dennis. I can't see why you saw the need to go on strike. At least it's still there and users can read it. Though it does reinforce my assumption that a great many participants at Wikipedia discussions are very poor readers of others' comments; not even an allusion has been made by any of the other voters to my earlier subtle reference to that page in my own oppose vote, which if anyone had taken the trouble, and put two and two together, they would see that it was practically my main reason for opposing. Anyone who defends the notion of incivility with impunity for prolific content providers and FA reviewers, or who maintains that Wikipedia's record holder for block logs never issues unprovoked PA and back-stabbing, or who regularly joins forces with the AAB, does not, IMO, merit the admin flag. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:45, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

If you're referring to me then you've got a lot of explaining to do. Let's start with "back-stabbing" shall we? Eric Corbett 01:59, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Two people I respect complained, one publicly, one privately. I disagree with them, but respect them enough to at least compromise. Of course, none of this was Eric's doing, it was her own choice. If it were a non-RfA editor, then I could overlook a bit, but while someone is at RfA, I hold them to the standard of admin in their conduct, and had I done the same thing, I would expect both friend and foe to hold me to account for it and at least scold me. Whether it was truly canvassing or just bad judgement I can't say. I honestly have little interaction with Montana and never have had a bad experience or impression as editor, so all this stuff at her RfA has been surprising. The couple of times I've chatted privately with her, she seemed quite likable, but that isn't the criteria. Striking was easy enough because I don't think there is a very strong chance it will pass anyway. I don't expect to move from neutral, although the incident obviously made me ponder it. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 06:56, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your input on my RfA blunder

I wanted to express my gratitude for you taking the time to comment on the unfortunate incident I caused by inadvertently voting in an RfA process. As a new user who had already publically embarrassed himself, the extremely intense and cold treatment from the anti-sockpuppet editors was almost completely disheartening. An encouraging edit was a welcome sight. Thank you, Jasphetamine (talk) 14:36, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

• Not a problem. Best to avoid meta areas like ANI, AFD, RFA and all the other acronyms until you get a feel for the place. it is a bit rough and tumble, and frankly, articles are way more important anyway. The WP:Teahouse is a good place to start with questions, lots of very nice people there willing to help. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 15:00, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Yulia again

Disruptive editing has resumed on Yulia Tymoshenko which you semi-protected on 30 August 2015. I reverted two disruptive edits by Gal777, which were suspiciously similar to the previous ones. Could you, please, have a look? Againstdisinformation (talk) 16:22, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

• I'm kind of stuck, that is one person and he is likely autoconfirmed by now. At this stage, I recommend calmly explaining to him why you reverted on his talk page. A show of good faith. Taking action too quickly is dangerously close to an admin deciding content, something that we have always avoid. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 16:57, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Good day! The user:Againstdisinformation has deleted the information about the decision of the European court, as well as information about Russian aggression. It is no secret that Russia is at war against Ukraine. Therefore, I believe that the user:Againstdisinformation is working against Tymoshenko.--Gal777 (talk) 17:39, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

ARCA appeal

You are involved in a recently-filed request for clarification or amendment from the Arbitration Committee. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment#Imposition of an Arbitration Enforced Sanction against me by Bishonen and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the Wikipedia:Arbitration guide may be of use.

Thanks, Soham321 (talk) 19:59, 22 September 2015 (UTC)