User talk:NE Ent/Archive/2012

incompetent AfD nominations

In your thoughtful post at ANI, are you saying that incompetent AfD nominations are ok because they result in article clean-up?  It doesn't always work that way.  In the case of María Viramontes I took the rescue approach of adding sources to document the notability.  I have been attacked and hurt for this decision.  My content work has been trashed, my work at the AfD discussion has resulted in personal attacks, and my work to restore reason at the DRV has been disregarded by a vote-counting close.  In all this time no one has ever said that the topic failed WP:GNG.  If it is really true that AfD nominations are inherently good for the project, we should have a robot create them.  And the counterpart to saying that bad nominations are ok, is that it creates a two-tiered society of finger-pointers and clean-up-servants.  I welcome your comments at WT:Articles for deletion/María Viramontes—if the current set of sources doesn't pass WP:GNG, no editor will say how many more sources are needed.  Similarly at Wikipedia:Notability/Noticeboard#Removal_of_sources_on_notability_grounds_at_Mindell_Penn, no editor has answered any of the four questions that I asked.  Thanks, Unscintillating (talk) 22:39, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for the invitation, as a general rule I don't participate in Afds except for articles I've nominated myself. Nobody Ent 04:16, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Um, hate to butt in here, but why are we still talking about Maria Viramontes? It was deleted because the "sources" were mostly just stuff found on the Internet that only mentioned her tangentially, and it failed specific guidelines (which are oftentimes more relevant than the catch-all GNG). Numerous editors agreed with the deletion, either in the initial AfD or in the DRV, so it's almost a personal attack to call the nomination "incompetent". And Re:the Penn NN thread...it's a similar issue, because two of the three references removed barely mentioned Penn at all (meaning that regardless of the general issue of notability and references, they wouldn't belong). Sometimes you just have to let these things go. Anybody who's created or edited a lot of articles (and I've created a couple score myself, mind you) has had an article successfully nominated for deletion or significant content removed. Your attitude towards that is deplorable...since that deletion, you've apparently been trying to get back at me, the nominator, in some form or another. I notice that you've done very little content ...maybe a little yes yammering on about inactive discussions and a little more content? Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 01:35, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Re: My unisgned comment on the Workshop

Hi Nobody Ent. Just wanted to say thank you for picking up my unsigned comment in the workshop, I've dropped in and rectified the issue by adding my own signature, and noting what time I made the original comment there. I guess I was typing way too fast and missed out a tilde :) Have a good new year.  BarkingFish  18:07, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, have a great new year yourself! I just reviewed the WQA you referenced -- it appears to have been during a time I wasn't Wiki active. A couple suggestions

• Whenever someone WP:DTTRs me I simply post the link "WP:TR" with no additional words. Note: I've seen at least two complaints by regular editors who complained when another editor used their own words instead of using the template. Both are minority essays.
• If you choose to warn someone about something, it's best to expect an inappropriate reaction and be the User:Nobody_Ent/Other_Duck. Nobody Ent 18:27, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Evidence

In this edit you appear to maintain that Deb implied that the other editors are either stupid or lying; now, that's quite unhelpful and also an assumption of bad faith. Would you be willing to remove that bit, please? Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 15:53, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

I understand your concern, however Deb is not the editor under scrutiny here, Malleus is; and for me the value in ensuring his treated fairly is the primary consideration. My explanation is here [1]. If you (or any other editor) can suggest an alternate phrasing which supports the same conclusion I would be happy to use that phrasing. Nobody Ent 16:11, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

And I understand your concern! I feel I need to point out that I don't consider your comment in its entirety inappropriate: I believe that the first part, i.e. multiple editors explained UK usage to her; she gave no indication of accepting their statements and continued to insist she was right, is perfectly acceptable: it conveys your point of view, emphasising that many editors have maintained that Malleus' usage of "cunt" was never intended in a sexist way, but also lets the reader draw his own conclusion. Conversely, in my opinion, the second part of your message, i.e. which is an innuendo implication the other editors are either stupid or lying, is not necessary to insure Malleus is fairly treated, and, being an assumption of bad faith, can be divisive (an editor in particular objected to it). That's why I was asking you to remove that bit... Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 17:09, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

The point is the continued insistence is itself incivil because of what it implies, which i don't think it obvious, as evidenced by the other editor's "not getting it" after the four point detailed explanation. Nobody Ent 17:14, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

What continued insistence and how is it uncivil? One is uncivil now if one refuses to believe a group of editors who claim to know how the rest of UK residents use a word? --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 17:19, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

I disagree that insistence is uncivil; it's quite normal for people who discuss to keep on holding that they are right, especially when they're talking about a term that's so loaded as the one de quo... Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 17:39, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

I think one thing that's frustrating for editors on all sides is that the language gap is making it difficult for us to truly put ourselves in others' shoes; that's true for me, for you (Nobody Ent), for Deb, and for Malleus as well. The perspectives are just so different on the use of the word that good faith editors really can have difficulty accepting others' points of view on this, even if they believe those other editors are completely sincere and intelligent. I think it's certainly fair to claim Deb thinks other editors are mistaken, but Salvio makes a good point that extrapolating that further is probably not necessary. Just my 2¢. 28bytes (talk) 18:17, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Notice

Please do not add edits to Wikipedia policy pages, especially if controversial as you did at WP:NPA. Such edits are considered very controversial, and should have legal administration discussion and approval before placing the edits there. Abhijay ^☎(Тalk)/_{✍ (My Deeds)} 06:22, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Please see WP:BOLD. Nobody Ent 10:20, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

responding to "Conducting unbecoming administrators"

You know, if someone goes raking muck on ANI, I think they should be prepared to be treated like an adult. That's what happened in the case of Bouket. It's not as if s/he was minding his/her own business and Drmies or I came along and started picking on him/her - or biting him as you put it.

I think your conclusions are way off base and I should point out that none of my actions with either Aditya or Bouket were administrative. Telling someone - especially someone involved in wikihounding another editor - to "get over it" is very different than telling them to fuck off - which in most cases would be uncivil. I'd expect you to know the difference. Toddst1 (talk) 00:58, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

ANI

Sure thing, I was planning on it but didn't rush as this user follows my edits and nearly always comments on every edit I make in any talkspace. Thanks for the reminder though and I will follow the procedures more promptly going forward. Did I bring this issue forth at the right location?LuciferWildCat (talk) 03:57, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Probably not. There doesn't seem to be a noticeboard for merger discussions, so RFC is an option. Nobody Ent 11:09, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

First off, seven days and three editors is sufficient for a merge consensus...merges don't need a consensus, and seven days is the same amount of time as a move or deletion discussion gets. Furthermore, Lucifer's ANI thread is based simply on the fact that he disagrees with me and that he views any Richmond article as a sacred cow, rather than any policy violation Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 05:02, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

WQA to ANI

Thank you for picking up that legal threat and referring it to the proper board. I left for lunch before he made the threat, and and he was already blocked and had his appeal denied by the time I got back. Mmyers1976 (talk) 19:41, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

You're welcome. Nobody Ent 04:14, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Newbie?

The person to whom this comment was addressed has been on-wiki longer than MF himself, so it's a rather poor example of "newbie-biting". Did you mean something else? Nikkimaria (talk) 00:26, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

No. Nobody Ent 04:15, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Hey

I responded on my talk page.LuciferWildCat (talk) 05:41, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Competence

Hi there. I'm always happy to answer questions, but in this case I'm afraid I don't understand what you're getting at. Are you asking if I think it's a personal attack to accuse a specific editor of incompetence, or if making the general statement that "some editors are incompetent" is a PA? I thought I would ask you directly here rather than clutter up the workshop page. 28bytes (talk) 21:21, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Some editors are incompetent = some admins are dishonest cunts. Same form, latter just has a. slightly more perjorative term (dishonest vs. incompetent), b. profane word (cunt) Nobody Ent 21:42, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Ah, OK. Thanks for the clarification. I wasn't sure what the relevance of the question to the case was at first, but your analogy explains it. It frustrates me to no end that people continue to think of "cunt" as "just" profane, but I've all but given up trying to explain why it isn't. 28bytes (talk) 22:01, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

I really can't disagree but I think we have to be relatively consistent with what we allow or don't. Nobody Ent 22:44, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm fine with some inconsistency if it means we can point out that people are being dishonest or incompetent but we can't call them cunts when we do it. 28bytes (talk) 22:54, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

It's extremely profane in the USA, it will provoke immediate violence over 90% of the time here. But it's true in the UK it is able to be used much more jocularly, but over here it's equivalent to "bloody bugger" in its fury. Having said that, some admins are total dishonest cunts, and get away with it for also being prolific and very experienced, funny little world we cunt around in.LuciferWildCat (talk) 06:01, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Notice of discussion at the Administrators' Noticeboard

Hello.  This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved.  Thank you, Unscintillating (talk) 04:36, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Removal of talk page comments

Please stop doing this [2]. It's disrespectful of the editors who have taken the the time to comment, is unnecessary, and not consistent with established Wikipedia WP:TPG and local convention Wikipedia:Wikiquette_assistance/Volunteer_instructions11:11, 9 January 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nobody Ent (talk • contribs)

The filing user specifically requested it. What good can that possibly do on WP:WQA? If nothing good is going to come from a discussion like that, there is no point in leaving it around to attract problems. Prodego ^talk 19:27, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Wikiproject Cooperation

I just recently started Wikiproject Cooperation and I thought you would be interested. Thanks for your time. Silverseren^C 01:11, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 09 January 2012

• Technological roadmap: 2011's technological achievements in review, and what 2012 may hold

• News and notes: Fundraiser 2011 ends with a bang

• In the news: Wikipedia ends annual fundraising drive; Monmouthpedia launches

• WikiProject report: From Traditional to Experimental: WikiProject Jazz

• Featured content: Contentious FAC debate: a week in review

• Arbitration report: Four open cases, proposed decision in Betacommand 3

• Technology report: December in more detail; and why the MediaWiki codebase was "slushed" this week

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 04:10, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

I gather something I wrote [3] offended you. Sorry, it wasn't intended to. If I could, I'd rephrase. Thanks for opening my eyes... so to speak. :-)

GRuban (talk) 15:14, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

ANi

I have replied to your comment. Edinburgh Wanderer 12:17, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

my problem is I gave him advice and if hadnt been so bitey it would of been sorted by the time I got out of igloo he had started his rants and messages to me. That gets me non willing to help. The first time igloo flagged I ignored it the second time it didnt look ok so I reverted it. On coming out I looked at it. It was never going to be able to stay in there in that state. As most of the users I have dealing wIth will tell you if you ask me for advice or to do something for you even if it takes me weeks to sort as a current project I'm working on is. I just don't understand why he gets away with the behaviour if I had been at home I would list all the diffs but I'm not so I can't. The talk about press involvement led to the first ANI. The second came about because he re posted on mine and tide rolls talk page being pointy accusing me of calling him a sockpuppet which I haven't that.

Makes me think something wrong and another ANI was necessary. I would never have even paid any attention to him if he had t done that until today I didn't even have the article on my watchlist. I'm going to ask him politely to to post on my talk page for me that's it closed unless he starts again. I just hope he has read the links to the policies that I gave him at the very start. Edinburgh Wanderer 17:46, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

archiving at ani

Hi, I also object to your archiving that thread, again - why are you doing that? Youreallycan 15:42, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

User_talk:Salvio_giuliano#my_reasoning Nobody Ent 15:44, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

I still have objections. That thread is worthy of notice and if there are issues with a single post then better to speak to the person that made that post than hide the whole issue. The canvassing is an admin issue. Ani archives 24 hours without a post so it archives rapidly anyways. I won't get involved more though, regards. - Youreallycan 15:49, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

I respect your opinion and judgement -- if you think necessary feel free to revert; it's my understanding User_talk:28bytes#Wikipedia:ANI.23Article_Rescue_Squadron_on_AfD TP was planning to revert the close tag anyway. I just feel that leaving it as is a bad idea per Attractive_nuisance_doctrineNobody Ent 15:55, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

No worries. If TP wants to reopen it then better leave it where it is unless he does. I think such early archiving ANI reports is a bit of a slippery slope, as I doubt there are many threads in the WP:CESSPIT without some kind of guidelines busting comments. Best regards to you Ent. Youreallycan 16:04, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Last Man Standing (U.S. TV series)

Hello!
Would you please give me an explanation/reason for deleting my entry in the article with a revert to a version that user QuasyBoy has already reverted without a reason.
Thank you. AmblinX  21:59, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Duck

I shall be taking your advice and will become the other duck (now with added helium for rising above the fray).[4] — Preceding unsigned comment added by BothHandsBlack (talk • contribs) 08:55, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

ani

I appreciate it, that's really all I am going to say on the matter.LuciferWildCat (talk) 04:07, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 16 January 2012

• Special report: English Wikipedia to go dark on January 18

• Sister projects: What are our sisters up to now?

• News and notes: WMF on the looming SOPA blackout, Wikipedia turns 11, and Commons passes 12 million files

• WikiProject report: WikiProject Beer

• Featured content: Lecen on systemic bias in featured content

• Arbitration report: Four open cases, Betacommand case deadlocked, Muhammad images close near

• Technology report: ArticleFeedback moves into new trial phase; and how MediaWiki integrates with Facebook, IPv6, and PostgreSQL explored

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 06:01, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

My accidental rollback of one of your edits

I accidentally rolled back one of your recent edits at ANI. I self reverted within seconds. Sorry about that. I was simply looking through my watch list on my iPhone. One of the potential problems with a multitouch device. Again sorry. JOJ ^Hutton 14:50, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Not a problem, stuff happens. Nobody Ent 14:52, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Rather brave ...

[5] ... but will this case never end? Malleus Fatuorum 00:05, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Not really brave. There are advantages to being a nobody. Anyway, it appears Risker has terminated discussion, so yes, the case will end. Whether ArbCom can actually fix the ambiguity of the civility pillar remains to be seen. Nobody Ent 00:28, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

I really don't think anyone can fix what's going wrong here, not even ArbCom. The problem is that nobody's understanding what the problem is, which has got fuck all to do with the proportion of female editors. The problem, fundamentally, is that administrators are out of control and unaccountable. Malleus Fatuorum 00:34, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Concur with the female thing. Mostly agree with the admin thing; mostly an obviousness among some that their rhetoric escalates rather than deescalates situations. More fundamentally I think it's just the wide variety of opinion on what are and what aren't acceptable ways of interacting. Nobody Ent 00:43, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

My position is and always has been that Wikipedia isn't a social club. The best way of interacting is the one that leads to the best result for the encyclopedia. Malleus Fatuorum 00:52, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

BTW, I'd been assuming throughout the ArbCom case that you were an administrator, and for that I can only apologise. ;-) Malleus Fatuorum 00:55, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Nope, they don't pay me enough to do the mopping around here. (I don't think "shortage of admins" is a current Wikipedia problem.) Nobody Ent 03:21, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Scolaire

Thank you for your comment regarding the brief rangeblock causing presumed collateral damage to this editor; I am uncertain why you felt impelled to make it. Clearly one does not give IP exemtion without confirming the nature of the problem and in consultation with the blocking admin, however straightforward the situation may appear. As the block was set to expire in only a few hours, this procedure appeared unnecessary. A word to the editor, inviting his further input if the block did not release seemed, and still seems, entirely appropriate. --Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 11:42, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

The procedure outlined here Wikipedia:IP_block_exemption#Administrator.27s_guide does not require checking with the blocking admin except in the case of the blocking admin is a checkuser; JamesBWatson does not appear on [list]. As granting an IP exemption requires researching the registered user's edit history, you're certainly under no obligation to do so; however, saying, in effect, 'we (I) don't care enough about you to do the necessary research' is unnecessary and uncivil. Nobody Ent 16:16, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

lol

oops! .. thanks :) — Ched :  ?  11:53, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

You're welcome. At first was wondering if you were thinking DGG or DCGeist or what ;) Nobody Ent

There is no justice

Nice piece. pablo 12:56, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

thank you. Nobody Ent 12:59, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Note

I and everyone I know use the term "babe" affectionately. Whatever. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:54, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Message

Hello, Nobody Ent. You have a userbox for your amusement at User:Begoon/Other Duck Userbox's talk page. Thanks. Begoon ^talk 07:22, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi

Hello, NE Ent. You have new messages at Chip123456's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

RFC/U Fae

I have deleted the RFC/U as having been improperly certified, since it was premised on the unproven assertion that Ash and Fae are the same person. You are welcome to create a fresh RFC/U on Fae alone, but it should not include unproven allegations of other identities.  Will Beback  talk  07:47, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Another issue

I think you've not fully signed here. Only the date appeared for some reason. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 11:05, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks -- that happens when I do five squiggles instead of four -- four shall be the number than I shall count Nobody Ent 11:09, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

ANI

As you are quite involved in the RfC/U itself, it's probably best to leave the closure of the ANI stuff to an involved admin. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 18:20, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Please note that per WP:CBAN, a community ban discussion has to be closed by an uninvolved admin (which I presume is what ASCIIn2Bme meant above). As you're neither an admin nor uninvolved, you didn't meet these requirements, so I've taken the liberty of undoing your archiving of the discussion. Prioryman (talk) 22:37, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

A beer for you!

(>**)> Sorry if I seem to be being a pain; love you really! Despite the wry and wacky humour, I genuinely do think it's an important distinction for newbies, particularly, to be aware of. Pesky (talk …stalk!) 11:25, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Sluurrrp. Thank you. 22:26, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

AN/I

Please do not make me do this again. I don't care if you think a group a posts are off-topic: you should not be removing others' posts like this. I take extreme offense to people removing what I took the time to type when it was in good faith. If it went over your head: ignore it. Doc talk 13:37, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Your comment

Hi Nobody Ent, regarding your response to me here; the way I have understood things, unless they have changed, blatant socks (as opposed to suspected ones) can be reported to AN/I. This being said, when I was told to report obvious socks to AN/I that was five years ago, and I rarely participate at AN/I now (it isn't even on my watchlist) and almost never at SPI. I hope that explains where I was coming from with what I said, and I will keep your note in mind in future. (Posted this here because it didn't seem relevant to explain over there.) Best. Acalamari 16:14, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

You could be right -- AN/I is at least allowable for the blatants per WP:NOTBUREAU but it's my understanding WP:SPI is the best place. Nobody Ent 16:23, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Wikiquette

Do you slap {{uw-3rr}} on the talk pages of every user brought to WP:WA? Removing copyright violations is clearly not a violation of 3RR and I was not even notified of the discussion about my edits. Eagles 24/7 (C) 05:24, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Did you really think that a new editor needed no explanation as to why his contribs were deleted? Or was something else going on that lead you to omit your edit comment? It seems DTTR is pretty minor in comparison. LeadSongDog come howl! 05:36, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

You're right, I overreacted. Eagles 24/7 (C) 06:19, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Paid Operatives

Thanks for the invite. Let me think about it. Right now I am focussed on Political operatives and chronicalling (sp) actions, conversations etc to provide a history for debriefing when the nomination process is over and the general election starts. ```Buster Seven Talk 18:47, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

You're welcome. Not so much an invite as an introduction -- I'm not actually against paid editing, myself. Nobody Ent

Oh!

Didn't notice your rename...I was wondering where you'd gone :-) Steven Zhang ^{Join the DR army!} 00:40, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for the advice i'll give that a try. [[JamieRothery (talk) 10:14, 14 February 2012 (UTC)]]

WP:G10 taggings in User:Joo's userspace

Hi there. I declined your recent taggings of pages in User:Joo's userspace. Those are apparently stale reports from back in 2010, so there is no need to speedy delete them. And they are not clear attack pages, so G10 does not apply anyway. If you believe they should be deleted, please take them to WP:MFD. Regards SoWhy 15:22, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Vegan Witch

Just FYI... That user was an obvious troll, and also apparently a sock, and was indef'd just as you were reprimanding it on the MSK page. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:31, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks ... I removed the baiting from MSKs page. Nobody Ent 02:35, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 13 February 2012

• Special report: Fundraising proposals spark a furore among the chapters

• News and notes: Foundation launches Legal and Community Advocacy department

• In the news: Scholars and spindoctors contend with the emergent wikiorder

• In focus: Skirmishes in the 'great sectarian war of the Internet'

• WikiProject report: WikiProject Stub Sorting

• Featured content: The best of the week

• Arbitration report: Betacommand 3 closed, proposed decision in Civility enforcement, AUSC candidates announced

• Technology report: January sees prototype new geodata API; but February looks to be a testing time for top developers

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 03:16, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks - Wikiquette assistance

Hello Nobody Ent. This is just a short note to express my thanks for your time and your wisdom on WP:WQA recently. I’m particularly grateful for the soundness of your contribution at diff. Many thanks.

I have made my closing remarks on the thread and I publicly acknowledged your contribution – see my diff. Dolphin (t) 02:41, 17 February 2012 (UTC).

Thank you. Glad to help. Nobody Ent 02:45, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Talk page

No problem. Thanks for letting me know. ----Jack | ^{talk page} 17:03, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

One of these days ...

I'm going to get to a thread first and be able to say what I think. Geesh. I constantly see what you post and think "damn it .. that's what I wanted to say". I am truly impressed with the way you think and post here Nobody (although it's getting very hard to think of you as either a "nobody" or an "ent"). All my best, and thanks for all you do. — Ched :  ?  21:00, 19 February 2012 (UTC) (yea, I know we don't always agree .. but who does?) :)

Thx. Nobody Ent 21:15, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 20 February 2012

• Special report: The plight of the new page patrollers

• News and notes: Fundraiser row continues, new director of engineering

• Discussion report: Discussion on copyrighted files from non-US relation states

• WikiProject report: WikiProject Poland

• Featured content: The best of the week

• Arbitration report: Civility enforcement closed, proposed decision in TimidGuy, two cases remain open

• Technology report: Major strands of development cycle coalesce as 1.19 is deployed to first wikis

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 23:02, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

re red slider incident report

Ent, I couldn't post a reply to Mangoe's incident report on me, so I posted it temporarily to my Talk page. details are there. Redslider (talk) 17:46, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

chat with you?

ent - anyway to chat with you? my email is red-at-holopoet-dot-com. thanx. Redslider (talk) 18:02, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Sorry not today ... behind on real life stuff. Nobody Ent 18:04, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Emily

I really miss Gilda. Got to see her live in the glory days of my youth, back before I really understood what the big deal was about Mary Magdalen. Thanks for the smile. Risker (talk) 01:02, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

AN

I don't think you've notified NYY51 yet. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:52, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Didn't seem necessary, as it was continuation of ANI discussion in which they participated. Nobody Ent 02:37, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank you for your support over at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Removal of templates from redirects. You seemed to be the only contributor who actually understood what happened. (If you wish to respond, please do so here.) HairyWombat 05:45, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

I think 28bytes got it also. It seemed like something out of M*A*S*H -- "all pages must be properly categorized before they are deleted." Nobody Ent 02:39, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Your recent edits

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button or located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when they said it. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 10:44, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Apology

Discussion and expression of different views is something I consider very important in a collaborative project. In my enthusiasm for understanding issues affecting Wikipedia, and expressing them as well as possible, my comments on your essay almost certainly came across as more sharply critical than I intended. I offer my apologies for that, Geometry guy 21:38, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

No apology required but accepted in the spirit it is offered. Who makes editors make their essays better? Editors! Nobody Ent 00:08, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

I took your name in vain ...

Over here. There's an interesting discussion, which you might well want to contribute to. Pesky (talk) 06:40, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Oh yea, I had forgotten about that. ;) Nobody Ent 19:20, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Home made barnstar

		Home-Made Barnstar
		I've really appreciated the wisdom of many of your recent contributions, but this seemed particularly apposite. Keep being a deep thinker. It was nice to meet you. John (talk) 21:04, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Please accept my official and formal thanks. Nobody Ent 21:15, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Lions in the Desert

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Lions in the Desert requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

If you think that the page was nominated in error, contest the nomination by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion" in the speedy deletion tag. Doing so will take you to the talk page where you can explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but do not hesitate to add information that is consistent with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. DreamFieldArts (talk) 01:29, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Right on cue. 28bytes (talk) 05:43, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Talk page response

You are a sockpuppet. What are you going to do about it. Midemer (talk) 19:34, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. Funny, you did not respond like you say I should. See my talk page for details.Midemer (talk) 19:51, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Brian Lamb

Hello Nobody, have you had a chance to look at my draft for the Brian Lamb article? If so, I'd be interested in your feedback; the current discussion has gotten off-track, and it could certainly use new or returning voices. Hope you have a moment to take a look and offer your view. Cheers, WWB Too (talk) 17:03, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi

Hi, can you ask DBigXray to stop this lame editwar adding my own name on top of my comment? [6] [7] [8] ...I also replied to your question. --lTopGunl (talk) 15:16, 29 February 2012 (UTC) Nice photo. Did you take it? Toddst1 (talk) 16:47, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

No, just found the best not fair use one I could on commons. Nobody Ent 00:42, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Trollolol

Thanks!

Wikipedians also recommend biscuits with tea.

Mistress Selina Kyle ^{(Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉)} has given you a cup of tea. Tea promotes WikiLove and hopefully this has made your day ever so slightly better.

Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a tea, especially if it is someone you have had disagreements with in the past or someone putting up with some stick at this time. Enjoy!

Spread the lovely, warm, refreshing goodness of tea by adding {{subst:wikitea}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Bamber

That's brilliant, thank you for sorting it out. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 22:21, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

I've added the archive notice at the top of the RM section to stop the bot from listing it. Would you mind signing it (where it says the result of the discussion was split and move)? You can add your own rationale if you want to, or not if you don't. See Talk:White_House_Farm_murders#Requested_move. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 23:17, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

If you move a page, which contains non-free images, than the non-free rationale of the images should be update. This is just a note for the future, as I have updated the fair-use rationales for this page move. Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 00:39, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Reverting

Hi Nobody Ent, you reverted a change in 479582181 commenting "see talk page". However, I cannot find a justification of that reversion on the Talk page. Please see Wikipedia:Reversion#Explain_reverts. Then, please either revert your reversion or explain it. If your reversion persists unjustified, it will not be possible to provide much justification if your reversion itself has to be reverted.

Thank you--Chealer (talk) 03:39, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Hey I replied

Hey I replied on my page

But also, do you know anyone for a new mentor who you could recommend maybe (I said in that post at the end but you deleted that too )? I thought you might be a good person to ask? Thanks for any help --Mistress Selina Kyle ^{(Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉)} 13:15, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Language

I should know by now that if you use strong language to make a strong point, people will ignore the strong point entirely and focus on the strong language. Anyway, frustrating as that is, you're right that the language was not serving to de-escalating the discussion, so I have refactored my comment. 28bytes (talk) 17:18, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Things seemed to have calmed down so hopefully the discussion can move forward. I hope it was clear it was not my intent to single any editor, including yourself, out but try to stop the escalating spiral. Nobody Ent 17:22, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

No, I didn't feel singled out, I thought you were fair in your distribution of criticism. :) Funnily enough, as I was searching for the phrase "complete and utter bullshit" on the page to edit it, my comment wasn't the first hit. In the future, if I feel the need to use strong language, I'll have to make it a point to do so with more originality. 28bytes (talk) 17:26, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Shocked... utterly shocked and surprised!

I hafta say, that I am utterly shocked and surprised that nobody came here to badger you regarding a recent close that you made (you know which one.) I mean, the closing statement basically said what many of us had said previously---that it was a farce and shouldn't have gone on as long as it did. The fact that you (as a contributor to the discussion and ostensibly 'endorser') could close it that way, and have nobody berate you over it or question the close shows how little people cared at the end. I'm not going to call it a good close, but will say it was a gutsy one that needed to be closed... and I definitely don' t think it is worth any more air than it got... but I've been watching your page/AN/ANI for somebody to object and to whine that you closed it the way you did (basically saying it should be deleted... but nobody has.)---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 20:03, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Heh, I just figured out what you were referring to (I unwatched that a long time ago). Good riddance to it, I say. 28bytes (talk) 20:12, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

I see NOTHING! Nobody Ent 23:31, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Agree. Also, I came here to complement you on your general deft touch and calm good sense at AN and ANI. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 13:30, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. Nobody Ent 23:31, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Editor's Barnstar
	for being bold and taking on redlinks in the nursing template. looks much better now. DA Sonnenfeld (talk) 16:41, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. Nobody Ent

Thanks...

...for this! I usually like to leave closing discussions until they have died down, but there are cases when it's right to step in and stop a going-nowhere discussion from pointlessly absorbing lots more time and energy. This was one of those times! Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 14:33, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Now that it's safely archived: you're welcome (was waiting with baited breath to see if it stuck before commenting) Nobody Ent 14:51, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

talk

Hello, NE Ent. You have new messages at Gsonnenf's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Thanks

...for this. EyeSerene^talk 14:30, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

You're welcome. and thanks for the clarification on your comment -- was thinking I had stepped in because deleted page history is invisible to me. Nobody Ent 14:51, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Nope, you were quite right to comment as you did. Foxj's been here ages and is obviously in good standing, and besides their userpage says they're from Australia while the elance account says Colorado, so despite the weird name coincidence it was pretty unlikely to be the same person. I belatedly thought of letting Foxj know they'd been mentioned and then found you'd already done the decent thing. Thanks again, EyeSerene^talk 15:01, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

RE: ani mention

Thanks for the heads up! Some fun coincidences going down there. — foxj 14:32, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

You're welcome. Nobody Ent 14:51, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

You may be confused...

I reopened that thread on AN with the agreement of the archiving admin, who had the same misunderstanding that you did. Please read it again and let it run its course. Your 3rr warning on my talk page was inappropriate and unnecessary. Please don`t do that again. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:15, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Excelsior (movie)

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Excelsior (movie) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

If you think that the page was nominated in error, contest the nomination by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion" in the speedy deletion tag. Doing so will take you to the talk page where you can explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but do not hesitate to add information that is consistent with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. ~dee^(talk?) 14:47, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Dispute resolution survey

Dispute Resolution – Survey Invite Hello NE Ent/Archive. I am currently conducting a study on the dispute resolution processes on the English Wikipedia, in the hope that the results will help improve these processes in the future. Whether you have used dispute resolution a little or a lot, now we need to know about your experience. The survey takes around five minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist in analyzing the results of the survey. No personally identifiable information will be released. Please click HERE to participate. Many thanks in advance for your comments and thoughts. You are receiving this invitation because you have had some activity in dispute resolution over the past year. For more information, please see the associated research page. Steven Zhang DR goes to Wikimania! 11:42, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

revert on Weight article

How is it not exactly true? "Functionally equivalent" is incorrect, in that it implies the physics definition of weight, in which case there would be functional equivalence at one g. The whole point of my addition is that "weight" in certain contexts is legally, and by definition, absolutely equivalent to what in physics is known as mass. Or to put it another way, nutrition labels and product packages, by law, mean the same thing on the moon as on earth. Zyxwv99 (talk) 15:30, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Please discuss at Talk:weight, not here. Nobody Ent 11:15, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Re: Removal of Nortonius' comments @ User_talk:Courcelles

Hi, thanks for the warning - I didn't realise my edits had nuked anyone else's comments - i certainly wasn't warned that I had an edit conflict or anything, but I will watch out for this in the future. Cheers!  BarkingFish  15:15, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Formal mediation has been requested

The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "Extrinsic extensor muscles of the hand". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by 16 April 2012.

Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page. Thank you.
Message delivered by MediationBot (talk) on behalf of the Mediation Committee. 17:40, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Looking forward to more input from you on this :) Those participating sign on agree I guess to request a mediator. Y12J (talk) 20:36, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Request for mediation rejected

The request for formal mediation concerning Extrinsic extensor muscles of the hand, to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. To read an explanation by the Mediation Committee for the rejection of this request, see the mediation request page, which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time. Please direct questions relating to this request to the Chairman of the Committee, or to the mailing list. For more information on forms of dispute resolution, other than formal mediation, that are available, see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.

For the Mediation Committee, WGFinley (talk) 19:41, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
(Delivered by MediationBot, on behalf of the Mediation Committee.)

Placeholder Header

In response to your "It's a collaborative effort which requires some time to get article content in a state which balances all the points of view. Best option is to use the article talk page to discuss with your fellow editors. Nobody Ent 10:35, 28 April 2012 (UTC)" I was tempted to use a swear word. As anyone who reads the talk page of the article in question (shiatsu), in the last two weeks can see, IT IS NOT A COLLABORATIVE EFFORT, it is the opinion of IRWolfie who has a monopoly on what can be added , what sources are reliable (those that agree with his point of view), what BITS of those sources are reliable (those that agree with his point of view). When I add things from the sources HE likes he says that it is not supported by the evidence - "The text you added just isn't supported by the reference. IRWolfie - (talk) 11:32, 11 April 2012 (UTC)"- and when I point out the exact sentences that support my additions he just doesn't reply and tries to get me blocked. What were your words? "State which balances all points of view?" Am I supposed to believe it too? Shiatsushi (talk) 20:39, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

In case you're interested...

...that SPI on the new user from yesterday was declined, and the user appears to have left the project as a result (or possibly due to the AFD of his article...or both.) Quinn ^✹SUNSHINE 19:46, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

• To address both of your concerns, I agree that we should extraordinarily careful to not bite new users and believe I did until it was clearly demonstrated that it was a problem, and then only after carefully verifying the information myself. I did make a call to close without action as the SPI was and is still ongoing, btw. I take the concerns of both of you serious and respect you both tremendously, even if we disagree on a few points. The comparison to "ANI admins" in general obviously hit a button for me. While I completely understand your characterizations, I try very hard to not be "typical" in the respects you were referring to. I'm always open to criticisms, I just felt unfairly lumped together with some who exercise less diligence in these cases. While no expert, I'm not a novice either, which is why I tried to remain neutral but communicate my findings. If I'm mistaken, it wasn't from a lack of effort or digging. Regardless what SPI finds, this was a strong case even if it wasn't obvious at the surface, and I would be willing to bet money on it based on my findings. I will, however, redouble my efforts to remain neutral in tone before an SPI finding in the future. And as always, I welcome your comments on any action I take. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 15:38, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

What odds would you be offering on the bet? Nobody Ent 02:27, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Points have already been made and listened to, I've already pledged that I will be careful in the future, and we just disagree on that one point. That is all I can do. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 19:13, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

RE: Note on my page

Don't worry, I won't pull out "Don't template the regulars". I'm okay with that. However, I would like to point out, on your messsage

"To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors.

Thing is, consensus already exists in WP:SOAP. The RFC is not needed as WP:SOAP already represents consensus on this issue. I claim IAR, (WP:SOAP of course ) on closing out the RFC. ‑KoshVorlon| Angeli i demoni kruzhili nado mnoj... - 17:44, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

re hiding

I see your point, but I had *already* asked them to not discuss their spat on that page. Isn't there room for hiding tangential cruft in cases like that? --KarlB (talk) 19:48, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Usually causes more problems than it solves -- best to ignore it. Nobody Ent 19:49, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

WP:AN

Sorry about this. I wasn't even editing at the time, just looking something up – but not actually looking at WP:AN. I must have somehow clicked on rollback by mistake. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 16:29, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

No worries, it was easily fixed. Nobody Ent 16:36, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

WQA

No problem at all, I just didnt want everyone getting bogged down in the technicalities of 'should he, shouldnt he' and ignoring (albeit unintentionally) the civility issue. While everyone can agree/disagree on the starting point, I think it should be noted the over-reaction afterwards was totally out of line. Especially when attacking someones character. Only in death does duty end (talk) 17:43, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm not disagreeing with you. It just that I've been around awhile and seen that often excessive reaction to another editor's real or perceived disruption can easily become more disruptive than helpful; I've previously said my piece and don't see any benefit to Wikipedia in reiterating my viewpoint. Nobody Ent 18:41, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Depressingly given the comments by arbs on the rejected case, I suspect at some point everyone involved is going to have to say their piece again. Although given the massive amount of history it could probably just be entirely blue links to get the point across. Anyways, my regards for your input. Only in death does duty end (talk) 20:16, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

That's the best point.

I was just waiting to see if DC might come up with it on his own. :)

-- Avanu (talk) 11:42, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Sorry about that. I was hoping to get them both to just agree on some wording so everyone could move on. Didn't mean to offend. -- Avanu (talk) 02:42, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

I know you were working towards a resolution and that is fine. Just don't edit another editor's comments. Nobody Ent 01:39, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Andy the grump

I trust that you made the right decision in closing the AndyTheGrump complaint on the AN/I. I noticed you left my section open. I don't understand, did you purposefully mean to do that or did you missed it in the closure ? --POVbrigand (talk) 12:49, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

It was intentional. Nobody Ent 12:54, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks also for the clarification of the AN / ANI closure practise. So in theory it is possible to have other "very"-friendly editors close the complaint before the rest of the community had a glance at it. WOW --POVbrigand (talk) 12:58, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Previous discussion, in case you're interested Wikipedia_talk:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive_10#archivetop_and_collapse_tags Nobody Ent 13:04, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, insightful --POVbrigand (talk) 13:20, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Great, now I am trouted for "resurrecting dead drama". Wonderful :-) --POVbrigand (talk) 13:36, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

AuthorityTam

I note that you have closed this matter. Based on previous behaviour it is likely that AuthorityTam will now return to editing in a couple of weeks. If he returns but does not resume the previous behaviour, it may not be necessary to return to ANI. However, if the behaviour does continue, would it be better to resume the ANI, or raise the matter at ArbCom instead? If so, what's the process? Is it appropriate to reference the ANI from ArbCom, or does the whole process have to start from scratch? On a separate but related matter, it would be nice to see some improvement in Willietell's behaviour.--Jeffro77 (talk) 03:00, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

I'd recommend starting an RFC. Nobody Ent 03:07, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. For now I'm going to be cautiously optimistic.--Jeffro77 (talk) 03:17, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Apologies

Hi- I do apologise if you took my comment here as insinuating that you or cyberpower specifically were angry. I've amended decided to remove my comment anyway, I shouldn't have got involved. Cheers. SD5 03:10, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Closing ANI threads

I know that you were very upset that YRC was blocked, and that everything was resolved in your eyes when he was unblocked. However, there were two users blocked, and your closing of the thread makes it look like both blocks were resolved, which they were not. Try to be more careful. AniMate 19:02, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Clarify

Can you explain this? Ryan Vesey Review me! 21:31, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

The user's edit pattern is not typical for a new user. Nobody Ent 21:33, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Actually I discovered that you are correct, see Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Ax1om77, I'll ask him to identify his other account and leave a message about the adminship plan. Ryan Vesey Review me! 21:38, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Thank you!

Ents are of course very kind, patient, and wise, as exemplified by your good self at this Entmoot. Thanks again-- Shirt "fool of a Took!" 58 (talk) 12:08, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

You're welcome. And stay away from the Palantír, okay? Nobody Ent 12:27, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Precious

	closings
	Thank you for your approach to be known by the quality of your contributions and for being somebody who closes threads that lead only deeper into WP:Great Dismal Swamp aka Endmoot, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:23, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Thank you Nobody Ent

Well said

This piece was particularly well said. -- Dianna (talk) 14:07, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Thank you Nobody Ent

Just close it....

The other editor has already said his intent was not to get actions, therefore the use of ANI was useless, and the wrong forum. Besides, I've only posted there twice :-) (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 20:28, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Since you wanted it to be closed. I will reply here or, if you want, you may reopen it. I disagree with your comment that, "this was sufficient warning as per Wikipedia's requirements." - It wasn't!! I agreed with you that we need to stop the WP:BATTLE mentality, I ended my comments saying "thank you". You could have easily refrained from evincing WP:BATTLE mentality by not stretching it further.

But then, what did you do?

You went on to claim patently illogical things. I was not playing a "game" when I said I didn't get warned properly. Your deliberate caricature of my position, predicated upon your high-handed bullishness, is chronically wearing too.
I say this with utmost humility, "grow up!"  Brendon ishere 07:42, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

IMO you may close this section

This discussion isn't going in the direction where it would actually help improve wikipedia, but taking up space.  Brendon ishere 12:13, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

A close by me probably wouldn't stick. Just stop replying (take ANI off your watchlist, if it's there) and it will wind down pretty quickly. Nobody Ent 12:16, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Brendon111, I am quite "uninvolved" with your situation, so I don't know how I got lumped into the same category as the opener of the section and the admin whose head you've been screaming for. If you can be helped, that is good; but you must listen without firing from the hip at every perceived insult. If you cannot be helped, it is certainly not our responsibility to fix you (per WP:NOTTHERAPY). We can only attempt to point you in the right direction. So try to roll with the punches a little more gracefully from now on, okay? Doc talk 12:41, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

I just figured it out. Some out there have just been baiting me all along. I do edit contentious extremely sensitive articles and have been involved in multiple disputes tiffs in the recent past. It's not hard to imagine that I have more than a few around me who don't want me editing there. (Nonetheless, I reserve the right to change my mind.)  Brendon ishere 15:07, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Friendly notification regarding this week's Signpost

Hello. This is an automated message to tell you that, as it stands, you are set to be mentioned in this week's Arbitration Report (link). The report aims to inform readers of The Signpost about the proceedings of the Arbitration Committee in a non-partisan manner. Please review the draft article, and, if you have any concerns, feel free to leave them on the talkpage (transcluded in the Comments section directly below the main body of text), where they will be read by a member of the editorial team. Please only edit the article yourself in the case of grievous factual errors (making sure to note such changes in the comments section). Thank you. On behalf of The Signpost's editorial team, LivingBot (talk) 00:00, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Fæ

You have closed Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Fæ due to inactivity, but it was requested at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure, that the closure should be summarized. Could you do this? Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{WrestleMania XXVIII} _{The Undertaker 20–0} 10:11, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Your edit warring on the ANI

An opener reports and their desire to close the report when the focus has moved to their actions is not something users should edit war about - shame on you Ent - there is discussion about this admin unresolved and your closure is not correct at all - Youreallycan 20:54, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Time to drop stick -- nothing good is going to come out of that discussion. Nobody Ent 20:56, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

You edit warred to close an unresolved discussion - sorry - Youreallycan 20:57, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Its too late now - you remember this next time and keep out of it - leave things alone that are unresolved - who are you to force closure - Youreallycan 21:08, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

• Unfortunately, I had to actually do some work today. I had seen the ANI right after SW posted it and knew where it was going, but duty called. By the time I got back, nothing much had changed and I saw no possible good that could come from a premature ANI, so I closed it. I assume from the conversation that Ent had already done the same. It is fine if others disagree with me on this, it is my best judgement. If theirs is to override my actions, they will. My closure wasn't related to anyone else's, and my history is pretty clear in that I would have closed it regardless of any prior actions to do the same. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 21:33, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

This is not the first time you inappropriately closed threads on the admin noticeboards. Do not do this again. You need to leave adequate time for people to respond, and be much more conservative closing threads. Gimmetoo (talk) 12:47, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

• Interesting. Although I used a different rationale when I closed it soon after, I didn't find fault with his timing. Had I not been so busy in my real life, it is likely I would have closed it when he did. Then again, my focus at ANI is finding a resolution, not giving everyone a place to vent about possibly unrelated events. I guess we all do things differently. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 14:10, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Had the thread been left open for longer than 1.5 hours, it's quite possible someone might have mentioned recent related events. Sometimes these sort of things get dismissed as "isolated", when they really are not. Gimmetoo (talk) 14:35, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

The purpose of ANI is "reporting and discussing incidents on the English Wikipedia that require the intervention of administrators and experienced editors." It is not for commenting, or mentioning related events -- long term issues are not handled well at ANI and better served by DRN or RFC/U or possibly WQA (depending on the exact nature of the circumstance). If and when I see a thread where historical observation leads me to be fairly certain the thread will not converge to consensus to take action and may, instead, lead to escalation and/or frustration, I'll put a close on it. This is not in violation of policy because, as near as I can determine, there isn't a policy.

In any event if you disagree with a particular closing I'd recommend you revert it. Nobody Ent 22:02, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

• • • And in many circumstances, the thread should be open for days. In this singular instance, many people know the players and the histories by rote memory, the person reporting had essentially withdraw the case, and the potentially for the event to turn into a drama-fest far outweighed any benefit of keeping it open. Here, Ent closed, YRC reverted, I closed. This is all within the accepted norms of the process. It is fine for us to disagree on closing as long as we all act within the norms of the procedure when we do so, which is what happened. IE: The system worked. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 15:20, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
    • Please note that Scotty has taken Malleus to ANI yet again today, demonstrating my point all too well. And the drama continues... Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 15:29, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

RE: 3rr warning

How could I be in an edit war on I Am... Sasha Fierce? I've only edited that article once in like the last month (history) Dan56 (talk) 22:26, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

That one edit was just a revert on possible vandalism, as I am also aware of the conflict you addressed with Status and the other user. Dan56 (talk) 22:27, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Hey, since you know your way around WQA, could you comment on a post I made there, Wikipedia:Wikiquette_assistance#User:Arcandam, if you can? Dan56 (talk) 22:30, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Waiting to see Arcandam is going to reply Nobody Ent 23:12, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

I'd like to know why I received a warning when I did one revert on the article; an addition of a second album cover which violates Wikipedia image rules. — Statυs (talk) 23:29, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

No edit summary, no talkpage note -- how was editor supposed to know why you were reverting? Nobody Ent 23:56, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

break

• Note for Ent, my comments here yesterday came over a bit strong , sorry about that - you were not really warring, just a single close - so my comments were undue , please excuse me. - As I am on a one revert edit pattern I came correctly to discuss with you, but I was unnecessarily attacking rather than polite, sorry. Youreallycan 17:20, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

No worries. It's not that I don't share your concerns with the admin in question -- especially given today's ill considered post -- but, as I mention above, ANI is just not going to achieve anything. Since he's not AOR someone would have to do the hard work of putting together an RFC/U to have make a positive effect on Wikipedia. Nobody Ent 22:06, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for taking it so well Ent - Best regards - Youreallycan 17:27, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Malleus

Thank you for your comment; I cannot see any earlier contribution from you on this thread. I have made no further comment since 24 th May, nor did I intend to, although there are seven further entries by other editors. Accepting without question that any editor can edit antwhere, why do you feel that my edit was inappropriately placed? It was, after all, a continuation of an ongoing thread. Please note that I have since been in contact with Malleus by e-mail.--Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 20:17, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Amendment request rejected

This is a courtesy notification that the request for amendment you are involved in or are a named party to has been declined.

For the Arbitration Committee

-- Lord Roem (talk) 15:21, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

RPP

I was about to rpp semi mal's page on your notice. I'm not sure if that would piss him off, however. Advice? Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 16:44, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

• Never mind, I just went and did it and blocked the IP. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 16:45, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Notification

I mentioned you here. Cla68 (talk) 00:22, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

You did. Saw that. Thanks for the note. I was pretty much planning to ignore it for the silliness it is, but since you brought it up... In Raiders of the Lost Ark the bad guys dug in the wrong place 'cause creepy bad guy only had an impression of one side of the Staff of Ra headpiece burned into it, and missed important "subtract three blah-blahs" on the back. Likewise you seem to have missed my complete sentence -- "are all homophobes except all the ones who aren't. " The diff you're quoting is not my individual opinion, it's my satirical summary of the entire mess of a case; while it may not be obvious now it was pretty clear to those participating at the time. I'll also note that, as one of the two certifiers of the RFC in the first place, that if your interpretation was correct I'd be calling myself a homophobe. Nobody Ent 01:44, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Re: not meaningless

What I mean is that removing the comments removes the context for what I said. If I reply to something and then you remove it, others can't understand what I said — my comments are meaningless to them. You also removed one of my comments entirely. Nyttend (talk) 19:16, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Sorry

Sorry for prematurely requesting closure on that ANI thread. I haven't been on in a while, but I suppose that's still no excuse. It shall not happen again, I assure you. One pier (Logbook) 23:37, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

No worries, not a big deal! It'll just linger a bit longer, won't hurt anything. Nobody Ent 23:42, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

NAC

The potential problem with a non-admin logging a ban, is that it's admins who have to enforce it with blocks. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:23, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

True. I was misled by inaccurate AN header info that the section would be archived soon, so I was thinking better than nothing. Certainly wouldn't object to being reverted if an admin wants to close it out. Nobody Ent

Sock Puppets

Hi Nobody Ent. Recently you reverted an edit of mine on Wikipedia:Sock puppetry, writing "See talk." I checked the talk page but wasn't sure what you were referring to. What was your rationale in reverting the edit? Thanks. —Iamthedeus (talk) 05:43, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

[9] Nobody Ent 09:52, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Please have a look

Hi, Ent. I know you're not an admin yet, but since you seem to be online at present, and the community seems to approve of your housekeeping efforts on the various noticeboards, I wonder if you'd have a look here? I'd be grateful, and will be glad to answer any questions you might have, right here, too. Will check back here every five minutes or so, for the next thirty. Thanks, --OhioStandard (talk) 12:05, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

I sort of come and go at pseudo-random times and am highly unreliable; I see Blade of NL took care of it. Nobody Ent 21:44, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

For future reference

Please be aware that all trolling posts that are vaguely related to me from the IP ranges 94.196.1.1/16 and 94.197.1.1/16 are ipsocks of Echigo mole. This was explained in great detail in the the recent arbcom review in answer to one of the questions ("Is Mathsci being harrassed by socks?") and appeared also in the WP:AN report that resulted in Echigo mole officially being listed as a community banned user. (Very occasionally Echigo mole will also use the older vodafone range 212.183.1.1/16. In March 2011 that range was blocked by a CU/arbitrator for three months because of persistent abuse by Echigo mole.) So if other users see such messages, they are likely to remove them on sight per WP:BAN. In cases like that, there is no need to wait for an SPI report to come through. Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 03:42, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Please link to appropriate policy and/or arbcom decision which justifies this. Nobody Ent 03:50, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

It is WP:BAN. Here is the record of the range block of Shell Kinney (March 3).[10] This was also carefully explained by the checkuser Amalthea here [11] after he removed a similar edit and then blocked the IP.[12] He also suggested preparing a Long Term Abuse page to avoid having repeatedly to describe these patterns to other users. Mathsci (talk) 04:13, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

You might be interested in this, and I invite you to offer your opinions.

I have created a rough draft of what could become WP:EASYMONEY at User:Dennis Brown/EASYMONEY for the purpose of helping COI editors actually understand what they are doing wrong, how to fix it, and how to actually become a contributor instead of a liability. I'm trying to avoid all the adhoc speeches given to the growing number of PR and marketing firms that are joining us, and at the same time avoid taking a stand on the policy or politics of the issue. I am interested in your opinion of the wisdom of this. If you like the concept, please feel free to participate or modify in any way you choose. I'm not married to any format or details in this, it is just a rough draft at this point. I will drop this same note to a few other editors whom I feel would be beneficial in considering this page. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 14:52, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

• Perhaps I try to keep the peace too hard some days, but I did raise the point on his talk page. I would explain, but you already get it. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 22:59, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Socks

Is there a reason you uncollapse discussions closed up via wp:deny? I'm just not understanding why. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 23:36, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

deny is essay, Wikipedia:Ban#Edits_by_and_on_behalf_of_banned_editors is policy. More importantly, a collapse box acts like a giant Wiki-neon sign saying click here for drama. See also Wikipedia_talk:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive_10#archivetop_and_collapse_tags -- I have yet to see any sort of coherent policy on use of collapse/archive tags. Nobody Ent 01:12, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't think the point of collapsing is to make it go away, and as you say it marks it a bit, but it does take away the reward a bit for the troll. I would agree there isn't a strong policy discussion on it, but often I would say that collapsing is best simply to remove some of the reward. In this case, it was 50/50 to me, didn't bother me but I was curious. While WP:DENY is only an essay (as is WP:BRD, for that matter), I do think there are times when it is appropriate, especially when it very verbose. You don't uncollapse all WP:DENY events, do you? I'm assuming not, but am interested in your personal criteria. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 11:39, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

How is collapsing better than simply removing? Nobody Ent 12:24, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

For starters, it is less contentious and gets archived. But you didn't remove that section, you uncollapsed it. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 12:28, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

You're not making sense. removed the contribution from 86.129.42.113. It's gone, won't be in archive. Nobody Ent 12:33, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Now I see the confusion in this one instance, my mistake. But as to my question, I have previously seen you uncollapse on a few occasions and was just curious as to your criteria. My initial question was more general in nature than it might have seemed. It wasn't a criticm, by the way, it was genuine curiosity. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 13:01, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Oh, I wanted to say I really liked your comment later on that page: the more boring ANI becomes the better off Wikipedia will be.. Very true. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 11:46, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi

I notice that you archived an a/n/i discussion I just opened, which seems irregular. I've reopened it and hope that it may stay open for others' comments and possible aministrative action. Thanks.--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 15:35, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

new section

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is "Sondra Locke". Thank you. --Canoe1967 (talk) 19:27, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

VM

But what if he was disruptive on article pages - reverting people correcting his mistakes? Have you considered that? He kept readding a grammar mistake, and also claiming that a source didn't mention a person when it did in the second para. Taking it to his talk page was better than the edit war he had started. Next, he disingenuously called my comments "trolling", his usual ploy when backed into a corner. Lastly, is it appropriate to swear at me in the edit summary on his talk page? Have you told him off for that? He did it to another editor recently as well (calling him an "abusive asshole"). Btw, why did you decide to step in? Were you asked? Regards, Malick78 (talk) 21:51, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi, I'd already looked at your contributions and seen the VM discussion and left a comment by the time yours arrived on my talk page - just so you know I wasn't ignoring your advice. Either way, I've talked to VM on a few different pages and he seems to take pleasure in reverting me, for the smallest of reasons (often unjustified in my view). I've created some articles on race and Poland (such as Murzyn, Murzynek Bambo, Racism in Poland), and VM (and some other editors, who I'd term "nationalist", though they'd probably dislike that) have taken a dislike to them. As you can imagine, I'm frequently left alone to fight my corner (there aren't too many interested in race and Poland, at least the more enlightened viewpoints). So, while I try to resolve things amicably... it all too often ends up heated. I've offered a solution: VM stays away from articles I've created, and I from ones he created, and we don't revert each other on other articles, but that was rejected. It's worth noting that I've never been blocked in 5 years here... I'll leave you to check VM's block history yourself. Thanks for your time, Malick78 (talk) 22:12, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

ArbCom Clerking

If you would like to apply to be a clerk, please let me know and I'll forward your request to the mailing list. If not, could you please refrain from performing clerking activities on the case pages? Thanks, NW (Talk) 00:13, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

X-ray_computed_tomography

Hi, I am IP from X-ray_computed_tomography. You can reply here, I'll check for a reply here. I read your post at the WQA. I seem to understand from your message, that the WQA & DRN are a waste of time. Is it?

I kind of suspected that, because both places say that they operate by discussion and agreement, and so far, jmh649 totally ignored both, so it seems like not much discussion and agreement are going to take place. I expect that he would continue to delete whatever he can, and without explaining. This is quite discouraging. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.182.215.205 (talk) 02:28, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Rape_culture#RFC_-_Multiple_Factors

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Rape_culture#RFC_-_Multiple_Factors. 4 Points for consideration - Synonymic Usage, Quotations, Sources. Media-Hound 'D 3rd P^) (talk) 20:21, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

AGF

Hi, regarding [13] and other on the basis of the AGF doctrine - I ask why you remove problem notices from the articles before addressing the problems which they describe. These had already been reviewed and corrected by the editors who removed the CSD notices. They listed real problems which are now unlikely to be resolved if they are deleted and that they also function to inform both the general public of the quality of the article. I hope we can have a more productive cooperation in the future. I suggest that you should have a second look at those pages - rather than revert them like a robot. Good day BO | Talk 08:23, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

NWQA

I am sorry but I did not get you when you said "referred elsewhere" can you please clarify where. Thanks --DBigXray 11:46, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Put longstanding tradition, as outlined Wikipedia:Wikiquette_assistance/Volunteer_instructions, the available options are resolved / stuck /stale /wqa in progress and nwqa. Of those, nwqa best describes my opinion (and other who have posted) -- nothing is going to come of your alert. You're welcome to remove the tag if you wish but I'd advise against continuing to pursue the issue. The most likely two outcomes are you'll receive no response or a backlash for failing to move on. Nobody Ent 12:27, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

I think you have the wrong person ;)

I think you have the wrong person, Salvio giuliano (talk · contribs) and Tiptoety (talk · contribs) clerked the civility case. ;) -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 02:55, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Right people, wrong sections -- swapped comments intended for DQ and Salvio. Thanks for heads up, have fixed. Nobody Ent 03:14, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, NE Ent. You have new messages at wp:ani.
Message added 04:37, 3 July 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Toddst1 (talk) 04:37, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

No Email?

Hi. Admire your dispassionate professionalism. (Would you consider being Mentor?) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 11:30, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Sorry. My real life schedule makes my availability to participate in Wikipedia sporadic, so I can't commit to anything like mentorship. Nobody Ent 11:40, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

There'd not be expectation of consistent availability. But understood. Thx, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 13:44, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Civility Barnstar
	I like your style. IRWolfie- (talk) 10:34, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

One diff that shouldn't be in the Arbcom request

Diff #6 ([14]) looks fine to me - it looks like a legitimate on topic question. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 19:54, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for reviewing; I included it because it shows a lack of good faith and I recall a history of acrimony between MF and the editor he was replying to. Nobody Ent 03:24, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

One diff that shouldn't be in the Arbcom request

Diff #6 ([15]) looks fine to me - it looks like a legitimate on topic question. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 19:54, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for reviewing; I included it because it shows a lack of good faith and I recall a history of acrimony between MF and the editor he was replying to. Nobody Ent 03:24, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

To be honest, I don't really see it. I think if Malleus' general standard improved to that level then there wouldn't be a problem. But hey, its your evidence not mine :). -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 10:02, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Please avoid BITEing

Hello: Please avoid running afoul of WP:BITE and think carefully before you accuse someone of being a SPA, as you did with this edit. Thanks. T. trichiura Infect me 18:10, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

SPA is merely a description of an account's edit history, not an accusation. Note that "The SPA tag may be used to visually highlight that a participant in a multi-user discussion has made few or no other types of contribution. " Nobody Ent 19:15, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Note that: "Do not call newcomers disparaging names such as "sockpuppet" or "meatpuppet". If a disproportionate number of newcomers show up on one side of a vote, you should make them feel welcome while explaining that their votes may be disregarded. No name-calling is necessary. Similarly, think hard before calling a newcomer a single-purpose account." T. trichiura Infect me 20:07, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Please provide a diff of any instance where I called an individual user a sockpuppet or meatpuppet. Nobody Ent 20:48, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Please read the last sentence, which is clearly what's relevant here. I'll make it easy for you with formatting. T. trichiura Infect me 20:50, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Per AGF you should assume I did think hard. Nobody Ent 20:51, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

That's definitely an interesting interpretation of AGF. I can see that conversing with you here has not been and will not be productive. Bye. T. trichiura Infect me 20:57, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

WP:WQA discussion

Hi Gerard, (hope you don't mind me calling you by your former name for which I have got use to from our last WQA discussion all those months ago).

A user submitted a report at WQA, in regards to a very complex and overheated issue. However, to date, only the involved parties have commented on the WQA thread, with exception to one uninvolved person who asked a question but never followed up the response to that question. A diplomatic proposal has been made in an attempt to resolve the issue, to which 3 of the 4 involved users have support the proposal. My question is, would it be possible to glance an eye on proceedings and act on anything that needs to be acted upon, in your own time of course. Much regards, Wesley Mouse 10:34, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

No promises, but I'll take a look if I get time. Either name is fine Nobody Ent 10:49, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, I appreciate that your time is valuable. Wesley Mouse 10:52, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Other duck

If you intend to keep the "as an engineer, I ..." comments in there, it must go back to being a userspace essay. Is there any way you can edit "personalization" out and make it generic ASAP? (✉→BWilkins←✎) 12:03, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

That's a good point; have edited the essay. Nobody Ent 12:06, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

For the record

I don't believe that asking someone to consider if the language they're using hurts their case is a violation of AGF. I take them at their word that they didn't intend it that way. One can use an extremely poor choice of words in the best of faith (and people, myself included, often do just that.) 28bytes (talk) 03:20, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't believe it either, but when you double down the remark with "prove it" challenges [16], that's beyond AGF. Nobody Ent 02:35, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Request for amendment

This is a courtesy notification that an amendment request involving you has been declined and archived.

For the Arbitration Committee, Lord Roem (talk) 00:35, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

AN/I close

You may want to tweak your AN/I close as it can easily be read as saying that jayron was the one blocked for trolling. Monty₈₄₅ 01:38, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Tweak complete. Nobody Ent 01:57, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

WQA existence discussion

Hey, there is a discussion about merging WQA to DRN: Wikipedia_talk:Mediation_Committee#Time to shutter formal mediation?. IRWolfie- (talk) 19:48, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Comments

Hi, it would be good to get perspective from another volunteer on my response to this incident: [17] (I manually archived after the last comment following the WQA instructions), also User_talk:Bittergrey#Note. Do you have any comments on my handling of this incident? Cheers, IRWolfie- (talk) 13:10, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Sorry for delay, was away from computer for awhile. Your comments were clearly made in good faith and intended to be helpful so I'm not going to criticize them. My personal preference is not to "close" WQA threads because it's often helpful for editors to be able to vent and I think it better just to let a conversation wind down on its own. Closing a thread while folks are riled up might cause them to do something they'll regret (like escalate to the shark tank and getting dumped on and "boomeranged" and other unpleasantries). Nobody Ent 23:59, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Cheers for the response and I'll bear that in mind for the future. I've noticed WQA threads appear to have a pretty short lifetime so I should have left it die out. IRWolfie- (talk) 12:34, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Quick question

Hi, Nobody Ent. If you have the time, can you please close this discussion at AN? Thanks, Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 19:28, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Hiya Nobody Ent!

Are you open to trouting? Arcandam (talk) 01:54, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Why would you want to slap the side of a tree with a fish? Nobody Ent 02:21, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Because of Monty Python. Maybe a whale would be better, Ents are rather big afaik. Arcandam (talk) 02:21, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

• 
• 

If your intention is to piss me off it is pretty successful. Please stop. Thanks in advance, Arcandam (talk) 02:27, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks

You know what I'm talking about. :) Manning (talk) 13:04, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Trichuris trichiura unblock decline

I declined because two other admins whose judgement I trust said they felt the block was valid without having to know exactly who the alleged sockmaster account was. Personally I feel every such block should at least try to identify a sockmaster, but I don't set policy. If you want to discuss this further, talk to those other two admins. I really can't add anything more by way of clarification. Sorry. Daniel Case (talk) 01:59, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

WP:ROPE question

Hi. I have a question regarding WP:ROPE since HanzoHattori/Niemti was given a second chance. Based on the user's recent contributions, would the user be more likely to be blocked instantly? I want to tell you about this in case he gets in trouble again. Thanks, Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 02:09, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

• (talk page stalker) I can only speak for myself, but from my perspective, the rope isn't 1 inch long, so it depends on the problem. If the editor goes back to the same problems that got them blocked to start with, they would likely get a long block and maybe indef. If it was a new problem, say a first time 3rr, I would be inclined to issue a strong but limited block, 1 or 2 weeks, longer than usual due to their history requiring a longer block to prevent disruption. It would vary from admin to admin, however, as there is a lot of discretion in this. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 02:27, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

A cup of tea for you!

Just noticed your work at WP:WQA. You seem...insufficiently appreciated. Homunculus (duihua) 13:43, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

ANI

Another discussion about you going on. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 00:16, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

AN/I

What you just did is precisely what the discussion was all about. Please revert.--Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:01, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Please stop closing ANI reports. You are not an admin and based on your recent misjudgements I think you are unfortunately not experienced enough to know when discussions on WP:ANI should be closed. Arcandam (talk) 16:51, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Non admin closures are perfectly acceptable at ANI. IRWolfie- (talk) 20:27, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Reverts of legitimate admin closures for no reason are however disruptive editing. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 20:36, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

That he is not an admin is meaningless. He has no less authority than I do as an admin to revert a close at ANI. He has reverted me at least a half dozen times, and I wasn't thrilled with it, but he had legitimate reasons, whether or not I agree. Had I thought it was a big deal, I (or another admin) would have reverted him back and I'm pretty sure he would not have labored it. Saying he has less of a right to revert because he doesn't have an admin bit is erroneous, as the act of closing isn't an admin only function. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 00:29, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

It would depend if there is no reason, clearly he thought there was. Characterizing it as disruptive is an assumption of bad faith; I think it's clear from the comment Nobody Ent left that the editors actions were in good faith. I note that you re-inserted the weighing up of the consensus although you were involved in the discussion. Your only reason for doing so was because a non-admin did it, which to me, is more worrying. IRWolfie- (talk) 00:32, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

I didn't say that, but yes, it depends on the circumstance. My point is only that admins and non-admins are equal in the eyes of closing and archiving discussions at AN/ANI. Particularly when we are talking about highly experienced non-admins, not some rookie closing at the wrong time or offering an inflammatory summary. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 00:35, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Wikiquette assistance

Thanks for moving that report to the bottom. I saw the poorly formatted request and didn't even think about the fact that it was on top too. Cheers! --Tgeairn (talk) 01:58, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Clerking at ANI

What on Earth was this about? If an admin raises a thread at ANI is it likely that said admin does not believe there to be some other more appropriate forum for it. Non-admins should certainly not be summarily shutting such threads ten minutes after they're opened. Don't do that again, please. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 11:15, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

The top of ANI states "This page is for reporting and discussing incidents on the English Wikipedia that require the intervention of administrators and experienced editors." If you disagree with a close you'll certainly welcome to revert, as you did. Nobody Ent 11:31, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

That wasn't "discussing" the incident: it was "dismissing" it, and that's quite different. You're not helping when you do that, so please don't do it again. Inappropriate non-admin actions have taken quite a bit of scrutiny recently; they should be avoided if they are at all likely to be controversial, and summarily closing threads an admin starts at ANI after zero replies and less than ten minutes have passed certainly falls under that banner. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 11:45, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

I wouldn't have closed that so soon myself. While it didn't fit the "strict" definition of ANI, it was an admin reaching out on an admin board, looking for the wisdom of fellow admins and experienced editors, because of recent problems with edit warring on the article. Sometimes, that is the best way to deal with an article like this, very old but very problematic. Seems a little more dogmatic than your usual self Ent. Nothing to lose sleep over, but a good and constructive conversation did come of the report, and it helps us determine a bit of consensus for future, similar cases. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 19:43, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

dffs

H I - I know you were not there but please allow people that were to deal with their sharing - thanks - Youreallycan 19:46, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Suspicious talk page editing

Very Suspicious comments have come from a user on the Talk page of the Controversies at the 2012 Olympics. They have come on to the talk page and entered into what I can only describe as goading. To attempt to elicit a response from me. please see this latest edit and let me know what you think and if you have similar concerns that I do. Sport and politics (talk) 18:36, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Please don't talk about me to others without my knowledge, it's quite rude. As for the complaint, I'm baffled. What was goading about my post? You made some statements, I have responded. This is what the talk page is for, no? Having asked you a question about your post, I am indeed attempting to elicit a response. This is the normal social expectation in such an interaction. HeCameFromTheShadows (talk) 19:11, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

HeCameFromTheShadows was already duck blocked as FerrerFour (obviously) in one WP:SPI case I filed, and a CU is being asked on another. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 23:55, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, NE Ent. You have new messages at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee.
Message added 20:45, 13 August 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

I have reverted some of your edits accordingly. If you wish to discuss further, there would be a good spot to do so. NW (Talk) 20:45, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

ANI

Well said. Please copy your first paragraph to the other section to which you refer. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:21, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

BLP ban clause

Hi - please note and change your comment if required - Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment/Youreallycan#YRC_Proposal

I have updated my position -

I think that the civility condition and the one RR restriction would render this BLP discussion clause as unnecessary and extreme punishment - if I cant revert and I cant make a single rude comment without being site banned then as I am not a BLP violator then I can be allowed to comment about living people but not allowed to edit content about such.

Youreallycan 15:08, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Ping

Check your email. Dougweller (talk) 16:15, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Struck comment. Nobody Ent 13:20, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Nuke

Do you want me to nuke all the pages under User:Gerardw? Cheers! Reaper Eternal (talk) 12:33, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes please. Nobody Ent 13:20, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Done. Reaper Eternal (talk) 14:05, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Thank you Nobody Ent 15:10, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Helpful?

I noticed this. Did you think that was helpful? In light of the content of the guideline you referred to, did you honestly think that my single notification to a previously-involved admin was not "polite, neutrally worded with a neutral title, clear in presentation, and brief" enough? Perhaps you might on reflection wish to strike your comment? --John (talk) 20:01, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

I have no idea whether it was helpful. Helpful to whom? I do know that to request an uninvolved admin while concurrently canvassing a previously engaged one is itself uncool. Nobody Ent 20:17, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

You're using the word again, but I see no response to my asking you to justify it. I request that you refrain from using the word "canvass" unless it relates to actual breaches of WP:CANVASS. I request again that you strike your comment. --John (talk) 21:30, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

• I am disappointed you have not yet found the time to correct your mistake. Did you see a potential breach of the guideline in my edit? If so, what was it? If not, please strike and (optionally) apologise. --John (talk) 13:21, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Breaking Others' Comments In Talk Threads

Hi. I just came across comment you made a month ago on Ihardlythinkso's talk page. Although I have no particular opinion on Ihardlythinkso or his participation in that prior thread (I have encountered him recently, in a completely unrelated thread in which I have not have any problems with him), I'm very gratified to see that I'm not the only editor who is against the practice of breaking up another editors' messages with one's own responses. Thus far, when encountering others who did this to my messages, I responded by politely asking them not to, because (and I'm going off memory here), I seem to recall reading or being told somewhere that this was permitted as a matter of personal preference. But do you know if there's a specific policy or guideline to cite against it? Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 20:27, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

WP:TPO (talk page, others) Nobody Ent 21:12, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

You can also just move the comments which were interjected in while asking them not to do it. IRWolfie- (talk) 13:32, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

FPP

Please unprotect Penuylaps' talk page. There's no legitimate policy reason for preventing editors to edit it. Nobody Ent 22:28, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

I appreciate that that's your opinion. However, policy actually supports the action. (WP:NOT and WP:PROTECT to just name two.) Regardless, there is no purpose to a policy debate. While the person is blocked, and while their talk page access has been revoked, the talk page will remain protected, per the reasons already given. Once talk page access is restored, the protection may be lifted, though I'm leaving that to elen's discretion, as she removed the talk page access.

I note you have already commented at her talk page. So it doesn't look like there is aught else for me to say here. - jc37 19:00, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

A beer for you!

for closing the YouReallyCan debate on AN/I - I haven't waded through so much aggression since Justin Bieber on Twitter got AfDed. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 20:35, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Reminder

I see you have made several contributions since the item I raised with you which is now archived here. I notice you did not respond to the serious question I asked you regarding the misstatement you made at AN/I. If this was an oversight, will you please rectify it at your earliest convenience? It is obviously too late for you to strike the inaccurate and unhelpful allegation you made about me, but I would appreciate your clarification. Thank you for your attention. --John (talk) 20:42, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

As Jack McCoy would say, "Asked and answered." Please see User:Nobody_Ent#Nobody Nobody Ent 09:38, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

I see. Well, asking a flippant question wasn't a very good answer to the serious question I asked you. Let's put it like this; don't do this again, please, or it may be that you'll be looking for a different hobby. That isn't a threat, it's a prediction. --John (talk) 12:12, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

The Olive Branch: A Dispute Resolution Newsletter (Issue #1)

Welcome to the first edition of The Olive Branch. This will be a place to semi-regularly update editors active in dispute resolution (DR) about some of the most important issues, advances, and challenges in the area. You were delivered this update because you are active in DR, but if you would prefer not to receive any future mailing, just add your name to this page.

Steven Zhang's Fellowship Slideshow

In this issue:

• Background: A brief overview of the DR ecosystem.
• Research: The most recent DR data
• Survey results: Highlights from Steven Zhang's April 2012 survey
• Activity analysis: Where DR happened, broken down by the top DR forums
• DR Noticeboard comparison: How the newest DR forum has progressed between May and August
• Discussion update: Checking up on the Wikiquette Assistance close debate
• Proposal: It's time to close the Geopolitical, ethnic, and religious conflicts noticeboard. Agree or disagree?

Read the entire first edition of The Olive Branch -->

--The Olive Branch 19:20, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

WP:AN

Seems to be a shortage of people willing to close RfCs, and they are piling up. Most don't require an admin, just someone with good common sense, solid experience and an ability to judge consensus. You easily qualify. Please consider helping out by closing one or two a week. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 13:35, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the encouragement. Focusing on real life for the time being. Nobody Ent 09:51, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

On the closing of WQA

		Your Opinion is More Important than You Think Barnstar
		I see that WQA has now been closed. Even though that happened, I think that Wikipedia owes you proper recognition for all the good work that you did there. Thanks! --Tryptofish (talk) 21:18, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. Nobody Ent 09:51, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Now all those cases are coming to ANI, and several people think ANI is a fun place to just make offhand remarks and gab and, well, you know the drill. We need you there at ANI more than ever Ent. I hated seeing WQA being removed, and have said that it was foolish to remove it without a replacement, and ANI is proving me right. Hoping you start participating there more now, and help us filter out some of the noise, and figure out a replacement for WQA post haste. I still can't believe it was gutted that way. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 22:13, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

On the closing of WQA

		Your Opinion is More Important than You Think Barnstar
		I see that WQA has now been closed. Even though that happened, I think that Wikipedia owes you proper recognition for all the good work that you did there. Thanks! --Tryptofish (talk) 21:18, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. Nobody Ent 09:51, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Now all those cases are coming to ANI, and several people think ANI is a fun place to just make offhand remarks and gab and, well, you know the drill. We need you there at ANI more than ever Ent. I hated seeing WQA being removed, and have said that it was foolish to remove it without a replacement, and ANI is proving me right. Hoping you start participating there more now, and help us filter out some of the noise, and figure out a replacement for WQA post haste. I still can't believe it was gutted that way. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 22:13, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Migration to ANI was the logical outcome, but unfortunately the community disagreed with that assessment. It'll probably be another couple months before my real life settles down enough for me to get back participating here on a regular basis. Nobody Ent 14:45, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Real world has to come first. Whatever it is, I hope it works for the best, friend. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 22:56, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Dumb ideas

You know, I'm actually trying to help. A guy coming in with a comment telling me the idea is dumb, and telling me that my request for people to comment isn't right, is not helpful or civil. One day, Wikipedia might actually show it cares about that generally. But it won't happen if people don't speak up for improvements. -- Avanu (talk) 18:37, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

You don't make WP more civil by removing other people's comments, you make it less civil. Nobody Ent 18:40, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Possibly. But I hope someday people give a shit on this issue. -- Avanu (talk) 18:48, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

People do. Lots people do. It's just the nature of the problem is very difficult to crack and may be intractable. Nobody Ent 18:55, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

In real life, people shoot you a look, people tell you to shape up, and they tell you to "take that back", when you say something uncivil. In Wikipedia, it seems to lead to endless debates where no one actually gets anywhere. Unless "they" don't like you. Then you get accused of trolling, being disruptive, or simply blocked without a case. It isn't about setting standards, even though there is a clear Pillar/policy of Civility. In real life such people would be kindly asked to find other ways to spend their time. -- Avanu (talk) 19:02, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Please stop

Please do not interfere with my discussions with Sports and politics unless I specifically ask for help from other editors. I see your postings as being obstructive and possibly muddying the waters of the disagreement with unsolicited feedback. Thank You.--293.xx.xxx.xx (talk) 10:45, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Tifjo

He made a statement on an/i that i don't know what he means. how am i supposed to ask him/her then? if they aren't willing to clairify then why did they make the statement to begin with? just asking. 199.101.61.190 (talk) 18:07, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

WP:NOJUSTICE

I've added a talk page note, about an addition. It is a very useful and short essay, I hesitated before adding a new paragraph, wanting your input and perhaps some tweaking. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 14:32, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Encyclopedia Dramatica

In case you didn't know, they for some reason quoted your userpage as the "Quote of the Now". Also, they took it out of context to make you sound like an anti-Jimbo anarchist. I know they're just trolls and if you respond to this at all they'll probably raise a huge stink about it and make your name a joke all over the internet, but just thought i'd let you know :) --██████ 12:10, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

WP:AN

Fair enough, but BSZ's comment now appears in the middle of yours... GiantSnowman 11:32, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

One is un-signed (although it is dated) - where the confusion arose. Regards, GiantSnowman 11:42, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Accusation

Don't visit my page accusing me of incivility. I think you'll find I did no such thing and your interference is in itself incivil.J3Mrs (talk) 11:42, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, posted on wrong talk page. I've struck the remarks. Nobody Ent 12:05, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't know who you are but you really need to be more careful and stop interfering, goodness knows what drama you could cause.J3Mrs (talk) 12:07, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

And I don't know who you are, but there is strong indication that Nobody Ent was not all wrong, because you seem to be actually mean. xoxo Lguipontes (talk) 12:18, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

And he's still biting me! ¬¬ Lguipontes (talk) 12:24, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Nobody Ent...its pointless to remind some editors of some policies like NPA and CIVIL if they refuse to have any history of abiding by those policies, or have a posse of buddies which will defend them and Wikilawyer about why the policies don't apply to these editors, or we have an arbitration committee that is uncommitted to doing the very thing they were elected to do. I say to let anarchy prevail until it becomes so preposterous they'll simply be no rational defense for it, not that there is now.MONGO 15:34, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Editors such as you do you mean? Malleus Fatuorum 16:50, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't need protection...I don't tell every third editor to f-off.MONGO 17:24, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Hmm I don't know about those statistics. I also don't know if Malleus is eager to take credit for having driven anyone off. Drmies (talk) 14:27, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

ANI

I thought I had let it go - what have I done now to make you think otherwise? GiantSnowman 12:33, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Oh, you mean this - I notice Kiefer has reverted me already; I'd ask you restore a more neutral header please. GiantSnowman 12:35, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

I wasn't "mucking with the header" - I was making it more neutral. The conclusion was that both of us could have handled it better - something I accept - but the header implies that I was entirely at fault. I feel that is unfair. GiantSnowman 12:37, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Personally I feel an accurate record of the discussion & conclusion is more important than a few edit summaries being slightly off. I won't press the matter any further, however. Got more important stuff to be getting on with GiantSnowman 12:40, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Hanged etc.

Thank you for closing that. Drmies (talk) 15:11, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Ditto on the recent ANI (not the same as Drmies is commenting on).--Amadscientist (talk) 01:43, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

You're both welcome but premature, unfortunately, as the closings didn't stick, alas. Sometimes you get the bear, sometimes the bear gets you Nobody Ent 14:56, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

I've had that happen too. Colbert was right: bears are our number-one enemies. Drmies (talk) 20:40, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

WT:AN

FYI - Wikipedia talk:Administrators' noticeboard#Cover up of Administrator GiantSnowman's personal attack and edit warring. GiantSnowman 18:22, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Discussion at ANI

Hi. With regards to the ANI discussion of JHunterJ/Apteva, I was looking for a template to add to the warning notification [18] to make it look official and to make sure it is done properly, but there doesn't seem to be a template for MOS at WP:AC/DS. Is this something to be concerned about? Thanks. --Neotarf (talk) 21:50, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Re: Outing

Outing is whatever admins say it is. Silly user, policies are for plebes. Viriditas (talk) 22:00, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Once the outcome is certain, it's all about reducing drama, and the details are not as important. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 23:47, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Agree. And the fact that two policies are so clearly contradictory means we can look forward to more drama in the future. Nobody Ent 00:09, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

This is why I twice said that Oversight would have been a better venue. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 00:10, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

What's that have to do with anything? One page says renames will be logged and are supposed to be transparent, and the other says that mentioning an old account name is outing. Does that make sense to you? Nobody Ent 00:12, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Perfect sense. It depends if it is a clean start or simple dropped account, or a forgotten password. And of course, whether or not the person is working in the same areas and there is some overlap or not. And if they disclosed to an Arb first, or did this on their own, and of course the time between the accounts. It's as crystal clear as our civility policy or BLP policy. Then again, I didn't actually go read the policy, I just used common sense. That is likely to get me in trouble one day. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 00:20, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

please discuss elsewhere
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Due diligence would have revealed that VM was not outed, that his account name was changed, and that his previous account was linked with his new one. Dennis, your expanation sounds like one of those police reports that explains why an officer shot and killed a woman's dog on her property because the woman dialed 911 due to a heart attack, and the officer felt threatened by the barking. Is this what Wikipedia admins have become? You can't be bothered to spend two minutes researching a report, but can freely block for no good reason at a moments notice? Yes, this is why admin rights need to be devolved immediately. If you can't be bothered with the facts, then you don't need the buttons. Viriditas (talk) 00:29, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Your comments don't make sense in the actual context of a rename; please see WP:RENAME Nobody Ent 02:01, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

please discuss elsewhere
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Viriditas, you are aware that I didn't block anyone, and in fact I am the one that quickly UNBLOCKED him, right? Surely you spent the two minutes researching the block log? I already gather that my sarcasm was lost on you, but at least get the facts straight. You do not know me, friend. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 02:07, 19 October 2012 (UTC) "Is this what Wikipedia admins have become" doesn't refer to you, it refers to all admins, implicitly the admins involved. Thefore, "you can't be bothered" refers to admins, not "you". Why is there a rush to block anyone instead of a rush to uncover the facts? Talk about misplaced priorities. Viriditas (talk) 02:13, 19 October 2012 (UTC) I am an admin, so if you are talking about all of them, I assume you meant that as an absolute statement, including me. Your words indicated that, and you didn't qualify them in any way. I know lots of admin that are quite thoughtful, calm and collected. A good portion of them, actually. And I know lots of admin who sometimes make errors, including myself, because we aren't drones, we are just editors with extra tools trying to do the best we can. You have to pardon me if I'm not sympathetic when someone blindly lumps everyone together. Like racism, sexism and other forms of "classisms" (ie: treating any group of people like they are all the same because they have one common element), I find it lazy and contrarian to make such broad, sweeping claims that are not specific. If you wanted to actually do something besides jump on a soapbox and complain, then you would engage and discuss with that person in a polite way when you see things that you disagree with. Otherwise, it is all just more noise in an already noisy place. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 02:32, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Visitor's Guide

• Dennis's talk page is here.
• Viriditas's talk page is here. Nobody Ent 02:16, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
  • sorry, I was just leaving....Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 02:33, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
    • No need to leave, just want to stay on topic -- which is incoherent policies -- it's really not clear to me that you have a handle on WP:RENAMEing works -- calling outing after a rename just doesn't make sense. Nobody Ent
      • I was being facetious and lumping a bunch of jumbled policies together, actually. And I have to head off. Family issues, wife has been gone for days, haven't slept right in as many days, have to go to day job early, etc. Will catch up tomorrow with this. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 02:53, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

File:Northdumplingnavy.jpg needs authorship information

Dear uploader:

The media file you uploaded as File:Northdumplingnavy.jpg appears to be missing information as to its authorship (and or source), or if you did provide such information, it is confusing for others trying to make use of the image.

It would be appreciated if you would consider updating the file description page, to make the authorship of the media clearer.

Although some images may not need author information in obvious cases, (such where an applicable source is provided), authorship information aids users of the image, and helps ensure that appropriate credit is given (a requirement of some licenses).

• If you created this media yourself, please consider explicitly including your user name, for which: {{subst:usernameexpand|NE Ent/Archive/2012}} will produce an appropriate expansion,
  or use the {{own}} template.

• If this is an old image, for which the authorship is unknown or impossible to determine, please indicate this on the file description page.

If you have any questions please see Help:File page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 21:53, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Sfan00 IMG (talk) 21:53, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Disputed non-free use rationale for File:Lions in the Desert.png

Thank you for uploading File:Lions in the Desert.png. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this file on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the file description page and adding or clarifying the reason why the file qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your file is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for files used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.

If it is determined that the file does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 21:54, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

blocklogibus malleorum

Moved to User talk:Nobody Ent/block log

Nobody Ent 20:34, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Oppose

Thank you for your look at this with an open mind and voicing oppose to the main stream! People like you make me stay, to be continued, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:45, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Sturm und Drang

Hi NE. Thanks very much for your timely action at WP:AN. I tried my best to simply post links to discussions elsewhere, with a short neutral background and an explanation for doing it the way I did (=I'm lazy), with as little opinion as possible. I was amazed to see my note treated as an invitation to spread the "discussion" (=the repetition of angry things one has already said ad nauseam elsewhere) to yet another forum, with Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment, Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests, User talk:Malleus Fatuorum, and User talk:Jclemens apparently not being felt to be large or numerous enough as arenas for all the self-expression and Sturm und Drang required by… by all the emotion, I guess. The way the section developed, I was afraid the whole thing would get removed soon, and since I still feel my links may be of use, I'm glad you shifted the discussion elsewhere. Bishonen | talk 11:20, 22 October 2012 (UTC).

You posted the word "civility" on AN and were amazed to see a ruckus develop? You must be new here. Nobody Ent 20:31, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

definition of respectful

"what respectful is in the consistent cultures ..." am I right in assuming you meant constituent cultures? pablo 11:46, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Definitely. Wikipedia and consistent don't go together. Fixed. Thanks. Nobody Ent 11:52, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

It's certainly not the first word that springs to mind when looking at WP definitions of civility! pablo 15:39, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, NE Ent. You have new messages at Reaper Eternal's talk page.
Message added 01:25, 24 October 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Reaper Eternal (talk) 01:25, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

User talk:Br'er Rabbit etc

re your revert; similar edits from the same user at User:Jack Merridew and User talk:Davenbelle. I have no idea if they are supported by policy, fancy taking a look? pablo 10:13, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

thank you for restoring deserved recognition and the easiest way to learn (almost) everything about referencing ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:30, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Clandestine?

The discussion happened in the official IRC channel (even the bot uses Foundation resources), open to the public, and I disclosed it here at enwp. Your choice of word to describe it is unfortunate and imprecise. Just as a great deal of activity happens in email, a great deal happens on IRC, in part because it is in real time. Many discussion happen on IRC because an admin doesn't want to play cowboy and wants to get the opinions of others in a timely fashion but without causing drama in case they are wrong. It isn't an attempt to end-around the process here, it is a part OF the process. I've never hidden anything that happens via IRC, unless as instructed by ArbCom due to privacy or legal concerns. I've never taken part in any "back room deals" and I use the resource for the purpose of furthering the goals of Wikipedia, not to be secretive or to do illicit things, which is what you are accusing me of [19], by definition. As you are normally quite civil, I was disappointed by this. There are always going to be things you or others are not immediately aware of (or ever aware of in limited circumstances), but that doesn't mean my motives are nefarious. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 15:21, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Is the channel logged? Nobody Ent 15:24, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Not that I'm aware of, except personal logging by anyone in there. Nor is the 100 other useful Wikipedia channels. IRC is accepted and condoned by the Foundation, for all intent and purposes. If you want it removed, calling my actions "clandestine" isn't the way to do it. It is uncivil and inaccurate, as you are implying I am doing something illegal or at the least, against policy with nefarious motives. Again, if you want it against policy, you should take it up with the Foundation rather than insulting me. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 15:34, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

• I'm not aware of using the word illicit recently. While wiktionary's definition makes reference to illicit, the Merriam-Webster definition makes no mention of it.
• I explicitly stated there is no evidence of maliciousness or bad faith on any admin actions
• wikipedia-en-admins states: "in-channel discussion is never a substitute ... for on-wiki discussions (on WP:ANI or another appropriate forum) of controversial issues or decisions. Basing an admin decision on IRC discussion is a bad idea." (emphasis mine) Nobody Ent 17:07, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

I linked the definition of "clandestine", which mean secret and illicit. Regardless of your other words, your choice of calling the actions "clandestine" automatically imply something illegal, illicit, secret and underhanded, by the very definition of the word itself. Even your second definition implies something underhanded. The decision was not made on IRC, I had no idea he was going to block and found out about it onwiki, like everyone else. He and I didn't directly discuss it at all. This is what I mean, you are assuming something that didn't happen, and you didn't ask about the sequence of events. I asked the CU, they checked and said they didn't have a definitive answer, Reaper had previously said something like "yeah, he looks suspicious", apparently did his own investigation on wiki, and made the call without commenting further on IRC. It was a unilateral decision, although three people independently expressed concern. He didn't ask my or DQ's opinion on it. The amount of actual discussion on IRC is less than this one paragraph I am typing now. There was no "conspiracy" or drawn out discussion. It is fine to have an opinion, but I'm saying you chose your words very poorly and it implies I did something less than honorable. No matter how many dictionaries you use to define the word "clandestine", nor how you qualified it, the fact that you were implying I did something sneaky and underhanded here was loud and clear. What I actually did was use extreme caution, asked for an outside opinion and tried to proceed without causing drama, even though I was reasonably sure this person was abusing using an account, AND I disclosed that it was me that had requested the initial CU, here onwiki. There is a difference in "clandestine" and "discrete", particularly when I have made full disclosure, specifically to you on RE's talk page. That is why this is a slap in the face. There is nothing clandestine about my actions here or otherwise. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 17:33, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Example usages

Clandestine Marketing offers various market research services to companies which need to better understand their own company, their competitors and their customers.

[http://www.news.cornell.edu/stories/April08/Perspective.Turner.html War and the anthropologist: Why an academic society continues to agonize over clandestine research By Terence Turner The American Anthropological Association (AAA) is again caught up in a debate over the ethics of secret research] Clandestine may refer to: Secrecy, the practice of hiding information from certain individuals or groups, perhaps while sharing it with other individuals

• I'm not trying to turn this into a pedantic exercise about the meaning of the word "is", Ent. Either I've failed to explain it or you have failed to understand it, but it is a failure, nonetheless. I think it was casting me (and Reaper) in a very negative light and making a lot of assumptions that are simply not true, in order to make some greater point, but it was at my expense. I will leave it at that. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 20:15, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
• No discussion was held in secret, I already made this clear in the first sentence on this page. It was in a channel that any person can join, completely anonymously. I can only conclude that either you don't understand this, or you think (and are implying) that I am lying. Clarifying is pointless now anyway, the damage is done. You claim that you agree with the block, which wouldn't matter as I had never blocked him and never did anything "in secret". Why you are trying to smear my name and associate me with nefarious activity, what your agenda is in doing so, I have no idea, but your claims against me are completely false. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 13:03, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks

I had forgotten about Wikipedia:There is no justice. I will be citing that essay quite liberally. MBisanz ^talk 12:20, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Grow a steel pair

Re. I was nominated for Wikipedia Review's "Balls of steel" award once, lol. I don't exactly remember why — probably for blocking FT2 — but the balls of steel entered my sparsely-populated long-term memory. (Mind you, I don't exactly agree with you, I agree with Guerillero, who put the matter very well.) Bishonen | talk 13:37, 27 October 2012 (UTC).

I think the important thing is ArbCom is issued (yet another) Sword of Damocles ruling; one that at first blush appears to be a reasonable compromise but, upon further reflection easily gameable; if editors can make comments about MF's posts but he can't reply, he becomes a wiki Piñata. I can't realistically forsee any other outcome beyond yet another dramafest, with legions of detractors and supporters rehashing the same ol', same ol' arguments. The sidetracking on a questionable to some expression just isn't that important.

Additionally, with all due respect  ;) , "some of my best friends are women!" and I've heard them use balls in a gender neutral way. (Of course, can't say that on the noticeboard, OR and all that). Language wise, I'm less concerned about growing of pairs than the lack of a feminine equivalent to the compliment "that took balls" (or "you've got balls"). The best I have is "courage" but that have quite the same raw connotation as "balls" Nobody Ent 15:51, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Well said

This was very well said. His condescending demand that 'simple courtesies' be offered to a vandalism-only account that had already received four consecutive warnings before being taken to a noticeboard left me gobsmacked. We should be able to block a throwaway vandalism account without this much fuss; and I despair for the non-admins editors who believe that Bwilkins' instructions represent the 'right' way to get help. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:44, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

A first time account deserves to be told the rules of Wikipedia - even if what they're doing is minor vandalism (major vandalism=very different...in a way...ANI notification is not optional, period). Maybe they believe their edits aren't actually live. Maybe they don't see the orange bar, who knows. Slap'em a Welcome, warn them, but it's still a human being behind that computer (✉→BWilkins←✎) 14:52, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

WP:AGF isn't a suicide pact. An individual who makes his second edit to the 'troll' article in the middle of an hour-long vandalism spree isn't someone who is confused about what he is doing. Given that the throwaway account ignored four consecutive warning messages that provided detailed explanations of why there was a problem with his conduct, why would it be helpful to add one more?

Besides, you have to choose which set of rules you're going to be pedantic about. You either get to lecture Niemti about placing his AIV report on the wrong board, or you get to lecture Niemti about filing an AN/I report incorrectly; you don't get to do both—unless you're trying to arbitrarily punish a good-faith, constructive editor for not wasting time on bureaucratic nonsense.

It's pretty apparent from your actions that you were perfectly willing to handle this as a misplaced AIV report. You blocked the vandal's account without notifying him of the AN/I thread or offering him any opportunity to respond to the charges against him. You handled the case exactly as it would have been handled at AIV: without fuss, muss, bother, or user talk page notifications of the filing. The block notice you provided already explained clearly why the block was placed; there wasn't anything that a new user would find helpful in the (one sentence) AN/I report. Insisting that Niemti post a link to the AN/I discussion was just bullying him for no good reason. AN/I can be pretty intimidating for newer and non-admin users (I note that Niemti has only been editing since March of this year); thanks for making his experience particularly unpleasant, and teaching him that Wikipedia administrators are willing to abuse editors who don't beg for help in the right way. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:56, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Why should I dial it down? Someone rides in on their high horse after clearly misreading, calls me a bully recklessly, and I'm expected to say "ok"? Someone either can't read, won't read, or misread - I assume the third, and other people better start AGF'ing bit more as well (✉→BWilkins←✎) 16:18, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Tnks

...for this. It is appreciated (✉→BWilkins←✎) 15:32, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Welcome Nobody Ent 22:38, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the comment on my talk page as well. Sorry, I didn't realize I was being uncouth- the only other ban I actively pushed for was for someone who refused to really even participate, so it went very differently. This is easily fixed. Thanks for the advice. Sergecross73 msg me 15:28, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

ANI Close

Just FYI, it was only a 48 hour block. We generally don't indef IPs. He'll get reblocked for longer if he comes back and continues, but the most we generally do is 2 years at a time for the worst socking/abuse.--v/r - TP 21:35, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes, the closing summary says blocked 48 hrs for disruptive editing, legal threats and outing. You must have misread the summary. Nobody Ent 21:40, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Honest feedback to my Wiki-philospher friend

• "You were dragged to ANI [...]"

  People use this term "dragged" and it always seems to sound as though the dragged party was in ball & chains and had committed some offense they have justly paid for. (Yes? If not, then being "dragged" certainly means one's clothing or pants get dirty ... because they were "dragged", not "walked", or not "invited", etc. And if one got dirty through the dragging, then ... they deserved it? Why?? Anyone can open an ANI case against anyone else, for any reason. I know this. So why does this means the person must be mal-treated, even if it means just "getting dirty through being dragged"? If "dragging" means something other to you and others who use the phrase, please explain to me what it means to you, as I surely like to know.)

• "Magog threw out a comment"

  So casual sounding! (Charges of making personal attacks, battlegrounding, canvassing, and a block recommendation. My gosh Ent, you are not on the receiving end of that. I have been blocked. Receiving a recommendation of block from an Admin isn't as casually received by me, as you think it should be, or can be, or is. [Have you been blocked? I have not checked your block log. Have you been indef-blocked? I doubt you have. Have you been unfairly indef-blocked? Not if you haven't been indef-blocked! Please stop speaking for others and how lightly or casually they should take something, when you are not in their shoes and cannot possibly know what they feel being in their shoes. And since when can an Admin *casually* make serious accusations of policy violations and make block recommendation? Is that appropriate in any context at all??)

• "You went to Magog's talk page [...] and Magog had pretty much answered"

  "Pretty much answered"?? Oh good grief! (Have you read that thread?? Give it another read, please. Magog has mostly given non-answers, the only answer given is a recent one given to me, which he prefaces after questioning my motives for asking again and again with "Alright, here it is" [as though I am a spoiled child] and concluded with "There, are you happy now?" [further condescension] where part of the justfication for his ANI charges which I'd asked to know, was a link to something I wrote 10 hours after his charges had been registered. Getting his responses has been as easy as pulling teeth, with plenty of insults along the way, presumably to encourage both editors to be driven away. And how is it that an ADMINISTRATOR seems free to be condescending and insulting and evasive, to such degree as Magog clearly has?? Is that becoming of an Admin? Do you support it? Are you in defense of it? [Huh? I could ask why behavior like that, from an Admin, is not sanctionede. That would be quite logical. Instead of sanctioning or admonishing the Admin, you like to point finger the other direction. I don't think that's equitable.])

• "and indicated they didn't want to discuss it any more."

  How does one "not discuss it anymore", when one hasn't "discussed it" in the first place?!

• "And he doesn't have to because WP:ADMINACCT applies to admin actions (like blocking)"

  If you read WP:ADMINACCT, you will see that it also applies to Administrator behavior, which would include accusations of serious breach of policy and recommendation to block at an ANI -- I would presume! (Or, you think not?!)

• "not to commenting on ANI, which any editor can do."

  Neither Momento nor I have asserted or suggested that Magog had no right to make his contributions at the ANI. However, Magog is not "any editor". He is a special editor called ADMINISTRATOR. And the behavior standard for an Administrator editor is higher than for regular editors. (But, you know that! Why you forget it just now, I don't know.) Also, the word you are using here, that Magog made "comments", ... the fact is he made accusations of serious breach of multiple WP policies, along with a block recommendation. To minimize those by calling "comments" is a rather distorted use of the language IMO.)

• Nobody cares that Magog said something last week on ANI that no one supported or acted upon.

  I'm nobody? *I* care what Magog said about me! And even if Magog and I were the only two people existing on planet Earth, I'd still care. (My caring isn't dependent on "what others may think about [me]" as a result of what he accused, in case you might think that.)

• The best option is to read what they said with an open mind -- if any of it makes sense to you, consider it as you move forward with editing Wikipedia; if it doesn't, blow it off.

  Are you using "they" in the singular (Magog) or plural (Macon & Magog)?? I'll assume singular ... I really disagree. This position you seem to be taking seems to support total unaccountability and lack of responsibility by an Administrator for making serious accusations of policy and block recommendation against editors at an ANI. (It happened to *me*, and it happened to Momento. It did not, as mentioned above, happen to you. You aren't really in an ideal position to recommend how Momento or I should feel about it, or how we should deal with those feelings, unless you have been there [and for my case, it includes having been indef-blocked]. Anyone can tell another to "walk away", that is so easy, because your feelings are not directly involved. You weren't accused of serious misconduct. You weren't recommended to be blocked by an Administrator.)

If you think this is meaningless complaining, it is a very wrong assessment. It's easy to watch it on TV. It's different being shot at.

Ihardlythinkso (talk) 14:01, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Nobody Ent, please don't conclude I therefore support the current ANI, because I don't, because I believe like Malleus: "Nothing good ever comes from that place." I have no faith in it, based on experience. The call to BOOMERANG is made by the thoughtless, to replace thinking. ANI is a cesspool of irresponsibility. I will never open a case there as a result, no matter how just. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 14:21, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Why am I explaining this? When others have said it much better than I can? For example:

The fundamental problem here is that AN/I is dominated by the irresponsible, the responsible generally won't go anywhere near it, and non-admins most clearly don't have the same rights there to speak as admins do. Admins can come in and lob charges at regular editors with narry a diff, but if a non-admin challenges them, they are ignored or chastized. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:28, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia is neither fair nor just, as I've attempted to explain in No justice. That is a situation I have neither the power to fix or the inclination to try. I'm always aware there are people on the other end of accounts, and what I can try to do, and sometimes succeed at, are to make things a little bit better for them. My goal today was simply help prevent Memento from getting chewed up in the ANI shark tank. I despise boomerang, it's a harsh overreaction bandied about by folks who think it's cute or clever or some such thing, as opposed to understanding it's just rude. So before someone jumps in, I'd rather throw a close tag around a nascent thread, hope it sticks, and hope they'll willing to accept my advice. . Nobody Ent 16:27, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Sadly

Your efforts were in vain, and Elen jumped on to Pen's talkpage (apparently all in good fun), then, just after Pen filed a Checkuser Ombudsman against Courcelles, Corcelles blocked Pen, stating that he was trolling Elen. <shrug> Kinda crazy, but I'm not prepared to spend two months cajoling Courcelles into recognising the obvious. Rich Farmbrough, 22:10, 5 November 2012 (UTC).

Gladly

support. What Elen said.--Shirt58 (talk) 00:05, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Support. What Elen said. (Assuming doesn't gag a bot.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 03:14, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Two days on, and still wondering why Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Nobody Ent is still a WP:REDLINK.--Shirt58 (talk) 10:42, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Specify the "What Elen said" comment.--Shirt58 (talk) 11:17, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

I hate being hasty. It took my fellow Ents three days of discussion to agree to deal with Isengard, and that was a no-brainer. Nobody Ent 11:20, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

hey bot

{{User:ClueBot III/ArchiveNow}}wanna regen the archive index?

Vandalism

Hello again! An unregistered user changed back the name of the first song off The Poison. He added a reference from Last.fm, but I think that is not a reliable source. Moreover, I have added some references to the talk page such as the official BFMV website, itunes and BBC, among others. I can not reverse his edition due to Wikipedia: 3RR. So, I'd like to ask you to solve the problem, protect the page and block that user who insists on vandalism. Cristian MH (talk) 10:36, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm not an admin (and wouldn't protect or block if I was, it's too early for that). I've readded your first ref, tagged the listing as dubious, and reopened the ANI thread. The best option would probably be to head to WP:DRN; I have to go real life for awhile and don't have time to do that right now. I'd wait like a day to see if anyone watching ANI helps; if not you could start the DRN process. I know it's frustrating that it takes so long to get things fixed when you're pretty clearly correct, but that's how Wikipedia works. By the way, don't call it vandalism; that's reserved for intentional disruption, and throwing that phrase around it a content dispute can get folks annoyed with you. Nobody Ent 12:36, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Ok, I will follow your advice, but this is so unfair! I have that CD in my house (I bought it a few years ago because I'm a big fan of Bullet For My Valentine) and I can read clearly that the name of the song is just "Intro". Anyway, thank you very much for your attention. It's good to know I can count on you when necessary. Cristian MH (talk) 13:10, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

That unregistered user has reverted your edit, what can we do? I think he has no intention to leave. Cristian MH (talk) 13:18, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Warning

Please refrain from attacking yourself, as you recently did.[20] It's... um, uncivil? Yeah, let's go with that. EVula // talk // ☯ // 22:05, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

North by East

You're not Nobody no more!? (Neither nevermind if not, if NE is neither either.) </joke> Ihardlythinkso (talk) 13:49, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

• Yes, what's up? I did like your old name, at least the look of it (it didn't scan so great, in my opinion). How should we pronounce the new one? BTW, I never thought of you of worthless despite low article edits, let's keep that clear. There was some talk somewhere of you running for office, and chances are that low article count is a big enough problem to sink it, but there's plenty of other useful stuff you do. I also think you have adopted a more measured approach in the last couple of months, but that could just be a matter of perception. At any rate, all the best under your new name. See you around, no doubt, Drmies (talk) 22:54, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

• I was surprised when the suggestion was made. Not only the article count but the whole Afd scene, which I don't particularly have any interest in, and little participation in. NE Ent 23:51, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

• One of the things that I've learned the last two or three years or so is that the place is a lot bigger than I thought. I just to hang out at AfD a lot, where I became a deletionist and an inclusionist (and I'm perfectly at peace with that). There's a lot of work still to be done. I just dedicated Q & Q to Crisco; maybe I'll find a tree or so I can write up and dedicate to you. Drmies (talk) 04:11, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose You will always be a Nobody in my eyes. ;-) Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 19:25, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Alas, I've observed my days of anonymity have passed. It used to be I'd get That's just stupid; now I'm likely to get That's even stupidier than you usually are -- indicating folks are starting to remember the last time I annoyed them. Accordingly, keeping the "Nobody" seems disingenous. NE Ent 23:58, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Maybe you shouldn't annoy people so often, then they wouldn't remember.... Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 23:24, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Rename

You might want to re-register the Nobody Ent (talk · contribs) account to prevent a vandal from registering it and impersonating you. Cheers! Reaper Eternal (talk) 22:48, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, done NE Ent 23:33, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Barnstar of Good Humor
	You know what that is for. Tijfo098 (talk) 03:54, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Really. You beat me by two minutes. Unacceptable. :) Go Phightins! 03:57, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Barnstar of Good Humor
	For your message at the MfD page; that's a really accurate summary of what's going on. It's humor in situations like these that allow me to enjoy my time here on Wikipedia. So thank you. Go Phightins! 03:56, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Apologies

I dont recall getting an edit conflict at all. I usually mark an edit with one of them as (EC) in the edit summary. Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:23, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

No harm done. The software does weird things sometimes -- I'm baffled, not upset -- it didn't really make sense that my comment was removed when yours went it as it was in an entirely different section. NE Ent 13:26, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Hmm that is odd. I am not up on the technical aspects, but if you are section-editing (rather than page) are you even supposed to get an edit conflict with someone editing a different section? (Or if I section edit for example, and you page-edit? I think you know what I mean) Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:32, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Don't think so, but I'm not super expert on the technical aspects. Like I said, I've seen weird things -- WP:AN archiving backed up for days because a necessary key in the archive directive was altered. At first I suspected sneaky vandalism, but when I tracked the edit it was by a regular contributor -- when asked about it, they had no idea how it happened either. NE Ent 13:52, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

The other day, there was an intermittent bug that hit me and many others, where you would edit a section then save, and it would wipe out the entire page except that one section, forcing you to revert and try again. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 17:56, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Saw that on VPT -- this was different. OID's addition to one section removed a comment had made in another. NE Ent 18:07, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Could be entirely new bug. What joy. When I get home tonight I will run a couple of tests on my own Userpage and see if I can reproduce it. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:30, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

COI Tags

I noticed that you deleted the COI tag Qworty placed on John Bassette. I was wondering if you could look over another few articles. Qworty has been tagging and generally chopping up about 30 articles I have edited. His/her issue is a long-settled arbcom from 2007 which did NOT result in a decision that I could not edit these articles nor that anything need be done about them. I have no idea what has spurred this sudden campaign, but whole reference sections and properly-constructed bibliographies are being deleted, then COI and Notability tags are being slapped on. I don't expect you to take this whole thing on, but if you could at least look into the COI tags I'd appreciate it; I've listed only those with the COI tag, but there are many more. I am loathe to do so since he/she is targetting me, and I don't want to be accused of a revert war.

Starwood Festival, ]], David Jay Brown, Jesse Wolf Hardin, Stephen Kent (Musician), Muruga Booker, M. Macha Nightmare, Baba Raul Canizares, Prem Das, Gavin Bone, George R. Harker, Armor & Sturtevant, Stratospheerius, Lauren Raine, Owain Phyfe, Lasara Firefox, Badi Assad, Chas Smith, Jim Donovan (musician), Robert Lee “Skip” Ellison, Yvonne Frost, Ed Fitch, Telesma, Phyllis Curott, Vivianne Crowley, Brushwood Folklore Center and Ian Corrigan — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rosencomet (talk • contribs)

Kudos

Good move. This is clearly going to grow and fester and it's a great idea to take it off the main AN/I page. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 15:04, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

• I was just noticing the same thing. I have no idea how policy views that and don't really care, it was the right move even if under WP:IAR. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 15:08, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

• The Curse of The Ent is that often when folks thank me too soon after an iar move someone comes alongs and reverts it ;) -- perhaps ya'll would like to comment at Wikipedia_talk:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents/North8000_Discussion? NE Ent 15:29, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

• I did as an uninvolved admin, as I'm not involved in the discussion. Forcing it to move to a RFC/U would be disruptive and bureaucratic. Leaving it at ANI proper would be disruptive and a magnet for drive by comments. This is a very rare instance, rare enough that we don't need a policy to define it, as IAR and common sense already apply. Please ping me if there is any question or issue with the page on an administrative level. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 16:40, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Closures and review

Several comments from further thoughts yesterday:

1. Just holding another RFC immediately may be less awful than people just ignoring the decision, but it isn't exactly a good option.
2. There needs to be some sort of review process for decisions - allowing bad decisions to stand isn't a good idea as then either you have to have another RFC about the same topic which wastes the communities time, or you annoy people because bad decisions have to stand.
3. Both the closer and the people involved in the discussion are unable to productively work out if a decision needs reviewing.

In order to make sure outside people have an opportunity to ask for reviews decisions to be reviewed you need a formal and basically by definition bureaucratic but transparent process to close discussions.

You're probably also going to have to block people for challenging stuff outside those rules (and have those blocks stand). -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 08:06, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

De ja vu

Item on the bottom of my talk page you might be interested in. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 00:17, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Re: Clarify

I've taken a stab at clarifying what I meant. Let me know if that answers your question. Thanks, Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 00:10, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Was I...

... a little harsh? (✉→BWilkins←✎) 21:21, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Not particularly, seemed reasonable to me. NE Ent 22:06, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks

...for signing me! Leaky Caldron 13:12, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

User:Dennis Brown/Essays/Civility

Would love your opinion. In user space now, designed to be both an informational guide for those that are crying "incivil!" prematurely and a bit of a guide for admin. If it isn't redundant to another essay and worth building up to mainspace, would like to get your input, and likely Kim's and a few others whom agree on the "threshold" issue regarding civility blocks. If it is redundant, please point me there so I can contribute. I get the feeling that civility is going to be a common theme in the upcoming year. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 15:11, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Let's review. You communicate off-wiki and I accuse you of clandestine activity. I express skepticism about the ability of a website to classify IP addresses as static or dynamic and somehow that comes out as an attack on your thoroughness and/or technical knowledge. Are you sure you want to be inviting me to critique an essay you started? ;)

Will try to take a look in a day or two. NE Ent 00:14, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Like I say in the essay, Civility is also about overlooking the shortcomings of the person you are talking to. ;) And it wasn't an attack on my tech knowledge, I never have an issue with someone saying "how do you know?" It is my job to justify my actions when asked, by virtue of the bit. And I can't say I'm certain, I only have good guesses based on a degree of diligence in my research. I left, so never saw what happened to that one anyway. And when it comes to purely dealing with civility issues, I respect your experience. Doesn't mean we agree, but I was looking for balanced input, not a "Yes Man". Trust me, if I wanted a Yes Man, I damn sure wouldn't be dropped notes on your page. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 00:21, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Some days I do have a lot of shortcomings to overcome. Do you want comments/suggestions on the talk page, or should I just directly edit the essay with suggestions? (Obviously you could revert if you disagree). NE Ent 00:46, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Be bold, do whatever you feel comfortable with, I don't own it, I just started it. I'm not sure if it will leave my user space, which is why I want input as it is very, very raw at this point. I was thinking about asking Kim to take a look as well. I think it would be helpful to have a practical guide to civility, how it actually should be viewed and dealt with here, without being bossy to admin. We still need a board to deal with civility, as ANI isn't cutting it, although not as badly as I expected. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 01:04, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

ANI

Response at User:Bluerim. --JDC808 ♫ 02:24, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Information

I noticed your username commenting at an Arbcom discussion regarding civility. An effort is underway that would likely benifit if your views were included. I hope you will append regards at: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Civility enforcement/Questionnaire Thank you for considering this request. My76Strat (talk) 05:54, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:ANI#East Germany

This thread is not a content dispute. It's an editor edit warring and refusing to engage, IRWolfie- (talk) 23:42, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Feel free to remove the close and continue discussion. NE Ent 01:08, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, NE Ent. You have new messages at Francophonie&Androphilie's talk page.
Message added 21:03, 3 December 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Edits

And all your edits have been undone. I have solid proof and I'm right and you're wrong. I know something you guys don't know. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MaxXD1 (talk • contribs) 16:57, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Request for review of possible misuse of Administrator privileges by Administrator KillerChihuahua

You're quick--maybe too quick for others' taste. Happy days, Drmies (talk) 20:58, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Opinions vary. Not that it matters -- just the other I closed an AN thread that should have been on VPT and some editor continued to edit anyway. Can you imagine the nerve? NE Ent 21:02, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Hmm--did I do that? Just for the hell of it I added rollback to your account--you may find a use for it. Also, as an Ent, were you offended that someone started a Bilbo-related sock farm? Drmies (talk) 21:06, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Thoughts

While I know you wrote Wikipedia:There is no justice, reading some of your recent noticeboard comments made me think of a post I wrote some time ago to Avanu. MBisanz ^talk 14:26, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for stopping by and the suggestion. I'm about to go real-life for awhile, so I lack wikitime to reply in depth, but I'll leave you add the 89 (89???) talk page watchers with this cryptic note: I am a willow Ent, not an oak Ent. (But not Old Man Willow, who isn't an Ent). NE Ent 14:19, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

FYI on blocked users at WP:ANI

"As a general practice, we don't file ANIs on indeffed blocked users ... a passing admin will revoke talk page access if / when it becomes necessary", from the "Talk page access recovation for User:Pablo.morales.la.bomba" section of WP:ANI. Just a note: it's actually appropriate to report talk page abuse for blocked users at ANI; it's supported by the header text of WP:AIV, which tells people to go to ANI to report talk page abuse because bots won't realise that accusations of talk page abuse should be treated differently from other blocked users. Nyttend (talk) 08:24, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Not all that is allowed is wise -- ANI is a horrible place and I always discourage folks -- especially new editors -- to avoid it if possible. NE Ent 14:20, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

And it will remain horrible as long as reasonable people are discouraged from using it, and newer editors are snapped at for using it entirely correctly. Don't be a part of the precipitate. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:01, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Huh. Thought it was a neutrally worded observation, not snapping. Given stuff like this happens to newish editors, my opinion remains it's hazardous for newish editors to be going there. (If every admin was as Zen as you guys, I'd have a different opinion, but you're not there 24/7). Nonetheless, you raise a valid point; I have been off my "A" game recently; I'm taking steps to address that. ;) NE Ent 21:45, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Chili burger AfD

You know how yesterday you hid some of the comments there as ad hominem attacks? Well, there are now more for you to hide. Danjel called Epeefleche a meatpuppet and called me a "delicate little flower", again referencing a completely ungermane AfD. I have frankly had it with Danjel: he refuses to communicate on his talk page, but he forces interaction by continually lambasting me at an AfD of an article. Could you please tell him to step away from the AfD? pbp 07:21, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Long have I have longed for long for to use this word

Huzzah. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 20:56, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Dangerous talkpages

"No editor has ever been physically harmed by posting on a talk page." Ha. Has little user seen this, or the terrible fate of the little Bladestorm? Or ever been brave enough to post on User talk:Darwinbish? bishzilla _ROARR!! 11:24, 13 December 2012 (UTC).

I was brave enough ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:08, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	Thanks for all the helpful commentary on the various noticeboards. Pass a Method talk 16:01, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. NE Ent 21:15, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks

For the thoughtful cleaning up at Sandy hook. I'm trying to play mediator on the talk page after semiprotecting it, and it is good know someone without an agenda is watching over the actual content. This is going to be a long week or three over there, and with emotions running so high, it is going to take some vigilance to keep it neutral and clean. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 20:07, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

ANI close

I'm sorry to say I think your close was a bad idea. It hasn't been 18 hours of mudslinging, it is a conflict that has lasted several months, and I fear it hasn't been resolved by tossing it back to the article talk page. I'll grant you that there has been poor conduct from both sides of the discussion, but not from all editors (barring rare lapses or poorly phrased comments, for which I have twice (if I remember correctly) given immediate apologies for). Here it is implied that after a certain point you will get help to deal with it. I hope you will not claim I have failed the criteria in the first paragraph as I have NEVER made a claim against another editor without providing diffs, or the diffs already being provided in the discusion (excepting asking someone to cease and desist in a direct reply to a comment). Furthermore, I have made reports at the designated forums. Why can't I receive help from experienced editors to deal with this? 85.167.109.64 (talk) 22:29, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Reverted -- gotta go real-life for awhile (sorry). I'll reply in more detail when I can. NE Ent 22:57, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm going to distinguish between Wikipedia-That-Should-Be (WTSB) and Wikipedia-That-Is (WTI) in the following advice/explanation:

1. First of all, you'll want to get a registered account. It's not required per written policy and on WTSB but on WTI you're not going to get much help / attention
2. Editors respect each other and are polite on WTSB. On WTI, there's no consensus on how incivil an editor can be before they'll get significant pushback.
3. On WTI that is, if the initial ANI post(s) on a thread is/aren't well done it's unlikely the thread will come to much. Best not to try to salvage something out of it. NE Ent 03:01, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for explaining. I so rarely come across editors with problems with me being unregistered that I don't consider it an issue. The lack of consensus on civility is a major problem, as Wikipedia claims it is a pillar. The lack of consensus also means that even a well-formed ANI may come down to the luck of the draw, as I have seen administrators indicate that incivility is hardly ever a problem. Hopefully this, where I made some comments after the first ANI disappointment, will get a result, otherwise editing won't be as enjoyable in the future. I hope the current ANI ends with warnings instead of "no action", simply because "no action" twice has had no discernible effect whereas a warning that I would report worked for more than a month. 85.167.109.64 (talk) 10:03, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Your perspective

I would like to understand your perspective behind this edit [21]. Do you really believe that that discussion was moving toward improving the article, as opposed to trolling? I collapsed the discussion for reasons that I think you are very well aware of, having participated in the recent North8000 ANI. Is is really necessary for us to create a magnet for more drama? - MrX 21:19, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Absolutely not -- and, in my experience and observation, it's better to simply ignore something that isn't unambiguously trolling that get into a edit war over a collapse tag. If we collapse we have to argue whether it's truly on topic or not -- ignoring doesn't require anything. NE Ent 01:48, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

I appreciate your perspective, and I agree that ignoring the OT discussions would be best, but that only really works if everyone follows suit. Generally, I don't think it's helpful to re-open a closed discussion unless it was closed maliciously. I guess I feel it comes down to mutual respect and trust. Thanks again. - MrX 02:20, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Sandy Hook Elementary School edit war

Dude, I know you believe you're doing the right thing by warning us, but if you're paying attention, we're way in the process of burying the hatchet. Your warnings really add nothing of positive value to the situation right now, I hope you can see that. --213.196.218.39 (talk) 13:02, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Indigenous peoples

You are being contacted because you participated in this RfC in February about the scope of the article on Indigenous peoples. The discussion has now been revived at Talk:Indigenous_peoples#Scope_of_article.2C_Definitions.2C_etc and your input would be appreciated. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 12:41, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Merry Christmas

AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!

Spread the cheer by adding {{subst:Xmas2}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Thank you and have great holiday. NE Ent 00:24, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

ANI

You appear to be having issues at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents...? GiantSnowman 17:20, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)No, not at ANI, at pretty much everywhere. (Arrgh) I've been browsing on a tablet with a crappy touch screen -- I just logged into a real (borrowed) PC to go to userrights -- but since you're here I'd appreciate it if you'd remove rollback permission from my account ( I don't need it since I use twinkle anyway) thanks. NE Ent 17:29, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Done. Let me know if you ever want it back. GiantSnowman 17:33, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, and sorry for the disruption. NE Ent 17:40, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Not a problem for either! GiantSnowman 17:47, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

• This is why I stopped editing on my phone - on my watchlist, "diff" and "hist" were far too close to the "rollback" on the entry above, as you'll see from my contribs :) Black Kite (talk) 17:23, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

• From his recent history, Ent seems to be having problems with a tablet. Maybe he should swallow it instead of using it.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:26, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

• Yep, I've had the same problems when I first got the ol' myPad so now I don't bother! GiantSnowman 17:28, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

• I just picked up the new 10.1" Samsung and love it, but not brave enough to try to do adminy things with it. I would hate to accidentally block Jimbo. It is really good for Netflix though. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 17:39, 28 December 2012 (UTC)