Jump to content

User talk:Dennis Brown/Archive 45

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< User talk:Dennis Brown

This is the current revision of this page, as edited by Jonesey95 (talk | contribs) at 15:01, 17 October 2023 (Fix Linter errors. More needed. Leaving obsolete tags for bots.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this version.

(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Archive 40←Archive 43Archive 44Archive 45Archive 46Archive 47Archive 48

Administrators' newsletter – July 2021

News and updates for administrators from the past month (July 2021).

Guideline and policy news

  • An RfC is open to add a delay of one week from nomination to deletion for G13 speedy deletions.

Technical news

  • Last week all wikis were very slow or not accessible for 30 minutes. This was due to server lag caused by regenerating dynamic lists on the Russian Wikinews after a large bulk import. (T287380)

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:18, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

Happy First Edit Day!

Happy First Edit Day!

Have a very happy first edit anniversary!

From the Birthday Committee, CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 21:03, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – September 2021

News and updates for administrators from the past month (August 2021).

Administrator changes

readded Jake Wartenberg
removed Emperor • Viridian Bovary
renamed Ashleyyoursmile → Viridian Bovary

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

  • The Score extension has been re-enabled on public wikis. It has been updated, but has been placed in safe mode to address unresolved security issues. Further information on the security issues can be found on the mediawiki page.

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:44, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – October 2021

News and updates for administrators from the past month (September 2021).

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

Arbitration

  • A motion has standardised the 500/30 (extended confirmed) restrictions placed by the Arbitration Committee. The standardised restriction is now listed in the Arbitration Committee's procedures.
  • Following the closure of the Iranian politics case, standard discretionary sanctions are authorized for all edits about, and all pages related to, post-1978 Iranian politics, broadly construed.
  • The Arbitration Committee encourages uninvolved administrators to use the discretionary sanctions procedure in topic areas where it is authorised to facilitate consensus in RfCs. This includes, but is not limited to, enforcing sectioned comments, word/diff limits and moratoriums on a particular topic from being brought in an RfC for up to a year.

Miscellaneous

  • Editors have approved expanding the trial of Growth Features from 2% of new accounts to 25%, and the share of newcomers getting mentorship from 2% to 5%. Experienced editors are invited to add themselves to the mentor list.
  • The community consultation phase of the 2021 CheckUser and Oversight appointments process is open for editors to provide comments and ask questions to candidates.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:03, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Restored comment

Dennis, I'm having trouble reconciling your concern, which I share, that the proposals page is too large (there are too many proposals), with your insistence that your comment, and not any of the other 100k+ worth of comments on the talk, should be on the proposals page. Having focused discussion on that main page and not allowing any further sprawl is, I think, a crucial part of a strategy to making an overwhelming process as manageable as possible. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 00:05, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

  • And at least one more proposal has been added since I made the comment, although it was deleted at the time. I don't think the one line is likely to cause more proposals. If anything, I would hope to discourage random proposals thought up at the last minute. My only reason for participating was the fear some of these idea could actually get traction. Most seem unresearched at all. So in my opinion, the comment had value, and was in the proper place. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 00:12, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
    Except what is to stop other people from posting their comments which they see as having value there? I have been consistently moving comments to the talk page - where there has been further discussion on many of them so it's not like they're going there to die. The text you posted under in fact says Related discussion, discussion about the process, or general discussion about RfA should happen on the talk page. Finally there can be no last minute proposals - this discussion is set to run 30 days and by design there will be no proposals after the first 7 days. So on Sunday the number of proposals will be locked, at whatever it is after some are SNOW opposed closed, and for 23 days editors can make their way, at whatever pace suits them, through everything. I agree your comment has value but that doesn't mean its proper place is where you put it. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 00:19, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

So much worry, and coordination of efforts, and long discussion over one short sentence of text. Seems rather petty. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 09:38, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

I had nothing to do with Levivich choosing to move it and didn't know he was planning on it until I saw it happen. When you choose to undo it - indicating you clearly cared about the petty matter too - I came here. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:22, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – November 2021

News and updates for administrators from the past month (October 2021).

Guideline and policy news

  • Phase 2 of the 2021 RfA review has commenced which will discuss potential solutions to address the 8 issues found in Phase 1. Proposed solutions that achieve consensus will be implemented and you may propose solutions till 07 November 2021.

Technical news

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:43, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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

If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:05, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Barnstar of Diligence
For your arduous and meticulous tasks you undergo to rid this community of editors engaging in less than ethical practices we are very grateful Dennis, keep up the good work. Celestina007 (talk) 19:36, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

Very kind of you. I put a copy in my Ronco Barstar Vault for safe keeping. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 12:04, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

More disruption at Winsome Sears

Hi Dennis, Thanks for blocking DavidMWalter from editing that page. You might take a look at the talk page there. The same editor is refusing to get the point of consensus on the talk page and insist on lengthy material about right and left wing politics be included to the point that they opened an RFC. Toddst1 (talk) 00:47, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

  • It is difficult to take action just because someone starts an RFC. There's always a chance the consensus will be as expected and they will get the point Not likely, but a chance. Right now, I need to just observe. I did block him from editing the article for edit warring, so he's already got a short rope. But an RFC isn't enough to cut that rope. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 01:15, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for your response Dennis. Good points. Toddst1 (talk) 01:41, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

You've got mail!

Hello, Dennis Brown. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Kurtis (talk) 02:46, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

Io, Saturnalia!

Io, Saturnalia!
Wishing you and yours a Happy Holiday Season, from the horse and bishop person. May the year ahead be productive and distraction-free. Ealdgyth (talk) 14:49, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

Administrators will no longer be autopatrolled

A recently closed Request for Comment (RFC) reached consensus to remove Autopatrolled from the administrator user group. You may, similarly as with Edit Filter Manager, choose to self-assign this permission to yourself. This will be implemented the week of December 13th, but if you wish to self-assign you may do so now. To find out when the change has gone live or if you have any questions please visit the Administrator's Noticeboard. 20:05, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Your comments on AE

It may well take 30 days to reach consensus on the talk page, but still nobody is explaining to me the rules about defamatory material when it is found on pages other than BLP's. I honestly see the text I removed as defamatory in the context it was written and the way it was cherry picked. If I am right, should it be left on the page or what should be done about it please? Amirah talk 00:06, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

  • BLP applies to all pages equally. Whether something violates BLP (is defamatory) is itself a consensus issue. Admin don't really decide what is and isn't defamatory, we use experience and judgement to "guess" what the consensus is or would be on the issue. If it is a borderline issue, you don't revert, which is the problem here. Btw, as a general rule, I really prefer to continue discussion in the same venue it began, to preserve continuity. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 01:29, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
    Thank you for the explanation. Amirah talk 10:17, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – December 2021

News and updates for administrators from the past month (November 2021).

Administrator changes

removed A Train • Berean Hunter • Epbr123 • GermanJoe • Sanchom • Mysid

Technical news

  • Unregistered editors using the mobile website are now able to receive notices to indicate they have talk page messages. The notice looks similar to what is already present on desktop, and will be displayed on when viewing any page except mainspace and when editing any page. (T284642)
  • The limit on the number of emails a user can send per day has been made global instead of per-wiki to help prevent abuse. (T293866)

Arbitration


Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:24, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Race and Intelligence extended confirmed protection

FYI, the 6 month extended confirmed protection you applied to Talk:Race_and_intelligence ended a couple weeks ago, and the sockpuppet accounts are now back. - MrOllie (talk) 12:22, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

  • I've blocked the one obvious sock. I really can't lock it down over one sock just yet, particularly with EC protection, which is a bit controversial on a talk page. Keep me posted if it continues. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 15:05, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
    • Just to keep you up to date on the situation, we're now getting IP-hoppers saying things like this: [1]. Imagine what it feels like for a Black or Latinx editor to stumble upon that kind of remark. Generalrelative (talk) 16:19, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
      • "Imagine what it feels like" sounds awfully like emotional blackmail to push a preferred outcome, or even a charge of tolerating racism if the request is denied.
All recent reverts on the page were of unregistered IP accounts. Exactly what problem requires going straight to ECP rather than semi protection, blocking the IPs, waiting to see how frequent the behavior may be, or raising this question on the talk page? It's not like it has to be ECP RIGHT NOW or [else] kittens will cry. (I guess it's logically possible you only meant semi protection as on the article, but my understanding from numerous history and context indicators is that the desire is in fact for ECP.) Sesquivalent (talk) 07:04, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
@Sesquivalent: 1) Dennis asked to be kept posted about this. 2) Several editors have brought this up on the talk page since MrOllie's original request [2], [3], [4]. 3) Allowing an environment openly hostile to minority editors to fester is contrary to the mission of Wikipedia. I suggest that you strike your "kittens will cry" comment as fantastically inappropriate. Did you read the diff I provided? 4) Correct me if I'm wrong, but it is my understanding that blocking is not an effective strategy against the kind of IP-hoppers we've been dealing with. 5) I'd be more than happy to start with semi-protection. Generalrelative (talk) 07:53, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
The first sentence with the diff kept him posted (very good!), and the sentence that followed about Black and Latinx editors read exactly like the pressure tactics described. Crying kittens is synonymous with that type of pressure, and I am not sure what brute insensitivity is supposed to follow from so expressing the standard objection, but I struck it.
The edit you linked was reverted within minutes. R&I Talk has over 900 page watchers. At the current rate of IP trolling the chance of an editor seeing this type of content without hunting for it in the edit history is a fraction of one percent. As everyone understands there are genuine tradeoffs between openness and potential for offensiveness and presuming a specific level of sensitivity on behalf of minorities (not that anyone has polled them systematically on this AFAIK) can be easily abused as a pretext for restrictions desired for other reasons.
On the talk page, my feeling is that semi protection will likely be popular, ECP will not be unpopular, and that talk page ECP failed the cost/benefit analysis when tried recently. Protection of minorities will also play well there but not as a discussion ending trump card. Sesquivalent (talk) 09:34, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
  • Sesquivalent, you obviously don't know me, or most admin. No one is going to push us to use the bits. Hell, you could have read the other comments on this page and figured that out. My talk page isn't really a debate forum, btw, and whether I or another admin change protection to EC is yet to be determined. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 22:35, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
  • Understood. I take two points to be very well recognized on this site: that experienced admins are more than capable of noticing and being unswayed by user lobbying; but also that some forms of lobbying are still inherently undesirable even if everyone knows that every admin will resist them every time. I don't think more discussion on this subject (here) was imminent, and my previous comment was written so as to not require a reply, but in any case, sorry to have bloated your talk page. Sesquivalent (talk) 01:43, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for semi protecting the main race and intelligence page, but the trolling IP range has moved to Talk:Race_and_crime_in_the_United_States and Talk:History of the race and intelligence controversy, so I think additional attention is needed. - MrOllie (talk) 22:21, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

In case you haven't been following this closely, the trolling IP range in question (2800:484:877c...) has the same location as the IP whose overtly racist comment I linked to above (191.106.144.142). Generalrelative (talk) 23:38, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

New message from Pahunkat

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Don't bludgeon the process. I think it's only fair for me to let you know that the AfD in the above section is being discussed at this talk page. Pahunkat (talk) 12:32, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.Chumpih t 18:21, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Nomination of Jihyun Park for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Jihyun Park is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jihyun Park until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

Chumpih t 14:04, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – January 2022

News and updates for administrators from the past month (December 2021).

Guideline and policy news

  • Following consensus at the 2021 RfA review, the autopatrolled user right has been removed from the administrators user group; admins can grant themselves the autopatrolled permission if they wish to remain autopatrolled.

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

  • The functionaries email list (functionaries-en@lists.wikimedia.org) will no longer accept incoming emails apart from those sent by list members and WMF staff. Private concerns, apart from those requiring oversight, should be directly sent to the Arbitration Committee.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:24, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

How we will see unregistered users

Hi!

You get this message because you are an admin on a Wikimedia wiki.

When someone edits a Wikimedia wiki without being logged in today, we show their IP address. As you may already know, we will not be able to do this in the future. This is a decision by the Wikimedia Foundation Legal department, because norms and regulations for privacy online have changed.

Instead of the IP we will show a masked identity. You as an admin will still be able to access the IP. There will also be a new user right for those who need to see the full IPs of unregistered users to fight vandalism, harassment and spam without being admins. Patrollers will also see part of the IP even without this user right. We are also working on better tools to help.

If you have not seen it before, you can read more on Meta. If you want to make sure you don’t miss technical changes on the Wikimedia wikis, you can subscribe to the weekly technical newsletter.

We have two suggested ways this identity could work. We would appreciate your feedback on which way you think would work best for you and your wiki, now and in the future. You can let us know on the talk page. You can write in your language. The suggestions were posted in October and we will decide after 17 January.

Thank you. /Johan (WMF)

18:12, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Ulas Hayes

Happy New Year, Dennis. I was doing some AWB gnoming and happened to notice the history of the Ulas Hayes article. Since you are the only one of these folks still with us, I was wondering if you could take a look and warn, block, or otherwise engage with the similarly named new editor. 28bytes (talk) 04:17, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Collaborative discussion

Dennis, after years of interactions, I thought it would be evident that I want discussions to be effective and efficient. English Wikipedia culture provides few tools to keep discussion on track: there has to be a core of participants who do it willingly. I understand your comment regarding nonsense, and I'm sorry that my approach is that way. Unfortunately, my natural instinct is to look for common ground. I know that may not be helpful in various cases, but a lot of the times, other options are just not appealing to me. isaacl (talk) 21:49, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

  • I don't doubt your motives, but I think the methods of you and others is not conducive to getting a solution. Everyone is too busy with detail of a system they have zero experience with, with the mistaken idea that if they just talk about it long enough, they will figure out the perfect system. I would argue that is the wrong way to do it, and the last few weeks haven't done anything to prove me wrong. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 22:33, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
    I've never asked to find a perfect solution, and I don't want to keep talking about it in theory. That's why it was launched in December: to let it go and adjust as needed. I didn't support removing publicity for it, but most of those participating in that conversation did. isaacl (talk) 22:49, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
    You replied to me first. My initial comment wasn't directed at you specifically. My frustration is the process. Literally an assembled committee that gets nothing done. My real world is the world of business, where you make the call, you change on the fly, and you get things done. Likely, that comes through in the way that I do everything here: boldly but usually not stupidly. I don't do things the way an academic would, that is certain. Watching people talk in circles just makes me want to bang my head on the wall. It's pointless. The whole purpose of the comment was to hopefully shake a few people and get them to realize they need to just compromise NOW, get it started with a formal format of some kind, and measure the results. Anyway, don't want to drone on, it wasn't personal, it is about the entire process. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 23:01, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
    I feel exactly the same way about undirected discussion. Regarding changing things on the fly, many times I've said the same on Wikipedia initiatives: let's try something, evaluate, adjust, and try again. If the January commenters had started with let's adjust this one thing first, then the process could have been tweaked on that one thing, and then the next thing could be tweaked. But that's not what happened, with views expressed to hold one or more new RfCs, so I get why most of those who worked on it in December moved on. isaacl (talk) 23:18, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

Uncertain

Hey, Dennis. Could I get you to look at Template talk:Crimean Tatar Surgun era and Talk:De-Tatarization of Crimea? There's an editor there, PlanespotterA320, that appears to me to be engaging in fairly blatant page ownership with at least a couple of other users, refusing to discuss with them because they're not experts/experienced Crimean contributors "anyone who isn't a Crimea subject-matter person should stay out of this and not start this drama in the first place". And I think that this is an article to which Eastern Europe discretionary sanctions ought to apply and make that kind of stonewalling/page-owning behavior particularly questionable. At least, I'd think, some standard notices ought to be given but I've lost track of who can give those notices and where they can go. Maybe I'm just mistaken about all of this, but I'd appreciate it if you'd take a look. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 22:55, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

  • TransporterMan, I'm keeping an eye out after the warning I gave. When are you finally going to run RFA and get your own handy dandy tool kit? My offer to nominate you at RFA still stands. I'm convinced you would pass easily, given your experience and demeanor. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 22:52, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Thanks, I appreciate it, but if anything I'm headed the other direction into Wiki-semi-retirement. The administration turned over at the museum where I was the Wikipedian in Residence and the new one's not much interested in Wikipedia, plus I retired from my profession in the RW a few years back and now I mostly just piddle with Wikipedia and a couple of other sites. I am humbled by your confidence in me, but I'm at best still not ready and at worst probably headed in the wrong direction. Many thanks, TransporterMan (TALK) 21:59, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Notification of VP discussion and indirect mention

A discussion you may be interested in has been opened regarding whether athletes meeting a sport-specific guideline must demonstrate GNG at AfD. You are also indirectly mentioned in this comment. JoelleJay (talk) 22:26, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks

For the closure here, I was slower to followup than I meant to be. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:39, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions topic area changes

In a process that began last year with WP:DS2021, the Arbitration Committee is evaluating Discretionary Sanctions (DS) in order to improve it. A larger package of reforms is slated for sometime this year. From the work done so far, it became clear a number of areas may no longer need DS or that some DS areas may be overly broad.

The topics proposed for revocation are:

  • Senkaku islands
  • Waldorf education
  • Ancient Egyptian race controversy
  • Scientology
  • Landmark worldwide

The topics proposed for a rewording of what is covered under DS are:

  • India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan
  • Armenia/Azerbaijan

Additionally any Article probation topics not already revoked are proposed for revocation.

Community feedback is invited and welcome at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Motions. --Barkeep49 (talk) 16:59, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Critchion

Just in case you think more should be done, unless I'm mistaken it seems that they were also Special:Contributions/78.147.242.155 and Special:Contributions/2A00:23C7:C09E:ED00::/64, both unblocked and with the latter still having some extent live edits at Joseph Klausner ([5]). Thanks, —PaleoNeonate – 12:49, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – February 2022

News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2022).

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

  • The user group oversight will be renamed suppress in around 3 weeks. This will not affect the name shown to users and is simply a change in the technical name of the user group. The change is being made for technical reasons. You can comment in Phabricator if you have objections.
  • The Reply Tool feature, which is a part of Discussion Tools, will be opt-out for everyone logged in or logged out starting 7 February 2022. Editors wishing to comment on this can do so in the relevant Village Pump discussion.

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:01, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Long term barely active admins

Hi Dennis, re a comment you made elsewhere, I would have thought we could get consensus for an additional admin retirement rule "Any admin with fewer than 600 edits or logged actions in the last six years to be desysopped for low activity". Perhaps more diplomatically phrased. ϢereSpielChequers 17:39, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

  • The problem is, Arb isn't the place to make the argument. They can't make policy. An RFC would be needed. 600 might be a bit high, however, to gain acceptance. Not a matter of "best" or "correct", it's a matter of "what will get a consensus", and I think 300 is more likely to gain acceptance. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 18:49, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
    • Agreed it would need an RFC, and there are then two variables, how long a gap does it take to become unfamilar with community norms and how little activity you need to stay in touch. I'm thinking in terms of 100 edits a year and six years, but I'd be the first to concede that not all edits are equal, and someone who has lurked, read the signpost, and who every month closes an AFC and deletes or declines a speedy delation tag is likely more in touch with community norms than someone who does reach the 100 edits a year criteria, but only through the sort of minor typo fixes that I do. So it would be a crude measure, but not an unreasonable one. ϢereSpielChequers 13:32, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
      • I think that might need to be part of the RFC to gain acceptance. You always have people who don't want any change. But it boils down to: Is it $x edits over the whole 6 year span, or $y edits per year? and of course, then; How many edits? You might have to leave the "how many edits" to the people participating in the RFC to decide. I think you would get more positive results if they can say "yes, but only 100" or "yes but at least 1000", whereas some would say no simply because they didn't like the number. Editors can be funny that way. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 15:34, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
        • Yes it will be difficult to agree the definition of another arbitrarily set threshold, but I'm pretty sure that most people would prefer such an easily measured test over in depth discussions and analysis of individual admins to see if they are still active and up to speed. Those who support periodic reconfirmation and similar measures are likely to accept that this proposal would retire some longterm inactive admins. As for per year or per six years, I'm going with the latter. I would not argue that someone who takes a year off has lost touch with community norms, and we already have a process for the completely inactive. But after several years of rarely using some tools, yes you get rusty. Six years? I'm open to others who know more about people forgetting skills at particular speeds. ϢereSpielChequers 16:03, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

New message from Shrike

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment. I have mentioned you in ARCA request Shrike (talk) 19:12, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

Why

[6] This is an open case. who closed it? --Venkat TL (talk) 13:36, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

  • Seraphimblade closed it. [7]. See how it is in the brown box, "hidden archive", that is closed. Once closed by an admin, it is done. You can read the closing, which is recommended for all closings. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 13:38, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
    As far As I can see, I had commented on case header Hemantha. So who among the two needs to get their eyesight checked? Venkat TL (talk) 13:39, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
    I stand corrected, and I did correct it. That doesn't excuse you being incivil about it, however. You need to check your attitude. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 13:42, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
    I will take the apology. It was sarcastic, I have struck it. Have a good day. Venkat TL (talk) 13:55, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
    (edit conflict)I haven't looked at one word in that report, so I'm not sure why are you holding me account to someone else's words. I don't follow every report.(to the part you deleted, I had already written it) Btw, you could have just said "I think you messed up. My comment wasn't in my case, it was in a different one." and I would have instantly known what to check, and corrected it. We all make mistakes, after all. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 14:02, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
    yes, it took me a while to guess that your word 'incivil' was in reference to my comment above. I removed my previous comment to avoid further confusion. Here at my place, it is common to remark about eyesight, if someone fails to notice despite being asked twice. Both take it in good humour and no one takes an offence. May be due to the culture difference you took it that way. I have struck my phrase. I did not mean it in any disrespectful way. Venkat TL (talk) 14:11, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
    Not a problem, I get on edge sometimes too, no harm done. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 14:45, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

Vme Kids

You're right, Dennis, got a little bit hot there and I apologize for that and the 3RR hit. I'm taking a few days off major editing for a cool-off because I'm about to hit a wall and find something to calm my nerves. Thanks for the well-deserved check on my editing. Nate • (chatter) 03:05, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

i just want to add my shows that I added. there's a chance that Super Wings,Peppa Pig or other show debuts on VME Kids. Cartergishere (talk) 16:36, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Clarification Request: Magomed_Tushayev deleted and protected?

Why was this page deleted and protected? The guy will burn in hell for his war crimes, but shouldn't he be documented as a murderer linked to Russia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stathisdjs (talk • contribs)

  • Documenting war crimes is not the purpose of Wikipedia. It was deleted because a group of people unanimously wanted it deleted via Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Magomed Tushayev. The protection I put on it was very mild, any experienced editor can recreate it if it meets policy in the future, but only after getting permission at WP:REFUND. Only inexperienced editors may not, due to the fact that it was clearly deleted at AFD. The reading of the AFD consensus, deletion and protection are all within the realm of administrative tasks. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 19:58, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
Thank you. Stathisdjs (talk) 00:38, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

The good you do for the project has not gone unnoticed

"Sunflower Award"

Your work as an admin is not being graded,
But it certainly is much appreciated,
To know that you see with vision that's clear,
A shining light of integrity we tend to hold dear.

Thank you for all you do, Dennis!

Atsme 💬 📧 22:57, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

Thank you. I'm one of those that really appreciates a barstar/award, and the kindness and thoughtfulness that goes into the giving. I've stored a copy of your gift in my Ronco Barnstar Vault for safe keeping. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 23:17, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

WP:AFC Helper News

Hello! I wanted to drop a quick note for all of our AFC participants; nothing huge and fancy like a newsletter, but a few points of interest.

  • AFCH will now show live previews of the comment to be left on a decline.
  • The template {{db-afc-move}} has been created - this template is similar to {{db-move}} when there is a redirect in the way of an acceptance, but specifically tells the patrolling admin to let you (the draft reviewer) take care of the actual move.

Short and sweet, but there's always more to discuss at WT:AFC. Stop on by, maybe review a draft on the way? Whether you're one of our top reviewers, or haven't reviewed in a while, I want to thank you for helping out in the past and in the future. Cheers, Primefac, via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:59, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Huh?

Re this, I don't think you've read your fellow admins' comment correctly. As I read it, their concern was with the material I brought to light, not my editing. Alexbrn (talk) 18:35, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Geschichte arbitration case opened

You were recently listed as a party to a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and a case has been opened and suspended at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Geschichte. The case will remain suspended for up to three months; you may view the motion creating the case and setting the terms of the suspension here For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, GeneralNotability (talk) 00:47, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

In need of an admin

Hello. I have openend an ANI a few days ago. So far, no admin has commented. I would need an admin to consider my complaint. Could you take a look? Thanks. Veverve (talk) 15:31, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

  • I'll be honest, I'm trying to do very little today. Home sick, thankfully covid test was negative, but I'm feeling quite puny. That is a lot of text to go through and absorb and I'm just too fuzzy headed to take it on today. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 22:20, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Nobita here

Ok as advised by you I will now restrict my self from caste related article edits. But please can I atleast give my view or opinion at the talk page of them? it might be necessary because some users are still trying to put their Raciest POVs in those articles, at mean time I will also try to contribute in non caste-related articles,Thanks. Nobita456 (talk) 08:18, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I'll let Dennis answer that, but in my opinion absolutely not, Nobita456. Your aggressive debating technique has wasted a lot of other people's time on talkpages. And who exactly are you accusing of racist POV? That's an egregious personal attack if I ever saw one. Bishonen | tålk 08:44, 28 February 2022 (UTC).
Hey Bishonen see the talk page of Bengali Kayastha. Trangabellam and other senior editors advised Ekdalian to not include that Aryan race theory which is nothing but Racism. But still Ekdalian edit warring with other editors and forcing to include it. Further he said he still wants to include Vedic Indo-European Aryan thing in it. is it not Racism? Bishonen it was hard for me to resist my aggressive nature against Ekdalian, but if you see my recent conversations I was extremely polite with other editors. The editors even thanked me many times for my edits. Undoubtedly I will maintain that,Thanks.
(talk page watcher)I took issue with Ekdalian's addition but it is absolutely offensive to claim that they are racist! TrangaBellam (talk) 10:27, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
Even after your and others suggestion and objection he still wanted to add that aryan race theory in that article. I branded Ekdalian raciest not only for this.There are many reasons also please see how Ekdalian judged a scholer by his caste . I saw many editors getting blocked for this offence.Nobita456 (talk) 10:36, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
Thanks, TrangaBellam. We may agree or disagree on some content! That is obvious in a collective editing platform; but branding me as a racist is complete nonsense. Thanks Bishonen for keeping a watch on these developments! Ekdalian (talk) 10:58, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
Ekdalian stop acting innocent. your comment regarding Tamal Dasgupta is just unacceptable. you are judging a scholer by his caste and surname. Nobita456 (talk) 11:07, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
Nobita, the above edits by you seems to violate the broader topic ban imposed! Would request Dennis Brown and Bishonen to take a note of possible topic ban violation! Thanks & Regards. Ekdalian (talk) 11:37, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Now I am just stunned by the edits of Ekdalian. Despite all this, he is still adding Aryan theories now on Nagar Brahmin page. As I promised I will not make any edits in caste articles from now, but I can atleast point out the edits of Ekdalian. TrangaBellam WikiLinuz Chanchaldm Satnam2408 and Admins please look into this. Nobita456 (talk) 11:40, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
    • Another example of possible topic ban violation by Nobita! I guess admins may not be able to stop warriors like Nobita through a topic ban; they are simply ignoring the same and actively involved in discussions like those above! Thanks! Ekdalian (talk) 11:48, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
      • Ekdalian, appealing their ban on this page is an exception to the topic ban. If they go on to appeal at WP:AE, WP:AN or WP:ARCA, it'll also be an exception. It's true that they're stretching it rather by their last posts here,[8][9] but it's hard for them to know exactly where the line is drawn and I feel they shouldn't have to live in fear of what they may and may not say when appealing the ban in these four places. However... I see they have been arguing about Baidya-Kayastha at the SPI, of all places.[10] Now that is simply violating their topic ban. I have blocked for a week. And maybe there will be more, as I'm very concerned about their gratuitous violations of WP:NPA above. I will advise with some other admins first, but I'm likely to sanction it. And now I suggest everybody please wait for Dennis, whose page this is. Bishonen | tålk 13:24, 28 February 2022 (UTC).
    • Nobita has asked me to post the following: "I unreservedly apologize to Ekdalian for suggesting he was being racist, and I will not make such accusations again. Nobita456 (talk) 6:09 pm, Yesterday (UTC+0)" Doug Weller talk 13:26, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Clarification request: Palestine-Israel articles closed and archived

The clarification request Clarification request: Palestine-Israel articles (February 2022) has been closed and archived. For the Arbitration Committee, Dreamy Jazz talk to me | my contributions 13:44, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Quick thanks

Hi, I just wanted to say thank you for what I see as your fair, reasoned and even-handed approach to reviewing cases at AE. I'm sure you don't get a whole lot of gratitude or appreciation for the otherwise thankless task of dealing with these sort of flashpoints on Wikipedia, but your approach is certainly appreciated here. Iskandar323 (talk) 08:40, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – March 2022

News and updates for administrators from the past month (February 2022).

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:46, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Editing

Listen here. I'll stop making false shows. I just wanted to make it as Clan TVE RTVE type thing, If you don't know what Clan TVE RTVE is it's a channel where it airs some Nickelodeon shows like, SpongeBob,Henry Danger,Loud House,etc. SO I Will Stop Making VME kids copying Clan TVE. Cartergishere (talk) 00:03, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

  • I'm sorry Cartergishere, I don't think you understand how this works. If you keep editing disruptively, I will block you. I hope this clears things up. If you want to make those kinds of changes, I suggest you use the talk page and discuss it with other editors first, the same as we expect from any editor. If you can't cooperate and collaborate, then you don't belong here. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 00:06, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

Martin Süskind

Huh, what happened there? Hi Dennis Brown, which block specifically was evaded by the creation of that article? ~ ToBeFree (talk) 13:14, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

  • They are a sock of User:Friedjof, who is blocked. They were more or less the only contributor to that article. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 13:26, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
    ...I'm asking again, though... which block? When was it set, when was the article created? ~ ToBeFree (talk) 13:29, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
    No, but they were socking when the article was created. That we hadn't caught them yet seems irrelevant to the fact that we want to discourage socking. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 13:32, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
    That's not what the speedy deletion criterion says. I'll probably restore the article unless a proper justification is provided.
    I should add that I'm fine with the block and understand any confusion that led to the deletion – the thing is just that I had been notified about the dewiki-blocked user a while ago and had my eyes on them, making every attempt at policy education and fair treatment I could offer. And keeping this article until deleted by AfD or draftified by a patroller is among that. :) ~ ToBeFree (talk) 13:34, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
    Oh, and, sorry, I should have pointed that out. I had to compare the timestamps again to check if this is really the case, and yes, "we" had even been aware of their socking, relatively officially, at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Friedjof/Archive, before the article was created. It really isn't a case of having caught a blocked user months after their block, it's a case of a community ban that was created afterwards. I understand that the ban was specifically also for the creation of bad-quality articles, and I don't object to whatever kinds of actual deletion reasons exist. Copyvio perhaps, although I haven't detected it yet. Lack of notability, surely possible. Just not G5. I hope I'm not coming across as a sock supporter. 😐 ~ ToBeFree (talk) 13:44, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
    I don't agree with unilaterally undeleting it. I think the spirit of policy is more important than the letter. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 13:47, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
    Speedy deletion criteria may be the one single policy where I disagree with manual over-interpretation and prefer strict adherence to the letter. That's because AfD exists as the normal path for deletion and CSD are for uncontroversial cases. We have a (little) controversy here that should default to discussion or keeping. Sigh. I'll think about this for at least 24 hours. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 13:50, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
    Okay, unilateral deletion is indeed not the path to take, at least not for me – for two reasons. On the one hand, I have (slightly) edited the article while patrolling it, and while a quick search for references is part of the NPP workflow, avoidable impressions of involvement should probably avoided. And on the other hand, it would not really change the situation: We'd still be in disagreement whether the deletion was acceptable or not, and you might just continue deleting pages with the same (incorrect) justification. So a better venue from hopefully both our perspectives would be WP:DRV, and I'll create a discussion there at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2022 March 7 in the next minutes. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 14:34, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Just saw this. This seems rather misguided, as if you are trying to "school" me in deletions. There is room for disagreement, but your comment "you might just continue deleting pages with the same (incorrect) justification." is arrogant and presumptive. As for taking it to DRV, that was fine obviously, I'm always open to having my actions reviewed and getting input from the community, but as you can see, this isn't such a cut and dried case as you make it out to be. Even the people that disagree with my CSD can at least understand it, even if they prefer another method, and do so respectfully. There are precise reasons why I did what I did, and if the community decides it was the wrong solution, I can live with that, and learn from that. You speak to at me as if you know me, but you do not. So please get off your high horse. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 22:13, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Dennis Brown, on the one hand I saw an admin knowingly ignoring all of the policy instructions now cited at DRV, something extremely rare for CSDs to my understanding. At least this rarity seems to be agreed on by some of the DRV comments. And on the other hand, there are 53 other page creations by the same user that seemed to be endangered by speedy deletion as well. That was where the unfriendly sentence part came from. I'm not sure if the "high horse" impression is because of this coming from another admin; it might have made a less arrogant impression if it had come from someone who can only ask for undeletion and protest (from below, metaphorically) against perceived tool misuse. If that's the case, please take it from this perspective, as I certainly am not in a position of undoing the deletion and have edited the article before deletion.
I have misinterpreted it as a clear case and was genuinely unaware of the community's rather accepting position about this. On 6 March, I'd have betted on the deletion being completely against all consensus, and I was frustrated about your position. So it's me who's learning something in this DRV, while I incorrectly thought it would be the other way around. I'm sorry. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 11:54, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
Apology accepted. Cases like this are always edge cases, which are not a stranger to me. I tend to be a little bolder than most, but I'm not reckless. I'm more concerned with the ideas behind the policy, the goals, than the actual words. This kind of deletion is very rare, I've probably done a handful in 10 years. I don't remember any getting reversed, but there could have been one. This article needs to be recreated, and the person who created it needs to have ALL their articles looked at, and maybe deleted and recreated if there is some risk. Not all at once, of course, that would be disruptive.
I pulled up my own stats, I delete just over 2 articles per month, most of those AFD. I don't patrol CSD, and only do them when they fall in my lap. My focus is on protracted behavioral issues, ie: AN/ANI/AE. As for the community acceptance, the reaction is more or less what I expected. Had I thought the community wouldn't support it, I wouldn't have done it. That's the measuring stick, after all. I'm a little bold, sometimes a little mouthy, but I do put the interests of Wikipedia first, as I understand them, and when review tells me that I'm wrong, I tip my hat, adjust my thinking and move on. Doesn't happen often, but it happens. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 12:42, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Deletion review for Martin Süskind

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Martin Süskind. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 14:37, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Understood

Understood, I will no longer report editors for their own opinions expressed at their own user pages, however preposterous these might seem to me.

Opinions expressed at their own user pages are granted immunity.

But my understanding is that this applies to all Wikipedians, therefore I'm granted immunity from WP:POLEMIC at my user page. So, other editors have no ground to complain that I cream fundamentalists at my own user page. tgeorgescu (talk) 01:08, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

  • It's not that polemic comments are free to all on their talk page. Come on man, I've been here forever, and you've been here longer. Look, in this big old world, there are some nice people, some great people, some not so nice people, and some jerks. You and I might disagree on who fits what category, but there's room for everyone as long as they keep their dog off my lawn. I've been insulted so many times for my "religious beliefs" that I can't count them. I just don't care, I consider the source. For example, your opinion of me doesn't change who I am, and my opinion of you doesn't change who you are. Just let people think and believe what they want, as long as they aren't injecting junk in articles, or actually causing disruption. Take a look around at the world right now. Does one talk page post really make a difference? Only if you let it. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 01:19, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
    • I have no objection against calling Hindus "Sun worshipers", since their Scriptures actually recommend worshiping the Sun. My objection was about calling Christians, Muslims, and atheists "Sun worshipers". tgeorgescu (talk) 01:24, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
      • He was talking in the abstract, not literally saying the Abrahamic religions worship Ra. I didn't find it very persuasive or enlightening, but bringing it to ANI only enlarged his audience. And as for Atheists, I don't think they really care. Same for deists and the like. Seriously, I have no idea why this pushed your buttons. I hear worse on a daily basis. I just don't care what most people think, so I'm not affected. A little apathy is good for you. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 01:28, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
      • I've been called a Christian way too many times to count - just because I edit medieval ecclesiastical biographies. Hint - I'm not. I'm not monotheist (Hey, Dennis - I do actually worship Sol Invictus .. but not Ra). It's not a biggie - WTF do I care what someone thinks I am? I'm secure in myself and thus it doesn't MATTER what someone else thinks of me/calls me on some obscure page. Let it go. Life is a lot easier on wikipedia when you don't get ruffled up about what others say/think/believe. Unless it affects article content... let it go. Ealdgyth (talk) 01:30, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

User:Tayi Arajakate

[User:Tayi Arajakate]] has a history of constantly misrepresenting facts.

Here is a recent example. Please help. Dsnb07 (talk)

The_Kashmir_Files#Litigation

The PIL had sought a stay on its release on grounds that it would depict Muslims as killing the Kashmiri Pandits, presenting a one-sided view that would hurt the sentiments of Muslims and could trigger violence against Muslims by inflaming the Hindu community.[16]

This is unrelated to the case filed by the wife of the Airforce staff. The Bombay high court PIL was file was Intezar Hussain Sayed [1][2] Cite error: A <ref> tag is missing the closing </ref> (see the help page).

  • You've raised this issue on the talk page of the article, which was the right move. Really, these types of issues need to be handled on the talk page if at all possible. If it is a recurring problem with one editor, then filing at WP:AE is best. This seems a little complicated to just handle from my talk page. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 23:54, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
Really that's your response? Since you have taken this at face value, can you describe to me what exactly is the "misrepresentation of facts" here? The quoted sentence itself makes it clear that its about the PIL and not the wife's case. This is likely just a sock of 2402:3A80:1A42:A390:3C1F:EF69:AFAD:3541 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) who has been following me around with throwaway accounts and IPs for over a year now (going by the fact that they found you), the least you could do is not encourage it. Tayi Arajakate Talk 05:19, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
RegentsPark, can you take a look at this? Tayi Arajakate Talk 08:52, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
I've dropped a DS notification on Dsnb07's talk page. Hard to say whether they are a sock or not but they did get active after @Blablubbs:'s site block of that IP range. I could EC protect the page if that helps. --RegentsPark (comment) 10:53, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
Yeah, that would probably help. Not much constructive editing coming from autoconfirmed users. Tayi Arajakate Talk 12:11, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
I am not any sock puppet. I am human living in North America. ~~~ Dsnb07 (talk) 03:56, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
Thanks ~~~ Dsnb07 (talk) 03:55, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

User:Dsnb07 is sockpuppet of User:Manasbose. He is using 2402:3A80:1A42:A390:3C1F:EF69:AFAD:3541 (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)Comolion (talk) 15:38, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

Huh? -- Manasbose (talk | edits) 16:09, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
I am not sock puppet. ~~~ Dsnb07 (talk) 03:53, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
The edit filter log for this edit says "Filter description: LTA edit summary or editing pattern hit (Oshwah) ". Not sure what that means though. Doug Weller talk 15:41, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ https://www.outlookindia.com/art-entertainment/bombay-high-court-dismisses-plea-to-stay-the-release-of-the-kashmir-files--news-186047. {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)
  2. ^ https://www.pinkvilla.com/entertainment/news/bombay-high-court-dismisses-pil-against-kashmir-files-reports-1041616. {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)

Disappointing close

But if that's how it's going to be, could you at least close the associated SPI? I had hoped to cut through the clutter and obfuscation by taking Cavalryman's complaints one at a time; now that it's clearly established that Atsme is not telling the truth about her motivations for checking Cavalryman's edits for copyright vios, I had planned to move on to discussing the bad faith SPI next. OK, we're going to kick the can down the road again, so be it. You're obviously uninvolved, and I think I've seen you active at SPI before, so could you take a look and, if you think it's appropriate, put that one out of its misery too? --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:57, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

Cartergishere

Cartergishere (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I saw your AN post and while looking at the edits I thought this behavior looked a bit like WP:LTA/NS. I thought I'd mention it at the very least. EvergreenFir (talk) 20:06, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

Deletion - Snow

Hello Dennis, could you help us in the deletion of this article. The consensus was reached, already snowing here.Mr.User200 (talk) 22:34, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

Re: Talk:Film censorship in China

Your close at AE

What about the 1RR violation makes it a minor infraction (per your close)? The reason I'm asking is the AP2 space is prone to gamesmanship about sanctions and I'm curious why reverts close to a reset are treated any different than reverts more within a window. I've also seen numerous edit warring complaints succeed even if someone broke 3RR a short time after 24 hours. Why even bother to have a 1RR rule at contentious article pages if it won't be enforced? Let's just get rid of it then. Mr Ernie (talk) 17:38, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

  • 4 minutes. Or just read the admin comments, in particular those from Newyorkbrad. This particular close was a consensus close, not a unilateral one, so three different admin agreed to the severity of the offense and sanction, ie: an informal warning. What also helped was the fact that ValarianB was not combative, and his story about not fully understanding 1RR and how it applied to completely different material, which is utterly believable because it is common. As always, our goal is to find solutions, not mete out justice. We want to just fix the problem, and do so using the least amount of force that will get the job done. All three of us believed minimal force was necessary. Every situation is different. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 20:24, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
    I read the comments, but nobody bothered to explain why it was a minor issue. I'm hoping you can provide some clarification about which violations are minor and which are not because sanctions are frequently gamed in the AP2 space. If you take a bigger look at recent editing at that article, one editor was unvicil and two editors broke 1RR. The two editors who broke 1RR received "warnings" (one received two warnings...) and the uncivil editor who also happened to be a very inexperienced editor was blocked. This is a fundamentally unfair solution. Us regular editors in the topic also try and give the courtesy of informing other regulars they have run afoul of a sanction because they are often confusing, but when I tried to do this ValarianB reverted my comment and had no interest in discussing it. This was a clear-cut violation, and since I can't see in the 1RR policy where it says 23 hours and 56 minutes between reverts is fine but 2 hours or 4 hours or 18 hours is a problem, I was hoping you could help me. I stated that a warning was the only necessary recourse, but I had anticipated something like an actual warning. Mr Ernie (talk) 20:46, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
    I feel I just explained it in full detail above, starting with "4 minutes". I explained the plausible misunderstanding. I can only explain it to you, I can't understand it for you. Either you understand the nuanced differences in the types of 1RR violations, or you don't. I think you do. Theoretically, you could appeal this to WP:AN, but seriously, I would not recommend that. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 20:53, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
    I fully understand it, and so do you, but you're smart enough not to say the real answer. Anyways, thanks for the responses. Mr Ernie (talk) 20:59, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
    I genuinely have no idea what you are referring to. The real answer is exactly what I told you. It was only 4 minutes away from ok to make that revert, AND it was unrelated AND he didn't understand the policy, which doesn't excuse it but makes it understandable. To slam the ban hammer on someone over 4 minutes the same way I would slam the ban hammer on someone with 6 reverts on the same edit, that would be a dick move and it is unreasonable to ask for it. I get it, you want him punished, but we don't do "punish", we solve problems. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 21:03, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
    I don’t want to see anyone punished, but I do wish that sanctions are applied evenly and fairly. Mr Ernie (talk) 23:21, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
    Now that, I understand. We try to do just that. In this case, it seemed to three admin that they weren't flaunting the rules, they really didn't know that 1RR applied to radically different edits. I see that from others, so I can believe it. I didn't know this until well after I became an admin, mainly because I never pushed reverting myself. This didn't prevent a harsher sanction, but it is understandable. Plus, if they would have waited 4 minutes and made the edit, there would have been zero reason to go to WP:AE. That is what makes it a minimal infraction, the combination. Keep in mind, we do not enforce 1RR because "it's the rule", we enforce it to prevent edit warring. What he did was a violation, but the circumstances made it a minor violation. He wasn't going nuts in an edit war. It IS being fairly enforced in that if it were you that did exactly what he did, the end result would have been the same. We don't blindly enforce rules, we have to take the circumstances into account. When the impact is minimal, the outcome is minimal. I didn't check to see if you asked him to self revert, but I'm guessing not. When someone is asked to self revert and they refuse, the likelihood of harsher sanctions goes up. It's all about the circumstances. It ISN'T just about passing a threshold and getting a sanction. And we try to treat everyone the same, according to those circumstances. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 23:56, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
    I did approach them beforehand, as I said at AE, but they reverted me with an edit summary that indicated to me they weren’t willing to talk about it. I didn’t explicitly ask them to self revert, but given the response to my attempt to discuss, what do you think would have happened? Your comment that you didn’t check to see if I asked them to self revert makes me think you didn’t look at the links I provided in the initial report. Mr Ernie (talk) 01:01, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
    Ernie, I did check the diffs, which wouldn't have told me if anyone has asked him to. User talk pages would have told me, but since it was only 4 minutes out of time, it was moot. It wasn't worth checking in this particular case. Had it been 1 hour later, then it might have been investigated. Often, if a simple 1RR case comes to AE and no one asked them to revert, we will do nothing for a sanction, depending on the circumstances, and we will tell the filing party they should ask for a self revert, out of good faith, before filing. You can find one of these not very deep in the archives there. I'm not sure why you are feeling bruised here, but I'm trying to understand that you are. There comes a time when you accept it was just barely a 1RR issue, and move on. Again, we aren't interested in sanctioning just to do it, we only (and I mean ONLY) want to do what we need to make the problem stop now and in the future. For your own sake, just let it go. If he does it again, there is a foundation for stronger sanctions now. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 01:19, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
    Thank you for the responses. Mr Ernie (talk) 12:17, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

at sea

I left the above at Beeblebrox's talk page because I saw the notice he put up. I now see that it was "borrowed" from you : )

I also see that you were involved a bit in Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Request for comment on administrator activity requirements

Wikipedia's always been about multiple things going on at once, but so much lately seems to be about tearing things down rather than building things up (I'll spare you the other things I've been watching/reading over ther last few years).

I don't want to walk away. I believe in the project. Even now.

I'll continue to go right along and of course continue to try to help out as I do.

But I dunno. I'm feeling at such a loss.

And I spose I should say, after looking over your contribs. you deserve more than a mere kudos. I may tilt at windmills and keep trying to be a force for good here, but I've seen you wade into mire that I don't think I would see out the top of.

Anyway, I dunno. I guess I'm just at a loss at everything I'm seeing.

Who knows, hopefully tomorrow will be better (and the next day, and the next day...  : ) - jc37 04:11, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

  • You flatter me. But the real picture is what the WMF is doing. They seem to be asserting themselves as lord over the community. This has been ongoing for some time, starting gently with things the lawyers tell them, about copyright and harassment laws, things we could agree on so T&S could start taking control over behavior (Fram-gate) and the like. I think they are willing to lose half the admin force, to be honest, because they don't really seem to care about content, just money and power. It's almost an analog for a failing country, with the seizing of control and determining "acceptable losses" in order to maintain control. I'm not keen on quitting, more than likely they will have to pry the admin bit from me, but have shown they are more than willing and capable. And on that day, I assume I will find another altruistic hobby. I am loyal to the community, whom I believe in. I have no loyalty to our self-imposed "leaders", isolated in their ivory tower in California. It may be the end of an era, where our trusted compatriots and allies finally kill the original community that made their existence possible. Et tu Brute? Dennis Brown - 2¢ 10:42, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

In all fairness, I do think there are those in/involved with the WMF that do care about the community. That said, we've seen problems arise over the years involving money and/or supposed prestige/power. (Some of which was denied/unprovable.) So much is behind closed doors. And, what I think is the bigger issue, so much is done that is removed (is done in seperate) from the community.

All animals are equal but some are more equal than others.

That warning should be blanketed at the offices at WMF. My concern is that it might not be seen as a warning but as something to aspire to. sigh.

Maybe what I suggested on Beeblebrox's page is the next step. Start an RfC on the WMF. I wonder. Would we discover thought-police, who might swoop in and stop it? - jc37 23:36, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

  • I don't think they are too concerned; they have the money and the keys to the servers, so if they have to squash a few insignificant people like you and I, it's no biggie. After all, editors and admins are dime a dozen. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 20:13, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

Surprised

Hi Dennis. I was quite surprised to see your opposition of my activity proposal. I hope you don't mind me coming here to chat about it as I've always felt we get along, I'm not intending to badger and if you feel I am, please simply remove this comment and accept my apologies.

There's a lot of chatter about "security" and "how much someone uses the tools", but my fundamental concern is that we have so many administrators who are not engaged with the project. Have you had a look at the statistics I've drawn up at User:Worm That Turned/Admin activity? It's sortable, so you can see different rates, over different numbers of years - but we have hundreds of admins who are simply not engaged. Our policies do change and radically over time - for example look at BLPs, the whole "role of admins" didn't exist until after the arbcom case in 2014. If an admin hasn't made even 100 edits since then, how can they be aware of such changes?

But it's more than that, isn't it? You must have felt how things are different to a decade ago, wheel wars are just "not done", rogue admin actions are few and far between - can you imaging an admin simply deleting swathes of articles based on their opinion of policy any more? If individuals aren't engaging with the the community, aren't seeing these sorts of changes in how things are done, then we are at risk of behaviour matching 10 year old behaviour.

The other thing about the proposal is that it's designed to bring people back, not remove simply remove them. Lots of notifications, lots of encouraging people to actually engage, rather than just make a single edit and forget about it. 20 edits in a year is easy, yes, but it involves actually reading 20 pages or talking to 20 people, or, well, something! The idea is that actually getting these editors to make a few edits will bring them back to the fold, they'll start making more and more edits and come back. WormTT(talk) 11:57, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

  • I completely agree with your goals, I just don't think this is more than a band-aid to the problem. As I said there, it is a bit of a passive solution and I think we need an active one, I think we need to be able to let the community decide in these edge cases. I don't have a fixed way about letting them, but simply put, if there is sufficient negativity re: an admin getting his bit back after it was removed for inactivity (the threshold), it could trigger a wider discussion. Not a new RFA but a discussion, something that generate a consensus. I trust the community as a whole to determine who should and shouldn't get the bits back, or to set a goal "if you do x and y and z, then we can see you getting the bit back". Not for cause, not to drag up mistakes or hold a trial, but just to determine if they are sufficiently up to speed to get the bits back. I'm not for the numeric thresholds of edits and admin actions (although they are fine for determining when to auto remove the bits). they can always be gamed, and will, by those who are determined to keep their admin bit while doing no real contributions. Using numeric threshold alone just isn't effective.
  • My opposition isn't about the idea being bad, it's about it being insufficient to get the job done. I don't want to setup a system of re-RFA or voting every admin up or down (which isn't completely without merit but difficult and unfair to admin who handle controversial areas), but for edge cases like this, community input is actually useful, AND I think it increases trust between admin and non-admin. That trust is somewhat better than it used to be, but there is always room for improvement. In the end, it's all about accountability, and if you are on the edge of qualification and want your bits back, it should be worth a larger discussion to address legitimate concerns. The discussion wouldn't be automatic, it would instead be triggered by a Crat (and Crat only) if the discussion during the 24+ hour waiting period is such that the Crat feels there is some controversy in rebitting. We leave the Crats in charge of who gets the bits back (as they understand policy, same as now) and who needs a larger discussion (decided by a Crat), and if a discussion is needed, it can only be closed by a Crat. ie: The Crats are still under control, they just are empowered to start a discussion and get wider input if they choose. Again, I'm not fixed on the details, but you get the general idea of how it could work. Or some other idea that is active. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 13:10, 18 March 2022 (UTC)


Worm That Turned, here is an outline of what I mean, which is only ONE possibility.

OUTLINE
1. Former admin EXAAMPLE requests admin bits back after they were removed for inactivity.
2. 24 wait at WP:BN, some discussion is had, and if no serious issues, bit is restored (all the same as now).
3. If the concerns expressed reach a level that a Crat feels a larger discussion is needed, a Crat starts the larger discussion at WP:AN or other predetermined venue.
4. Input is gathered from the community, and after an appropriate time (determined by the Crats), it is closed ONLY by a Crat (could be the Crat that started the discussion).
5. In the event of a "no consensus", the admin will typically get their bits back, but as always, this is at the discretion of Crats.
6. Crats are not bound by the discussion, although we would expect most of the time, their actions would mirror the community discussion.

This is just one idea off the top of my head, but as you can see, it isn't a radical change from current policy, as introduced with the 24 hour wait. It gives the community a say, without forcing Crats to do anything. Perhaps there are better answers, but this is an active plan, not passive, and it is triggered first by the concerns of the community, yet the Crats still have control of the whole process. THIS would solve the problem. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 13:25, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Regarding "edge cases" - the proposal is suggesting the potential removal of between 20 and 40% of the current admin group, depending on which version you're considering. That's hardly an edge case - we're looking at a significant portion here. Now, being an admin is more than button pushing, I think we've agreed on that in the past, but one thing that is unequivocal is that it's a "respected member of the community", and if you're going to hold that, then you should be engaged with the current community.
I accept that "resysopping" might need a bit of massage based on this. I think what we have is nominally fit for purpose, based on the "crat reasonably convinced of return to activity" clause, but it is a different question that I'm currently dealing with is what about the admins that are just "hanging about". Now that I've looked at the numbers, I can't unsee it, and I can't justify it. If it was a few individuals, fine, perhaps - but it's swathes of the group. I will commit to you that if this proposal is successful, I'll consider and propose something regarding resysop, so admins who have been inactive have alternatives to RfA.
I've said to other individuals, I consider myself the benchmark for inactive. I don't make that many edits, even less in admin areas - I would not object to being considered active and have my user-rights removed - so I'm concerned that by almost any measure, I'm in the top half of active admins. Admittedly, I'm reading emails and certain pages each day, but I'm not really "active". WormTT(talk) 13:54, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
Your idea will pass with or without my support. If nothing else, I would want my oppose to serve as a wake up call. I'm not sure about 20%, although I know you are pretty conservative when it comes to making claims and not one for hyperbole, I just can't quite see how it will do that. I believe you, but I don't see how. The first major policy initiative I jumped on when becoming admin in 2012 was a system to let the community have some control over who is admin and who isn't, besides RFA, so it shouldn't come as a shock that I want the community to have a say here, even in a limited form. Admin abuses are less now than 10 years ago, due to the maturing of the site and a diligent community. Arb seems more willing to look at cases now, which certainly helps. Years ago, Arb seemed like it was protecting bad admin rather than protecting the community, so the Arb process has definitely gotten better over the last decade. But anyway, I suppose we will see if this is a the cure, or a cure, as surely it is going to pass. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 15:19, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
Heh, I'm not looking for your support or opposition on the page, I'm here trying to see if I'm missing something massive, based on the opposition of someone whose thought I respect. The 20% is based on the stats that I've generated. 197 admins have not made 100 edits in the last 5 years - out of 852 admins, a bit less than 1 in 5. Now, I'm hoping that a significant number will re-engage with the community, but we're still going to drop lots of admins over this.
I'm also not counting my chickens yet. The RfC hasn't gone to watchlist notices yet - it might be sailing a long sweetly now, but things can turn quickly - and I have a very poor track record on RfCs. WormTT(talk) 15:24, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
I would image the admin will fall into three camp. 1. "Screw it, too much hassle, I don't edit anyway" (large group). 2. "I will jump through these hoops just to keep the admin bit" (currently the largest group). and 3. "Lets try actually joining back", the absolute smallest group. I don't expect many to do that, which is fine, if they don't want to participate, we don't want them with the bit, that's the idea but I seriously doubt this is going to motivate more than a few to come back and participate. If they wanted to, they already would. Most of this is fear of loss of the admin bit, "just in case". Even without doing any admin work, it is a very handy set of tools for editing. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 19:16, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
  • For the record, I would personally support the above proposal. I have the same concerns about the possibility of turning away former administrators who wish to resume active editing, but fail to meet a minimum threshold to have their bit restored without a new RfA. We do have a recurrent problem with out-of-touch legacy admins barely maintaining the minimum activity required to keep the sysop flag; however, I also don't want heightened minimum requirements to preclude a resysopping that might turn out to be to Wikipedia's benefit, and I also don't want to deter older editors from becoming re-engaged with Wikipedia for what they might perceive as an increasingly rigid, authoritarian environment. Kurtis (talk) 02:29, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
    • The authoritarian part (The Foundation) is about to push me off the site. I love the community, but the WMF sucks. Too much power grabbing going on, treating editors like we are disposable peons. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 02:33, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
      • I don't pay much attention to the WMF these days. That's disappointing to hear. I had hoped (perhaps naively) that they would learn from the whole Fram debacle a few years ago—there a new scandal that I haven't heard about? Kurtis (talk) 02:45, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Hear, hear!

Well said --Deepfriedokra (talk) 16:09, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

  • I'm trying to be respectful, but G is choosing to avoid and it is clear he MUST know what is going on. I expected nothing more than a warning or admonishment, but this guy is about to lose his admin bit, all because he refuses to held accountable, when even he knows he messed up. This isn't even about the block (we all make a bad block every now and then), it's about accountability. I'm stymied why he would choose this path. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 16:27, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
    Does it count as talk page stalking if you're pinged to another thread? Anyway, I don't get it either. It was made abundantly clear that all he needed to do is say, "I'm sorry, I understand what I did wrong, and I won't do it again" and this would all go away. If he can't get himself to that point, it's entirely on him. Do. Not. Understand. -- RoySmith (talk) 19:24, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
    Agreed. And this place is like a bar, I expect people to just randomly walk over and say something. Never has bothered me. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 19:42, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

About your edit summary

Do you have a different toolset than I? Not better or anything... BusterD (talk) 00:33, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

SPA

Hello. I see you have indicated an user, Romesea, to be an SPA here. Another user who voted "Keep" in this same AfD, Koraduba, also seem to be an SPA, likely for the same reason as the other. You may want to also put the same statement after Koraduba's "Keep" comment as you did below Romesea's comment. Thanks for your work. Veverve (talk) 09:11, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

I don't think the message made it through

Dennis, just 5 days ago you closed[12] an ARE focused on Hob Gadling's failure to follow CIVIL. I think the warning has already been ignored. This edit [13] closes with the following, "So, can we please stop this now, and you either go and bring yourself up to speed on the subject or shut up when the subject comes up?" This is exactly the sort of antagonistic behavior towards others that results in problems. It can discourage those who disagree from participating and/or results in a generally more antagonistic environment where an otherwise reasonable editor may be goaded into crossing a line. Either way, telling an editor they can shut up is not respecting CIVIL. Springee (talk) 20:07, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

  • He does seem to be making a pattern of it. Civility blocks aren't common, but if he continues this pattern, yes, he will be blocked. He's about 1/2 way there now. Hob Gadling, I am talking to you. There is no need for this rudeness, and you were warned already. Be smart enough to realize that others ARE going to tell when when you are, so gathering evidence will be trivial. Seriously, stop it. What really gets me is, you put forth a persuasive argument, then by capping it with "shut up", you make yourself look bad. You literally shoot yourself in the foot. To that, I really don't care, but I do when your shooting off is at others. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 20:57, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
    Oh, I am sorry, I had misunderstood you. I thought that since you only mentioned the "liar" quote, and all the other links Springee had collected over the last half-year were on a lower level than his own personal attack bitch, and since you did not even mention that one, that the "liar" quote was the only one which was relevant.
    If you do not know what I mean, in that very edit with the collected links, he said, well what about CIVIL bitch?, but deleted the "bitch" part afterwards. That one seemed to have slipped under the radar.
    I have had unpleasant interactions with HG in the past Indeed. They were very unpleasant for me too. Essentially, we clashed several times over fringe statements about climate change denial over the years: he was adamant about not having them refuted in BLP articles, and usually, it ended with the fringe statements themselves removed, against his resistance. But I do not want to be the guy who follows others around (search for "Springee" on Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard; he is not a regular there) and collects links as ammunition to be used immediately or months later, it seems petty and WP:BATTLEGROUNDish to me. So I guess I am at a handicap here.
    So when another user who was also sympathetic to denialism, a consensus denier, argued that this fringe idea he personally did not recognize as fringe should be exempt from the WP:FRINGE guideline and claimed to be "competent" in spite of making the well-known climatology rookie mistake of confusing weather and climate, of course I thought of Springee, of his ammunition-collecting, and of the way he could say "bitch" without anybody batting an eyelid, while I could not even say "go away" to an IP who never did anything but push exactly the same pseudoscience, essentially a vandal who was WP:NOTHERE to improve the encyclopedia, without someone running to the admins.
    My peace of mind would be much alleviated and my future civility much enhanced if I saw that this warning/admonishing thing is not one-sided and that you simply did not see the "bitch" comment at the time. Will you please bat an eyelid at him? That would help a lot. --Hob Gadling (talk) 13:18, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
  • I think you overestimate the ability of admin here. We are editors, too, plus we mop up and manage issues, so we aren't experts on every topic, and aren't aware of every single edit between two people. What we look for are patterns: behavior that is repeated many times, and we act on that. Just like I told you before, and now let me expand on it: The word "fuck" for example. Saying "fuck this" or "fuck it" isn't a big deal. Saying "fuck off" is more problematic. Saying "fuck you" or "you're a fucking idiot" is a problem. The "idiot" part is the problem, not "fuck". We don't censor, but we do limit aggressive tone whether you are polite about it or rude. Saying "I hope you come to an early demise" is much more a problem that "that is a stupid idea", for example. You have a way of attacking others that is unnecessary and undermines your own credibility. Seriously, you hurt yourself, because most editors are like me in that once they see a personal attack, they pretty much dismiss the actual merits of your argument. So not only will it get you blocked here, but it is very ineffective at persuading others. We are consensus organization, persuading others is necessary to effect changes you deem important. Right now, there are a lot of eyes on you, as you just received a warning at WP:AE. Trust me, WP:AE sanctions are something you want to avoid. The community has granted extraordinary leeway to admin working WP:AE cases, and once you land AE sanctions, a single admin can't overrule them; they stick. The short version is simple: Either you tone it way down, or you're going to have a very bad time and be topic banned from areas, or blocked for a long time. You don't want this, I don't want this, but it will happens if things don't change.
  • Hob Gadling, I apologize for that editing error. That was included as the result of some inadvertent cutting and pasting in a text file. I immediately removed it when I realized what I had done. I understand that under the circumstances this might come off as a convenient excuse but please consider the follow. First, I do not have a history of personal attacks, especially of that kind. Second, if my intent was to try to get away with something like that why choose a forum where such behavior is likely to result in my own sanction and undermine my own position? You noted that I don't say much at the fringe noticeboard. That is true. It is not a place or a topic area that tolerates good faith disagreements. You mentioned things ignored. Two years ago an admin took you to ANI over your aggressive behavior towards other editors[14]. The discussion was closed with no actions as "...HG has committed to turning over a new leaf." Springee (talk) 02:37, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

Kudos

I just wanted to offer some positive reinforcement for how you addressed that discussion at AN. I considered a Barnstar, but, even though I don't know that I've ever interacted with the editor, it sort of felt like it could weirdly be seen as an odd sort of "gravedancing". (ugh)

Anyway, good on you for trying to explain the concepts of neutrality in closing to him. I hope that at least some of it sinks in. From what I am seeing, I think I would have supported your suggestion of him not closing anything for awhile, til he better understands closing. But who knows, hopefully we won't be back here to this situation again in the near future...

Again, kudos : ) - jc37 09:23, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

  • I don't have faith that we won't see problems in the future, based on his reluctance to take advice on board, but once you have information, you are responsible for knowing it. His last "I didn't ask a question." is indicative, not understanding that the question was implied. Or perhaps he does but is just being pedantic, who knows. As far as recognition, nothing more is needed or expected. A kind word goes a long way around here. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 11:20, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for dealing with the LTA on my talk page

Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Brad Watson, Miami. It's tempting to semi Talk:Seven Seals but on the other hand there are advantages in not. Doug Weller talk 16:31, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

  • I hesitate a lot less than I used to with semi. Both the application and duration. It's all sweet and nice to have an encyclopedia anyone can edit, but abuse keeps the establish editors from editing, so I tend to think of them first. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 16:32, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
    Yes, I'm getting that way myself. Established editors have to spend far too much time dealing with such nonsense. You may have noticed a Spacelord on my talk page, he's said "A month or so ago I followed up on messages received via channeling communication that led me to the ra materials on Wikipedia." Doug Weller talk 16:39, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) Re blocking IPv6, Dennis. I notice other IPs on the same /64 range as the LTA from Doug's page that you blocked, 2601:583:681:8430:d5e7:c08c:d07a:573c, have edited since your block, see [15]. Harmlessly, perhaps, but it's all one person, so it's really better to always block the /64. See WP:/64. Just thought I'd mention it. I've blocked 2601:583:681:8430:0:0:0:0/64 now for one month, to fit in with your individual IP block. Bishonen | tålk 16:53, 14 March 2022 (UTC).
Thanks, I need to bone up on that. I used to be rather technically savvy, but so much has changed and I don't really get involved in IT issue much during the day, so I need a primer on ipv6. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 17:10, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
I've raised the issue of the IP at User:RoySmith's page and pinged User:GeneralNotability. Doug Weller talk 17:17, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
And in the last little while, 50.253.143.113 (talk · contribs). Doug Weller talk 17:21, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
Makes me glad I'm not religious, these fools would likely bother me worse than they do. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 17:36, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
Quite the eschatology this fellow has. Re Doug Weller's question on Roy's talk page - I don't think there's much value in adding this to the LTA page. I have a dim view of LTA pages in general, and the /64 only has activity from the past month or so, so it's not like an IP he's been on for ages. Geolocation doesn't tell us anything we didn't know already (except that he's apparently Brad Watson, Hollywood, Florida). GeneralNotability (talk) 01:39, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

AE

I have nothing against your participation - please provide your opinion. Honestly, such a recusal might create incentive for bad-faith-actors to game the system by taking out admins who are likely to disagree with them etc.

But I do believe that AE is better served when admins are acquainted with the topic-area. DS regimes were created because the topics were witness to unmanageable disruption including but not limited to subtle POV-pushing, which is especially true for ARBIPA. TrangaBellam (talk) 20:19, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

We're fine. I do have to jump into areas at AE where I'm not familiar simply because most admin don't want to work AE. It can be cumbersome and problematic for the admin, lots of hard feelings. If not for the two other admin gotting involved, I would have researched and done the best I could. Keep in mind, if I'm not sure about a situation, I have no choice but to NOT sanction. I must see the problem clearly, which is why I asked for help understanding. As one of the admin pointed out, the individual edits weren't so bad, you have to step back and look at the bigger picture, and I simply had not gotten to that point yet. I was just trying to understand the exact nature of the problem, was it personal attacks, POV, fake sources, etc. I needed a direction to begin my search, and since I'm not familiar, I move slower.
But my input wasn't required once two other admins joined in. While your tone was rather sharp, I have no hard feelings. I do understand the frustration editors might feel when they have to explain in greater detail than they prefer because the "admin" doesn't know the topic area. It's easier for you if someone is very familiar with the area. From this side, it is 2 or 3 times the work for me when I'm not familiar with the topic area, so I'm usually glad for the help. I wasn't offended (for very long). I just licked my little wound and tried to be respectful by stepping out of the way. In the end, we all just want fair solutions, and those two are better equipped to find a solution to this particular problem. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 20:32, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
And to be clear, it is very rare that I step aside, but I had great faith in those two. Stepping aside was a choice I made, not a Right that editors have when they file at an admin board. I don't see it being a problem in the future. It was just that in this case, it was the right thing for me to do. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 20:35, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

2600::/19

Hi Dennis. Did you actually intend to block 2600::/19 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial))? You called it a vandalism only account, and it's erm huge. Thanks. -- zzuuzz (talk) 14:50, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

You know what Dennis, I don't expect you to be around at all times, but I do think 10 minutes is long enough to wait for a response in this situation. Considering you haven't edited today I'm going to conclude it was either a mistake or a compromise (I'll exclude incompetence), and I'm unblocking. Of course, do opine when you return. -- zzuuzz (talk) 15:02, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

Happy April 1

Don't open this!
What the?!



Happy April Fool's Day! Thanks for your contributions to improve the dissemination of free knowledge to humanity! North America1000 15:16, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
Check it!

I am the user R-41

For some reason I cannot access my old account User:R-41 that I thought I could still be able to use to contact an administrator or something like that, I don't know what the password I used was, thought it was one I have used for years with other things but it is not. I tried the password reset option of I guess seems to be e-mailing me a reset option - but I am not getting that in my e-mail. So I am addressing this as an anon until I can figure out how to sort that out. ... Anyway it has been close to nine years since the block was put in place by you at a time when my mental health was in a very bad state and when I had not received a medication combination to address my mental health disorder. Now I have a proper medication combination.

I was pushy and at times very arrogant and stubborn when I thought what I was doing was the right course of action on editing when other users disagreed, I recognize that collaboration is essential to positive development of articles and not jumping to conclusions because of thinking I may be right. Lastly I know that there are several articles where users nine years ago rightly seriously criticized me for really sloppy work, I know what those articles are and I have an idea of where I was sloppy - I can work to correct this past sloppy work by acknowledging that I did that sloppy work and that it needs to be revised or where necessary opened to discussion. I want to take part in helping to bring content on the topic of histories of Russia and Ukraine and how they are involved in the current Russo-Ukrainian War.--198.2.99.28 (talk) 07:27, 25 February 2022 (UTC)


  • A couple of things to take note of: First, I strongly recommend you do not resume editing. I will do what I can to help you if you really want to, but speaking as a fellow human, and not an admin, I would advise against it. You have some strong emotion going on about the war. Many of us have strong emotion about it for different reasons, and I won't try to pretend to understand yours. And that's ok, I trust your reasons are good. The problem is, this is a recipe for frustration and fighting. There WILL be people on both sides of the war fighting to include information, as well as flat out propaganda and lies, here at Wikipedia. Considering the reasons, I advise against you editing.
I can't unblock and get you back into user:R-41. You can only gain access to that account using your email account you had at that time. I would also note that while I blocked you as a "self-requested block", there was really a lot more going on at the time. In fact, some nastiness had to be oversighted/suppressed. In fact, while my email has a lot of the records, I had to search ANI/AN and wow, there was a lot there. You did find a lot of controversy back then. This is why I'm recommending against you coming back, that other personal information.
While the block was "self-requested", there was enough going on that I think we need more input on how to proceed. You would have to have a new account, and link them, if you can't access R-41. One other admin that was familiar with the case is JzG, and I would ask them to take a look. I would also ask you to be patient as well, since this all started over a decade ago. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 09:24, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
As per the first statement, do you think it would be possible for me to resume editing but absolutely not on the current highly-complex issue of the Russo-Ukraine War and the frustration and fighting that you say may arise from that. From what you say I see what you are getting at and I agree that I should stay away from that heated topic completely given what you say.
Agree that I need to be patient here and will follow whatever guidance and advice you can give on this. I think that I should not begin editing for a long time before working through familiarizing myself with basic policies on Wikipedia if I could get assistance from a veteran user who could guide me in what I need to look into then there will be a real effort on my part to learn from my mistakes. I have to learn from my mistakes of mishandling disagreements with other users - I need to learn how to address these disagreements responsibly unlike I did especially in 2013.
There are other articles that are at least nowhere as heated now as the Russo-Ukraine War article (that both you and I now agree that I should not edit) that I believe I could eventually constructively add reliably sourced content to after I go through the familiarization of myself with Wikipedia policies again.
Very important point made by you about the nastiness - nastiness is an understatement of my retaliation to the frustration addressed by a user I believe named N-HH at the time with the quality of my posts, I took it personally and in the final days before being blocked I had temper explosions of abusive rages challenged him when he expressed his frustration with me. This was all in 2013 that for me was very tense year in my life of problems in my life outside of stuff here on Wikipedia I permanently alienated four people who had been friends of mine up to then because of my mental health instability reaching the worst it had been in years. I have spent the past ten years getting new medications to deal with these problems along with working with what is called cognitive behavioural therapy to change behaviours and reactions to behavours. Needless to say given the history of what has happened I know that the user N-HH if he still is on Wikipedia and remembers me will have a very negative outlook to see me returning to Wikipedia and for very good reasons and given how severe it got because of my mental state then if I were in his position I would be highly suspicious and wary of the return of this user R-41 given his past behaviour nine years ago. That last point alone could be an argument that things went way too far and that I have worn out any possibility of being able to return by having alienated a major contributing user to Wikipedia that N-HH is. Every concern of this user about my potential behaviour is legitimate unless I can demonstrate I have changed.
It is very possible given my behaviour in the past, that there is not confidence by other users especially other users who engaged with me in that debilitated state to want to open up the doors to a potential return of a situation like that. If they believe that will happen and don’t trust that I have demonstrated an ability to change then I will simply accept not returning to Wikipedia again. I would hope that I can be given a chance done cautiously with me seeking support from other users in familiarizing me with things on Wikipedia again.
What personal information are you referring to? I think I know, I said really abusive stuff to people when I was in a really mentally unstable state. I will admit I have a mental illness and that I get treatment for it. I don't remember the full details of what I said, I know I said outrageous things, if you could provide a gist of how severe they were in terms of effectively making me nullified to be considered able to come back as it seems from what you say that you believe that is the case, I would like to know about this to understand the matter.
Lastly I don't think I can access the R-41 account, I’ve done the thing where an e-mail is sent about the password but I am not getting that e-mail from Wikipedia, so from what you say if I say here and need to create a new account. From what you say I would need to clearly identify that this is a new account that is from the previous R-41 account that I cannot start from because I do not know what the password is for the profile when I thought it was one I regularly use.--198.2.99.28 (talk) 21:50, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
I currently post content on history on DeviantArt and on there is a user who I know well who I've asked if he could be a character reference that I have not exhibited rage explosions of anger like what happened in 2013, that I have not been verbally abusive to people on DeviantArt, and that I have not been hostile or combatative with others like I was in 2013.--198.2.99.28 (talk) 22:36, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
It might be a few days. Dealing with something that might be covid right now. I'm only popping in for some maintenance. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 22:38, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Dennis_Brown/Archive_45&oldid=1180579556"