User talk:Dennis Brown/Archive 46

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 40 ← Archive 44 Archive 45 Archive 46 Archive 47 Archive 48

Pointy behavior at FTN

I am sorry to bug you about this, but this, this, and their follow-up comments are, as described by another editor here, rather clear examples of disruptive pointy behavior that is leaning toward WP:NOTHERE. This behavior is at odds to the spirit of the directive you provided to them upon closing their vacuous WP:AE case just a few days ago. I doubt anything I post to their Talk page would have positive effect, but in the interest of preventing further disruption (and perhaps preventing a ban/block), could you, in your admin role, please explain things to them? Thanks for your help. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 16:40, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

And now it's just getting worse. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 16:45, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Perhaps you're still monitoring, but if not: this user's edits since coming off their block (besides blanking their user and talk pages) have been continued WP:FORUM / griping about anti-Fringe editors: [1], [2]. They do not seem inclined to stop. Generalrelative (talk) 19:29, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

Nice job guys failing to tag me so I don't get a say in any of this discussion. And you're right. I am not inclined to stop *as I told you a long time ago in arbitration*, so if your short blocks were in belief you could change my behavior, that is a sign, Dennis, of your incompetence. My behavior is in defense of Wikipedia's principles and I will not modify my behavior in violation of my principles like a coward. Do what you will. MarshallKe (talk) 21:07, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

Your 'Blocking' of a New User - Indefinitely - Within 24 Hours of Noticeboard Discussion?

Actually in under 24 hours. If I am correct, the noticeboard item was posted at 22:51, 6 April 2022 (UTC). I just posted a contribution to that item now, at 16:25, 7 April 2022 (UTC). That is less than 24 hours? I do not suppose that the user, Mr. MarcosMorales, even might have a chance to respond in so short a time.

I soon saw that the user, Mr. MarcosMorales, has just been "summarily" blocked from editing permanently (that is "indefinitely") by your user account, with a time stamp of 23:29, 6 April 2022. That would make it less than one hour from the time his noticeboard hearing began. Certainly not enough time for anyone to present any defence. Also, the user, on his talk page, has a statement, perfectly understandable, that he did not see, and was not informed, of the ANI (Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents). Of course not, why anyone would assume he would see any notice of it within the 40 or so minutes between his banishment and the instigation of the ANI?

My question to you is, is this a common practice, and is this according to protocol?

I'll assume you have a perfectly good reason for this, I am just curious as to what your protocol is. My assumption would have normally been that the accused would have the right to some sort of defence. This obviously, in this instance, did not occur.

Thanks in advance, and have a very good day.69.112.128.218 (talk) 17:00, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

My apologies, the user in question: User:JoseLuisMoralesMarcos.
69.112.128.218 (talk) 17:09, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
  • You assume he wasn't editing as an IP beforehand, which is an incorrect assumption. The IP was also blocked, so they were editing Wikipedia longer than an hour. To answer your question directly, do we commonly block accounts within an hour of them being set up? Yes. Vandals, sockpuppets, POV warriors and other forms of WP:NOTHERE issues. There is no fix for those kinds of problems, they simply need to move on to do other things in life. Note that I did not need anyone at ANI to agree with me before taking action, but I did offer the situation up and several quickly agreed, so it actually wasn't a unilateral block. It was a small consensus, but one of established editors. Again, this isn't uncommon. Lastly, there is no "Right" to a self-defense here. Wikipedia isn't the town square, it is a privately owned website, you and I have zero "Rights". This is not a court. I'm not a cop or judge. I'm an editor with some extra tools, selected by the community to simply solve problems, which I did. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 21:03, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
Very good then. Have you ever made a mistake, that knowingly, you became aware of later? I'm not suggesting in this case you are mistaken, obviously, even if you were mistaken, you have not become aware of it at this point, so whether I lobby in favour of this user or not, I do not see how it is at this point productive. In any case, if you make a mistake, and find out that you have permanently banned a user in error, possibly alienating a new editor from ever contributing to Wikipedia again, do you have a procedure in place to make amends for it or is there any remedy for it? I know that mistakes happen outside of Wikipedia, and of course we should assume that inside of Wikipedia that it is also possible. 69.112.128.218 (talk) 21:24, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
I've answered questions related to the actual block, and feel I have done so in the best of faith, via WP:ADMINACCT, and my obligation has been fulfilled. I'm not interested in answering hypothetical question that have no bearing on the issue at hand. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 21:36, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
Very interesting. Then there won't be any remedy other than a permanent ban. Thanks for spending all the time with me. I assure you that even if you feel like this might have been a waste of time, it served to inform and educate (which isn't it the basic reason for Wikipedia to exist?). Very good. 69.112.128.218 (talk) 22:23, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – April 2022

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

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

  • Access to Special:RevisionDelete has been expanded to include users who have the deletelogentry and deletedhistory rights. This means that those in the Researcher user group and Checkusers who are not administrators can now access Special:RevisionDelete. The users able to view the special page after this change are the 3 users in the Researcher group, as there are currently no checkusers who are not already administrators. (T301928)
  • When viewing deleted revisions or diffs on Special:Undelete a back link to the undelete page for the associated page is now present. (T284114)

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:12, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

New administrator activity requirement

The administrator policy has been updated with new activity requirements following a successful Request for Comment.

Beginning January 1, 2023, administrators who meet one or both of the following criteria may be desysopped for inactivity if they have:

  1. Made neither edits nor administrative actions for at least a 12-month period OR
  2. Made fewer than 100 edits over a 60-month period

Administrators at risk for being desysopped under these criteria will continue to be notified ahead of time. Thank you for your continued work.

22:52, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Legal threats

They have gone on to make subtle legal threats. I’m just so confused right now. Celestina007 (talk) 19:47, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

  • I can't see what was redacted, it was suppressed rather than RevDel'ed, so it must have been pretty bad in their eyes. As such, I'm not sure what to tell you except maybe stepping away, as per TNT's suggestion. I don't think you are doing yourself any favors here. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 20:02, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

your block of user:OgreHackerStrikesBack2

Please also block user:ReturnOfOgreHacker. Vandalism only and another obvious sock of user:OgreHacker and user:OgreHackerStrikesBack. Meters (talk) 21:33, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

Boone, NC

I'm not sure why you undid my edit of the population of Boone, NC. No other census data was cited, including the information I replaced. Nevertheless, I have replaced my edits and added a citation from the US Census Bureau.

Sheehanpg93 (talk) 17:56, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

  • Sheehanpg93 The data you removed DID have a reference/citation, but when you changed it, you removed it and put in data that did not. Any time you remove information with citations, and replace it with new information that isn't cited, you can pretty much expect it will get reverted. This is particularly true when you are a new user with no history here. My summary summed it up (I thought) fairly when when I did the original revert, and said "Please do NOT change all the population and demographics data, removing all the cites, with new data that has NO citations. Old Cited data is better than new uncited data" which is pretty much what I just said in this paragraph. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 21:45, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

Nomination of Peepoodo & the Super Fuck Friends for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Peepoodo & the Super Fuck Friends 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/Peepoodo & the Super Fuck Friends (2nd nomination) 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.

--Historyday01 (talk) 00:33, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

Tenth Adminship Anniversary!

Thanks

For this. You're always willing to say what needs to be said. Reaper Eternal (talk) 18:21, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – May 2022

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

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

Arbitration

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:33, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

Always precious

Ten years ago, you were found precious. That's what you are, always. Lovely to see you active, defending editors who are hurt! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:24, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

New Page Patrol newsletter May 2022

New Page Review queue March 2022

Hello Dennis Brown,

At the time of the last newsletter (No.26, September 2021), the backlog was 'only' just over 6,000 articles. In the past six months, the backlog has reached nearly 16,000, a staggering level not seen in several years. A very small number of users had been doing the vast majority of the reviews. Due to "burn-out", we have recently lost most of this effort. Furthermore, several reviewers have been stripped of the user right for abuse of privilege and the articles they patrolled were put back in the queue.

Several discussions on the state of the process have taken place on the talk page, but there has been no action to make any changes. The project also lacks coordination since the "position" is vacant.

In the last 30 days, only 100 reviewers have made more than 8 patrols and only 50 have averaged one review a day. There are currently 816 New Page Reviewers, but about a third have not had any activity in the past month. All 858 administrators have this permission, but only about a dozen significantly contribute to NPP.

This means we have an active pool of about 450 to address the backlog. We cannot rely on a few to do most of the work as that inevitably leads to burnout. A fairly experienced reviewer can usually do a review in a few minutes. If every active reviewer would patrol just one article per day, the backlog would very quickly disappear.

If you have noticed a user with a good understanding of Wikipedia notability and deletion, do suggest they help the effort by placing {{subst:NPR invite}} on their talk page.

If you are no longer very active on Wikipedia or you no longer wish to be part of the New Page Reviewer user group, please consider asking any admin to remove you from the list. This will enable NPP to have a better overview of its performance and what improvements need to be made to the process and its software.

To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.
Sent 05:17, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

China Film Administration

  • Hi Dennis Brown, here is a problem. China Film Administration redirects to the Publicity Department of the Chinese Communist Party. The two are not the same organization, this is China's film censorship agency, which is related to the State Administration of Radio, Film and Television. I was going to use the speedy deletion Db-g6, which turns out to require a redirect discussion. I'm not familiar with this program, but I think a new page should be created or moved to SARFT. Can you help with the process? --Beta Lohman※Office box 08:58, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
  • That is a little beyond my experience level. I would recommend taking it to WP:RFD, as that is exactly what that board is setup for. Then people more familiar can opine about it and find a solution. Really, that is the first step. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 18:35, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – June 2022

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

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

  • Administrators using the mobile web interface can now access Special:Block directly from user pages. (T307341)
  • The IP Info feature has been deployed to all wikis as a Beta Feature. Any autoconfirmed user may enable the feature using the "IP info" checkbox under Preferences → Beta features. Autoconfirmed users will be able to access basic information about an IP address that includes the country and connection method. Those with advanced privileges (admin, bureaucrat, checkuser) will have access to extra information that includes the Internet Service Provider and more specific location.

Arbitration

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:55, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

a civility idea

Hi Dennis, I saw an old comment of yours bemoaning the general lack of civility across Wikipedia. So I thought I'd offer an idea I've kept to myself for a long time. I admit, I'm sufficiently cynical I think its got a polar bear's chance on the Serengetti but FWIW..... what if all admins who choose to become involved in an issue are required to address civility issues between the players in that issue, and their failure to respond to requests that they do so is grounds for dysopping? That would cut a lot of dead weight among the admins (enablers of incivility) and as these changes take hold over time, it might change the culture enough to encourage other eds to step up to do admin work. OK, soapbox mode off. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 02:21, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

  • You can't require an admin do anything, it's a volunteer project. It would never pass, and frankly, if they started requiring any kind of participation from admin, I would just tip my hat and drop my admin bit off at WP:BN. Some months I'm fairly active, other months, I might be perceived as the "dead weight" you speak of. Real life comes first; Wikipedia is altruism, not my day job. The problem with civility isn't because of a lack of enforcement as much as it is a problem with the culture of Wikipedia, imho. Part of this is due to the fact that the culture is one that is made up of so many different cultures, globally. What is considered being frank in one culture, is considered very rude in another, so you can never have perfect civility, because everyone defines it differently. General civility is a goal worth pursuing, but it's a difficult goal, and one I don't have the answers to. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 11:55, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
Sorry I wasn't quite clear I guess. I agree it would never pass, but for sake of philosophy, what I meant was.... admins could still pick and choose what to get involved in. In that sense, my idea preserves the ideal of "volunteerism" that we all hold dear. When anyone takes a break, admin or whatever, that would be wonderful, go recharge. That's not the dead weight I was trying to desribe.
-
Instead, the problem I was trying to highlight .... at least I think its a problem..... is that sometimes when admins do decide to get involved, they ignore the civility dimension to the drama. And so naturally we've created a culture of online verbal jujitsu that attracts people who want to fight because they think its fun (or meets some other need). If instead, admins who choose to take on a situation first try to enforce civility, and then worry about the rest of the situation, we could start the years long process of reforming the battle culture that (I think) we would both like to see go away. A weakness here is that I had not considered how our multiculturalism creates civility clashes.... I haven't experienced this and can't evaluate if its a fatal flaw to this idea or just a challenge to keep working on.
-
But I guess I agree we have the culture that has evolved and changing it would take reforms that are unlikely to pass. So...well, I guess I've had enough barstool philosophy. Have a fine day and sorry I wasn't very clear NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 12:36, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

AE Request

Hi Dennis Brown, I gave my answer. Please also watch this sources, I have not added anything to them.[3] Do you still think what you wrote? Please read thoroughly what I am reporting. I have clashes with this user since last year and he is doing everything to get me banned. Please just read carefully what I have reported, if you think the same, I accept it. Thank you.--Mhorg (talk) 23:30, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

  • Please keep discussion of the AE case at the AE case itself. I won't respond here. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 15:58, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

New Page Patrol newsletter June 2022

New Page Review queue June 2022

Hello Dennis Brown,

Backlog status

At the time of the last newsletter (No.27, May 2022), the backlog was approaching 16,000, having shot up rapidly from 6,000 over the prior two months. The attention the newsletter brought to the backlog sparked a flurry of activity. There was new discussion on process improvements, efforts to invite new editors to participate in NPP increased and more editors requested the NPP user right so they could help, and most importantly, the number of reviews picked up and the backlog decreased, dipping below 14,000[a] at the end of May.

Since then, the news has not been so good. The backlog is basically flat, hovering around 14,200. I wish I could report the number of reviews done and the number of new articles added to the queue. But the available statistics we have are woefully inadequate. The only real number we have is the net queue size.[b]

In the last 30 days, the top 100 reviewers have all made more than 16 patrols (up from 8 last month), and about 70 have averaged one review a day (up from 50 last month).

While there are more people doing more reviews, many of the ~730 with the NPP right are doing little. Most of the reviews are being done by the top 50 or 100 reviewers. They need your help. We appreciate every review done, but please aim to do one a day (on average, or 30 a month).

Backlog drive

A backlog reduction drive, coordinated by buidhe and Zippybonzo, will be held from July 1 to July 31. Sign up here. Barnstars will be awarded.

TIP – New school articles

Many new articles on schools are being created by new users in developing and/or non-English-speaking countries. The authors are probably not even aware of Wikipedia's projects and policy pages. WP:WPSCH/AG has some excellent advice and resources specifically written for these users. Reviewers could consider providing such first-time article creators with a link to it while also mentioning that not all schools pass the GNG and that elementary schools are almost certainly not notable.

Misc

There is a new template available, {{NPP backlog}}, to show the current backlog. You can place it on your user or talk page as a reminder:

Very high unreviewed pages backlog: 13853 articles, as of 16:00, 2 May 2024 (UTC), according to DatBot

There has been significant discussion at WP:VPP recently on NPP-related matters (Draftification, Deletion, Notability, Verifiability, Burden). Proposals that would somewhat ease the burden on NPP aren't gaining much traction, although there are suggestions that the role of NPP be fundamentally changed to focus only on major CSD-type issues.

Reminders
  • Consider staying informed on project issues by putting the project discussion page on your watchlist.
  • If you have noticed a user with a good understanding of Wikipedia notability and deletion, suggest they help the effort by placing {{subst:NPR invite}} on their talk page.
  • If you are no longer very active on Wikipedia or you no longer wish to be part of the New Page Reviewer user group, please consider asking any admin to remove you from the list. This will enable NPP to have a better overview of its performance and what improvements need to be made to the process and its software.
  • To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.
Notes
  1. ^ not including another ~6,000 redirects
  2. ^ The number of weekly reviews reported in the NPP feed includes redirects, which are not included in the backlog we primarily track.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:02, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

RFAR

Hi, Dennis. Your statement at RFAR was only ten words long, congratulations. But mine was only four, so, in my own conceit, I win. :-) Bishonen | tålk 21:39, 26 June 2022 (UTC).

I'm tempted to go there and make a statement consisting of "whatever" just to win this contest. But.... whatever. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 21:43, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
  • Well, the old SPI guy in me has a spidey sense, and it is tingling. This feels very much like LTA, getting their jollies by creating drama. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 21:57, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
    Mine too. It's palpable. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 22:30, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

cu

I assumed they had and found nothing. I mean, really. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 22:29, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

  • It would surprise you. It's possible to assume too much faith. And that doesn't mean they aren't an LTA, even if they couldn't link it. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 00:25, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
    yep --Deepfriedokra (talk) 01:48, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

Proposed merger of Western Electric articles

I have proposed a merger of the Western Electric (tube manufacturer) article into the main Western Electric article. I have posted a thread on Talk:Western Electric (tube manufacturer) to discuss the proposed merger. I invite everyone's thoughts on the idea. Garagepunk66 (talk) 20:25, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

NPP July 2022 backlog drive is on!

New Page Patrol | July 2022 Backlog Drive
  • On 1 July, a one-month backlog drive for New Page Patrol will begin.
  • Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles patrolled.
  • Barnstars will also be granted for re-reviewing articles previously reviewed by other patrollers during the drive.
  • Redirect patrolling is not part of the drive.
  • Interested in taking part? Sign up here.
You're receiving this message because you are a new page patroller. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

(t · c) buidhe 20:25, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Original Barnstar
Thank you for creating the article on the new Western Electric company. I think that it is significant that this company has built the first new vacuum tube factory in the Unites States in over half a century. That should come as a joy to musicians and music lovers around the world. Thank you for bringing attention to it. Garagepunk66 (talk) 23:56, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
  • Thanks :) I've added a copy to my User talk:Dennis Brown/Ronco Barnstar Vault for safekeeping. I actually enjoy making articles that other's just haven't thought to make yet. I'm hoping they continue with their plans to make 12ax7, 6L6 and other similar tubes. It would be worth twice the regular price to get American made tubes again. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 10:05, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
With all of the tensions with Russia and China, it's nice to know there will be American tubes. The Western Electric tubes will be a little more expensive for sure, but I have a feeling they're going to be much higher in quality then the Russian and Chinese. I think Western Electric is going to try to match the level of sound and quality of the old GE and RCA tubes made during the golden age. I can't wait to put some in my 1971 Fender amp! Garagepunk66 (talk) 15:59, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
Exactly. I'm not a consumer of tubes as much I was in the 80s-00s, but I haven't been all that impressed with Chinese or Russian tubes. JJ's, from Slovakia, are pretty good, but I still think the NOS New Old Stock stuff beats it, and it will be nice to have New New Stock that costs in between NOS and Chinese. There is a market, lot of guys don't really wear tubes out, they just like to put the best, even in Blues Jr and similar sub $1000 amps. They will pay 2-3x the price of Chinese to get American. For hobbyists, a set is good for 10-20 years. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 17:24, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

About better judgement :)

A thought re Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Mhorg. I have no strong opinion on the subject matter, but I think you were right to err on the merciful side. Warnings can work, and people deserve a second chance. If they keep being disruptive, we can always ban them then. See my musings: User:Piotrus/Morsels_of_wikiwisdom#When_to_use_the_banhammer_-_and_when_not_to:_a_simple_math. Cheers, Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:31, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – July 2022

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

Technical news

  • user_global_editcount is a new variable that can be used in abuse filters to avoid affecting globally active users. (T130439)

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

  • The New Pages Patrol queue has around 10,000 articles to be reviewed. As all administrators have the patrol right, please consider helping out. The queue is here. For further information on the state of the project, see the latest NPP newsletter.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:28, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

Question

It is customary for an editor to add this to another editor's user page? I thought only Admins were allowed to post such notices. Kansas Bear (talk) 23:17, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

  • Thanks. I reverted and warned the editor. Technically, tagging pages can be done by anyone, assuming it is a proper tag. It is strongly recommended only experienced editors do it, but policy doesn't draw a line as most experienced editors (like you) typically know when it is needed, and when it is just grave dancing. In this case, the editor was indef blocked, with an expectation that they will eventually get unblocked. That isn't the same as a ban, so the actions by the tagger was wildly inappropriate. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 23:53, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
  • You are welcome. I am not big on tagging user pages since it seems to be in rather bad taste if done by another editor. Whereas if done by an Admin, it appears to be simply them doing their job. Stay safe, Dennis Brown. --Kansas Bear (talk) 00:15, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

More false accusations

Hi Dennis. I'm sorry I don't add this in the AE report as it's already clunky on its on, but I thought you should be aware of this as the commenting admin. If you remember yesterday, in their second comment, Abrvagl added my diff from Talk:Imarat_cemetery#Reza as an evidence of "now removes properly sourced material with appropriate attribution by falsely citing WP:UNDUE". And as you remember, I asked Abrvagl to finally reply to my last talk comment instead of dragging several content issues to AE. I also asked to stop the false accusations. Some hours later Abrvagl replied on talk finally. The discussion went to the point that I felt like a third opinion is needed.

I requested a third opinion from Morbidthoughts. I specifically choose someone who's impartial, who agreed both with me and Abrvagl depending on the situation not the user. Clear examples when Abrvagl wanted to remove something and took it to BLP just not so recently; Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard/Archive339#Saadat_Kadyrova ([4], [5]), and when Morbidthoughts replied to my thread in BLP Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Hidayat_Orujov.

Abrvagl now accuses me of canvassing. I honestly don't know if this user legitimately has short memory problems, because it shouldn't have been hard to remember that Morbidthoughts agreed with them not so recently in two separate occasions. How is that canvassing? I barely know Morbidthoughts and only from BLP noticeboards and I specifically choose someone established, third-party, impartial. This is just another bad faith passive-aggressive accusation. For the record, I could've taken this to WP:THIRD, but then it would take too long to get picked up and in some instances, not to be picked up at all (as seen by Abrvagl himself who had to add another issue twice), and I personally thought this was a simple matter that Abrvagl refused to see. I made my request itself as impartial as possible. I honestly don't know when enough is enough of this user's bad faith unfounded accusations. I feel attacked even though I try my best and take good faith measures to solve our problems. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 09:15, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

  • Please keep all AE related discussion at AE. I'm not going to spread it out over multiple pages. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 17:43, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
    I commented in AE as you requested. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 18:08, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

ZaniGiovanni

I saw the Arbitration Enforcement request and was researching it, because I thought that they had been at DRN recently. They were, and another volunteer mediated it. So I was going to say that it appears that they can settle their differences in an orderly manner when they try. So I agree with the closure, but was a few hours late to agree. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:22, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

  • I think there was a 3rd opinion given by an editor with only 200 edits, which may have caused more problems than solving them as that is a bit new to be giving opinions. Even if you're right, people have trouble listening to a 3rd from someone without at least a couple thousand edits. Hopefully they will get some outside parties to opine. But yes, there really wasn't much we could do at this point. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 11:48, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
    Hi Dennis. I wanted to show you something if you don't mind. Abrvagl keeps disagreeing even with the established 3rd party user I asked third opinion from (you know the one where they falsely accused me of "canvassing"). It's very strange to me that this user doesn't practice what they preach considering as you said yourself, the third party discussion (which they weren't even part of ) they brought up in AE was being mediated by a 200edit 1-2 month old account, and they still tried to make a big fuss out of it, even though you yourself said it was utterly forgivable for me to have disagreement with someone inexperienced like that giving 3rd opinions.
    But now, when an actual established third-party user who has more experience than both me and Abrvagl combined, happens to take the opposite stance of Abrvagl, Abrvagl has no problem continually disagreeing with them on talk. But what do I know, this may just be ignored like the obvious false accusation I brought up in the above thread. Apologies for sounding a bit angry, because I am. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 21:57, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
    Dennis Brown, apologizes for this conversation on you talk-page. I really do not like this kind of conversations, but since it is second time Zani wrote to your talk page about me - I will reply one last time.
    Hi Zani, I am not sure why you imply that I "disagreeing", when in reality I was asking the question, which is obviously not a disagreement(Here is the comment of third-party). Also I am not sure why you talking about "AE was being mediated by a 200edit 1-2 month old account". Non of us noticed that AE was mediated by 200 edit newly created account. It was experience and professionalism of the admin who highlighted that, and after Dennis pointed it to me - I never mentioned that again.
    More, you know the one where they falsely accused me of "canvassing" - This is not true, I never accused you in canvassing. I gave you friendly advice. This is what I actually wrote: Zani, just friendly advice for the future, this may be considered as WP:CANVASSing. It is more appropriate to use third opinion tool if you want to get a third-party opinion. Seems to me that you took it on board as accusation, thus I apologize for that. I can assure you that I had no intentions to accuse you in that statement.
    Zani, I was not even talking to you. I specifically addressed my last replies to the Morbidthoughts in order not to disturb you(because you already stated your point of view and I understood it). I am not sure what made you believe that you need to reply and why you getting angry, but if you notice that you are getting angry, then it is always better to chill out.
    Have a nice day! Abrvagl (talk) 22:55, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
  • Let me offer one thing, and understand that I do NOT understand the full conversation you are both involved in: Often, different cultures communicate poorly with each other simply because they come from different cultures, different way of expressing themselves, and because English is not their first language. You have to cut each other a little slack. This is very pronounced with Americans, like myself. America is such a large place, many go their whole life without actually meeting someone from a different culture, and when they do, there is sometimes fireworks. Both are good people, but the culture differences are so great and the two have little experience with this, so they get off to a bad start. That may or many not be the problem here, but I think the cultural differences of you two may be a problem. Step back, give a little good faith, stick to the facts. You both want to actually improve the article, I believe that. Then stick to that, follow the rules (ie: leave the words out until you agree on what to include), get 3rd opinions on sources if you must, at WP:RSN. But you both would benefit if you didn't think the other was out to "get you". It might seem that way, but it probably isn't the case. Cooperating is sometimes hard, but it's worth the effort. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 23:01, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
    I'll not be replying to Abrvagl here but I'll just point out a couple of things;

    I am not sure what made you believe that you need to reply and why you getting angry angry, but if you notice that you are getting angry, then it is always better to chill out.

    Not sure how they interpret "a bit angry" as "angry angry" (whatever that means), but they should know by now that I don't appreciate or want their passive-aggressive "advices" (saying to someone "this may be considered as WP:CANVASSING" in the middle of a heated debate sounds like passive-aggressive accusation, which was completely unfounded to begin with).
    Anyway, I appreciate your good faith efforts and comment Dennis Brown. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 23:09, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
  • This is exactly what I'm talking about. You are both misreading each other and assuming the worst, talking past each other. I don't know the nationality or culture of either of you, but I'm betting they are different from each other, and that is making the problem worse. I see this all too often. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 23:30, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

WP:AE

Howdy. Just wanted to clarify. I was 'pinging' you, only to help me understand what the other editor was wanting from me. I forgot that administrators aren't suppose to 'help', in that way :) GoodDay (talk) 00:51, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

Notice of noticeboard discussion

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrative action review regarding an action which you performed. Thank you. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:34, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

Arbitration Committee

Hi, the discussion page was put up with a notice from the AC. I'm not sure if the organization will officially intervene in the article or not, I'm not familiar with the process. Could you explain that? Beta Lohman※Office box 03:18, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

  • Also, the page is continually being removed from content. I would like to add new sources but there is a possibility of an edit war and I see that the discussion process has become political. Under what circumstances will the arbitration committee impose discretionary sanctions?--Beta Lohman※Office box 03:22, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
    Arbcom won't impose the sanctions, admin will, under the authority of the Arbcom ruling. These are generally stronger sanctions that can be applied unilaterally. Arb DS articles are closely watched, and people are quickly sanctioned for edit warring, POV, etc. Best to read the links on the notice itself, starting with the discretionary sanctions link to get an idea what all this means. Tread carefully. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 11:36, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
  • Okay. Would you take down the In use template on the article? No one will edit at the current time. --Beta Lohman※Office box 12:56, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
Besides, what does the DS mean?--Beta Lohman※Office box 12:59, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
  • I won't remove the template because it should be there, as it is covered by that Arbitration case and is subject to the restrictions therein. Non-admin may NOT remove it, btw. Only admin may add or remove them. Again, you need to read the links on that template to understand. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 13:54, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
Understood, even the In use template shouldn't be removed.--Beta Lohman※Office box 16:34, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
if it hasn't been edited in a couple of days, then it can be removed. That isn't an administrative template, it is an editorial template. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 17:12, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

AE ruling

I must protest your quick decision to t-ban me broadly construed. I've made 'no disruptive' edits to any pages concerning the topic-in-question. If I'm to be t-banned, it should be only from discussion pages (including user talkpages). Forgive me, but this does come across as a punitive measure, rather then preventative. PS - I contacted you 'here', as it says to do so. But if you won't reconsider? I'll follow the process & go over to WP:AN or ARCA. GoodDay (talk) 21:08, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

  • There seemed to be a consensus that the general topic was a problem and needed to apply, and I waited until there were multiple opinions before taking action. Keep in mind, Arbitration Enforcement is NOT a consensus board, all actions are by single admin not closed based on discussion, but it adds to the strength of the decision if there is a consensus, as there was here. I don't think I've ever banned someone from talk pages of a subject only, and probably never would, as in order to be able to edit an article, it is required that you use the talk page from time to time, particularly in contentious topics like this. All topic bans are "broadly construed" (to prevent wikilawyering) and always cover all pages on the ENWP. There may be exceptions, but I can't think of any. Basically, your GENSEX topic ban was a very vanilla topic ban, the same as all others I've done, I've never done a topic ban that was "less" than this. You can always appeal it at WP:AE or WP:ARCA (maybe WP:AN, not sure), although I would recommend waiting a couple of days to cool down, gather your thoughts, and prepare. AE has a template at the top of the page specifically for this. Which venue is best, I really couldn't say, although some say AE is better because it is more heavily trafficked. And it isn't punitive. I'm pretty easy to predict; my sanctions are pretty much centered around solving problems, and gender related problems aren't limited to singular pages, but instead tend to be very general and spread to other pages rather quickly, requiring full topic bans to remove disruption system wide. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 21:29, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
Nothing personal. But, I've taken this to WP:AN. GoodDay (talk) 21:49, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
Perfectly fine, no offense taken at all. I think you will find that language is almost always included in topic bans, however. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 21:52, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
I hope clarity on it will be forthcoming. At the moment, I'm hesitant to edit any pages, unless I thoroughly read them 2 or 3 times over, to make certain they aren't in any way connected to LGBTQ issues. GoodDay (talk) 22:08, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
I will be a little hit and miss, but generally available. I will be here to ask question. I'm not spanking you and sending you to your room, I will help you along the way, as I truly want you to NOT get blocked. You will have a better understanding in under a week. If in doubt, come here and ask first. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 23:06, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
My thanks. I think we both agree, Arbcom's ruling on GENSEX was meant to help bring editors together. I can only hope, it's not doing the opposite. Sometimes, the best laid plans, can backfire. GoodDay (talk) 23:11, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
The primary purpose, honestly, is to allow editors who are able to edit in the area peacefully, the ability to do so without disruption. Same as with any DS or GS area. The goal isn't rehabilitation or punishment, it is simply to restore order in a topic area so editors can focus on improving articles, and those that aren't playing nice in that area, can go play nice in a different area and be constructive. In the end, it's all about the reader, and the reader benefits most when everyone editing in a topic area is playing by the rules. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 23:20, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
I don't doubt, that was their goal. I just hope they haven't (not meaning to) created a blunt instrument, for any editor(s) advantage :( GoodDay (talk) 23:33, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
There are a LOT of discretionary sanction areas, I'm guessing you haven't had experience with them. The outline for enforcement, etc is basically identical for each of them. They essentially give admin a blank check to keep the areas running smoothly, allowing strong sanctions without prior process, although they are always appealable. What keeps it manageable isn't Arb, it's the admins. Rarely do AE cases get reviewed by Arb, and only at ARCA. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 23:38, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
Dennis, during the ARE I noted Newimpartial's needling editors. The ink on the block has hardly dried and NI has done it again [6]. Suggesting that GoodDay's comments are now null and void (my words) is both inconsistent with how things have been conducted in the past and is more needling of the editor now that they are no longer allowed to reply to the topic. This is effectively grave dancing. Springee (talk) 22:18, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
I'm about to eat, but please get me a few diffs, and if needed, I will explain what I need to them. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 22:30, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
Some of these are from the ARE. Recently Newimpartial was involved with an edit war (they didn't violate 3RR but the other editor did). After the other editor was blocked for 24 hr Newimpartial continued to press the matter after the other editor made it clear they were done with the discussion[7]. When it was clear they were not welcome [8] they continued [9]. Newimpartial also pinged the editor to NI's own talk page[10] after it was clear they were not welcome on the editor's page . Eventually the blocking admin stepped in [11]. I made a case that Newimpartial did the same to GoodDay [12] (see the second paragraph). Now they are have gone to the original dispute page and made it clear an editor was blocked [13]. I feel this is a type of GRAVEDANCING (Insults/accusations/other behavior directed at editors who are now blocked or banned. This is motivated by the idea that the editor in question won't be able to respond to the comment. ) as it highlights the sanctions brought on another editor. They are also arguing that comments made by GoodDay prior to the block don't matter since they are now blocked [14] claiming that the lack of consensus means their views don't apply to any consensus discussion that might come out of the current discussion. While none of this individually is an issue, taken as a whole I can understand how an editor would get frustrated with this and then cross a line when responding to this sort of abuse. As an aside, my initial comment above resulted in this message on my talk page [15]. Springee (talk) 01:20, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
Well, Springee, thank you for providing diffs for once rather than casting ASPERSIONS. As far as your GRAVEDANCING accusation is concerned, I think I have made it quite clear at Talk:Jordan Peterson that I am not directing any insults or accusations at the topic banned editor. What I am doing is insisting that the pause in that discussion did not represent some set "no consensus" outcome, which is what you proposed to implement.[16] I have three times now [17] [18] [19] advanced the idea that a new RfC or noticeboard process take place to achieve consensus, but your only response has been for insist that there was no consensus achieved in the ongoing discussion.[20] [21] [22] Rather than collaborating on a way forward, you seem to be insisting that a "no consensus" outcome had been reached, when the discussion is in media res; essentially you seem to be WP:GAMEing the inclusion of the views of an editor who, according to WP policy, is not permitted to participate in the resolution of this issue.
As far as your other accusations of needling go, I would point out that rhetorical questions [23] and tit-for-tat edit summaries [24] are not semantically equivalent to a straightforward request not to edit an editor's personal Talk - something I always respect. As far as my ping of Clicriffhard to my Talk, I find it telling that you offered the diff of their reaction rather than my actual pinging comment ([25]) - I simply corrected the record about whether or not they had earlier asked me to avoid their Talk (they had not, they had just employed the rhetorical questions mentioned above) and observed that they had made a number of personal attacks based on the assumption that I was misrepresenting their arguments. I attempted to clarify this situation. My ping of the other editor may have been ill-advised, but my on-wiki experience has not led me to the conclusion that letting other editors who make personal attacks have the last word is generally a helpful approach. The idea that any of my edits represents a sort of abuse[26] meant to push other editors to the point where they cross a line in frustration/exasperation,[27] remains both unsubstantiated and a huge WP:AGF fail on your part, Springee. Newimpartial (talk) 19:07, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
I provided the same diff in the ARE thus the "for once" accusation rings hollow. It's unfortunate that you can't see the problems with your own behavior in these matters or how your actions are needling other editors. When an admin told you to knock it off that should have been a clear signal. If we grant that your needling is not intentional then there is a lack of self awareness. Perhaps the best thing you can do is agree that you will limit talk page discussions to the article changes only and never comments about editors themselves. For example, suggesting an editor is pushing a POV is not OK. Suggesting an edit they are making reads as pushing a POV is acceptable since that is about the article, not the editor's intent. When it comes to user pages, null edits with accusatory edit summaries [28] are never OK. If you can acknowledge that then I will agree this was unintentional and shouldn't be a future issue. Springee (talk) 14:24, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
Any "needling" you perceive on my part was certainly unintentional. But the edit summary you refer to as "accusatory" read in full, if you look at the history of my Talk page, you'll see that reverting with commentary in my edit summary is my standard approach to closing Talk sections; it wasn't anything personal, nor did it imply a Talk page "ban". If you want your reverts to mean something different, I'm afraid you'll have to communicate that in some way, whether text or semaphore - which was a response the edit summary "You reverted me, remember" - in a context where the editor in question had not communicated in any way that I was unwelcome on his talk page. So Springee, your treatment of this as "accusatory" seems pretty clearly to be a misreading of my edsum.
As far as your ASPERSIONS are concerned, I was referring to edits like your unsubstantiated claim here:

You have taken a disagreement related to content and tried to turn it into a morality dispute. You are trying to contrast disagreements related to the quality of sources, a discussion that is absolutely allowed, with trying to needle an editor with whom you disagree thus creating an opportunity to use behavioral sanctions to achieve victory in what should be a basic content dispute

That edit presented no diffs, nor have you supported your morality dispute, trying to needle an editor and creating an opportunity to use behavioral sanctions to achieve victory WP:ASPERSIONS before or since. Given this, I find your repeated references to "good faith" to be somewhat ironic, when placed in context. Newimpartial (talk) 16:35, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
You did take a content disagreement and try to turn it into a morality issue here for example [29] (note that was after I suggested removing the full sentence so no issues with deadnaming etc) and here [30] where you ignore my point about showing this tweet as something consistent with Peterson's long time position on compelled speech (bill C-16 and the like) and instead threw out a CIR accusation. Even if you don't see this as turning a content dispute into a morality dispute, it is a violation of the third bullet here WP:TPYES. Such concerns should be raised on a user talk page, not the article talk page. Again, doing it on the article talk page is needlessly provocative even if that isn't your intent. Anyway, Dennis can do with this what he wishes. Springee (talk) 18:53, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
Springee, on that first diff, I was responding to your immediately preceding comment - just say "X happened because Y" or include the full sentence, where you were most definitely proposing to include the deadname as the only alternative to paraphrasing both quotations.
In the second diff, you're right that I may have moved too quickly to sense CIR. But your supposition that If the objective is to say he doesn't support altering common speech to placate revisionist language (or how ever his objections would be summarized) still entirely misses the point of Peterson's tweet, which was to deny Elliot Page's gender identity and to insist that the action of providing gender-affirming surgery to Page was "criminal". Nobody cares whether or not the tweet was consistent with Peterson's long time position on compelled speech, as you have just formulated it - nobody asked for Peterson's opinion on Page's gender identity on Twitter, much less compelled it, and it doesn't seem reasonable to assume that Peterson's attribution of criminality to this particular instance of gender-affirming surgery does anything other than express his actual view, which Twitter then evaluated as hateful conduct.
I will strive harder in future to make sure my comments narrowly concern the contribution, not the contributor, but I would observe that a lack of self awareness and an inability to see the problems with your own behavior in these matters [31] may not be attributes that I have monopolized in our dialogue on Talk:Jordan Peterson (or here, for that matter). In any event, I trust Dennis Brown to offer exactly as much or as little comment on our edits as seems appropriate to a busy admin. Newimpartial (talk) 20:29, 17 July 2022 (UTC)


  • I'm not getting involved. Feel free to talk amongst yourselves in this thread. I'm confident you will work it out. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 20:34, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
    • Dennis, would you please ask NI to stop the GRAVEDANCING? The mention of the block here [32] was totally unnecessary and yet another example of behavior which would needle a sanctioned editor. Springee (talk) 14:08, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
      • Springee, why would a sanctioned editor be reading this 3RR filing you made against another editor?
      • Also, it was your ally in that discussion who mentioned the four separate editors questioning inclusion, and the fact that one of them was topic banned as a result of a discussion that took place largely in the Talk section referred to seems to me to be relevant to evaluating the state of said discussion, which is what your ally was appealing to. Newimpartial (talk) 14:24, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
        • Given that the tban doesn't impact consensus nor the edit warring why would you mention it? Let's be honest here. GD wasn't tbanned for things said on the article talk page. It was due to a gender based personal attack on a user talk page. Beyond that, they were in good standing at the time they opposed the content thus their opposition is valid. If someone who supported inclusion then got tbanned for calling me a stinkybutt would you say "Well now it's 3:3". I would oppose that exclusion just as I oppose the one you are inventing. Springee (talk) 14:59, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
          • Please stop WIKILAWYERING. We are talking about a discussion that did not produce consensus but which has not provided a "no consensus" outcome, either. Your constant insistence that we continue to validate the participation of an editor who was topic banned from this topic as a result of editing related directly to this discussion is, at the very least, contentious. I do not know what you mean by the tban doesn't impact consensus in this context, since the (somewhat) related reference in GRAVEDANCING refers to established consensus, which this isn't. So given that we are sifting through the views of editors in good standing to evaluate NPOV and DUE, I don't know why you keep trying to GAME in the views of a banned editor.
          • Also, I think I have a better point of comparison than your stinkybutt example. Imagine that I were participating in a "race and intelligence" Talk discussion, and in my frustration at one of the other editors in the discussion, I used the n-word to refer to that editor on some other editor's Talk. If I plead my case at ARE and get away with only a R&I topic ban, would you really be arguing that my previous comments in that Talk discussion were still valid in determining the consensus of that discussion? Would any good faith editor make that argument? I'm afraid I just can't see it. Newimpartial (talk) 15:25, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
      • I don't see that as grave dancing, I see that as pointing out a fact, not as celebrating the misfortune of others. There may be a little pointy-ness to it, but we can't really micro-manage conversations like that. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 14:27, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
        • As a stand alone comment I agree. However, as a pattern I think it's an issue. I'm certain it will continue to happen. That said, if I'm willing to be proven wrong if NI is willing to state they will not mention it going forward. Springee (talk) 14:59, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

AE appeal withdrawl

Hello. Would you close the AE appeal as withdrawn, please? GoodDay (talk) 03:02, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

  • I can't. I'm definitely WP:INVOLVED in the case since I issued the original sanction. You need someone who isn't involved to close, after you say you want it withdrawn in the discussion. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 07:20, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
That's ok & I also understand what you told me about DS being the same for all topics. In future, I'll consider requesting a modification at WP:ARCA (asking for an exemption for main space), but not for at least another 3-6 months. PS - I apologies for being a tad 'angry' yesterday. Indeed, you're a fair-minded & patient administrator. GoodDay (talk) 20:22, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
Generally, they want you to always wait 6 months, and be able to explain how you understand what you did wrong, and what you will do in the future to make sure it isn't repeated. That is also par for the course in appealing: "I'm sorry, I was having a bad day, it's not something I normally do, I've learned to stay away from editing when I'm having a bad day, it's not something I'm proud of but it won't be repeated". That kind of thing. As for being angry, I understand, which is why I didn't take it personal. It isn't that unusual to want to blow some steam, so I try to be patient. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 21:15, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
Agreed, 6-months at least & yes, the goal is to convince editors that the preventative measure, is no longer necessary. GoodDay (talk) 21:56, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

Clarification: Is there no interaction ban between myself & any editors? GoodDay (talk) 05:56, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

  • As I said in the close " I would instead offer this REQUEST that all three parties simply avoid each other, so we don't have to visit further sanction. ". This means you really should treat the situation as if there was an interaction ban, because you are very close to having one put on you. They should avoid you as well. But technically, there is not an interaction ban. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 12:23, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
Behaviour (not here) was occurring these last five days, that was annoying. I was just hoping this 'behaviour' has come to a resolution by now or will soon. I can't further explain the situation. GoodDay (talk) 12:31, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
It is still fresh on everyone's mind, best to just avoid those areas. What people say about you has nothing to do with who you are. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 13:57, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

It's good to see that an editor who wanted me blocked, ended up being a sock. GoodDay (talk) 01:08, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

A question

Something happened a 'few' days ago, that's left me frustrated. I would like to mention what it is 'here', but I don't know if I'm allowed to. GoodDay (talk) 15:57, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

  • Then you probably aren't allowed to. The question is, is this something you should just let go, or is it a real problem that requires admin intervention? If it is something that needs intervention, I would suggest emailing an admin instead. I would be a poor choice to email this weekend, btw. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 16:01, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
I don't have email. Therefore, I'll let it go & won't elaborate any further. GoodDay (talk) 16:25, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

Some fairness

Hiya. So while I basically agree with you on your proposal at ANI, I feel compelled to say this: If you make a proposal against an editor to indef that editor, you really shouldn't (I'd even say can't) also be the person who collapses, hides, edits, or otherwise restricts in any way, the editor's responses, even if they're long (or even if they're personal attacks or whatever). It's a matter of basic fairness. Since you're the person proposing the indef, you can't also control the editor's responses. Know what I mean? It's like, you can't clerk your own proposal. Please uncollapse and leave it to somebody uninvolved to clerk. Levivich (talk) 14:18, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

  • I'm kind of 50/50 agreeing, via "what any admin would do", but it's on the cusp, and it's a reasonable request. Done. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 20:15, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
    Thanks! Levivich (talk) 20:56, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

Casting aspersions

While I did not have the cultural training for it, I now understand the difference between "they did a copyvio" and "they are a plagiarist". That's why I have retracted the offensive words by striking them through. I mean: I already did that before you warned me at WP:AE.

Born and grown in a culture of "you are what you do", it was hard for me to grasp this difference. tgeorgescu (talk) 09:56, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

  • I was raised in that same culture, however, at Wikipedia, you have to collaborate with many, many different cultures, so you have to parse your words a little more carefully. And you have to assume good faith, meaning that some people don't understand, or are used to wording things differently. You have to be willing to coach more, accuse less. That is the nature of a collaborative project. Being self-employed forever, and a preacher of self-reliance and initiative, it is a challenge for me as well. The good thing is, people like me benefit from working at Wikipedia because you do learn some new social skills that help in the real world. I'm 16 years into Wikipedia and still learning. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 10:31, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

Acknowledgment of breach of WP:ADMINACCT , and thanks for covering for me

Hi Dennis,

Context:

I failed to notify the user of their block and and also did not explain why they had a Partial block.


It's been a hectic month at work, and I kind of conked out yesterday night. Earlier this week, just before going down to the End-of-trip facilities to bicycle home, I said to a colleague, "I'm exhausted, and its only Wednesday", then realised it was actually Tuesday.

While this may explain my WP:ADMINACCT breach, it in no way excuses it.

Thank you for remedying my mistake here

Pete AU aka 10:21, 30 July 2022 (UTC) Shirt58 (talk) 10:21, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

  • Shirt58, sometimes we all forget or get sidetracked. I wouldn't call it a breach, just an oversight. The rule is "should", not "must" and sometimes there are valid reasons to not notify (ie: it's blindingly obvious), I just made the effort because the edits seems to have some good faith, just bad skills. But no problem, it's a team effort. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 11:48, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

FWIW

FWIW, I've removed my posts per your advice at Lugnut's talkpage. Just wanted you to know, I was trying to help Lugs, not hurt him. GoodDay (talk) 00:31, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

  • I know, but using the incorrect term "ban" was setting a ticking time bomb. He isn't banned, which would require a lot of hoop jumping to undo. Ban is a whole different animal than an indef block, which can be overturned instantly. I'm not trying to help or hurt, I have no issue with him personally, although I'm curious to find out the truth. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 10:55, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
In the end, he ended up getting banned by Arb, GoodDay, but he wasn't at that time. The page is a lightening rod right now, one best avoided for the most part. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 23:25, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
I was hoping that all four parties, would've gotten no more then topic-bans. It's sad to see a long-term established editor getting shown the door. I hope he was exaggerating about the copyright violations & other errors. GoodDay (talk) 23:28, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

Can you please remove protection template from First Union or Shorten the Expiration time to 3 days

Because I'm gonna Add Sources 107.77.224.86 (talk) 18:12, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

  • Too much negative traffic from unconfirmed accounts. Just post the change and sources on the talk page using the {{request edit}} template. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 18:15, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
Not sure if you've seen or not, but the IP appears to be evading *many* blocks... - Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/John Cena Fan 2002. Magitroopa (talk) 18:46, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

Banned user template

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Lugnuts&diff=1102200227&oldid=1102197733 - it was correct before; the template intentionally does not display for arbitration bans, and there is a separate category. 82.132.185.128 (talk) 22:29, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

I was just about to say this. It's intentionally hidden, though I'm not sure why. --RockstoneSend me a message! 23:59, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
  • The people adding it seemed perplexed that they couldn't see it, so I assumed they wanted it visible. I'm not sure what the purpose of an invisible template is, and I question that, but I went ahead and reverted. I don't have a preference, I was just trying to help out. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 00:07, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – August 2022

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

Administrator changes

readded Valereee
removed Anthony Appleyard (deceased) • Capitalistroadster • Samsara

Guideline and policy news

  • An RfC has been closed with consensus to add javascript that will show edit notices for editors editing via a mobile device. This only works for users using a mobile browser, so iOS app editors will still not be able to see edit notices.
  • An RfC has been closed with the consensus that train stations are not inherently notable.

Technical news

  • The Wikimania 2022 Hackathon will take place virtually from 11 August to 14 August.
  • Administrators will now see links on user pages for "Change block" and "Unblock user" instead of just "Block user" if the user is already blocked. (T308570)

Arbitration

  • The arbitration case request Geschichte has been automatically closed after a 3 month suspension of the case.

Miscellaneous

  • You can vote for candidates in the 2022 Board of Trustees elections from 16 August to 30 August. Two community elected seats are up for election.
  • Wikimania 2022 is taking place virtually from 11 August to 14 August. The schedule for wikimania is listed here. There are also a number of in-person events associated with Wikimania around the world.
  • Tech tip: When revision-deleting on desktop, hold ⇧ Shift between clicking two checkboxes to select every box in that range.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:44, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

New Page Patrol newsletter August 2022

New Page Review queue August 2022

Hello Dennis Brown,

Backlog status

After the last newsletter (No.28, June 2022), the backlog declined another 1,000 to 13,000 in the last week of June. Then the July backlog drive began, during which 9,900 articles were reviewed and the backlog fell by 4,500 to just under 8,500 (these numbers illustrate how many new articles regularly flow into the queue). Thanks go to the coordinators Buidhe and Zippybonzo, as well as all the nearly 100 participants. Congratulations to Dr vulpes who led with 880 points. See this page for further details.

Unfortunately, most of the decline happened in the first half of the month, and the backlog has already risen to 9,600. Understandably, it seems many backlog drive participants are taking a break from reviewing and unfortunately, we are not even keeping up with the inflow let alone driving it lower. We need the other 600 reviewers to do more! Please try to do at least one a day.

Coordination
MB and Novem Linguae have taken on some of the coordination tasks. Please let them know if you are interested in helping out. MPGuy2824 will be handling recognition, and will be retroactively awarding the annual barnstars that have not been issued for a few years.
Open letter to the WMF
The Page Curation software needs urgent attention. There are dozens of bug fixes and enhancements that are stalled (listed at Suggested improvements). We have written a letter to be sent to the WMF and we encourage as many patrollers as possible to sign it here. We are also in negotiation with the Board of Trustees to press for assistance. Better software will make the active reviewers we have more productive.
TIP - Reviewing by subject
Reviewers who prefer to patrol new pages by their most familiar subjects can do so from the regularly updated sorted topic list.
New reviewers
The NPP School is being underused. The learning curve for NPP is quite steep, but a detailed and easy-to-read tutorial exists, and the Curation Tool's many features are fully described and illustrated on the updated page here.
Reminders
  • Consider staying informed on project issues by putting the project discussion page on your watchlist.
  • If you have noticed a user with a good understanding of Wikipedia notability and deletion, suggest they help the effort by placing {{subst:NPR invite}} on their talk page.
  • If you are no longer very active on Wikipedia or you no longer wish to be part of the New Page Reviewer user group, please consider asking any admin to remove you from the list. This will enable NPP to have a better overview of its performance and what improvements need to be made to the process and its software.
  • To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

Delivered by: MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:24, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

Advice

Hello Dennis, I would kindly ask You for advice how to handle certain situation. I did not post anything in WP:AN as someone suggested that might do, instead I write to You. There is an issue about renaming art. and there have been discussion about it for some years but finally, there consensus was reached. Its about spelling Polish Clans, as here. Because of the consensus, I asked to rename one certain Clan name so it would be spelled in the same way as others. Consensus about it was reached and the art. name was renamed 20th of September 2020. Although consensus and renaming was published on talk page, one editor X reversed renaming to old spelling 31st of December 2020. That change was reverted by another editor that also reminded about the consensus. Then, 16th of June 2022, same editor X reversed back again to old spelling. I asked then again to rename as of previous consensus. Problem I face is that the editor X that change/ revert disregard consensus and its about behavior - that the editor X disregard any agreements or consensus that is reached and even if administrator decide to rename, he does not respect that. There are lot of other issues with this editor X but the main thing is that even if if I kindly ask this editor X to not change without further discussion on Talk page, he does not respect that. Even if we now reverse his edit and rename back art. according to consensus, he will in the future change it again. Im sorry8 to bother You with such questions but I really dont know what to do with this issue, how to handle it and therefore kindly ask for advice how to proceed. Best regards,Camdan (talk) 13:44, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
  • Hard to say without links. If there is a clear consensus, meaning several people (not just 2 or 3) agreed to move, AND you have pointed that person to the discussion, you may have to go to ANI. That is disruptive editing. If there wasn't a clear consensus, then you need to go to WP:RM with it. The advantage of RM is that it is easy to sanction someone going against a RM discussion, without the need for ANI. It all boils down to if the original discussion passes muster for a "global consensus", ie: there was enough participation that it is obvious what a consensus would be if the whole joint voted on it. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 14:10, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
    • Thank You Dennis. Here is the link to the talk page - se at the end. Also, if You view history of the art., on 31th of December 2020 this guy Nihil novi renamed art. although there was consensus of 20th of September 2020. However, that action was reverted by another editor with comment where he point on the consensus. The reason of renaming as of consensus was previous agreement to spell all Polish Clans in same way, here is the link. Also, Nihil novi renamed art. name already in August 2016 (You see it on the talk page) without any discussion. At that point, we agree to rename to "Clan Ostoja" (I supported to change to "Clan Ostoja"). However, later all Polish Clans was spelled as "Clan of XXX" and that was the reason of WP:RM. This show that Nihil novi have been trying to rename art. name without any discussion and disregarding any consensus for 7 years now. What do You then suggest I should do? Or, if You think that this is disrupting editing, is it possible for administrator (for example You) to write this guy a message? I just feel 7 years is now to much and I would rather avoid 7 years more :) Regards,Camdan (talk) 11:35, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

CU skill sets

Regarding this comment of yours, specifically the CUs aren't chosen for the behavioral review skills part. I've never heard it stated that way, but at least in my case, it's true that my skills are more on the technical analysis side and weaker on inferring nuances from people wrote. I often feel like I'm wimping out when I slap {{behav}} on a case and toss it back on the checked queue. Now I won't feel so bad about it. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:42, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

  • You shouldn't feel bad. Lot of people are good at reading personalities and comparing diffs to see similarities, but aren't technically skilled enough to deal with IPs, ranges, and the technical side. It takes all kinds. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 15:47, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

LordBossMaster100

Hi Dennis, I'm trying to understand your comment "Since I don't think you are getting Joe Jobbed, and these socks are you, I've removed talk page access". What socks are you referring to? Emilygrace8 and TamzinMay? If so, I don't think either of those accounts belong to LBM100. My assumption is they are both ZestyLemonz.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:44, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

  • If you want to reverse me, that is perfectly fine, but I was going by the content which including cleaning up verbiage in the request, then declining it, which seemed to indicate it was the same person doing a sloppy job. Maybe they are joe jobbing, but my first inclination was that it was them, based on style and content of edits. Again, you probably know them better, so no offense will be taken if you want to modify my actions. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 00:47, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
  • It's easy to restore Talk page access, but you also declined the unblock request for reasons that I don't think are true. The user is not the most articulate person - and of course it's easy to see how angry he is, which no doubt makes him less coherent - but he did address the reason for the block. Indeed, he admitted that he is a sock. It's just the usual cant about how he's reformed.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:53, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
The decline was before any of the other things happened, it wasn't part of the same action. They didn't address the socking adequately in the request, thus the decline. It was more of a "oh come on, i did wrong but I'm a good guy" request, which wasn't enough to convince me to unblock him. Again, I'm using the best info I have, and this isn't the first time he's socked, per your own block in 2020, so no, that request wasn't sufficient. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 00:59, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
Also note, I didn't have time to start a real discussion with him after declining, as the other stuff began happening. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 01:00, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
Actually, the sock edits occurred before your decline. It's one thing to deny an unblock request because it isn't persuasive, but your decline made it look like he was not addressing the socking at all. Also, I think it was premature to threaten him with revocation of TP access. Please understand (1) I'm not a fan of LBM or any other socks and (2) I don't think he has a chance in hell of being unblocked anytime soon. That said, I'm going to restore TPA and e-mail and finesse something or other on his Talk page. I hope that's okay.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:58, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
I was typing out my decline before any of the other activity started, and edit conflicted, forcing me to reload, but the page had been reverted by then. The time stamps demonstrate this. So the chronology is exactly as I stated. And again, by the time all that happened, there wasn't an opportunity to extend conversation. Do what you wish, I already gave my blessing in my first sentence to you in this thread. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 02:13, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

Request for Arbitration Notice

You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Conduct on Portal:Current Events and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. As threaded discussion is not permitted on most arbitration pages, please ensure that you make all comments in your own section only. Additionally, the guide to arbitration and the Arbitration Committee's procedures may be of use.

Thanks, Carter00000 (talk) 10:10, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

Arbitration request declined

An arbitration case to which you were a party has been declined by the Arbitration Committee. The declining arbitrators felt that the request was premature. For the Committee, GeneralNotability (talk) 21:17, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

AE sanction template

needs to be substituted, thats how it adds the signature and why when you press edit section without subst:'ing it youre getting placed in the actual AE sanction template. nableezy - 00:04, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

  • Thank you. I knew that, but forgot that I knew that. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 00:04, 14 August 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. Akim Ernest (talk) 21:56, 8 August 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. <span data-dtsignatureforswitching="1"></span> Akim Ernest (talk) 21:56, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Admin's Barnstar
You've been doing a lot of not fun stuff like clerking WP:AE recently. I want you to know that I appreciate that, and it's been very helpful for keeping the process running smoothly when not a lot of people are willing to do that kind of work. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 05:30, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
  • Thank you, that is very kind. I put the original in my Ronco Barnstar Vault, where my barnstars. AE is probably one of the least fun things to do as admin, so I understand why others don't want to do it. Since the community granting the bit (10 years ago now), I kinda feel like I should spend at least some time doing things that aren't that joyful, but are necessary. It is certainly a challenge, and that cuts both ways. And again, I appreciate the sentiment. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 11:53, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
I think I may have said this to you before, but I so agree. You do some really thankless tasks. You well deserve this. - jc37 12:07, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Admin's Barnstar
Good to see familiar names around still, thanks for your good work. Andrevan@ 06:18, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
  • Thank you. My participation varies by time of year and workload, but I'm still addicted to the original principle of Wikipedia, so I hang around. Not as many of us that joined in the early days left. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 10:57, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

Good to see you're still about, Dennis. You're one of the reasons I switched from thinking "adminship is for other people" to "well, maybe I've got something to offer with the tools", and I've still got them seven years later (despite thinking a few times they ought to be yanked). Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:13, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

    • So, you were thinking "If this idiot Dennis can do it, surely I can" huh?  ;) Dennis Brown - 2¢ 14:15, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

Please stop trolling and defaming me

Today in the F-35 article, I changed the 4th primary user from the RAF first to Japan - as Japan has the highest number of confirmed F-35s on order. Bilcat then claimed that primary users are determined by the highest number of F-35s in service, I then read the article and saw Australia RAAF had the highest number of F-35s currently in service, so then I changed the 4th primary user to the RAAF. Dennis Brown: for you to then undo my edit, and then to accuse me of being "disruptive" in your edit explanation - is textbook trolling, defamation, and corruption. E8eY4BdnUnhxPYHr (talk) 08:11, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

  • You've been warned several times, and you are at the cusp of being blocked. Not for the edit, which could be argued either way, but for your behavior. Your edit here is textbook of your edit summaries, and why I don't expect you to be editing here very long. You lack the ability to cooperate and collaborate in a civil fashion. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 08:14, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
    what are you talking about??? I made two separate edits, first made Japan the 4th primary user, then Australia after using Bilcat's guidance. You need to explain yourself - not the other way around. Why did you make the RAF the 4th primary user, when Japan has more F-35s on order, and while Australia has 50 F-35s currently in service, which is more than any other country. E8eY4BdnUnhxPYHr (talk) 08:24, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
If you want to talk about the merits of the article, the article talk page is where that takes place. My comments here, and on your talk page, are referring to your behavior, which is a real problem. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 08:26, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

Please vote in the 2022 Wikimedia Foundation Inc. Board of Trustees election

Hello hello. I hope this message finds you well.

The Wikimedia Foundation Inc. Board of Trustees election ends soon, please vote. At least one of the candidates is worthy of support. --MZMcBride (talk) 14:45, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

Madiation at Disinformation in the 2021–2022 Russo-Ukrainian crisis

Hello. Commenting my recent report at AE against My very best wishes, you said If I had stumbled across that article while the reverting was going on, I would have full protected it and instructed the two of you (and others) go to the talk page and hash it out. So perhaps you might help us steering clear of sanctions by telling us how to deal with what's going on at Disinformation in the 2021–2022 Russo-Ukrainian crisis. I wrote down the draft of an enforcement request here in my sandbox. Before wasting everybody's time, I'd like to know if drama can be avoided with decisive administrative action, mediation, good advices, or if AE is the appropriate venue for this. Thank you, Gitz (talk) (contribs) 15:52, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

  • One problem is that no bright line rule seems to be violated. That would make it easy to do something. Next, if there is a lack of discussion on the talk page, you may need to start one or more RFCs on the content. We can't pick sides in a content war, and if there isn't a clear consensus, then we can't say someone is edit warring against consensus. Part of the problem with an article like this is that it is about disinformation, often coming from disinformation, so the data is a moving target. I would be expected there is a lot of changes to the article, including adding and taking away text. Being sourced isn't enough, as information changes, WP:DUE and WP:WEIGHT come to play, so assuming it's all sourced, then it all boils down to consensus. That's why I'm saying you will likely have to have some RFCs or formal discussions on the article talk page to establish clear consensus. Each discussion should be simple or consensus is hard to read. And keep in mind, that consensus can and does change, but someone edit warring against a consensus has the burden to show that consensus HAS changed, or risks getting blocked.
  • The RFC or discussion should be phrased in an exceedingly neutral way such as "Should we include this this text blah blah blah, this is the text/claim/etc that someone wants to include, with this source [link] or should we leave it out?" The key to a good, clean discussion/RFC is having the question worded so that no one can tell what YOUR opinion is, until they go to the polling section, where you are free to give your opinions. When you insert your opinion in the original statement, you are pissing on your own feet. You are starting with a battleground attitude. The original statement must be devoid of all opinion, it should only present 2 or 3 choices, with equal treatment given to each. Anything less isn't a fair RFC/discussion.
  • Admin can't and won't decide what is the best content at AE. That would actually be an abuse of power. For us to act, we need bright lines to be crossed. Either obvious multiple breaches of personal attacks, obviously edit warring against consensus, or obvious violation of the 1RR restriction. Or other clear cut policy violations that are relative to the discretionary sanctions area. Nuanced problems, while real and frustrating, are not likely to get action, like the last AE report you filed. To me, this isn't ripe for AE action at this time because it is about content, and you haven't exhausted other dispute resolution methods first. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 16:53, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
And speaking on more obvious issues, I can see a couple of problems on part of Gitz6666:
  1. [33] - here is what Gitz6666 responded when I asked him not to follow my edits [34].
  2. [35] - I think that comment by Gitz6666 on 3RRNB was inappropriate for a number of reasons including false accusation of racism. I did try to explain this on their talk page [36], but apparently without any success. My very best wishes (talk) 18:04, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
    Thank you for your thorough reply: it's much appreciated. I've opened a couple of RfC (not very successfully) following the advice of more experienced editors. However, there must be something very basic about editing here that I fail to understand. If I add contents to an article and get reverted, I usually open a discussion on the talk page (unless I'm truly confident I can address the other editor's concerns in a new edit summary). I do the same when I'm removing contents that have not been recently added (in which case it's up to the other to open a discussion and get consensus). However, when MVBW removes well-sourced and relevant contents that have been there for months and gets reverted, he removes them again, and again, just paying attention to formally comply with the 3RR. That creates painful "arm wrestle" situations, which can last for several days, as we've seen on War crimes in the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine: a low-intensity, protracted edit war, which is at odds with discussion and consensus building. The one who wins is the one who has more time to spend on Wikipedia, and this can't be right. So according to my understanding, if MVBW thinks that certain long-standing contents should be removed from that article, he should start a discussion and, if he doesn't get a consensus, he should open an RfC: it's up to him, and not to me, to do this. What's my basic mistake? Thank you, Gitz (talk) (contribs) 19:26, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
Again, it is all about having a consensus that you can prove exists. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 19:45, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
I'm sorry, I have another question for you - after this, I will no longer abuse the hospitality of your talk page. In your answer here above and also at AE, you explained that admins shouldn't meddle with contents disputes and that the distinction between content and behaviour is very important for you. I appreciate this policy: administrative self-restraint would be a blessing for the Italian Wikipedia. However, I don't understand how you deal with civil POV pushing here. Obviously I don't expect you to write an essay in reply, but if you could point to a couple of cases of civil POV-pushers who had been sanctioned in the past I'd be grateful: I'd like to see how these cases were built, what kind of evidence were discussed, and at what forum (ANI, AE, ARBCOM, etc.). Could you help? Thank you, Gitz (talk) (contribs) 10:09, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
Personal attacks (ie: "you are an asshat") are easy to spot, and anything past a single instance is dealt with using some kind of sanction. Simple incivility (ie: "your ideas are shit") is trickier. I tend to be a bit more tolerant of incivility than many admin. Particularly if it is during a single discussion, rather than a long term thread. Civil POV pushing is often even more difficult, and requires a longer pattern of behavior. Sometimes it is very obviously, but typically it is not. Sometimes the line between civil POV pushing and just politely feeling strong about a subject is not so thin, and isn't obvious at first glance. It isn't a "bright line" offense. And sometimes what is passion about an idea that is acceptable may be perceived by someone with the opposite feelings, may come across as civil POV when it really isn't. This is an example of when admin seek input from multiple admins to make sure they aren't jumping the gun on interpretation. We seek to prevent civil POV pushing, but not to punish passion. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 12:25, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
Perhaps a passionate editor creates new contents, looking for sources and ideas that corroborate their passion; the result may be unbalanced at first, but with everybody's contribution it can develop into a good piece of encyclopedia. Passion is their motivation, and the outcome may be productive. Civil POV-pushers, on the other hand, block other people's work, and remove contents and sources that don't fit their world-view. They may be in good-faith in doing so, as they feel that those contents are "WP:UNDUE" and that those sources are not reliable, or have been misunderstood - they have good policy-based reasons for hindering the development of the encyclopedia. But they are biased: passion makes them incapable of appreciating other people's point of views and the outcome is disruptive.
I agree with what you say. Distinguishing the two cases is not easy and seeking inputs from other editors (as I'm doing now) is the only way of avoiding mistakes. Thank you for your time, Gitz (talk) (contribs) 12:59, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

Thanks!

Hello, Dennis,

Thank you for closing the AFDs started by DownAndUp that hadn't received any participation. I thought the editor was a sockpuppet (what new editor heads right to AFD?) but I never would have guessed it was Neelix. I guess editing on Wikipedia is a hard habit to break. Liz Read! Talk! 01:58, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

  • I felt like I had to leave the ones with delete votes opens out of respect, and to avoid drama, but this made sense to me to just close the others. AFD is facing several floods, we don't need more from socks. And yes, for some, it seems to be a compulsion, an irrational desire. I mean, I enjoy the place (sometimes) but jeez. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 10:46, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

Thank you

Hello, Thank you for addressing my concern, question please, So I understand how is the process, for any future incidents, I should try talk with (talk) on his talk page 1st before i try to notify admins? I am just getting lost because i tried before notifying Mattythewhite, but he never answered me, then I wrote on C.Fred also didn't hear from him even I saw he made other contributions, so I googled online and found something admins can't solve dispute between two editors that the reason they don't answer and if someone has concern use Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents (section). is it ok If I contact you in the future here if I have any troubles after I try first talk with the editor on their talk page? and the admin post I wrote yesterday, should I delete it since it is not needed? thank you 108.30.205.112 (talk) 12:42, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

  • A couple of things: if you have a content dispute, you should always try to solve it on the article talk page, so you, that person, and others, can participate and find a consensus. If it is a behavior issue, then you try to talk to them on their talk page, politely. Admins do not get involved in content disputes unless there is a behavioral issue going on, like edit warring. Admins are not obligated to get involved with any issue they don't want to get involved with, for any reason. Admins are volunteers, who get to pick and choose what they involve themselves with. We generally have full lives outside of Wikipedia, and there are many reasons why we might not want to handle a problem. ANI and other admin boards should only be used as a last resort, after other methods of communicating have failed. If the problem is content related only, then you don't need an admin, you need WP:Dispute resolution. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 13:22, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
    yeah, I understand, thank you for the clarification.
    happy Friday :). 108.30.205.112 (talk) 13:57, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

NPP message

Hi Dennis Brown,

Invitation

For those who may have missed it in our last newsletter, here's a quick reminder to see the letter we have drafted, and if you support it, do please go ahead and sign it. If you already signed, thanks. Also, if you haven't noticed, the backlog has been trending up lately; all reviews are greatly appreciated.

To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:10, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – September 2022

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

Guideline and policy news

  • A discussion is open to define a process by which Vector 2022 can be made the default for all users.
  • An RfC is open to gain consensus on whether Fox News is reliable for science and politics.

Technical news

Arbitration

  • An arbitration case regarding Conduct in deletion-related editing has been closed. The Arbitration Committee passed a remedy as part of the final decision to create a request for comment (RfC) on how to handle mass nominations at Articles for Deletion (AfD).
  • The arbitration case request Jonathunder has been automatically closed after a 6 month suspension of the case.

Miscellaneous

  • The new pages patrol (NPP) team has prepared an appeal to the Wikimedia Foundation (WMF) for assistance with addressing Page Curation bugs and requested features. You are encouraged to read the open letter before it is sent, and if you support it, consider signing it. It is not a discussion, just a signature will suffice.
  • Voting for candidates for the Wikimedia Board of Trustees is open until 6 September.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:11, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

Update: Phase II of DS reform now open for comment

You were either a participant in WP:DS2021 (the Arbitration Committee's Discretionary Sanctions reform process) or requested to be notified about future developments regarding DS reform. The Committee now presents Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Discretionary_sanctions/2021-22_review/Phase_II_consultation, and invites your feedback. Your patience has been appreciated. For the Arbitration Committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:01, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

Lightbreather appeal

The Arbitration Committee is considering an unban appeal from Lightbreather (talk · contribs). You are being notified as you participated in the last unban discussion. You may give feedback here. For the Arbitration Committee, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:31, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

Sixteenth anniversary on Wikipedia!

Invitation to join the Fifteen Year Society

Dear Dennis Brown/Archive 46,

I'd like to extend a cordial invitation to you to join the Fifteen Year Society, an informal group for editors who've been participating in the Wikipedia project for fifteen years or more. ​

Best regards, Chris Troutman (talk) 19:10, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

Sadly, it didn't help

Sadly, this short block didn't help, and they returned to the same behavior 1, 2, 3, 4. Care to extend the block? --Muhandes (talk) 05:33, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

  • Done. And it is always good to wait until they have made several edits, just as you did here. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 12:02, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

Disruptive pageant editor on mobile

Would you take a look at User talk:Ian.garcia1? ☆ Bri (talk) 14:01, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

They are editing again without responding to you. ☆ Bri (talk) 17:04, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
And again, still no reply to you on their talkpage. ☆ Bri (talk) 04:28, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
And citing random Facebook users again. ☆ Bri (talk) 15:31, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
    • Someone beat me to it. I left a note there. I had been patiently waiting, even through a few edits (as you noted) because I was hoping they would get the message, or at least read their talk page, but that last one was the last straw, and not just for me. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 21:44, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
I apologize, that last diff I listed was actually another account Plardin1 not Ian.garcia1. I have struck it out. ☆ Bri (talk) 03:07, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
I had noticed that, so was on my way to check his contribs over the last day when I saw he was already blocked. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 17:49, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of User:BUFFALOO LTD

A tag has been placed on User:BUFFALOO LTD requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done for the following reason:

blank page due to moving of warning template to talk

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, pages that meet certain criteria may be deleted at any time.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. HapHaxion (talk / contribs) 17:40, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – November 2022

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

Guideline and policy news

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:22, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

Omaha Steaks request

Hi @dennis_brown! I see you're interested in American foods and grilling. I'm searching for another editor to take a look at the conversation here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Omaha_Steaks. There are a few other editors that have made some changes to the Omaha Steaks article and would like another editor to take a look before pushing it live. I won't be doing it myself because I have a conflict of interest. I would appreciate any help as I've been working on this project for a while and would love to button it up. Let me know if you can help! Omaha Steaks Ashley (talk) 14:55, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

Protected fascism

Hi Dennis, Thanks for making the decision regarding Liz's talk page! Now, for a trickier case, Talk:Fascism is semi-protected indefinitely. Rather unusual, but the subject is prone to turbulence. I don't really know what is the proper way of handling the request, assuming the OP is not one of the usual suspects. Favonian (talk) 11:51, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

I see semi- as more than what we do when there is trouble, it's what we do when we can demonstrate the real risk going forward. To prevent disruption. "Fascism" is almost the word of the day, or year. From Italy's elections, to Trump, to Putin, the Ukrainian war, the topic is front and center in the minds of editors all over the globe, so it is going to attract a lot of attention. Added to the fact that not everyone defines it or sees it as the same thing, means it is very likely to see edit warring by inexperienced editors that aren't familiar with our norms on editing. POV pushing is highest among these types of editors, who may actually mean well, but don't understand the actual role of an encyclopedia, don't understand what "reliable sources" are, what neutral point of view is, don't understand the difference between the Truth® and verified facts. They simply lack the experience. To me, we owe a debt to the readers of Wikipedia, who are the reason we do all this. We pay that debt by taking prudent steps to insure the integrity of core articles like this. There are plenty of readers who hear the word "fascism" thrown around a lot, and come here to have a better understanding, an objective understanding of what the word really means. They need us. Because of the real risk of edit warring, biased editing and drama in an article that is a lightening rod for biased editing, we have to leave it under semi-protection for now. The needs of the reader come before the needs of the editor. The editor can wait a few days and make a few edits to overcome this low bar, however, if the reader comes one time to better understand the topic and reads a page that is highly biased because of the work of an inexperienced editor, that damage can't be undone.
That is my philosophy when considering any core article for protection. There are many articles that will likely be under semi-protection forever, for different reasons (vandalism being the most common reason). Fascism may be ripe for removal of protection one day, but that day is not today. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 13:03, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Dennis_Brown/Archive_46&oldid=1128565527"